This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008
Siti Hasmah Digital Library
Digitally signed by Siti Hasmah Digital Library DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia University, ou=Research Library, email=kamal. firstname.lastname@example.org Date: 2009.07.02 11:55:19 +08'00'
The copyright of this thesis belongs to the author under the terms of the Copyright Act 1987 as qualified by Regulation 4(1) of the Multimedia University Intellectual Property Regulations. Due acknowledgement shall always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this thesis.
Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved
I hereby declare that the work contained herein has been done by myself and that no portion of the work contained in this thesis has been submitted in support of any application for any other degree or qualification of this or any other university or institute of learning.
______________________ Alan Giffin Downe
First, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my supervisor, Dr. Stanley Richardson, whose guidance, wisdom and high standards have motivated me and kept me on track throughout all phases of the project. I also thank my former employer, Multimedia University, for permitting me to undertake doctoral studies during my time as a lecturer in the Faculty of Management. In this regard, I would like to express my gratitude for the gracious support and encouragement I have received from Prof. Dr. A. Seetharaman, current Dean of Management and from Prof. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Ismail Sayyed Ahmad, former Dean of Management. I also wish to thank Dr. A.S. Santhapparaj, Dr. V. Anantaraman and especially Dr. Sayed Hossain for coordinating and serving as panelists, respectively, when I presented this research to the faculty during my work completion seminar.
Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project. I especially thank Dr. Jerry Deffenbacher (University of Colorado), Dr. Yori Gidron (Brunel University), Dr. C.S. Papacostas (University of Hawaii at Manoa), Dr. Dianne Parker (University of Manchester), Dr. Murali Sambasivan (Universiti Putra Malaysia), the late Dr. C.R. Snyder (University of Kansas), and Dr. Henriette Wallén Warner (Dalarna University).
I would like also to thank four undergraduate research assistants who completed data collection for the study of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers: Agatha Yeoh Siew Ling, Gracy Thomas, Nazlina Nasihin and Sangeetha Munisamy.
I wish to acknowledge the Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM), an organisation to which I have felt privileged to belong, as an Associate Member, since 2001.
There are many individuals who have contributed greatly to the completion of this project through their helpful suggestions, collegial affiliation and friendship, notably Aw Lin, Aznur Hajar Binti Abdullah, Azrai Abdullai, Ming-Yu Cheng, Adeline Chua, Cynthia Downe, Ridhwan Fontaine, Jessica Ho Sze Yin, Lily Idayu, Loke Choong Khoon, Loke Siew Poh, Razlina Rezali, Omar Salahuddin Bin Abdullah, Bobby Varanasi and David Yong. A special expression of thanks is due to Fatimah Syam @ Noor Azleen A. Gani at the Siti Hasmah Digital Library for her very helpful assistance. For their caring support, I also wish to thank my mother, Evelyn G. Downe and Howard, of Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
The phrase, “without whom this research would never have been completed” appears ubiquitously in theses and dissertations around the world. But never has it been truer than in the contribution made here by my wife, Siew-Phaik Loke. She has helped me to score questionnaires, set up spreadsheets and enter data into the computer. She provided thoughtful input into solving even the most baffling problems of multivariate analysis. She sustained me with her constant reassurance throughout the project. And she did it all while excelling at her own PhD studies, starting a business, launching her career as a university lecturer and lovingly, patiently caring for our son. To her, I will be always grateful.
DEDICATION In the wee hours of a cold morning on December 5th, 2002 my father, Dr. A.E.R. Downe, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Canada’s Queen’s University passed away in his hospital bed in Kingston, Ontario after suffering a long and debilitating illness. For 47 years, he had been my inspiration and my role model. From him, I learned the value of hard work and family, the excitement that comes from scientific inquiry and the fortitude that evolves in a man’s struggle against adversity. Not a day goes by when I don’t find myself thinking of him.
On that very same day, on the other side of the planet, my little boy Richardson Downe Loke Ken, at ten months of age, took his first unaided steps, launching a jerky trajectory from the sofa to the television set, where he hugged the image of Sir Alex Ferguson. From his birth, I have marveled at Kenny’s boundless energy, his gentle disposition and his ability to fill his mother’s and my existence with one part challenge and nine parts joy. I only hope that I am able to teach him the same lessons that my father taught me.
It is to these two very special people that I dedicate this work.
on average. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. seven fatalities are recorded each day. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. 302 and 252. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. The proximal variable was comprised of a measure of self-reported behaviour in traffic (BIT) on which high scores were considered consistent with Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. personality traits. one sample of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved motorcycle riding (n = 122) and one sample of professional taxicab drivers (n = 149) were studied. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. freeway urgency. and that driver behaviours. where. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. respectively). The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. externally-focused frustration.ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. demographic (age. hopelessness. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. some personality constructs. vii . aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. and destination-activity orientation. However. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control.
Among distal variables. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. in mediating the effects of the distal variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. As reported in previous studies. as well. BIT. viii . Areas for further study include the role of locus of control and other distal variables in the behavioural adaptation process at the root of most risk and task interface capability theories and applications to driver selection and training procedures. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. The role of the proximal variable.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. As hypothesised. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. Results indicated that. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. 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.
3.4 220.127.116.11.3.1 An Applied Perspective 18.104.22.168 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.3 1.5 1.1 Accident Proneness 2. Theories and Models 2.2.2 2.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.3 ix .1 Concepts.4 Risk Theories 2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.3.6 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.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.3.2 1.3.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 22.214.171.124.3.3.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.1.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.
1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 126.96.36.199 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.1 Statistical Models 188.8.131.52.2.1 The Haddon Matrix 184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11 Locus of Control 2.3.1 Demographic Variables 2.3 Locus of Control 3.2 Process Models 2.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 18.104.22.168.1 22.214.171.124.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 126.96.36.199 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.9.6 2.3 Ethnicity 2.1 Age 2.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.6.2 Demographic Variables: Age.5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 188.8.131.52.3.3.2 Zero Risk Theory 184.108.40.206 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 220.127.116.11 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.2.2 Gender 2. Gender and Ethnicity 3.5.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 18.104.22.168.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 22.214.171.124 Experience 2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.4 2.2.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 126.96.36.199 Attitude-behaviour Theories 188.8.131.52 Hopelessness 3.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .5 184.108.40.206.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.4.3 Psychological Variables 2.4.2 Hopelessness 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168 Driver Characteristics 2.
22.214.171.124.3.7.7 3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 126.96.36.199 Study 1A 3.7.3 188.8.131.52 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.7.2 Degree of freedom (df) 184.108.40.206.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 220.127.116.11 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.2.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.5.4 3.3.6 3.7.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 18.104.22.168 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 22.214.171.124 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.7.1 Studies 1 and 2 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52 Structural Equation Modelling 3.3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.2.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 184.108.40.206.7.5 3.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 220.127.116.11. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.3 Study 1C 3.8 Crash Occurrence 18.104.22.168 Study 2 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 .2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.2.2 Research Instruments 3.5.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 22.214.171.124.1 The Sample 3.7.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.2 Study 1B 3.
7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.6.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.6.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.6.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.4 4.1 Age.2 Results of Study 2 4.6.5 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6 xii .12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 18.104.22.168 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.3.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 22.214.171.124 Internality as a Moderator 4. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.2 4.6. Gender and Ethnicity 4.1 Description of the Sample 126.96.36.199 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 188.8.131.52 4.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.3.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.5.3 Validity Test Results 4.6.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 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 4.2.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 184.108.40.206.5.1 Results of Study 1 4.5.12.
5.6 xiii .2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.4 5.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.2 Study 2 4.9.5 5.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 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 220.127.116.11.4.4.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.8.8 4.1 Generalisability of Findings 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 126.96.36.199.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.6.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.3.6.6. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.8.1 5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 188.8.131.52 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Study 1C 4.4.7 4.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.7.2 184.108.40.206 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.5.2 Goodness of Fit 5.
3 Driver Selection.4.7.7 220.127.116.11 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.7.4. Models in Traffic Psychology 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 .1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.2 Engineering Interventions 5.3 Education 5. Training and Rehabilitation 18.104.22.168 Theory vs.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 22.214.171.124.7.4.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.5.
8 111 121 121 122 4.9 4. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.2 3. Table Page 2.5 4.6 4.1 2.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties. 2 and 3 States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) Normality Tests.5 4.3 3.11 xv .1 3.1 4.LIST OF TABLES No.10 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.3 114 4.2 4.4 3.7 4.4 115 117 118 119 4.3 3.
Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.25 138 4.29 xvi .24 137 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4.26 138 139 144 145 4.14 4.20 134 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.13 4.18 131 4.16 128 4.23 136 4.27 4.22 136 4.4.12 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.21 135 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.19 133 4.17 129 4.28 4.
35 4.1 199 206 207 5.34 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 4.33 4.4.5 209 225 5.32 4.30 4.4 208 5.3 5.2 5.37 4.39 4.6 xvii .31 4.36 4.41 175 5.38 Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 149 150 Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171 173 4.
10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3. 1996.LIST OF FIGURES No.3 3. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.2 2.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.3 4.9 59 2.4 2. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.2 147 148 4. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.4 4.1 3. Hatakka. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.1 2. 2000) Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) Research Model (Study 1B) Research Model (Study 1C) Research Model (Study 3) Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT Relationship 2.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.4 148 xviii .3 2.6 2.1 4.7 2.2 3. 2.
7 4.4.12 4.10 4.8 4.9 4.11 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 153 154 155 158 165 166 168 170 172 4.5 4.13 xix .6 4.
I hope it makes a contribution. finally. I’m a fairly big guy. he’d taken the same course as she. they were focused on the errand. and his mental state. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. I wanted to throw in the towel. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. lane deviation and all the rest. She had been badly injured. And they crashed. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. to the weary traveler. they are prone to other types of error as well. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. I don’t cry much any more. But. The behaviour of the traveller. just every so often. is a matter of debate … Obviously. I’m pretty happy with it. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. she was riding pillion. She had needed to go on an errand. but she’d nagged him. at least not with real tears. or wouldn’t. My research design needed a serious re-working. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. they were frustrated and angry with each other. LISREL couldn’t. I told her not to worry. They were hurrying. xx . How important these factors are.PREFACE Accidents occur. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves.D. . I feel like it a bit right now. things were not going well.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. I knew the fellow. I was confused by the results I was getting. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. He was driving. I like to watch boxing. and this thesis is the result. But sometimes. I got back to work on them. He was very popular with other students. externally-focused frustration. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. programme. they cut across a lane too quickly. I didn’t recognise her at first. She started crying and couldn’t stop. Her hands and voice quivered. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. only a trimester or two earlier. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. He didn’t want to go. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph.
2000. 2004). This is particularly salient in developing countries. commented that. Enns. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. 1996. Verwey. Furuichi & Kadoma.g. Consistently over the years. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson.. Peters & Peters. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. 2000). Mohan & Hyder. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. judgement. Graham. Sabey (1999). Theeuwes. Stanton & Pinto. 2002. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. such as Malaysia. Green. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. anticipation. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills.. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. Olson. Ogden. 2004) have been studied extensively. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. for instance. 1999). 2002). 2001. Even after decades of study. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities.1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. 2007.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden. perceptual (Hong. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. 2007. 2000). Mills & Vavrik.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. 2006. state of mind and physical well-being. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. Iwasaki. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. 11). Sleet. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. policy-makers. cognitive (Vaa. 2004).g. 2001). including the 1 . Scurfield. Trick. road.
behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. There was a total of 341. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. A total of 10. 2005). The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users.112). hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. 1989).252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional.332 drivers and 15. McKenna. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. 1983). including the study of a large number of variables. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. 2007). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms.351. “the literature on personality has a long history. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. The chapter 1. locus of control. According to Dewar (2002b).790.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. 2004. However. 2003).roadway. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. 2002. p. 21). 2 . the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten.
Barjonet & Tortosa. Ulleberg. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. 1993. 2003). aggression (Parkinson. Parada & Cortes. Sumala & Zakowska. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. Historically. Hwang. Lajunen & Kaistinen. 2004. Renner & Anderle. Elander. 2006. 2001. Stewart. 2002. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. Cohn. 1994. Özkan. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. 2003. 2002) and many others. Draskóczy. Barrett & Alexander. 1997). Severson. 2000). 2007). Lin. 2004). 2001). risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. Gidron. 1997). 1997). 1999. 2006. often with widely varying results (Dewar. Schwebel. 2005. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. Wells. 1997). Lajunen & Summala. West & French. Hartos & Simons-Martin. 2001. locus of control (Arthur. 1979. 2004. 2005. Gonzalez. Huang. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. Blasco. 1997. 2002b. Dewar. 3). Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. Verwey. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. Loo. 2002. 1991. Wu & Yen. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. 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. 2005). Shinar. Gal & Syna Desevilya. Hence. Rimmö. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. 3 . 2000. Wells-Parker et al. Vasconcellos. Ball & Rizzon.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. 2002.
What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. however. in particular.Increasingly. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. Parker. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations. vehicle. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. 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.e. Noy (1997).3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. Hampson & Morris. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. in turn.. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. Speeding. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. 1.e. Sümer (2003). it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. 2004). theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. A frequent criticism. 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. externally-focused frustration. for instance.. 1997. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. 1997). has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. 1996. 2005).
(c) driver locus of control. situated as proximal variables. (b) driving experience. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. p. By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. but also on their interactions. 1. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. 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. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. “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. 5 . 9). (e) driver aggression. injuries and deaths. (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. 2005. gender and ethnicity. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. By focusing on not only demographic. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially.
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. 2004. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. Laapotti. Hatakka. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. Utzelmann. 2004). the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. 2005. 1974). 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. “models that focus on specific aspects of road user behaviour seem capable of providing useful frameworks for organising and interpreting data … but experience suggests that such models are more likely to be useful if they are based on the consideration of empirical data rather than being derived from theoretical issues” (Grayson. the plethora of theories available. 2000). Moreover.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. Katila & Peräaho. There is a growing sentiment that. The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. 1997). 6 . 2001. in the applied sciences. p. 94). Some authors have suggested that. 2004. 1993). the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. 1997. Rothengatter. road safety measures and public policy. Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. Näätänen & Summala.
2001). Che Ali. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. To the author’s knowledge. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. It is useful. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. Radin Umar. 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. which deals with methodology. 7 .Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia.. incorporating cognitive ergonomics. This broader perspective. In doing so. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. in turn. this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. human motivation. 1. Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed. cultural anthropology and applied psychology.g. 2001). attitude theory. Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver.g. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit.5 Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research methods are answered fully in chapter 3.. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis.
first. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. the effects of selected demographic (age. These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. or outcome. 1B and 1C). aggression. at the conclusion of Study 1C. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. In this case. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. The final result. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. cultural background). hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. The present research applied an ex post facto research design. p. gender. Study 2 and Study 3.however. Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. Anderson & Tatham. Babin. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. 2003). In each successive study. second. externally-focused frustration. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. In Study 1. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. Black. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 . moderating and mediating relationships between variables. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. freeway urgency. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. each entailing data collection from a different sample. driving (experience. 711). driving experience. 2006. hopelessness. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. variables (Sekaran.
A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. over the course of 30. In Study 3. verbally administered psychometric instruments. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. After the initial model-building had been completed. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities.are most important in predicting. a third model was constructed. 1. 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. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires.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. 9 . In Study 2. Again.to 45-minute trips. in fact. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport.
close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. Keskinen.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. as well. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. Are the attitudes. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. Manstead. 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. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. at least to a certain extent. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. The present research. 2002. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. Stradling. The relationship between the manner 10 . Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. However. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. Baxter & Campbell. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. while recognising the distinction. 1997). much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. 1990). 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. Finally. Katila & Laapotti. Boyce & Geller. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. In a meta-review of traffic safety research.
11 .in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5.
2007). 2003). industrialisation and motorisation. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. 2007). but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. inconsiderate and aggressive.1 2. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. 2006). A developing country in Southeast Asia.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. These are thought to have contributed. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. “bullies” and “selfish”. there were 341. 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. “patient”. 2005). in order of frequency. Over 6. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. “friendly”. 2007).CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. “impatient”. 2007). “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. 2005). “peaceful”. Recently. to a rapid increase 12 .1. “reckless”.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. in aggregate. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. 2005). The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. they indicated “angry”. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. In newspaper reports. “laid-back” and “considerate”. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. 1989). economic expansion. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”.
Abdul Rahman. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.653 2004 326.218 2005 6.891 8. Studies 13 . from 189.815 2005 328.012 19. 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. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings. 2003.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.885 35.98 deaths per 10.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10. 2005). 2005).286 9.2). 2007).645 54. Table 2.109 in 1996 to a total of 341. 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.395 2006 6.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.236 49. This suggests that studies.417 47.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8. Radin Umar. In Malaysia.264 2006 341.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries.200 9.425 2003 6.228 9.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.552 37.425 5. Generally.000 vehicles (Law.741 38. & Wong.287 9.287 in 2006.304 in 1994 to 6. Subramaniam & Law. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.7111 2003 298.000 vehicles in 2006.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.040 2004 6.415 52. Table 2. 2005). in Malaysia.20 deaths per 10. Mohd Zulkiflee. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.091 37.
08 1.06 608 3.94 1.953 17.309 10.64 135 0.110 10.29 708 3.37 337 1.72 554 2.81 2. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.593 11. 2006).921 100 20.034 4.29 2. Table 2.94 2.08 541 2.56 3.709 8. 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.7 billion. 2001. Palamara.21 3.038 13.65 121 0.05 2. It has been reported that. Morrison & Ryan.15 572 2.16 90 0.15 43 0.41 302 1.551 12.92 2.180 10.22 150 0.620 7.416 6.68 3.05 1.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.10 3.81 3.315 17.023 5. general insurers paid RM1.947 10.418 100 19.82 1.77 3.11 2.07 2.48 105 0. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5. 2003).63 160 0.27 458 2.65 2.4 billion to RM5.086 9.67 billion.26 463 2.05 2. 14 .92 1.54 708 3. 2002.97 1. or an average of RM4.94 625 3.448 17.49 450 2.90 159 0.85 2.81 1. in 1999 alone.84 1.61 99 0. or about 2.67 206 0.005 15.997 14.76 22. and particularly among younger drivers.389 6.216 10.820 13.71 543 2.40 1.431 7.08 585 2.68 128 0.205 11.45 30 0.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.99 164 0.31 3.48 323 1.049 15.15 3.469 15.378 11.025 9. 2005).341 12. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.07 2.80 203 0.85 147 0.50 979 4.178 15. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.47 280 1.91 984 4. 2001).967 100 19.803 9.08 2.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.23 2.
1999). In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. Some seven years later.Yet. traffic congestion. 2005). What else can we do. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. (Bernama. which is actually a nightmare. lane definition. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . In 1999. 2006). but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. 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. if people want to die? (Lim. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. or the pain of the maimed. Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. 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. Criticisms of road configuration. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. The economic consequences can be estimated. 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. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable.
In 2006. 2005).693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. 2007). In a recent newspaper interview. 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 . They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. Who they are. Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. 2006). is often mentioned as a factor. unlike in other countries. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. 2005). though. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. 2007).(Abdul Rahman et al. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. 2001. Krishnan & Radin Umar. newspaper columnists. as compared with 1. Generally. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. given greater risks of accident. 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. 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. how they think. for instance. 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. 1997). Researchers.
2. conspicuity and excessive speeding. Law. Ward. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. In none of the studies of the MSP. rather than personality factors. Mohd Nasir. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. Bartle & Truman. however. 1996). 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. 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. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. Radin Umar. 17 . For instance. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. Law et al. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. Chalmers & Langley. In the same study. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. respectively. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. (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. Musa. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. This is. Ahmad Hariza.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. injuries and fatalities. perhaps.
these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. This. presented new circumstances because driving in empty space made staying awake a persistent problem … One strategy drivers have pursued to combat the boredom of the expressway is to drive faster … One of the potential challenges for drivers was the emptiness of the roadway itself (pp. the factor that made the high speeds possible. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. He argued that. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents.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. since 1994. 18 . he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. According to Williamson. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. 121-122). a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. 1996). Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. however. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. generalising to all driving environments and situations. 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. 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). 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. resulted in a myriad of problems. has linked peninsular communities. The very monotony of the road surface.122). they are accident prone.
personality characteristics (Elander. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. Åberg. 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. experiential. Among engineering factors. but rather 19 . The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. Christ. 1993. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. Human factors are far more important than engineering factors. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). by far. levels of driving experience and. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). etc. 1993). West and French.2. Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. particularly. 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. Among human factors.2 2. 1991). the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. This has included the examination of age and gender.2. personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. bad road conditions. 784). 62). 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.
conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. 1997. 2004) and other contextual variables. The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. unclear. 1994). the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. 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. or at least predict. Further. 2005). 641). in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. to a large degree. However. organisational climate (Caird & Kline. 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. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. prior accident experience (Lin et al. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. 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. 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. Ranney. personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. 377). weak. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. Haddon (1963). While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. 2004). Lajunen & Summala.by the behaviour of drivers. 2002. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 .
21 .2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. Preston & Harris.2. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. 2003). especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. information processing. 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. 1997a). 2. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. Wagenaar & van Koppen. 1961. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way.2. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. 2002. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. 1993). the lack of replication of many studies. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. Nevertheless. 1996. there has been an interest in driver personality.2. 482). and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. Underwood & Milton. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser.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. 321). 2005).1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p.
ergonomics.” (p. 2. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. transportation planning. medicine. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. eoncompassing engineering. Indeed.Transportation systems shape the structure of our communities and impact the well-being of individuals … People’s reactions to the inconvenience and discomfort of a particular journey depend on many intertwined psychological processes including personality disposition.654-655. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary.) 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. psychology. anthropology and sociology. 2002).2. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. 4). in the field of traffic. traffic and transportation. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to.2. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. According to Rothengatter (2001). 3). “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. or the psychological support for intervention.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. in a Spanish survey. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. 246). but that complex traffic 22 . Ochando. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. or peculiar to. To wit. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger.
a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. 1995. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. surrounding environments and 23 . Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. the road infrastructure and other road users. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. Johnston. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. Hyder & Peden.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. 24). In the broadest sense. Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. as well. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. Wilson. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. 1158). Garner and Zwi. Odero. 1997. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002) governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. the study of cognitive processes. over the past ten years. 2004. 2003. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. 2000). 2002). Peden & Hyder. Ergonomics has made a contribution. the road environment comprises the vehicle. In a recent special edition. 2007. Stanton (2007) noted that. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. in particular.
