PH.D Tesis On SEM by Alan Tez

CAUSE AND PREVENTION OF ROADWAY
CRASHES AMONG YOUNG,

HIGH-RISK DRIVERS IN MALAYSIA: A
MULTI-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH
ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY
APRIL 2008
Siti Digitally signed by Siti

Hasmah Digital Library
DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital
Hasmah Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia
University, ou=Research
Digital Library, email=kamal.
sujak@mmu.edu.my
Date: 2009.07.02 11:55:19
Library +08'00'
The copyright of this thesis belongs to the author under the terms of
the Copyright Act 1987 as qualified by Regulation 4(1) of the Multimedia
University Intellectual Property Regulations. Due acknowledgement shall
always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from,
this thesis.
 Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008

All rights reserved
ii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the work contained herein has been done by myself and that no
portion of the work contained in this thesis has been submitted in support of any
application for any other degree or qualification of this or any other university or
institute of learning.
______________________
Alan Giffin Downe
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my supervisor, Dr. Stanley

Richardson, whose guidance, wisdom and high standards have motivated me and kept
me on track throughout all phases of the project. I also thank my former employer,
Multimedia University, for permitting me to undertake doctoral studies during my time
as a lecturer in the Faculty of Management. In this regard, I would like to express my
gratitude for the gracious support and encouragement I have received from Prof. Dr. A.
Seetharaman, current Dean of Management and from Prof. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Ismail
Sayyed Ahmad, former Dean of Management. I also wish to thank Dr. A.S.
Santhapparaj, Dr. V. Anantaraman and especially Dr. Sayed Hossain for coordinating
and serving as panelists, respectively, when I presented this research to the faculty
during my work completion seminar.
Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of

test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project. I
especially thank Dr. Jerry Deffenbacher (University of Colorado), Dr. Yori Gidron
(Brunel University), Dr. C.S. Papacostas (University of Hawaii at Manoa), Dr. Dianne
Parker (University of Manchester), Dr. Murali Sambasivan (Universiti Putra Malaysia),
the late Dr. C.R. Snyder (University of Kansas), and Dr. Henriette Wallén Warner
(Dalarna University).
I would like also to thank four undergraduate research assistants who completed
data collection for the study of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers: Agatha Yeoh Siew Ling,
Gracy Thomas, Nazlina Nasihin and Sangeetha Munisamy.
I wish to acknowledge the Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM),

an organisation to which I have felt privileged to belong, as an Associate Member, since
2001.
iv
There are many individuals who have contributed greatly to the completion of
this project through their helpful suggestions, collegial affiliation and friendship,
notably Aw Lin, Aznur Hajar Binti Abdullah, Azrai Abdullai, Ming-Yu Cheng, Adeline
Chua, Cynthia Downe, Ridhwan Fontaine, Jessica Ho Sze Yin, Lily Idayu, Loke
Choong Khoon, Loke Siew Poh, Razlina Rezali, Omar Salahuddin Bin Abdullah,
Bobby Varanasi and David Yong. A special expression of thanks is due to Fatimah
Syam @ Noor Azleen A. Gani at the Siti Hasmah Digital Library for her very helpful
assistance. For their caring support, I also wish to thank my mother, Evelyn G. Downe
and Howard, of Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
The phrase, “without whom this research would never have been completed”
appears ubiquitously in theses and dissertations around the world. But never has it been
truer than in the contribution made here by my wife, Siew-Phaik Loke. She has helped
me to score questionnaires, set up spreadsheets and enter data into the computer. She
provided thoughtful input into solving even the most baffling problems of multivariate
analysis. She sustained me with her constant reassurance throughout the project. And
she did it all while excelling at her own PhD studies, starting a business, launching her
career as a university lecturer and lovingly, patiently caring for our son. To her, I will
be always grateful.
v
DEDICATION
In the wee hours of a cold morning on December 5th, 2002 my father, Dr. A.E.R.
Downe, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Canada’s Queen’s University passed away in
his hospital bed in Kingston, Ontario after suffering a long and debilitating illness. For
47 years, he had been my inspiration and my role model. From him, I learned the value
of hard work and family, the excitement that comes from scientific inquiry and the
fortitude that evolves in a man’s struggle against adversity. Not a day goes by when I
don’t find myself thinking of him.
On that very same day, on the other side of the planet, my little boy Richardson
Downe Loke Ken, at ten months of age, took his first unaided steps, launching a jerky
trajectory from the sofa to the television set, where he hugged the image of Sir Alex
Ferguson. From his birth, I have marveled at Kenny’s boundless energy, his gentle
disposition and his ability to fill his mother’s and my existence with one part challenge
and nine parts joy. I only hope that I am able to teach him the same lessons that my
father taught me.
It is to these two very special people that I dedicate this work.
vi
ABSTRACT
Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia,
where, on average, seven fatalities are recorded each day. Previous research has found
that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes, and that driver
behaviours, personality traits, driving experience and demographic characteristics are
the specific contributors of these factors. However, previous attempts to investigate
relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently
yielded weak associations and inconclusive results.
The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role
of behaviour in traffic, some personality constructs, demographic characteristics and
driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. Three samples of university
students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301,
302 and 252, respectively), 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. A contextual mediated model was used to
examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the
crash event, self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality
of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants.
Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency),

demographic (age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control,
hopelessness, aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. The proximal
variable was comprised of a measure of self-reported behaviour in traffic (BIT) on
which high scores were considered consistent with Type A behaviour pattern (TABP).
BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way, externally-focused frustration;
freeway urgency; and destination-activity orientation. 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.
vii
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. Among distal variables,
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. As reported in previous studies, locus of
control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. Two types of hostile automatic
thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BIT-
aggression relationship, as well.
The role of the proximal variable, BIT, in mediating the effects of the distal
variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and
Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL. Results
indicated that, consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model, BIT
exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash
outcomes.
Implications for both theory and practice are discussed, particularly with respect
to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of
theories or models of driving behaviour. 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. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to
the study of roadway crashes are discussed.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COPYRIGHT PAGE ii
DECLARATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
DEDICATION vi
ABSTRACT vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
LIST OF TABLES xv
LIST OF FIGURES xviii
PREFACE xx
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1

1.2 Road Safety in Malaysia 2
1.3 The Problem Statement 4
1.4 The Professional Significance of the Study 5
1.5 Overview of the Methodology 7
1.6 Delimitations 9
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 12
2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 12
2.1.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 12
2.1.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes 17
2.2 The Professional Background 19
2.2.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research
Challenge 19
2.2.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 21
2.2.2.1 An Applied Perspective 21
2.2.2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach 22
2.3 Theories of Driving Behaviour 24
2.3.1 Concepts, Theories and Models 24
2.3.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 25
2.3.3 The Individual Differences Approach 26
2.3.3.1 Accident Proneness 28
2.3.3.2 Differential Accident Involvement 30
2.3.4 Risk Theories 31
2.3.4.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 31
ix
2.3.4.2 Zero Risk Theory 34
2.3.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 35
2.3.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 37
2.3.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 38
2.3.7.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 38
2.3.9.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) 39
2.4 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 41
2.4.1 Statistical Models 41
2.4.2 Process Models 42
2.4.2.1 The Haddon Matrix 42
2.4.2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and
Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 43
2.4.2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model:
Moderation and Mediation 45
2.4.2.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual
Mediated Model 47
2.4.2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other
Research 49
2.5 Distal Variables in the Present Study 50
2.5.1 Demographic Variables 50
2.5.1.1 Age 50
2.5.1.2 Gender 52
2.5.1.3 Ethnicity 56
2.5.2 Driver Characteristics 58
2.5.2.1 Experience 58
2.5.2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 61
2.5.3 Psychological Variables 63
2.5.3.1 Locus of Control 63
2.5.3.1.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 63
2.5.3.1.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 64
2.5.3.1.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 67
2.5.3.2 Hopelessness 69
2.5.3.3 Aggression 71
2.6 Proximal Variables in the Present Research 73
2.6.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 73
2.6.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
As A Variable 75
CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 78
3.1 Conceptualization and the Research Framework 78

3.2 Definition of the Variables 84
3.2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 84
3.2.2 Demographic Variables: Age, Gender and Ethnicity 84
3.2.3 Locus of Control 84
3.2.4 Hopelessness 85
3.2.5 Aggression 85
x
3.2.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 86
3.2.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 87
3.2.8 Crash Occurrence 88
3.2.9 Injury Occurrence 88
3.3 Research Design of the Studies 88
3.3.1 Study 1A 88
3.3.2 Study 1B 89
3.3.3 Study 1C 89
3.3.4 Study 2 90
3.3.5 Study 3 90
3.4 Formulation of Hypotheses 91
3.5 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 93
3.5.1 The Sample 93
3.5.2 Research Instruments 94
3.5.2.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 94
3.5.2.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 96
3.5.2.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 97
3.5.2.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 97
3.5.2.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 98
3.5.2.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) 98
3.6 Procedure 99
3.6.1 Studies 1 and 2 99
3.6.2 Study 3 100
3.7 Analysis of the Data 100
3.7.1 Independent-sample t-tests 103
3.7.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 103
3.7.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 104
3.7.4 Linear Regression Analysis 104
3.7.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 104
3.7.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 105
3.7.7 Structural Equation Modelling 105
3.7.7.1 Chi-Square (χ2), p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 107
3.7.7.2 Degree of freedom (df) 107
3.7.7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)
and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 107
3.7.7.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 108
3.7.7.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit
Index (CFI) 108
3.7.7.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 108
3.7.7.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 109
3.7.7.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 109
3.7.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 110
3.7.9 Skewness and Kurtosis 110
xi
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 112
4.1 Description of the Sample 112

4.1.1 Age, Gender and Ethnicity 112
4.1.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 114
4.2 Reliability and Validity 116
4.2.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 116
4.2.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 118
4.2.3 Validity Test Results 118
4.2.3.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 119
4.2.3.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of
Control Scale 120
4.2.3.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 120
4.2.3.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale 121
4.3 Normality, Skewness and Kurtosis 122
4.4 Crash and Injury Occurrence Data 124
4.5 Distal and Proximal Variable Data 126
4.5.1 Results of Study 1 126
4.6 Hypothesis Testing 134
4.6.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle
Crash Outcomes 134
4.6.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in
Traffic 135
4.6.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in
Traffic 139
4.6.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 140
4.6.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 142
4.6.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 143
4.6.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 143
4.6.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 145
4.6.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between
Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 147
4.6.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 149
4.6.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 151
4.6.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship
Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 153
4.6.12.1 Internality as a Moderator 153
4.6.12.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as
Moderators 154
4.6.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic
Thoughts 156
4.6.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour
In Traffic 157
4.6.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the
xii
Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 158
4.6.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests 159
4.7 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation
Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 163
4.7.1 Study 1C 163
4.7.2 Study 2 169
4.7.3 Study 3 170
4.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 173
4.8.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash
Outcomes 173
4.8.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash
Outcomes 173
4.8.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic
Thought and Crash Outcome 174
4.8.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and
Crash Outcomes 174
4.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers, Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab
Drivers 176
4.9.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 176
4.9.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 177
4.9.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 177
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 179
5.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing

Unsafe Driving 179
5.2 Hopelessness 182
5.3 Locus of Control 185
5.3.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of
Driving Behaviour 185
5.3.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 187
5.3.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian
Drivers 189
5.4 Aggression 190
Modelling (SEM) 194
5.5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 194
5.5.2 Goodness of Fit 196
5.5.3 Best Fit or Best Model 197
5.5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 201
5.5.4.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 201
5.5.4.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 202
5.5.4.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 203
5.5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? 203
5.6 Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 204
5.6.1 Generalisability of Findings 204
5.6.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 210
5.6.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 211
xiii
5.6.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency 212
5.7 Implications and Areas for Further Study 215
5.7.1 Theory vs. Models in Traffic Psychology 215
5.7.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 218
5.7.3 Driver Selection, Training and Rehabilitation 220
5.7.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 221
5.7.4.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 221
5.7.4.2 Engineering Interventions 221
5.7.4.3 Education 229
5.7.4.4 Enforcement 230
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233
REFERENCES 237
GLOSSARY 287
APPENDICES
Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales 294
Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 297
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
No. Table Page
2.1 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties, 2002-2006 13
2.2 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road

Crashes by Age Group 14
2.3 Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group 57
3.1 Research Hypotheses 91
3.2 Dimensions of the BIT scale 95
3.3 The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire 97
3.4 The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale 98
3.5 Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing 101
4.1 Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 112
4.2 Age, Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1, 2 and 3 114
4.3 States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original
Drivers’ Licenses 114
4.4 States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original
Motorcyclists’ Licenses 115
4.5 Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results 117
4.6 Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) 118
4.7 Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses 119
4.8 Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of

Confirmatory Factor Analysis 111
4.9 Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis 121
4.10 Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) 121
4.11 Normality Tests, Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 122
xv
4.12 Crash and Injury Occurrence 124
4.13 Crash Occurrence Frequency, Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 125
4.14 Crash Occurrence Frequency, Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125
4.15 Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables

in Study 1A (n=301) 127

in Study 1B (n=302) 128

in Study 1C (n=252) 129

in Study 2 (n=122) 131

in Study 3 (n=133) 133
4.20 Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT

Component Factors on Crash Occurrence 134
4.21 Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT

Component Factors on Injury Occurrence 135
4.22 The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores

in Study 1A (N=301) 136

in Study 1B (N=302) 136

in Study 1C (N=252) 137

in Study 2 (N=122) 138

in Study 3 (N=133) 138
4.27 Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores 139
4.28 Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores 144
4.29 Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 145
xvi
4.30 Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores 149
4.31 Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 150
4.32 Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152
4.33 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses 160
4.34 SEM Comparison (Study 1C) 163
4.35 Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) 167
4.36 Different Contextual Models (Study 2) 169
4.37 Different Contextual Models (Study 3) 171
4.38 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and

Crash Outcomes 173
4.39 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174
4.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought

and Crash Outcomes 174
4.41 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash
Outcomes 175
5.1 Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and
Subsequent Analyses) 199
5.2 Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State 206

5.3 State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and
Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) 207
5.4 State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and

Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) 208
5.5 Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in

Study 1 and Study 2 209
5.6 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 225
xvii
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Figure Page
2.1 Task Cube (from Summala, 1996) 36
2.2 Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller, 2000) 37
2.3 Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1989) 40
2.4 The Haddon Matrix (Noy, 1997) 42
2.5 Contextual Mediated Model of Personality, Behavioral Predictors and

Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer, 2003) 44
2.6 Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models 46
2.7 Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models 47
2.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture

(from Downe, 2007) 50
2.9 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen, 1996;

Hatakka, 2000) 59
2.10 Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s

Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control 64
3.1 Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) 80
3.2 Research Model (Study 1B) 81
3.3 Research Model (Study 1C) 82
3.4 Research Model (Study 3) 83
4.1 Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT 146
4.2 Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on

Usurpation of Right-of Way 147
4.3 Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship 148
4.4 Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT

Relationship 148
xviii
4.5 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 153
4.6 Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 154
4.7 Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 155
4.8 Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 158
4.9 Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 165
4.10 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166
4.11 Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile

Automatic Thoughts) 168
4.12 Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170
4.13 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172
xix
PREFACE
Accidents occur, like encounters with fairies and werewolves, to

the weary traveler, but accidents or encounters with fairies or
werewolves are random events. The behaviour of the traveller,
and his mental state, are factors that influence the likelihood of
occurrence. How important these factors are, is a matter of
debate … Obviously, when humans are prone to imagine fairies
or werewolves, they are prone to other types of error as well.
- Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin, 2004 -
Some three years or so into my Ph.D. programme, things were not going well.
My research design needed a serious re-working. I was confused by the results I was
getting. LISREL couldn’t, or wouldn’t, handle the latent variables I wanted to include
in my structural equation model. I wanted to throw in the towel.
Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical
Thinking class. I didn’t recognise her at first. She had been badly injured. Her face
and arms had been bruised and lacerated. Her hands and voice quivered. She told me
about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. I knew the fellow;
he’d taken the same course as she, only a trimester or two earlier. He was very popular
with other students. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. She had needed to go on
an errand. He didn’t want to go, but she’d nagged him. They quarreled and then left on
his motorbike. He was driving, she was riding pillion. They were hurrying, they were
focused on the errand, they were frustrated and angry with each other, they cut across a
lane too quickly. And they crashed. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the
hospital. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. I told her not to worry.
She started crying and couldn’t stop. I’m a fairly big guy. I like to watch boxing. I
don’t cry much any more, at least not with real tears. But, I sure felt like it as I sat there
beside her. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. I feel like it a bit right now.
The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to
study – freeway urgency, externally-focused frustration, lane deviation and all the rest.
I got back to work on them, and this thesis is the result. I’m pretty happy with it,
finally. I hope it makes a contribution. But sometimes, just every so often, I despair
that we may never be able to snare this werewolf.
xx
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study

With an estimated 1.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide
(Peden, Scurfield, Sleet, Mohan & Hyder, 2004), the quest for a better understanding
of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for
safety researchers, policy-makers, highway engineers and automotive design
specialists. Even after decades of study, scholars still search to identify the relative
effects of vehicle, road, environment and human characteristics on the risk of
accidental events and fatalities. This is particularly salient in developing countries,
such as Malaysia, where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been
consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder, 2002).
Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors

for automotive products (e.g., Peters & Peters, 2002) and road safety engineering
(e.g., Ogden, 1996; Theeuwes, 2001), much of the recent attention on causal
elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. Sabey
(1999), for instance, commented that, “human factors play a major role in road
accidents. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills,
judgement, anticipation, state of mind and physical well-being. Consistently over the
years, the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed,
perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. 11).
Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur, 2007; Trick, Enns, Mills & Vavrik,
2004), perceptual (Hong, Iwasaki, Furuichi & Kadoma, 2006; Green, 2002; Stanton
& Pinto, 2000; Graham, 1999), cognitive (Vaa, 2001; Verwey, 2000), kinaesthetic
(Zhang & Chaffin, 2000); perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton, 2007;
Olson, 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson, 2004) have
been studied extensively, leading to a rich information base for regarding human-
centred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system, including the
1
roadway, the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed
by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten, 2002; p. 21). More challenging has been
the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and
performance. According to Dewar (2002b), “the literature on personality has a long
history, including the study of a large number of variables. However, there are
conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p.112). Very early
initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman &
Hobbs, 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on
the interaction between emotional, behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of
drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight,
2004; McKenna, 1983).
This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables

and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. The research comprised five
separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years, with the intent to
determine the degree to which measures of aggression, locus of control, hopelessness
and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and
frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. This
first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study, describes its
significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. The chapter
concludes by noting the delimitations of the research.
1.2 Road Safety in Malaysia

Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. A total of 10,351,332 drivers and
15,790,732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. Malaysia is also a nation with a
disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. There was a total of
341,252 accidents in 2006 and over 6,000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of
Transport Malaysia, 2007). The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been
described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms,
often labelled as “tragic” (Koh, 2005), as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem, 2003),
and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam, 1989).
2
Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been
observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al, 2004; Vasconcellos,
2005), leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a
leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder, 2006; Wells, 2007). Hence,
there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and
specific models, easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings, that
allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel,
2004), and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of
traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa, 1997; Barjonet & Tortosa,
2001; Blasco, 1994; Draskóczy, 1997). Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of
traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary, integrative and international
viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and
objectives” (p. 3).
Historically, 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; and (b) the
elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on
human performance when driving (Brown, 1997). Many studies have been devoted
to the examination of behavioural, attitudinal and personality correlates of road-
traffic crash risk, often with widely varying results (Dewar, 2002b; Elander, West &
French, 1993; Lajunen & Summala, 1997). Investigations of individual differences
have included driver age and gender (Beck, Hartos & Simons-Martin, 2002; Renner
& Anderle, 2000; Rimmö, 2002; Verwey, 2000), ethno-cultural background (Byrd,
Cohn, Gonzalez, Parada & Cortes, 1999; Shinar, Dewar, Sumala & Zakowska,
2003), locus of control (Arthur, Barrett & Alexander, 1991; Stewart, 2005; Gidron,
Gal & Syna Desevilya, 2003; Özkan, Lajunen & Kaistinen, 2005; Trimpop &
Kirkcaldy, 1997), risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster, 2002; Lin,
Huang, Hwang, Wu & Yen, 2004; Loo, 1979; Ulleberg, 2001), aggression
(Parkinson, 2001; Schwebel, Severson, Ball & Rizzon, 2006; Wells-Parker et al,
2002) and many others.
3
Increasingly, it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in
driving safely differ greatly across the range of human, vehicle, road and
environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. Noy (1997),
Richardson and Downe (2000) and others have argued that there is a need to take
into consideration the myriad of interactions between driver characteristics and the
driving context and even between driver psychological variables themselves. This
has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving
task and, in particular, in developing general and specific cognitive models of
individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown, 1997; Hampson &
Morris, 1996; Parker, 2004). Sümer (2003), for instance, has recently proposed a
promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i.e.,
personality and demographic) and proximal (i.e., aberrant driving behaviours)
variables in predicting traffic accident involvement.
A frequent criticism, however, has been that such behavioural models have
seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated, theoretical basis for
traffic psychology (Huguenin, 1997), leaving the field with inadequate theory
development from which testable, falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala,
2005). 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.
1.3 The Problem Statement

Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury
resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia, drivers still operate
automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at
destinations. Speeding, externally-focused frustration, loss of attention and the
deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic, with resulting
outcomes often involving crash and injury. What demographic and personality
factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and, in turn, with
the risk of roadway casualty?
4
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. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that
distal variables including: (a) driver age, gender and ethnicity; (b) driving
experience; (c) driver locus of control; (d) driver hopelessness; (e) driver aggression;
and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also
four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic, situated as proximal variables.
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. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3.
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, in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural
tendencies more proximally related to the crash event.
1.4 The Professional Significance of the Study

With the frequency of roadway crashes, injuries and deaths, this research is
important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. By better
understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might
predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour, it becomes possible to
construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables
contribute to motor vehicle crashes. This is both a key goal and a persistent
challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. While there is no doubt
that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway
crashes is growing exponentially, “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, 2005; p. 9). By focusing on
not only demographic, psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the
dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes, but also on their interactions, the present
research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that
very interface.
5
Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect, an area that
some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen, Hatakka,
Laapotti, Katila & Peräaho, 2004; Näätänen & Summala, 1974). The present
research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its
various forms of expression. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects
of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour.
Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and
training, road safety measures and public policy, the development and adaptation of
in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of
models to foster additional research, all of which have been noted as purposes for
traffic psychology (Brown & Noy, 2004; Rothengatter, 2001, 2005; Utzelmann,
2004).
Moreover, they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model”
debate in traffic psychology. Some authors have suggested that, in the applied
sciences, the plethora of theories available, 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, 1997). Recent trends in the
philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into
question (Becker, 1993). There is a growing sentiment that, “models that focus on
specific aspects of road user behaviour seem capable of providing useful frameworks
for organising and interpreting data … but experience suggests that such models are
more likely to be useful if they are based on the consideration of empirical data
rather than being derived from theoretical issues” (Grayson, 1997; p. 94). 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.
Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle

crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia, the Malaysian
setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe, 2000).
6
Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk
factors (e.g., Radin Umar, 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road
engineering (e.g., Che Ali, 2001), very little research has been focused on the
psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia. This has
left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of
Malaysian drivers and, in turn, may be limiting the development of effective public
policy and intervention measures. The present research contributes a new
perspective by offering initial empirical observations on several psychosocial factors
that could be important in understanding why Malaysian drivers behave as they do in
traffic, and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on
the roadway.
In doing so, this research draws on principles from a wide range of

disciplines, incorporating cognitive ergonomics, attitude theory, human motivation,
cultural anthropology and applied psychology. A multi-disciplinary approach has
been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology
(Rothengatter, 2001), and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features
of the Malaysian driver. This broader perspective, although adding additional layers
of variables and complexity to the analysis, goes some distance in differentiating the
present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour.
Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of

this research. To the author’s knowledge, this work represents the first instance in
which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation
has been performed using logistic regression. Selection of alternate structural
equation models is also discussed, with emphasis on the importance of model
comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit.
1.5 Overview of the Methodology

Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research
methods are answered fully in chapter 3, which deals with methodology. It is useful,
7
however, to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in
order to round out the introductory picture presented.
The present research applied an ex post facto research design, in which there
was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting,
but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent
measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on
dependent, or outcome, variables (Sekaran, 2003). In this case, the effects of
selected demographic (age, gender, driving experience, cultural background), driving
(experience, access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control, aggression,
hopelessness, hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of
behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way, freeway urgency, externally-focused
frustration, destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accident-
related (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed.
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, similar to a series of multiple regression equations. These equations
depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent
variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham, 2006;
p. 711). The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1, Study 2 and Study
3. In Study 1, three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A, 1B and 1C), each
entailing data collection from a different sample. In each successive study, different
combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model
and the level of complexity was examined. The final result, at the conclusion of
Study 1C, was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal, moderating and
mediating relationships between variables. This model drew on the similar
conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextual-
mediated model. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why
researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie, first, in their capacity to
predict outcomes and, second, in their capacity to explain which specific predictors
8
are most important in predicting. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be
of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway
crashes and fatalities.
After the initial model-building had been completed, 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. In Study
2, a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom
motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. Again, data were collected through
classroom-based group administration of research instruments, with resulting
variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses
of automobile users in Study 1.
In Study 3, a third model was constructed, this time sampling professional

taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. A team of researchers flagged down taxi
drivers at random and, over the course of 30- to 45-minute trips, verbally
administered psychometric instruments, behavioural inventories and personal profile
questionnaires.
1.6 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. These are
discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here.
Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from
an undergraduate population at a single university, leaving room for questions about
the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. This
issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis, where it is argued that the
“convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was, in fact, representative
of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers.
9
Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the
question of self-reported data. Are the attitudes, accident histories and behavioural
trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of
confabulation, social desirability or response set biases? Indeed, there has been a
vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several
years, with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg, 2002;
Boyce & Geller, 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka, Keskinen, Katila &
Laapotti, 1997). The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research,
along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative
methodologies, is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis, as well.
In a meta-review of traffic safety research, af Wählberg (2003) outlined three

significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic
accident predictors, including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors; (b) time-period
for calculating accident frequency; and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. The
present research included procedural elements to mitigate, at least to a certain extent,
against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. However, 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.
Finally, much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between
errors, lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash
event (Reason, Manstead, Stradling, Baxter & Campbell, 1990). Lapses involve
problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one
thing when meaning to switch on something else. Errors are a type of driving
mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement, such as failing to check
the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. Violations are deliberate
deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle
and include such behaviours as speeding, close following or taking aggressive
actions against another driver or vehicle. The present research, while recognising the
distinction, did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of
participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. The relationship between the manner
10
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions
offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5.
11
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia
2.1.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality
In 2006, there were 341,252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. Over 6,000
fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia, 2007). The high rate of
roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or
internet media in extreme terms, often labelled as “tragic” (Koh, 2005), as a social
“menace”(Abdul Kareem, 2003), and as a “major public health problem”
(Subramaniam, 1989). Recently, the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian
roads as “worse than a war zone”, pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total
deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq
(Zolkepli, 2007). In newspaper reports, Malaysian drivers have been consistently
characterized as “confrontational”, “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”, 2005), or as
“negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”, 2005), “selfish”
(“Our Roads are Filled”, 2007), “discourteous” (Davin Arul, 2007), “obnoxious” and
“cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”, 2006). A succession of online weblogs
and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned
Malaysian drivers as dangerous, inconsiderate and aggressive. Downe and Loke
(2004) reported that, when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe
what Malaysians are like”, a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated, in
order of frequency, “friendly”, “peaceful”, “patient”, “laid-back” and “considerate”;
but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”, they indicated
“angry”, “impatient”, “reckless”, “bullies” and “selfish”. 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.
Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety

issues. A developing country in Southeast Asia, Malaysia has experienced
remarkable increases in population, economic expansion, industrialisation and
motorisation. These are thought to have contributed, in aggregate, to a rapid increase
12
in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem, 2003; Abdul Rahman, Mohd
Zulkiflee, Subramaniam & Law, 2005).
In Malaysia, the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years,
from 189,109 in 1996 to a total of 341,252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia,
2007). The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6,304 in 1994 to
6,287 in 2006. Table 2.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries.
Table 2.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties, 2002-2006

Motor Vehicle Crashes
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Total 279,7111 298,653 326,815 328,264 341,252
Motor Vehicle Casualties
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Fatalities 5,891 6,286 6,228 6,200 6,287
Severe 8,425 9,040 9,218 9,395 9,253
Injuries
Minor Injuries 35,236 37,415 38,645 37,417 19,885
Total 49,552 52,741 54,091 47,012 35,425
source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007)
The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.20 deaths per
10,000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.98 deaths per 10,000 vehicles in 2006, but still lags
behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per
10,000 vehicles (Law, Radin Umar, & Wong, 2005).
Some of the urgency in discussions of Malaysia’s road safety problem has

been related to the high frequency of roadway deaths and injuries occurring among
adolescent and post-adolescent age groups (Radin Umar, 2005). Generally, one-
third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the
16- to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.2), higher than any other age grouping or
combination of consecutive age groupings. This suggests that studies, in Malaysia,
drivers within the senior secondary school and university age ranges must be
regarded as being at a potentially higher level of risk than other age cohorts. Studies
13
of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational
factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson,
Palamara, Morrison & Ryan, 2001).
Table 2.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road

Crashes by Age Group
2000 2001 2002 2003

Age Number % Number % Number % Number %
0-5 37 0.16 90 0.45 30 0.15 43 0.22
6-10 150 0.65 121 0.61 99 0.48 105 0.54
11-15 708 3.08 541 2.72 554 2.71 543 2.81
16-20 3,953 17.21 3,448 17.31 3,178 15.56 3,315 17.15
21-25 3,469 15.10 3,005 15.08 2,997 14.68 3,049 15.77
26-30 3,038 13.23 2,551 12.81 2,378 11.65 2,341 12.11
31-35 2,593 11.29 2,205 11.07 2,216 10.85 2,110 10.92
36-40 2,309 10.05 2,180 10.94 2,025 9.92 1,947 10.07
41-45 2,086 9.08 1,803 9.05 2,820 13.81 1,709 8.84
46-50 1,620 7.05 1,389 6.97 1,416 6.94 1,431 7.40
51-55 1,034 4.50 979 4.91 984 4.82 1,023 5.29
56-60 708 3.08 585 2.94 625 3.06 608 3.15
61-65 572 2.49 450 2.26 463 2.27 458 2.37
66-70 337 1.47 280 1.41 302 1.48 323 1.67
71-75 206 0.90 159 0.80 203 0.99 164 0.85
>75 147 0.64 135 0.68 128 0.63 160 0.76
22,967 100 19,921 100 20,418 100 19,329 100
source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003)
Krishnan and Radin Umar (1997) pointed out that the prevalence of traffic
injuries and fatalities among drivers, and particularly among younger drivers, has
resulted in considerable economic loss for the country. Recent international analyses
have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly, or about 2.4%
of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank, 2005). Some Ministry of
Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.4 billion to
RM5.7 billion, with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes
(Bernama, 2006). It has been reported that, in 1999 alone, general insurers paid
RM1.67 billion, or an average of RM4.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul
Kareem, 2003).
14
Yet, economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications
of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. A popular
physician and journalist has commented that:
The human toll is unquantifiable. There is no way to
measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones,
or the pain of the maimed. The economic consequences
can be estimated, and that alone justifies making concerted
efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in
property damages are huge, but miniscule compared to the
expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. The loss of
potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs
those medical outlays (Bakri Musa, 2005).
Politicians and government policy-makers have also struggled with the rising
sense of public dissatisfaction over persistently high rates of traffic fatalities and with
frustration in trying to find solutions to the problem. In 1999, 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. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the
number of accident cases have been increasing. What else
can we do, if people want to die? (Lim, 1999).
Some seven years later, 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. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the
number of road deaths, which is actually a nightmare.
(Bernama, 2006).
Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation
over the possible causes of the problem. Criticisms of road configuration, traffic
congestion, lane definition, signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters
15
(Abdul Rahman et al, 2005). The relatively high population of motorcycle riders,
approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport
Department Malaysia, 2007), is often mentioned as a factor, given greater risks of
accident, serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji, 2005). In 2006, for instance, the
Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3,693 deaths among motorcycle operators
and pillion riders, as compared with 1,215 deaths among motorcar drivers and
passengers.
Generally, though, most accounts have come around to commenting on driver

demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle
crashes (Che Ali, 2001; Krishnan & Radin Umar, 1997). In a recent newspaper
interview, 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,
unlike in other countries. Those countries have had a
motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are
relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq, 2006).
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. They
don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear
view mirror. 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, 2007).
Researchers, newspaper columnists, 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. Who they are,
how they think, 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
general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the
country’s traffic safety problem.
2.1.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes

Notwithstanding this public outcry, causal factors underlying crash and injury
rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. The research that
has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader
economic and social variables, rather than personality factors, or else on the
evaluation of specific safety interventions.
For instance, Law, Radin Umar, Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005)

examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes, injuries
and fatalities. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data, they
reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a
reduction in traffic fatalities, due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a
result of slower economic activity.
In the same study, Law et al. (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, with a 27% and 38% drop in the
rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities, respectively. MSP
interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and
attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use, conspicuity and excessive speeding.
In a separate study, Ahmad Hariza, Musa, Mohd Nasir, Radin Umar and
Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle
riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. In none of the studies of the
MSP, however, was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples
investigated. This is, perhaps, a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects,
since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a
significant role in determining rider training outcomes, reasons and social contexts of
motorcycle use (Reeder, Chalmers & Langley, 1996), risky behaviour (Chang &
Yeh, 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke, Ward, Bartle & Truman, 2007).
17
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, has linked peninsular communities.
Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. 110), he
argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. He
argued that, motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public
assembly, road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which
speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. This, however, resulted in a
myriad of problems.
Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic
and accidents, these conflicting aims of speed and safety
seemed to exacerbate them. The very monotony of the road
surface, the factor that made the high speeds possible,
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. 121-122).
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. It has been estimated by expressway
management authorities that up to 95% of the crashes occurring along the north-
south artery are due to human error, including speeding and falling asleep at the
wheel (“N-S Highway”, 1996). Social attitudes and experience engendered by the
rapid and high-profile growth of expressways and local road networks may have
infiltrated the broader national consciousness, generalising to all driving
environments and situations. According to Williamson, “many Malaysians claim
that as drivers, they are accident prone, a capacity that makes them distinct as a
society” (p.122).
18
2.2 The Professional Background
2.2.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research
Challenge
Attention to the demographic, experiential, personality and behavioural
characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. Because at
least one driver is involved in every traffic crash, research worldwide has focused on
driver characteristics in an attempt to understand how human factors play into the
causes and prevention of roadway accidents (Evans, 1991).
Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer, by far, the largest
opportunities for harm reduction:
A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. Human
factors are far more important than engineering factors.
Among human factors, driver behaviour (what the driver
chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than
driver performance (what the driver can do). Among
engineering factors, roadway engineering has a much
greater influence than automotive engineering (p. 784).
Lajunen and Summala (1997) noted that traffic safety researchers have
attempted to identify the relationships between drivers’ individual characteristics and
their involvement in motor vehicle crashes. This has included the examination of
age and gender, levels of driving experience and, particularly, personality
characteristics (Elander, West and French, 1993; Åberg, 1993). According to the
Commission for Global Road Safety (2006), “human behaviour makes a direct
contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of
traffic systems, driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and
factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. 62). Christ, Panosch and
Bukasa (2004) argued that:
Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors
problem. The majority of accidents are not caused by
problems of the vehicle, bad road conditions, etc. but rather
19
by the behaviour of drivers. 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. While the system-centered approach aims at
creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of
accidents in advance, the individual-centered approach
directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and
personality aspects, as well as on the attitudes and
behaviour of single drivers (p. 377).
However, to a large degree, empirical findings to date about the relationship

between driver characteristics, personality and traffic safety have been regarded by
many as debatable, unclear, weak, conflicting or of relatively little importance
(Iversen & Rundmo, 2002; Lajunen & Summala, 1997; Ranney, 1994). Haddon
(1963), in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field, 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. 641).
Dewar (2002b) concluded that conflicting findings have been due largely to poorly-
controlled studies based on limited samples and on failing to control for driving
exposure or alcohol use. Further, psychological factors may play different roles
according to driver age (Dumais et al, 2005), organisational climate (Caird & Kline,
2004), prior accident experience (Lin et al, 2004) and other contextual variables.
The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause, or

at least predict, 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; (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the
frequency of crash-related outcomes; and (c) the failure to differentiate between
culpable and non-culpable crashes. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136
previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of
20
traffic accidents and found to be wanting in one or more of these methodological
aspects and concluded that:
If these studies are representative of the research done, the
picture that emerges is indeed grave. It would seem that
very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually
possible to interpret in any straightforward way, and we are
left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological
variables can actually predict accidents (p. 482).
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; the use of inconsistent crash definitions; the lack of
replication of many studies; the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af
Wahlberg, 2002, 2003); accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag,
Wagenaar & van Koppen, 1996; Underwood & Milton, 1993); and the influence of
car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel,
2005).
2.2.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline

2.2.2.1 An Applied Perspective
Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives”
(p. 321), there has been an interest in driver personality, information processing,
motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in
driver behaviour (Jonah, 1997a). 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, 1961; Preston & Harris, 1965) but
did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser, 2003). Novaco (2000) argued
that:
The field of transportation has always had a rich potential
for psychology, especially considering the salience of
transportation in the routines of daily life. Nevertheless,
psychologists have given scant attention to this topic.
21
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,
attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and
resources for choosing alternative travel modes and
schedules. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for
psychological research (pp.654-655.)
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, conferences and coordination of professional
affiliations ever since (Groeger, 2002). Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology
as “the psychological intervention, or the psychological support for intervention, in
the field of traffic. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. 4) and
describes it as an “interdisciplinary, integrative and international viewpoint based on
application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 3). According
to Rothengatter (2001), “the task of traffic psychology is to understand, predict and
provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with, as a
general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. 4).
2.2.2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach

From the outset, traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary
perspectives, eoncompassing engineering, transportation planning, ergonomics,
medicine, psychology, anthropology and sociology. Indeed, Ochando, Temes and
Hermida (2001) found, in a Spanish survey, that individuals tend to combine their
interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as
educational psychology.
To wit, Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific
to, or peculiar to, traffic and transportation,” (p. 246), but that complex traffic
22
behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and
psychological theory and, in particular, the study of cognitive processes. Spielberger
and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health
psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies, a paradigm
that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries
(Dharmaratne & Ameratunga, 2004; Odero, Garner and Zwi, 1997; Hyder & Peden,
2003; Johnston, 2007; Peden & Hyder, 2002). Parker (2004) pointed to the role
played by social psychology in the area of road safety, emphasising the primacy of
attitudes and attributions, which she described as the two main planks of social
cognition.
Ergonomics has made a contribution, as well, both by providing a better

understanding of human-machine interaction, and of cognitive control over vehicle
and highway systems involved (Bridger, 1995; Wilson, 2000). Saad (2002)
commented that:
From the perspective of the driver, ergonomics is concerned
with identifying and designing technical and organisational
means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road
environment. In the broadest sense, the road environment
comprises the vehicle, the road infrastructure and other road
users. It also includes the rules of the highway code
governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions
with other users, which are sometimes expressed in road
markings and road signs (p. 24).
In a recent special edition, Stanton (2007) noted that, over the past ten years, there
have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone, and that
“ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training
programmes, the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor
vehicles, the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers
behave as they do” (p. 1158). Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has
been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances, surrounding environments and
23
tasks to human capabilities and limitations, a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as
“Generation One” ergonomics.
Increasingly, though, 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, 2004). Studies of human factors engineering
of intelligent transportation systems are becoming increasingly important in the
design of in-vehicle safety systems and driver decision support technologies (Lenior,
Jannssen, Neerincx & Schriebers, 2006; Noy, 1997; Walker, Stanton & Young, 2001).
These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as
“Generation Two” ergonomics, in which the goal is to manage automation and
dynamic function allocations, and “Generation Three” ergonomics, which focuses on
symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities.
According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001), 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, particularly the notions
of mental load, error and cognitive modelling. “This school of though, which
assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue
between the various designers of car interiors, 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. 26).
2.3 Theories of Driving Behaviour

2.3.1 Concepts, Theories and Models
In attempting to understand, predict and modify road user behaviour, traffic
psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. This involves the coherent
grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of
driving phenomena. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined
as:
24
A word or set of words that expresses a general idea
concerning the nature of something or the relations between
things, often providing a category for the classification of
phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson, 1969).
Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction, which is then

followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider, Healy, Ericsson & Bourne Jr.,
1995). Concepts can be linked together to form a theory, 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, 2000, p. 8)
Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or

hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena
(Robbins, 2005, p. A-18)
Often, “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”, but for
the purposes of this thesis, the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions
or postulates, often in mathematical form, which attempts to provide a generalised
working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin,
1985). In traffic psychology, many models have been proposed, each ordering
driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. On the other
hand, there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a
broad, generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced.
2.3.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building

Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala,
2005). Reasons for this are likely several. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has
never been clear, in traffic psychology, whether theories should explain everyday
driving, or accident-causing behaviours, or both. Many of the theories that have been
proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. To a degree, this may be due to
25
the imprecise definition of concepts, but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a
highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual, cognitive, social,
and emotional determinants. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that, given the
complexity of human behaviour, it is highly improbable that a single theoretical
stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic.
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, I believe it is but one of the goals a
driver has, and most of the time is not especially influential.
Instead, the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations,
avoid obstacles, minimise delay and driving time, enjoy
driving, feel in control, etc. … 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,
or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on
which to base a deliberate action (p. 189).
Notwithstanding these difficulties, five areas of theory attempt to explain and

predict driving behaviour. These may be classified as: theories of individual
differences; risk adaptation theories; hierarchical theories of driver adaptation, task-
capability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al., 2004;
Rothengatter, 2002).
2.3.3 The Individual Differences Approach

Placed in similar situations, not all people act exactly alike and this is a
function of their differing values, attitudes, perceptions, motives and personalities
(Robbins, 2005). For over ninety years, researchers have been trying to determine
individual differences that lead to disparities in crash occurrence and outcomes and
the literature associated with differential road-crash involvement is extensive.
26
Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997), for instance, found that a sample of young Canadian
automobile drivers, aged 16 to 29 years, without driving violations had lower scores
on measures of risk-taking behaviour, thrill and adventure seeking and tended to
avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. In an attempt to
identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers, Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk
groups, the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and
high levels of sensation-seeking, irresponsibility and driving related aggression, while
the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking, aggression, anxiety and
driving anger. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences
have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia.
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), or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae, 1995;
McRae &Costa, 1990). Of the five factors examined – extraversion, neuroticism,
conscientiousness, 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;
extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents, but not occupational accidents.
Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic
and work-related statistics for 34 nations, Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with
high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low
extraversion scores. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various
countries, the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of
traffic offences (Renner & Anderle, 2000), poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo,
1979), crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh, 1980) and other safety outcomes.
According to Rothengatter (2002), the search for individual differences

relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. However,
“these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk.
There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of
27
finding, but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander, West &
French, 1993; p. 290).
2.3.3.1 Accident Proneness

One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive
theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”, an idea that has had an uneven level
of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years, but persists
today.
In 1917, the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue

Research Board, in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and
injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin, 1984). Research
by board statisticians, during and following the war years, found first that the
frequency of accidents, occupational and otherwise, could be modelled almost exactly
by the Poisson distribution but then that, in certain cases, the average number of
accidents, λ, differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule, 1920). The
individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident
proneness. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that,
“irrespective of environment, that individual is more likely at all times to incur an
accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk, and that this is due to
some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal
dexterity, sensori-motor skill, personality, or higher conative or cognitive function”
(Cresswell & Froggat, 1962; p.152).
According to Haight (2004),

‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. The difficulty
was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given
individual. It provided a challenge to the psychology
profession to devise a way to measure it, just as one can
meaure height, weight and perhaps even intelligence. If
each individual has a unique λ-value, his or her accident
proneness, it should be a reasonably simple matter to find
28
out what that value is, by devising clever tests, perhaps
physiological, more probably psychological (p. 422).
Early work on the concept attempted to do just that, with a series of tests
constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919), Farmer and Chambers (1926; 1929;
1939) and many others, motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe
who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet &
Tortosa, 1997). None of the experiments, however, produced a positive, replicable
result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight,
2004). Johnson (1946), Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983)
systematically destroyed the supportive literature, with extensive critiques that
concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid, inappropriate, inadequate or
irrelevant. 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. 195).
The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a

conceptual basis. Scores on the λ dimension, it was pointed out are highly sensitive to
the length of the survey period, with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore,
1956). “Because crashes are so infrequent, 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, 1991; p. 294). The accident-prone concept,
as well, made an assumption that, in any sample, a certain percentage would
experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year, but
did not take into consideration whether, in successive years, that high-λ group would
be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight, 2004).
Hale and Glendon (1987) concluded that the evidence for the transfer of accident
liability differences across different work tasks or different working environments is
quite weak so that accident proneness would appear to be largely task specific. A
study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position,
noting that, in a Finnish telephone survey, subjects reported significant, but very low
correlations between accident frequency at work, at home, in traffic or when playing
29
sports; in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents
exceed r =.05. Ultimately, the consensus position became that:
Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical
accident prevention. The concept itself is ill-defined, no
stable personality characteristics that can be identified with
accident-proneness have been discovered. So, therefore,
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. Alternative explanations must
be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents
(Lindsey, 1980; pp. 8-9).
Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness
concept, it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik, 1998). Visser, Pijl,
Stolk, Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies,
screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within
work, roadway, sports and family settings. While their stated conclusion was that an
accident prone group definitely existed, “it is still difficult to identify the accident
prone individuals that compose this group, because individuals can experience
multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to
risk independent of personal factors” (p. 562). Only 15% of the studies included in
their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience, but the authors
reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons.
2.3.3.2 Differential Accident Involvement

McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be
replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. This
concept does not prejudge the issue of causation, it denotes an area of study rather
than a theory, and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard
to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al., 1993). It is seen as preferable
to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors
outside the person, moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional
30
accident proneness (Chmiel, 2000). Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of
differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do, in fact,
experience more accidents than others, but avoids the assumption of a stable
phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. Elander et al.,
following their review of the literature, concluded that differential crash risk is not
readily accounted for by previous crash rates, and that transient factors probably
interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation.
2.3.4 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. The introduction of
divided highways, crash barriers, compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design
improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities, albeit not crash occurrence,
substantially. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to
reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour, researchers began to
turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour.
However, 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. For example, in a study of driving on icy roads,
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.
2.3.4.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT)

In an attempt to explain these findings, Wilde (1982; 1988) proposed that a
control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. That is,
people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and, when they perceive a
discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk,
they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. A driver who enters a
construction zone, suddenly confronted with uneven pavement, large earth-moving
31
vehicles and warning flags, according to the theory, would perceive a level of risk
above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. Conversely, a
driver motoring along a wide, flat, 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, at least until the target risk level was reached.
Initially, Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level, postulating that the
number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate
which the population is willing to tolerate, and not on the specific measures taken in
other sectors of the control system. That is, “the aggregate target risk in a community
is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced,
according to the theory, is if the level of target risk is reduced,” (Fuller, McHugh &
Pender, 2008; p. 14). When others (Haight, 1986; Michon, 1989; Ranney, 1994)
argued that this made the theory essentially untestable, Wilde (1994) reframed the
concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities.
Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of

studies, many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual
behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. In two separate studies, for
example, observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles
equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively,
performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter
headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl, 1994;
Sagberg, Fosser & Sætermo, 1997). RHT proponents argued that drivers were
adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this, in
turn, reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde, 2002).
Collectively, RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most
engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley,
2001; Wilde, 1988; 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be
extensively revamped (Wilde, 2005), given that human behaviour will continue to be
motivated by internal homeostatic processes. The central implication of RHT is that
safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of
32
target risk that people are willing to tolerate. “The extent of risk taking with respect
to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that
society, and not on the available technology” (Wilde, 1994; p. 223).
More than any other driving theory, however, Wilde’s RHT has generated
controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al., 2004). General consensus is that
behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur
(Rothengatter, 2002), but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the
circumstances under which it does. Considerable criticism revolves around the
imprecise nature of the theory itself. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at
the level of the individual, the community, or the nation” (Brown & Noy, 2004).
“Costs and benefits are central to the model, but they are not defined in psychological
terms.” (Vaa, 2001; p. 53). Also, the notion of target risk implies that drivers are
constant “comparers”, psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and
targeted risk levels inherent in every environment, a tenet for which no convincing
support has been yet generated (Michon, 1989; Rothengatter, 2002). To the contrary,
it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk
probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al., 2008; Slovic,
Fischoff, Lichtenstein, Corrigan & Coombs, 1977). Robertson and Pless (2002) made
the case forcefully that:
… some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain, but that
does not mean that they do so systematically or that they
know exactly how much to slow down to maintain
constancy of risk. The notion that people have a constant
point of acceptable risk, pay sufficient attention to risk, 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. (p.
1151).
Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as

conceptual grounds. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT, Evans
33
(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no
convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. 81). O’Neill
and Williams (1998), after a similar review, 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. 92). Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support
the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level, 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.
2.3.4.2 Zero Risk Theory

Another risk-based theory, Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour
(Summala & Näätänen, 1987; Summala, 1988) proposed that drivers do not
constantly assess risk while driving, a necessary and highly controversial assumption
in Wilde’s theory. Rather, drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-to-
collision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the
threshold is exceeded. At this point, they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear
and abruptly change behaviour. In other words, drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence,
experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating, or expecting, some degree of
risk during the performance of this task. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level
that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour, increasing safety
margins” (Brown & Noy, 2004; p. 26). Summala (1986) suggested that estimating
time-to-collision, for example, is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in
the absence of extensive conscious processing.
While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the
concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process, zero-risk theory
still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned
how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not
constantly assess risk. In addition, Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise
that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise, and
34
learn how to respond safety to, what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic
scenarios.
A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation, used
to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold.
A large number of studies show that external motives, such as time pressure, do
appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and,
as a result, their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances
(Delhomme & Meyer, 1998; Hataaka, Keskinen, Gregersen, Glad & Hernetkoskis,
2002; Reeder et al. 1996; Van der Hulst, Meijman & Roghengatter, 1999). On the
other hand, very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic
motivation, much of which arises from personality, age and social variables.
2.3.5 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, and when confronted with various
environmental conditions or psychological processes. If behavioural adaptation were
to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS),
for instance, it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but
rather as a conscious, pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. In an attempt to
deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators, Summala
(1996; 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural
adaptation, in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. The
cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy, level of
psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure
2.1). Summala argued that behavioural adaptation, and specific driver actions, would
vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions.
35
MOBILITY NEEDS
LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL
PROCESSING
Decision making
Supervisory
monitoring FUNCTIONAL
HIERARCHY
Attention control Vehicle choice

Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL
MODULE:
Perceptual-motor Navigation MOTIVES
Control Guidance EMOTIONS
(constant mapping, Speed
Automated) and time Vehicle control
control
etc.
Lane keeping
Headway control
Obstacle avoidance
Crossing management
Passing and other maneuvers

FUNCTIONAL
TAXONOMY
Figure 2.1: Task Cube (from Summala, 1996)
Keskinen et al. (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, at the same time, criticised the model for being
overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables
than a solid model” (p. 15). Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a
hierarchy, pointing out that a task hierarchy assumes that successful completion of the
task at a lower level is required for successful performance of a higher-level task, a
property absent within the task cube concept.
Even though it is true that the performance on one task can
bear consequences for the performance for the other, 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,
for example, seemingly concurrently, but that is not
36
sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of
the same task rather than two different tasks (p. 252).
2.3.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory

In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories, Fuller
(2000; 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde, 1982; 1988) and
the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala, 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to
match task demands with their capability to maintain control. Fuller argued that loss
of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. Most of the time,
drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure
2.1), either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. However, this
becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e.g., high speeds;
affective states), unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility, 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. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that
required to carry out the task safely.
Safety
Compensatory Crash!
action by others
Loss of
control
Capability (C)
C>D C<D
Control Task Demands (D)
Safety
Figure 2.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller, 2000)
37
Fuller’s theory has, for the most part, been regarded as potentially more
productive than earlier risk-based theories, simply because it is more straightforward
to establish the parameters that drivers use to assess their competence than it is to
measure target or subjective risk. Generally, the notion of matching competence with
task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour, and
Keskinen et al. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has
received to date. Two limitations have been noted, however. 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.
Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced
by external factors (impairment, emotional state, time pressure), such that it is not
capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand.
2.3.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories

2.3.6.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
An attitude is a relatively stable and enduring predisposition to behave or react
in a certain way toward persons, objects, institutions or issues (Chaplin, 1985; p. 40).
It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and
not in another” (Parker, 2004; p. 126). Since 1985, traffic psychology has seen a
resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes, largely due to the focus that has
been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and
the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen, 1985; 1991), neither of
which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour.
Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most
important theories in attitude-behaviour research, providing an account of the way in
which attitudes, subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict
behaviour. According to the TRA, people’s behaviour is determined by their
intention to perform the behaviour. Intention is the cognitive representation of an
individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour, and is considered to be the
immediate antecedent of behaviour. Intention is determined by the summed effects
of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour, generally referring to a positive or negative
38
judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a
cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”); 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 cross-
junctions”). Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of
behaviour, and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard, Hartwick and Warshaw
(1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility.
2.3.7.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)

Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where
behaviours were not fully under volitional control, however (Sharma & Kanekar,
2007). “Even very mundane activities, which can usually be performed (or not
performed) at will, are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s
control,” (Azjen, 1985; p. 24), such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose
attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. To deal with this uncertainty, he
incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC), denoting the
subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the
performance of a behaviour. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory
of Planned Behaviour (TPB; see Figure 2.2). According to the TPB, then,
behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to
do?”), 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?”).
39
Behavioural beliefs Attitude toward
and the
outcome evaluations behaviour
Normative beliefs
Subjective
and Intention Behaviour
motivation to comply norm
Control beliefs Perceived

and behavioural
perceived facilitation control
Figure 2.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1989)
Within the theory, PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s

intentions and the individual’s behaviour. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is
premised on the notion that, when intention is held constant, greater perceived control
(i.e., stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence
level, or sense of self-efficacy, creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood
that behaviour will be successfully performed. Further, to the extent to which PBC
reflects an individual’s level of actual control, it will directly influence behaviour
(Armitage & Christian, 2003).
The TPB has spawned a huge body of research, on the performance of a wide
range of behaviours, including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of
planned behaviour has stood up well. It has been applied to every conceivable type of
road user behaviour and has reliably been able to produce comparatively robust
relations between the model components and the behaviour in question”
(Rothengatter, 2002; p. 253). In one study, 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, speed on a major road or
overtake dangerously. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious
(attitudes), the perception of what others would think (subjective norms) and lower
PBC all influenced the behaviours chosen by subjects and that hypotheses derived
from the TPB were confirmed.
40
In another study, Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation
modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame
of reference. Attitude toward speeding, subjective norms and PBC were all
significant determinants of self-reported speeding, 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. This
might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and
Christian (2002).
2.4 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour

2.4.1 Statistical Models
If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour, there
has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships
between specific variables related to given situations. 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. Austin and Carson (2002), for instance, used a negative-
binomial regression technique to analyse highway-rail crash statistics within a six-
state radius in the USA and derived a predictive model in which the contribution of
traffic characteristics, roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted.
Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal

patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate, Gross
Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. Similar to later findings by
Law et al. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect.2.1.2), they found that real GDP
per capita was related to the number of crashes, but after controlling for distance
travelled, it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley, 2002). Edwards (1996)
developed a spatial model, based on data extracted from police record forms, to
predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales, while Rautela and Pant (2007)
modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information
system (GIS) data. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological
characteristics of drivers, vehicles, pedestrians and road environments in a range of
41
locations and settings (e.g., Law, Seow & Lim, 1998; Swaddiwudhipong, Nguntra,
Mahasakpan, Koonchote & Tantiratna, 1994).
2.4.2 Process Models

2.4.2.1 The Haddon Matrix
Traditional studies of human factors in road safety have tended to view
transportation as a system with four major component elements: the human (H), the
vehicle (V), the road (R) and the environment (E). Haddon (1970) proposed a
framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an
analytical matrix (see Figure 2.4). This model has been instrumental in stimulating
research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams,
1999). More recently, however, some researchers have argued that the Haddon
Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently, concealing the
interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy, 1997;
Richardson & Downe, 2000), and have proposed expanding the matrix to better
provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic
elements. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models
that stress the mediational role played by certain V, R. E and especially H factors,
within specific situational contexts.
PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH
BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT

Human (H)
Vehicle (V)
Road (R)
Environment (E)
Figure 2.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy, 1997)
42
2.4.2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors
of Motor Vehicle Crashes
Elander et al. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in
studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk, arguing
that:
Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem
that causality cannot be established. Therefore, when one
observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and
crash risk, there are four possible explanations: the
behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk; it
may influence crash risk through some other, more
proximal variable; it may happen to correlate with some
other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself;
or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p.
283).
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. Within the generic model, relevant factors are
grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the
accident (see Figure 2.5). Factors within the distal context include not only road,
vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of
driver demographic (e.g., age, gender, driving experience) and psychological
characteristics (e.g., sensation seeking, extraversion, aggression), as well. By
contrast, the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e.g.,
speeding, reckless lane transitions or overtaking, substance abuse) that, on one hand,
are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and, on the other
hand, contribute directly to crash outcomes.
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. Personality factors within the
43
distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that
increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the
proximal context. As such, it would be expected that relationships between the distal
and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context
and crash outcomes. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect
accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of
proximal behaviour factors, such that direct effects of distal factors would be most
likely insignificant or weak. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements –
sensation seeking, aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety, depression,
hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving
behaviour, choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the
frequency of self-reported accidents, 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.
DISTAL CONTEXT PROXIMAL CONTEXT
 Road and vehicle condition
 Demographic characteristics
  Safety skills
 Culture-specific factors,
e.g. cultural driving habits  Aberrant driving behaviors
and beliefs
 Violations
 Relatively stable personality
characteristics, e.g. CRASH
 Errors
psychological symptoms, risk OUTCOMES
taking, sensation seeking,
 Speeding
aggression
 Attributions regarding  Drinking and driving

accidents
 Dysfunctional drinking
 Fatalism
 Enforcement
Figure 2.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality, Behavioural Predictors and

Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer, 2003)
44
2.4.2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and
Mediation
Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have
direct, moderating or mediating effects. Also termed intervening variables,
mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association
between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson, 2004).
Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism, process or

transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier, Tix and
Barron, 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and
complete mediation (Wei, Heppner & Mallinckrodt, 2003). In Figure 2.6(i), the
variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y,
called the outcome. Figure 2.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in
mediation, in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable:
path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y; while path a represents the effect of X on
some mediator variable, M, which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b
(Baron & Kenny, 1986). In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been
controlled, such that path c′ is zero, then it can be concluded that complete mediation
occurs. 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,
2006). Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome
variable. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model, proximal variables
(including safety skill levels, driver propensities to commit errors or violations,
driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal
variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. If, for instance, drivers’
safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on
crash frequency, then the significance level of path c would be reduced to
insignificance or a less significant level (path c’).
45
(i)
c
X Y
Predictor Variable Outcome Variable
(Distal Variable) (Crash Outcomes)
c′
(ii)
a b
X M Y
Predictor Variable Mediator Variable Outcome Variable
(Distal Variable) (Proximal Variable) (Crash Outcomes)
Figure 2.6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models
In contrast, a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on

the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran, 2003). or
testing the moderating effect, there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome,
or dependent, variable (see Figure 2.7): the impact of a predictor, or independent
variable (path a), the impact of a moderator (path b), and the interaction or product of
these two (path c). Only if the interaction (path c) is significant, can the moderator
hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Baron and Kenny
have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant
effects on the outcome variable, these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing
the moderator hypothesis.
46
Predictor
X
Variable a
b Outcome
Moderator Z Y Variable
Predictor
X
Moderator
Figure 2.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model
2.4.2.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model

In his initial study, Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables:
psychological symptoms (depression, anxiety, hostility, psychoticism); sensation-
seeking and risk-taking (novelty, intensity) and aggression (physical aggression,
verbal aggression, hostility, anger). He examined their effects on three proximal
variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations, errors); choice of speed and alcohol
use (antisocial drinking, dangerous drinking). In turn, the effects of the proximal
variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was
examined. Using structured equation modelling, he found that, while psychological
factors did not predict speed choice, they did have a significant association with both
dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. However, more relevant
to the model he proposed, Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour, a
proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal
variables and the frequency of crashes.
A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. His

sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers, mostly from taxi and
heavy trucking, and non-professional students who were mostly students. No
attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. Further, given wide
47
variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14,739),
it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels
of traffic exposure, as recommended by Elander et al., (1993) and others. Sümer’s
decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised
by several authors (af Wahlberg, 2002; Arthur, Bell, Edward, Day, Tubré & Tubré,
2005; Watson, 1998), including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were
asked to report crash occurrence. It is questionable whether crash details can be
recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the
psychological characteristics, sensation seeking patterns, 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, 2003; Elander et. al, 1993). Finally,
Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned, in that the standard
multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a
normal distribution of crash frequency scores, while it has been accepted since the
early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency, in most cases,
tends to fit a Poisson distribution or, for high-λ individuals, a negative-binomial
distribution (Greenwood & Woods, 1919; Greenwood & Yule, 1920).
Notwithstanding these methodological considerations, 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. In a
subsequent study, Sümer, Lajunen and Özkan (2005), applied the five factor, or “Big
Five”, personality model (Costa & McRae, 1995; McRae &Costa, 1990) to a similar
analysis. Here, the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience
negative affect and anxiety); extraversion (interpersonal warmth, sensation seeking);
agreeableness (helpfulness, trust); conscientiousness (dependability, responsibility,
self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness, broad-mindedness). The proximal
factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors, lapses, violations) and the
outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and
traffic offences committed over a three-year period. Results indicated that all five of
the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on
48
aberrant driving behaviours. In other words, proximal behavioural variables
mediated personality factors, yielding support for the contextual mediated model.
The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering
other potential mediators, moderators and bidirectional associations between
personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying
mechanisms” (p. 225).
Although no other studies of driving behaviour, prior to the present one, have
acted on those recommendations, some researchers have worked with models that are
conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. Iverson and Rundmo
(2002), for instance, reported that driver anger, sensation seeking and normlessness
(all of which which might be classified as distal, within Sümer’s contextual mediated
model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies, but
weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement, while the risky
driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement.
2.4.2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research

Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain.
Sümer, Karanci, Berument and Gunes (2005), for instance used the concept to
examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in
Turkey. They found that the effect of proximal variables, including perceived control,
self esteem, optimism, material loss, perceived threat and gender on distress levels
were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. In
another study, using a similar research design, Sümer, Bilgic, Sümer and Erol (2005)
found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships
between distal and proximal predictors of depression, phobia, hostility, anxiety,
psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of non-
commissioned officers in the Turkish army, navy, air force and gendarmerie. Both
studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual
mediated model.
49
Downe (2007), in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in
Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations, proposed the use of a contextual mediated
model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2.8).
Distal factors
Proximal factors
Safety interventions
 knowledge transfer Safety climate
 ergonomic design  worker attitude toward safe work
 safety audits  perceived management priority
 employee empowerment and
Outcomes
control over safety Organisational Impacts
Psychosocial variables  post-injury administration  lower injury rates and
 locus of control  return-to-work policies lost time relative to
 risk acceptance/aversion  operating policies & procedures labour input and output
 impulsivity  reduced accident severity
 cultural factors (e.g., Safe Work Practices  reduced risk assessment
uncertainty avoidance)  hazard identification and  standards compliance
 temperamental factors (e.g., reporting  increased worker
Type A, aggression)  risk avoidance satisfaction
 procedural compliance
 use of safety devices and
Experiential equipment
 safety awareness  occupational hygiene
 domain-specific skill  help-seeking and teamwork
 years of work experience behaviour
 prior accident experience
Figure 2.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in

Agriculture (from Downe, 2007)
2.5 Distal Variables in the Present Study

2.5.1 Demographic Variables
2.5.1.1 Age
Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed
in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger, 2002; Odero et al., 1997; Retting,
Weinstein & Solomon, 2003; Williams & Shabanova, 2003). Not only are they the
most likely age group to be involved in crashes, but young drivers are more likely to
sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie, Campbell &
Williams, 1995). Yet, they have been less well studied than other groups and the
general understanding of age effects is not clear. Part of this may be due to
heterogeneity in group composition:
50
The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25, but
there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old
and a 23-year-old driver. The former is less experienced at
driving, less emotionally mature, less experienced with the
use of alcohol and has different social and motivational
needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. The
problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed
to age and inexperience together. The factors of driving
style and driving skill may account, at least in part, for
these difficulties. However, not all young new drivers are
alike (Dewar, 2002a; p. 221).
Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels.
Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others, specifically more
likely to drive too fast, follow too closely, overtake dangerously, drive while fatigued,
are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seat-
belts when compared to other drivers (Lerner, Jehle, Billittier, Moscati, Connery &
Stiller, 2001; Jonah, 1997b; Vassallo et al., 2007). Bina, Graziano and Bonino (2006)
have argued that, in many cases, this is a reflection of lifestyle, 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, tobacco
smoking, comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends.
Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were
also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety, and by high levels of
sensation-seeking, irresponsibility and driving related aggression.
Harré, Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16- to
29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism, in
which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes.
This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to over-
estimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar, 2002a; Matthews &
Moran, 1986). In fact, the contrary appears to be true. McDonald (1994) reported
51
that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers,
particularly with respect to controlling deviations, managing velocity and regulating
acceleration. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating
information, they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively
undetailed, and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. This
means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional
resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving, so they have
little spare attentional capacity” (p.39).
Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong
emotional states, capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash
occurrence. In a nation-wide survey of American teens, 76 per cent had seen peers
drive while very upset stressed, angry or sad (strong negative emotions); 74 per cent
had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions); and 55 per
cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of
Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance, 2007). Stevenson et al. (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, and that young
drivers, particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality, are like to perceive
the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk.
Justification of age-related hypotheses. In the present study, age was

considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in
traffic and, indirectly, on crash and injury occurrence. Since previous research had
highlighted the association between age, risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens,
Vissers & Jessurun, 1999; Ulleberg, 2002), it was hypothesised in the present study
that, as age decreased, behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash
occurrence would be more likely. Similarly, since safe driving among younger
drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states, age was
hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression.
Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding,
52
failure to use seat-belts, and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury, it was
also hypothesised that, as age decreased, self-reported injury would also increase.
2.5.1.2 Gender
A large number of studies have found differences between males and females,
with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. “In all studies and
analyses, without exception, men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes
than women. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years,
but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC], 2004;
p.4). Chipman, MacGregor, Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992), for instance, reported
that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women.
Monárrez-Espino, Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records
and found the same ratio. Waller, Elliott, Shope, Raghunathan and Little (2001)
noted that, in addition to having a higher number of crashes, male drivers incur their
first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for
the incident. 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.
Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of
fatalities, and behaviours predictive of fatalities. Williams and Shabanova (2003)
found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females
to be responsible for crash deaths. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for
this are obvious – men drive greater distances, more often at hazardous times (e.g.,
rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e.g., darkness)” (p. 129). Åkerstedt and
Kecklund (2001), for instance, found that men had twice as high a risk as women of
being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours.
There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced, as well.