1997.3 2. 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.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. 2001). which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. 2. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics.3. 2004). “This school of though. According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. Walker. Stanton & Young. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. error and cognitive modelling. 2006. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. Neerincx & Schriebers.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. particularly the notions of mental load. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . Jannssen. predict and modify road user behaviour. Noy. Studies of human factors engineering of intelligent transportation systems are becoming increasingly important in the design of in-vehicle safety systems and driver decision support technologies (Lenior. 26). 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. 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. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. though.
there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. often in mathematical form. 2005). or both. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. To a degree. Healy. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. 2. many models have been proposed. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. On the other hand. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. Reasons for this are likely several. but for the purposes of this thesis. 2005. which may be defined as: A set of interrelated principles and definitions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relationships among variables with the purpose of explaining natural phenomena (Kerlinger. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. or accident-causing behaviours.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. in traffic psychology. p. 1995). A-18) Often. whether theories should explain everyday driving.. p. 2000.3.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. 1969). often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. 1985). each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. this may be due to 25 . Ericsson & Bourne Jr. In traffic psychology.
perceptions. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. 189). the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. 26 . 2002). attitudes. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. 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.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. For over ninety years. social. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. 2004. motives and personalities (Robbins. etc. Notwithstanding these difficulties. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. minimise delay and driving time. cognitive. risk adaptation theories. avoid obstacles. and most of the time is not especially influential. not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. 2005).the imprecise definition of concepts. Instead. 2. Rothengatter. given the complexity of human behaviour. researchers have been trying to determine individual differences that lead to disparities in crash occurrence and outcomes and the literature associated with differential road-crash involvement is extensive. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. feel in control. and emotional determinants. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has.. enjoy driving. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation.3.
aggression. McRae &Costa. 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. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. for instance. aged 16 to 29 years.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). conscientiousness. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. 1990). 1980) and other safety outcomes. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. 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). Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. However. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. neuroticism. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. According to Rothengatter (2002). found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. but not occupational accidents. anxiety and driving anger. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. 1995. 2000). Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. 1979). poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo.
According to Haight (2004).3. but persists today. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. West & French. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. 1984). 1962. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. p. found first that the frequency of accidents. In 1917. 290). It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it.finding. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . 1993. p. just as one can meaure height. 1920). differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. If each individual has a unique λ-value.152). sensori-motor skill. “irrespective of environment. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. λ. personality. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. during and following the war years.3. occupational and otherwise. weight and perhaps even intelligence. the average number of accidents. his or her accident proneness. in certain cases. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. Research by board statisticians. 2.
“Because crashes are so infrequent. perhaps physiological. 2004). as well. Scores on the λ dimension. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. 1991. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. in traffic or when playing 29 . Farmer and Chambers (1926. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. however. inappropriate. subjects reported significant. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). at home. 1929. in successive years. noting that. 1939) and many others. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. 195). 422). 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. in a Finnish telephone survey. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. in any sample. 2004). The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. inadequate or irrelevant. more probably psychological (p. made an assumption that. p. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. The accident-prone concept. by devising clever tests. Johnson (1946). produced a positive. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. None of the experiments. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. but did not take into consideration whether. 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.out what that value is. 1997). 1956). 294). 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.
2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. 1998). The concept itself is ill-defined. pp. Visser. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 .. 8-9). 1993).sports. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. 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. 562). in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered.3. therefore. Pijl. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies.3. 1980.05. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. Ultimately. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. sports and family settings. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. roadway. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. Stolk. So. 2. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed.
accident proneness (Chmiel. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation.3. albeit not crash occurrence. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. 2. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. substantially.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. 2. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. 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. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. large earth-moving 31 . Elander et al. in fact. Wilde (1982.3. following their review of the literature.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. For example. experience more accidents than others. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. in a study of driving on icy roads. A driver who enters a construction zone. That is. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. The introduction of divided highways. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. However. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk.4.. 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. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. 2000). crash barriers.
Collectively. 2008. 1988. Fosser & Sætermo. flat. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. When others (Haight. 14). and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. 2001. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. 2002). 1989.vehicles and warning flags. That is. Initially. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. at least until the target risk level was reached. 1986. in turn. is if the level of target risk is reduced. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. for example. Michon. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. 1997). according to the theory. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. 2005). Sagberg.” (Fuller. Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. McHugh & Pender. 1994. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of 32 . according to the theory. Conversely. Wilde. p. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. a driver motoring along a wide. 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. RHT proponents argued that drivers were adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. In two separate studies. Ranney. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively.
“The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. 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. 1977). it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. 223). 1994. 53). Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. Fischoff. but they are not defined in psychological terms. or the nation” (Brown & Noy. Also. 1989. 2001.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. p. Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself. p. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. “Costs and benefits are central to the model. 2004). the community. 1151). (p. 2004). 2002). Lichtenstein. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain.. 2002).” (Vaa. Corrigan & Coombs. Rothengatter. and not on the available technology” (Wilde. 2008. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. pay sufficient attention to risk. a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. 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. however. Slovic. Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment.. To the contrary. More than any other driving theory. Evans 33 .
experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating.3. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving.4. argued that “these so-called theories that purport to explain human behaviour in the face of risk are nothing more than hypotheses with a large body of empirical evidence refuting the studies that allegedly validate them” (p. and 34 . they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. Summala. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. for example. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. 2004. 1987.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. after a similar review. 92). 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. In other words. O’Neill and Williams (1998). 81). is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. 2. Rather. 26). Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. or expecting. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. p. In addition. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. At this point.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory.
2002. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. Meijman & Roghengatter. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. much of which arises from personality. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). Glad & Hernetkoskis. Summala (1996. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. Gregersen. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation.3. Hataaka. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. such as time pressure. and specific driver actions. 1998. Keskinen. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. Reeder et al. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. On the other hand.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. 35 . In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. Van der Hulst. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. A large number of studies show that external motives. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions.1). 1996. age and social variables. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. 2.learn how to respond safety to. 1999). as a result. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. for instance. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer.
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. but that is not 36 . Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other.1: Task Cube (from Summala. 1996) Keskinen et al. at the same time. for example. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy.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. seemingly concurrently. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. this does not necessarily imply a hierarchy as this is as much true for “lower” level as for “higher” level tasks … Drivers do perform tasks such as route finding and manoeuvring. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. (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. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. 15). a property absent within the task cube concept.
3.. 2000) 37 . Most of the time. 252). Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely. 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. However. high speeds. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2.g. 2. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. 1982. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control. unsafe behaviour of other road users) or over-estimation of capability (through lack of experience or impairment) and the driver is pushed closer to the critical control threshold. affective states).1). Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. Fuller (2000.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde.
people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour.3. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. however. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. Generally. objects. 2004.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) An attitude is a relatively stable and enduring predisposition to behave or react in a certain way toward persons. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. 126). 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 is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. 1991). for the most part. and Keskinen et al. Two limitations have been noted. 1985. p. p.Fuller’s theory has. Since 1985. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. Fishbein & Ajzen. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. 40). Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. emotional state.6. According to the TRA. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. institutions or issues (Chaplin. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . simply because it is more straightforward to establish the parameters that drivers use to assess their competence than it is to measure target or subjective risk. time pressure). the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour.3. 2. 1985.
2007). which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. 24).3. 2.” (Azjen. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). however (Sharma & Kanekar. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). “Even very mundane activities.7.2).2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. To deal with this uncertainty. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). 39 . such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. 1985. 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”). are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. p. According to the TPB. then. see Figure 2. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC).
to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. 40 . it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. 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. or sense of self-efficacy. the perception of what others would think (subjective norms) and lower PBC all influenced the behaviours chosen by subjects and that hypotheses derived from the TPB were confirmed. 2003).. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. when intention is held constant. p. 2002. Further. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. 1989) Within the theory. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well.e. 253). In one study.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research.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. 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. greater perceived control (i.
for instance.4 2. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. 2002). Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour.4. Similar to later findings by Law et al.2). 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. vehicles. Austin and Carson (2002). subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. Attitude toward speeding. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. 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. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. but after controlling for distance travelled. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. 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. based on data extracted from police record forms. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes.In another study.1.2.
PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2.4). R. E and especially H factors.4.locations and settings (e. within specific situational contexts. 1997) 42 . Seow & Lim.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. 1994). Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. the road (R) and the environment (E). the vehicle (V).g. Richardson & Downe.2 Process Models 2. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. however. Swaddiwudhipong. 2000). Nguntra. More recently. 1998. Mahasakpan. 1999). some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. Law. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V. Koonchote & Tantiratna. 1997.1 The Haddon Matrix Traditional studies of human factors in road safety have tended to view transportation as a system with four major component elements: the human (H).2. 2..4.
driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. By contrast. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. as well. 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. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2.2.. gender. aggression). Factors within the distal context include not only road. age. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. 283). are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and.g. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk.g. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. it may influence crash risk through some other. contribute directly to crash outcomes. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. Within the generic model. on the other hand. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. Sümer (2003) argued that the contextual mediated model could explain the relatively weak associations between accident involvement and personality characteristics observed in many previous studies... it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself.g. Therefore. extraversion. on one hand.2. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk.4.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. more proximal variable. speeding. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p.5). substance abuse) that. sensation seeking. Personality factors within the 43 .
aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. risk taking. e. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. cultural driving habits and beliefs Relatively stable personality characteristics. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. sensation seeking. PROXIMAL CONTEXT Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking e. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. psychological symptoms. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. 2003) 44 .g. depression. DISTAL CONTEXT Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific 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.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. 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. aggression Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents Fatalism Enforcement Figure 2.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.g. As such.
while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. Tix and Barron.2. called the outcome. In Figure 2. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. 1986). In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. If. 2004). Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. moderating or mediating effects. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. 45 . Also termed intervening variables. 2006).4. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. 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. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. 2003). the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. for instance. Figure 2. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. such that path c′ is zero. M. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs.6(i). driver propensities to commit errors or violations.2. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny.
or dependent. Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. 2003). 46 .(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. Only if the interaction (path c) is significant. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome.6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. the impact of a moderator (path b). or testing the moderating effect. and the interaction or product of these two (path c). variable (see Figure 2. these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. or independent variable (path a). can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. 1986).7): the impact of a predictor. a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran.
they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. anger). while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. Using structured equation modelling. and non-professional students who were mostly students. hostility. more relevant to the model he proposed.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. Further. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. hostility. anxiety. In turn.4. dangerous drinking). psychoticism). the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. However. given wide 47 . sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. he found that. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations.2.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. verbal aggression. errors). intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression.
It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. trust). Tubré & Tubré. 2002. in most cases. as recommended by Elander et al. Arthur. Finally. Edward. agreeableness (helpfulness. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). personality model (Costa & McRae. sensation seeking). lapses. In a subsequent study. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. Greenwood & Yule. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. Bell. Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. 1990) to a similar analysis. Day. al. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. for high-λ individuals. responsibility.. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. McRae &Costa. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. 2005. 2003.739). Lajunen and Özkan (2005). 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. applied the five factor. Watson. (1993) and others. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. conscientiousness (dependability. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. Sümer. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. 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. sensation seeking patterns. or “Big Five”. broad-mindedness). 1920). Here. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. 1993). Elander et. 1998). Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 .variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. 1919. 1995.
Sümer. reported that driver anger.4. Berument and Gunes (2005). using a similar research design. 2. proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors. optimism. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. anxiety.aberrant driving behaviours. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. navy. Sümer. 225). Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model.2. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. have acted on those recommendations. for instance. including perceived control. In another study. Bilgic. They found that the effect of proximal variables. 49 . while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. In other words. air force and gendarmerie. yielding support for the contextual mediated model. prior to the present one. self esteem. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. material loss. phobia. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. Karanci. hostility.
but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie. 2003). Williams & Shabanova. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes.. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 . proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2.. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e. 1997.5 2.5. Weinstein & Solomon. aggression) Safe Work Practices hazard identification and reporting risk avoidance procedural compliance use of safety devices and equipment occupational hygiene help-seeking and teamwork behaviour Experiential safety awareness domain-specific skill years of work experience prior accident experience Figure 2.g. Retting. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. Yet. 2007) 2. 2002. Type A. Odero et al. Distal factors Safety interventions knowledge transfer ergonomic design safety audits Proximal factors Safety climate worker attitude toward safe work perceived management priority employee empowerment and control over safety post-injury administration return-to-work policies operating policies & procedures Outcomes Organisational Impacts lower injury rates and lost time relative to labour input and output reduced accident severity reduced risk assessment standards compliance increased worker satisfaction Psychosocial variables locus of control risk acceptance/aversion impulsivity cultural factors (e.8). 1995).Downe (2007).. Campbell & Williams.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.1.g. 2003.5.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger.
Harré. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. 2002a. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. follow too closely. Jehle. specifically more likely to drive too fast. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. Connery & Stiller. 221). in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. tobacco smoking. the contrary appears to be true. Moscati. Matthews & Moran. Billittier. In fact. 2001. McDonald (1994) reported 51 . 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. 2007). 1997b. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. 1986). Jonah. less emotionally mature. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. 2002a. for these difficulties. Vassallo et al. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. this is a reflection of lifestyle.. drive while fatigued. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. The former is less experienced at driving. in many cases. However. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. p. at least in part. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. Bina. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. overtake dangerously.
This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. Vissers & Jessurun. it was hypothesised in the present study that. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. Ulleberg. on crash and injury occurrence. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. particularly with respect to controlling deviations. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). In the present study. Stevenson et al. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. Justification of age-related hypotheses.39). age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. 2002). In a nation-wide survey of American teens. (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. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. 2007). Similarly. 1999.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. as age decreased. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. indirectly. 52 . Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. and that young drivers. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance.
Chipman. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. for instance. self-reported injury would also increase. Shope. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). more often at hazardous times (e. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement.g. However. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women.4). Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. without exception. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. 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.g.failure to use seat-belts. Tavris. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). for instance. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. Monárrez-Espino. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. Waller. p. it was also hypothesised that. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident.. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years.. darkness)” (p. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that. Elliott.5. as well. 129). and behaviours predictive of fatalities. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. “In all studies and analyses. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. MacGregor. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. as age decreased. 2. it 53 . but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. 2004. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. for instance.1.
but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. Woodcock. to date. Welsh. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. 2001).usually led to a single-vehicle crash. reported more traffic citations and injuries. Ball. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. This is important. which typically took place during evenings and nights. found that while male drivers. Brown. 1997. At the same time. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 . 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. 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. worldwide. state of Washington. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. Lonczak. (b) females drive increasingly more.S. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. for instance. 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. Lenard. Dobson. 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. While there is much of value in such an approach. 525526). in a sample taken in the U. Flyte & Garner. Neighbors and Donovan (2007).
alcohol consumption and for risky driving. 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. 2003). In other research. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. In the present study. indirectly. evaluated their driving skill lower. showing that male drivers were. on the other hand. (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. 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. Female drivers. 55 . on crash and injury occurrence. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004).. 2006. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. Lourens et al.anger. In a study of Dutch drivers. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. as per the traditional pattern. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. In a subsequent report. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. Forward. just as they had in 1978. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Turner & McClure. and loss-of-control incidents. McKenna. et al. Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al. control of traffic situations. Laapotti. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. 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. Justification of gender-related hypotheses. were less frequently involved in crash situations. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. 11). though.
lower rates of safety belt use.S. Harper. Marine.5. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. Corry. 2005). Lajunen. Haliburton.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. Summala and Hartley (1998). Garrett. Goldweig and Warren. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Levine. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. for instance. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. Romano. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. On the other hand. In one of the few studies reported. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Schlundt. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). differences in fatalities persisted. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 .2. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. To a large degree. But.1. nonCatholic countries.
2). They concluded that there were. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. Roman et al. in fact. religion. 2005). Conscious of what other people say about us. Strong relationship orientation. cooperation. Karma. harmony with nature. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . peace. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. polite behaviour. hierarchical. piety. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 2000. hard work. prosperity. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. Malay Differences have not always been consistent. prosperity and integrity.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. indirectly.. respect for elders. 1999). face saving. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. Fatalistic. Education. Strong relationship orientation. courtesy. filial piety. Table 2. Family centeredness. respect for elders. Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. However. brotherhood/sisterhood. Indirect communication. humility. Spirituality. family honour. on crash and injury occurrence. Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. In the present study. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. respect for knowledge. family ties. While religious affiliation. cultural differences can be more subtle. 1999). shame-driven..have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. respect for elders.
1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. Hatakka and Katila. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p.2 Driver Characteristics 2.. as drivers become more experienced. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups.behaviour in traffic. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. 1995. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences.2. 2. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. 166). Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. 2002). Allied to this. etc. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. 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 . Keskinen. and as such. Lajunen & Summala. On the other hand. 1971). although not always. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller.g. journey lengths. directionality of the effect was not predicted. As experience grows.5. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. 2001). such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week.5. passenger distractions different vehicles. in a given road and traffic scenario. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. Laapotti. increased experience usually. with different weather conditions. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. A large number of studies have shown that.
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. 59 . including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes. When using those at the top of the hierarchy. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. environment. and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. and sometimes confounded by gender differences. 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. but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al. Yet. 2004). as individuals acquire experience. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. 2001). social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING Controlling speed. 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. Hataaka and Katila (1992). 1996. 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. in many studies of age and gender differences. It assumes that. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience. Hatakka.by Keskinen.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves.9). direction and position Figure 2. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter.
1954). Justification of driver experience hypotheses. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. 2007). 1948.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. was used in this study. such as problems in vehicle handling skills. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. 2004). showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. and especially young male drivers. Peltzer and Renner (2003). 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. Ghiselli & Brown. Brown & Ghiselli. for instance. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. A simple measure of driving experience. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. Female novice drivers. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e.. 1949. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development.Laapotti et al. Young novice drivers. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers.g. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. Mintz. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. on the other hand. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience.
for instance. 2002a). crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. and type of route where. indirectly. 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. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 .5. it is accepted that the more one travels. 1995. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. Pelz & Schuman. driving occurs (Dewar. In individual differences research. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. 2.2. Second. 1984). Generally. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. 1971). on crash and injury occurrence. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. the miles they drive. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. 1993). McKenna. Wilde. Elander et al. First.. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). 1986. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. 1991). Duncan & Brown. 282). technical or legal changes relating to road safety.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. 2001. the concept is much less well developed. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. Rothengatter.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and.
without correcting for annual mileage. 2006. Justification of exposure hypotheses. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. Ferguson. This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. Cairns. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. (1993). as defined by Elander et al. Towner and Ward.. Yet. on crash and injury occurrence.. (1986). (1999) have argued that. Williams & Shabanova. although much research does not (e. Mercer (1989) showed that. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes. however. Christie.hours than during the forenoon.g. Bina et al. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. 62 . Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. 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. in countries like the USA. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. indirectly.. 2007. 2003). Evans (1991) and others. Odero et al. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. Several authors have emphasised the importance of considering differences in traffic exposure when studying the effects of psychological or demographic factors on crash and injury risk (Abdel-ATy & Anurag. In the present study. 2007. Lourens et al. Teoh & MCartt. 2007). it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic.
1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed.3 Psychological Variables 2. Lefcourt defined internal control (I) as the perception that positive or negative events are a consequence of personal actions and thus may potentially be subject to personal control. 1991.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs Locus of control refers to the expectancy that one’s personal actions will be effective to control or master the environment (Rice. she separated the externality dimension into two. Holder & Levi. or externals . view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach.5.1 Locus of Control 2. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. 63 . one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. Hyman.g..3. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966.1. 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. Stanley & Burrows.5. 1975.3. 1999). 15). Levenson (1975. or internals. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control.2. 2006. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. 1990). and second. 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.5. In contrast.10). such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2.
2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking.Luckner. According to Phares (1976). 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.5. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control.1. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate.3. Sinha & Watson. 1989.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2. 64 . Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task. luck. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality .
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. 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. On the other hand. According to Brown and Noy (2004). A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. French & Chan. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. 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. those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. but results have been inconsistent. however. In a subsequent study. Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. 1987). Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. 1999). 39). however. 65 .
In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. (p. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. Arthur et al. cognitive. 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 an important study. That is. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. 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. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. In a much earlier study. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. offences. although internality was unrelated to DDB. They found that. Gidron. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. On the other hand. 1260).
1. indicated that. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. Italy. Germany. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. 122). while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 .3. as hypothesised. France. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. with situation-centred Confucian foundations.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. complexity and unpredictability. Canada and Japan. is based on the notion that … luck. Japan.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. and the USA. 2.5. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. Noy (1997). Noting that Chinese culture. In very early research. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. Their results. (1991). Hsieh. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. Israel. India. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p.
Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). Cheung. 68 . 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. 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. skill and ability. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. only Cheung. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. Chinese of Malay extraction. Chinese and Indian populations. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. This was very true for the locus of control variable. To the author’s knowledge. 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. 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. At the same time. all internal characteristics. In very early research. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males.
Cases usually 69 . Hopelessness is one such trait in which the behaviour of individuals is derived from specific cognitive distortions that systematically misconstrue experiences in a negative way and. Niméus. 1975). McMillan.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. Weissman.5. 1975.3. 2007. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. 1973). but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. 2007). Träskman-Bendz & Alsén.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. (2003). indirectly. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. Finally. 1995. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. Fox & Klerman. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. Kovacs and Weissman. Özkan & Lajunen. Gilbody. Sinha & Watson. et al. Beresford & Neilly. First. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. Ohberg. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. 1991. 1997. 2005). on crash and injury occurrence. without objective basis. Montag & Comrey. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. 2. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1987. In the present study. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon.
Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. on crash and injury occurrence. in a more detailed study. 1974). luck. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. investigated the relationship between hopelessness. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. 1998. including risky driving. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. mental disorders and alcohol misuse. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada.involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. and negatively predicted by extraversion. 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. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. for instance. Breen and Lussier (1976). finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others.. Second. 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. Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. 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. In the present study. 1976. assertiveness and positive emotion. Mendel. 1962). found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. Very early on. in fact. Henderson. Several authors. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. it was 70 . 1997. indirectly. Prociuk. 1962). They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. Firestone & Seiden. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). Selzer & Payne. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. 1990.