Tavris, Kuhn and Layde (2001) found, for instance, that males were significantly
more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. However, Laapotti and
Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar, it
53
usually led to a single-vehicle crash, but for female drivers the loss of control usually
resulted in a collision with another car. Male drivers drove too fast and under the
influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes, which typically took place
during evenings and nights. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took
place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle
handling skills.
Dobson, Brown, Ball, 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, to date, 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. While there is
much of value in such an approach, 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. 525-
526).
This is important, as marked changes in the roles of women in society have
profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller, 1997;
Woodcock, Lenard, Welsh, Flyte & Garner, 2001). Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a)
indicated that, worldwide, (a) the number of female drivers is increasing, (b) females
drive increasingly more, and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle
crashes than ever before. At the same time, 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.
Lonczak, Neighbors and Donovan (2007), for instance, found that while male
drivers, in a sample taken in the U.S. state of Washington, reported more traffic
citations and injuries, they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving
54
anger. In a study of Dutch drivers, Lourens et al. (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.
Forward, Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984
and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. 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.
In a subsequent report, though, McKenna, Waylen and Burke (1998)

disagreed, commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the
population of women drivers, there is little evidence that the sex difference in the
pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. 11). In a study of
male and female drivers in Finland, Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence
in support of this view, showing that male drivers were, as per the traditional pattern,
involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding, alcohol consumption
and for risky driving. Female drivers, on the other hand, had proportionally more
crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring, control of traffic situations,
and loss-of-control incidents. In other research, Laapotti, Keskinen and Rajalin
(2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males, evaluated their
driving skill lower, were less frequently involved in crash situations, committed fewer
traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than
males, just as they had in 1978.
Justification of gender-related hypotheses. In the present study, gender was

traffic and, indirectly, on crash and injury occurrence. Since previous research had
highlighted the association between males, crash frequency and risky or aggressive
driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino, et al., 2006; Turner & McClure, 2003), 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. Consistent with the
findings of McKenna et al. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004), it was
hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic.
55
2.5.1.3 Ethnicity
A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences
on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. To a large degree, this has been the result
of a change in reporting protocols within the U.S. Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS), that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in
1999 (Briggs, Levine, Haliburton, Schlundt, Goldweig and Warren, 2005). Harper,
Marine, Garrett, Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic
white motorists in the state of Colorado, finding that the former group had higher
fatality rates, lower rates of safety belt use, more frequent histories of speeding
offences and more extreme alcohol use. On the other hand, Romano, Tippetts and
Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American, White and Hispanic
drivers regarding red light violations.
A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms

of crash risk. Lajunen, Corry, Summala and Hartley (1998), for instance, reported
few differences between Australians and Finns. Melinder (2007) compared 15
Western European countries with regard to the relation between different socio-
cultural factors, traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Despite the fact that
countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar, differences in
fatalities persisted. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were
important distal factors. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with
higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. But, being a wealthy
Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy, non-
Catholic countries.
Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out
in Southeast Asia. In one of the few studies reported, Hauswald (1999) studied the
incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi
drivers. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur, he found that
60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to
56
have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. However, there was no statistical
differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice.
The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay,

ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson, 1999). While religious affiliation,
regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three
groups (Gomez, 1999), cultural differences can be more subtle. Abdullah and
Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table
2.2).
Table 2.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group
Key Value Orientations
Malay Man’s relationship with God. Fatalistic. Family centeredness;
cooperation; respect for elders; polite behaviour; courtesy; humility.
Conscious of what other people say about us. Indirect communication.
Strong relationship orientation; hierarchical; shame-driven.
Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. Education; prosperity; harmony with nature;
religion; filial piety; respect for elders; face saving; family ties;
brotherhood/sisterhood. Strong relationship orientation.
Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination; Karma. Spirituality; piety; respect for elders;
family honour; dependence on family for direction in social and career
decisions; respect for knowledge; peace, prosperity and integrity; hard
work.
Differences have not always been consistent. In a study of 324 employees

sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries, Fontaine and Richardson
(2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. They
concluded that there were, in fact, few significant value differences between ethnic
groups.
Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. In the present study, gender was

traffic and, indirectly, on crash and injury occurrence. Based on studies that have
demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al., 2000; Roman et
al., 2005), it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on
57
behaviour in traffic. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian
cultural groups, directionality of the effect was not predicted.
2.5.2 Driver Characteristics

2.5.2.1 Experience
Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. A large number of studies
have shown that, as drivers become more experienced, they are less likely to make
errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e.g., Lajunen & Summala, 1995;
Laapotti, Keskinen, Hatakka and Katila, 2001), and indicating that those recording
higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman, 1971).
Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this:
… the weight of practice more experienced drivers have
makes much of what they do routine, and as such, allows
many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed
together. Allied to this, increased experience usually,
although not always, implies the driver has had a broader
variety of driving experiences, such as driving at different
times of the day or days of the week, with different weather
conditions, journey lengths, passenger distractions different
vehicles, etc. As experience grows, the motorist is less
likely to encounter situations very different from those they
have encountered before (p. 166).
On the other hand, 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; (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre
correctly; (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly;
or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human
factors on their performance (Fuller, 2002).
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
by Keskinen, Hataaka and Katila (1992). It assumes that, as individuals acquire
experience, 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. 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, 2004). Internal models contain knowledge of route, including start and
destination point and corresponding visual scenes, as well as knowledge of risk
elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves.
Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver,
and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes, or most important
facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2.9). When drivers tap into models at
the base of cognitive hierarchy, they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle
over other elements of the driving experience. When using those at the top of the
hierarchy, they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle
priorities and values.
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, environment, social context company
MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS

 Adapting to the demands of the present situation
VEHICLE MANOEUVRING
 Controlling speed, direction and position
Figure 2.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour

(after Keskinen, 1996; Hatakka, 2000)
The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked, as young drivers
generally have less experience than their older counterparts, and sometimes
confounded by gender differences. Yet, in many studies of age and gender
differences, experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter, 2001).
59
Laapotti et al. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of
experience, age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. They found that young
drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did
middle-aged drivers, explained because adult identity is still under construction so life
goals and living skills are still under development. Young novice drivers, and
especially young male drivers, showed more problems connected to showing off
driving skills to peers, taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs, all of which were
seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. Female
novice drivers, on the other hand, showed more problems than males connected to the
lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy, such as problems in vehicle handling
skills.
One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which

driving is an important work component. Studies of crash predictors among
professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e.g., Brown & Ghiselli,
1948; Ghiselli & Brown, 1949; Mintz, 1954), frequently showing that they are lest
frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. While
motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional
drivers’ crash risk, many studies have focused on the effects of experience. Peltzer
and Renner (2003), for instance, found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers
of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa, was inversely
correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. Burns and
Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when
they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. 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, 2004), and that taxicab drivers
are more likely to regard low- and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as
unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar, 2007).
Justification of driver experience hypotheses. A simple measure of driving

experience, the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained, was used in
this study. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an
60
effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and, indirectly, on crash and injury
occurrence. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have
fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala, 1995; Pelz & Schuman, 1971), it was
hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in
traffic scores, with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour.
2.5.2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure

Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and
outcomes (Evans, 1984; McKenna, Duncan & Brown, 1986; Rothengatter, 2001;
Wilde, 1984). Elander et al. (1993) noted that:
People vary in the time they spend on the road, the miles
they drive, and the traffic conditions to which they are
exposed. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash
involvement. 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, technical or legal
changes relating to road safety. In individual differences
research, the concept is much less well developed, and the
problem of taking adequate account of individuals’
exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed
(p. 282).
Generally, it is accepted that the more one travels, the more one is going to be
exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur, but measuring exposure is
not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance
travelled per unit time (Evans, 1991). First, there may be considerable random or
systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al., 1993).
Second, crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when, and type of route
where, driving occurs (Dewar, 2002a). Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001), for instance,
showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night
61
hours than during the forenoon. Odero et al. (1997) reviewed published and
unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994,
and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the
night, with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. Yet, there is
little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or
route conditions, nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the
prediction of risk.
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, 2007; Christie, Cairns, Towner and
Ward, 2007; Ferguson, Teoh & MCartt, 2007), although much research does not (e.g,.
Bina et al., 2006; Williams & Shabanova, 2003). Mercer (1989) showed that, without
correcting for annual mileage, 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, however, female drivers came out higher in number of
crashes and in some types of traffic violations. Lourens et al. (1999) have argued that,
in countries like the USA, Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is
in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes, the resulting
‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of
future crashes.
Justification of exposure hypotheses. In the present study, a simple measure

of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on
participants’ behaviour in traffic and, indirectly, on crash and injury occurrence. This
was taken to be representative of traffic exposure, as defined by Elander et al. (1993),
Evans (1991) and others. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and
McKenna et al. (1986), it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency
would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. In keeping with recommendations
made by Elander 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.
62
2.5.3 Psychological Variables
2.5.3.1 Locus of Control
2.5.3.1.1 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, 1999). Originally
conceptualised by Rotter (1966; 1975; 1990), people are thought to vary on a
continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control.
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, or externals , view most events as dependent on chance or controlled
by powers beyond human reach. In contrast, people who attribute behaviour to an
internal locus of control, or internals, believe that very few events are outside the
realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through
human action. 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.
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, according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of
internal or external control. Levenson (1975; 1981) extended this concept in two
ways: first, she separated the externality dimension into two, one to reflect the
influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful
others (P); and second, she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were
conceptually independent, such that it could be possible for an individual to score
high on all three (see Figure 2.10). 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. 15). Based on this multidimensional
conceptualisation, Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of
locus of control (e.g,. Holder & Levi, 2006; Hyman, Stanley & Burrows, 1991;
63
Luckner, 1989; Sinha & Watson, 2007) and has given rise to a number of other
instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control.
E Unidimensional Model I
Externalizers Internalizers
Individuals believe that what Individuals believe that what
happens is determined by fate, happens is the result of their
luck, a deity or higher power or own personal decisions and
other external circumstances efforts.
Multidimensional Model
Low High
Internality
Low High
Externality - Chance
Low High
Externality – Powerful Others
Figure 2.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s

Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control
2.5.3.1.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour

Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking.
Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing
task. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer
intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots. They
also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented
subjects. According to Phares (1976), these results supported the idea that internals
would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in
riskier behaviour.
64
More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus
of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. 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. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road
crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. 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, French & Chan, 1999).
Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and
crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey, 1987). According to Brown
and Noy (2004),
If an individual views herself or himself as being
responsible for both positive and negative outcomes, s/he
will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as
wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. On
the other hand, those who see themselves as playing little or
no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious
manner, believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter
what the individual does (p. 39).
A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on

driving behaviour, but results have been inconsistent. Guastello and Guastello (1986)
used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a
study of American college students. 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. Serious methodological
problems may have plagued this study, however, as Cronbach’s alpha values for the
scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content,
which focused heavily on situational scenarios, only partially represented the original
locus of control concept. In a subsequent study, however, Iversen and Rundmo
(2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement.
65
Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant, leading
the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists, it may not be of sufficient
magnitude to be of value. (p. 1260).
On the other hand, when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish
university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and
personality, driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. The
same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control.
Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total
crashes, offences, aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors,
although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those
dependent variables. In a meta-analysis of information-processing, cognitive,
personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement, an
internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash
involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. In a similar study
investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour, 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 much earlier study, Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing
seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and
involving.
Arthur et al. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly
simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control,
rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. In an important study,
Gidron, 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). They found that, although internality was unrelated to
DDB, it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. That is,
hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring
low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. This study
provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving
66
behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which
interactions, moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. This point had
also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. (1991), Noy (1997), Richardson and Downe
(2000) and others.
2.5.3.1.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity

Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing
interest in the role of attributions, reinforcement and sociocultural processes created
fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. In very
early research, Hsieh, Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school
students (Hong Kong Chinese, US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). Noting
that Chinese culture, with situation-centred Confucian foundations, is based on the
notion that
… luck, chance and fate are taken for granted in life, which
is considered to be full of ambiguity, complexity and
unpredictability. Life situations may be viewed as being
largely determined by circumstances outside personal
control (p. 122).
Their results, after correction for differences in socioeconomic status,

indicated that, as hypothesised, Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally
controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale, whereas Americans scored high on internal
control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between.
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, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, India, Japan, and the USA. Japanese students
had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries, while externality
scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France, Canada and
Japan. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more
67
externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or
Taiwanese males.
In very early research, Carment (1974) found Indian university students to be

significantly more internal than Canadian students on the full scale score for Rotter’s
(1969) I-E instrument, due largely to high scores on items measuring political
ideology and social system control. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with
widespread nepotism, ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort, skill and
ability, all internal characteristics. At the same time, Indian students were more
external than Canadians on personal control factors, a finding Carment interpreted as
reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and
closely-connected Indian family structure. 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, although there were no differences in internality
nor externality involving powerful others.
To the author’s knowledge, only Cheung, Cheung, Howard and Lim (2006)
have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control
within Malay, Chinese and Indian populations, 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. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural
Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2), 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. This was very
true for the locus of control variable, where no significant differences were found
between those of Indian, Chinese of Malay extraction, but all three groups differed
from the sample drawn in China. No published accounts of research conducted in
Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay,
Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found.
68
Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. In the present study, locus
of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’
behaviour in traffic and, indirectly, on crash and injury occurrence. Given the strong
research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less
risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala, 1995; Montag & Comrey, 1987; Özkan
& Lajunen, 2005), it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative
association with unsafe behaviour in traffic, while the two dimensions of externality
would have positive associations. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al.
(2003), it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship
between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Finally, given the large number of
studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon, 1991; Sinha &
Watson, 2007), it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward
higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher
internality.
2.5.3.2 Hopelessness
Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of
research on affect and driver behaviour. Personality traits closely aligned with given
mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving
tasks. 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, without objective basis, anticipate a negative outcome to any
attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck,
Kovacs and Weissman, 1975).
Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving

behaviour or of crash risk, but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. First,
hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck, et
al, 1975; McMillan, Gilbody, Beresford & Neilly, 2007; Niméus, Träskman-Bendz &
Alsén, 1997; Weissman, Fox & Klerman, 1973). Ohberg, Pentilla and Lonnqvist
(1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5.9%
could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. Cases usually
69
involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and
victims had often suffered from life-event stress, mental disorders and alcohol misuse.
Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998), in a more detailed study, found that the most
commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as
suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. They also classified a group of
drivers whose highly negligent actions, whose crashes had resulted from extreme
risks, usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use.
Very early on, 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, 1962). Several authors, in fact,
have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours, including risky driving,
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, 1998; Firestone & Seiden,
1990; Henderson, 1976; Mendel, 1974).
Second, hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural

factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk.
Prociuk, Breen and Lussier (1976), for instance, investigated the relationship between
hopelessness, locus of control and depression with university students in western
Canada, finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of
powerful others, luck, chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the
future but were more likely to report depressive states. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005)
showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted
by high scores in neuroticism and depression, and negatively predicted by
extraversion, assertiveness and positive emotion.
Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. In the present study, hopelessness

was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour
in traffic and, indirectly, on crash and injury occurrence. Based on earlier findings
about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states, in which hopelessness plays
a significant part, and crash risk (Ohberg et al,. 1997; Selzer & Payne, 1962), it was
70
hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be
likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. In a largely unrelated
study, Binzer (1999) suggested that hopelessness may play a moderating role in the
effects of locus of control on some psychiatric symptoms associated with unconscious
motivations. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner
in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic.
2.5.3.3 Aggression
Since the 1980s, attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown
exponentially, sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and
improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. While media
reports and some authors (James & Nahl, 2000; Mizell, 1999) have argued that there
has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related
crashes, 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, Malta & Blanchard, 2006).
Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually

increasing, there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable
association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard, Barton
and Malta, 2000; Chliaoutaks, Demakakos, Tzamalouka, Bakou, Koumaki, & Darviri,
2002; Deffenbacher, Filetti, Richards, Lynch & Oetting, 2003; Underwood, Chapman,
Wright & Crundall, 1999; Wells-Parker et al., 2002). 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; this
concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression
hypothesis of aggressive driving. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is
produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors,
including subjective feelings of stress, physiological arousal, learned cognitive scripts,
learned disinhibitory cues. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol, which
acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s
impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue, and deindividuation,
71
which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility, as
another. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an
appropriate model for aggressive driving, but needed to be expanded to account for
the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB),
cultural driving norms and situational conditions. Groeger (2000), though, raised the
point that:
It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of
personal challenge, threat to own safety and self-eesteem,
stress induced by time pressure, lack of control over events,
and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in
the modern world, does indeed have all the ingredients that
might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility.
However, it may equally be that the people involved would
be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving
being an opportunity for, rather than a cause of, the display
of aggression (p. 163).
Schwebel et al. (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. Bettencourt, Talley, Benjamin and
Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables
and aggressive behaviour. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability
influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that
other personality variables, such as TAPB, angry thinking and trait anger influenced
aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked.
Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring, through the

use of self-statements, to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change.
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, 1976; Ellis, 1962). More recently, Snyder, Crowson, Houston, Kurylo and
Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency
72
with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments.
Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a
population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder
(Crowson, Frueh & Snyder, 2001). Later still, Deffenbacher, Petrilli, Lynch, Oetting
and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by
drivers under varying conditions of provocation. They found that perjorative labelling
and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive
driving.
Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. In the present study,

aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’
behaviour in traffic and, indirectly, on crash and injury occurrence. Based on the
extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving
behaviour (Galovski et. al., 2006; James & Nahl, 2000; Bettencourt et al, 2006), it
was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic.
It was also hypothesised, consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al.
(2003), that the total amount, and specific content, of hostile automatic thought would
moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.
2.6 Proximal Variables in the Present Research

2.6.1 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, 1999). Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman
(1974), TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency, impatience, insecurity
about status, competitiveness, aggression, hostility and difficulty achieving states of
relaxation (Ben-Zur, 2002; Blumenthal, McKee, Williams & Haney, 1981; Karlberg,
Undén, Elofsson & Krakau, 1998; Rice, 1999; Sato, Kamada, Miyake, Kumashiro &
Kume, 1999; Thurman, 1985).
Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most
consistently linked to driving performance. Magnavita, Narda, Sani, Carbone,
73
DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997), for instance, studied police officers in Italy, where
Type A drivers were 4.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. Perry
(1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used
measure of TAPB, the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins, Zzanski & Rosenman, 1979)
and number of accidents, violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample
of 54 American students. In a correlational study of British drivers, West, Elander
and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving
speed, but not with accident risk. In none of these studies, however, was driving
frequency, traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables.
Nabi, Consoli, Chastang, Chiron, Lafont and Lagarde (2005), however, did
control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage,
driving style, alcohol consumption, age, gender, socio-professional category, category
of vehicle, and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the
association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study
of 20,000 employees of a French oil and gas company. They found a robust
association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes.
Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds, it
may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg
(2003) and by Elander et al. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. Nabi
et al. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving
behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. Although there is some
evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen, 1989;
Raikkonen, 1990), 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.
Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB

has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. 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, particularly in driving situations that require
prudence. Karlberg et al. (1998), similarly, focused on the time urgency component
74
of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. Miles and Johnson
(2003), on the other hand, stressed the relationship between Type A individuals and
the tendency to engage in more aggressive acts while driving as the key factor in the
relationship between TAPB and crashes.
2.6.2 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. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B
continuum, they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes,
specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane
violations and reluctance to yield), freeway urgency (excessive speed choice),
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). The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student
version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS; Glass, 1977), with higher BIT scores
reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. Gender, ethnicity, driving exposure and the
place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results.
In a subsequent study, Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several

further analyses of their original data, emphasising the four individual dimensions of
behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. Of the four BIT
factors, only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A
behaviour, as measured by the student version of the SJAS. At the same time, all four
BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics.
Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that:
Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of

the four driving factors obtained by the BIT, namely
“externally-focused frustration”. If all four BIT factors
contribute to accident proneness, then use of the Type A/B
75
construct as the basis of further investigation into the
question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete
picture. Specifically, it will not be sensitive to “usurpation
of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving;
“freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and
frequent lane changing; and “destination-activity
orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving
(p. 13).
They argued that it would be preferable, 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.
In neither of their studies, though, did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985, 1988)
attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. At the present
time, 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, thought to be critical
in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes, that are measured by the
BIT scale. Similarly, although ethnicity, 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. To the
author’s knowledge, no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of
driving safety.
Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. In the present study, participants’

behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that, on one hand would have
an effect on crash and injury occurrence and, on the other hand, would be influenced
by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics, including gender, ethnicity, driving
experience, locus of control, hopelessness, aggression and the amount and content of
76
hostile automatic thought. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a
factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry, 1986; Miles & Johnson, 2003; Nabi et al.,
2005; West et al., 1993) and, since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an
accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas, 1985), it
was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash
and injury occurrence. Further, since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all
four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics, it was
hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way,
externally-focused frustration, freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation
would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence.
77
CHAPTER 3
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
3.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework

Based on the discussion in the previous chapter, the present research
attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological
factors) contributed to crashes and injuries, through their action on proximal
variables (behaviour in traffic). The extent to which drivers’ self-reported behaviour
in traffic (BIT) predicted motor vehicle crash occurrence and injury occurrence was
assessed first by examining each of five successive samples of drivers. Then, each
study explored the extent to which demographic, driving and psychological variables
were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. 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, using automobile drivers as the units of analysis, the research

model was developed and tested in studies 1A, 1B and 1C, each of which sought to
replicate and expand the previous one. Study 1A investigated the effects of
demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control
and hopelessness) variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported
crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.1). In Study 1B, 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, aggression (see Figure 3.2). In Study 1C,
the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables as used in Study 1B
were evaluated as predictors of self-reported BIT and then of self-reported crash and
injury occurrence, with the addition of a fourth psychological variable, hostile
automatic thoughts (see Figure 3.3).
78
In Study 2, using motorcycle drivers as units of analysis, the research model
was tested to investigate the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and
ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control and hopelessness) in predicting
self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure
3.2).
In Study 3, using taxicab drivers as units of analysis, the research model was
tested to study the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and
psychological factors (locus of control, hopelessness and aggression) in predicting
self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure
3.4).
79
DISTAL CONTEXT PROXIMAL CONTEXT OUTCOME
H2
Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience
 Driving frequency
Demographic Variables H3
 Gender
 Ethnicity
 Age
H4
H5
Locus of Control
 Internality H8
 Externality (chance) Crash
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Occurrence
 Externality (Powerful H1.1
 Usurpation of right-of-way
Other)
 Freeway urgency
H6  Externally-focused frustration Injury
H7  Destination-activity orientation Occurrence
Hopelessness (BHS) H1.2
H9
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.1: Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2)
80
H2
Demographic Variables
 Gender
 Ethnicity
H3
 Age
H10
Aggression (AQ) Crash
 Physical aggression Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Occurrence
 Verbal aggression
H4 H1.1
 Anger H11  Usurpation of right-of-way
 Hostility  Freeway urgency Injury
 Indirect aggression  Externally-focused frustration Occurrence
H5  Destination-activity orientation
H1.2
Locus of Control
 Internality
 Externality (chance) H8
 Externality (Powerful
Other)
H6
Hopelessness (BHS) H7
H12
Locus of Control x AQ
H9
Figure 3.2: Research Model (Study 1B)
81
PROXIMAL CONTEXT OUTCOME
DISTAL CONTEXT
Driver Characteristics H2
Demographic Variables H3
Gender, Ethnicity & Age
H13
H14
Hostile Automatic
Thoughts (HAT)
 Physical Aggression H1.1 Crash
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Occurrence
 Derogation of Others
 Revenge
 Freeway urgency
H10 H11  Externally-focused frustration
Aggression  Destination-activity orientation Injury
Questionnaire (AQ) H1.2 Occurrence
H4 H8
Locus of Control
H6
H5 H7
Hopelessness
Locus of Control x AQ H12
H9
H15
HAT x AQ
Figure 3.3: Research Model (Study 1C)
82
 Taxicab experience
H2
Demographic Variables
Ethnicity & Age H3
H10 Crash
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Aggression (AQ) Occurrence
H4  Physical Aggression H1.1
H11  Usurpation of right-of-way
 Verbal Aggression
 Freeway urgency
 Anger Injury
 Externally-focused frustration
 Hostility
 Destination-activity orientation
Occurrence
 Indirect Aggression H1.2
Locus of Control
 Internality
 Externality (chance)
 Externality (Powerful
H8
Other)
Locus of Control x AQ
H12
Figure 3.4: Research Model (Study 3)
83
3.2 Definition of the Variables
This section identifies, classifies and provides an operational definition of each
of the variables used in the present research. Variables included (a) self-reported driving
characteristics; (b) demographic variables; (c) locus of control; (d) hopelessness; (e)
aggression; (f) hostile automatic thoughts; (g) self-reported behaviour in traffic; (h) self-
reported 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 super-
ordinate class as outcome variables.
3.2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency

Driver experience was defined as the length of time, in months, that participants
reported they had held a valid driving licence, consistent with the approach used in
earlier research by Synodinos and Papacostas (1985). Frequency of travel was measured
by asking participants to respond to the question, “how often do you travel in a car” as a
driver, using a six-point Likert-type scale.
3.2.2 Demographic Variables: Age, Gender and Ethnicity

Participants reported their age in years, their gender and chose a descriptor of
their “ethnic background” from a list including “Malay”, “Chinese-Malaysian”, “Indian-
Malaysian” and “Other, please specify”. The use of ethnic self-identification has been
the most frequently used means of establishing cultural affiliation in previous studies of
driving behaviour (Ey, Klesges, Patterson, Patterson, Hadley, Barnard & Alpert, 2000;
Romano, Tippetts & Voas, 2005a, 2005b).
3.2.3 Locus of Control

Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they are in
control of the events that affect them (Rotter, 1966). The present research, adopted
Levenson’s (1973) assumption that there are three independent dimensions to locus of
control: internality; chance and powerful others. Within this model, one can endorse
84
each of these dimensions independently and at the same time, such that an individual
might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome, but
not chance. For each of the five studies undertaken, a separate score for internality (I),
externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful
others (P) was obtained.
3.2.4 Hopelessness
Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised
by negative expectancies, a future directed information-processing bias or schema which
functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting, 1999).
According to Farran et al (1995):
Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the
human condition. It functions as a feeling of despair and
discouragement; a thought process that expects nothing;
and a behavioural process in which the person attempts
little or takes inappropriate action (p. 25).
In the present research, hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional
construct, consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and
Beck, Weissman, Lester and Trexler (1974).
3.2.5 Aggression
Spielberger et al (1995), Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the
definitions of anger, hostility and aggression are often inconsistent, overlapping and
ambiguous. For the purposes of the present research, anger was defined as a negative
internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between
physiological, affective, cognitive, motoric and verbal components (Sharkin, 1988) and
tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco, 1994). While Beck
(1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an
internal state, aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that
occurs as a result of it. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its
85
expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee, 1957;
Deffenbacher, Oetting, Lynch & Morris, 1996). In the present research, the following
variables were examined:
(a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when
expressing anger or aggression, through fighting, hitting or
interpersonal violence;
(b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative
and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with
others in antagonistic situations;
(c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of
emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control, expressed
through the presence of irritability, frustration, emotional
lability and temperamental gesturing;
(d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness, social alienation
and paranoia, generally to the point where the needs or
feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration; and,
(e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive
impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation.
The effects of participants’ total aggression, taken as a sum of measures of each
of the foregoing, were also investigated.
3.2.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts

While the role of cognitive self-talk in directing behavioural responses has been
accepted since the early work of Beck (1976), Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977),
but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression
(Deffenbacher et al, 2003; Vallières, Bergeron & Vallerand, 2005). The present
research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile
automatic thoughts (Snyder et al, 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study
1C. Specifically, the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as:
86
(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained
content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack, hit or
kill another individual;
(b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained
content which belittled, degraded or wished to be rid of
another individual; and,
(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.
3.2.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)

The present research attempted to determine the effects of variables related to the
self-reported patterns of driving behaviour among car drivers, motorcyclists and taxicab
drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. A global measure of self-
reported driving tendencies, the BIT score, was defined as indicative of Type A
Behaviour Pattern (TABP), characterised by excessive impatience, competitiveness,
hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al., 1998). 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, not
allowing others to merge or overtake, and an expressed
preference for operating powerful vehicles;
(b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for
freeway driving, frequent lane changing, driving consistently
in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit;
(c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional
reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e.g., being
irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward
87
them (e.g., urging others to move faster or out of the way by
sounding the horn); and,
(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, to the extent of
inattention to contemporaneous roadway and traffic
conditions.
3.2.8 Crash Occurrence

Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash,
while driving, within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature
of the crash. In the resulting measure of this variable, a “1” was scored if the participant
reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash.
3.2.9 Injury Occurrence

Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical
treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. In the resulting measure of
this variable, 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.
3.3 Research Design of the Study

3.3.1 Study 1A
Specifically, in Study 1A, 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. Then, the influence
of driving experience, travel frequency, three demographic variables (driver age, gender
and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on
BIT was tested. Then, the interrelationships between the demographic variables,
88
psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. In
this study, the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of
control and BIT was tested. Finally, the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship
between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.
Figure 3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A.
3.3.2 Study 1B
While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self-
reported travel frequency, the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and
injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. Then, the influence of driving
characteristics, travel frequency, three demographic variables (driver age, gender and
ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control, hopelessness and
aggression) on BIT was tested. Then, the interrelationships between the demographic
variables, the psychological variables and BIT were examined. In Study 1B, two
moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the
relationship between locus of control and BIT, and (b) the moderating effect of locus of
control on the relation between aggression and BIT. Finally, the mediating effect of the
BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury
occurrence was tested. Figure 3.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B.
3.3.3 Study 1C
In Study 1C, 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. Then, the influence of driving
characteristics, travel frequency, three demographic variables (driver age, gender and
ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control, hopelessness, aggression
and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. Then, the interrelationships between
the demographic variables, the psychological variables and BIT were examined. In this
study, three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness
on the relationship between locus of control and BIT, (b) the moderating effect of locus
89
of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT, and (c) the moderating effect
of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. Finally,
the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and
crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Figure 3.3 illustrates the research
design for Study 1C.
3.3.4 Study 2
The research design for Study 1A was replicated, using a sample that indicated
motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. Variables and analyses in Study 2
were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. Figure 3.1 illustrates the research
design for Study 2.
3.3.5 Study 3
The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. Two measures of
experience were included: (a) driving experience, or the length of time they had held a
valid automobile operator’s licence; and (b) taxi experience, or the length of time they
had been licensed to operate a taxicab. In Study 3, the effects of both measures of
experience were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash
and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. Then, the influence of
experience, three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two
psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. Then, the
interrelationships between the demographic variables, the psychological variables and
BIT were examined. In Study 3, the moderating effect of locus of control on the
relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. Finally, the mediating effect of
the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and
injury occurrence was tested. Figure 3.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3.
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. This was justified for three reasons. First,
90
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, limitations were
imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost
considerations. Second, instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile
automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal
administration procedures, potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.
Third, 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, a risk that would have been
unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were
collecting the data. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3
because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.
3.4 Formulation of Hypotheses

Based on the conceptualisation and research framework, the following fifteen
hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated:
Table 3.1: Research Hypotheses
STUDY
1A 1B 1C 2 3
H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes
H1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence Y Y Y Y Y
H1.1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence Y Y Y Y Y
H1.1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence Y Y Y Y Y
H1.1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence Y Y Y Y Y
H1.1.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence Y Y Y Y Y
H1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y
H1.2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y
H1.2.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y
H1.2.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y
H1.2.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence 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 Y Y Y Y Y
H2.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y
H2.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y
91
Table 3.1 (continued)
STUDY
1A 1B 1C 2 3
H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic
H3.1: Gender will influence total BIT score Y Y Y Y
H3.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y
H3.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y
H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control
H4.1.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality Y Y Y Y
H4.1.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance Y Y Y Y
H4.1.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y
H4.2.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality Y Y Y Y Y
H4.2.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance Y Y Y Y Y
H4.2.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y
H4.3.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality Y Y Y Y Y
H4.3.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance Y Y Y Y Y
H4.3.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y
H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness
H5.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness Y Y Y Y
H5.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness Y Y Y Y
H5.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness Y Y Y Y
H6.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness Y Y Y Y
H6.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness Y Y Y Y
H6.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness Y Y Y Y
H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic
H7.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way Y Y Y Y
H7.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency Y Y Y Y
H7.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration Y Y Y Y
H7.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation Y Y Y Y
H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic
H8.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y
H8.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y
H8.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y
H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship
H9.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship Y Y Y Y
H9.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship Y Y Y Y
H9.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship Y Y Y Y
H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression
H10.1: Gender will influence Aggression Y Y
H10.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression Y Y Y
H10.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y
H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic
H11.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way Y Y Y
H11.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency Y Y Y
H11.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration Y Y Y
H11.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation Y Y Y
92
STUDY
1A 1B 1C 2 3
H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship
H12.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship Y Y Y
H12.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship Y Y Y
H12.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship Y Y Y
H13: Demographic factors will influence hostile automatic thoughts
H13.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts Y
H13.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts Y
H13.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Y
H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic
H14.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT Y
H14.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT Y
H14.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score Y
H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship
H15.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Y
H15.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Y
H15.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Y
Note: Y=YES
3.5 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis
3.5.1 The Sample

Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in
peninsular Malaysia, registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of
Management. Only participants with a valid driving licence who had indicated that a
car was the mode of transportation they used most of the time when they travelled were
included. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters, within a 14-month
period, with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students
during lecture sessions. Participants from the first round of data collection were
included in Study 1A, those from the second round of data collection were included in
Study 1B, and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.
Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private

university, 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
time when they travelled. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom
data collection.
Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area, all of
whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a
taxicab. For inclusion in the study, 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. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by
one of a group of four research assistants. Data collection took place within the taxicab,
during a point to point trip, while participants were driving.
Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated, although results were used
to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester.
Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. In all cases,
participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. Participants were provided
with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail
and/or, in the case of Study 3 participants, by postal mail.
3.5.2 Research Instruments