Mizell. physiological arousal. 2000.3 Aggression Since the 1980s.. & Darviri. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. 2006). In a largely unrelated study. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. Malta & Blanchard. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. Demakakos. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. Wells-Parker et al. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. Underwood. including subjective feelings of stress. learned cognitive scripts. 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. Richards. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. Tzamalouka.5. Chapman. 2000. 2. Lynch & Oetting. Koumaki. 71 . Filetti. Binzer (1999) suggested that hopelessness may play a moderating role in the effects of locus of control on some psychiatric symptoms associated with unconscious motivations. 2002. learned disinhibitory cues.3. Bakou. 2003. Barton and Malta. 1999. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. Deffenbacher. Wright & Crundall. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. 2002). Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. and deindividuation.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. 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. Chliaoutaks.
angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. 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. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. Bettencourt. as another. Ellis. through the use of self-statements.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. lack of control over events. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 . and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. Snyder. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. though. 1976. such as TAPB. Schwebel et al. Houston. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. Crowson. rather than a cause of. stress induced by time pressure. the display of aggression (p. Talley. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. However. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. More recently. it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. 1962). cultural driving norms and situational conditions. Groeger (2000). raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. 163). (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. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). threat to own safety and self-eesteem.
and specific content.6. 73 . insecurity about status. 2002. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. 2001). on crash and injury occurrence. Undén. aggression. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974).6 2. 1999. Kamada. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. Petrilli. Bettencourt et al. James & Nahl. Elofsson & Krakau.. 2006. Miyake. Lynch. Williams & Haney. competitiveness. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. 2000. 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. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. Later still. Thurman. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. It was also hypothesised. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. 2006). that the total amount. McKee. 1998. 2. Sani. Narda. indirectly. al. In the present study. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. 1999. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. Rice. Magnavita. (2003). Frueh & Snyder.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. Sato. Blumenthal. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. Karlberg. 1981. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Carbone. Kumashiro & Kume. impatience. 1985). Deffenbacher. 1999).
Consoli. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. 1990). Karlberg et al. In none of these studies. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. Nabi et al. Zzanski & Rosenman. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. Chiron. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. category of vehicle. Chastang. where Type A drivers were 4.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. 1979) and number of accidents. gender. was driving frequency. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. Raikkonen. studied police officers in Italy. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). alcohol consumption. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. however. for instance. 1989. Lafont and Lagarde (2005).000 employees of a French oil and gas company. 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. focused on the time urgency component 74 . (1998). similarly. In a correlational study of British drivers. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. 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. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. but not with accident risk. however. West. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. socio-professional category. Nabi. age. driving style.
then use of the Type A/B 75 . Glass. Of the four BIT factors. In a subsequent study. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. as measured by the student version of the SJAS. 2. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. stressed the relationship between Type A individuals and the tendency to engage in more aggressive acts while driving as the key factor in the relationship between TAPB and crashes. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. externally-focused frustration (congestion irritation and hostility toward other drivers) and destination-activity orientation (inattention to the driving task related to journey motives or outcomes). with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation.6. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. At the same time. 1977). freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). namely “externally-focused frustration”. ethnicity. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. on the other hand. Miles and Johnson (2003). specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). Gender.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. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score.
it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. 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. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. To the author’s knowledge.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . They argued that it would be preferable. At the present time. that are measured by the BIT scale. ethnicity. 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. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. including gender. Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. Specifically. locus of control. though. on the other hand. although ethnicity. 13). In neither of their studies. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. In the present study. driving experience. Similarly. hopelessness. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics.
1985). Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. 77 . Further. since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics.. Miles & Johnson. freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. 1986. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. externally-focused frustration. 1993) and. West et al.hostile automatic thought. 2003. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way.. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. Nabi et al. 2005.
In Study 1B. In Study 1C. 1B and 1C. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 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. 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. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. 78 . aggression (see Figure 3.1).CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables as used in Study 1B were evaluated as predictors of self-reported BIT and then of self-reported crash and injury occurrence.2). the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then in predicting self-reported crash and injury occurrence were evaluated. with the addition of a third psychological variable. Then.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. each study explored the extent to which demographic.3). the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. 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. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour.
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
4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. For each of the five studies undertaken. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. In the present research.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). 1999). Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. Weissman. For the purposes of the present research. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it.2. Lester and Trexler (1974). cognitive. 1994). a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. 25). According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct.2. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. a separate score for internality (I). but not chance. overlapping and ambiguous. 3. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. affective. a thought process that expects nothing.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . 3.
Specifically. hitting or interpersonal violence. through fighting. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. were also investigated. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression.2. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. Lynch & Morris. Deffenbacher. and.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).expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. 2005). 3. expressed through the presence of irritability. frustration. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. social alienation and paranoia. In the present research. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). 1996). (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. The effects of participants’ total aggression. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. Vallières. 2003. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. Oetting. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. Bergeron & Vallerand. 1957. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration.
A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies.g. characterised by excessive impatience.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit.. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) The present research attempted to determine the effects of variables related to the self-reported patterns of driving behaviour among car drivers. the BIT score.. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving.2. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. 3. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). 1998). (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. frequent lane changing. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled. and. hit or kill another individual. Four separate dimensions of BIT were examined: (a) usurpation of right-of-way – representing self-reported behaviours that took the form of evasive or uncooperative manoeuvres such as speeding to get away from others. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. not allowing others to merge or overtake. competitiveness. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 .
88 . Then. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. three demographic variables (driver age. In the resulting measure of this variable.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.2. to the extent of inattention conditions.. the influence of driving experience. and. 3. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. 3. (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. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash.g.3 3. in Study 1A. 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. In the resulting measure of this variable.3. while driving.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash.them (e. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). travel frequency. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash.2. Then. 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.
the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. Then. 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.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. three demographic variables (driver age.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. Then.3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. Finally. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Then. the influence of driving characteristics. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. travel frequency. In this study. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. the influence of driving characteristics. In Study 1B.3. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Finally. 3.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. travel frequency. Then. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Figure 3. 3. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. hopelessness. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. Figure 3. In this study. three demographic variables (driver age. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT.
the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. 90 . and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. 3. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. Then. This was justified for three reasons. Figure 3. 3.3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. It should be noted that certain of the variables examined with the automobile drivers in Study 1 and with the motorcycle drivers in Study 2 were not included when taxicab drivers were sampled in Study 3. Finally. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. Figure 3.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. Figure 3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. In Study 3.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. First. and (b) taxi experience. the influence of experience.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. Finally. Then. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab.3. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. In Study 3.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. 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.
4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.2.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.2.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H126.96.36.199: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. 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.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. Second. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 . a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data. 3. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.2.1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male. Third.
1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.1.3.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H188.8.131.52 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.2.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.3.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.1.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.Table 3.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.
3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3.3: 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. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia.5.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14. using the same procedures as in Study 1. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .Table 3.5 3. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions. within a 14-month period.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.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. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management. 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 in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12.
. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. Data collection took place within the taxicab.2 Research Instruments 3. by postal mail. 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. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A).g. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated.time when they travelled. during a point to point trip. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. Novaco.2. Stokols. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. while participants were driving. For inclusion in the study. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. Stokals & Campbell. In all cases. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. in the case of Study 3 participants.5. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. 1978).5. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. 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. 3.
Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. to school or to an appointment with someone. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. Usurpation of right-ofway No. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.80. Freeway urgency 14 III.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work. On each form. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”.” “While travelling to work (or to school). such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. Table 3. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. Their analysis revealed four dimensions.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. In a later study.91) were found to be internally consistent.” II. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). I usually think about what I have to do when I get there.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. with a coefficient alpha of .2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I.2. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated .” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale.” “On a clear highway. as indicated in table 3.
96 .Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”).5.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. High scores on the externality-powerful-others (P) scale indicate that respondents expect that powerful others exert a high degree of control over their lives. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. Luckner (1989) noted that this instrument has among the highest reliability and validity of all locus of control tests and is particularly applicable when gearing instruments to broad linguistic structures and varying academic levels. References to the faster.2. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. A sample item is “When I get what I want. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. 3. 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 “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”.
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”. if endorsed. anger.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. 1993.” 97 . 1982. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. verbal aggression. or 0. 3.5.2. 1996).” “When someone really irritates me. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. Table 3.3).” “When people annoy me. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. 2005. Beck et al. Durham. Of the 20 true-false statements. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. I might give him or her the silent treatment.5.3.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. Tanaka et al. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.2.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. and five subscales measure physical aggression.” “I get into fights more than most people.” “If I’m angry enough.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. I may tell them what I think of them. I may mess up someone’s work. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. if not. 1974).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.
Boyd. derogation of others and revenge respectively.88 and . Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. with coefficient alpha values of .71 to . Snyder et al. 1996). Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. 2000). High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently.92. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . .” “I want to get back at this person.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . 1997.” 3.4).5. 1997.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it.91 for physical aggression. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. age. Three factors – physical aggression. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries.5. 3. 5 = “all the time”). 98 .5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. gender.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. Table 3.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren.2.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. 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. Cascardi & Pythress. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser. Williams.2. Shapiro.
Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. Study 1C: PIF. Levenson. BHS.6. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. AQ and HAT. Levenson and BIT scale. upon request. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. BHS. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. in random order. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. BIT scale. Levenson. In studies 1 and 2. with an e-mail summary of results. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. Study 1B: PIF. BHS. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. BIT scale and AQ.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. between the two forms of the BIT. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”.3. 99 .6 3. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. After the briefing period.
For safety reasons.2 Study 3 For study 3. AQ and Levenson scales. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. 100 . Levenson Locus of Control scale. four female final-year undergraduate students. rel.5.3. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. rel. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. The PIF was always administered first. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. aged 22 to 24 years. Two to four times daily. analyses of variance (ANOVA). Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. BIT. Data collection took place in taxicabs. 13. Independent-sample t-tests. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. 8. as well. At initial contact.0. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. 2004). with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. Over the course of the trip.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. 2002).5. 3. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL.6. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. Taxis were flagged down at roadside.
2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT H3.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.3: 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: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control H4.Table 3.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.
2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13. 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 H9.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.Table 3.4: 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 H12.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .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. the lower the BIT level H8.2: The higher Externality (Chance).5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11. the higher the BIT level H8.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).1: The higher the Internality.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.
hopelessness. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock.7. 3. locus of control.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. 103 .7. 2000).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 3.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.Table 3.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. In the present study. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. When significant differences were observed. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. In the present research.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. locus of control.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. hopelessness.
first P scores were entered into the regression equation. 104 .7. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. hopelessness.4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and.7. 3. if so. hopelessness.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables. For instance.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. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT).3. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. Also. 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. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. In the present research. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I).7. second. In the present research. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. In the present research.
Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. 710). Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables.3. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . as well as between several latent constructs” (p. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. In the present research. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur.7 Structural Equation Modelling. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design.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. 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). That is. Covariates (driver experience and travel frequency) and the independent variable (BIT) were entered into the logistic regression equation to predict the probability of participants’ crash and injury occurrence. In the present research. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. using LISREL.7. 3. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. SEM was carried out. on the other hand.7. logistic regression.
including: (1) two absolute indexes. Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. (1988). the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. 1998) – presently exists. According to Marsh et al. these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. For Study 1C. p. the better the model is said to fit. The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other.well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). 745). the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 . (Hair et al. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. in fact. 1998). Thus. Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI). the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data.. If a researcher’s theory were perfect. the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. 2006. In the present research.
3. the higher the probability associated with χ2.validation index (ECVI). 3..1 Chi-Square (χ2). the normed fit index (NFI).3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) This index measures the error of approximation in the population and to question “how well would the model. 2006). Thus. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3.7. pp. 1998.10 indicate poor fit. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis).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 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. 1998). 112). an insignificant p-value is expected. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. 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. However. 107 . (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12).7.7. one incremental index.0.7. Hair et al. the ratio indicates a good fit. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). and a measure of parsimony fit. 2006). For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). 3.7.00 in which values greater than .
and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al. the normed fit index (NFI.00 with value closes to 1.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI.00.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. The index can range from zero to 1. an RMR greater than . 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. Values range from zero to 1. Tanaka & Huba..10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. The index ranges between zero and 1.7.00 with value more than .00 being indicative of good fit.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.7.7. 3.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. 3.7. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. 1980) represents a ratio of the difference in the χ2 value for the fitted model and a null model divided by the χ2 value for the null model.00.7. Bentler & Bonnet.7.00. 108 . Thus.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit. with higher values indicating better fit. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. 2006). 3.
109 . and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit.3. 2006). 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. In such cases. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. considering its fit relative to its complexity.00. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices.7. 1994). a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. Like other parsimony fit indices.. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. Values range between zero and 1. in this case. 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. 750). It should be noted that. James. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al.. 2006. 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.7.7. p. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index.00. Mulaik & Brett. Although values range from zero to 1.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI.7. Browne & Cudeck. 3.
7. 2000).05. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. in this case.3. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. If the opposite holds. 3. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. p. 1976).7. 1956). 1976. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. it is said to be positively skewed. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores.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. If a distribution is assymetrical and the larger frequencies tend to be concentrated toward the low end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the high end. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. In this case. 37). Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another.
Barrett & Morgan. 111 . 1997). the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech.normality of variable distributions. Marcoulides & Hershberger. A commonly used guideline is that. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1. 2005.
13 years (SD = 1. with a mean age of 20.1 4.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.6% 82 15.9% 14.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.9% 23.55).9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .5% 27. 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 4.4% 269 27.5% 6.4% 146 14. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university. 4.1% 34. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.1.1 Description of the Samples Age.9% Total 441 100% 45. Table 4.1% 562 57. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.1% 536 100% 54.1). with results of these tests reported in this chapter. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.1: Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Malay Gender Male Count % within Gender % of Total Count % within Gender % of Total Count % within Gender % of Total 148 33.1% 121 22.6% 15.6% 12. Then.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL). Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.3% 8.5% 57.4% 333 62.
with a mean age of 20. 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.63.25 years (SD = 1. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. range from 18 to 25).Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.68.5 per cent). 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. In Study 1A.01 years (SD = 1. In Study 3.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese.35. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. followed by Malay (27. with a mean age of 20. 113 . range from 18 to 27). with a mean age of 20.43 years (SD = 1.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. range of 18 to 26). In Study 1C.9 per cent).53. In Study 1B. Thus. 149 taxicab drivers participated. In Study 2. with a mean age of 19. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. range from 18 to 29). 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.89 years (SD = 1.
35 1.3% of the sample. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.63 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 % 12.5 114 .3 11.D. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20. Johor or Perak made up 53. The mean age was 43.68 1.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.19 years (SD = 11. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.2 7. SD = standard deviation 4.01 20.53 1.9 2. range from 23 to 73).4% of the sample.25 43.1. Kuala Lumpur. 1. Table 4. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.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 19.7 4. Table 4. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.1 6.2.65. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.2: Age.89 20.3).19 S.5 8.
0 7.2 2. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.2 17.8 5. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.1 9.9% of the sample. Perak or Penang made up 50.1.2 3.6 2.1% of the sample.9 0.8 9.4).7 11.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.6 1.4 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 3 Participants in Study 3 were all professional taxicab operators who had been licensed to drive their vehicles commercially within Kuala Lumpur.7 3.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.5 14. As the sample was 115 .9 7.6 100 4.4: States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses N Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % 13.7 100 4.4 4.4 0. Table 4.0 10.5 1.8 11.1.
In the present research.5). 1978). no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses. 4. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers.2 4. 2000).1 Reliability and Validity Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha Cooper and Schindler (2000) claimed that reliability relates to the accuracy and precision of a measurement procedure.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. 116 . the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. Sekaran (2000) offered a similar definition in which the reliability of a measure indicates the stability and consistency with which the instrument measures a concept and helps to assess the “goodness” of the measure.2. 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. 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. A Cronbach’s Alpha of .
Table 4. of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .738 .904 .808 .774 .786 .910 .707 .754 .711 .783 .737 .714 .742 .740 .747 .788 .701 .783 .827 .741 .720 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .733 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .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.735 .781 .734 .808 .881 α .727 .824 .772 α .830 .756 .739 .782 .817 .718 .715 .703 .811 .730 .887 .702 .810 .720 .740 .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 .749 .715 .727 .782 .798 .784 .906 .890 .
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. and those greater than . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated. RMSEA values less than . with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.800 . 1998. only Form A was used.807 . with minimal error variance caused by wording.6. 1998). 1985). it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. 118 . 1998).10 indicate a mediocre fit.3 Validity Test Results In the present research.804 . we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.953 .2.804 Study 1C .857 .916 .08 to . Table 4.958 . The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4.929 .10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. 205).801 . Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures. 1998).811 .2. In Study 3.802 4.803 .2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale.80.806 . confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom.804 . Byrne.807 Study 1B . depending on which is used (Byrne.05 indicate good fit.903 . ordering or other test construction factors” (p.80 or above).4. more than .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 .808 Study 2 . values ranging from .805 . fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.876 .
089 .98 .000 .00 .93 .99 . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges. the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.00 . Table 4. externally-focused frustration. As shown in Table 4.00 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 . RMSEA values in each case were less than .000 .097 .2.92 .077 .000 .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 .98 .96 .99 . 4.098 .00 1.00 .054 .00 1.047 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .000 . and destination-activity orientation.98 1.000 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.97 .00 .3.97 1.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.97 1.91 . 1992).024 . This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.061 .00 1.99 .91 .048 . the higher the goodness-of-fit).90.7.90.00 1.100.000 . If the value of CFI exceeds .00.98 1.00 1.097 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1. it is possible to have negative GFI.92 . indicating good fits.92 1.96 .00 .00 1.000 .00 1.00 . freeway urgency.99 .070 .074 .96 . A third statistic.000 .96 1. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.00 (the closer to 1.95 1.00 1.99 .00 1.
91 .92 .93 .4.98 .95 .083 . and both GFI and CFI were more than . anger (ANG).92 .98 .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) .071 .91 .93 .058 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.99 .97 . Table 4.98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .3.95 .2. C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.00 .91 .081 .030 .059 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.93 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.085 .96 .063 .2.98 .93 .93 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.92 .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).99 .3. hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .90.096 .96 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.100. CFA revealed that parameter values for I.073 .96 .085 . RMSEA values were less than .96 . externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).091 .052 .97 .8. Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).93 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I). verbal aggression (VER).93 .95 1.000 .081 .
98 .088 .97 .97 .096 .92 .98 .96 .96 .90.98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .2.92 .98 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.047 .93 . indicating good fit (see Table 4. CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.098 .97 .95 .090 .3.081 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.025 . RMSEA values were less than .98 .10).(IND).055 . Table 4.98 .98 .96 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4. CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.089 .95 .098 .97 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).99 .083 .070 .98 .97 .94 .100.94 . Table 4. derogation of others and revenge.97 .100.98 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.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 .095 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.97 .97 . RMSEA values were less than . and both GFI and CFI were more than . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .92 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.081 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.98 .97 .9).088 .070 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 .97 .10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI .90.98 .058 .073 .
280) -.280) .037(.246(.3 Normality.140) .408(.203(.057) 1.091(.140) .140) -.020 (.4.403(.409(.140) . 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 1.962 (.140) -.280) -.064(. 2005.256 (.192) 1.280) -.106) 1. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.094 (.069) 1..280) -.140) Study 1B Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression 122 .140) -.260) .323 (.140) .140) -.280) .191) 1.511(.140) -.140) .226 (. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality. Marcoulides & Hershberger.280) .280) . Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.188(.353(.179(. Table 4.11: Normality Tests.582(.140) -.280) .126(.356 (. 2006).560(.805(.120) 1.105 (.875(.085 (.428) .297(.102) 1.140) -.091) 1.656(.280) -.064(.140) .052) 1.239 (.179(. 1997)..560(.099) 1.107 (.280) .140) .022 (.280) -.351 (.297 (.154(.332 (. Table 4.107) 1.085) 1.183) 1.297(.146(.280) .219 (.080(.280) -.280) -.410(.278(.186) 1.192(.082 (.204(.085 (. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.140) .379(.05).719(.126(.140) .091(.331(.099(.280) .241(.034 (.280) .099(.409(.278(.099) 1.280) . In all cases.280) -.064) 1.195 (.140) -.280) .280) .140) -.140) -.190) 1. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.183) 1.920(.140) -.010 (.085) 1.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.453(.
503(.153) .533) .306) .629(.417) .264) .497(.153) .338 (.417) .106 (.247) .106(.022 (.812(.198(.979(.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 .435) -.435) -.360) -.219) -.153) .417) -.099) 1.223 (.210) .306) .451(.210) -.053(.088 (.306) -.106(.007(.392(.423(.300(.469) 1.913(.153) .306) -.306) -.022 (.053(.360) .417) -.940(.210) .219) .030(.156(.467(.370(.276(.100) .153) -.138) 1.259) .994(.852(.426) .195 (.070 (.265) 1.321) 1.366) 1.852(.214) 1.915(.011 (.719(.256(.186(.962 (.210) .277(.317) 1.003 (.959 (.362(.120(.715(.567(.153) -.266 (.210) .062(.153) .306) -.157) .160 (.104) 1.209(.147(.236(.098) 1.435) -.210) .153) .540(.913 (.024 (.153) .435) -.187) 1.110 (.417) .366(.210) .847 (.084) 1.435) -.978(.478(.297 (.952(.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 1.306) -.324(.435) -.640(.276 (.128) .271(.135) 1.805 (.138(.463(.210) .295(.219) -.327 (.142(.822 (.001 (.354 (.375) 1.048(.713(.219) .024 (.681(.360) .128 (.435) -.210) .219) .270) 1.293 (.510) 1.359 (.153) .210) -.153) 983(.052) 1.267) .986 (.537(.841(.417) -.147(.153) .153) .435) .359 (.052) 1.153) .807 (.911 (305) 1.973(306) .101) 1.417) -.279 (.159(.244(.417) -.417) -.417) -.884(.219) .417) .051) .501(.247) 1.113 (.064) 1.131(.306) -.948(.219) -.567(.414(.130(.417) -.153) .306) .Table 4.972(.919 (.102) .057) 1.210) -.219) .306) .006(.799(.962(.051) 1.154) -.360) .098) 1.443(.306) .
4. column a).12. column c). injury occurrence was much higher.12: Crash and Injury Occurrence OUTCOME VARIABLES STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Number of Participants’ Reported Crash 181 255 174 157 22 Vehicle Damage a 84 142 102 45 17 Out-patient Treatment b 68 75 47 58 3 Hospital Admission c 29 38 25 54 2 More than half of the automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. column b).12. Table 4. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. However. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.13). (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.4 Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Participants in all studies indicated whether they had experienced an accident within the preceding twelve months in which their vehicle had sustained more than RM100 damage and. 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) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. with 44. if so.12. For motorcycle drivers. 124 .3 per cent being hospitalised.
involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. Table 4. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No.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 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 crash Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.Table 4.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency.
05). Also. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. freeway urgency.16 shows means. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility.05). 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 internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. However. Table 4.17 shows means. Study 1C. Most of these correlations were significant (p<.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. Table 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Table 4. Study 1B. externally-focused frustration. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). All these correlations were significant (p<.4. standard deviations and relationships between distal.5. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. standard deviations and relationships between distal. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.15 shows means. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. in Study 1B. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. 126 . crash occurrence and crash injury.5 4.05). it was not correlated with injury occurrence. Both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) were not significantly correlated with the HAT subscale measuring hostile automatic thoughts related to the derogation-of-others. and destination-activity orientation.
416** 1 .553** -.818** 1 .471** .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.88 7.246** .247** .339** .376** .52 34.278** .202** .280** .388** .218** .15: Means.57 4.901** .942** 1 .476 .625** .562** -.23 2.434** .64 7.147* .396** .00 165.04 26.342** -.376** .662** 1 .516** 1 -.147* -.69 24.96 19.186** .209** 1 .371** .566** 1 -.22 3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.211** .716** .08 2.201** .D.2691 6.Table 4.749** .152** .3455 .45 6.58 .78 .76 3.129* .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .381** .533** .97 43.44 4.01 level (2-tailed) 127 .239** .345** 1 -.391** -.442 1 -.482** .306** .036 .191** .155** .231** .5 5.027 1 .544** -.316** .405** .435** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .804** .340** .
518** .236** .50 5.816** .22 4.481** .550** .347** 1 -.147** .418** .319** .489**.65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.338** .5 6 17.440**.414** .56 2 4.16: Means.438** 1 .584** -.254** .157** .520** .697** 1 .386** .337** .343** .3079 .408** .762** .66 3.275** .816** .355** .452** .444** .97 4 4.376** .225** .540** .86 6.028 -.153** .382** 1 -.01 level (2-tailed) 128 .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .363** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .039 . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.159 -.028 .150** .254** .491** .178** .355** .491** .407** 1 -.089 -.D.213** .84 5.45 5 87.496** .310** .48 3.9 12 71.393** .60 10 16.443** .403** .4624 1 -.586** .172** .445** .276** .051 .380** .555** .400** .003 .173* .516** .324** .69 8.514** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.271** .148* .380** .162** .847** .43 12.278** 1 -.167** .434** .531** .515** .195** .358** .85 9.298** .5695 .964** 1 .013 1 .103 -.342** .688**.430** .378** .779** 1 -.14 4.521** .353** .268** .542** .140* .341** .411** .331** .286* .9 28.071 .855** .602** 1 .366** .213** .372** .240** .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 .842** 1 .9 13 46.505** .103 -.448** .55 9 21.4960 17 .294** 1 .82 7 13.48 5.369** .91 15 27.331** .463** .334** .312** 1 -.401** .461** .41 3.669** 1 -.200** .343** .25 8 18.731** .254** .462** .53 19.279** .176* .84 7.099 .Table 4.00 14 19.921** .335** .763** .067 -.355** .172** .213** .509** .587** 1 -.272** .06 3 2.523** .
277**.465** .42 3.476** .395** 1 11 65.119* 1 21 .186** .856** 1 17 43.076 .354** 1 5 88.226** .131* .367** .192**.261** .245** .139** .368** .348** 1 6 16.390** .199** .227** .277** .17 -.224**.31 -.735** .378** .37 6.306** .592** .254** .310** .402** .151* .307**.189** .641** 1 4 4.304** .745** 1 7 13.385** .191** 1 3 .183** .81 -.349** 1 16 67.338** .-181** .281** .103** .402** .58 9.481** .158** .210**.67 7.838** .530** .306** .101**.033 .202** .8 -.296** .288** .296** .095 .130** .17: Means.268**.291** .52 7. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.9 -.518** .506** .379** .241** .484** .292** .003 .9 -.Table 4.404** .228** .531** 1 10 16.038 .85 19.508** .383** .412** .095 .565** .150* .895** 1 13 26.221** .451** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .501 .749** .364** .230 .38 5.230** .292** .86 -.615** .64 -.203** .456** .370** .235** .69 -.49 6.81 5.343** .345** .196** .166** .422** 1 9 22.148** .183** .97 -.70 1 2 4.11 12.281** .193**.80 17.224** .069 .366** .270** .222** .70 3.03 -.305** .448** .191** .530** 1 Note: (1) Internality (2) Externality-Chance (3) Externality-Powerful-Other (4) Hopelessness (5) Total Aggression (6) Physical Aggression (7) Verbal Aggression (8) Anger (9) Hostility (10) Indirect Aggression (11) Hostile Automatic Thoughts (12) HAT-Physical Aggression (13) HAT-Derogation of others (14) HAT-Revenge (15) Behaviour in Traffic (16) Usurpation of right-of-way (17) Freeway Urgency (18) Externally-Focused Frustration (19) Destination-activity Orientation (20) Crash Occurrence (21) Injury Occurrence * Correlation is significant at .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .516 .230** .413** .342** .294** .181** .387** .235** .151* .264** .304** .36 -.03 5.302** .17 -.454** .422 -.549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.313** .423** .275** .7 28.483** .434** .259** .357** .250** .78 8.D.356** .251** .229** .185** .7 -.178** .183** .166** .296** .392** .254** .252** .228** .081 .18 -.323** .162**.137* .05 -.275** .00 -.293** .241** .219** .70 8.221** .286** .526** .212** .314** .298** .057 .210** .082 .202** .216** .862** .016 .747** .311** .109 .109 .428** .320** .218** .31 3.545** .804** .150* .340** .270** .189** .246** .725** .446** .534** 1 18 19.502** .89 5.209** .377** .199**.98 4.120 .110 .401** .343** .364**.355** .075 .91 -.258** .174** .324** .278** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .259** .308** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.277** 1 8 19.167** .265** 1 19 25.271** .263** .106 .588** 1 14 20.192** .278** .141* .051 .424** 1 12 18.373** .
Similar to observed results in study 1A. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. 4. 130 .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. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. 1B and 1C. freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. However. standard deviations and relationships between distal. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. and destination-activity orientation. all BIT subscales. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales.18 shows means.5. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4.
043 .313** 1 .259** .028 1 .349** . 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.415** .562** 1 .226** .219** .182* -.D.269** .291** .167 .14 27.233** .614** .179 7.409** .535** 1 .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .317** .630** .6803 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.264** .111 -.035 3.081 8.418** .122 7.621 3.192* -.880 .314** .66 5.356** .941** 1 .428** .580** 1 .025 -.334** .367** .251** .66 1.917 3.323 23.072 .500** .201* .5738 8.758** 1 .240** .55 175.325** .212* .4683 .139 .06 20.290** .4966 1 .413** 1 .232** .165 .76 48.374** .376** .Table 4.413** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .50 73.01 level (2-tailed) 131 .750** .371** -.383** .48 5.485 11.18: Means.150 -.183* 1 .876** .30 .200* -.
proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. In general. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. correlations between I and distal.19 shows means.19.5. 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. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. In this study. Differing from Studies 1A. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. 132 . As indicated in Table 4. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other.4. 1C and 2. However. standard deviations and relationships between distal. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. 1B.
32 3.060 .07 8.071 .275** .401** -.072 -.74 15.864** 1 .156 .095 .32 7.561** 1 .060 -.618** 1 .109 -.721** .D.117 .338** 1 .141 .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .032 1 .0301 .15 32.020 .576** .271** .182* -.200* .039 .268** .150** .173* .99 10.106 .213** .121 .235** .31 8.156 .023 -.204* .08 15.092** .153** 1 .121 .161 -.236** .373** .82 11.643** .289** 1 .147** .276** .2000 .443** 1 .261** .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .324** .128 .05 3.149 .072 .222* .622** .151 -.3 6.091 .816** .240** .528** 1 .116 .120 .646** .521** .06 2.167** .853** .114 .371** .103 .246** .45 19.197* .636** .194* 1 .028 .240** .65 75.117 .254** -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .604** .82 5.148* .180** .177 1 .025 -.54 11.040 .023 .067 .165 .Table 4.454** .257** .12 4.229** .030 .193* -.4 5.194* .19: Means.588** 1 .235** .872** .418** .43 8.658** .234** .166 .172** .061 .749** .213** .178** .218* .17 20.404 .048 .225** .070 -.152 .88 1 .10 1.84 2.51 3.117 .112 -.42 66. 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 15.13 3.35 11.245** .263** .091 -.171 .255** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.013 .807** .018 -.292** .378** 1 .054 .149 .286* 1 .
p<. p<.01 B=.1.278. p<.04. p<. p<.3 inclusive.063. Table 4. p<. p<. p<. p<. p<. and externally-focused frustration.1 through H1.4.1.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.041.090. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.01 B=.063.048.117. For the destination-activity factor.01).01 B=.146.01.01 Study 1C B=. freeway urgency.088 p<. but not destination-activity orientation.01 Study 1B B=. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.01 B=.01 134 . results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.01 B=.172.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.1.01 Study 3 B=.125. Study 1B: B=.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=.4 was not supported.1. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency. p<. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.01 B=.095.034. These results supported H1. p<. p<.135.229. p<. p<. p<.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.1).202.01 and Study 3: B=.238. p<. results from the logistic regression analyses in all studies indicated strong relationships between total BIT scores and the likelihood of a motor vehicle crash occurrence (Study 1A: B=.180. Study 2: B=. Study 1C: B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<.6. These results supported H1.01 B=.080. p<. p<.102.01.095.01. p<. 4. p<. p<.20).120.01 B=.01 B=.315. H1.01 B=.01 B=.
165. Table 4. p<. p<. p<.22.01.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.21: 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=.069.01 B=.01 B=. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.01 B=. Study 1C: B=.05 Study 1B B=.019.035.01 B=. p<. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled. p<. Study 1B: B=.091.038. p<.01 B=. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. p<.033 p<. respectively).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.24.118. p<.6. p<. freeway urgency.074.23 and Table 4.140. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.2. p<.075 p<.087.01 B=. These results supported H1. p<.01 and Study 2: B=.21). 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=.01 B=. p<. p<. p<. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<. p<.01 Study 1C B=.035.064.01 B=.095.059. Table 4.01.01).01 B=.158.120. 135 .054. p<. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.01 B=.
64 26.22: 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<.35 33.48 171.73 170.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.23: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Travel Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.29 21.31 161. * p<.98 33.68 26.77 8.25 25.88 28.35 24.92 157.30 22.77 165.35 4.50 28.32 28.25 5.16 3.52 25.600** Table 4.15 161.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.01.35 155.89 21.44 178.64 27.05.32 147.82 33.41 167.98 171.Table 4.03 25.56 175.60 185.06 19.43 20.184** 136 .074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.82 168. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.
In Study 2.01).39 19.52 3.53 17. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.05) and about once every two weeks (p<. On the other hand. about once every two weeks (p<.05).14 15.01 14.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.00 16.29 15.61 165.06 160. In Study 1C. 137 .060** In Study 1A. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.12 154. In Study 1B.05.25). drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.Table 4. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.73 24.24: 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<.01).81 167. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.00 14.01).73 157. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.01). Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.05).06 8. 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<.12 161.05). 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. and those who almost never travelled (p<. * p<.77 16.88 167.01).
05.80 22.74 77.01.89 20.31 2.859 11.81 22.55 10.26: 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<.437 (N. the difference in means of total BIT scores among the drivers in Study 3 was not statistically significant regardless of their years of experience as taxicab drivers. * p<.528** In Study 3.81 175.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.S.37 9. Table 4.94 20. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score. N.920 (N. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174. N.50 184. However.33 78.S. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.05.S) Therefore.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<. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.81 161.47 5.56 3.26 10.55 73.97 8.27 14.71 168. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.52 172. In other words.31 78. * p<.63 1.50 24.381 10.753* 38 48 27 20 77. However.26).58 188.62 10.68 20.64 24.82 162.65 73.60 72.09 15.Table 4.01.316 1. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .
t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. only H2.6.1 was confirmed. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. ANOVA results for age. In Study 2.27). ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. only H2. the lower was the total BIT score. Again. though. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores.1 and H2. For ethnicity. 1B. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. In Study 3.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. Contrary to the subhypothesis. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. ethnicity and age – were investigated. 1B. In this case. however. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. In Studies 1A. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers.2. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. 139 . Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. 4.been predicted by H2. 1C and 2.2. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect.
05 F=11.Table 4.74. In Study 3.00. Study 1B t=2. Externality-Chance (C). N. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<. p<. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). p<. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). N.01 F=9.66. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.01 F=2.05. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. p<. N.01 F=1.05).01 F=19.01 F=8. N. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. Study 2 t=3.562.1 and H3.01 F=1.12.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores.S. H3.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated.62.6.05). Therefore.98. p<. In all studies. p<.44.2 was confirmed.01). p<.56. In Study 1B. Study 1C t=3. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. p<.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2.01 F=. 4.99. male 140 . In Study 1A and Study 2. 1C and Study 2. In Study 1C.68.9.3 was not supported. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<. Note: Not significant In Study 1A. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers. p<. however.05. t(250) = 2. p<. In Study 1B.53.81. p<. H3.2 were confirmed.05 F=4.S.S.S. N.
299) = 5.041.05 respectively.941.476. 119) = 5.01). Consistent with findings in Study 1A. p<.05. E and P scores. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. For Studies 1A. p<. t(299) = 2. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.490. 298) = 3.05 and p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. 1B. 249) = 3.503. F(2.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. 299) = 3.01 respectively). In Study 2. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I.05 respectively. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. 298) = 3. In Study 1C.05).05. t(120) = 2. F(2.01).462. p<. In Study 1A. p<. F(2.566.527.05). ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. 1C. p<.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.01.370. In Study 1B.05 and F(2. 298) = 6. F(2. p<.05 and F(2. 141 . F(2. p<. p<. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.01 respectively.
ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. were supported.2 and H4. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. Therefore. H4. in Study 2.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. so H4. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. H4.2. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers.2.3.1.01). that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.6. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.Therefore.2 and H4.05. However.1.1. t(120) = 2.3 was supported. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores.3.3. p<. In addition. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers.2. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. 4. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.1 and H5. H5. H4. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1.079. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. 1B or 1C.3 were supported.2. H5. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. 142 .3. In Study 1. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. that age influences hopelessness.3 were not supported. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. H4.
p<. with the sample of motorcycle drivers.3. respectively). p<.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . 143 . In Study 1B.01.6. results of linear regression analyses indicated that hopelessness had a significant positive effect on total BIT scores and on scores for each of the four BIT component factors (see table 4. H6.290.254. respectively). H6. In Study 2.01 and B = .354. H6. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.254. were supported. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness. respectively).28).6. p<.306.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. H6. was not supported. p<. p<.2 and H6.01.01 and B = . Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2.01 and (B = . p<. p<.2 and H6. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. p<. p<.1. p<.184.108.40.206. Therefore.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . 4.371. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.01 respectively). p<.342. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.341.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. were supported. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01 and B = .312.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .239.01. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. that internality would influence hopelessness. In Study 1C. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -.
p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<.01 B=. p<. p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .01 B=.232. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .157. p<.01).05 Study 1C B=.3 and H7.05 Study 2 B=.287.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7. p<.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<.01 B=.141.05).05).099.288.01 B=.01 B=. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.349. externally-focused frustration (B = .01).317.247. B=.01 B=. p<.151.01).S.232. p<.01 B=. p<.01 B=. p<.151. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. p<. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.278.01 B=. H7. p<.141.05 B=.1. p<.28: Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Total BIT score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A B=. p<.01 Study 1B B=.01).05 B=. p<. H7.01 B=. p<.05 In Study 1A. the higher the hopelessness scores.01).415. p<.01 B=.200. freeway urgency (B = . In Study 1B. freeway urgency (B =. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study.247. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores. p<. p<. In Study 1C. p<.2.275. N.349.05).254. externally-focused frustration (B = .280. Therefore.01). it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .275. p<. was supported in Studies 1A. 1C and 2.Table 4. H7. p<.220.127.116.11.4. externally-focused frustration (B = . externally-focused frustration (B = . p<. p<. p<. freeway urgency (B = . that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. p<.280.415.287.01 B=. p<.05) but not for freeway urgency.418. In Study 2.151. 144 . externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. p<. the higher the hopelessness scores. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01). p<.157.191.01 B=. p<.317.153.
Therefore.S. p<.718.104.22.168.01 B=-.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.1. B=.05 B=. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.01 B=. p<.3. With regard to H8. N.006. p<. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car. p<.339.01 B=. With regard to H22.214.171.124 and H8.01 B=. where only H8. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.01 B=. 145 . that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported. p<.1 and H8.336.388. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2. H8. p<.01 B=. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2. p<.29). that the higher the subscale score for I. B=. Table 4.1.297. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects. p<.044.S. H8.01 B=-.315. p<.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.S.077.01 B=-.625. N. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. provided support for hypothesis H8. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 126.96.36.199. but not H8.229. p<. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).01 B=-. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.4. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1. the lower were mean total BIT scores. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-.01 B=.2. H8. N.01 B=. p<.
p<. p<.704.01 and F=8. =8.01 respectively (see Figure 4. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. Further. F=4. p<. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. externality -chance and externality-powerful-others – were split at the median to form high and low groups so that the interaction effect of ethnicity and locus of control could be tested on total BIT scores and subscale scores for the four component factors.01 (see Figure 4.909. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way.710.581. F=4.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT.2). Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4.05. p<.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C.272. 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. 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.1). In Study 1C.01 (see Figure 4. F=7.1). 146 . p<.
033. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.282. 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. 147 .05.444. First.327.00 MalaysianIndian 70. B = . However. F=4. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72. in Study 2.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. multiple regression showed mixed results.6. R2=. p<.00 66. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. Kurtosis=-.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A. p<.05.00 68. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.00 62.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4.3). 1B and 1C.034.00 64.
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=.608.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4. F=18. p<.01.4).01.371). Residuals Normality: Skewness=.463. R2=.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .459. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4.070. B = . p<. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.167. Kurtosis=-. This means that motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores but low hopelessness scores (see figure 4.
N. p<.01 t=4.S t=2.30: Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Total Aggression (AQ) score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B t=2. N. p<. p<. however. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. and H9.05 t=. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 .6.187.690.05 t=4. However.032. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression. 249) = 5. In Study 1C.30).603.2. 4. p<.480. N.S t=1. the H9.1.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.677. t= . Table 4.690. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. p<.467.01 (see table 4. and t(250) = 2.01 t=2.Therefore. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. p<.S. F(2.210. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. were supported.780. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.521.01 t=-. p<. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. N. p<.164.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. p<.05 Study 1C t=2. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores.31). p<. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores.S t=2.05 respectively. In both studies. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4.01.820. 1C and 3. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1.603.298. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C.01 t=2. p<. In Study 1B and Study 3. With motorcycle drivers. t(300) = 2.
432.01 F=2. In Study 3. p<. N.422. N. F=1.804. F=2.S.S.564.041. p<. F=1. In Study 1C. mean IND scores of Malay. 299) = 4. N.904. F=. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.S.01). the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay.01. 249) = 10. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. F=2. Similar to the findings in Study 1B.526. N.S. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.763. F=4. F(2. F=5.01).S.S. In Study 1B. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. N.632.S. Table 4. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.S.S. F=1.S. N. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. 299) = 5. N. p<. N. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.432.01 F=.077. p<. F(2.01).01 Study 3 F=1. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores.021.567. p<.S.521.398. N.155. N.S. Mean total AQ scores and mean scores on the five AQ subscales did not differ significantly between age groups either for automobile drivers in Studies 1B and 1C or for taxicab drivers in Study 3.01).57.01. N.S F=10. F=2.05 Study 1C F=5.561. p<.S.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. F=2. F=1. N.629. F(2. N.041. N.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. mixed results were found. 150 .182. p<.05. F=1. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.
1.4. 151 . externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. were all supported. however. only H11.29). 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 4.32). The higher the total aggression scores. In Studies 1B and 1C. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.6. were supported. externally-focused frustration.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. freeway urgency. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11.1 (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. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. However. was supported. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. H10.2. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation.Therefore. respectively. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted total BIT scores and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way.4. H10. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. freeway urgency.3 and H11. H11. Therefore. H10.3 and H11. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. H11. 4. VER and IND subscale scores. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. In Study 3. H11.
This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND.01 Study 3 B=.183.01 B=. p<. However.01 B=. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. p<. and B = .01 respectively. 1B. B = .461. p<.520. p<.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=. p<.01 B=.370. p<.01 B=. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B. With both automobile and taxicab drivers.380.263. 1C. p<.565. Study 1C and Study 3. p<. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.01 Study 1C B=.01. respectively.01. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency.881.01. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. B = .370.01 and B = . p<.385. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. Also. p<.01 B=. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.491. B = . but not in Study 3.235. p<. p<.229. p<. N.01 and B = . p<. Total BIT Score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation The effects of AQ subscale factors on the total BIT score were also tested.01.01 B=. respectively. p<. Study 1C and Study 3.05 B=.01 B=.01 respectively.438.204. but not in Study 3. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 .216.540.01.263. p<.05 B=. p<.428. the higher were total BIT scores.S. N. B = .01 B=.505. p<. B = .Table 4.01 B=. p<.483.01.05 (see Figure 4. p<. p<.324. Study 2 and Study 3. Similarly. B = .387. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors.S. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. p<. p<.5). indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. B=. and B = .048. F=3. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.121. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.545. p<.
076.172. The moderating effect of I was significant.01. R2=.929.01. p<.961.645. 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. F=81. B=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.362.00 44.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52.100. R2=. p<. for Study 1B. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.6.316. Kurtosis=-.01.00 IndianMalaysian 48.05.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4. and B=-.271. Study 1C and Study 3.12.00 46. p<. In other words. Kurtosis=-.131. B=-.01.00 42.003.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores. p<.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.516.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.6.297. respectively. R2=. p<. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 . F=100.
p<. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.117.369. Kurtosis=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.088.507.015.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C.6. Kurtosis=-.01 respectively.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4. R2=. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. F=91.01 and B = .015.297. B = . F=71. p<.271.069. R2=. R2=.109.01.704. respectively). respectively).12.794.431.01. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.606.360.01.897.757. F=78. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant. p<. In Study 1B. p<.297. R2=.387.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 . R2=.271. p<. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. 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=. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Kurtosis=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.694.6). p<.01. F=94. Kurtosis=.
3. This means that aggressive taxicab drivers with high scores on either the C or P locus of control dimensions did not differ greatly in total BIT scores from taxicab drivers with low scores on the C or P dimensions. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. B = .01 respectively. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4. that the internality.01 and B = . p<. and H12. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. 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. Therefore.332. H12. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 .2.7). H12. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models. and the moderation effect was not significant.1.302. p<.significant.