3.5.2.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale
This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour, consistent with of a Type A
Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). High total scores on the
scale are considered to be indicative of Type A behaviour while low total scores were
considered to be indicative of a type B approach to driving.
Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ; Stokols, Novaco,
Stokals & Campbell, 1978), Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of
two-alternative items, with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP
response and the other a contradictory statement (e.g., “ When a traffic light turns green
and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately, I try to urge its driver to move
94
on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going
immediately, I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. Items
were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B), such that if the TABP
alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A, then the item of the pair representing
the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. Items in Form
A and Form B are presented in random order. On each form, 20 items are answered on a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. Six of the
items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to
“strongly disagree”. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B
(which correlated .91) were found to be internally consistent, with a coefficient alpha of
.80.
In a later study, Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional

psychometric parameters of the BIT scale, based on a principal components analysis of
earlier-reported data. Their analysis revealed four dimensions, as indicated in table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale

Factor No. of items Sample items
I. Usurpation of right-of- 24 “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine
way starts to move, I try to move that lane as soon as
possible.”
“When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me, I usually
feel like pushing them off the road.”
II. Freeway urgency 14 “On a clear highway, I usually drive a few kilometres
above the speed limit.”
“I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a
slow moving vehicle.”
III. Externally-focused 6 “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their
frustration driving intentions.”
“I often blow my horn at someone as a way of
expressing my frustration.”
IV. Destination-activity 8 “I often find myself checking the time while driving to
orientation work, to school or to an appointment with someone.”
“While travelling to work (or to school), I usually think
about what I have to do when I get there.”
Total 52
95
Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them
relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. References to “miles per hour”
were changed to “kilometres per hour”. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items
pertaining to behaviour at intersections. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by
“accelerator”. References to the faster, passing lane were changed from “left lane” to
“right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”.
3.5.2.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale

This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional
view of locus of control. 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, ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to
–3 (“disagree strongly”).
High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a
high degree of control over their own lives. A sample item is “When I get what I want,
it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. High scores on the externality-chance (C)
scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over
their lives. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will
happen”. 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.
A sample item is “Although I might have good ability, I will not be given leadership
responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”.
Luckner (1989) noted that this instrument has among the highest reliability and
validity of all locus of control tests and is particularly applicable when gearing
instruments to broad linguistic structures and varying academic levels.
96
3.5.2.3 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, 1993;
Beck et al, 1974). Each of the 20 statements is scored 1, if endorsed, or 0, if not. Of the
20 true-false statements, 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future, a
sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. Eleven
items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future, 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”. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. High
scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree
of hopelessness. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples
(Benzein & Berg, 2005; Durham, 1982; Tanaka et al, 1996).
3.5.2.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ)

This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the
expression of aggression. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item
responses, and five subscales measure physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger,
hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.3). Participants indicate a response on a
five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”; 5 = “completely like me”) that best
represent how well the item describe them.
Table 3.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire
Subscale No. of items Sample Items:

Physical “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone.”
8
Aggression (PHY) “I get into fights more than most people.”
Verbal Aggression “I often find myself disagreeing with people.”
5
(VER) “When people annoy me, I may tell them what I think of them.”
“I let my anger show when I do not get what I want.”
Anger (ANG) 7
“At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode.”
“At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.”
Hostility (HOS) 8
“I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.”
“If I’m angry enough, I may mess up someone’s work.”
Indirect
6 “When someone really irritates me, I might give him or her the
Aggression (IND)
silent treatment.”
Total 34
97
High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .94 for
the total aggression scores and ranging from .71 to .88 for the five subscales (Buss &
Warren, 2000). Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity
(Harris, 1997; Shapiro, 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh, 1997;
Williams, Boyd, Cascardi & Pythress, 1996).
3.5.2.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT)

This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile
thoughts. 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.” Participants responded on a 5-
point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”; 5 = “all the time”). Three factors – physical
aggression, derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as sub-
scales (see table 3.4). High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking
had occurred to the participant frequently. Snyder et al. (1997) reported high internal
consistency for all three sub-scales, with coefficient alpha values of .92, .88 and .91 for
physical aggression, derogation of others and revenge respectively.
Table 3.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale
Factor No. of Items Sample Items
Physical aggression 11 “If I could get away with it, I’d kill this person!”
“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out”
Derogation of others 10 “What an idiot!”
“This person is a loser.”
Revenge 9 “I want to get back at this person.”
“I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me.”
Total 30
3.5.2.6 Personal Information Form (PIF)

Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal
information. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving
background, age, gender, ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries.
98
3.6 Procedure
3.6.1 Studies 1 and 2
Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly-
scheduled class periods. Participants were informed about the study and invited to
participate on a voluntary basis. A brief written description of the purpose of the
research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. Instructions advised
the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire, (b) give honest
answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”, (c) not
discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires, (d) read
instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they
were distributed, (e) put down the first response that came into their mind, and (f) not
spend too much time on any one answer.
After the briefing period, packages of research instruments were distributed as

follows:
Study 1A: PIF, BHS, Levenson and BIT scale;
Study 1B: PIF, BHS, Levenson, BIT scale and AQ;
Study 1C: PIF, BHS, Levenson, BIT scale, AQ and HAT.
In studies 1 and 2, 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; (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of
the BIT from the one presented second; (d) the remaining instruments used in that
particular study were presented, in random order, between the two forms of the BIT.
Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases
did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. Participants were assured of
confidentiality and were de-briefed, upon request, with an e-mail summary of results.
99
3.6.2 Study 3
For study 3, four female final-year undergraduate students, aged 22 to 24 years,
with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. All four research
assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia, as well as at least two additional
Malaysian languages. Data collection took place in taxicabs. Two to four times daily,
each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala
Lumpur area. Taxis were flagged down at roadside, approached at a taxi stand or
booked over the telephone. For safety reasons, data collection was confined to times
between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. At initial contact, the research assistant informed the
taxicab driver about the study, provided assurance of confidentiality and secured
participation. Over the course of the trip, research assistants verbally administered the
PIF, BIT, AQ and Levenson scales. The PIF was always administered first, with the
remaining instruments administered in random order. Single-word substitutions in items
were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose,
with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate
administration procedures.
3.7 Analysis of the Data

Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the
Social Science (SPSS for Windows, rel. 13.0, 2004). Independent-sample t-tests,
analyses of variance (ANOVA), linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic
regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. Reliability coefficients of all
instruments were calculated using SPSS. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were
performed on the BIT, Levenson Locus of Control scale, AQ and HAT to determine
validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL, rel. 8.5, 2002). Structural
equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL, as
well.
Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3.5. This section
provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research.
100
Table 3.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing
Data Analysis Methods
The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement

H1.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence Logistic Regression
H1.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression
The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT

H2.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance
H2.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance
H2.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT

H3.1: Gender influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test
H3.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance
H3.3: Age influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control

H4.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample t-
H4.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control Test
H4.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness

H5.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness Independent Sample t-Test
H5.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness Analysis of Variance
H5.3: Age influence the level of Hopelessness Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness

H6.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness Linear Regression
H6.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression
H6.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression
The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT

H7.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way Linear Regression
H7.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency Linear Regression
H7.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration Linear Regression
H7.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression
101
The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT Linear Regression

H8.1: The higher the Internality, the lower the BIT level Linear Regression
H8.2: The higher Externality (Chance), the higher the BIT level Linear Regression
H8.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other), the higher the BIT level
GLM Univariate
Additional Analysis: Analysis of Variance
The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Locus of Control on BIT
The Moderating Effect of Hopelessness on Locus of Control-

BIT Relation
H9.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression
H9.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression
H9.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression

H10.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test
H10.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression Analysis of Variance
H10.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT Linear Regression

H11.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way Linear Regression
H11.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency Linear Regression
H11.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration Linear Regression
H11.4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression
Additional Analysis:
The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT GLM Univariate
Analysis of Variance
The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on Aggression-

BIT Relation
H12.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression
H12.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression
H12.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on HAT

H13.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test
H13.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts Analysis of Variance
H13.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Analysis of Variance
102
The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT

H14.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT Linear Regression
H14.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT Linear Regression
H14.3: Thoughts of Revenge have a positive influence on BIT Linear Regression
The Moderating Effect of HAT on the Aggression-BIT

Relation
H15.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT Multiple Linear Regression
relation
H15.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression- Multiple Linear Regression
BIT relation
H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression
3.7.1 Independent-sample t-tests

Generally, t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. In the present
research, t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological
variables (BIT, locus of control, hopelessness, aggression and hostile automatic
thoughts) differed for male and female drivers.
3.7.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)

ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. In the present
study, ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological
variables (BIT, locus of control, hopelessness, aggression and hostile automatic
thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds.
When significant differences were observed, post hoc analyses were carried out
using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock, 2000).
103
3.7.3 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. It is useful for analysis of
variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent
variable. In the present research, GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to
determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and
psychological factors (locus of control, hopelessness, aggression and hostile automatic
thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT).
3.7.4 Linear Regression Analysis

This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent
variable and an independent variable and, if so, the direction of the relationship (positive
or negative). In the present research, linear regression was applied to examine the
relationship between psychological variables (locus of control, hopelessness, aggression
and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT).
3.7.5 Multiple Regression Analysis

This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent
variable and independent variables. Application of multiple regression analysis involves
more than one single independent variable. In the present research, multiple regression
analysis was used to test whether internality (I), externality-chance (C) and externality-
powerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. Also, the moderating effects of the
variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. For instance, to test
whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship, first P scores were entered into
the regression equation; second, the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into
the regression equation. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to
determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness.
104
3.7.6 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.
Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will
have on a dependent variable; logistic regression, on the other hand, seeks to determine
the odds that an event will or will not occur. In the present research, each of the two
outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary
variable. That is, “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had
occurred; “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had
occurred. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an
influence on the outcome variables, these variables were controlled as covariates in the
logistic regression equation. Covariates (driver experience and travel frequency) and the
independent variable (BIT) were entered into the logistic regression equation to predict
the probability of participants’ crash and injury occurrence.
3.7.7 Structural Equation Modelling.

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), as well as
between several latent constructs” (p. 710). In the present research, SEM was carried
out, using LISREL, to (a) assess the validity of the instruments; and (b) examine the
interrelationships among variables included in the research design. The result was a
measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model, the purpose of which
was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes.
Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according
to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence.
The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit

and on the construct validity of its component variables. Goodness-of-fit indicates how
105
well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items
That is,
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. If a
researcher’s theory were perfect, the estimated covariance
matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the
same. Thus, the estimated covariance matrix is compared
mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to
provide an estimate of model fit. The closer the values of
these two matrices are to each other, the better the model is
said to fit. (Hair et al., 2006; p. 745).
The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne, 1998), but
a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more, in fact, than anyone
would want to report” (Maryuma, 1998) – presently exists. According to Marsh et al.
(1988), these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit
indexes. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by
the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. Incremental fit measures assess how
well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model.
In the present research, the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic, the
χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). Incremental fit measures
included the comparative fit index (CFI). For Study 1C, additional measures were used
to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration, including: (1) two
absolute indexes, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross-
106
validation index (ECVI); one incremental index, the normed fit index (NFI); and a
measure of parsimony fit, the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI).
3.7.7.1 Chi-Square (χ2), 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, 2006). 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). Thus, the higher the probability associated with χ2, the closer the fit
between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). However, Hair
et al. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of
observed variables less than 12), an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. For a
sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12),
an insignificant p-value is expected. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that,
when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3.0, the ratio indicates a good fit.
3.7.7.2 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., 2006).
3.7.7.3 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, with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values, fit
the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne, 1998, pp. 112). RMSEA
values can range from zero to 1.00 in which values greater than .10 indicate poor fit.
107
Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. Thus, an RMR
greater than .10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model.
3.7.7.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI)
One of the original incremental measures of fit, the normed fit index (NFI;
Bentler & Bonnet, 1980) represents a ratio of the difference in the χ2 value for the fitted
model and a null model divided by the χ2 value for the null model. The index ranges
between zero and 1.00, and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1.00.
3.7.7.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
The GFI can range from zero to 1.00 with value closes to 1.00 being indicative
of good fit. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. Since the CFI is
insensitive to model complexity, it is known as one of the most widely used indices
(Hair et al., 2006). The index can range from zero to 1.00 with value more than .90 is
usually associated with a model that fits well.
3.7.7.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI)
An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI; Tanaka & Huba, 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. The AGFI penalises
more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. Values
range from zero to 1.00, with higher values indicating better fit, but AGFI values are
typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity.
108
3.7.7.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI)
The expected cross-validation index (ECVI; Browne & Cudeck, 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, it takes into account
the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. The
ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model.
Although values range from zero to 1.00, it is most commonly used when comparing the
performance of one model to another. In such cases, the model with the higher ECVI
value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit.
3.7.7.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI)
A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices,

designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set
of models is best, considering its fit relative to its complexity. A parsimony fit measure
is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which, in this case, means a model
with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al., 2006).
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, 1994). The parsimony
goodness-of-fit index (PGFI; James, Mulaik & Brett, 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to
adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. Values range between zero and 1.00,
and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable, based on the combination
of fit and parsimony represented by the index. It should be noted that, “a PGFI taken
alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. Like other parsimony fit indices, a
PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value”
(Hair et al., 2006; p. 750).
109
3.7.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is concerned with the degree of agreement

between the distribution of a set of sample values (or observed scores) and some
specified theoretical distribution. It determines whether the scores in the sample can
reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution
(Siegel, 1956). In this case, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether
there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores.
When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=.05, then it
is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver &
Nash, 2000).
3.7.9 Skewness and Kurtosis
Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency 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, it is said to be
positively skewed. If the opposite holds, the larger frequencies being concentrated
toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end, the
distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson, 1976).
Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to

another, in this case, the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. “It is
conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the
normal distribution, and platykurtic if it is less peaked. The normal distribution is
spoken of as mesokurtic, which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic
distributions” (Ferguson, 1976; p. 37).
Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately

normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing
110
normality of variable distributions. A commonly used guideline is that, if skewness and
kurtosis less than ±1, the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech, Barrett &
Morgan, 2005; Marcoulides & Hershberger, 1997).
111
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
This chapter presents the results of the research. It begins with a discussion of reliability
and validity tests of the instruments. Then, descriptive statistics are presented and the
results of hypothesis testing are reported. A contextual mediated model showing
interrelationships between variables is introduced. The contextual mediated model was
tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling
(LISREL), with results of these tests reported in this chapter.
4.1 Description of the Samples

4.1.1 Age, Gender and Ethnicity
Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian
university. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two
participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.
Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis. Ages of participants ranged from
18 to 29 years, with a mean age of 20.13 years (SD = 1.55). There were 855 participants
for whom the primary mode of transportation was the automobile and 133 for whom the
motorcycle was the primary mode of transportation (see Table 4.1).
Table 4.1: Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2
Ethnicity
Malaysian- Malaysian-
Malay
Chinese Indian Total
Gender Male Count 148 229 64 441
% within Gender 33.6% 51.9% 14.5% 100%
% of Total 15.1% 23.4% 6.6% 45.1%
Female Count 121 333 82 536
% within Gender 22.6% 62.1% 15.3% 100%
% of Total 12.4% 34.1% 8.4% 54.9%
Total Count 269 562 146 977
% within Gender 27.5% 57.5% 14.9% 100%
% of Total 27.5% 57.5% 14.9% 100%
112
Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.
Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57.5 per cent),
followed by Malay (27.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14.9 per cent). A cross-
tabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4.1) showed that most of the drivers
were female Malaysian-Chinese.
In Study 1A, 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode
of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample, with a mean age of 20.43
years (SD = 1.68, range of 18 to 26).
In Study 1B, 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode
years (SD = 1.35, range from 18 to 25).
In Study 1C, 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode
In Study 2, 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of
transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample, with a mean age of 20.25
In Study 3, 149 taxicab drivers participated, 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. Thus,
113
responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis. The mean age was
43.19 years (SD = 11.65, range from 23 to 73).
Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Age, Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1, 2 and 3
Gender Ethnicity
STUDY N Mean Age S.D. Malaysian- Malaysian-
Male Female Malay
Chinese Indian
1A 301 20.43 1.68 105 196 68 202 31
1B 302 19.89 1.35 175 127 87 166 49
1C 252 20.01 1.53 88 164 81 128 43
2 122 20.25 1.63 73 49 33 66 23
3 133 43.19 11.65 133 0 55 52 26
Note: N=sample size ; SD = standard deviation
4.1.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1

Although participants in Studies 1A, 1B and 1C were all students at a single
Malaysian university, they hailed from across the country (see table 4.3). Participants
who had received their driving licenses in Selangor, Kuala Lumpur, Johor or Perak
made up 53.3% of the sample. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.4% of the
sample.
Table 4.3: States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired
Their Original Drivers’ Licenses
N %
Johor 109 12.7
Kedah 42 4.9
Kelantan 20 2.3
Kuala Lumpur 98 11.5
Melaka 70 8.2
Negeri Sembilan 61 7.1
Pahang 56 6.5
114
Penang 67 7.8
Perak 102 11.9
Perlis 6 0.7
Sabah 27 3.2
Sarawak 19 2.2
Selangor 147 17.2
Terengganu 31 3.6
855 100
4.1.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2

Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university, but
again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.4). Participants who had
received their driving licenses in Selangor, Perak or Penang made up 50.9% of the
sample. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.1% of the sample.
Table 4.4: States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired

Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses
N %
Johor 17 13.9
Kedah 9 7.4
Kelantan 1 0.8
Kuala Lumpur 11 9.0
Melaka 9 7.4
Negeri Sembilan 5 4.1
Pahang 11 9.0
Penang 13 10.7
Perak 14 11.5
Perlis 2 1.6
Sabah 2 1.6
Sarawak 3 2.5
Selangor 18 14.8
Terengganu 7 5.7
122 100
4.1.4 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. As the sample was
115
intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers, no attempt was made to
determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received non-
commercial drivers’ licenses.
4.2 Reliability and Validity

4.2.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha
Cooper and Schindler (2000) claimed that reliability relates to the accuracy and
precision of a measurement procedure. 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. 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.
In the present research, reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient

alpha. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the
items in a measure (Sekaran, 2000). The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1, the higher is
the internal consistency of the measure. A Cronbach’s Alpha of .70 or greater is
generally considered acceptable (Nunnally, 1978). 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 4.5).
116
Table 4.5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results
Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3
(N=301) (N=302) (N=252) (N=122) (N=133)
No. of Motorcycle
Variables Item
Automobile Drivers Taxicab
Drivers
(student sample) Drivers
(student sample)
α α α α α
Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) 26
 Usurpation of right-of-way 11 .830 .890 .742 .824 .756
 Freeway Urgency 8 .740 .786 .737 .811 .754
 Externally-Focused Frustration 3 .703 .714 .718 .702 .727
 Destination-Activity Orientation 4 .711 .739 .735 .720 .734
Locus of Control
 Internality 8 .741 .740 .782 .707 .827
 Externality (Chance) 8 .701 .782 .774 .720 .747
 Externality (Powerful Other 8 .768 .784 .810 .738 .788
Aggression (AQ)
 Physical Aggression 8 .817 .808 .910
 Verbal Aggression 5 Not .727 .715 Not .715
 Anger 7 Applicable .808 .738 Applicable .906
 Hostility 8 .798 .733 .783
 Indirect Aggression 6 .783 .781 .726
Not
Hopelessness (BHS) 20 .749 .772 .730 .701
Applicable
Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT)
11 .904
 Physical Aggression Not Not Not Not
10 .887
 Derogation of Others Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable
9 .881
 Revenge
117
4.2.2 Parallel-Form Reliability
In the case of the BIT scale, it was also possible to measure reliability as a
coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas, 1985).
Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since
Form A and Form B were highly correlated, more than .80. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if
two comparable forms are highly correlated (.80 or above), we may be fairly certain that
the measures are reasonably reliable, with minimal error variance caused by wording,
ordering or other test construction factors” (p. 205). The results of parallel-form
reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4.6. In Study 3,
only Form A was used.
Table 4.6: Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT)

Study Study Study Study
Form A & Form B
1A 1B 1C 2
BIT .958 .953 .804 .929
Usurpation of right-of way .916 .903 .801 .857
Freeway Urgency .804 .876 .805 .807
Externally-Focused Frustration .803 .800 .811 .806
Destination-Activity Orientation .807 .804 .808 .802
4.2.3 Validity Test Results

In the present research, confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog &
Sörbom, 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.
The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of
approximation in the population and determines whether the model, with unknown but
optimally chosen parameter values, fits the population correlation matrix or covariance
matrix, depending on which is used (Byrne, 1998). RMSEA values less than .05 indicate
good fit; values ranging from .08 to .10 indicate a mediocre fit; and those greater than
.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al, 1998; Byrne, 1998).
The Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) is a measure of the relative amount of variance

and covariance in sample data that is jointly explained by sample data (Byrne, 1998).
118
Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that, although the GFI index ranges from zero to
1.00 (the closer to 1.00, the higher the goodness-of-fit), it is possible to have negative
GFI. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all. A third statistic, the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the
data is achieved. If the value of CFI exceeds .90, it is generally considered an acceptable
fit to the data (Bentler, 1992).
4.2.3.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale

In the present research, drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four
component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way; freeway urgency;
externally-focused frustration, and destination-activity orientation. As shown in Table
4.7, parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.
RMSEA values in each case were less than .100; and both GFI and CFI were more than
.90, indicating good fits.
Table 4.7: Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C
RMSEA GFI CFI RMSEA GFI CFI RMSEA GFI CFI
Behaviour In Traffic (BIT)

.098 .91 .92 .074 .93 .98 .048 .96 .96
 Freeway Urgency .070 .97 .96 .077 .96 .97 .047 .98 .98
 Externally-Focused Frustration .000 1.00 1.00 .000 1.00 1.00 .000 1.00 1.00
 Destination-Activity Orientation .000 1.00 1.00 .089 .99 .99 .024 1.00 1.00
Study 2 Study 3
RMSEA GFI CFI RMSEA GFI CFI
Behaviour In Traffic (BIT)

.097 .91 .92 .061 .92 .95
 Freeway Urgency .000 .98 1.00 .000 .97 1.00
 Externally-Focused Frustration .000 1.00 1.00 .000 1.00 1.00
 Destination-Activity Orientation .054 .99 .99 .097 .99 .98
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation; GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index; CFI= Comparative Fit Index
119
4.2.3.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale
Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I),
externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P). Each component of the locus
of control was measured separately, under the assumption that locus of control is a
multidimensional phenomenon. CFA revealed that parameter values for I, C and P
scales were all within acceptable ranges. RMSEA values were less than .100; and both
GFI and CFI were more than .90, indicating good fits (See Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of

Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C
Locus of Control
 Internality
.085 .95 .93 .085 .95 .92 .030 .98 .99
 Externality (Chance) .081 .91 .93 .058 .97 .98 .059 .96 .98
 Externality (Powerful-Other) .091 .93 .93 .073 .96 .97 .063 .96 .98
Study 2 Study 3
RMSEA GFI CFI RMSEA GFI CFI
Locus of Control
 Internality
.083 .93 .91 .000 .99 1.00
 Externality (Chance) .071 .92 .93 .081 .93 .96
 Externality (Powerful-Other) .096 .92 .91 .052 .95 .98
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation; GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index;
CFI= Comparative Fit Index
4.2.3.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale

The AQ was used to measure driver aggression in Study 1B and 1C (with
automobile drivers sampled from a student population) and in Study 3 (with taxicab
drivers). Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression
(PHY), verbal aggression (VER), anger (ANG), hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression
120
(IND). A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.
CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within
acceptable ranges. RMSEA values were less than .100; and both GFI and CFI were
more than .90, indicating good fits (See Table 4.9).
Table 4.9: Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Study 1B Study 1C Study 3
Aggression (AQ)
 Physical Aggression .098 .94 .96 .081 .95 .96 .096 .92 .98
 Verbal Aggression .090 .98 .97 .081 .98 .97 .070 .98 .97
 Anger .070 .97 .98 .055 .97 .98 .098 .94 .98
 Hostility .047 .97 .98 .025 .98 .99 .058 .95 .98
 Indirect Aggression .088 .97 .98 .073 .97 .98 .083 .96 .96
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation; GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index; CFI= Comparative Fit Index
4.2.3.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale

The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a
student population). Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured:
physical aggression; derogation of others and revenge. CFA revealed that parameter
values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges. RMSEA values
were less than .100; and both GFI and CFI were more than .90, indicating good fit (see
Table 4.10).
Table 4.10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C)
RMSEA GFI CFI
Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT)

 Physical Aggression
.095 .92 .97
 Derogation of Others .089 .92 .97
 Revenge .088 .93 .97
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation; GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index;
CFI= Comparative Fit Index
121
4.3 Normality, Skewness and Kurtosis
Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and
therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions. In all cases, values for the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.05), indicating that the
distribution of scores did not depart from normality.
Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values

(Hair et al., 2006). Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.,
2005; Marcoulides & Hershberger, 1997). Table 4.11 indicates that variable distribution
fell within these limits, but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of
control data.
Table 4.11: Normality Tests, Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics
Kolmogorov- Skewness
Smirnov Z Kurtosis Statistic
Statistic (Standard
(Standard Error)
(Significance Level) Error)
Study 1A
Internality 1.297 (.091) .409(.280) -.875(.140)
Externality (Chance) 1.082 (.192) -.179(.280) -.241(.140)
Externality (Powerful Other) 1.085 (.190) .064(.280) .582(.140)
Hopelessness 1.323 (.064) -.091(.280) -.126(.140)
BIT
Usurpation right-of-way 1.022 (.183) .560(.280) -.126(.140)
Freeway Urgency 1.107 (.099) .099(.280) .080(.140)
Externally Focused Frustration 1.020 (.186) .297(.280) .246(.140)
Destination-activity Orientation 1.351 (.057) .278(.280) -.410(.140)
Study 1B
Internality 1.195 (.120) .409(.280) -.805(.140)
Externality (Powerful Other) 1.239 (.085) .064(.280) -.192(.140)
Hopelessness 1.332 (.106) -.091(.280) .920(.140)
BIT
Usurpation right-of-way 1.219 (.102) .560(.280) -.037(.140)
Freeway Urgency 1.094 (.183) .099(.280) -.403(.140)
Externally Focused Frustration 1.085 (.107) .297(.280) -.154(.140)
Destination-activity Orientation 1.256 (.085) .278(.280) -.353(.140)
AQ
Physical Aggression 1.356 (.052) -.719(.280) .408(.140)
Verbal Aggression 1.034 (.191) .188(.280) .511(.140)
Anger 1.105 (.069) -.656(.280) .203(.140)
Hostility 1.010 (.260) -.379(.280) .146(.140)
Indirect Aggression .962 (.428) -.204(.280) .453(.140)
122
Kolmogorov- Skewness
Smirnov Z Kurtosis Statistic
Statistic
(Standard Error)
(Significance Level) (Standard Error)
Study 1C
Internality 1.297 (.084) .913(.306) -.972(.153)
Externality (Powerful Other) 1.223 (.101) -.940(.306) -.048(.153)
Hopelessness 1.293 (.098) .973(306) .915(.153)
BIT
Usurpation right-of-way 1.011 (.259) .277(.360) .147(.153)
Freeway Urgency .919 (.366) -.138(.360) .276(.153)
Externally Focused Frustration 1.195 (.128) .053(.360) .503(.153)
Destination-activity Orientation .986 (.321) .994(.360) .451(.153)
AQ
Physical Aggression 1.279 (.052) .106(.306) .852(.153)
Verbal Aggression 1.338 (.057) .478(.306) .540(.153)
Anger 1.354 (.051) -.062(.306) .295(.153)
Hostility .807 (.533) -.120(.306) .131(.153)
Indirect Aggression .962 (.426) .130(.306) .799(.153)
HAT
Physical Aggression .805 (.270) .713(.306) 983(.153)
Degrerotion 1.276 (.098) -.366(.306) .497(.153)
Revenge 1.001 (.264) .443(.306) .884(.154)
Study 2
Internality .847 (.469) -.501(.435) -.156(.219)
Externality (Powerful Other) .822 (.510) -.159(.435) -.007(.219)
Hopelessness 1.359 (.051) -.392(.435) .423(.219)
BIT
Usurpation right-of-way 1.022 (.247) -.209(.435) .567(.219)
Freeway Urgency .913 (.375) -.362(.435) .271(.219)
Externally Focused Frustration 1.106 (.138) -.841(.435) .186(.219)
Destination-activity Orientation 1.022 (.247) -.147(.435) .370(.219)
Study 3
Internality 1.266 (.099) .978(.417) -.979(.210)
Externality (Powerful Other) .911 (305) -.852(.417) -.198(.210)
BIT
Usurpation right-of-way 1.128 (.157) -.812(.417) -.244(.210)
Freeway Urgency .959 (.317) -.142(.417) .030(.210)
Externally Focused Frustration 1.327 (.064) -.629(.417) .236(.210)
Destination-activity Orientation 1.088 (.187) -.463(.417) .006(.210)
AQ
Physical Aggression 1.110 (.104) .962(.417) .948(.210)
Verbal Aggression 1.024 (.265) -.414(.417) .640(.210)
Anger 1.359 (.052) .567(.417) .537(.210)
Hostility 1.070 (.214) .053(.417) .719(.210)
Indirect Aggression 1.113 (.102) .715(.417) .952(.210)
123
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, if so, whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries
insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4.12; column a), (2) injuries
severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.12;
column b), (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4.12; column c). 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. For motorcycle
drivers, injury occurrence was much higher, with 44.3 per cent being hospitalised.
Table 4.12: Crash and Injury Occurrence
OUTCOME VARIABLES
Number of Vehicle Out-patient Hospital
STUDY N Participants’ Damage Treatment Admission
Reported Crash a b c
1A 301 181 84 68 29
1B 302 255 142 75 38
1C 252 174 102 47 25
2 122 157 45 58 54
3 133 22 17 3 2
More than half of the automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A, 1B and 1C self-
reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the
preceding year (see Table 4.13). Male and female automobile drivers reported
involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. However, males were more
than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes.
124
Table 4.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency, Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855)
Gender
Total
Automobile Drivers Male Female
Ethnicity Malay 80 57 137
No. involved in Malaysian-Chinese 119 103 222
one crash Malaysian-Indian 33 44 77
Total 232 204 436
two crashes Malaysian-Indian 7 2 9
Total 50 18 68
three crashes Malaysian-Indian 1 2 3
Total 22 10 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
4.14) Regardless of ethnic background, male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash
occurrence than female motorcycle drivers.
Table 4.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency, Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122)
Gender
Total
Motorcycle drivers Male Female
one crash Malaysian-Indian 16 1 17
Total 61 22 83
two crash Malaysian-Indian 11 0 11
Total 43 8 51
three crashes Malaysian-Indian 3 0 3
Total 19 2 21
125
4.5 Distal and Proximal Variable Data
4.5.1 Results of Study 1
Study 1A. Table 4.15 shows means, standard deviations and relationships
between distal, proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.
All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which
was negatively corrected with other variables. All these correlations were significant
(p<.05). Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not
significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.
Study 1B. Table 4.16 shows means, standard deviations and relationships
All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was
negatively corrected with other variables. Most of these correlations were significant
(p<.05). However, in Study 1B, BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal
aggression (VER), crash occurrence and crash injury. Also, 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; freeway urgency; externally-focused frustration; and
destination-activity orientation. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash
occurrence, it was not correlated with injury occurrence.
Study 1C. Table 4.17 shows means, standard deviations and relationships
All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was
negatively corrected with other variables. Most of these correlations were significant
(p<.05). I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility.
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.
126
Table 4.15: Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301)
Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distal Variables1
1 Internality (I) 9.22 6.45 1
2 Externality-Chance (P) 3.08 6.88 -.345** 1
3 Externality-Powerful-Other (O) 2.44 7.23 -.471** .516** 1
4 Hopelessness (BHS) 4.00 2.69 -.306** .239** .342** 1
Proximal Variables1
5 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 165.52 24.5 -.562** .435** .513** .278** 1
6 Usurpation of right-of-way 34.97 5.64 -.544** .405** .482** .246** .942** 1
7 Freeway Urgency 43.96 7.76 -.553** .381** .434** .191** .901** .818** 1
8 Externally-Focused Frustration 19.04 3.57 -.391** .340** .388** .280** .804** .716** .662** 1
9 Destination-activity Orientation 26.78 4.58 -.396** .339** .416** .247** .749** .625** .533** .566** 1
Outcome Variables2
10 Crash Occurrence .3455 .476 -.231** .218** .147* .036 .371** .316** .376** .376** .209** 1
11 Injury Occurrence .2691 .442 -.147* .155** .129* .027 .211** .186** .202** .201** .152** .331** 1
* Correlation is significant at .05 level (2-tailed)

** Correlation is significant at .01 level (2-tailed)
127
Table 4.16: Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302)
Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Distal Variables1
1 9.86 6.56 1
2 4.69 8.06 -.407** 1
3 2.84 7.97 -.335** .587** 1
4 4.66 3.45 -.341** .254** .312** 1
5 87.53 19.5 -.337** .363** .376** .278** 1
6 17.48 5.82 -.236** .254** .271** .140* .779** 1
7 13.48 3.25 -.039 .028 .051 .003 .586** .347** 1
8 18.50 5.55 -.353** .342** .393** .355** .847** .555** .382** 1
9 21.84 5.60 -.279** .343** .343** .310** .855** .518** .444** .669** 1
10 16.22 4.65 -.334** .358** .319** .195** .763** .481** .331** .550** .584** 1
Proximal Variables1
11 170.9 28.9 -.515** .509** .514** .200** .520** .380** .103 .491** .505** .438** 1
12 71.43 12.9 -.542** .531** .523** .254** .540** .400** .103 .521** .516** .445** .964** 1
13 46.85 9.00 -.462** .430** .411** .099 .461** .355** .089 .434** .418** .403** .921** .842** 1
14 19.41 3.91 -.369** .372** .414** .157** .491** .338** .159 .452** .496** .386** .816** .762** .697** 1
15 27.14 4.97 -.366** .401** .443** .153** .324** .213** .028 .286* .378** .272** .816** .731** .688**.602** 1
Outcome Variables2
16 .5695 .4960 -.162** .148* .178** .067 .276** .172** .167** .268** .275** .172** .463** .448** .489**.408** .294** 1
17 .3079 .4624 -.176* .150** .173* .013 .225** .213** .071 .240** .147** .331** .380** .355** .440**.298** .213** .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
128
Table 4.17: Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252)
Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Distal Variables1
1 10.37 6.70 1
2 4.52 7.81 -.191** 1
3 .78 8.36 -.235** .641** 1
4 4.42 3.18 -.186** .254** .354** 1
5 88.80 17.8 -.235** .356** .392** .348** 1
6 16.38 5.64 -.183** .296** .278** .270** .745** 1
7 13.70 3.31 -.075 .148** .120 .110 .592** .277** 1
8 19.03 5.03 -.183** .320** .323** .296** .804** .481** .422** 1
9 22.81 5.05 -.081 .202** .298** .357** .747** .423** .364** .531** 1
10 16.89 5.17 -.306** .302** .366** .202** .749** .454** .373** .476** .395** 1
11 65.85 19.7 -.183** .203** .150* .051 .518** .465** .310** .345** .338** .424** 1
12 18.67 7.86 -.230** .227** .218** .082 .508** .530** .261** .324** .292** .412** .895** 1
13 26.70 8.17 -.103** .057 .038 .033 .383** .241** .306** .278** .291** .313** .838** .588** 1
14 20.49 6.69 -.139** .259** .230** .095 .456** .448** .228** .292** .293** .378** .862** .735** .549** 1
Proximal Variables1
15 161.7 28.9 -.446** .434** .502** .288** .545** .402** .219** .370** .385** .565** .379** .413** .192**.349** 1
16 67.11 12.9 -.402** .390** .451** .275** .483** .377** .181** .343** .304** .506** .364**.401** .210**.340** .856** 1
17 43.58 9.00 -.367** .311** .308** .151* .387** .304** .221** .259** .210** .404** .277**.305** .162**.258** .725** .534** 1
18 19.31 3.91 -.245** .281** .368** .141* .428** .263** .150* .281** .296** .526** .307**.294** .199**.314** .615** .484** .265** 1
19 25.98 4.97 -.166** .131* .228** .151* .216** .069 .109 .185** .229** .199** .224**.224** .101**.271** .342** .250** .137* .079 1
Outcome Variables2
20 .516 .501 .-181** .191** .166** .003 .196** .106 .192** .130** .109 .209** .268**.226** .246** .221** .343** .355** .254** .264** .119* 1
21 .230 .422 -.212** .241** .270** .016 .252** .178** .189** .222** .095 .251** .193**.158** .174** .167** .286** .277** .275** .189** .076 .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
S
129
BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales:
usurpation of right-of-way; freeway urgency; externally-focused frustration; and
destination-activity orientation. However, it was not correlated with crash occurrence or
with crash injury. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables
except with crash occurrence and crash injury. The BIT subscale measuring destination-
activity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury
occurrence.