249) = 4. p<. and about revenge F(2.01 but not on about the derogation of others. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. p<.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts Male automobile drivers in Study 1C scored significantly higher total HAT scores than did female automobile drivers.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3. 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<.343. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.263. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. H122 and H12. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. 156 .01.1. with the sample of taxicab drivers. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. Only H12. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3.314. Also. p<.737. p<. 4. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge. p<.279.05. t(250) = 3.05).01. t(249)=2. p<.6.3. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<.05. However.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. 248) = 3.01). F(2. 249) = 5.05).885.
derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. B = . were supported. H13. was supported. B = .2 and H14. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts.1 and H13. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14.01 and destination-activity orientation.01. respectively. p<.307. (that thoughts about physical aggression. B = . B = . p<. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores.01. B = .Therefore. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. was not supported. p<. B = . H13. with the sample of automobile drivers studied.394.224. was partially supported. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic.3.01. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts.277. on total BIT score were also tested.01 and B = .1. p<. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13.6. the higher were total BIT scores.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. 157 .413. This means that. p<. were supported. freeway urgency. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. the higher the total HAT scores. p<. This means that. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. externally-focused frustration.364.379.01.2.01. 4.3. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts.192. Therefore. p<.01. p<. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. H14. H14.
In other words. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.4. aggressive drivers who frequently entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others would have higher total BIT scores compared to drivers who seldom entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others (see Figure 4.809. 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.297.002.085). Kurtosis=.188. R2=. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 .8).565. B = . F=55. p<.072).911.01.6. Physical Aggression and Revenge. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant. Kurtosis=. p<. R2=.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.297.013.-554. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. F=57. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.05.01. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4.
and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant.475. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.01.207. F=59. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Kurtosis=.294. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. H15. Therefore. 159 .026. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.3. B = . However. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. was not supported.01. p<. B = . H15. p<. were supported.6.1 and H15. R2=.33).Aggression was significant.2. was supported. 4.297.01. p<.246. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15.092).
1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S 160 .2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S N.S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S S S N.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. S N.2.2.S 1C P.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S N.S N.S P.S S S S S S N.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1.S N.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S S S N.1.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S N.S N.1.S S S S S N.S N.S S S N.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S N.S P.S S S N.S S N.1.S N.3.S S N.S N.S S N.S P.S N.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.S N.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S S S N.S S S S P.S S S S S N.S N.S P.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.Table 188.8.131.52: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S N.1.2.S P.S 3 P.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 S S N.S S P.S N.1.2.S N.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.2.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S N.S P.
S 1B N.S STUDY 1C N.S N.S N.S S S N.S N.S S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S 2 N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S P. blank=Not Applicable N.S P.S N.S N.S N.S S S N.S N.S S S N.S S S S S S S S P.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S S N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.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.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S P.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.S N.S N.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S N. P.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.3.S 161 .S N.S N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S S S S S P.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 N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S N.S S S S S S S N.S S S N.S N.S N.S P.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.Table 4.S 3 N.S S N.3.S N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S P.S N.S N.S P.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S= Not Supported.S N.S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S= Partially Supported.S N.
S S S N.S S S S S P.S S N.S S N.S N.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.S= Not Supported.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S= Partially Supported. 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.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13. N.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression 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.S N.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.S S S N.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.S S 2 3 P.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.Table 4.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14. P.S P.S 162 .
96 RMSEA .7. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. F2.93 .93 .f. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors.060 Note: Internality (I). AQ. C. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . (2) usurpation of right-of-way. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. BHS I. C. P.045 .00000 .34. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).05522 . Table 4. F4 F1.97 .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 8.102 .96 . P.068 . F3. Aggression (AQ). BHS. freeway urgency. 2002). hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. C. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4.g. freeway urgency (F2). P.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. Study 2: motorcycle driver. F3.93 .34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. AQ. AQ.087 .1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control.00111 . two were worthy of further examination. F2.97 63. F4 F1.00126 . C. C.38 100. e. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. F3. F3 F1. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). 4. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F4 F1. Hopelessness (BHS). F3. HAT Proximal Factors F1. 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. F2. Externality Powerful-Other (P). P. F4 F1.4. P. F2. HAT I. AQ I.80 104. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. F2.58 35. Externality Chance (C).90 110. HAT I.00000 .02 d. F4 χ2 49. Hopelessness.00000 . BHS.093 . F3. F2. P I. All proposed models measured: (1) internality. C. 163 .
22 respectively (see Figure 4.02.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. which are detailed in sect. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices. with path coefficients = -. Externality (Chance).060.29 and .14. An alternate model. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. 164 . CFI=.94.42. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores.28 and . goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. GFI=.97. 5.35. ECVI=.=24.97. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. GFI=. To aid this discussion.3.13. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. For Model C184.108.40.206). .96. Externality (Powerful-Other).92) on accident involvement. d. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. RMSEA=.10). . retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. AGFI=.destination-activity orientation (F4).92) on accident involvement. values were: NFI=. . For Model C5.26.043. Externality (Powerful-Other).98).23 respectively (see Figure 4. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.97. For Model C6.=33. of the BIT score.96. . RMSEA=. with path coefficients = -. .043. RMR=.045. CFI=.f.51 and PGFI=. d.32. and PGFI=.5. RMR=.f. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. AGFI=. but not as good as for C5. For Model C6. ECVI=. C6.26. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. Externality (Chance). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. .42.
05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .045 RMR=.92* Accident Involvement .f =24 CFI=.32* Externality (Chance) .005522 N=252 RMSEA=.29* Aggression (AQ) .63* .9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 . *p<.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .58* .97 d.57* Injury Occurrence .97 GFI=.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.99 P-value = .79* . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.51* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.
63* .50* .02 GFI=.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.96 d.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.39* .060 RMR=.92* Accident Involvement .00126 N=252 RMSEA=. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.56* .58* Injury Occurrence . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.98 P-value = . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. *p<.77* .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .31* Externality (Chance) .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .29* Aggression (AQ) .f =33 CFI=.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .
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). F2. IND. HAT-D.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY. GFI=.41. CFI=. F2.80) on the accident involvement. F4 χ2 108. IND PHY.084 . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F4 F1. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. HOS.91. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. F2. F2.92 . ANG. HOS.f. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). HAT-P. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). HOS.00000 .00111 . 167 . the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. VER.00000 . ANG. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. ANG.35).91 .In addition. IND. ANG.94 169.73 169.91 . HOS. HOS. path coefficients = . Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). HAT-R PHY.95).13 respectively. F3 F1. HAT-R PHY.084 . Angry (ANG).93 . F2.66).078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY).10. F3 F1. freeway urgency (F2). F4 F1. HAT-D. VER. RMSEA=. F3.91 . HAT-P. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). HAT-D. F3. ANG.=61.080 . Aggression (AQ). Hostility (HOS). 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . HAT-P.f.081 . HAT-R PHY. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. Indirect aggression (IND). F3. VER.41 d. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. IND. HAT-P. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153.65 and .66 153. Verbal aggression (VER).078. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. HAT-D. IND.66 131. d.00000 GFI RMSEA .00000 .
61* .41 GFI=.f =61 CFI=.29* Hostility .05 .69* Anger .66* .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .58* .68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .65* .62* .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .80* Accident Involvement . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.000 N=252 RMSEA=.91 d.058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.72* . *p<.83* .078 RMR=.11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.95 P-value = . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.63* Indirect Aggression .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.
Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers. F3. P I.94 . the participants were motorcycle drivers. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). p-value GFI RMSEA I.36).94. F2. P. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. F4 F1.94 . the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness.86 23 28 23 .2 Study 2 In Study 2. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). CFI=.12.95 .7.047 .062 Note: Internality (I). GFI=.047.12). C.4. RMSEA=.33 33. C. 169 . C. Hopelessness (BHS). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. path coefficients = -. 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=29.12 d. Externality Chance (C). F2.f. BHS F1. freeway urgency (F2).36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. d.17631 . BHS I.=28. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.98). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. Externality Powerful-Other (P). P.f. F3.07580 .058 .66) on the accident involvement. F4 39.80 respectively (see Figure 4.06722 . F2. F3 F1. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.65 and . The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT.
88* Crash Occurrence .89* . *p<. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .f =23 CFI=.99 P-value = .80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .12 GFI=.70* BIT4 .66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .65* Externality (Chance) .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.047 RMR=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.78* .17631 N=122 RMSEA=.05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.95 d.83* BIT3 .57* Internality -.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.
F2.95).37). path coefficients = -. F2.7.97 . F4 Crash Occurrence 31. I.20 and .061 Note: Internality (I). CFI=. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.=21.93 . C. AQ F1. Externality Chance (ExC).00524 .37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I. P. F3.4. F3.f. 37. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control.13).59 17 . F2. F2. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.061. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.20 respectively (see Figure 4. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). P. RMSEA=. the participants were taxi drivers.3 Study 3 In Study 3. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. F4 Crash Occurrence 18.40) on the accident involvement.06743 . F4 50. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.94 . P Proximal Factors F1. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). but not Externality. freeway urgency (F2).39. F3. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. d.027 I.39 21 .95 .068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence.22 23 . C. Hopelessness (H). Internality and AQ.82 28 . 171 . AQ F1.35265 . F4 Outcomes χ2 d.f.079 Injury Occurrence I.03084 . AQ F1. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). C. GFI=.95. F3. C.
Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) . *p<.13 .053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .95 d. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.f =21 CFI=.061 RMR=.74* -.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.39 GFI=.61* BIT4 .39* Internality -.63* BIT3 .95 P-value = . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.20* Externality (Chance) .
(2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement.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 4.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. 4. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable.39). Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. consistent with path analysis results. Therefore. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. and. Table 4. Step4=Significance level of the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable is reduced indicating a partial mediating effect – or – independent variable does have a significant effect on the dependent variable indicating a complete mediating effect. 4.8. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement.8.38). Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.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.4. 173 . the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. 2 and 3 are satisfied.
8.40).BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence. 1B and 1C. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). Table 4. Table 4.41). in Studies 1A.8.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4.40: 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 4.39: 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. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. where the 174 .
C or P and the two crash outcomes.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable 175 . BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. Table 4. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. For taxicab drivers in Study 3.
442. Study 2: t(372)= 8. Study 2: t(421)= 7. p <. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. 176 .01.665.01. p <. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. Study 2: t(372)= -3.01.Table 4.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A. Study 1C vs.663.9.993. p <. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers. Study 2: t(421)= -4.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. Study 2: t(422)= -2. p <.05.01. Study 1B vs. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(421)= -3. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness).01.837.41: 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. Study 2: t(422)= 8. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. Study 1A vs. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4. p <. Study 1A vs. 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. Study 1B vs.01. p <.426. Study 1C vs.162. p <. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I.
p <. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. 4. p <. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(421)= -8. Study 2: t(421)= -3. p <.9. t(986)= 3.01. “freeway urgency”. and t(986)= 35. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. Also.01.01. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension.186. p <.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. p <. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.01.614.01.402. Study 2: t(422)= -6.837. t(986)= 6. t(986)= 34. p <.977. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. Study 2: t(422)= -4.801. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension.01.01.01.01. Study 2: t(421)= -7. p <. t(986)= 30. p <. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.926. Study 1B vs. Study 1A vs.01.687. Study 1B vs.01. t(986)= 5. t(253)= 8. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.577. Study 1A vs.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension. p <.861.01.747. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -5.01.01. p <. t(986)= 7. Study 2: t(372)= -7. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence.01.01. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. and to injury occurrence. p <. p <. p <.261.704. 177 .433. Study 2: t(372)= -6.211.01. respectively. Study 1C vs. Study 1A vs.01. t(986)= 37. Study 1C vs.775.200.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. t(253) = 2. p <. p <.9.484. p <. p <. 4.
t(253)= 35.737. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. p <.977. p <. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence.01. 178 .946. t(253)= 39. “freeway urgency”. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. Also. p <.01.01. t(253)= 11.881. and t(253)= 37.01. t(253)= 31. t(253)= 8.982.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. p <. p <.01.01.01and to injury occurrence. t(253)= 8.567. respectively. p <. p <.016.
not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect..1). They found gender. Elander et. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past.4. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. Elander et al. 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 an earlier study. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. Often. including gender. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP).CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger.2. 1995. Evans. 2. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. 2002b). freeway urgency. al. 1993. multi-factorial perspective. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. (1993). The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . 1991). upon examination.
Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. In other words. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. In the present research. is that factors interact with each other. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. All too often. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. except with taxicab drivers. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. BIT. hopelessness. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. 180 . A rich variety of individual factors exists which. though. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. 1991). But findings were more complex than that. if different. In the contextual mediated model. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering.total BIT score and component scores. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. the proximal variable. Further. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. As a result. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence.
… 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. 220.127.116.11). 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
1 months.2 years.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic.1.25 years. Because of occupational demands. SD=131.3. SD=1. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. They were also more experienced (266.6 months as licensed drivers. respectively).63.53. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. respectively). the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. and 36. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. 5.hierarchy.7 months. SD=11. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students.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. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience.5. Inclán. For taxicab drivers. Of course. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . SD=. In the present study. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. For taxicab drivers. as well. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. SD=22. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. 20. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. 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. there are other possible influences.01years. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads.16. SD=1. By virtue of their age and occupation.
findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. were necessary to succeed. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. corrupt practices. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. however. In an environment where career choice. 2005). for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. influence peddling and status-related privileges. along with selfpromotion skills. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. financial matters and social affiliations are made. Carment (1974) also found. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. The finding that Indian- 188 . when compared to Canadian students. Devashayam. perhaps due as argued earlier. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. spousal selection. 2003. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. rife with bureaucracy. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure.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).
This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. and. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results.7 in 1996. 2002. 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. 1981). Indeed. Nandy. 1998.5% annually from 9. 1999. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). including locus of control. but two possible influences stand out. where Cheung et al. Gomez. as a result.5 million in 1991 to 11. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China.8 million in 1996. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. by extension. 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. an internal locus of control. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. 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. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. 1999).3. 1999. 5.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. 1966. as a group. Again. Salih &Young.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. Sendut.
2001) In the present research. Parkinson. 2001. with the resulting “emergence of ‘ethnic citizens’ who have been encouraged to participate in the Malaysian nation uncritically through the virtual worship of development symbols and unquestioning deference to political leadership” and national value systems (p. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. Clayton. 2000. 318). in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. 2002. 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. 2002). 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. Nonetheless. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society.women’s friendship patterns. Jenkins. 2008. bringing them closer together in outlook. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. Hewstone and Ward (1985) showed that participants of Chinese descent in Singapore and Malaysia made about the same attributions about behaviour of Malay subjects as they did with regard to same-ethnicity subjects. Huff. more recently. King & Parker. Consistently. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. Oetting & Salvatore. 2003. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . Lynch. Lawton & Nutter. Dukes. Miller & Rodgers. by the enraged driver. feeling more frustrated at external sources. 5.
(2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. (1996) and Deffenbacher. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. Underwood et al. physical aggression. Deffenbacher. Underwood et al. Petrilli et al. These effects were observed most strongly when drivers had cognitions involving physical violence toward other drivers (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out”). but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. on a journey by journey basis. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). With taxicab drivers. Oetting et al. Their findings were replicated in the present research where it was shown that the higher the total frequency of hostile automatic thoughts reported by drivers. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . Parker. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. Finland and the Netherlands. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. 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. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger.conditions. during such incidents. Further. 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. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently.
The effects of aggression on behaviour. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. but not when they involved the derogation of others. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers.. in the samples studied here. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. although still significantly. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. 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. That is. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). In essence. 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 . the world and others).strongly. Such responses. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. as well. however.. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. 2006). would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. 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. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. 1997).
Hochschild. 401). “in ergonomics. 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. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i.are determined by chance or fate. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. 1977).e.e. Downe & Loke. Meichenbaum. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. 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. in the form of hostile automatic thoughts. Language loaded with emotional content. and particularly with negative emotion. Generally. 193 . has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. (2003). receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). 1994. but there may be more to it than that.. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. 1990. 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. or self-talk. 1995. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. It is moderated by cognitive processes. like any other mental task.. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. 2004. 1987. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. p. 1979. Finally. Similarly. Certainly. Novaco. true to operant learning principles. The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al.
MartinLoeches. Tomkins.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. Performance (e. 2000. 1997). Stein. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. Carretie. Hinojosa.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005.5. p. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. 2000. 5. Lambie & Marcel. 1999. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. 2002. hostile automatic thoughts. Taylor & Fragopanagos. Watson & Wan. aggressive emotionality. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. 162). and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort.. 1996. Dien. In fact. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. 2005). Trabasso & Liwag. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. and attempting to exercise control over. 2002. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . Mercado & Tapia. 1993). Martin. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases.g. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. 2004. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase.Robbins. Making sense of. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”.
2004. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. According to Williams.. When composing a model. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. By estimating and removing measurement error. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. who in 1970. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. or independent variables. and perhaps most important. explain criterion. EQS and AMOS.. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. 2006). or dependent. The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. 2000). researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. Gavin and Hartman (2004).. 2006). Structural equation modelling (SEM).multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables.434). including dependent and independent variables. or latent. 1998). Hair et al. factors represented by multiple variables. involved in the analysis. 2006). The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. p. First. Second. 2004. SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. Karl Jöreskog. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. In addition. a multivariate technique. Finally. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. 195 . using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. 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.
In the present research. when assessing the fits of measurement models. GFI. Williams et al. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. SRMR. Therefore. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. etc) 196 . Shook.e. 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.2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. (2004) has been critical of most studies. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. Shook et al. the comparative fit index (CFI). and the root mean square residual were included.e. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. as suggested by Hair et al. (2004) noted that. Ketchen. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool.5. the goodness of fit index (GFI). 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. 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. Hair et al. TLI. (2006).5. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. CFI. Sümer (2003) added that. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model.
GFI. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. Md-Sidin... RMSEA lower than .3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. It is argued here that. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. Maruyama. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. CFI and CFI) greater than .90. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. 5. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. significant p-values can be expected. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. 1998. 1998). 2001. 2000). the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. At the same time. 2001. Sambasivan & Ismail. As a general rule.In the present research.. Hair et al. 2006. we would argue. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 .g.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. CFI. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. Fit index values (e. but there is little guidance in the literature as to what course of action should be taken when two models each meet standards for goodness-of-fit. 2006). 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.5. Structural equation modelling should.
More importantly. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. 1C5 and 1C6. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model.3). they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. In some cases. statistical. 4. 158). Model 1C5 (see Figure 4.7. There is some support for this position in the literature.1. 88). Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. as suggested by Byrne (2001). Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5.soundness. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. two structural equation models.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. However. “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. Thus. In the case at hand. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 .10) excluded the fourth factor. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. and practical considerations (p. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. destination-activity orientation. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. stating that.
C.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.97 0.48 30. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.96 0.91 0. F2.97 0. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.Table 5. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.97 1.045 0.499 0. Injury Occurrence 35.043 129.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. AQ. AQ.060 0. 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. F2.909 0. 199 . BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.034 97.02 0.97 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.02 0.98 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. P.96 1.94 0. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.99 0.42 11. C. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. P.02 0.97 0. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.
For practical reasons. while for Model 1C6. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. Kayumov.. farther along. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. it is 0. goodness-of-fit. Reason. Schwebel. but still acceptable. 2006. in this analysis. 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.1). 1995. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. 1996). Storey. 1990. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. Hair et al. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. However.48.42. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. 2006). Manstead & Stradling.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. 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. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. 200 . based on the notion that each variable included may. Nahn & Shapiro. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. By selecting Model 1C5. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. they should be dropped. et al. in particular. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. Parker. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that.
Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. with five distal factors (internality. externality-powerful other. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. Sümer.28 and . crash occurrence (r = -. Evans. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . and hostile automatic thoughts). .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. In Study 1C.g. on crash outcomes. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. Distal factors (locus of control: internality.5.35 and . 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. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. externality-chance.45).66).34) and injury occurrence (r = .4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5. externally-focused frustration. 1991.5.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . aggression.1).35.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. Rothengatter. for automobile drivers sampled.5.14. externalitychance. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . via BIT. 2003). Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. The results suggested that the alternative model.28 respectively). . As observed from the investigation of structural paths.4.21).6. freeway urgency.26. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 .29). indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. externality-powerful other. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. 2001. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. .
crash occurrence (r = . 202 . The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . Aggression.65 and . The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. which sampled motorcyclists. freeway urgency. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. had a better fit than other alternative models. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. Results indicated that the first alternative model. 5. externality-chance.20) and injury occurrence (r = . freeway urgency. on the other hand. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. crash occurrence (r = .66) directly predicted crash outcomes. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. This suggests that motorcyclists who believed that outcomes were determined by fate or chance tended to report engaging in riskier behaviour in traffic and had greater crash accident involvement. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. externally-focused frustration. externality-powerful other and hopelessness).4.55). Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . externally-focused frustration. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.23) and injury occurrence (r = . One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models.24).5.25). and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores.41). and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.
crash occurrence. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. as a result. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. in turn and indirectly. crash occurrence.5.3). with four distal factors (internality.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. Results indicated that the third alternative model.4. Distal factors. for crash outcomes. such as internality. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. with the sample of taxicab drivers. had no significant effect on BIT scores.5.5. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. 4. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. to measure outcome. externality-chance. had a better fit than alternative models. aggression). However. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. 203 . aggression and hostile automatic thoughts.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3.6. via BIT.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. externality-chance. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. externally-focused frustration. For motorcyclists. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. Finally. externally-focused frustration. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. externality-powerful other and aggression). for the sample of taxicab drivers. 5. their crash occurrence. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. freeway urgency. hopelessness. freeway urgency.20 and . the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. externality-powerful other. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect.
a total of five samples were taken. four of which were comprised of students from a single university.6. 2005. 2004). 2005). 278279). Sekaran (2003) points out. In the present research. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. 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. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. however.6 5.1 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.5. To a large extent. 204 . the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. the present research was intended as an initial attempt to examine the influence of psycho-social variables on driving behaviour and crash outcomes among a given high risk sample. chosen at random from taxi stands. Further. Huguenin.
the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. with a mean age of 20.55). Since. Selangor.2%). involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. The most populous state. Study 1C: 99.6% (Study 1A: 99. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. as elsewhere.In Malaysia.2). 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. 205 . it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. in Malaysia. during the interval from 2000 to 2003.6%.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample.2% and Study 2: 99. Table 5. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes.31. Sabah. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state.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.13 years (SD = 1. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. Study 1B: 100%. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years.
9 (9) 7.396.100.000 1.818.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.387.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.6 5. in this case. For that reason. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.9 (3) 2.887.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.6 6.2 (13) 11. 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.0 12. Not all states have the same number of drivers.286 1.2 (5) 0.188 1.8 (6) 6.3 (12) 11.2 7.576 2.880 3.8 6.150. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.000 Per cent of national population 26.000 2. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.200.000 2.7 (14) But.5 (4) 4.674 1.6 2.260.2 (1) 3. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.7 (2) 2. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.0 4.300.2 3.000 3.6 0.2 (11) 12.000 1.004.9 9.6 (10) 7.807 733.Table 5.4 5. In both cases.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) 7.000 215.500.5 (8) 3.2 11. Table 5. 206 .1 (7) 8.500 1.0 8.503. Table 5.
144 12.93 9.70 12.05 2.46 8.45 9.170 13.026 10.600 135.198 156.76 3.27 14.88 2.20 12.490 525.24 0.496 187.163 10.34 3.37 3.428.96 3.22 17.97 12.041 92.561 1.635 1.104 6.735 165.36 8.84 11.92 25.606 24.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.4 4.75 4.212 39.029 273.13 6.35 4.68 7.003 10.093 5.90 5.774 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 12.34 11.Table 5.24 2.28 3.50 29.16 2.89 3.55 7.920 181.93 0.137 698.064 9.63 207 .768 6.88 3.85 1.785 393.467 25.725 70.19 3.617 10.91 2.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.251 324.43 2.230 266.70 3.588.98 0.19 4.19 7.
43 2.15 5.170 13.20 15.679 90.Table 5.64 2.727 161.64 1.10 9.49 12.45 2.656 821.88 2.92 25.467 25.725 70.112 347.283 770.029 273.958 % 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 12.992 776.221 36.064 9.76 3.79 13.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.48 1.35 4.59 12.768 6.63 13.288 444.98 0.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.22 3.38 4.93 7.28 3.37 3.4 4.995 233.133 705.59 1.606 24.03 4.88 3.212 39.989 6.561 1.026 10.02 7.46 5.36 8.144 12.82 9.38 0.63 11.46 14.856 310.722 255.75 5.74 208 .49 0.93 9.66 11.617 10.14 7.615.003 10.104 6.33 4.305 276.27 14.02 10.
796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.814** 1 . it can be argued that they were. it is possible to say that sampling. Of course. 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. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 .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) .824** .4. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. at least.Table 5.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . Table 5.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. participants came from – or. 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. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes.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. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes.3 and 5. was representative of a high risk driver population.903** .
violations and accidents should be linked together. accidents. The problem.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken.6. e. Keskinen. demographic factors. attitudinal factors. 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. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. unless the variation within the group is very small. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. 1998. Much important data is available in official statistics. Again. Hatakka. We can also get rough data of exposure by age.g. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. the data has to be disaggregated. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . in studying driving behaviour. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. 5. accident distributions by age. 1979).. Rothengatter. However.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. Exposure. as in other psychological research. however. 2001). Elander et al. 296). 1998.
the more information is lost through memory lapses. 13). Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. The assumption.g. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. In the present research. 5. the longer the time period for data collection. Particularly. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus.. as in a study reported by Chalmé. muscle tension. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p.g. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. for instance. 211 . 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. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. In future studies.. therefore. 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. though. Visser and Denis (2004).6. as well. 1996). Yet.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. 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. blood pressure. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. combined interview and observational methods. in studies of driving behaviour.
4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. 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. 5. individual standard. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. Mercer. and the hypothesis (H2. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . 1999). The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. Unfortunately. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. 1971). there is a certain imprecision to the measure. 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 has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. 1997. Second. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems.6.In the present research. 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. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. First. 2002).
2008). 1974). Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. frequency or distribution in the world (p. 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. 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. because they have taken place recently. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. 1993). but not always. 121). This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. Some of the inaccuracy in the use of distance travelled as a driving frequency measure can be simply attributed to random or systematic errors in prediction (Elander et al. 2003. Specifically. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. 1973. on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. but because they are inherently easier to think about. 2004). Wood & Boyd. 181). 213 . 1993. “Some events are more available than others not because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. 2003). p. 2002). and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. Kahneman. although this has not been firmly established. eventful or recent. Slovic & Tversky.. In much the same way. this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. 1982). in other words. it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. Often. But.frequency that were used in this research.
emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. on one hand. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. Sansone. where driving histories generally include lengthy. 1991). it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 . but training participants in standardised record-keeping. (2003). many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. in their studies of roadway aggression. which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. 2001) . asked participants to record the time of day.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. A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research.. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. Finally. 2000). Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. Deffenbacher et al. traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. Similarly. Of course. road conditions. Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. for example. with adequate street lighting and hevily-enforced speed limits is not the same as driving the same 30 kilometres at night on a remote expressway at higher speeds. poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. during periods of low traffic volume. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic.
2004). that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. Michon. 5. have high information content. Good theories are simple. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. In addition. 1985. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology.studies undertaken. 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. 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.1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. selfreported measure used here. In the present research. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . 2005). over-arching theory (Rothengatter. Summala. are testable and contain no contradictions. 2004). Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified.7. 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. 2002. To summarise. 1991). 1994). It was felt. Further research is required. Ranney. 1997). during the study design process. categorical perceptions of driving frequency. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge.. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. the decision was made to use participants’ subjective.7 5.g. 2005).
create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances.patterns of relationships. 294). The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. in particular to structure data. or represent processes. 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”. Hauer (1987). The answer is probably not. Throughout the development of traffic psychology. 94). Grayson (1997) agreed. often in graphical form (Grayson. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. stating that. The answer to this question is possibly yes. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. 1997. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . check facts. if they are modest in ambition. 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. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. on the other hand. at times. p. 32). the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data.
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. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. Yet. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. who argued that. and if they are resultscentred (pp. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. In the present research. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. 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. 95-96). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. hopelessness. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. In this case. 304). for instance. In 217 . those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control.3). it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. 2. The present research probably more represents the sort of model building favoured by Evans (1991) and Grayson (1997) than it does an attempt to test a broad theory such as those described earlier (see sect. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988).
With several exceptions. while still very much a model and not a theory. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. Kerlinger (2000) and others.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). for instance. as defined by Grayson (1997). openness. 2003). has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. sensation seeking (Sümer. 5. anxiety. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures.3. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. psychoticism. According to Ranney (1994). Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. extraversion.7. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. While the present research 218 . The contextual mediated framework. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. crash-free driving. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. not on everyday driving. conscientiousness.. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. 2005) were included as distal variables. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations.other studies. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. 2.4). much current research. depression.
those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. 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. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. 219 . no matter how reliable a safety device.did not test any of those theories specifically. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. It is possible that drivers with an internal locus of control will rely more on their own skills and abilities while they are driving and. Following this reasoning. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. Within their proposed conceptual framework. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. or at least to react more slowly. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. On the other hand. Conversely. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. As a result. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. They argued that locus of control. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control.
5. Gidron & Davidson. 2005. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. 1997. 2004). consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. though. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. 2002.. Typically. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. 1996). 220 . (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes. scarce resources for screening drivers. can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk.In the present research. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. 1982). whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. external locus of control and hostile attributions. The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. Specifically. changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. Summala. 1996). once identified. Christ et al. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA.7. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. al.3 Driver Selection. task capability (Fuller. could be screened out.
education. 1961. 1957. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. 5. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. 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.7. 1957). World Health Organisation. teams of humans.4.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. and machines are highly intricate (p.5. Slinn. 1). or legal intervention. for the last fifty years. Unlike 100 years ago. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.7. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans.4.7. At the same time. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. From this has emerged the growing 221 .4). Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”.
is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. for instance. The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. 222 .application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. Sadano. reduce risks of extreme lane deviations by using a motor to increase steering torque in a manner that creates a “driving in a bathtub” sensation for the driver who nears a lane edge. or the adaptive automation concept. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. 2001). so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. depending on environmental factors. Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track.6). (Bishop. Suda & Ono. At the same time. Murazami. Maggio & Jin. operator workload and performance (Inagaki. 2005). Stough. These have been applied to in-car. 2003). as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). 2001). Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5.6). In the case of LKA. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications.
such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). 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. 1993. in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. 2003. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. 1998). Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in “restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. Ulrich. Tassinary. 1997).6). 2004. was associated crash outcomes. Fountaine and Knotts. 1999. The present research also found that freeway urgency. 2000). Herzog. in particular to pursue environmental. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. 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. Richardson & Downe. Black. Brown & Noy. Parsons. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. changes in traffic speed. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5.with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. traffic 223 . Safety benefits from traffic management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety.
224 . Dietze. questions of alternative urban structure. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. 309). and whether this information varies according to the situation.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. p. 1991). however. Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. Proctor. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. 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. Probably. have pointed out that many problems still exist in the implementation of such technological solutions and that some of these – including the creation of higher mental workloads and overestimation tendencies in the use of information – may be particularly salient for young. 1992). however. 1996. journey purpose or other human factors. 1996. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. inexperienced drivers. Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation.
transitions for. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards.1 Vehicle Road Environment lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. and likelihood of. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. etc. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. Examples are the signals and ramp meters to too high for an upcoming use of “Bot’s dots” or monitor traffic on streets and curve.Table 5. departure warning. – 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.1. keeping. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. 225 . blind spot sensing and lange change assist. Reducing conjunction with high lane keeping assist systems congestion and increasing intensity reflective devices (LKA) – these reduce the smooth traffic flow through driver’s need to make wider right-of-way – wider driver information. Hi H 1. lane road conditions. “rumble strips” in expressways. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). infrastructure.
2 lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data.(continued) H 1. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications. to in-vehicle display terminals. Radar. than the safety standard. traffic lights) safe. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures.1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. the systems intersection modification. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. the host vehicle.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. generally pilot”. point. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. H 1. ACC systems provide modifications. including those in adjoining lanes. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare.. 226 . 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. are travelling. 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”.1.1. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors.
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. “Speed tables”. Such devices include chicanes. pinchpoints and gateways or arches. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway. signs with calming or vehicles. 227 . The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. H 1.3 vertical displacement. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration.(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. environment and other frustrating stimuli. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised.
228 . dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand.1. notice of future road construction and notice of public events.(continued) electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. notification of construction ahead. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand.4 in-vehicle biofeedback devices – systems that measure driver arousal and eye focal points and cue the driver when measures do not calibrate with attention to road conditions. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. weather-related road conditions. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. H 1. safety messages. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. This information allows drivers to avoid or. at least.
7. to inadequacies in driver training and testing. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. however. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p.5. teachers or the police. like community centres or places of worship.4. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. The present research suggests that. 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. 2001). In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. 229 . to some extent. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). It suggests that. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. 73). The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia.
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. N6). 1030). and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. They also stated. p.5.4 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. 2007. Second. was studied in a 230 .4. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. legal measures change least often. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. such as visibility of enforcement. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. The bias of false consensus. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. 265). Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. 1978. however. that “Of these three approaches. p. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic.7. from the findings of the present research. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. or an internal locus of control. First.
They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. The TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions which in turn are influenced by the individuals’ positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour (attitudes). Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. 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 . 1991. Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. 2001. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. Parker. 1992).” 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). The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. By doing so. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. Stradling. on the other. 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. Azjen & Fishbein. Reason & Baxter. Ajzen.sample of drivers by Manstead. is allowed to occur in a Just World. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). after all. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. 498).
By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. 232 . or not adhere. to traffic regulations. Similarly. 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.drivers’ decisions to adhere.
derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). gender. Sümer et al. In doing so. locus of control. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. Results have indicated that. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. Wállen Warner & Åberg. 2005. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. 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. ethnicity. it was concluded that driver experience. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. 2003. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. In the present research. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. as proximal to the crash outcomes.g. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. when risky. 2002.. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. 233 . hopelessness.CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential.. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. Iverson & Rundmo. Sümer. as expected. A contextual mediated model. age.
traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. like Brown and Noy (2004). and accident risk (e. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. task capability (Fuller. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. 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. In the present research. 1995. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. However.g. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. Further. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. In most cases. Hoyt. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. 2003).. Montag & Comrey. that when faced with competing models in safety studies.. This is Of the variables studied. 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. Harrell. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. 1986. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. or external locus of control. it is argued here. It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. 1982). the best fit usually implies the best model. as well as statistical grounds. 1987).In the current literature. Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 . 1973). 1974).
1998. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. Huguenin. in combination. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. 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. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. Groeger & Rothengatter. 2005. In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). However. cultural anthropology. For example. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. road engineering and ergonomics. Additional studies of the role played by hostile automatic thoughts and cultural influences in moderating the effects of aggression on safety-related behaviour will provide a better understanding of psychological processes and may offer new insights into the treatment of dysfunctional driving behaviour. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter.. as well. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography.g. they 235 .aggression were observed. Rothengatter. Several authors (e. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic.
findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. In the present research. injuries and death. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. 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. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. 236 .form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. educational and enforcement spheres. 313). Indeed. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). 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. management. Through a multi-disciplinary approach.
Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights.H. N. 31-39.A. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia. P. 5.B. (2003).. Psychological Testing and Assessment. and Pederson. Puzzles & Irritations. Crash data analysis: collective vs. A. M. R. K. Bahrain. 1867-1874. MY: Pearson. 35.E. S.R. (1993).  Aiken. A. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. H. (1979). The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. T.  af Wählberg. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1999). (2005). Neural systems for recognizing emotion. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective. Drinking and driving: intention. 12.  Abdullah. Subramaniam.. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. (2007).H. A.E. P. L.  Abdul Rahman.  Åberg. 289-296..  Adolphs. Mohd Zulkifli. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. M. A.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 473-486. 169-177. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. (2003). Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. 25. individual crash level approach.REFERENCES  Abdel-Aty.. 237 .  af Wählberg. Musa.  Abdul Kareem. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. Journal of Safety Research.S. (2002). Mohd Nasir. 38(5). 10(2). Radin Umar. and Kulanthayan.  Ahmad Hariza. (2003). Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. and Anurag. and Law. L.T. H. (2002). Petaling Jaya. Third edition. 581-587. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. R.
In Kuhl. (2001). Edwards. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics.  Åkerstedt. Women’s Studies International Forum. 179-211. M. 7. I. (2001).. J. and Tubré. S. (Eds. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag.  Arbous.J. Ajzen. and Fishbein.J. and Kerrich. 303-313.. and Kecklund (2001).H. S.  Ajzen.105-110. (Eds. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners. T. J. Personality. W. (1997). London: John Wiley & Sons. The theory of planned behaviour. 52. Current Psychology: Developmental. (1985). 238 . Social. (2004). Annual Review of Psychology.  Ajzen. 47.E.. gender and early morning accidents.  Ajzen. 33(3). T. 404-415. and Hewston. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Biometrics. (1987). 23. W. Age. 27-58. J.) European Review of Social Psychology. Learning. Tubré. M. Day. and Haigh. Aggressive Behavior. A. Nature and operation of attitudes. 10(6).  Armitage. B. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. (1952). 623-633.  Archer. Human Factors.  Amin. A. In Stroebe. C.D. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. and Christian. M. I. 10. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. Bell. 340-342. (2003).) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior.  Arthur. 291-307. 22(3). (1991). and Beckmann. A.T. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup.C. (2005). Journal of Sleep Research. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. E. J. I. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour.A.G. 187-195.  Armstrong. I. 50(2). J.
A. and Dischinger. In Trimpop. (1994). (1986). 231-234.M. G. (Eds.S. and Tortosa. Continuing carnage on our carriageways. When hope becomes hopelessness. R. Manila: Philippines. F. Arthur. 239 . In Barjonet. and Kenny. P. Barrett. 89-105. 14-29). S. R. P-E.  Austin. Retrieved April 4. European Journal of Oncology Nursing.M. P. Boston: Kluwer. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. M. (2002).  Baron. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.V. (2005. 2(4).-E.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. (2002). R. P..  Aylott. 279-284. Accident Analysis and Prevention. strategic and statistical considerations. 4(2). and Alexander.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.. F.  Aschenbrenner.  Asian Development Bank (2005).bakrimusa. 51(6).  Barjonet. T. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. GJ. 21-30). M. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2007 from http://www. Human Performance. and Biehl. 34. J.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour.C. R. B. (1997). 34.  Barjonet.  Bakri Musa. (1991).D.F. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. Wilde.A.-E. and Carson. (1998). October 18). NL: Styx.L.  Ballesteros. 1173-1182. In Rothengatter. and Carbonell Vaya E. K. (Eds. (2001). An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. W. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia).) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.31-42.. (Ed. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. D. Groningen.M. and Tortosa.
M.  Beck.T.. and Simons-Morton (2002). (Ed. In Zeig. R. (pp. R. Journal of the American Medical Association.  Beck. In Rubin.C.F. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly.T. 1(1). Hostility and Violence.  Beck. New York: Perennial Harper Collins.. (1974). New York: Meridian.A. In (Flinders. Weissman. and Berg.G. (1980). Cognitive models of depression. Lester.  Benzein. and Weissman.E. (Eds. 218-229). 588-606.. Beck. 1146-1149. 240 . New York: Cambridge University Press.. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior.J. A. Theory: the necessary evil. 157-179). and Bonnett. 149-178). 234(11).C. (2005). A.T. D. A. 234-240. A. D. 42  Becker. and Trexler. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale. P. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.T. (1975). New York: Teachers College Press.) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field.H. D. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger. D.K. K. Health Education and Behavior. Kovacs. 19.T. Palliative Medicine. J. (1996). (1993). and Steer. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. A. The level of and relation between hope.G. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. and Loftus. (1987b).M. (1999). 73-84. and Mills.T.S. (1993). (1976). (1987a). 29(1). G. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. Psychological Bulletin.. Hartos. New York: Brunner/Mazel. A. A.  Beck. A. L.) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp. J.T. 5-37.  Bentler. 88. A. (Ed.  Beck.  Beck.  Beck. E.  Belli. A. H. Cognitive therapy.F. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. E.
 Bridger. (1981). New York: Routledge. Graziano. (1994). and Bonino. B.  Boff. (1984). Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Williams.  Boyce. S. R.C. and Shimmin. A. 132(5). Talley.  Blacker. Managing the high costs of road deaths.A. 15(1). 38(3). Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern. and Geller.. D. 37. M. and Valentine..S. R. R.S. J. March 12). Benjamin. T.  Bettencourt..php?id=185148. A. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder. Applied Ergonomics. 241 . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.  Bernama. (2006).B.. Anxiety. Journal of Personality Assessment. F. 53. 43. Malaysian National News Agency.A. (2001). New York: McGraw Hill. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. and Haney. McKee.  Blumenthal. Psychology and road safety.  Blasco. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. 2007 from http://www. (1995). Introduction to Ergonomics. (2002). K. 313-322.  Bina. 95-104. F. 751-777. Ben-Zur. H. Accident analysis and Prevention. 45(1). S. 39-55. 44-51.my/bernama/v3/printable. Applying Psychology in Organizations. Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. 37-40. Stress and Coping. (2006). Retrieved March 30.J. M. 34(1). A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity. J. T. E.bernama.com.E. 472-481  Binzer.. 391-399. Psychological Bulletin.D. (2006.
318-330. D. Amsterdam: Elsevier.G. I. International Journal of Educational Development. and Ghiselli.  Browne. E. In Rothengatter.W.  Bunnell. and Carbonell Vaya.C. (1992).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (2007). In Rothengatter. 9-19). I. 20-23.  Brown. 242 . (2002).. observational data and driver records.. W. N.P. E. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality.. (1997).  Brown. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia.  Brown.  Brindle. 445-455. Goldzweig. Ergonomics.J. C. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity.W. C. 267-278. T. R. 219-241. Political Geography.  Burns. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. and Huguenin.M. G.C. 24(1).D. Levine. T. 37(4). Accident Analysis and Prevention. 4(4).. (2005). W. G. Haliburton.E. 345-352. 29-38  Brodsky. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. P. (2000). 641-649.S. R.S. M.D. R.  Brown. (Eds. R. Schlundt.C.  Brown.D. 105-124. Briggs. 21. (1995). Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’. (Eds. and Wilde. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. Journal of Applied Psychology. I. Personality and Individual Differences. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp. 32(1). 24. and Noy. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. and Warren.E. 14. Amsterdam: Pergamon. (1982). Multivariate Behavioral Research. (1989).K.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. and Cudeck. (1948). 18(2). The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. (2004). I. 27(3). T. R. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Multiple perspectives. and McIver. 45-50. G. (2000). Journal of Consulting Psychology. 9. 21.L.. 65-115)..  Carretie. J. A. B. Parada. (1974).  Caird. (Eds. 35(6). Hinojosa. 736-751. Human Brain Mapping.. B.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. A. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts. 63-65. W.L. T. J. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. Environment and Behaviour.. M. and Nasar. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire.W.  Carsten. Internal versus external control in India and Canada. O. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Ergonomics.  Buss. Oxford: Elsevier Science. M. International Journal of Psychology. Cohn. & Santos. J. A. (Eds). Gonzalez. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. M. L. T.  Byrne.G. and Durkee. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. and Borgatta. F. and Cortes. (2001). The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. (2002). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts..  Byrd. Buss. (1998). Applications and Programming. (1999).  Carment. (1957).P. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services.K. Human Factors for Highway Engineers. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. Martin-Loeches. (2004). (2004). Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.F. 31.  Carmines. 343-349. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates.J.D. In Bohrnstedt.  Byrne.W.A. E. J.  Cackowski.H. 243 .M. and Tapia. R. (1981). E.A. 22. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. E.H. Applications and Programming. (2003). J. 290-299. J. In Fuller.. 15981613. D. M.. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. L. and Warren. and Kline. Mercado. 47(15).
and Denis. R. Monash University. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury.F. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. Sunway Campus. Dictionary of Psychology. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences.. (2006). (1985). R.M. Howard.-H.org/workshops/05CampoGrande  Chan.  Cheah.H. Driving: through the eyes of teens. Matto Grosso do Sul. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies.0. Y. R. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. 41. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. What are we allowed to ask. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. (Eds.pdf 244 .) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. H. Retrieved March 31. November). In Rothengatter.  Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001.. and Yeh. Cheung. 467-477. Campo Grande. 61-71). W. D. S. Brazil. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei.  Chaplin.  Cheung. Taiwan.-L. 10(2).-H.  Chang. 21(4). S.P. J.  Chalmé.  Chaloupka-Risser (2005).. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. Carver. and Huguenin. P.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. T. The Star. Retrieved October 15. (2004). 2008 from http://www. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Amsterdam: Elsevier. M. 2007 from http:www.W. Visser. and Nash. and Lim. (2007). what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. New York: Dell. Kuala Lumpur. (2000).D. 557-562. Malaysia. November 12). R.ictct. Personality and Individual Difference. F. T. (1996). N6. March 20-22. J.ghipr.  Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). (2007. 109-122.G.