Table 4.18 shows means, standard deviations and relationships between distal,
proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. All
distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was
negatively corrected with the BIT total score, all BIT subscales, crash occurrence and
injury occurrence. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and
externally-focused frustration were significant.
Similar to observed results in study 1A, 1B and 1C, BHS was significantly
correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales, but it was not correlated
with crash occurrence or injury occurrence.
130
Table 4.18: Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122)
Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distal Variables
2 Externality-Chance (C) 5.66 7.122 .580** 1
3 Externality-Powerful-Others (P) 1.66 7.917 .139 .413** 1
4 Hopelessness (BHS) 5.55 3.323 .072 .290** .371** 1
Proximal Variables
5 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175.50 23.485 -.182* .409** .269** .418** 1
6 Usurpation of right-of-way 73.76 11.081 -.111 .428** .226** .415** .941** 1
7 Freeway Urgency 48.06 8.035 -.200* .334** .264** .349** .876** .758** 1
8 Externally-Focused Frustration 20.14 3.621 -.192* .251** .201* .317** .750** .614** .562** 1
9 Destination-activity Orientation 27.30 3.880 -.150 .219** .183* .232** .630** .500** .376** .535** 1
Outcome Variables
10 Crash Occurrence .6803 .4683 -.025 .233** .212* .167 .413** .356** .374** .314** .313** 1
11 Injury Occurrence .5738 .4966 -.043 .240** .165 .028 .383** .325** .367** .259** .291** .795** 1

131
Table 4.19 shows means, standard deviations and relationships between distal,
proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. In this
study, 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, but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve
significance. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were
significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.
However, neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C, nor a weak
negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. In general, correlations
between I and distal, proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those
observed in Studies 1 and 2.
As indicated in Table 4.19, AQ subscales were significantly and positively

correlated with each other. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were
significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence, verbal aggression
(VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence.
Differing from Studies 1A, 1B, 1C and 2, BIT total scores had a significant positive
correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence.
132
Table 4.19: Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133)
Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Distal Variable
2 Externality-Chance (C) 3.10 8.43 .072 1
3 Externality –Powerful-Others (P) 1.42 8.45 -.070 .371** 1
4 Total Aggression (AQ) 66.74 19.3 -.151 .236** .218* 1
5 Physical Aggression (PHY) 15.54 6.32 -.193* .197* .117 .872** 1
6 Verbal Aggression (VER) 11.08 3.82 -.161 .240** .114 .749** .561** 1
7 Anger (ANG) 15.11 5.12 -.109 .128 .222* .853** .658** .618** 1
8 Hostility (HOS) 15.35 4.51 -.182* .246** .180** .816** .646** .576** .588** 1
9 Indirect Aggression (IND) 11.65 3.99 -.032 .194* .271** .807** .643** .454** .636** .604** 1
Proximal Variables
10 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 75.15 10.4 -.234** .018 .095 .204* .263** .165 .121 .229** .117 1
11 Usurpation of right-of-way 32.17 5.13 -.141 .091 .106 .121 .152 .116 .072 .194* .060 .864** 1
12 Freeway Urgency 20.07 3.84 -.156 .025 .120 .048 .156 .030 .060 .039 -.020 .721** .528** 1
13 Externally-Focused Frustration 8.82 2.06 -.166 .023 .117 .235** .235** .149 .149 .257** .200* .622** .418** .338** 1
14 Destination-activity Orientation 11.32 2.88 -.091 .401** .443** .153** .324** .213** .028 .286* .378** .521** .292** .061 .254** 1
Outcome Variables
15 Crash Occurrence .2000 .404 -.112 .148* .178** .067 .276** .172** .167** .268** .275** .373** .261** .255** .245** .289** 1
16 Injury Occurrence .0301 .171 -.177 .150** .173* .013 .225** .213** .071 .240** .147** .040 .023 .054 .092** .103 .021 1

133
4.6 Hypothesis Testing
This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in
chapter 3 (see Table 3.1).
4.6.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash

Outcomes
First, analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash
occurrence. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency, 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=.034, p<.01;
Study 1B: B=.04, p<.01; Study 1C: B=.041, p<.01; Study 2: B=.048, p<.01 and Study 3:
B=.125, p<.01). These results supported H1.1, that behaviour in traffic influences crash
occurrence.
When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and
the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested, results of logistic regression analyses
indicated that usurpation of right-of way, freeway urgency, and externally-focused
frustration, but not destination-activity orientation, were significantly related to crash
occurrence (see Table 4.20). These results supported H1.1.1 through H1.1.3 inclusive. For
the destination-activity factor, H1.1.4 was not supported.
Table 4.20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT
Component Factors on Crash Occurrence
Usurpation of
B=.063, p<.01 B=.090, p<.01 B=.063, p<.01 B=.080, p<.01 B=.146, p<.01
Right-of Way
Freeway
B=.102, p<.01 B=.135, p<.01 B=.088 p<.01 B=.120, p<.01 B=.172, p<.01
Urgency
Externally-focused
B=.238, p<.01 B=.229, p<.01 B=.095, p<.01 B=.180, p<.01 B=.315, p<.01
Frustration
Destination-activity
B=.095, p<.01 B=.117, p<.01 Not Significant B=.202, p<.01 B=.278, p<.01
Orientation
134
Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study
3. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled, 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=.019, p<.01; Study
1B: B=.033 p<.01; Study 1C: B=.038, p<.01 and Study 2: B=.035, p<.01). These results
supported H1.2, that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.
When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four
component factors of the BIT scale were tested, logistic regression analyses indicated
that usurpation of right-of way, freeway urgency, externally-focused frustration and
destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all
studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.21).
Table 4.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT
Component Factors on Injury Occurrence
Usurpation of
B=.035, p<.01 B=.064, p<.01 B=.069, p<.01 B=.059, p<.01 Not Significant
Right-of Way
Freeway
B=.054, p<.01 B=.140, p<.01 B=.075 p<.01 B=.091, p<.01 Not Significant
Urgency
Externally-focused
B=.118, p<.01 B=.165, p<.01 B=.095, p<.01 B=.120, p<.01 Not Significant
Frustration
Destination-activity
B=.074, p<.05 B=.087, p<.01 Not Significant B=.158, p<.01 Not Significant
Orientation
4.6.2 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, 1B
and 1C (see Table 4.22, Table 4.23 and Table 4.24, respectively).
135
Table 4.22: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301)
Variable N M SD F
Driver experience
3 years or less 186 161.73 21.64 4.320**
3 to 5 years 88 170.98 26.98
5 to 7 years 18 171.44 33.30
More than 7 years 9 178.89 22.35
Travel frequency
Everyday 64 173.77 27.25 5.600**
Several times a week 110 165.48 25.06
About once or twice a week 41 171.15 19.43
About once every two weeks 17 161.35 20.29
Almost never 69 155.64 21.25
Note: ** p<.01
Table 4.23: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302)
Variable N M SD F
Driver Experience
3 years or less 221 168.56 28.32 3.074*
3 to 5 years 60 175.60 28.35
5 to 7 years 19 185.32 33.68
Travel Frequency
Everyday 110 181.82 25.88 8.184**
Almost never 29 161.03 25.77
Note: ** p<.01, * p<.05.
136
Table 4.24: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252)
Variable N M SD F
Driver Experience
3 years or less 187 159.81 16.14 3.345*
3 to 5 years 46 167.61 15.53
5 to 7 years 16 165.88 17.73
Driving Frequency
Everyday 67 170.12 15.00 8.060**
Almost never 38 154.29 14.06
Note: ** p<.01, * p<.05.
In Study 1A, 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). Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when
compared to those who almost never travelled (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). In Study 1B, drivers who travelled everyday had
significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times
a week (p<.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.01). In Study 1C, 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<.05). Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher
total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.05),
about once every two weeks (p<.01), and those who almost never travelled (p<.01).
In Study 2, motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total

BIT scores (see Table 4.25). On the other hand, the effect of travel frequency on total
BIT score was significant.
137
Table 4.25: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122)
Variable N M SD F
Driver Experience
3 years or less 77 174.52 24.68 1.437 (N.S)
> 3 years but < 5 years 31 172.58 20.80
5 to 7 years 10 188.50 22.09
Driving Frequency
Everyday 52 182.81 24.89 3.528**
Almost never 14 162.64 20.56
Note: ** p<.01, * p<.05, N.S. Not significant
In Study 3, both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested. It was
found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table
4.26). However, taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.
In other words, 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.
Table 4.26: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133)
Variable N M SD F
Driver Experience
5 years or less 3 82.33 5.859 2.753*
>5 years but < 10 years 16 78.31 11.97
10 to 15 years 23 78.65 8.381
More than 15 years 91 73.47 10.31
Taxicab Driving Experience

5 years or less 38 77.55 10.62 1.920 (N.S)
>5 years but < 10 years 48 73.60 10.26
10 to 15 years 27 72.74 10.37
More than 15 years 20 77.55 9.316
Note: ** p<.01, * p<.05, N.S. Not significant
Therefore, it is concluded that Hypothesis 2, that drivers’ demographic

characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of
automobile drivers. However, the direction of the difference was opposite to what had
138
been predicted by H2.1 and H2.2. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses, driver experience
and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. In Study

2, only H2.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT
score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. Again, though, the
observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2.2. Contrary to the sub-
hypothesis, travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. In Study 3,

only H2.1 was confirmed, in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT
score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. In this case, the
direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver
experience and total BIT score; the longer the taxicab operator had been driving, the
lower was the total BIT score.
4.6.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic

The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender,
ethnicity and age – were investigated. In Studies 1A, 1B, 1C and 2, t-tests indicated that
mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants,
where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female
drivers. ANOVA results for age, however, indicated no significant differences in mean
total BIT scores. For ethnicity, ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies
1A, 1B, 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4.27).
139
Table 4.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores
Gender t=2.53, p<.05 t=2.68, p<.01 t=3.44, p<.01 t=3.62, p<.01 Not Applicable
Ethnicity F=11.66, p<.01 F=8.99, p<.01 F=19.9, p<.01 F=9.12, p<.01 F=3.74, p<.05
Age F=1.98, N.S. F=2.81, N.S. F=.05, N.S. F=1.00, N.S F=4.56, N.S.
Note: Not significant
In Study 1A, 1C and Study 2, post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-
Chinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores
than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<.05). In Study 1B, Malaysian-Indian
automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese
automobile drivers (p<.01). In Study 3, Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had
significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers
(p<.05).
Therefore, it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of

both automobile and motorcycle drivers. H3.1 and H3.2 were confirmed, in that gender
and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. For taxicab drivers studied in
Study 3, H3.2 was confirmed, in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.
In all studies, age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores, so the
null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.3 was not supported.
4.6.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control

The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control
were also investigated. In Study 1B, results showed that gender had no influence on the
three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I), Externality-Chance (C), and
Externality-Powerful-Others (P). In Study 1C, however, it was found that female
automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared
to male automobile drivers, t(250) = 2.562, p<.05. In Study 1A and Study 2, male
140
automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than
did female automobile and motorcycle drivers, t(120) = 2.490, p<.05; t(299) = 2.503,
p<.05 respectively.
In Study 1A, all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I, E and P scores,
F(2, 298) = 6.370, p<.01; F(2, 298) = 3.941, p<.05 and F(2, 298) = 3.476, p<.05
respectively. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had
significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<.01).
Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did
Malay drivers (p<.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P
dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<.01).
In Study 1B, ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean
C and P subscale scores, F(2, 299) = 3.462, p<.05 and F(2, 299) = 5.527, p<.01
respectively. Consistent with findings in Study 1A, post hoc analyses showed that
Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did
Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.05 and p<.01 respectively).
In Study 1C, ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P
subscale scores, F(2, 249) = 3.566, p<.05. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-
Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese
drivers (p<.05).
In Study 2, ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I

subscale scores, F(2, 119) = 5.041. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian
motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I
dimension (p<.05).
For Studies 1A, 1B, 1C, 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects
on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.
141
Therefore, based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA, Hypothesis 4 was
partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. H4.1.3 was
supported, in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externality-
powerful-others scores. In Study 1, H4.2.1, H4.2.2 and H4.2.3 were supported, that ethnicity
significantly influenced internality, externality-chance and externality-powerful-others.
In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers, it was observed that age had no
significant effect on any of internality, externality-chance and externality-powerful-
others, so H4.3.1, H4.3.2 and H4.3.3 were not supported.
4.6.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness

The direct effects of gender, ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated.
Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A, 1B and 1C found no significant
differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile
drivers. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between
ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A, 1B or
1C.
However, in Study 2, it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle
drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. Female motorcycle drivers
scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers, t(120) = 2.079, p<.05. In
addition, Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared
to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.01). Age was found to have no influence
on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.
Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in

Study 1. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle
drivers. H5.1 and H5.2, that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness, were supported.
H5.3, that age influences hopelessness, was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2.
142
4.6.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness
In Study 1A, internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness
(BHS) (B = -.306, p<.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P)
had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .239, p<.01 and B = .342, p<.01,
respectively). In Study 1B, I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS
scores (B = -.341, p<.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B =
.254, p<.01 and B = .312, p<.01 respectively). In Study 1C, I had a significant negative
effect on BHS scores (B = -.186, p<.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on
BHS scores (B = .254, p<.01 and B = .354, p<.01, respectively).
In Study 2, no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the
sample of motorcycle drivers, but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores
(B = .290, p<.01 and (B = .371, p<.01, respectively).
Therefore, it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of

automobile drivers. H6.1, H6.2 and H6.3, that the three locus of control dimensions
influence hopelessness, were supported, with higher levels of internality related to lower
levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with
higher hopelessness.
Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2, with the sample of motorcycle

drivers. H6.2 and H6.3, that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would
influence hopelessness, were supported. H6.1, that internality would influence
hopelessness, was not supported.
4.6.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic

In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers, 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 4.28).
143
Table 4.28: Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores
Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2

Total BIT score B=.278, p<.01 B=.200, p<.01 B=.288, p<.01 B=.418, p<.01
Usurpation of Right-of-way B=.287, p<.01 B=.254, p<.01 B=.275, p<.01 B=.415, p<.01
Freeway Urgency B=.191, p<.01 B=.099, N.S. B=.151, p<.05 B=.349, p<.01
Externally-Focused Frustration B=.280, p<.01 B=.157, p<.01 B=.141, p<.05 B=.317, p<.01
Destination-Activity Orientation B=.247, p<.01 B=.153, p<.05 B=.151, p<.05 B=.232, p<.05
In Study 1A, it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores, the
higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .287, p<.01),
freeway urgency (B =.191, p<.01), externally-focused frustration (B = .280, p<.01) and
destination-activity orientation (B = .247, p<.01). In Study 1B, the higher the
hopelessness scores, the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way
(B = .254, p<.01), externally-focused frustration (B = .157, p<.05) and destination-
activity orientation (B = .153, p<.05) but not for freeway urgency. In Study 1C, the
higher the hopelessness scores, the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of
right-of-way (B = .275, p<.01), freeway urgency (B = .151, p<.05), externally-focused
frustration (B = .141, p<.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = .151, p<.05). In
Study 2, it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores, the higher were BIT
subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .415, p<.01), freeway urgency (B =
.349, p<.01), externally-focused frustration (B = .317, p<.01) and destination-activity
orientation (B = .232, p<.05).
Therefore, it is concluded that Hypothesis 7, that hopelessness would have a

significant positive influence on total BIT scores, was supported in Studies 1A, 1C and
2, with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. H7.1, H7.3 and H7.4, that hopelessness
would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way, externally-
focused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. H7.2,
that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not
supported in Study 1B, meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study.
144
4.6.8 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. Results of multiple regression analyses (in
studies of car, motorcycle and taxicab drivers), provided support for hypothesis H8.1,
that the higher the subscale score for I, the lower were mean total BIT scores. With
regard to H8.2, results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C, the higher
were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2, but
not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. With regard to H8.3, results indicated that
the higher were subscale scores for P, the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile
drivers in Study 1, but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See
Table 4.29).
Therefore, it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile

drivers in Study 1. H8.1, H8.2 and H8.3, that locus of control would influence total BIT
scores were supported in Study 1, with internality observed to exert a positive effect on
BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects. Hypothesis 8 was
partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2. H8.1 and H8.2, that internality and
externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported, but not H8.3 that
externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. Hypothesis 8 was partially
supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3, where only H8.1, that internality would
negatively influence total BIT scores was supported.
Table 4.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores

I B=-.388, p<.01 B=-.336, p<.01 B=-.339, p<.01 B=-.625, p<.01 B=-.229, p<.01
C B=.178, p<.01 B=.208, p<.01 B=.168, p<.05 B=.753, p<.01 B=.006, N.S.
P B=.239, p<.01 B=.297, p<.01 B=.315, p<.01 B=.044, N.S. B=.077, N.S.
145
Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT.
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. In Study 1C, it was found that
Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower
in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control
Malaysian-Indian student car drivers, F=7.710, p<.01 (see Figure 4.1). Further, results
revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower
scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way, freeway urgency and
externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high
internal control, F=4.272, p<.05; F=4.909, p<.01 and F=8.581, p<.01 respectively (see
Figure 4.1).
175 Ethnicty
Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic
Malay
Malaysian-
Chinese
170
Malaysian-
Indian
165
(BIT)
160
155
150
low high
Internality
Figure 4.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT
In Study 1C, it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externality-
chance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way
than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores,
=8.704, p<.01 (see Figure 4.2).
146
Ethnicty
Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way

74.00 Malay
Malaysian-
Chinese
72.00 Malaysian-
Indian
70.00
68.00
66.00
64.00
62.00
low high
Externality (Chance)
Figure 4.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of

Right-of Way
4.6.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of

Control and Behaviour in Traffic
For Studies 1A, 1B and 1C, hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between
locus of control and BIT. However, in Study 2, multiple regression showed mixed
results. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT
score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score. First, the results of
hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x
hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.033; R2=.034;
F=4.282, p<.05; Residuals Normality: Skewness=.444; Kurtosis=-.537) and the
moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result, B = .327, p<.05. 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 4.3).
147
BIT Level Effect for drivers with
high hopelessness score
Effect for drivers with

low hopelessness score
Internality
Figure 4.3: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship
The R2 value also changed after the externality-chance x hopelessness interaction was
added in the regression model (R2=.167; R2=.070; F=18.463, p<.01; Residuals
Normality: Skewness=.608; Kurtosis=-.371), and the moderator (hopelessness) showed
a significant result, B = .459, p<.01. 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 4.4).

high hopelessness score
BIT Level

low hopelessness score
Externality (Chance)
Figure 4.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship
148
Therefore, it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1.
Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers.
However, Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. With motorcycle drivers, the
H9.1, that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT
scores, and H9.2, that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externality-
chance and total BIT scores, were supported.
4.6.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression

Analyses tested whether gender, ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on
drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. Mean total AQ scores differed
significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C, t(300) = 2.690,
p<.01; and t(250) = 2.603, p<.05 respectively. In both studies, male automobile drivers
had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers. When mean
subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested, results indicated that
male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of
physical aggression, verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4.30).
Table 4.30: Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores

Study 1B Study 1C
Total Aggression (AQ) score t=2.690, p<.01 t=2.603, p<.05
Physical Aggression (PHY) t=4.298, p<.01 t=4.210, p<.01
Verbal Aggression (VER) t=2.032, p<.05 t=2.677, p<.01
Anger (ANG) t=.187, N.S t=-.467, N.S.
Hostility (HOS) t=1.780, N.S t= .480, N.S
Indirect Aggression (IND) t=2.164, p<.05 t=2.820, p<.01
The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for
automobile drivers in Studies 1B, 1C and 3. In Study 1B and Study 3, ANOVA revealed
no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. In Study 1C,
however, mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups, F(2, 249) =
5.521, p<.01 (see table 4.31). Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese
149
automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay
or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<.01).
Table 4.31: Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors

Total Aggression score F=2.904, N.S. F=5.521, p<.01 F=1.422, N.S.
Physical Aggression (PHY) F=2.763, N.S. F=2.182, N.S. F=.632, N.S.
Verbal Aggression (VER) F=5.432, p<.01 F=2.804, N.S. F=1.398, N.S.
Anger (ANG) F=.526, N.S. F=1.561, N.S. F=2.155, N.S.
Hostility (HOS) F=1.629, N.S. F=2.021, N.S F=1.564, N.S.
Indirect Aggression (IND) F=4.041, p<.05 F=10.57, p<.01 F=1.077, N.S.
When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C, mixed results
were found. In Study 1B, the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay,
Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly
different, F(2, 299) = 5.432, p<.01. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly
higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.01). The mean indirect
aggression (IND) scores of Malay, Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile
drivers were also significantly different, F(2, 299) = 4.041, p<.05. Malaysian-Chinese
automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic
groups (p<.01). In Study 1C, mean IND scores of Malay, Malaysian-Chinese and
Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different, F(2, 249) = 10.567,
p<.01. Similar to the findings in Study 1B, Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had
significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.01). In Study
3, ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in
any of the AQ subscale scores.
Mean total AQ scores and mean scores on the five AQ subscales did not differ
significantly between age groups either for automobile drivers in Studies 1B and 1C or
for taxicab drivers in Study 3.
150
Therefore, it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. H10.1 (that
gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total
aggression and to the same three (PHY, VER and IND) of five component factors
among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. H10.2 (that ethnicity
would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect
to total AQ, VER and IND subscale scores. H10.3 (that age would negatively influence
aggression) was not supported.
4.6.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic

In Study 1B and Study 1C, 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, freeway urgency, externally-focused frustration, and
destination-activity orientation (see Table 4.29). The higher the total aggression scores,
the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.
In Study 3, however, 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). This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher,
total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales
were higher.
Therefore, in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers, it is

concluded that Hypothesis 11, that aggression would have a positive influence on total
BIT scores, was supported. In Studies 1B and 1C, H11.1, H11.2, H11.3 and H11.4, that
aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way,
freeway urgency, externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation,
were all supported. However, with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3, only
H11.3 and H11.4, that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused
frustration and on destination-activity orientation, respectively, were supported.
151
Table 4.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors

Total BIT Score B=.520, p<.01 B=.545, p<.01 B=.204, p<.05
Usurpation of Right-of-way B=.540, p<.01 B=.483, p<.01 B=.235, p<.01
Freeway Urgency B=.461, p<.01 B=.387, p<.01 B=.183, p<.05
Externally-Focused Frustration B=.491, p<.01 B=.428, p<.01 B=.121, N.S.
Destination-Activity Orientation B=.324, p<.01 B=.216, p<.01 B=.048, N.S.
The effects of AQ subscale factors on the total BIT score were also tested. Linear
regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive
influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B, Study 1C and Study 3, B = .380, p<.01; B =
.370, p<.01; and B = .263, p<.01, respectively. Also, hostility (HOS) was found to have
a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B, Study 1C and Study 3, B = .505,
p<.01; B = .385, p<.01; and B = .229, p<.01, respectively. With both automobile and
taxicab drivers, the higher the levels of PHY and HOS, the higher were total BIT scores.
Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant
positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C, B = .370, p<.01 and B
= .263, p<.01 respectively, but not in Study 3. Similarly, indirect aggression (IND) was
also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and
Study 1C, B = .438, p<.01 and B = .565, p<.01 respectively, but not in Study 3. This
implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND, their total
BIT scores tend to be higher, but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. Verbal
aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores.
Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT.

When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its
four component factors, no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A, 1B,
1C, Study 2 and Study 3. However, it was found that there was an interaction effect
between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency, F=3.881, p<.05
(see Figure 4.5). Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score
152
significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers
with high VER scores.
Ethnicty
Mean Score on Freeway Urgency

52.00 Malay
Chinese-
Malaysian
50.00 Indian-
Malaysian
48.00
46.00
44.00
42.00
Low High
Verbal Aggression
Figure 4.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency
4.6.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between

Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic
4.6.12.1 Internality as a Moderator
Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the
relationship between aggression and total BIT score. The moderating effect of I was
significant, B=-.362, p<.01; B=-.316, p<.01; and B=-.172, p<.05, for Study 1B, Study 1C
and Study 3, respectively, and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added
in the regression models (R2=.271; R2=.131; F=100.516, p<.01; Residuals Normality:
Skewness=-.645; Kurtosis=-.076; R2=.297; R2=.100; F=81.929, p<.01; Residuals
Normality: Skewness=.961; Kurtosis=-.003, 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. In other words, aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would
153
have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see
figure 4.6). This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.
Effect for aggressive

drivers with low
internality score
BIT Level

drivers with high
internality score
Aggression Level
Figure 4.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
4.6.12.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators

In Study 1B and Study 1C, the hierarchical regression revealed that externality-
chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between
aggression and total BIT score. In Study 1B, R2 values changed after both the C x AQ
and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.271;
R2=.117; F=94.757, p<.01; Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463; Kurtosis=-.507;
R2=.271; R2=.109; F=91.694, p<.01; Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.360; Kurtosis=-
.431, respectively), and the moderating effects of C and P were significant, B = .387,
p<.01 and B = .369, p<.01 respectively.
Consistent with the findings from Study 1B, 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=.297; R2=.069; F=71.897, p<.01; Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.794;
Kurtosis=-.606; R2=.297; R2=.088; F=78.015, p<.01; Residuals Normality: Skewness=
-.704; Kurtosis=.015, respectively), and the moderating effects of C and P were
154
significant, B = .302, p<.01 and B = .332, p<.01 respectively. This means that aggressive
automobile drivers scoring high on either the C or P locus of control dimensions had
higher total BIT scores than automobile drivers scoring low on either the C or P
dimensions (see Figure 4.7).

drivers with high
externality scores
BIT Level

drivers with low
externality scores
Aggression Level
Figure 4.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
However, hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated

the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3.
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. 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.
Therefore, it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B

and 1C, with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. H12.1,
H12.2, and H12.3, that the internality, externality-chance and externality-powerful-others
155
dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total
BIT scores were supported. However, Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in
Study 3, with the sample of taxicab drivers. Only H12.1, that internality moderates the
relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. H122 and H12.3, that
externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between
aggression and BIT scores were not supported.
4.6.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts

Male automobile drivers in Study 1C scored significantly higher total HAT
scores than did female automobile drivers, t(249)=2.885, p<.01. Also, male automobile
drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about
physical aggression, t(250) = 3.263, p<.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.314, p<.01 but not
on about the derogation of others.
ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to
mean total HAT scores, F(2, 249) = 4.343, p<.05. Post hoc analysis indicated that
Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than
either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.05). There were also
significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements
about physical aggression F(2, 249) = 5.279, p<.01, and about revenge F(2, 248) =
3.737, p<.05. 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<.05) or Indian-Malaysian
automobile drivers (p<.01). On the subscale measuring statements about revenge,
Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than Indian-
Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.05). There were no significant differences between
ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements 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.
156
Therefore, it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13, that demographic variables
would influence hostile automatic thoughts, was partially supported. H13.1 and H13.2, that
gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile
automatic thoughts, were supported. H13.3, that age would influence hostile automatic
thoughts, was not supported.
4.6.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic

In Study 1C, linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted
total BIT scores, B = .379, p<.01, and also scores measuring the four BIT component
factors: usurpation of right-of-way, B = .364, p<.01, freeway urgency, B = .277, p<.01,
externally-focused frustration, B = .307, p<.01 and destination-activity orientation, B =
.224, p<.01. This means that, the higher the total HAT scores, the higher were
automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.
The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic
thoughts, on total BIT score were also tested. Linear regression analyses indicated that
subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression, derogation of others and
revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =.413,
p<.01, B = .192, p<.01 and B = .394, p<.01, respectively. This means that, with the
sample of automobile drivers studied, the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile
automatic thought, the higher were total BIT scores.
Therefore, it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14, that hostile automatic thoughts
would influence behaviour in traffic, was supported. H14.1, H14.2 and H14.3, (that thoughts
about physical aggression, derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total
BIT scores, were supported.
157
4.6.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT
Relationship
Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the
relationship between aggression and BIT. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ
interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.297; R2=.013; F=55.809, p<.01;
Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.565; Kurtosis=.085), and the moderating effect of
HAT was significant, B = .188, p<.05. 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. In other words,
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 4.8).

drivers with high
HAT score
BIT Level

drivers with low
HAT score
Aggression Level
Figure 4.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
It was observed that two of the HAT subscales, Physical Aggression and
Revenge, also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. The R2 value
changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the
regression model (R2=.297; R2=.002; F=57.911, p<.01; Normality Residuals:
Skewness=.-554; Kurtosis=.072), and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical
158
Aggression was significant, B = .207, p<.01. The R2 value also changed after the HAT-
Revenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.297; R2=.026;
F=59.294, p<.01; Normality Residuals: Skewness=.475; Kurtosis=.092), and the
moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant, B = .246, p<.01. The HAT subscale
measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship
between aggression and behaviour in traffic.
Therefore, it is concluded that Hypothesis 15, that total HAT score would
moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic, was supported.
H15.1 and H15.3, that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively
moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic, were supported.
However, H15.2, that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the
relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic, was not supported.
4.6.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing

The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and sub-
hypotheses in this study (see Table 4.33).
159
Table 4.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses
STUDY
1A 1B 1C 2 3
H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes S S P.S S P.S
H1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence S S S S S
H1.1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence S S S S S
H1.1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence S S S S S
H1.1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence S S S S S
H1.1.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence S S N.S S S
H1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence S S S S N.S
H1.2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence S S S S N.S
H1.2.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence S S S S N.S
H1.2.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence S S S S N.S
H1.2.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence S S N.S S N.S
H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic S S S P.S P.S
H2.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score S S S N.S S
H2.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score S S S S
H2.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score N.S
H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic P.S P.S P.S P.S P.S.
H3.1: Gender will influence total BIT score S S S S
H3.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score S S S S S
H3.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S
H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control P.S P.S P.S P.S N.S
H4.1.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality N.S N.S S S
H4.1.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance N.S N.S N.S N.S
H4.1.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others S N.S N.S S
H4.2.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S N.S N.S S N.S
H4.2.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance S S N.S N.S N.S
H4.2.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others S S S N.S N.S
H4.3.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S
160
Table 4.33 (Continued) STUDY
1A 1B 1C 2 3
H4.3.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S
H4.3.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S
H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness N.S N.S N.S P.S
H5.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness N.S N.S N.S S
H5.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness N.S N.S N.S S
H5.3: Age will influence Hopelessness N.S N.S N.S N.S
H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness S S S P.S
H6.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness S S S N.S
H6.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness S S S S
H6.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness S S S S
H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic S P.S S S
H7.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way S S S S
H7.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency S N.S S S
H7.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration S S S S
H7.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation S S S S
H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic S S S P.S P.S
H8.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score S S S S S
H8.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT S S S S N.S
H8.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score S S S N.S N.S
H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship N.S N.S N.S P.S
H9.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation N.S N.S N.S S
H9.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship N.S N.S N.S S
H9.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship N.S N.S N.S N.S
H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression P.S P.S N.S
H10.1: Gender will influence Aggression S S
H10.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression N.S S N.S
H10.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression N.S N.S N.S
S=Supported, P.S= Partially Supported, N.S= Not Supported, blank=Not Applicable
161
Table 4.33 (Continued) STUDY
1A 1B 1C 2 3
H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic S S P.S
H11.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way S S S
H11.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency S S S
H11.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration S S N.S
H11.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation S S N.S
H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S S P.S
H12.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S S S
H12.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S S N.S
H12.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S S N.S
H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s P.S
H13.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts S
H13.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts S
H13.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts N.S
H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic S
H14.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score S
H14.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score S
H14.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score S
H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship P.S
H15.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S
H15.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship N.S
H15.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S
S=Supported, P.S= Partially Supported, N.S= Not Supported, blank=Not Applicable
162
Modelling (LISREL Analysis)
The contextual mediated model was tested using Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM) – path analysis through LISREL 8.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom,
2002). Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver; Study 2: motorcycle driver; 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. All proposed models measured: (1) internality,
externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors; (2)
usurpation of right-of-way, freeway urgency, externally-focused frustration and
destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors; and (3) crash occurrence
and injury occurrence as outcome. These models were re-specified by adding
different proximal context factors, e.g. hopelessness or subtracting the latent
variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index.
4.7.1 Study 1C
The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal
factors – Locus of Control, Hopelessness, AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought
(HAT). This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit
indices for these models are indicated in Table 4.34.
Table 4.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C)
Proximal
Distal Factors χ2 d.f. p-value GFI RMSEA
Factors
1C1 I, C, P F1, F2, F3, F4 49.38 23 .00111 .96 .068
1C2 I, C, P, BHS F1, F2, F3, F4 100.80 28 .00000 .93 .102
1C3 I, C, P, BHS, AQ F1, F2, F3, F4 104.90 33 .00000 .93 .093
1C4 I, C, P, BHS, AQ, HAT F1, F2, F3, F4 110.58 38 .00000 .93 .087
1C5 I, C, P, AQ, HAT F1, F2, F3 35.97 24 .05522 .97 .045
1C6 I, C, P, AQ, HAT F1, F2, F3, F4 63.02 33 .00126 .96 .060
Note: Internality (I), Externality Chance (C), Externality Powerful-Other (P), Hopelessness (BHS),
Aggression (AQ), Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT), Usurpation of right-of-way (F1), freeway
urgency (F2), externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
Of the six models tested, two were worthy of further examination. Model
1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors,
163
destination-activity orientation (F4), of the BIT score. An alternate model, C6,
retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable, but
not as good as for C5.
For Model C5, goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35.97,

d.f.=24, RMSEA=.045, RMR=.043, GFI=.97, CFI=.99) and constituted the best fit of
all six of the tested models. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated
that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were
significant: Internality, Externality (Chance), Externality (Powerful-Other),
Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT, with path
coefficients = -.35, .14, .26, .29 and .22 respectively (see Figure 4.10). The BIT
displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.92) on accident involvement. The
five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores.
For Model C6, goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.02,

d.f.=33, RMSEA=.060, RMR=.043, GFI=.96, CFI=.98). The investigation of
structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to
the proximal context were significant: Internality, Externality (Chance), Externality
(Powerful-Other), Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT,
with path coefficients = -.32, .13, .26, .28 and .23 respectively (see Figure 4.10). The
BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.92) on accident involvement.
The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores.
Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a
number of interesting points, which are detailed in sect. 5.5.3. To aid this discussion,
subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit
indices. For Model C5, values for these additional indices were: NFI=.97;
AGFI=.94; ECVI=.42; and PGFI=.42. For Model C6, values were: NFI=.96;
AGFI=.91; ECVI=.51 and PGFI=.48.
164
Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome
Internality BIT1 BIT2 BIT3
-.32*
Externality .79* .63* .58*

(Chance)
.13*
Crash
.51* Occurrence
Externality
(Powerful Other) .26* Behaviour in Accident
Traffic (BIT) .92* Involvement
.57* Injury
Occurrence
.29*
Aggression (AQ)
.22* Model Statistics

Hostile Automatic
χ2=35.97 GFI=.97
Thought
d.f =24 CFI=.99
P-value = .005522 N=252
RMSEA=.045
BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way, BITF2=Freeway Urgency, RMR=.043
BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration, BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Note: Values showed are path
coefficients. *p<.05
Figure 4.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors)
165
Internality BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4
-.31*
Externality .77* .63* .56* .39*

(Chance)
.13*
Crash
.50* Occurrence
Externality
(Powerful Other) .26* Behaviour in Accident
.58* Injury
Occurrence
.29*
Aggression (AQ)
.22* Model Statistics

Hostile Automatic
χ2=63.02 GFI=.96
Thought
d.f =33 CFI=.98
P-value = .00126 N=252
RMSEA=.060
BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way, BITF2=Freeway Urgency, RMR=.043
BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration, BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Note: Values showed are path
Figure 4.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors)
166
In addition, using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C, the contextual
mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their
latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. The proposed contextual
mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4.35). The results for the goodness-of-
fit indexes are shown as follows:
Table 4.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C)
Proximal
Factors
PHY, VER, ANG, HOS, IND F1, F2, F3, F4 108.73 42 .00111 .93 .080
PHY, VER, ANG, HOS, IND,
F1, F2, F3, F4 169.66 61 .00000 .91 .084
HAT-P, HAT-D, HAT-R
PHY, ANG, HOS, IND, HAT-P,
F1, F2, F3 131.94 50 .00000 .92 .081
HAT-D, HAT-R
PHY, VER, ANG, HOS, IND,
F1, F2, F3 169.66 61 .00000 .91 .084
HAT-P, HAT-D, HAT-R
PHY, ANG, HOS, IND, HAT-P,
F1, F2, F3, F4 153.41 61 .00000 .91 .078
HAT-D, HAT-R
Note: Physical aggression (PHY), Verbal aggression (VER), Angry (ANG), Hostility (HOS), Indirect
aggression (IND), Aggression (AQ), Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P), Hostile
Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D), Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R),
Usurpation of right-of-way (F1), freeway urgency (F2), externally-focused frustration (F3) and
destination-activity orientation (F4)
As depicted in Figure 4.10, the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the
data (χ2=153.41, d.f.=61, RMSEA=.078, GFI=.91, CFI=.95). 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), path coefficients = .65 and .13 respectively. Hostile Automatic Thought was
found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=.66). The BIT displayed a
significant effect (path coefficient=.80) on the accident involvement.
167
Physical
Aggression BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4
.69*
Anger .68* .83* .62* .58* .29*
Aggression (AQ)
Hostility .61* Crash
.63* Occurrence
.65*
Indirect .72*
Aggression Accident
Behaviour in .80*
Involvement
Traffic (BIT)
.65* .60*
Injury
Occurrence
Physical
Aggression .13*
.90*
Hostile Automatic Model Statistics
Derogation
Thought
of Other .66* χ2=153.41 GFI=.91
d.f =61 CFI=.95
P-value = .000 N=252
.82*
Revenge RMSEA=.078
RMR=.058
Note: Values showed are path
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way, BIT2=Freeway Urgency, BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration, BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation coefficients. *p<.05
Figure 4.11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts)
168
4.7.2 Study 2
In Study 2, the participants were motorcycle drivers. The contextual mediated
model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. The
proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4.36). The
goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow:
Table 4.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2)
Proximal
Factors
I, C, P F1, F2, F3, F4 29.12 23 .17631 .94 .047
I, C, P, BHS F1, F2, F3 39.33 28 .07580 .95 .058
I, C, P, BHS F1, F2, F3, F4 33.86 23 .06722 .94 .062
Note: Internality (I), Externality Chance (C), Externality Powerful-Other (P), Hopelessness (BHS),
The model including Locus of Control has provided the best goodness-of-fit to
the data (χ2=29.12, d.f.=28, RMSEA=.047, GFI=.94, CFI=.98). The investigation of
structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the
proximal context were significant. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers, the
final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. Internality
and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (Powerful-
Other), path coefficients = -.65 and .80 respectively (see Figure 4.12). The BIT
displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.66) on the accident involvement. The
four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT.
169
BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4

Internality
.88* .83* .70* .57*
Crash
-.65* Occurrence
Externality .89*
(Chance) .80*
Behaviour in Accident
.78* Injury
Externality .05 Occurrence
(Powerful Other)
Model Statistics
χ2=29.12 GFI=.95
d.f =23 CFI=.99
P-value = .17631 N=122
RMSEA=.047
RMR=.046
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way, BIT2=Freeway Urgency, BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration, BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Note: Values showed are path
Figure 4.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2
170
4.7.3 Study 3
In Study 3, the participants were taxi drivers. The contextual mediated model
was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. This
contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.37). The goodness-of-fit
indexes for these models are shown as follow:
Table 4.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3)
Proximal
Distal Factors Outcomes χ2 d.f. p-value GFI RMSEA
Factors
Crash Occurrence,
I, C, P F1, F2, F3, F4 37.22 23 .03084 .94 .068
Injury Occurrence
Crash Occurrence,
I, C, P, AQ F1, F2, F3, F4 50.82 28 .00524 .93 .079
Injury Occurrence
I, C, AQ F1, F2, F3, F4 Crash Occurrence 18.59 17 .35265 .97 .027
I, C, P, AQ F1, F2, F3, F4 Crash Occurrence 31.39 21 .06743 .95 .061
Note: Internality (I), Externality Chance (ExC), Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo), Hopelessness (H),
Model included locus of control, AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has
provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31.39, d.f.=21, RMSEA=.061, GFI=.95,
CFI=.95). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four
possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.
Internality and AQ, but not Externality, have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT),
path coefficients = -.20 and .20 respectively (see Figure 4.13). The BIT displayed a
significant effect (path coefficient=.40) on the accident involvement. The four distal
variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT.
171
BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4

Internality
.74* .63* .61* .39*
-.20*
Externality
(Chance) -.03
Behaviour in
Traffic (BIT) .40* Crash Occurrence
Externality .13
(Powerful Other)
.20*
Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics

χ2=31.39 GFI=.95
d.f =21 CFI=.95
P-value = .06743 N=133
RMSEA=.061
RMR=.053
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way, BIT2=Freeway Urgency, BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration, BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Note: Values showed are path
Figure 4.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3
172
4.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS
The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and
accident involvement; (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident
involvement; (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement; and, (4)
the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were
tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).
4.8.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes
In all studies, consistent with path analysis results, hopelessness did not
significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4.38). Therefore, the mediating
effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated.
Table 4.38: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes
BIT mediates Hopelessness-

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Crash Occurrence
Study 1A Significant Not Significant Significant Not Applicable
Study 1B Significant Not Significant Significant Not Applicable
Study 1C Significant Not Significant Significant Not Applicable
Study 2 Significant Not Significant Significant Not Applicable
BIT mediates the Hopelessness-
Injury Occurrence Relation
Study 1B Significant Not Significant Significant Not Applicable
Study 1C Significant Not Significant Significant Not Applicable
Notes: Step 1=independent variable has a significant effect on the mediator; Step2=independent variable has a
significant effect on the dependent variable; Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable;
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. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when
conditions in Step1, 2 and 3 are satisfied.
4.8.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes
The four-step regression analysis showed that BIT strongly mediated the
relationship between aggression and crash outcomes (see table 4.39). BIT was a
complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence.
173
BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury
occurrence.
Table 4.39: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes
BIT mediates Aggression-Crash

Occurrence Relation
Study 1B Significant Significant Significant Complete Mediator
Study 1C Significant Significant Significant Complete Mediator
BIT mediates Aggression-
Injury Occurrence Relation
Study 1B Significant Significant Significant Partial Mediator
Study 1C Significant Significant Significant Complete Mediator
4.8.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and
Crash Outcome
The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between
hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4.40).
Table 4.40: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash
Outcomes
BIT mediates Hostile Automatic

Thought-Crash Occurrence Relation
Study 1C Significant Significant Significant Partial Mediator
BIT mediates Hostile Automatic
Thought-Injury Occurrence Relation
4.8.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash
Outcomes
For automobile drivers, in Studies 1A, 1B and 1C, behaviour in traffic (BIT) had
complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of
control dimensions – Internality (I), Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-Powerful-
Others – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.41). Exceptions to this were found only with
respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A, where the
174
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, BIT had a complete mediating effect on the
relationship between C and both crash outcomes. With respect to the relationship
between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash
outcomes, 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, BIT
had no mediating effects on the relationship between I, C or P and the two crash
outcomes.
Table 4.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes
BIT mediates I-Crash
Occurrence Relation
Study 1A Significant Significant Significant Complete Mediator
BIT mediates I-Injury
Occurrence Relation
Study 1A Significant Significant Significant Complete Mediator
BIT mediates C-Crash
Occurrence Relation
Study 1A Significant Significant Significant Partial Mediator
Study 2 Significant Significant Significant Complete Mediator
Study 3 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Applicable
BIT mediates
C-Injury Occurrence Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Relation
Study 1A Significant Significant Significant Partial Mediator
Study 2 Significant Significant Significant Complete Mediator
Study 3 Not Significant Significant Not Significant Not Applicable
175
Table 4.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes
(Continued)
BIT mediates P-Crash
Occurrence Relation
Study 3 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Applicable
BIT mediates P-Injury
Occurrence Relation
Study 3 Not Significant Significant Not Significant Not Applicable
4.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers, Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab

Drivers
4.9.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers
In a subsequent analysis, scores for distal variables (locus of control and
hopelessness), 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. It was found that there were significant
differences in scores for hopelessness, Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(421)= -4.993, p <.01;
Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(422)= -2.442, p <.05; Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(372)= -3.162, p
<.01. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A, 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on
hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.
With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control, automobile drivers

scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I, Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(421)= 7.663, p <.01;
Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(422)= 8.426, p <.01; Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(372)= 8.665, p
<.01. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C,
Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(421)= -3.837, p <.01. There was no significant difference in
scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.
176
Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with
respect to the total BIT score, Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(421)= -3.837, p <.01; Study 1C vs.
Study 2: t(372)= -6.577, p <.01.
Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash

occurrence, Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(421)= -8.261, p <.01; Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(422)=
-4.186, p <.01; Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(372)= -5.861, p <.01. Automobile drivers scored
significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence, Study 1A vs. Study 2:
t(421)= -7.402, p <.01; Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(422)= -6.200, p <.01; Study 1C vs. Study
2: t(372)= -7.687, p <.01.
4.9.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers

With respect to locus of control, taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile
drivers on the I dimension, t(986)= 3.801, p <.01. There were no significant differences
scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.
Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores,
t(986)= 7.747, p <.01, and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”,
“freeway urgency”, “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity
orientation”, t(986)= 37.704, p <.01; t(986)= 34.211, p <.01; t(986)= 30.433, p <.01; and
t(986)= 35.775, p <.01, respectively. Also, automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab
drivers with respect to crash occurrence, t(986)= 5.977, p <.01, and to injury occurrence,
t(986)= 6.484, p <.01.
4.9.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers

Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control
dimension, t(253)= 8.926, p <.01. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers
on C, t(253) = 2.614, p <.01. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and
taxicab drivers on the P dimension.
177
Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers, t(253)=
8.982, p <.01, and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”, “freeway
urgency”, “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”, t(253)=
39.977, p <.01; t(253)= 35.946, p <.01; t(253)= 31.016, p <.01; and t(253)= 37.567, p
<.01, respectively. Also, drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence, t(253)=
8.737, p <.01and to injury occurrence, t(253)= 11.881, p <.01.
178
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
5.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing

Unsafe Driving
Traffic psychologists, 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. While it has been generally assumed and
frequently stated that driver characteristics, including gender, age and personality may
be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger, 1995; Elander et al., 1993;
Evans, 1991), researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify
the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes.
Often, human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence
over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up, upon examination, exerting weaker
influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar, 2002b).
Elander et. al. (1993), Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of
examining crash causation from a broader, multi-factorial perspective, in which the roles
played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more
closely examined than in the past. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a
contextual mediated model, in which a set of personality and demographic factors are
thought to exert effects, not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather
on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. 2.4.2.1).
In an earlier study, Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four

dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern
(TABP). Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-of-
way, freeway urgency, externally-focused frustration and destination-activity
orientation. They found gender, ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to
179
total BIT score and component scores, but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on
crash outcomes.
In the present research, the proximal variable, BIT, significantly predicted self-
reported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied.
Further, it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases, except with taxicab
drivers. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual
scores of each of the four component factors. Since high BIT scores indicated driving
behaviour consistent with TABP, Type A individuals were significantly more likely to
have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and, for automobile drivers and
motorcyclists, were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving.
But findings were more complex than that. In the contextual mediated model,
BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. In other words, BIT composite
scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control, hopelessness,
aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence, and did so in
all cases but hopelessness.
Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship, particularly between

psychological variables and crash outcomes, which somewhat complicates our attempt
to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. All too often, the
term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element, in the deterministic sense
in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. A rich variety of individual
factors exists which, if different, alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of
crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes
(Evans, 1991). The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. One recurrent
complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety, though, is that factors
interact with each other. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to
every other aspect. As a result,
180
… 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 self-
reported crash and injury occurrence. What may have resulted here is less an
identification of causes and their prevention and more a framework in which to consider
the complex interactions of several factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes.
Within the contextual mediated model used here, a significant relationship was
observed between the BIT construct and outcome measures, suggesting that the
contention of Papacostas and Synodinos (1988), that it may be preferable to existing
measures of TABP, is supported. As has been already noted, a range of personality and
181
demographic variables were observed to interact with BIT scores and the remainder of
this discussion is devoted to a consideration of these findings.
5.2 Hopelessness
It has been noted by several authors that little attention has been paid to affective
characteristics of drivers (Rothengatter, 1998; 2002; Elander et al., 1993). It is widely
accepted that emotions alter attention, thought patterns, decision making and memory
(Groeger, 1997). Hopelessness is a personality trait with strong affective and cognitive
components, characterised by a sense of despair, pessimism about the future, chronic
exhaustion and a deep personal orientation that nothing one can do to bring meaning,
zest or enthusiasm to life (Farran et al., 1995). Hopeless individuals tend to believe that
nothing will turn out right for them, that they will never succeed at what they attempt to
do, that their important goals can never be attained, and that their worst problems will
never be solved (Beck & Steer, 1993). They score high on scales measuring
neuroticism and low on extraversion, feel as though they lack physical fitness and self-
confidence and are often dissatisfied with their accommodation, marital state and
workplace (Tanaka, Sakamoto, Ono, Fujihara & Kitamura, 1996; 1998). Often people
with a high degree of hopelessness feel compelled to do more and more as a way of
compensating, feeling as though “they must climb a mountain that has no top and that
there is no way to end the necessity of climbing” (LeShan, 1989; p.108). Often these
efforts are seen as impulsive, irrational and generally without an apparent goal, and are
just as frequently prone to premature termination.
Certainly, it is not difficult to see that internal states arising from this interplay of
despondency, perceived fatigue and sense of slowing down while feeling compelled to
do more, have a strong potential to influence driving behaviour negatively. In the
present research, hopelessness was associated with less cautious self-reported behaviour
in traffic. The higher were participants’ scores on a measure of hopelessness, the more
they indicated they would be likely to engage in BIT that was unsafe. Specifically,
persons reporting a high degree of hopelessness had a tendency to disrespect others’
182
right-of-way, to engage in risky lane deviations and to commit lapses or violations at
intersections or stoplights. Generally, very little is known about demographic and
personality characteristics of drivers who fail to halt at stop signs or pedestrian
crossings, commit red light violations or make risky lane deviation manoeuvres
(Brodsky, 2001; Romano et al., 2005a; 2005b). The finding that hopelessness is
associated with risky right-of-way behaviour may be consistent with the attention
deficiencies, impulsivity and lack of caring thought to characterise persons with this trait
(Farran et al., 1995).
When it comes to the relationship between hopelessness and driving behaviour,

motorcyclists present some unique differences. Motorcycle drivers had higher
hopelessness scores than either automobile or taxicab drivers. Among motorcyclists,
males were significantly higher than females in hopelessness and Malay motorcycle
drivers had higher hopelessness levels than their Chinese-Malaysian or Indian-
Malaysian counterparts. Motorcyclists generally have a high frequency of right-of-way
crashes at three-legged junctions, crossroads and roundabouts where the driving
manoeuvres tend to be fairly complex, requiring vehicle control skills and focused
attention to avoid conflicting movements with other road users (Pai & Saleh, 2008).
Clarke, Ward, Bartle and Truman (2007) have also noted that, because of their
configuration, motorcycles are particularly prone to ‘right of way crashes’ and those
involving loss of control on curves or bends. With the likelihood of this type of crash
already fairly high for motorcyclists, the finding in the present study that hopelessness
was strongly associated with driver behaviour involving the usurpation of right of way
may signal an exacerbated level of danger that needs to be explored in future research.
For motorcyclists, also, hopelessness moderates the relationship between both I

and C locus of control dimensions, such that motorcyclists with a strong internal locus of
control who score high on the hopelessness trait tend to report that they engage in less
safe behaviour in traffic than do motorcycling internals who score low on the
hopelessness trait. On the other hand, motorcyclists with a strong belief that their life is
183
determined by chance or fate and that their future is coloured by feelings of hopelessness
tend to report more dangerous driving than do fatalistically-directed externals who are
not feeling hopeless.
The relationship between hopelessness and locus of control is complex, in that

logically either a high or a low sense of internal control can be a component of
hopelessness. Often persons who feel hopeless have a low sense of personal control.
They have lost faith in their own ability to achieve some goal and therefore have an
image of themselves that they feel has been devalued both by themselves and by other
people (Engel, 1968; Isani, 1963; Prociuk et al., 1976). In other cases, however, persons
have a high but unrealistic sense of internality. They may feel very responsible for their
own fate and may feel that no other help is available to them (Engel, 1971). “In this
situation, even though individuals are making some attempt at maintaining control, their
goals may be inappropriate or their resources may not be adequate to meet the desired
outcome” (Farran et al, 1995; p. 33).
Similarly, either a high or a low sense of external control can also be a

component of hopelessness. A person with a high external locus of control may
unrealistically anticipate that help from others or from the external environment will
resolve the dilemma (Engel, 1968), thus assuming little or no personal control.
However, persons who are feeling hopeless may also have a low sense of external
control simply because they believe that others have so frequently failed or frustrated
them (Engel, 1971). Farran et al. (1995) called for further studies to explore the nature
of hopelessness and other moderating variables like self-esteem, locus of control and
self-efficacy. Future research investigating the process through which locus of control
interacts with hopelessness in influencing driver behaviour are needed in particular.
184
5.3 Locus of Control
5.3.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving
Behaviour
Previous studies investigating the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour
arrived at inconsistent results. For example, Guastello and Guastello (1986) found that
internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but
that there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter (1996) I-E
scale. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total
crashes, ordinary traffic violations and driving errors, although scores on externality
dimensions had no effect. In the present study, locus of control was found to play a
significant role in influencing driving behaviour. Drivers who had a strong internal locus
of control regardless of automobile, motorcycle or taxicab drivers, reported engaging in
behaviour in traffic that was relatively safe. This observation was true for all three
groups studied: automobile drivers, motorcyclists and taxicab drivers. On the other
hand, those who believed life events to be determined by chance or fate reported
engaging in behaviour that was far more consistent with a less safe TAPB pattern. This
was true for the samples of automobile and motorcycle drivers, all of whom were
university students, but not for professional taxicab drivers.
In short, all participants in this study who were internals reported driving more
safely than those who were not; and university students who were strongly externally
controlled reported driving less safely than those who were not. This finding is exactly
what the general body of thought about locus of control and driving would predict it to
be. It has been generally assumed that, because externals believe that they have little
personal control over what happens to them, they tend to consciously focus less on the
driving task (Elander et al., 1993). In cognitive ergonomic terms, it is as if they are
willing to cede responsibility for shouldering the mental workload (de Waard, 2002)
associated with the driving task because they consider it to be under the control of
external forces.
185
It might be expected, though, that this effect would be become less pronounced
as drivers become more experienced. Groeger (2002) has pointed out that, with more
experienced drivers, more of what they do becomes routine and, as a result, not under
direct conscious control. With increasing automatisation of the driving process, the
influence of externality over specific decisions and actions that the driver must make
would be diminished. Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) described how automaticity
develops as a function of consistent reactions to a particular stimulus, even to the point
where there is little recollection of specific elements of the task (Underwood & Everatt,
1996). Of course, there will always be “black events”, or risk-predisposing
circumstances, in which the driver switches from automatic to personally controlled
processes but, even at those times, drivers with more experience will have better
knowledge and quicker reactions due to their broader exposure to prior stimuli (Brown,
1982).
Because more of the driving task is performed automatically by experienced

drivers, cognitive attributions about an internal or external locus of control become less
important, unless one makes a basically untestable assumption about sub-conscious
factors operating on what is generally described as an open-loop control system
(Groeger & Clegg, 1997). Given that this sort of system involves sequences of actions
which do not rely on feedback from the results of preceding actions before subsequent
actions are performed (Bridger, 1995), even if attributional cognitions could
theoretically operate at the sub-conscious level, it is hard to envision the sort of
mechanism through which they could influence automaticized driving behaviour.
Further, Laapotti et al. (2001) have argued that novice drivers make errors in
applying knowledge models at both the lower (vehicle manoeuvring) and upper
dimensions (incorporating lifestyle goals and skills) within the driving process (see
Figure 2.8; sect. 2.5.2.1). While it might be assumed that errors at the lower level are
caused by skill deficits, abrogation of control over the vehicle due to a belief in
externality would be a mental process that occurs at the upper end of the cognitive
186
hierarchy. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less
experienced drivers.
In the present study, taxicab drivers were considerably older (43.2 years,
SD=11.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20.01years, SD=1.53; 20.25
years, SD=1.63, respectively). They were also more experienced (266.6 months as
licensed drivers, SD=131.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28.7
months, SD=.16.1; and 36.1 months, SD=22.5, respectively). Because of occupational
demands, it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the
students, although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers.
For taxicab drivers, internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in
traffic, but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect, as it did with the
less experienced university students in the other groups. 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. Of course, there
are other possible influences, as well. For taxicab drivers, the continued operation of
their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take
precedence over attributions of external control. By virtue of their age and occupation,
it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network.
Inclán, Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital, the extent to which an
individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks, social trust and norms
that promote coordination and cooperation, affected driving behaviour and decisions
about the use of public roads. Further research is needed to examine the influence of
driving experience, traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and
externality exert on driving behaviour.
5.3.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers

The present research also compared differences in locus of control among three
ethnic groups in the culturally diverse Malaysian society. Malaysian-Indian automobile
187
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). There were no significant differences between Malay and
Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions.
Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that
university students in India were strongly internally-controlled, when compared to
Canadian students, in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system.
He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time, rife with bureaucracy,
corrupt practices, influence peddling and status-related privileges, which would have led
young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers, along with self-
promotion skills, were necessary to succeed. Since perceived success under such
circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas,
individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control.
Carment (1974) also found, however, that the Indian students were strongly
external with respect to matters in their personal life. He explained this by pointing to
the close and interdependent Indian family structure, in which members look to each
other and especially to maternal figures within the home, for support in effecting the life
outcomes that are important to them. In an environment where career choice, spousal
selection, financial matters and social affiliations are made, or at least strongly
influenced by outside forces, it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control
of life outcomes can develop.
With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research, findings with
regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. Participants
scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful
others, perhaps due as argued earlier, to cultural values of intra-family dependency and
parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in
Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson, 2003; Devashayam, 2005). The finding that Indian-
188
Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier
conclusions with individuals from India, although they were consistent with more recent
research by Sinha & Watson (2007). In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier
results, 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, 2002;
Gomez, 1999; Nandy, 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have
fostered a need for greater internal control. Indeed, Willford (2003) concluded that
Indian-Malaysians, as a group, have been largely limited from participation in social and
political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and, by
extension, an internal locus of control.
5.3.3 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. This is consistent with
recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore, where Cheung et
al. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits, including locus of control,
than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. It is also
consistent with the results of a study by Fontaine and Richardson (2003) which found
differences in cultural values within the workplace were not significant among the three
Malaysian ethnic groups.
Again, the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial,
but two possible influences stand out. The first of these is the steady rate of urbanisation
which began in the early-1960s and has continued through the last three decades
(Gomez, 1999; Sendut, 1966; Salih &Young, 1981). The size of the urban population in
Malaysia increased by 4.5% annually from 9.5 million in 1991 to 11.8 million in 1996,
and, as a result, the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from
51% in 1991 to 55.7 in 1996. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to
increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems
(Hofstede, 1998; 1999). Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected
189
women’s friendship patterns, bringing them closer together in outlook. 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.
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, 2002). Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a
highly networked information economy and society, in which members of ethnic groups
are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life, including perhaps attributions
about the control of events. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in
Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building, 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. 318).
5.4 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, more
recently, by the enraged driver. Nonetheless, there is a large body of evidence that
aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes
(Deffenbacher, Huff, Lynch, Oetting & Salvatore, 2000; Dukes, Clayton, Jenkins, Miller
& Rodgers, 2001; King & Parker, 2008; Lawton & Nutter, 2002; Miles & Johnson,
2003; Parkinson, 2001)
In the present research, aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic.

Consistently, among automobile drivers and motorcyclists, participants scoring higher
on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-of-
way violations, feeling more frustrated at external sources, driving in a more urgent
fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic
190
conditions. With taxicab drivers, higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to
commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently, but had no significant effect
on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. Male drivers tended to
score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression, physical aggression,
verbal aggression and indirect aggression, but there were no gender differences with
respect to anger or hostility.
While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and
driving behaviour, there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism
through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. Underwood et al. (1999)
found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger, particularly where drivers felt that
they were not at fault in the incident. Further, on a journey by journey basis,
Underwood et al. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion
was present, but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced
higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. Parker, 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; Finland and the
Netherlands.
Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive
statements that drivers make, either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”),
during such incidents. Deffenbacher, Oetting et al. (1996) and Deffenbacher, Petrilli et
al. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report
more aggressive and riskier driving. 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, the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. These
effects were observed most strongly when drivers had cognitions involving physical
violence toward other drivers (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out”), a little less strongly
when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least
191
strongly, although still significantly, when entertaining cognitive statements that made
derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers.
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,
as well. Drivers who scored high in aggression and who entertained more frequent
hostile automatic thoughts about others tended to report driving patterns in traffic that
were less safe than drivers who scored high in aggression but who entertained less
frequent hostile automatic thoughts. These moderating effects were significant when the
content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives, but not when
they involved the derogation of others.
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, the
world and others); (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life), and (c)
cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). In essence,
one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features
within the environment (Galovski et al., 2006). Each class of hostile automatic thought
can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al., 1997). That
is, perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional
experience of anger, a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related
to physical aggression or revenge, and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive
or punitive type of traffic behaviour. Such responses, in the samples studied here, would
be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding
behaviour.
The effects of aggression on behaviour, however, were also modified by the

drivers’ locus of control. Aggressive automobile drivers with a tendency to believe that
outcomes are determined by chance or fate were significantly more likely to report
riskier driving patterns than were aggressive drivers who did not believe that outcomes
192
are determined by chance or fate. Similarly, 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. Finally, aggressive drivers of both
automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i.e., 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. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et
al. (2003), who found that the association between road-hostility and drivers’ speed
choices and deviant behaviour (passing through a red light and overtaking from the
inside) was larger among participants with low rather than with high internality scores.
The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and
complex. It is moderated by cognitive processes, in the form of hostile automatic
thoughts, or self-talk, and also by attributions regarding locus of control. Generally, the
original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental
stimuli that, true to operant learning principles, evoked specific behavioural responses
that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein, 1990;
Meichenbaum, 1977). Certainly, this process may be instrumental in the relationship
between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out, so I’ll
overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i.e., receive positive
reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”), but there may be more
to it than that.
A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with

which one must contend in performing a function and, “in ergonomics, language
comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which, like any other mental task, has a
workload associated with it” (Bridger, 1995; p. 401). Language loaded with emotional
content, and particularly with negative emotion, has been shown to be difficult to
process (Dodge & Coie, 1987; Downe & Loke, 2004; Hochschild, 1979; Novaco, 1994;
193
Robbins, 2000; Stein, Trabasso & Liwag, 1993), subject to ambiguous interpretation
(Chan, 1996; Martin, Watson & Wan, 2000; Tomkins, 1979) and disruptive to
attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs, 2002; Carretie, Hinojosa, Martin-
Loeches, Mercado & Tapia, 2004; Dien, 1999; Lambie & Marcel, 2002; Taylor &
Fragopanagos, 2005). In fact, Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood
emotion”. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance
increase, so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis, 1997). As
drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter, as
well as other task demands of driving in traffic, they may well reach a “red line” at
which more mental effort is required than is available. Making sense of, and attempting
to exercise control over, hostile automatic thoughts, and at the same time processing
feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the
investment of mental effort. As de Waard (2002) has argued:
There are limits to the investment of effort. Performance
(e.g., lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is
insufficient or ceases. This can happen both in conditions of
very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s
state is affected (p. 162).
The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic

thoughts, aggressive emotionality, internal locus of control and tendencies toward more
dangerous behaviour in traffic. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this
relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process, an over-
burdening of cognitive workload capacity or both.