P. MacGregor. Bradshaw.P.  Chung. and Stiles. 22(3). and Darviri. Chioqueta. Y.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp. (1996). Smiley. 33. 24(2). 255-274). 38(6). M. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Journal of Safety Research. June). and Truman. Cancer Nursing.. Personality traits and the development of depression. C. Personality and Individual Differences. Time vs. 2007 from http://www. Ward. S.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. French. C. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. and Huguenin..S. Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development.makeroadssafe. In Chmiel. R. M. and Costello. T. Kasniyah.’ Injury Prevention. 193-200.T. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK. Koumaki.G. 679-684. In Rothengatter. and Bukasa. 13(2). J. E. T. N. Retrieved December 7.. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys...org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res.. P. and Lee-Gosselin. Cairns. (2000). 431-443. Safety at work. Panosch. (2007).D. Lamsudin. S. Bartle. Tzamalouka. N. W. London: Wiley-Blackwell.. and Ward.D. (2004). 39. P. hopelessness and suicide ideation. A. (2002).  Chliaoutaks.. 245 .. A. Demakakos. Accident Analysis & Prevention... (1992). V.  Clarke. B. 28(2).  Chipman. H. D.  Christ. 196-203. (Eds.  Chmiel. R.C. N. R.. G.  Commission for Global Road Safety (2006. 1283-1289..K. Amsterdam: Elsevier.M.pdf  Conrad. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. )2007). Helmets. Towner. Bakou.E. C. and Chan. (Ed. (2005). 974-981. 377-390). Driver selection and improvement in Austria. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong.L. 125-129. C. E. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. P.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.  Christie. (1999).. N. M.
F. p.S. R.T.  Cresswell. Cooke. 45-62.F.  Davin Arul (2005. T.M. Wagenaar. (Eds.. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.  Costa. W. Legal and Criminological Psychology. Applied Cognitive Psychology. In Fuller. D.L.  Crittendon. and Huguenin. American Psychologist. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. and van Koppen. P. N48  de Raedt. L.J. P.my/permalink. 95-104. and Santos. Journal of Personality Assessment. The Star.A. 152-171. 10. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. W. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  de Waard. (1961). (2005).  Crombag. N. J. Accident proneness. February 8). Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. (1962). 98-117. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario.  Cozan. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. 21-50.thestar. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. D. 246 . The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed.W. 10. Retrieved April 5. 263.com. 5(1). (1991).R. R. and Durso. 64. October 18). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 161-175). 2007 from http://blog.M.A. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. 20(5). K.D. P.asp?id-7003.  Davies. R.  Cowardly Malaysian drivers. 16(5). and Froggatt. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. R. and McRae. (1995). (2002). and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). and Patel. (1996).J. G. Mental workload. (2006. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system. H.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. In Rothengatter.
Journal of Counseling Psychology.D. E. T. 27(4).) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. (2005). and Swaim. M. R. P. (Eds.S. 729-730. Richards. and Oetting. J.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.. 161-171).B. R.R..S. 41.E. Oetting.  Deffenbacher. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers. E. The expression of anger and its consequences. S.L. Lynch. C. (2003).  Dharmaratne. Lynch. Age differences – drivers old and young.R. D. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 47. (2003). (2004).  Dewar. Oetting.. AZ: Lawyers & Judges.R. Women’s Studies International Forum. Petrilli. Individual differences. and Olson. and Ameratunga. (1996). R.S. 34.. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia.C. and Brookhuis.L. 123132. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan.  Delhomme. Amsterdam: Pergamon. (Eds. (1997).S. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. 575-590. and Carbonell Vaya. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers.. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. R. 111-142). E. 333-356.  Dewar.F.W. R.. Lynch. R.  Deffenbacher. (2002b). T. R. 28. Personality and Individual Differences. R. 26(1). Oetting. Tucson. Huff.N. 247 .L. E.R. R.L. (Eds. N. K. In Rothengatter. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making. T. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving. P. and Salvatore. 50(2). L. Lynch. T. and Olson. J. 209-233). E. P.  Devashayam.A. Filetti. J.E. Behaviour Research and Therapy.E. (2002a). 5-17. 373-393. E. 14(12).) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. (1999).L. On the measurement of driver mental workload.  Deffenbacher.. (2000). J. Tucson. E. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates.T. 1-20. S. J.D.  Dien.. (1998). In Dewar. and Meyer. In Dewar.. R. 383-402. Ergonomics.L.L.  Deffenbacher. de Waard. and Morris.
Social Science Journal 38.. and Ballard. Science & Technology. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups.Y.a. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents. (Eds. 278-285). Bahar. (Eds.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. J. A. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. S. C. 85-92). M. (2003). In Dorn.  Dixey. 14(2).  Draskóczy. 197208.D.. Nigeria. T. R. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. 31. N.. negative emotional and risky driving. A. R. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. A. (2001). Mohd Yusuff. Ball. ‘Fatalism’.L. and Loke. and Che Doi.G. Powers. C. Miller. T. In Khalid.A.. E. and Carbonell Vaya. (2007. C. D. J. T. Women drivers’ behaviour.M.. K.S. Kedah. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A. (1997). 1146-1158. Jenkins. M. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town. 53. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage.  Dobson. (2004. S. M.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. and Mayser. W. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. Amsterdam: Pergamon. and Rodgers.  Downe. December).E. Lippold.  Downe.  Dukes. and McFadden. Brown. 223-231).R. M.P. Clayton.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.G. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press. (Ed. Malaysia..L.E. L. 263282.. H. Lim. Knowledge transfer. R. 248 .  Dodge. (1987). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (2003). (1999)..L. Sungai Petani. L.T. (1999). Dietze. 525-535. Health Education Research.  Dula.. S. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation. 33. M. In Rothengatter. 323-331. November). J. The safety potential of the new driver assistance system (CSA). Asian Institute of Medicine. Ebersbach. and Coie... Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture.
J. (Ed.D. Chawky. G. 4(3). (1984). J. 838-844.M. A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex.  Ellis.  Dunbar. G. 2007 from www. C. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. West. and Turecki. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp.(Ed. Retrieved December 25.  Engel. Journal of Transport Geography. New York: Lyle Stuart Press. 209-306). 113. Causal ordering of stress.ictct.. 74. March 20-22. 279-294. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings... (1971). and French D.. 159165.. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. New York: Academic. 69. 293-300. Dumais. H. (1962).) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. (2005).B. 17-26). (2002). Czech Republic.pdf  Engel.A.. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Dyal. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior.  Elangovan. (2001). Boyer.R. (1996). A.. Annals of Internal Medicine. C. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. A.  Elander. G. Annals of Internal Medicine. Lalovic. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. A. Ménard-Buteau.L.  Elvik. N. Kim. R. Psychological Bulletin. A. 22(4). (2005). 50(13). Lesage. 249 . (1968). Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress..  Edwards. G. Leadership and Organizational Development. J. (1993). To what extent can theory account for the findings of road safety evaluation studies? Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) 15th Workshop.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. Brno. G. 771-782. R.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. satisfaction and commitment..L. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. In Lefcourt. R. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis. A. 201-22. In Underwood.
Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education..000 and RM5. and Chambers. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach.  Ey. The Star. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.M. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. (1986).M. 81-94. C. Evans..S.. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. 16.M. London: Medical Research Council.A. K. 86(6). 55). Traffic Safety and the Driver. E. p.  Farmer. M. December 10). American Journal of Public Health. and Popovich. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers.  Evans. (2000). (1939). J. (1995). and Chambers. (1996). L. Barnard.  Farmer. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. (1929). L. 250 . and Chambers. E. London: Medical Research Council. N22. (1991). 19-36. (1984).6bil losses yearly. G.  Evans. E.. L. Risk Analysis. S. Klesges. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. L. and Alpert. Herth. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 784-786. E. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. (1976). Hadley. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Patterson. E. B. (1926). 23(5).J. S.  Ferguson. 421-435.  Evans. E. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 6(1). Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs.A.G. L. 84).G.. W.  Farmer.  Farran. New York: McGraw Hill.  Farik Zolkepli (2007. 38).G. London: Medical Research Council.
Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Forward.. (2006). S.. I. 137-145.P. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. 51(1). and Richardson. August). P. M. R. (1974). 289-298.  Friedman. Tix. (1990). Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. and Seiden.  Firestone.  Fuller. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese.R. 251 . S.  Finn. and Ajzen. R. 412-426. and Järmark. (2004). Human factors and driving.A. 38(5). In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. Ferguson. S. and Santos.T. P. I. Journal of Safety Research 38. S. M. R.W. R. San Francisco. (1998. Type A Behavior and Your Heart.W. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 207-213. and Rosenman.E.  Fishbein. Attitude. R. B. 77-97). A. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. Teoh. J. Journal of Counseling Psychology.. 63-77. and Barron. A. (2002). causes. In Fuller. R. 12(4). Journal of American College Health.A. E. (2007).A. 47-55.  Forward.18(4). New York: Knopf.H. S. K. Women and traffic accidents. Intention and Behavior. Cross Cultural Management. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. 37.  Fuller. H. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. R.. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. (1986). 461-472. (2005). and Bragg. Recherche Transports Sécurité. (2000). R. (2005). Linderholm. 66.  Fuller. Malays and Indians compared. Belief. Accident analysis and Prevention. consequences and considerations.  Fontaine. (1975). 115-134. 9.  Frazier. and McCartt. The task-capability interface model of the driving process.
A. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. 109-128. Hillsdale. and Syna Desevilya.B. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. Petaling Jaya. Journal of Behavioural Medicine.  Gidron. H. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 42(9). A. A. (1999). McHugh. S. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour.D. (1949). G. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view. European Journal of Public Health.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Y. Gal. R. (Eds. and Blanchard. (2008).  Glass. rights and redistribution in Malaysia. and Carbonell Vaya. Amsterdam: Pergamon. N.  Grayson. 252 .. 167-202).  Graham. Aggressive Driver. 58(1).  Ghazali. Behavior Paterns.. E.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp.S.B. (Eds. L. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. (2003). T. 12(4). N. 203-220. (1996).  Gomez. C.A.. (2006). 540-546. 93-96). C.. J. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India.S. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. Journal of Food Products Marketing. Malta. (2006).C. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée. 6. (1997). 487-491. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.E.E.  Ghiselli. Mutu. R.. E. Fuller. 33(6).W. and Mahbob. 109-116. Rajasingham-Senanayake. D. Nandy. Tracing the ethnic divide: race. 16(5). (2006). and Hyder. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. 1233-1248. Y.T.  Gidron. T. Ergonomics. and Gomez. R. and Davidson. and Pender. E. (1977). (1999). Journal of Applied Psychology.T. K. and Brown. 13-21. MY: Sage.. 19.  Garg.  Galovski. In Rothengatter. Stress and Coronary Disease.A. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. E. D. E. E.
 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.
A. N. (2002). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Additional dimensions of internal-external control... IV. H. 3. Journal of Personality Assessment. (1989). G. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. Lawton. 2nd Edition. 377-383. 303-304. (Ed.J.V.. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (2005).  Lerner. H. pp. C. 37.  Lenior. K. Malay dominance and opposition politics.  Lee. and Morgan. (1973). (1976).) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.. 262 . H.. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. D. H.M. (1974). Jehle. Billittier. Cancer as a turning point.M. 177-196. H. A.P.  Lefcourt. W. G.M. (1975). Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. Barrett. Conner. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. Applied Ergonomics. R. 93. 479-490. (2001). 38. H. New York: Academic. 659-662. Janssen.K. Journal of Social Psychology.  Lefcourt. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. (2002). R.  LeShan. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. and Stiller. New York: E.  Levenson.  Leech. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review.L. D.  Levenson. Moscati.B.M. E. Dutton.C. British journal of Psychology. A. 253-269). H.G. (1983). Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). 397-401. 97.  Levenson. and Nutter. 41. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. In Lefcourt.M. Mahwah. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. L.407-423.
) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. 10. The Star Online. H-F. Hwang. M-R.. F. 59-67. H-D. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. (2004). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Neighbors. Retrieved April 5.  Lin. and Yen.htm.  Levy. J. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health.my/news/story. and Scodel. New York: Academic. S. 536-545.P. (Ed. D.  Lonczak.  Looi. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press. W. D. 125-127. A. February 2). and Donovan. R.. (1960). K. Huang.com. powerful others and chance. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. Retrieved May 14. L. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. 15-63). E..  Lim. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. 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.M.S. (1999. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. Wu. (2007). 39(3). 7.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.A.. 11. 2007 from http://www. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General. H. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. (1981). 36. (1979). (1980).. 2007 from http://thestar. (Ed.S.P. H. (2007. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 263 . I. Psychological Reports.  Lonero. March 26).  Lindsey. (1997). In Lefcourt. 8-9  Liverant.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. L-L.  Loo.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. C. Levenson. 213-222.M.limkitsiang. In Rothe. Differentiating among internality. H.
68(5).A. Vissers.M.L. J. (1994.  Marcoulides. 62-67.M. A. behavior and cognition.R. (2003).P. C. L. (1995). and McDonald. 103. 129. 18(4). and Hershberger. D. Report No. G. H. J. (1997). (2000). 391-411. (Ed. W. 55(2). and Balla. (1994). S. Quality & Quantity. H. Annual mileage. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. P. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling.  Marsh. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.L.  Luckner.  Martin.. Balla.L.. D. Australia. Journal of Personality. M. May). and Wan. (1988).  Macdonald. J.W. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony.A. and Mooran. 264 . Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course.K. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 299313.F. 27(1). Accident Analysis and Prevention. A. In Dorn. (1999). (1986). 869-897. age. of affect. (1998). G. Malaysia.  Maakip.A. Campbell.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. (1989). Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur. and Jessurun. and level of education. Journal of Rehabilitation. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. C. R.. K.F. R.R. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex.  Marsh. Watson..M. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities.L. Psychological Bulletin. Lourens. 185-217. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.. M. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. I.  Massie.  Maruyama. 31. Victoria NSW. 73-87. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender.L. and Williams. Accident Analysis and Prevention.W.R. 593-597.  Matthews. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. J. Monash University Accident Research Centre. 233-252). R.28.
E. J. Waylen.P. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support. and Neilly. 29. Psychological Medicine. Perspectives Psychiatriques. 23. 265 . (1974). Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. 2007 from http://www. 71-77. (1986). New York: Plenum.D. (2007).. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. Retrieved April 5.malaysia-today. G. (1989). Ergonomics. 649-663.  Meichenbaum. Personality in Adulthood. S. Accident Analysis and Prevention. P. M.  McKenna. Beresford.P. I. and Burkes. The University of Reading. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis. F. M. Sambasivan. 769-778. F. (2005. L.. Rinehar and Winston. I. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. 37(6). [ in press]. (1989).P.W. (1977). Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. Duncan.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day. New York: Guilford. Gilbody. Hampshire UK.. 45-52. J. (1983). G. S. Ismail. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 173-181. Malaysia Today. F.  McRae. (1990). Unconscious suicides. (1998). D.V.  Mendel. November 6). and Costa.  Md-Sidin. 34(47).  McKenna. Risk Analysis.. D.R.  Mercer. R. Fort Worth TX: Holt. Understanding Human Behavior. Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. 9. E. (2009). and Brown...  McKenna. A.htm  McConnell.E.  McMillan.
 Mintz.L. and Blum. and Keskinen. P. from http://www. Aggressive driving. (1985).L.. (1949).  Mikkonen. 147-161.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. A re-examination of the accident proneness concept. G.  Mintz. In Aggressive driving: three studies. D. 401406.C. L. Nhan. J. Simulator performance.  Monárrez-Espino.A. E. May).aaafoundation. 61(3). and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. Safety Science. Finland.M. J. L.panducermat.my/en/street_smart_statistik. K. Washington DC. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. J. Time intervals between accidents. Bulmas.J. 44(2). A. and Laflamme. Hasselberg. Retrieved May 23. (2006). and Shapiro. L. H. 266 . V. what should we do? In Evans. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour.org.pdf  Moller. 38(6). 341-353. In Helkama. 6(2).  Mizel.  Miles. (154). Journal of Applied Psychology. 2006 from http://www. A. (1989). (2003). Journal of Applied Psychology. microsleep episodes.. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. Kayumov. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.. R. M. and Johnson.A. 33(3). 21(4). and Niemi. (Eds. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Retrieved December 15.  Michon.org/pdf/agdr3study.. (Eds. Michon. Statistics. 2007. 335-342. Turku. C. (1997). l. Journal of Psychosomatic Research.L. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.  Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007). E. and Schwing. (1983. J. 75-85.E. 195-211. (2006).php. M. New York: Plenum.
A. A. and Summala H.. (2007). A.S. 51-63. (1974). Petaling Jaya. 320-388). Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Comrey. S.. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 32-37. Journal of Applied Psychology. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997).L.  Morris.T. MY: Sage. P. and Maniam. Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents. (2003). Fifth Edition. K. W. Journal of Affective Disorders. and Krasner. 137-144. T. (1987).  Neuman.B. Boston: Pearson. (Eds. and Summala.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. Visual Cognition. J. 38(1). (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature.L. (2007). Religioin 37.  Moore.  Näätänen. Amsterdam: North Holland. 167-202). Accident proneness and road accidents. (1976). R. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. 42. (1994).  Most. Rajasingham-Senanayake. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. (Eds. 164-174. H.L. and Astur. 243-261.. Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. Transcultural Psychiatry. 125-132. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. 15(2).  Mousser. I. R. R. L. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors. E. Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. W.E. 267 . R.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. 339-343. Nandy. (1956). A. (1999). In Pfaff-Czarnecaka.  Niméus. New York: Allyn & Bacon. and Gomez.  Näätänen. D. 72. A. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. 6.  Nandy. In O’Donoghue . 8.  Novaco. Montag.
(1997). 4. In Dewar. Ergonomics. P. A. and Lonnqvist. P. 34. and Olson. December 9). Zwi (1997).S. p.W. B.. R. Pentilla. J. British Journal of Psychiatry. 43-76). Human Factors for Engineers (pp. and Santos.. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Odero. In Baenninger.  Ogden. Tucson. 92-93.  O’Connell. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. 171. E. Oxford UK: North Holland. 201-215).  Novaco. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. (2002). F. Aggression on roadways.  N-S highway still one of the safest roads. 2(5). (1998).  Ohberg.A. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. Straits Times.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. N51.  Olson. Driver suicides. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. 468-472. 4(2).L.R. 40(10). K.F (2001). A. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.W.38. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal.  O’Neill.  Noy. R. (1997). [Letter to the Editor] The Star. February 8). (Ed.B. (1996). W.  Ochando. (2007. Spanish Journal of Psychology. p. Garner. (1996.. and Hermida. M.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. A. Tropical Medicine and International Health. and Williams.  Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. R. 253-326). R. Injury Prevention. Novaco. (Eds. Temes. Human factors in modern traffic systems. 237-252.W. J. Aldershot. 654-656. In Fuller. R. and Z. M. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. I. Driver perception-response time. (2000). UK: Ashgate.L (2002). P. J. 268 . 1016-1024. (2001). says operator. 445-460.
(1998). B.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.E. Anger on and off the road. Exploring motorcyclist injury severity in approach-turn collisions at T-junctions: focusing on the effects of the driver’s failure to yield and junction control measures. and Lajunen (2005). Traffic locus of control. Tassinary.. 37(1).pdf -  Pai.A. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 456-461. Reason. M. Applied Psychology: An International Review. D.R. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. 479-486. Finland. (2005). D.  Parker.  Özkan. Lajunen. R. 229-235.W. (Eds. C. R. 507-526.ictct. 1036-1048. British Journal of Psychology. (2001).G. M.. 92.. D. and Saleh.  Parker. L. W. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT).  Parker. Journal of Environmental Psychology. A. Manstead. Ergonomics. 34. C.  Parkinson. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.S. T. H. T. 18. O. J. and Grossman-Alexander. (1988). driving violations and accident involvement.. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Ulrich. (2008). The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. 533-545. (1974). and Kaistinen. 40. Retrieved December 20. 38(5). 38(3). driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC).T. J. and Synodinos. Lajunen.M. 113-140. N.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan..D. 125-134). Driving errors. R. (2002).  Parsons. 3-13. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies.S. Hebl. T. and Summala. S. 269 .R and Stradling.. Personality and Individual Difference. (1995). and Huguenin. 2007 from www.S. (2004). Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics.  Parsons. and Schneider. Helsinki. T. Özkan. Accident Analysis & Prevention.G. T. J.  Papacostas.. (pp. 42.
British Medical Journal. Sleet. A. Bioulac.. Automotive Vehicle Safety. (1999).org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Perry. Switzerland: World Health Organization. A. and Al Haji. 8(1).M. G. A. R.  Peltzer. K. (2002). and Renner. 12(3). 35. London: Taylor & Francis. M. U.ictct. 91.) (2004).C. 147-154.  Per.  Phares. 63. Taillard. J. (1980). Matto Grosso do Sul. and Hyder.and Schuman.. Quera-Salva. (2005). 3. Geneva. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. 201-204. Simple reaction time. and Baldwin. 619-623. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Singh. 68-79. Journal of Sleep Research. Superstition. E.R. Perceptual and Motor Skills. P. Locus of Control in Personality.  Philip.B.R. Retrieved March 31. (2003). D. Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. Jarawan. Peden. Morristown NJ: General Learning.  Peters. 9-14 270 .  Peden. Mohan. B.. D. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research.. (1986). Perceptual and Motor Skills. and Peters.s  Pelz. Scurfield. 1153.J. World report on road traffic injury prevention. and Åkerstedt. Hyder. T. March 20-22. (1971). Campo Grande. 875-878.. D. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers. (1976). 324. Brazil. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. D.  Perry. G.J.A.H.A.. W. D. S. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters].  Pestonjee. L. A. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. M. (2000).. (2002). 2007 from http:www. B. E. and Mathers (Eds..A.
C. F. 3112).. 284-288.N. 78-80. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads.  Radin Umar. 369-374  Renner. P. L. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 1315-1332. New York: McGraw Hill.  Reason. (1993). K.  Reason. Rider training. and Lussier. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia.  Preston. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1990).S. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. 673-678.I. 299-300..J. 16(3). Breen. W. T.J. (1996). Baxter. and Harris. Human Error. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health.-G. 32(3). Stradling.  Prociuk. and Campbell. and Corlett. R.A. 317-333. (2000). 29(1). J. (1989). R. Traffic Engineering and Control. (1994). Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution.  Reeder. S. S.E. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone.J. and Pant. J. D. 26. 733-750. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 566-573.. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. 271 . (1965). Disaster Prevention and Management. S. (2007).J.  Proctor. (1976). T. Hopelessness. 49(4). C. (1990).. Chalmers. Ergonomics. Journal of Applied Psychology. J. S. 334-343. Cambridge University Press. A.. 32(2). Plous. 33. S. J. 20(4). IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences.  Porter.  Rautela. E.S. S. (1991). and Langley. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making.  Ranney. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations.D. 32. and Anderle. internal-external locus of control and depression. (2005). Manstead. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes.H.
E.  Risser. and Downe. and Voas.A.efpa. Tippetts. E. Stress and Health.Y.html  Robbins..  Robbins. (2004). Amsterdam: Elsevier. W-R. 45(8). Theories of science in traffic psychology.B. M. R. 569-582. Journal of Safety Research. 453-460. and Voas. H.G. (Ed).  Romano.  Romano.. (2003. Journal of Safety Research. S.P. Singapore: Elsevier. P. 2007 from http://202.G. A. 2007 from http://www.L. 485-489. P-A. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. Weinstein. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity.190. Tippetts. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole. S.. 34(15). Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. (2000). T. P. K. Accident Analysis & Prevention. R.  Rimmö. R.D. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. 37(3). April).96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006. S. 37(1).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. R.  Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. and Nickel. S.R. In Lim. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. 272 . (2007) Statistik2006. Anger. cities. (2005). 1-7. and Solomon. (2003). Organizational Behavior. Retting. Ergonomics. R.64. (2002). R.pdf  Risser. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. (2000). (Eds. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. and Huguenin. Retrieved December 11. (1999).  Richardson. Report to the General Assembly.S. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference.  Rice. Retrieved May 23. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. In Rothengatter.
) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. (2005). Psychological Monographs.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. P-E. T. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. (2006). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. (2005). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. (2002). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. (Ed.  Rothengatter. G.  Rothengatter. G. 84-115. 214-220). Drivers’ illusions – no more risk. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. In Underwood. 45. In Barjonet. J. 88. T.B. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. C. 428-435  Rothe. 3-12). T. and Bhopal. (1966). (2002). Boston: Kluwer.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 308-331. (Ed. J. (1975).B. J. whole issue. T. 43(3). 80. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.  Rowley. 249-258.B. (1998).  Rowley. 5.  Rothengatter. and Shahar. Rosenbloom. (pp. and Bhopal. A. 56-67. In Rothe.P. T. 273 . (2007).) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer.  Rotter.  Rothengatter. 489-493. topics and methods. 10. Amsterdam: Elsevier.(Ed. C.B. (1990). M. American Psychologist. J. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. M. J. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources.  Rotter.  Rotter. 43(1).P. (Ed. Traffic safety: content over packaging. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. 595-600). Capital & Class. (2001) Objectives.
Human Factors for Engineers (pp. Kuala Lumpur. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. 37(2). J. (1999). Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian. Road Safety – Back to the Future. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2002). S. R. Kuala Lumpur. Bukit Aman. Retrieved December 11. M. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Bukit Aman.A2. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. (2005).  Sabey.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). 2003 from http://www.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). 23-42). Kuala Lumpur.rmp. B. IBU Pejabat Polis. J. sports and home accidents.malaysia-today.). Kuala Lumpur.  Salminen. (2006.  Sadiq. Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. IBU Pejabat Polis.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). (2005. and Santos (Eds. 2007 from http://www. Bukit Aman. Bukit Aman. 29(1).gov. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. (1997). Thrills. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. occupational.  Salminen. 33-36. In Fuller. S. IBU Pejabat Polis. and Heiskanen. Retrieved May 22.  Saad. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. The Star. 373-376. Correlations between traffic. p. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research.htm 274 . September 26). Amsterdam: Elsevier. September 29). Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].my. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Malaysiatoday (Reuters). Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].  Rude drivers lack emotional control. F.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003).A. IBU Pejabat Polis.
Applied Economics. 34. and Young. and Bourne.. Nagoya: Japan. Severson. C. Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia. D. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. J. P. C. 3-16). 117-147).L. 41. Traffic Engineering + Control. 314-318..  Sendut.T. 801-810.C. (1995). K. V. (Eds. and the social psychological road in between. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. F. (1966). v. Regional Development Series. M. L.F. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules.). conscientiousness. P.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. Fosser. and Schade. A. K.A. A. A. Morf. The research process: of big pictures. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand.C. (1997). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Morf.F. C. M. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. 673-687. H. 29(3).E.K. 6. B. Asian Survey. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. November 15). C. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.  Sansone. 293302  Salih. Personal correspondence. I.C. 179-188. Ball. and Panter. A.E.T. (Ed. 6(9). little details. M. and Panter. (2008. and Rizzo.  Schlag.  Scuffham. and Langley (2002). and Bourne. 484-491. 35.. K. 38. In Sansone. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.F. Ericsson. (2000).  Schwebel. S.I. M. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia.A. Sagberg. Healy. L. Jr. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 275 .  Sambasivan. J.. In Honjo. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. In Healy. (2006). and sensation seeking. Jr.A. (2004).. (2003). and Sætermo. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. (1981). Urbanization and Regional Development (pp..  Schneider.  Scuffham.
New York: John Wiley & Sons. 137-160. P. C.  Shook. 1549-1565. J. Fourth Edition.R. Sekaran.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.L. 325-343. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach.P. R. P-E. American Journal of Psychiatry. Journal of Counseling and Development. 1.. 361-365.  Shinar. 51(1).M. In Barjonet. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. Strategic Management Journal.E. (2000). (2001). (2004). and Zakowska. 46(15). H.  Selzer. Ergonomics. 119(3). Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education. D. U.L. B.  Sheppard. Ketchen. (1998). 397-404. J. 180-205). Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ).. and Roskova. M. and Warshaw. (1956).J. 237-240. (1988). Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. New York: McGraw Hill. D.H. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Hartwick.E. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. 15(3). S. and Payne.T.S..  Sharma. G. (1962). (2007). 66. (2003). Boston: Kluwer. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. (1988). D.  Siegriest. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling.. S. B. Journal of Consumer Research. Dewar.. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.  Siegel.  Sharkin. E. 3-7. 25. C. Hult. Automobile accidents. and Kanekar.M and Kacmar. M. (2003). A. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. K. L. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research.  Shinar. (Ed. Summala. 276 . suicide and unconscious motivation.  Shapiro.
277 .. B.G.pdf  Spielberger. expression and control of anger. In Stanton. Stress. 477-492. C. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp.  Slinn.. (1995). Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications. P. Auto safety and human adaptation. N. 49-68). coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study. and Coombs. P. Jr. Lichtenstein.C.. C. (Ed. and Poirier.J. Editorial.  Stanton. R. Cognitive Therapy and Research. and Guest.  Slovic. 2007 from http://www. Retrieved December 25. Crowson.. 386-397.A. and Frank. M. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. Ergonomics. In Kassinove. Houston. Fishchoff. 2007 from http://findarticles. B.J. E. 1-18). and Sydeman.D. Corrigan. Reheiser.  Stanton.K.  Spielberger. (2007). 237-258. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. H. (2007). Boca Raton. American Psychologist. S. S. (1998). (1992). N. 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. J. London: Arnold.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1  Snyder. (2004). J. M. Product design with people in mind.  Smiley..sirc. 21(4). Issues in Science and Technology. (Ed.C. B.D. C. Journal of Risk and Insurance.A. (2001. 14(4). Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. FL: Taylor & Francis.). 50(8). B.  Social Issues Research Centre (2004.R. A.. Sinha. 44. Oxford UK. 47(8). International Journal of Stress Management.A..) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp. B. 1029-1030. N. Winter). Injury control: a promising field for psychologists.K. Measuring the experience. Kurylo. Matthews. (1977).. P. August).org/publik/driving. Retrieved December 1. (1997). D. and Watson. 1151-1158.
..L.  Storey. N. 247-254. Traffic Injury Prevention. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. P. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Havland. and stress. 1359-1370. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode. and Ryan. D. UK: Edward Elgar. Medical Journal of Malaysia. 529-544. (1993). N. Cheltenham. 467-480. Palamara. Journal of Applied Psychology. N. Bilgic. Maggio.E. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers. (1978). R. Morrison. Accident Analysis and Prevention. N. and Pinto.. (Eds. The Methodology of Theory Building.A. (2003). Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs.. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. 44(3). (2001). H. J. E. J. (2000). 139(6).A. Novaco. (2005). (Ed. and Campbell. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects..  Subramaniam.  Stewart. (2001). M. T.R.) Intelligent Transportation Systems. 35. M.. Sümer. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. 2(4). J. Ergonomics. R. and Jin. R. 949-964. M. Stanton.  Sümer. M. N. A.) Handbook of Emotions (pp.  Stevenson. Safety-Critical Computer Systems. 43(9)..  Stough. and Liwag. Stokols. Journal of Psychology. 279-300). (1996). T.R. and Erol. 278 . D. (1988). In Lewis. R. Type A Behavior. Trabasso. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. In Stough. New York: Guilford.  Steiner. N. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates.  Stokols.M. M. 178-182.E.C. G. D. 63.  Stein. Traffic congestion. 681-688. 37(4)..  Sümer. (2005). R.W.
A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. Safety Science. W. pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 .  Summala. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. (1996). (2006). and Merisalo. Helsinki. G. M. (1988). Personal resources. A. N. Nieminen. H. 491-506. P. T. and Gunes.. A. T. Özkan.. P. (2005). 442-451.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. T. Koonchote.  Summala. R. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. and Punto. S.  Summala. 82-92). (Report 11). vehicles. and Tantriratna. Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. Berument. T. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum.. Karanci. Ergonomics. Journal of Traumatic Stress. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. S. H. (Eds. Accident risk and driver behaviour.. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts..  Summala. 193-199.. (Ed. 703-711. and Carbonell Vaya E. N. In Rothengatter. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit.  Summala. Human Factors. Mahasakpan. H. 21. R. Nguntra. 38.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. In Underwood. H.  Swaddiwudhipong. H.  Sümer. (1980). 18(4). Sümer. (1994). H. Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. 331-342. (1986).K. (2005). 103-117. and de Bruin. (1988).) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. H. Amsterdam: Elsevier. H. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Summala. G. 383-394).  Summala. 22(1-3).. 38(3). (1996). (1997).N. and Lajunen. In In Rothengatter. (Eds. H. 41-52).  Summala. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 31. T. and Näätänen. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications.
 Tanaka. and Theodorson. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion.  Theeuwes.S. and Papacostas. 52(6). J. In Grimm.  Tanaka. 241-263). B. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. (2001).. and Layde. Sakamoto. P. (1998). 353-369. 581-590..road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. Accident Analysis and Prevention. G.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. 609-615. Ono.. T. G. and Kitamura.E. E. The effects of road design on driving.  Theodorson. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students.M. Y. J. C.. International Review of Applied Psychology. Fujihara. 37-44. 33(2). (1996). 25(1). A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. T.. 241-257.C. 34. The interaction of attention and emotion.  Thompson. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. (2000). and Fragopanagos (2005).A. Ono. 280 . S. E. 167-172. (1969).S. (1985). N.233-239. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates.  Synodinos. S.J.M. Y. P-E. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. (eds. Fujihara. and Yarnold.  Tanaka. Sakamoto. D. G.R. J. E. and Huba. L. Boston: Kluwer. New York: Simon & Schuster. C.G.R. P. 18(4). Kuhn.  Taylor. 42.. 138(5). New York: Thomas & Cromwell. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan.. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology.  Tavris. (Ed. Neural Networks. In Barjonet. (1989). (1985). A. S. S. Journal of Clinical Psychology. (2001). and Kitamura.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.  Tavris. Journal of Social Psychology.
 Ulleberg. (1997). P. Science. O. and Milton. 2.  Trimpop. Cognitive Psychology. accident involvement.  Tversky. and McClure. Relationship to risk-taking preferences.M. (2003). B. and response to a traffic safety campaign. (1996). 5. 11-22. (1999). 4(4). (1993).E. (1973). G.F. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. J. C. and Sanders.  Underwood. 279-297. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (2004). J. G. Thurman. A. Mills. (1985). London: Academic.. L. J.  Underwood.  Trick. 185. The accident prone automobile driver.. 445-448. G. J. 106(5). Judgment under uncertainty. Wright and Crundall. A.  Tiliman. (1949). D. Anger while driving. C. and Kahneman. Enns. In Neumann. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. D. (1974). and Kahneman. D. 32(3). 10(3). 23(1). 7. Journal of Counseling Psychology. (2001). and Kirkcaldy. R. W. 55-68. H. 123-130.. 5(5). (Eds.  Tversky. 321-333. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. Personality and Individual Differences. Volume 3: Attention..) Handbook of Perception and Action. 385-424.A and Hobbs. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. 1124-1130.  Underwood. A. American Journal of Psychiatry. and Vavrik. 147-152.W. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. and Everatt. 281 . Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. G.T. Personality predictors of driving accidents.  Turner. 207-332. Injury Control and Safety Promotion. R. Personality subtypes of young drivers. Chapman. P. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
“Accident prone. D. A. 42. Smart. (Eds. 181-190). 210-222. Sanson.. D. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Van der Hulst.F. Harris.” Recovery.A..  Velting.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Driver selection and improvement in Germany. On-line driver workload estimation.ictct. J. Matto Grosso do Sul.J. A. (1998). (2004). T.. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates.. J.  Verwey.. 39. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. 444-458. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.. Ergonomics. Personality and Individual Differences. 26.. W.D. T.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Vassallo. (2007). and Huguenin.B. 2007 from http:www. 2007 from www. G. March 20-22. Retrieved September 1. (2005). Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. A. (2001).  Vavrik. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. W. 336-345.F.  Vaa. S. Meijman. 913-921. (2005). In Rothengatter. 24-29. (1999). Caserta.pdf  Vallières. Bergerson. Italy. 43(2). Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale.A. In Underwood. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. R. Cockfield. Utzelmann. Retrieved December 5. É. R. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). (1999). Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches.M. 9(2). and McIntyre. (2000). H. (Ed.  Vasconcellos. S.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. and Rothengatter. Campo Grande. E. M. 282 . J. T. Brazil.ictct.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. Harrison. Amsterdam: Elsevier.D. Ergonomics. and Vallerand.
T.  Waylen. L.  Wállen Warner. (2002).. Personality and Individual Differences. F.E. J. and Zaidel.  Waller. 28. W. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. 33. R. M. Transportation and society. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics.H. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Elliot. New Zealand. (2006). International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics.A. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Stanton.R.J. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave. and Young.pdf  Wei. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report).html.A. January 21).S. G. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research. A. B.F. (Eds.T. and Mallinckrodt (2003). (2009. Retrieved November 2. (1998).P..  Walker. 427-433. and McKenna. M. D.  Watson. Retrieved December 15. A. 2008 from http://www. T. P. 283 . and Carbonell Vaya E. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave. 421-444. 1-8). and Little. In Rothengatter. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes.. P. 123-142. (1997). 50(4). H. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time.com/articles/waterman37. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences.F. 9.theaa. M. 117128.. (2001). Backwoods Home Magazine.  Waterman.backwoodshome. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach.M. Shope. and Åberg. Heppner. P. N. Verwey. Policing and Educatino Conference 2. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave.  Waller. (2001). 2007 from http://www. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour. 438-447.. Raghunathan.P. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Wellington. 5(4).B.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. (2000).
L.S. Hallberg. 34. (1982). Guiling. (1993). Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. J. 8.W.S. R.. 2. (1994). Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts.J. Risk Analysis. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production. 324. Weissman. Preventions of accidents in childhood.S. Wiliams. Accident Prevention. 130(4).  Wilde. British Journal of Psychology.. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. G. (1961).. and Anderson. University of Waterloo Press. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements.J.S. 84.  Wilde.  Wells-Parker.  Wheatley.J. and Klerman. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk.M. J. G.. Dunaway. G.J. M. (2007). B. S. 271278. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries. (1984). Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal. G.M (1956). 135-154). G. Snow. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 207-219.N.J. (1973).) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. 195. 1116-1121. (2002). R..  Wells.  West. 450-455. Elander. In Halsey. G. 15(11/12). American Journal of Psychiatry. Advances in Paediatrics. 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. Childhood accidents. and French. M. G.  Wilde. E. Mild social deviance. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates.S. D. Target Risk. K. (Ed. G. Fox. In Yager.  Wilde.  Wilde. G. P. (2002).  Wilde. Toronto: PDE Publications. (1988)..J. S. 209-225. 31. G.. Ergonomics. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 . (2005). 441-468.). 1149-1152.  Wheatley. M. Ceminsky. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. (pp. (ed.S.
Cascardi. (2003). The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. Matto Grosso do Sul. New York: Taylor & Francis. (Ed. M.  Williams. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape. 527-531..) Contemporary Ergonomics. Farmington Hills MI: Gale. J.ictct. (2004). Retrieved March 31.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Willford. Mastering the World of Psychology. In Hanson.R. for motor-vehicle crash deaths. and Poythress. 26(6). A.  Williamson.. V. N. Psychological Assessment. N. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Journal of Safety Research. 557-567. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. Countries and Their Cultures. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. International Social Science Journal. J. Space and Culture.  Williamson. A. 55(175). Boyd. (2003). (1994). E. J. A.I. M. 303346. 807-811. 34(5). 2007 from http:www. T. A. and Boyd.  Wilson. M. Boston: Pearson.  Williams. (2008).S. (2003). T.. and Shabanova. by age and gender..G. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women.G.F. Wood. and Hartman. S.  Williams. 99-109. 1. and Well.Workshop. (1999). (2001).A. 110-131. Gavin. Campo Grande. Welsh.J. J. T.C.F. Responsibility of drivers. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. 285 .B. L. D.  Woodcock.. S. Flyte and Garner. 6(2). Applied Ergonomics. (2000).. Brazil. (1996). 398-403.Y. March 20-22.K. Lenard.  Williams. 8. Accident Analysis and Prevention.E. 31.  Wood.
D. 1314-1330. X. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. Islam. 46-58. Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Young. Technical Report Series No.  World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). 473-485. Geneva. Ergonomics. 43(9). Ergonomics. (Ed. Report of an Advisory Group. and Harris.  Yaapar. N.  Zikovitz. S. Head tilt during driving. (2007). 42(5). (1999). 286 . Regional Office for the Western Pacific.  Yergil. Ergonomics. (2005).  Zhang.A. M. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles.S. and Stanton.R. . 118.C. Asian Journal of Social Science. In Underwood. G. 487-503).) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. D. Country reports. 740-746. D. (2005). theatre and tourism. L. (2000). 50(1). 33(3). and Chaffin.
ABS ensures that. on most surface types. differential accident involvement). the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. or benefits.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. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. Anti-lock braking systems (ABS): in-vehicle technology that modulates the pressure in each wheel’s brake line so that when a whell lock-up is anticipated or occurs. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. As a result. to the individual” (Brown & 287 . presumably because of personality factors. the brake line pressure is relates. (see also. Immediately after releasing the pressure. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. allowing the wheel to turn.
proximal variable. black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. (see also. 25). accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. rather than a theory. it refers to a combination of circumstances. Also referred to as risk compensation. where possible. McKenna of the University of Reading. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. (see also. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. (see also. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. task capability theory) . The central idea is that. In the present research. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. road and traffic conditions. p. 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. 2004. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. including driver behaviour. characteristics of road users. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. risk homeostasis theory. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. (see also. 288 .Noy. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. distal variable. time of week and. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory.
then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931. (see also. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). self-concept. selfefficacy and self-esteem. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. 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). Rotter of the University of Connecticut. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. 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. interests. in-crash. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. Department of Transportation. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. not as a unidimensional. aptitudes. 289 . In traffic psychology. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975.. ability. William Haddon Jr. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology.S. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. (see also. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). intelligence.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. personality) Industrial Fatigue Research Board (IFRB): a body set up in Great Britain during World War One to investigate the cause and prevention of industrial accidents. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. motivation. values.
motor vehicles included automobiles. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. Wilde. the individual differences approach. Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. 333-334). Private speech: see self-talk. motorcycles. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. bicycling. including life goals” (Chaplin. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. Included in this term are walking. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. 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”. 1985. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour.S.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. That is. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. For the purposes of the present research. Personality: is the integration of traits that can be investigated and described in order to render an account of the unique quality of the individual. and buses. For the purposes of the present research. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. the ego and the superego. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. p. trucks (lorries). most usually on roads. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. conversely. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. motorised bicycles. mobile construction equipment or platforms. Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation.
which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. as the result of injury sustained in the crash. Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. archways and footpaths. 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. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. parking spaces. Road safety engineering: “a process.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. 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. tunnels. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. p.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. 1996. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. bridges. but only 291 . overpasses.” (Ogden. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. behavioural adaptation. draining system. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. (see also. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. Within the context of this research. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. 35). stopping places. at both conscious and unconscious levels. including the network. target risk. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. signage. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash.
where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. theory of reasoned action. which are the best predictors of behaviour. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. According to Wilde (1994). The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. According to RHT proponents. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. theory of planned behavriour) 292 .when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. These are energy absorbing buffers designed to protect drivers from injury during collision by preventing the head and upper body from striking the steering wheel. (see also. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. (see also. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. 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. remains constant at the target level. On dry roads. hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). behaviour control) (see also. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. (see also. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. 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. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle.
In the present research. Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. community planning. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. from its outset. time. comfort. coordinating. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. behavioural adaptation. Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. management science and economics. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. motorised and non-motorised.Traffic management: planning. that share the same road infrastructure. convenience and economy. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. ergonomics. road engineering. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. (see also.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .
com/cgibin/MsmGo. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt. 1993). Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise. TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess. San Antonio. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors. 19500 Bulverde Road.edu/~csp/csp. Papacostas & Synodinos. CA 90025 USA http://portal.70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS. Beck & Steer.hawaii.eng.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. 2000). C.html 295 . Brace & Company). Buss & Warren.com/portal/page?_pageid=53. with the understanding that they would not be re-published.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr.S. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ.wpspublish. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www.
Kansas 66045 USA www. Snyder. 296 .edu/hope. Crowson.ukans.R. Snyder. C. 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. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr. Houston.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT.psych.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .
.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.g. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3.g. Most of the time when you travel. We are not asking for your name. please answer the following questions: 2.what manufacturer & model (e. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can. 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 . sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. _________. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________.. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. 1. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. _________.
sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. most of the time ___ no 11. When you want to use a car. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. all the time ___ yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 299 . some of the time ___ yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Within the last twelve (12) months. most of the time ___ no 10. some of the time ___ yes. all the time ___ yes.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.
Within the last twelve months. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17.12. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. What is your gender? 16. 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. but no injuries? If yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 13. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________) THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION 300 . sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. 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.