Modelling (SEM)
5.5.1 Advantages of Using SEM
Harlow (2005, p.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes
that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that
194
multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the
variables. Structural equation modelling (SEM), a multivariate technique, allows the
simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al., 2006). The earliest use of
SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician, Karl Jöreskog, who in 1970, advanced
the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model
(Klem, 2000).
According to Williams, Gavin and Hartman (2004), the growth in application of

SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis
software programs such as LISREL, EQS and AMOS. In addition, researchers are
attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. First, SEM is deemed to be a unique
combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al., 2006). When
composing a model, the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs,
including dependent and independent variables, involved in the analysis. The constructs
may be comprised of unobservable, or latent, factors represented by multiple variables,
similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. Having the
characteristics of multiple regression analysis, SEM can not only tell how well the
predictors, or independent variables, explain criterion, or dependent, variables but also
determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable
outcomes (Maruyama, 1998). Second, using SEM to examine relationships among
factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error
has been estimated and removed, leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman,
2004, p.434). By estimating and removing measurement error, the reliability of
measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. Finally, and
perhaps most important, 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, 2004; Hair et al., 2006).
195
5.5.2 Goodness of Fit
SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming
theory. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed
model, Williams et al. (2004) has been critical of most studies, 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. Therefore, model re-specification by citing theoretical
support for the changes made is desired. In the present research, several alternative
models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the
best possible fit.
Shook, Ketchen, Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. (2004) commented
on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. Sümer
(2003) added that, despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool, there is a lack of
consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data.
Shook et al. (2004) noted that, when assessing the fits of measurement models, fit
indices such as chi-square statistics, the goodness of fit index (GFI), the comparative fit
index (CFI), and the root mean square residual were included, but that very few studies
have used multiple fit indices, as suggested by Hair et al. (2006).
Hair et al. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has
been found to differentiate good from poor models. It is therefore not practical to apply a
single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. Hair et al added that the
assessment of a model’s goodness-of-fit should include the following:
 The χ2 value and the associated df
 One absolute fit index (i.e. GFI, RMSEA or SMRM)
 One incremental fit index (i.e. CFI or TLI)
 One goodness-of-fit index (GFI, CFI, TLI, etc)
 One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA, SRMR, etc)
196
In the present research, the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value
and the associated df, GFI, CFI, RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. Although
chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index, it should not be used as the sole
indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al., 2006) such that for
analyses of sample sizes more than 250, significant p-values can be expected. Fit index
values (e.g., CFI and CFI) greater than .90, RMSEA lower than .08 and a χ2 /degrees of
freedom ratio less than 3.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et
al., 2006). Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of
freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit.
5.5.3 Best Fit or Best Model

It is important to test multiple plausible rival models, so that stronger evidence
supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson, 2000). As a
general rule, the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate
models. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model
selection have become almost automatic (Klem, 2000) and there are many examples of
research studies, both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer, 2003) and other
disciplines (Elangovan, 2001; Md-Sidin, Sambasivan & Ismail, 2009) that have tended
to select the model that has the best fit indices.
At the same time, it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive
set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne, 1998, 2001; Hair et al,
2006; Maruyama, 1998). It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very
good or an excellent fit, but there is little guidance in the literature as to what course of
action should be taken when two models each meet standards for goodness-of-fit.
It is argued here that, provided competing models both present a pre-determined

standard for goodness-of-fit, it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful
information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. Structural equation
modelling should, we would argue, be a process that balances utility with statistical
197
soundness. In some cases, it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit
but more useful information over the best-fitting model, provided the chosen one meets
pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit.
There is some support for this position in the literature. Sobel and Bohrnstedt
(1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable,
stating that, “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. 158).
Byrne (2001) argued that:
Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of
fit. More importantly, they can in no way reflect the extent to
which the model is plausible; this judgment rests squarely on the
shoulders of the research. Thus, assessment of model adequacy
must be based on multiple criteria that take into account
theoretical, statistical, and practical considerations (p. 88).
In the case at hand, two structural equation models, 1C5 and 1C6, of inter-
variable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared
using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. 4.7.3). Model 1C5 (see Figure
4.9) included all four components of the BIT scale, while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4.10)
excluded the fourth factor, destination-activity orientation. Both models were judged to
have an excellent or very good fit, a finding that was further supported by additional
subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. Index coefficients
from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5.1.
If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters, the

choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients.
However, when taking into consideration “practical considerations”, as suggested by
Byrne (2001), it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable
198
Table 5.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6
(Initial and Subsequent Analyses)
Model 1C5 Model 1C6
Distal Context: I, C, P, AQ, HAT Distal Context: I, C, P, AQ, HAT
Proximal Context: BITF1, F2, F3 & Proximal Context: BITF1, F2, F3

F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way,
Fit Statistics BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way, BITF2=Freeway Urgency,
(Threshold values) BITF2=Freeway Urgency, BITF3=Externally-Focused
BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration,
Frustration, BITF4=Destination-
Activity Orientation
Outcomes: Crash Occurrence, Injury
Outcomes: Crash Occurrence, Injury Occurrence
Occurrence
Degrees of Freedom 63.02 35.97
RMSEA 0.060 0.045
GFI 0.96 0.97
Chi-sq/Df 1.909 1.499
RMR 0.043 0.034
AIC 129.02 97.97
NFI 0.96 0.97
CFI 0.98 0.99
AGFI 0.91 0.94
PGFI 0.48 0.42
NCP 30.02 11.97
ECVI 0.51 0.39
Overall model fit Very Good Best
because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation

behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. Given that multivariate
analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash
outcomes, 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.
199
It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard
in terms of model construction and selection, one that favours the maximum use of
information in the cause of saving lives. When dealing with systems that are safety-
critical, in particular, the standard should be to include as much relevant information as
possible, based on the notion that each variable included may, farther along, provide the
key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason, 1990; Storey, 1996). By selecting
Model 1C5, a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and
the BIT framework is kept intact. Results of this and other research have demonstrated
that, when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions
they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller, Kayumov, Nahn &
Shapiro, 2006; Parker, Reason, Manstead & Stradling, 1995; Schwebel, et al., 2006).
For practical reasons, this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated
model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower, but still acceptable,
goodness-of-fit.
Some justification for the selection of Model 1C5 over 1C6 is also found in the
analysis of the parsimony fit (PGFI) statistic (see Table 5.1). Sambasivan (2008) stated
that, when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI, they should be dropped.
However, in this analysis, the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0.48, while for Model
1C6, it is 0.42. Hair et al. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are
preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their
complexity.
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, the decision was made to select Model 1C5
over Model 1C6. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5.
200
5.5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM
5.5.4.1 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, for automobile drivers sampled, the base model (with only locus of control
variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4.6.1). The results
suggested that the alternative model, with five distal factors (internality, externality-
chance, externality-powerful other, aggression, and hostile automatic thoughts), four
latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way, freeway urgency, externally-focused
frustration, 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.
Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables

yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings
(e.g. Evans, 1991; Rothengatter, 2001; Sümer, 2003), indicating that driving behaviour
is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. Findings in this study
underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. Distal factors (locus of
control: internality, externality-chance, externality-powerful other, aggression and
hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = -
.35, .14, .26, .28 and .23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash
outcomes (path coefficient = .66). Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with
crash occurrence (r = .34) and injury occurrence (r = .29), indicating the importance of
this factor in crash outcomes. As observed from the investigation of structural paths,
internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects, via BIT, on
crash outcomes. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal
factors (path coefficients = -.35 and .28 respectively). Internality was significantly but
negatively correlated with BIT (r = -.45), crash occurrence (r = -.18) and injury
occurrence (r = -.21). This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of
201
internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores, as well as low probability of
crash and injury occurrence. Aggression, on the other hand, was significantly and
positively correlated with BIT (r = .55), crash occurrence (r = .20) and injury occurrence
(r = .25). Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores, and
high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence.
5.5.4.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists

In Study 2, which sampled motorcyclists, the base model (with only the locus of
control variable) was compared against two alternative models. The first alternative
model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality, externality-chance,
externality-powerful other and hopelessness), and four latent constructs (usurpation of
right-of-way, freeway urgency, externally-focused frustration, and destination-activity
orientation) as proximal factors. The second alternative model also had four distal
factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way, freeway urgency and
externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. Results indicated that the first
alternative model, with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs
(usurpation of right-of-way, freeway urgency, externally-focused frustration, and
destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs
(crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable, had a better fit
than other alternative models. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only
two of the distal factors, internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -.65 and
.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = .66) directly predicted
crash outcomes. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externality-
chance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = .41), crash occurrence (r = .23)
and injury occurrence (r = .24). 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.
202
5.5.4.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers
In Study 3, with the sample of taxicab drivers, the base model (with only the
locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect.
4.6.3). All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way, freeway
urgency, externally-focused frustration, and destination-activity orientation) as proximal
factors. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality, externality-chance,
externality-powerful other, aggression). The second and third alternative models only
had one latent construct, crash occurrence, for crash outcomes. Results indicated that the
third alternative model, with four distal factors (internality, externality-chance,
externality-powerful other and aggression), four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-
way, freeway urgency, externally-focused frustration, and destination-activity
orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence)
comprising the outcome variable, had a better fit than alternative models. Investigation
of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors,
internality and aggression (path coefficients = -.20 and .24 respectively) that had direct
effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence, via
BIT. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the
behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and, as a result, their crash occurrence. Both
dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results.
5.5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM?
The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. Distal
factors, such as internality, aggression and hostile automatic thoughts, had significant
direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT)
and, in turn and indirectly, on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes.
However, the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal
factors, hopelessness, had no significant effect on BIT scores. For motorcyclists, the
result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a
significant effect on BIT scores. Finally, for the sample of taxicab drivers, the best-
fitting model used only a single latent construct, crash occurrence, to measure outcome.
203
5.6 Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations
5.6.1 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, 2004). Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of
findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar, 2005; Huguenin, 2005).
In the present research, a total of five samples were taken, four of which were
comprised of students from a single university. The fifth sample was comprised of
professional taxicab drivers, chosen at random from taxi stands. To a large extent, both
and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have
curtailed the generalisability of findings.
Sekaran (2003) points out, however, that convenience sampling is indeed the
least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability, “but sometimes it may
be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. 278-
279). Further, the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples
were, by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group, an
argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers.
With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date, 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.
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.
204
In Malaysia, as elsewhere, young drivers are among the most likely to experience
a motor vehicle crash. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes, during the
interval from 2000 to 2003, involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years, making it the single
highest risk age group (see Table 2.2). Ages of participants in this research ranged from
18 to 29 years, with a mean age of 20.13 years (SD = 1.55). The proportion of the total
sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16- to 25-year old high-risk group was
99.6% (Study 1A: 99.6%; Study 1B: 100%; Study 1C: 99.2% and Study 2: 99.2%).
With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various
states and regions of Malaysia, it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which
research participants obtained their driving licenses. Since, in Malaysia, individuals
usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident, 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.
Table 5.2 compares the percentage of the national population located in each
state and the percentage of the participants in the total sample coming from each state.
The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=.31. Based
alone on the number of residents living in each state, the sample does not appear to be
very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. Sabah, Sarawak and Kelantan were
under-represented in the sample, while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were over-
represented. The most populous state, Selangor, contributed the largest proportion of the
sample.
205
Table 5.2: Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State
State Per cent Per cent (rank)

State Population of national of participants
(approx) population sampled
1 Selangor 7,200,000 26.0 17.2 (1)
2 Sabah 3,387,880 12.2 3.2 (11)
3 Johor 3,300,000 11.9 12.7 (2)
4 Sarawak 2,500,000 9.0 2.2 (13)
5 Perak 2,260,576 8.2 11.9 (3)
6 Kelantan 2,100,000 7.6 2.3 (12)
7 Kuala Lumpur 1,887,674 6.8 11.5 (4)
8 Kedah 1,818,188 6.6 4.9 (9)
9 Penang 1,503,000 5.4 7.8 (6)
10 Pahang 1,396,500 5.0 6.5 (8)
11 Terengganu 1,150,286 4.2 3.6 (10)
12 Negeri Sembilan 1,004,807 3.6 7.1 (7)
13 Malacca 733,000 2.6 8.2 (5)
14 Perlis 215,000 0.19 0.7 (14)
But, in this case, attempting to determine sample representativeness based on

only state population would be flawed. It is important to remember that the purpose of
this research was to study the population of young, high-risk drivers in Malaysia. Not
all states have the same number of drivers, and there are different crash frequencies in
each one. For that reason, 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.
Table 5.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more
relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence. Table 5.4 provides
similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists. In both cases,
the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were
issued.
206
Table 5.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1)
Average
Private Participants’
Motor
Automobile State of
Vehicle Crash % % %
Registrations Origin
Frequency
(until 2003) (by license
(2000-2003)
Johor 34,144 12.4 703,735 12.96 109 12.75
Kedah 12,104 4.43 165,600 3.05 42 4.91
Kelantan 6,212 2.27 135,635 2.50 20 2.34
Kuala Lumpur 39,064 14.28 1,588,198 29.24 98 11.46
Melaka 9,170 3.35 156,920 2.89 70 8.19
Negeri Sembilan 13,026 4.76 181,496 3.34 61 7.13
Pahang 10,467 3.93 187,490 3.45 56 6.55
Penang 25,606 9.36 525,785 9.68 67 7.84
Perak 24,561 8.98 393,163 7.24 102 11.93
Perlis 1,003 0.37 10,230 0.19 6 0.70
Sabah 10,617 3.88 266,251 4.90 27 3.16
Sarawak 10,725 3.92 324,137 5.97 19 2.22
Selangor 70,768 25.88 698,041 12.85 147 17.19
Terengganu 6,029 2.20 92,093 1.70 31 3.63
273,496 5,428,774 855
207
Table 5.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2)
Average
Private Participants’
Motor
Vehicle State of
Vehicle Crash % % %
Registrations Origin
Frequency
(until 2003) (by license
(2000-2003)
Johor 34,144 12.4 933,288 15.14 17 13.93
Kedah 12,104 4.43 444,995 7.22 9 7.38
Kelantan 6,212 2.27 233,656 3.79 1 0.82
Kuala Lumpur 39,064 14.28 821,722 13.33 11 9.02
Melaka 9,170 3.35 255,856 4.15 9 7.38
Negeri Sembilan 13,026 4.76 310,305 5.03 5 4.10
Pahang 10,467 3.93 276,992 4.49 11 9.02
Penang 25,606 9.36 776,283 12.59 13 10.66
Perak 24,561 8.98 770,221 12.49 14 11.48
Perlis 1,003 0.37 36,679 0.59 2 1.64
Sabah 10,617 3.88 90,112 1.46 2 1.64
Sarawak 10,725 3.92 347,133 5.63 3 2.46
Selangor 70,768 25.88 705,727 11.45 18 14.75
Terengganu 6,029 2.20 161,989 2.63 7 5.74
273,496 6,615,958 122
208
Table 5.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the
variables in Tables 5.3 and 5.4. There is a high correlation between ranks of the states
from which participants in Studies 1 and 2 received their licenses and the ranks of states
with regard to crash occurrence and to private vehicle registrations.
Table 5.5: 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) .908** 1
3 Participants’ state of origin .824** .701** 1
Study 2: Motorcyclists
1 Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) 1
2 Vehicle registrations (by state) .903** 1
3 Participants’ state of origin .814** .796** 1
Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk

Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin, it can be argued that
they were. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the
most motor vehicle crashes. Even though data collection was carried out at a single
university location, participants came from – or, at least, were licensed as drivers in –
the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. At least
on these dimensions, it is possible to say that sampling, both for the studies of
automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists, was representative of a high risk
driver population.
Of course, 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. Future
studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant
209
characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. Additional studies
should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population.
5.6.2 Use of self-report methods

The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised
by af Wählberg (2002). Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant
memory lapses, social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken, 1979). However,
Hatakka, Keskinen, Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that, in studying driving
behaviour, as in other psychological research, the use of questionnaire data provides the
only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost.
Much important data is available in official statistics, e.g.,
accident distributions by age. We can also get rough data of
exposure by age. The problem, however, is that this kind of
data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot
study the connections between accidents and age and
exposure. 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 data has to be disaggregated. Exposure,
accidents, demographic factors, attitudinal factors, violations
and accidents should be linked together. None of these
variables can be substituted by group means, unless the
variation within the group is very small. Again, the easiest
way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by
simply asking the subjects (p. 296).
The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables
that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter, 1998; Rothengatter, 1998;
2001). Elander et al. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the
210
effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked, as well.
Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that, in studies of driving behaviour, 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 the present research, questionnaires were administered to measure all variables

and, therefore, all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods.
Particularly, though, self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving
patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. In
future studies, subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against
objective measures, perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or, as in a study
reported by Chalmé, Visser and Denis (2004), combined interview and observational
methods. 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.g., muscle tension, blood pressure, heart-rate acceleration and
electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e.g., steering wheel reversals
and speed change frequencies)” (p. 13).
5.6.3 Timeframe for Data Collection

Elander et al. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of
data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. Since generally motor
vehicle crashes are fairly rare events, inadequate data are collected when the research is
conducted over short periods of time. Yet, the longer the time period for data collection,
the more information is lost through memory lapses, errors of recall or contamination by
post-event information (Belli & Loftus, 1996). A further methodological problem
occurs when one tries to measure states or traits with psychological tests and associate
them retrospectively with crash situations that occurred some time ago. The assumption,
for instance, 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.
211
In the present research, participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting
injury had occurred within the past twelve months, a timeframe that is consistent with
reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber, 2002). Traits included in the contextual
mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and
resistant to change over this interval, as well.
5.6.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency

One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular
discussion. 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, 1971). Results were
used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2, and the hypothesis (H2.2) that
higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. The driving
frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between
other distal variables and proximal variables.
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. First, it has to be acknowledged that the
measure is subjective, and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or
motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. Second, 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, individual
standard.
Unfortunately, other measures of driving frequency present as many or more

problems. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled
during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala, 1997; Mercer, 1999). The problem
with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of
212
frequency that were used in this research, and that people are consistently poor at
making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad, 2002).
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., 1993). But, it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive
phenomenon known as the availability heuristic, in which the perceived probability of an
event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or, in other words, on
how available it is in our memories (Kahneman, 2003; Kahneman, Slovic & Tversky,
1982). Often, experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are
most available, but not always. “Some events are more available than others not
because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability, but because they are
inherently easier to think about, because they have taken place recently, because they are
highly emotional and so forth” (Plous, 1993; p. 121). This is why individuals tend to
irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe, 2004), their chances of
winning a lottery (Griffiths, 2003), and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam
(Wood, Wood & Boyd, 2008). There is some evidence that the availability heuristic
exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be
estimated, as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky &
Kahneman, 1973; 1974), although this has not been firmly established.
In much the same way, 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, eventful or recent. Levy (1997) argues that:
Unfortuantely, 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. Specifically, this
strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence,
frequency or distribution in the world (p. 181).
213
In the Malaysian environment, for example, where driving histories generally include
lengthy, emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe, 2000), it
might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to
influence by the availability heuristic, in the form of more vividly remembered trips to
family reunions during festive seasons.
Finally, the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in
travel frequency measurement, which is the lack of information about the circumstances
under which road use occurred (Odero et al., 1991). Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet
city thoroughfares, during periods of low traffic volume, 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, 2001) .
Of course, many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported

frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. Similarly,
Deffenbacher et al. (2003), in their studies of roadway aggression, asked participants to
record the time of day, road conditions, traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means
of controlling for differing driving circumstances.
A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research, but
training participants in standardised record-keeping, auditing the accuracy of driver-
maintained records and scoring reams of data were all tasks that were judged to be
beyond the capability and scope of the present research. Sansone, Morf and Panter
(2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between
idealised research questions, on one hand, and the availability of the resources necessary
to operationalise them. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough
to apply structural equation modelling procedures, it was felt that the collection of
logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five
214
studies undertaken. In addition, collected logbook data would have been largely
qualitative in nature, creating new difficulties in their quantification (King, 2004).
To summarise, 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, 1991). Rothengatter
(2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology.
In the present research, the decision was made to use participants’ subjective, categorical
perceptions of driving frequency, but this was done with an awareness of the
shortcomings of this measure. It was felt, during the study design process, that associated
methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches.
Further research is required, 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, self-
reported measure used here.
5.7 Implications and Areas for Further Study

5.7.1 Theory vs. Models in Traffic Psychology
It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to
arrive at a unified, over-arching theory (Rothengatter, 2002; Summala, 2005), but that
considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models, drawn from
empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser,
2005). 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, 1997). Good theories are simple, have high information content, are testable
and contain no contradictions, are of nomological character and can be applied
irrespective of time and space (Langdridge, 2004). While some authors have considered
the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e.g., Michon, 1985; Ranney, 1994), the
difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate
215
patterns of relationships, or represent processes, often in graphical form (Grayson, 1997;
p. 94).
Throughout the development of traffic psychology, there has beeen an ongoing

discussion and, at times, debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or
for more data. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is
characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. 294).
Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject
scientifically, in particular to structure data, check facts, create links to other fields of
knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances.
Hauer (1987), on the other hand, took the position that it is the scarcity of
quantitative knowledge about safety that has brought about a “reign of ignorance” in
studies of driving behaviour and motor vehicle safety (p. 32). Grayson (1997) agreed,
stating that,
The first question is whether we need traffic psychology
theories. The answer is probably not. Although one might
agree with the statement (ascribed at different times to
Helmholtz and to Lewin) that “there is nothing so practical as
a good theory”, and while any data collection procedure must
have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose, the
fact remains that we have enough guidance already from
mainstream psychology. Attempts to develop ‘traffic-
specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the
importation of established theories from other areas of
psychology. The second question is whether we need traffic
psychology models. The answer to this question is possibly
yes, if they are modest in ambition, if they aim to illuminate
and encourage research on specific topics rather than the
216
entire spectrum of traffic behaviour, and if they are results-
centred (pp. 95-96).
This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991), who argued that,
While many models offer insight into specific aspects of
driver behaviour, it seems unlikely that general theories
offering much more can be formulated. The problem arises
from an intrinsic dilemma. 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, while ignoring other factors
which are much too important to be ignored (p. 304).
This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving
behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. The debate often
seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred
methods in research. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988), for instance, 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, 1985) – that
could hinder scientific progress.
The present research probably more represents the sort of model building
favoured by Evans (1991) and Grayson (1997) than it does an attempt to test a broad
theory such as those described earlier (see sect. 2.3). 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. In the present research, it has proved
capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving
behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. In this case, those
variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control, hopelessness,
aggression and hostile automatic thoughts, but the framework constructed here can
easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. In
217
other studies, for instance, depression, anxiety, psychoticism, sensation seeking (Sümer,
2003), openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer
et al., 2005) were included as distal variables. The contextual mediated framework,
while still very much a model and not a theory, as defined by Grayson (1997), Kerlinger
(2000) and others, provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many
other attempts at modelling driving behaviour.
Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach

beyond studies of crash histories. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction
of factors involved in causing crashes, it may be even more fruitful to focus the model
on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe, crash-free driving. According to
Ranney (1994), much current research,
… has used performance-based measures to predict individual
accident histories. With several exceptions, it has been
conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving;
has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour, not on
everyday driving; and has relied heavily on post-hoc
explanations. The general lack of success in identifying
predictors of safe driving, together with methodological
difficulties associated with the use of accident measures, lead
to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential
accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe
driving.
5.7.2 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), the process through
which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk, competence or
hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. 2.3.4). While the present research
218
did not test any of those theories specifically, some of the variables considered are
conceptually tied to them.
Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in
general, while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight, fail by not
considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine
driving behaviour. They argued that locus of control, along with trust in automation and
sensation seeking, is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories
seeking to explain BA and its role in driving.
Within their proposed conceptual framework, individuals viewing themselves as

being responsible for both positive and negative driving outcomes will be more likely to
take precautionary measures such as wearing seat belts and being vigilant to roadway
cures. On the other hand, those who see themselves playing little or no part in the
unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner, believing that fate will achieve its
predetermined goals no matter what the individual does.
Following this reasoning, BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under

the influence of drivers’ locus of control. 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, no
matter how reliable a safety device, will always maintain more direct involvement with
the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. Conversely, those
with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external
device, relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. Such
individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them
oriented and alert. As a result, they will become less involved with the driving task and
be less likely to react, or at least to react more slowly, should the device fail to perform
the task for which it was designed.
219
In the present research, locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A
driving patterns and, consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. (2003) to
moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes. Further research should focus
on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA, whether that
adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde, 1982), task capability (Fuller, 2005;
Summala, 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen, 1996).
5.7.3 Driver Selection, Training and Rehabilitation

The results of the present research have important implications for the
improvement of driving behaviour. Specifically, scarce resources for screening drivers,
an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa, 1997; Christ
et al., 2004), can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the
distal and proximal levels. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression, external
locus of control and hostile attributions, once identified, could be screened out.
Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of

personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. Luckner (1989) and others
have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. Further
research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance.
The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on

cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. al, 2002; Gidron &
Davidson, 1996). Typically, though, these approaches require special therapeutic
training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. Findings from the present research can
guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing
internal attributions, which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility.
Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own
responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. Coupled with
simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile self-
talk, changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted.
220
5.7.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s”
5.7.4.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions
Ergonomists and safety scientists have, for the last fifty years, recognised that the
cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering; education;
and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley, 1957, 1961; World
Health Organisation, 1957). These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”.
Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed
according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles,
educational programming (including public awareness and driver training), or legal
intervention.
At the same time, the Haddon Matrix (Haddon, 1970) provides another system
for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see
Figure 2.4). This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific
crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research.
5.7.4.2 Engineering Interventions

Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent
of human thinking processes. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that:
Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with
various technologies. Unlike 100 years ago, the tasks we ask
operators to perform today are highly cognitie, the technologies
sophisticated and the interactions among humans, teams of
humans, and machines are highly intricate (p. 1).
Slinn, Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also
undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade, 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. From this has emerged the growing
221
application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and
vehicles, with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS; Stough, Maggio & Jin, 2001). These have been applied
to in-car, roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5.6).
Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane

manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. Lane-keeping
Assist Systems (LKA), for instance, reduce risks of extreme lane deviations by using a
motor to increase steering torque in a manner that creates a “driving in a bathtub”
sensation for the driver who nears a lane edge. (Bishop, 2005). The amount of toque
needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small, so the systems are
easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe, Murazami,
Sadano, Suda & Ono, 2001). Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm, or
the adaptive automation concept, in which in which the control of functions shifts
between machines and human beings dynamically, depending on environmental factors,
operator workload and performance (Inagaki, 2003). In the case of LKA, there is an
adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that
lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. Holzmann (2008) argues that there
is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology.
The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way, is strongly

associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of
LKA systems, as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future
implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5.6). At the same time,
there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in
motor vehicles. Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the
threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. The aim should be to assist
drivers by making routine actions simpler, not to overwhelm them with complicated or
difficult override processes. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many
devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks,
222
with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy, 1999; Brown & Noy, 2004; Richardson &
Downe, 2000).
Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of
roadways and the general driving environment. A number of studies have reported that
roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver
frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar, 2003; Parsons, Tassinary, Ulrich, Hebl &
Grossman-Alexander, 1998). Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in
“restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features
(Heerwagen & Oriens, 1993; Herzog, Black, Fountaine and Knotts, 1997). 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, initiatives
aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway
safety.
The present research also found that freeway urgency, in the form of driving
above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane, was associated crash
outcomes. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now
under development, such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE), Intelligent Speed
Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5.6), 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. Safety benefits from traffic
management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic
flow, changes in traffic speed, and management of parking and
loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic.
Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other
than safety, in particular to pursue environmental, traffic
223
efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden, 1996; p.
309).
Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic

management approaches, however, and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming”
(Brindle, 1992). This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone
mere physical control and management of traffic, but extends into city-wide suppression
of traffic, questions of alternative urban structure, and substantial lifestyle changes aimed
at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden, 1996; Proctor, 1991).
Probably, engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in

traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. This refers to driving
while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. Dietze, Lippold and Mayser
(2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety
improvements by providing additional information to drivers, ostensibly satisfying
wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at
hand. Gregersen and Falkmer (2003), however, 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, inexperienced drivers. Maakip
(2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of
information drivers require or prefer to have, and whether this information varies
according to the situation, journey purpose or other human factors. Engineering
interventions capable of assisting in the focusing of attention to the driving task have
been largely understudied and considerable research will need to be carried out before
practical applications can be implemented effectively and dependably.
224
Table 5.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention
Finding Hi Vehicle Road Environment
Drivers who usurp the right-of-  lane departure warning  lane marker improvements –  integrated traffic
way and commit lane violations H 1.1.1 systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic, thermoplastic management systems – Many
are more likely to experience ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have
crash outcomes. departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations; created intelligent traffic
of impending hazards;  integrated lane marker management centers (TMCs)
 road departure warning applications – these combine with closed-circuit television
systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase (CCTV) camersas, traffic and
speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and weather sesors, variable
drivers when their speed is definition. Examples are the message signs (VMS), traffic
too high for an upcoming use of “Bot’s dots” or signals and ramp meters to
curve; “rumble strips” in monitor traffic on streets and
 lane keeping assist systems conjunction with high- expressways. Reducing
(LKA) – these reduce the intensity reflective devices congestion and increasing
driver’s need to make  wider right-of-way – wider smooth traffic flow through
corrections through a motor- lanes, to allow easier driver information, reversible
actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane lanes and synchronised
as the vehicle nears a lane; transitions signals decreases the need
 blind spot monitoring systems for, and likelihood of, unsafe
– Doppler radar based lane deviation.
systems operating at 24 GHz  cooperative vehicle highway
to detect vehicles within 2 to systems (CVHS) – wireless
10 feet of the right-side blind communication systems
spot; embedded in the roadway
 comprehensive lateral control infrastructure, generally
assistance (LCA) – a controlled from a central
combination of radar and point. Integrated with
vision sensing technology to roadside sensors, the systems
combine lane and road transmit information to
departure warning, lane drivers about traffic flow,
keeping, blind spot sensing road conditions, etc.
and lange change assist.
225
(continued) H 1.1.1  lane deviation feedback
systems – systems calculate
the number of lane changes
as a function of speed and cue
the driver with performance
data;
 Radar- and millimetre-wave
(MMW)-based inter-vehicle
communications – systems
that send data about the
proximity of approaching or
following vehicles, including
those in adjoining lanes, to
in-vehicle display terminals.
Drivers scoring high on a  intelligent speed adaptation  infrastructure-based  Cooperative Intersection
measure of freeway urgency are H 1.1.2 (ISA) – automated systems Intersection Collision Collision Avoidance (C-ICA)
more likely to experience crash enabling vehicles to be Avoidance (I-ICA) systems – systems – involving similar
outcomes. “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 in-
minimum) to provide intersections”, 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, t-junctions or
or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings.
vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher  cooperative vehicle highway
with the speed limit. than the safety standard. systems (CVHS) – wireless
 adaptive cruise control  road network modifications. communication systems
(ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway
“longitudinal control co- through infrastructure infrastructure, generally
pilot”, ACC systems provide modifications, including controlled from a central
cruise control but also track street and link closures; point. Integrated with
vehicles in the lane ahead of  intersection modification. roadside sensors, the systems
the host vehicle, adjusting Intersection devices (yield transmit information to
speed as needed to maintaina and stop signs; traffic lights) drivers about the speed at
safe, deriver-selectable inter- provide speed modification at which surrounding vehicles
vehicle gap. a particular high-risk part of are travelling.
the thoroughfare.;
226
(continued)  vertical displacement. The
use of properly designed
humps are effective in
causing vehicles to reduce
speed in their vicinity.
“Speed tables”, at which the
whole road space at an
intersection is raised, has an
advantage over intersection
redesign by saving space;
 horizontal displacement –
these design features cause
the driver to change direction
quite sharply and change the
visual cues presented by the
roadway. Such devices
include chicanes, pinch-
points and gateways or
arches.
 automated speed enforcement
– the use of high-volume
speed cameras to regulate the
speed of motor vehicles on
roadways.
Externally-frustrated drivers are  in-vehicle biofeedback  aesthetic applications –  integrated traffic control
more likely to experience crash H 1.1.3 devices – systems to measure beautification of median and centres – Systems that allow
outcomes. and feedback levels of driver roadside areas with for synchronised timing of
arousal, coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals, traffic flow
management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other
cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. measures that can reduce
by driver interactions with  contrary messages – road- congestion and other
road, environment and other signs with calming or frustrating stimuli.
vehicles. humorous content to evoke a
contradictory affective
response to frustration.
227
(continued)  electronic variable message
signs (VMSs) – roadside
signboards which change
messages to provide updated
information about traffic
congestion, weather-related
road conditions, notification
of construction ahead, safety
messages, notice of future
road construction and notice
of public events. This
information allows drivers to
avoid or, at least, prepare for
stress-provoking conditions
and external frustration.
Destination-activity orientation  in-vehicle biofeedback  dedicated broadcast of safety
is associated with a higher risk H 1.1.4 devices – systems that messages – radio or
of crash outcomes. measure driver arousal and broadband messages with
eye focal points and cue the reminder to focus attention
driver when measures do not on driving tasks at hand.
calibrate with attention to
road conditions;
 driver assistance systems –
capable of providing
information about destination
conditions or journey
progress, to reduce
wandering thoughts and
focus attention on driving
tasks at hand.
228
5.7.4.3 Education
According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004), the probems of poor driver behaviour
and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due, to some
extent, to inadequacies in driver training and testing. Professional driving instruction
tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or
monitored, (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals, and (c) driving test standards
and requirements are inadequate” (p. 73).
The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be
imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. It suggests that, in addition to
teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a
vehicle, it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive
components of the driving task. Training skills for anger management and frustration
tolerance, 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.
Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes,

however, and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. In
a study of traffic awareness in developing countries, Downing and Sager (1982) reported
that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom
from members of thir family, teachers or the police. They concluded that there is
clarealy a need to improve road safety education. The present research suggests that,
given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic, it may be
effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres, like community
centres or places of worship. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for
safety awareness education, publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as
part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam, 2001).
229
5.7.4.4 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; (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the
development of appropriate skills and attitudes; and (3) legal measures providing rules
governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic, and penalties for infringement to
ensure that the rules are obeyed. They also stated, however, that “Of these three
approaches, legal measures change least often, evoke the least expectation and are least
often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. 265).
Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science
views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to
traffic. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications,
one practical and the other touching on the development of theory, from the findings of
the present research.
First, Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and
police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. Success of the
yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory
bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors, such as visibility of
enforcement, road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah, 2007; p. N6). The
results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between
personal responsibility for one’s action, or an internal locus of control, and driving
within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns.
Second, Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to
enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. 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, 1978; p. 1030). The bias of false consensus, or the
tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others, was studied in a
230
sample of drivers by Manstead, Parker, Stradling, Reason & Baxter, 1992). They
showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other
drivers who commit the same violations.
Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control, on one hand attributing
outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and, on the other, to consensual beliefs of
powerful others. Yergil (2005) notes that:
In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen,
drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions:
“traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws.” 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). By doing so,
drivers create a sense of belionging to a majority group and
therefore negate the possibility that they are behaving in a
socially deviant manner (p. 498).
Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance
of the violation by labelling it as an action that, after all, is allowed to occur in a Just
World.
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991, 2001; Azjen & Fishbein,
2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of
these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. 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), opinions about
what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived
behaviour control (PCB).
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
drivers’ decisions to adhere, or not adhere, to traffic regulations. Similarly, an orientation
toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to
comply with legal requirements or not. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in
the context of the theory of planned behaviour, it may be possible to come closer to the
integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova
(2001).
232
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of

experiential, demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence
of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. Results have indicated
that, as expected, such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. In
the present research, it was concluded that driver experience, age, gender, ethnicity,
locus of control, hopelessness, aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic
thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which, when risky, contribute to the
occurrence of crashes and injuries.
A contextual mediated model, derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003),
was used to frame the relationship between these human factors, with demographic and
personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with
the Type A behaviour pattern, as proximal to the crash outcomes. It is concluded here
that the contextual mediated model is useful in conceptualising and testing driving
behaviour and its outcomes and that further research incorporating other variables at
both the distal and proximal level should be carried out.
In doing so, structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable

technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. Studies using
structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have
become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e.g., Iverson &
Rundmo, 2002; Sümer, 2003; Sümer et al., 2005; Wállen Warner & Åberg, 2006) and it
is anticipated that there will be many more.
233
In the current literature, the selection of one SEM over competing models has
been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit, although it is widely
acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. In most cases, the best fit usually
implies the best model. However, it is argued here, that when faced with competing
models in safety studies, traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make
the choice based on theoretical and practical, as well as statistical grounds. This is
consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors.
Of the variables studied, one conclusion is that the locus of control construct
plays an important role in safety behaviour. Some previous studies have shown a link
between ‘fatalism’, or external locus of control, and accident risk (e.g., Harrell, 1995;
Montag & Comrey, 1987), while internal locus of control has been frequently associated
with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello, 1986; Hoyt, 1973).
Further, the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in
a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt, 1983) and was earlier
found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al., 2003).
The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal
and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and, like Brown
and Noy (2004), it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in
behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde, 1982), task
capability (Fuller, 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala,
1974).
It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour

leading to crash outcomes. In the present research, measures of aggression had direct
effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic, leading to the tentative
conclusion that it is the aggressive aspects of Type A behaviour that are instrumental in
relationships between TABP and safety outcomes. 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. Some inter-ethnic differences in
234
aggression were observed, as well. 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.
In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables, it became

apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior
assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. One of the benefits of
using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic, bird’s
eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. It is argued that this is a
promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence.
In interpreting these effects, a multi-disciplinary approach was used. Several

authors (e.g., Groeger & Rothengatter, 1998; Huguenin, 2005; Rothengatter, 2002) have
noted that this is a hallmark of the traffic psychology field and it is concluded here that
studies of the manner in which human factors influence safety behaviour require a range
of constructs pulled from various disciplines, including psychology (especially cognitive
and information processing), cultural anthropology, road engineering and ergonomics.
As Rothe (2002) has pointed out:
Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours
that imply complex causes and entangled factors. Each system
has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost
exclusively on their own subject matter. For example, 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, 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. However, in combination, they
235
form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a
web of interdependent fields (p. 313).
Indeed, a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of
understanding described by Rothe (2002), but it also opens the door for a wider range
of preventive measures. In the present research, findings with regard to four
components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the
engineering, educational and enforcement spheres. 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.
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. Additional studies should aim toward
a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from
which broader understanding can be derived. Continued sharing between professional
associations and between design, management, regulatory and social science specialists
should be encouraged. Through a multi-disciplinary approach, significant impacts can
be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes, injuries and death.
236
REFERENCES
[1] Abdel-Aty, M. and Anurag, P. (2007). Crash data analysis: collective vs. individual crash level
approach. Journal of Safety Research, 38(5), 581-587.
[2] Abdul Kareem. (2003). Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to
Malaysia – a social perspective. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 10(2), 31-39.
[3] Abdul Rahman, H., Mohd Zulkifli, N.A., Subramaniam, K. and Law, T.H. (2005). Car occupants
accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia
Society for Transportation Studies, 5, 1867-1874.
[4] Abdullah, A. and Pederson, P.B. (2003). Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights,
Puzzles & Irritations. Petaling Jaya, MY: Pearson.
[5] Åberg, L. (1993). Drinking and driving: intention, attitudes and social norms of Swedish male
drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 25, 289-296.
[6] Adolphs, R. (2002). Neural systems for recognizing emotion. Current Opinion in Neurobiology,
12, 169-177.
[7] af Wählberg, A.E. (2002). On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. E140
Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC), Bahrain.
[8] af Wählberg, A.E. (2003). Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident
predictors. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 473-486.
[9] Ahmad Hariza, H., Musa, A.H., Mohd Nasir, M.T., Radin Umar, R.S. and Kulanthayan, S.
(1999). The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. (Research Report
1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council.
[10] Aiken, L.R. (1979). Psychological Testing and Assessment. Third edition. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
237
[11] Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In Kuhl, J. and
Beckmann, J. (Eds.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag.
[12] Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
[13] Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58.
[14] Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (2001). Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and
automatic processes. In Stroebe, W. and Hewston, M. (Eds.) European Review of Social
Psychology. London: John Wiley & Sons.
[15] Åkerstedt, T. and Kecklund (2001). Age, gender and early morning accidents. Journal of Sleep
Research, 10,105-110.
[16] Amin, S. (2004). Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do
government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics, 33(3), 291-307.
[17] Arbous, A.G. and Kerrich, J.E. (1952). Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness.
Biometrics, 7, 340-342.
[18] Archer, J. and Haigh, A. (1997). Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners.
Aggressive Behavior, 23, 404-415.
[19] Armitage, C.J. and Christian, J. (2003). From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research
on the theory of planned behaviour. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality,
Social, 22(3), 187-195.
[20] Armstrong, M.J. (1987). Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. Women’s
Studies International Forum, 10(6), 623-633.
[21] Arthur, W., Bell, S.T., Edwards, B.D., Day, E.A. Tubré, T.C. and Tubré, A.H. (2005).
Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal follow-
up. Human Factors, 47, 303-313.
238
[22] Arthur, W., Barrett, G.V. and Alexander, R.A. (1991). Prediction of vehicular accident
involvement: a meta-analysis. Human Performance, 4(2), 89-105.
[23] Aschenbrenner, K.M. and Biehl, B. (1994). Improved safety through improved technical
measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems.
In Trimpop, R.M., Wilde, GJ.S. (Eds.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk
Compensation Behaviour. Groningen, NL: Styx.
[24] Asian Development Bank (2005). Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian
Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia). Manila:
Philippines.
[25] Austin, R.D. and Carson, J.L. (2002). An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail
interfaces. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34,31-42.
[26] Aylott, S. (1998). When hope becomes hopelessness. European Journal of Oncology Nursing,
2(4), 231-234.
[27] Bakri Musa, M. (2005, October 18). Continuing carnage on our carriageways. Retrieved April 4,
2007 from http://www.bakrimusa.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways.
[28] Ballesteros, M.F. and Dischinger, P.C. (2002). Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland
(1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34,
279-284.
[29] Barjonet, P.-E. and Tortosa, F. (1997). Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general
overview. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya E. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology:
Theory and Application (pp. 21-30). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[30] Barjonet, P-E. and Tortosa, F. (2001). Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. In
Barjonet, P.-E.. (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 14-29). Boston: Kluwer.
[31] Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
239
[32] Beck, A.T. (1976). Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. New York: Meridian.
[33] Beck, A.T. (1987a). Cognitive models of depression. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An
International Quarterly, 1(1), 5-37.
[34] Beck, A.T. (1987b). Cognitive therapy. In Zeig, J.K. (Ed.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp.
149-178). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
[35] Beck, A.T. (1999). Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger, Hostility and Violence.
New York: Perennial Harper Collins.
[36] Beck, K.H., Hartos, J. and Simons-Morton (2002). Teen driving risk: the promise of parental
influence and public policy. Health Education and Behavior, 29(1), 73-84.
[37] Beck, A.T., Kovacs, M. and Weissman, A. (1975). Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. Journal
of the American Medical Association, 234(11), 1146-1149.
[38] Beck, A.T. and Steer, R.A. (1993). Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale. San Antonio TX:
Psychological Corporation.
[39] Beck, A.T., Weissman, A., Lester, D., and Trexler, L. (1974). The measurement of pessimism:
the Hopelessness scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42
[40] Becker, H.S. (1993). Theory: the necessary evil. In (Flinders, D.J. and Mills, G.E. (Eds.) Theory
and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. (pp. 218-229). New York:
Teachers College Press.
[41] Belli, R.F. and Loftus, E.F. (1996). The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation
and the false memory problem. In Rubin, D.C. (Ed.) Remembering Our Past: Studies in
Autobiographical Memory (pp. 157-179). New York: Cambridge University Press.
[42] Bentler, P.M. and Bonnett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
[43] Benzein, E.G. and Berg, A.C. (2005). The level of and relation between hope, hopelessness and
fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. Palliative Medicine, 19, 234-240.
240
[44] Ben-Zur, H. (2002). Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and
curiosity. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 15(1), 95-104.
[45] Bettencourt, B.A., Talley, A., Benjamin, A.J. and Valentine, J. (2006). Personality and aggressive
behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. Psychological
Bulletin, 132(5), 751-777.
[46] Bina, M., Graziano, F. and Bonino, S. (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence.
Accident analysis and Prevention, 38(3), 472-481
[47] Binzer, M. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder. Nordic
Journal of Psychiatry, 53, 37-40.
[48] Blacker, F. and Shimmin, S. (1984). Applying Psychology in Organizations. New York:
Routledge.
[49] Blasco, R.D. (1994). Psychology and road safety. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
43, 313-322.
[50] Blumenthal, J.A., McKee, D.C., Williams, R.B. and Haney, T. (1981). Assessment of conceptual
tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern. Journal of Personality Assessment,
45(1), 44-51.
[51] Boff, K. (2006). Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. Applied
Ergonomics, 37, 391-399.
[52] Boyce, T.E. and Geller, E.S. (2001). A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without
self-report or participant reactivity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(1), 39-55.
[53] Bernama, Malaysian National News Agency. (2006, March 12). Managing the high costs of road
deaths. Retrieved March 30, 2007 from
http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/printable.php?id=185148.
[54] Bridger, R.S. (1995). Introduction to Ergonomics. New York: McGraw Hill.
241
[55] Briggs, N.C., Levine, R.S., Haliburton, W.P., Schlundt, D.G., Goldzweig, I. and Warren, R.C.
(2005). The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic
determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37(4), 641-649.
[56] Brindle, R.E. (1992). Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 24(1), 29-38
[57] Brodsky, W. (2000). The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular
control. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 4(4), 219-241.
[58] Brown, C.M. and Noy, I. (2004). Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas
and future directions. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport
Psychology: Theory and Application. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[59] Brown, C.W. and Ghiselli, E.E. (1948). Accident proneness among street car motormen and
motor coach operators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(1), 20-23.
[60] Brown, G.K. (2007). Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia.
International Journal of Educational Development, 27(3), 318-330.
[61] Brown, I.D. (1982). Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver
behaviour. Ergonomics, 14, 345-352.
[62] Brown, I.D. (1997). How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp. 9-19).
In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and
Application, Amsterdam: Pergamon.
[63] Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance
structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445-455.
[64] Bunnell, T. (2002). (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural
rescripting of national identity. Political Geography, 21, 105-124.
[65] Burns, P.C. and Wilde, G.J.S. (1995). Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among
personality, observational data and driver records. Personality and Individual Differences, 18(2),
267-278.
242
[66] Buss, A.H. and Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 343-349.
[67] Buss, A.H. and Warren, W.L. (2000). Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. Los Angeles CA:
Western Psychological Services.
[68] Byrd, T., Cohn, L.D., Gonzalez, E., Parada, M. and Cortes, M. (1999). Seatbelt use and belief in
destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 31, 63-65.
[69] Byrne, B. (1998). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic
Conccepts, Applications and Programming. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[70] Byrne, B. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts, Applications and
Programming. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[71] Cackowski, J.M. and Nasar, J.L. (2003). The restorative effects of roadside vegetation.
Environment and Behaviour, 35(6), 736-751.
[72] Caird, J.K. and Kline, T.J. (2004). The relationship between organizational and individual
variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. Ergonomics, 47(15), 1598-
1613.
[73] Carment, D.W. (1974). Internal versus external control in India and Canada. International
Journal of Psychology, 9, 45-50.
[74] Carmines, E.G. and McIver, J.P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis
of covariance structures. In Bohrnstedt, G.W. and Borgatta, E.F. (Eds.) Social Measurement:
Current Issues (pp. 65-115). Beverly Hislls CA: Sage.
[75] Carretie, L., Hinojosa, J.A., Martin-Loeches, M., Mercado, F. and Tapia, M. (2004). Automatic
attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates. Human Brain Mapping, 22, 290-299.
[76] Carsten, O. (2002). Multiple perspectives. In Fuller, R. & Santos, J.A.. (Eds). Human Factors for
Highway Engineers. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
243
[77] Carver, R.H. and Nash, J.G. (2000). Doing data analysis with SPSS 10.0. Pacific Grove CA:
Duxbury.
[78] Chalmé, S., Visser, W. and Denis, M. (2004). Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on
urban route planning strategies. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and
Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 61-71). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[79] Chaloupka-Risser (2005). What are we allowed to ask, what can we know – traffic psychological
analysis of Driver Behaviour. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and
Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop, Campo Grande, Matto Grosso do Sul,
Brazil, March 20-22. Retrieved March 31, 2007 from http:www.ictct.org/workshops/05-
CampoGrande
[80] Chan, D.W. (1996). Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. Personality
and Individual Difference, 21(4), 557-562.
[81] Chang, H.-L. and Yeh, T.-H. (2007). Motorcyclist accident involvement by age, gender and risky
behaviors in Taipei, Taiwan. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour, 10(2), 109-122.
[82] Chaplin, J.P. (1985). Dictionary of Psychology. New York: Dell.
[83] Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001, November). Traffic management and road safety along federal
roads in Malaysia. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia
workshop, Sunway Campus, Monash University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
[84] Cheah, R. (2007, November 12). Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. The Star. P. N6.
[85] Cheung, S.F., Cheung, F.M., Howard, R. and Lim, Y.-H. (2006). Personality across the ethnic
divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual
Differences, 41, 467-477.
[86] Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). Driving: through the eyes
of teens. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from http://www.gh-
ipr.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN.pdf
244
[87] Chioqueta, A.P. and Stiles, T.C. (2005). Personality traits and the development of depression,
hopelessness and suicide ideation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(6), 1283-1289.
[88] Chipman, M.L., MacGregor, C.G., Smiley, A.M. and Lee-Gosselin, M. (1992). Time vs. distance
as measures of exposure in driving surveys. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 24(2), 679-684.
[89] Chliaoutaks, J.E., Demakakos, P., Tzamalouka, G., Bakou, V., Koumaki, M. and Darviri, C.
(2002). Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. Journal of
Safety Research, 33, 431-443.
[90] Chmiel, N. (2000). Safety at work. In Chmiel, N. (Ed.) An Introduction to Work and
Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp. 255-274). London: Wiley-Blackwell.
[91] Christ, R., Panosch, E. and Bukasa, B. (2004). Driver selection and improvement in Austria. In
Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and
Application (pp. 377-390). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[92] Christie, N., Cairns, S., Towner, E. and Ward, H. )2007). How exposure information can enhance
our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues.’ Injury Prevention, 13(2), 125-129.
[93] Chung,T.K., French, P. and Chan, S. (1999). Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management
in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong. Cancer Nursing, 22(3), 196-203.
[94] Clarke, D.D., Ward, P., Bartle, C. and Truman, W. (2007). The role fo motorcyclist and other
driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
39, 974-981.
[95] Commission for Global Road Safety (2006, June). Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for
Sustainable Development. Retrieved December 7, 2007 from
http://www.makeroadssafe.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res.pdf
[96] Conrad, P., Bradshaw, Y.S., Lamsudin, R., Kasniyah, N. and Costello, C. (1996). Helmets,
injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 28(2), 193-200.
245
[97] Cooke, N.J. and Durso, F. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering
Successes. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis.
[98] Costa, P.T. and McRae, R.R. (1995). Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment
using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21-50.
[99] Cowardly Malaysian drivers. (2006, October 18). [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online.
Retrieved April 5, 2007 from http://blog.thestar.com.my/permalink.asp?id-7003.
[100] Cozan, L.W. (1961). Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system. American
Psychologist, 16(5), 263.
[101] Cresswell, W.L. and Froggatt, P. (1962). Accident proneness, or variable accident tendency?
Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, 20(5), 152-171.
[102] Crittendon, K.S. (1991). Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society, 5(1),
98-117.
[103] Crombag, H.F.M., Wagenaar, W.A. and van Koppen, P.J. (1996). Crashing memories and the
problem of ‘source monitoring’. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 95-104.
[104] Davies, G.M. and Patel, D. (2005). The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of
vehicle speed, position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 10, 45-62.
[105] Davin Arul (2005, February 8). Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we
should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. The Star, p. N48
[106] de Raedt, R. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and

compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. In Rothengatter, T. and
Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
[107] de Waard, D. (2002). Mental workload. In Fuller. R. and Santos, J.A. Human Factors for
Engineers (pp. 161-175). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
246
[108] de Waard, D. and Brookhuis, K.A. (1997). On the measurement of driver mental workload. In
Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and
Application (pp. 161-171), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
[109] Deffenbacher, J.L., Filetti, L.B., Richards, T.L., Lynch, R.S. and Oetting, E.R. (2003).
Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 123-
132.
[110] Deffenbacher, J.L., Huff, M.E. Lynch, R.S., Oetting, E.R. and Salvatore, N.F. (2000).
Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 5-17.
[111] Deffenbacher, J.L., Oetting, E.R., Lynch, R.S. and Morris, C.D. (1996). The expression of anger
and its consequences. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 575-590.
[112] Deffenbacher, J.L. Petrilli, R.T., Lynch, R.S., Oetting, E.R. and Swaim, R.C. (2003). The
Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 27(4), 383-402.
[113] Delhomme, P. and Meyer, T. (1998). Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making.
[114] Devashayam, T.W. (2005). Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered
identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia. Women’s Studies
International Forum, 28, 1-20.
[115] Dewar, R.E. (2002a). Age differences – drivers old and young. In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L.
(Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 209-233). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges.
[116] Dewar, R.E. (2002b). Individual differences. In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human
Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 111-142). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges.
[117] Dharmaratne, S.D. and Ameratunga, S.N. (2004). Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to
action. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, 14(12), 729-730.
[118] Dien, J. (1999). Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential
correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(1), 333-356.
247
[119] Dietze, M., Ebersbach, D., Lippold, C. and Mayser, C. (2003). The safety potential of the new
driver assistance system (CSA). In Dorn, L. (Ed.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 223-231).
Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
[120] Dixey, R.a. (1999). ‘Fatalism’, accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion
from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town, Nigeria. Health Education Research, 14(2), 197-
208.
[121] Dobson, A., Brown, W., Ball, J., Powers, J. and McFadden, M. (1999). Women drivers’
behaviour, socio-demographic characteristics and accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
31, 525-535.
[122] Dodge, K.A. and Coie, J.D. (1987). Social information-processing factors in reactive and
proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,
1146-1158.
[123] Downe, A.G. (2007, November). Knowledge transfer, locus of control and worker safety in three
Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. In Khalid, H.M.,
Lim, T.Y., Bahar, N.R., Mohd Yusuff, R. and Che Doi, M.A. (Eds.) Proceedings of Agriculture
Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. 278-285). Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press.
[124] Downe, A.G. and Loke, S.P. (2004, December). Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a
preliminary investigation. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on
Culture, Asian Institute of Medicine, Science & Technology, Sungai Petani, Kedah, Malaysia.
[125] Draskóczy, M. (1997). Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. In
Application (pp. 85-92), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
[126] Dukes, R.L., Clayton, S.L., Jenkins, L.T., Miller, T.L. and Rodgers, S.E. (2001). Effects of
aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. Social Science Journal 38, 323-331.
[127] Dula, C.S. and Ballard, M.E. (2003). Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous
aggressive, negative emotional and risky driving. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 263-
282.
248
[128] Dumais, A., Lesage, A.D., Boyer, R., Lalovic, A., Chawky, N., Ménard-Buteau, C., Kim, C. and
Turecki, G. (2005). Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. Canadian
Journal of Psychiatry, 50(13), 838-844.
[129] Dunbar, G. (2005). Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about
pedestrian behavior. In Underwood, G.(Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 17-26).
Amsterdam: Elsevier
[130] Dyal, J.A. (1984). Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. In Lefcourt, H.M.
(Ed.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp.
209-306). New York: Academic.
[131] Edwards, J.B. (1996). Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis.
Journal of Transport Geography, 4(3), 201-22.
[132] Elander, J., West, R., and French D. (1993). Behavioral correlates of individual differences in
road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. Psychological Bulletin, 113,
279-294.
[133] Elangovan, A.R. (2001). Causal ordering of stress, satisfaction and commitment, and intention to
quit: a structural equations analysis. Leadership and Organizational Development, 22(4), 159-
165.
[134] Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart Press.
[135] Elvik, R. (2002). 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, Brno, Czech Republic, March 20-22. Retrieved December 25,
2007 from www.ictct.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik.pdf
[136] Engel, G.L. (1968). A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. Annals of Internal
Medicine, 69, 293-300..
[137] Engel, G.L. (1971). Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. Annals of Internal
Medicine, 74, 771-782.
249
[138] Evans, L. (1984). Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 16, 19-36.
[139] Evans, L. (1986). Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. Risk Analysis, 6(1), 81-94.
[140] Evans, L. (1991). Traffic Safety and the Driver. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
[141] Evans, L. (1996). Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. American
Journal of Public Health, 86(6), 784-786.
[142] Ey, S., Klesges, L.M., Patterson, S.M., Hadley, W., Barnard, M. and Alpert, B.S. (2000). Racial
differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. Journal of Behavioural
Medicine, 23(5), 421-435.
[143] Farik Zolkepli (2007, December 10). Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6,000 and
RM5.6bil losses yearly. The Star, p. N22.
[144] Farmer, E. and Chambers, E.G. (1926). A psychological study of individual differences in
accident rates. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 38). London: Medical Research
Council.
[145] Farmer, E. and Chambers, E.G. (1929). A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and
deficiency. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 55). London: Medical Research
Council.
[146] Farmer, E. and Chambers, E.G. (1939). A study of accident proneness among motor drivers.
(Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 84). London: Medical Research Council.
[147] Farran, C.J., Herth, K.A. and Popovich, J.M. (1995). Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical
Constructs. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
[148] Ferguson, G.A. (1976). Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw
Hill.
250
[149] Ferguson, S.A., Teoh, E.R. and McCartt, A.T. (2007). Progress in teenage crash risk during the
last decade. Journal of Safety Research 38, 137-145.
[150] Finn, P. and Bragg, B.W. (1986). Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older
drivers. Accident analysis and Prevention,18(4), 289-298.
[151] Firestone, R.W. and Seiden, R.H. (1990). Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior.
Journal of American College Health, 38(5), 207-213.
[152] Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior. Reading MA:
Addison-Wesley.
[153] Fontaine, R. and Richardson, S. (2005). Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese, Malays and
Indians compared. Cross Cultural Management, 12(4), 63-77.
[154] Forward, S. (2006). The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 9, 412-426.
[155] Forward, S., Linderholm, I., and Järmark, S. (1998, August). Women and traffic accidents,
causes, consequences and considerations. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of
Applied Psychology. San Francisco.
[156] Frazier, P.A., Tix, A.P. and Barron, K.E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in
counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115-134.
[157] Friedman, M. and Rosenman, R. H. (1974). Type A Behavior and Your Heart. New York:
Knopf.
[158] Fuller, R. (2000). The task-capability interface model of the driving process. Recherche
Transports Sécurité, 66, 47-55.
[159] Fuller, R. (2002). Human factors and driving. In Fuller. R. and Santos, J.A. Human Factors for
Engineers (pp. 77-97). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[160] Fuller, R. (2005). Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 37, 461-472.
251
[161] Fuller, R., McHugh, C. and Pender, S. (2008). Task difficulty and risk in the determination of
driver behaviour. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée, 58(1), 13-21.
[162] Galovski, T.E., Malta, L.S. and Blanchard, E.B. (2006). Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment
of the Angry, Aggressive Driver. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
[163] Garg, N. and Hyder, A.A. (2006). Exploring the relationship between development and road
traffic injuries: a case study from India. European Journal of Public Health, 16(5), 487-491.
[164] Ghazali, E., Mutu, A.D. and Mahbob, N.A. (2006). Attitude towards online purchase of fish in
urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison, Journal of Food Products Marketing, 12(4), 109-128.
[165] Ghiselli, E.E. and Brown, C.W. (1949). The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 33(6), 540-546.
[166] Gidron, Y. and Davidson, K. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a brief
intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. Journal of Behavioural
Medicine, 19, 203-220.
[167] Gidron, Y., Gal, R. and Syna Desevilya, H.S. (2003). Internal locus of control moderates the
effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 6, 109-116.
[168] Glass, D.C. (1977). Behavior Paterns, Stress and Coronary Disease. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
[169] Gomez, E.T. (1999). Tracing the ethnic divide: race, rights and redistribution in Malaysia. In
Pfaff-Czarnecaka, J., Rajasingham-Senanayake, D., Nandy, A. and Gomez, E.T. (Eds.) Ethnic
Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. 167-202). Petaling Jaya, MY: Sage.
[170] Graham, R. (1999). Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle
collision avoidance application. Ergonomics, 42(9), 1233-1248.
[171] Grayson, G.B. (1997). Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view. In
Application (pp. 93-96). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
252
[172] Gregersen, N.P. and Falkmer, T. (2003). In-vehicle support systems and young, novice drivers.
In Dorn, L. (Ed.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 277-292). Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
[173] Green, P. (2002). Where do drivers look while driving (and for how long)? In Dewar, R. E. and
Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 77-110). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers &
Judges.
[174] Greenwald, A.G. and Pratkanis, A.R. (1988). On the use of ‘theory’ and the usefulness of theory.
Psychological Review, 95, 575-579.
[175] Greenwood, M. and Woods, H.M. (1919). The incidence of industrial accidents upon individuals
with specific reference to multiple accidents. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 4).
London: Medical Research Council.
[176] Greenwood, M. and Yule, C.V. (1920). An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions
representative of multiple happenings, with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple
attacks of disease or repeated accidents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 89, 255-279.
[177] Griffiths, M. (2003). Communicating risk: journalists have responsibility to report risks in
context. British Medical Journal, 327, 1404.
[178] Groeger, J.A. (1997). Mood and driving: is there an effect of affect? In Rothengatter, T. and
Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.335-
342). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
[179] Groeger, J.A. (2000). Understanding Driving: Applying Cognitive Psychology to a Complex
Everyday Task. Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis.
[180] Groeger, J.A. (2002). Trafficking in cognition: applying cognitive psychology to driving.
[181] Groeger, J.A. and Clegg, B.A. (1995). Automaticity and driving: time to change gear? In
Application (pp.137-246). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
253
[182] Groeger, J.A. and Rothengatter, J.A. (1998). Traffic psychology and behaviour. Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1(1), 1-9.
[183] Guastello, S.J. and Guastello, D.D. (1986). The relation between the locus of control construct
and involvement in traffic accidents. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied,
120(3), 293-297.
[184] Haber, R.N. and Haber, L. (2002). Why witnesses to accidents make mistakes: the cognitive
psychology of human memory. In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic
Safety (pp. 663-695). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges
[185] Haddon, W. Jr. (1963). A note concerning accident theory and research with special reference to
motor vehicle accidents. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 107, 635-646.
[186] Haddon, W. Jr. (1970). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and
activity. Paper presented at the 10th International study Week in Traffic and Safety Engineering,
Rotterdam, 7-11 September.
[187] Haddon, W. Jr. (1972). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and
activity. Journal of Trauma, 12, 193-207.
[188] Harrell, W.A. (1995). Factors influencing involvement in farm accidents. Perceptual Motor
Skills, 81(2), 592-594.
[189] Hauer, E. (1987). The reign of ignorance. Proceedings of Conference on Transportation and
Deregulation and Safety.. Chicago: Northwestern University.
[190] Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate
Data Analysis. Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
[191] Haight, F.A. (1986). Risk – especially risk of traffic accident. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
5, 359-366.
[192] Haight, F.A. (2004). Accident proneness: the history of an idea. In Rothengatter, T. and
Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 421-432).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
254
[193] Hale, A.R. and Glendon, A.I. (1987). Individual Behaviour in the Control of Danger.
[194] Hampson, P.J. and Morris, P.E. (1996). Understanding Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
[195] Harbin, T.J. (1989). The relationship between the type A behavior pattern and physiological
responsivity: a quantitative review. Psychophysiology, 26(1), 110-119.
[196] Harlow, L.L. (2005). The Essence of Multivariate Thinking: Basic Themes and Methods. London:
Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
[197] Harper, J.S., Marine, W.M., Garrett, C.J., Lezotte, D. and Lowenstein, S.R. (2000). Motor
vehicle crash fatalities: a comparison of Hispanic and non-Hispanic motorists in Colorado.
Annals of Emergency Medincie, 36(6), 589-596.
[198] Harré, N. Foster, S. and O’Neill, M. Self-enhancement, crash-risk optimism and the impact of
safety advertisements on young drivers. British Journal of Psychology, 96(Pt 2), 215-230.
[199] Harris, J.A. (1997). A further evaluation of the Aggression Questionnaire: issues of validity and
reliability. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 35, 1047-1053.
[200] Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Gregerson, N.P., Glad, A. and Hernetkoski, K. (2002). From control
of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education.
[201] Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Katila, A. and Laapotti, S. (1997). Self-reported driving habits are
valid predictors of violations and accidents. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.)
Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 295-304). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
[202] Heerwagen, J.H. and Orians., G.H. (1993). Humans, habitats and aethetics. In Kellert, S.O. and
Wilson, E.O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. 9 (pp. 138-172) Washington DC: Shearwater
Books / Island Press.
[203] Henderson, J.T. (1976, April). Hope and self-destruction: the ratio of external threat to feelings
of personal competence on the underlying continuum of self-destructive behavior. Paper
255
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwester Psychological Association. Albuquerque,
NM.
[204] Hernetkoski, K. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Self-destruction in Finnish motor traffic accidents in
1974-1992. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(5), 697-704.
[205] Herzog, T.R., Black, A.M., Fountaine, K.A. and Knotts, D.J. (19970. Reflection and attentional
recovery as distinctive benefits of restoratie environments. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 17,, 165-170.
[206] Hewstone, M. and Ward, C. (1985). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 614-623.
[207] Hochschild, (1979). Emotion, work, feeling rules and social structure, American Journal of
Sociology, 85, 551-575.
[208] Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges: international differences in
values. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 39, 17-29.
[209] Hofstede, G. (1999). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance
for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[210] Holder, E.E. and Levi, D.J. (2006). Mental health and locus of control: SCL-90-R and
Levenson’s IPC scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 753-755.
[211] Holzmann, F. (2008). Adaptive Cooperation Between Driver and Assistant System: Improving
Road Safety. Springer.
[212] Hong, I., Iwasaki, M., Furuichi, T. and Kadoma, T. (2006). Eye movement and driving behavior
in curved section passages of an urban motorway. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical
Engineers, 220(D10), 1319-1331.
[213] Horswill, M.S. and Coster, M.E. (2002). The effect of vehicle characteristics on drivers’ risk-
taking behaviour. Ergonomics, 45(2), 85-104.
256
[214] Howarth, C.I. and Gunn, M.J. (1982). Pedestrian safety and the law. In Chapman, A.J., Wade,
F.M. and Foot, H.C. (Eds.) Pedestrian Accidents (pp. 265-290). Chichester UK: John Wiley &
Sons.
[215] Hoyle, R.H. and Robinson, J.C. (2004). Mediated and moderated effects in social psychological
research: measurement, design and analysis issues. In Sansone, C., Morf, C. and Panter, AT.
(Eds.) Handbook of Methods in Social Psychology (pp. 213-233).
[216] Hoyt, M.F. (1973). Internal-external locus of control and beliefs about automobile travel.
Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 288-293.
[217] Hsieh, T.T., Shybut, J., and Lotsof, E.J. (1969). Internal versus external control and ethnic group
membership. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 122-124.
[218] Huguenin, R.D. (1997). Do we need traffic psychology models? In Rothengatter, T. and
Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 31-40).
Amsterdam: Pergamon.
[219] Huguenin, R.D. (2001). Models in traffic psychology. In In Barjonet, P.-E.. (Ed.) Traffic
Psychology Today (pp. 31-59). Boston: Kluwer.
[220] Huguenin, R.D. (2005). Traffic psychology in a (new) social setting. In Underwood, G.(Ed.)
Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 3-14). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[221] Hyder, A.A. and Peden, M. (2003). Inequality and road-traffic injuries: call for action. Lancet,
2034-2035.
[222] Hyman, G.J., Stanley, R. and Burrows, G.D. (1991). The relationship between three
multidimensional locus of control scales. Educational and Psychological Measuresment, 51(2),
403-412.
[223] Inagaki, T. (2003). Adaptive automation: sharing and trading of control. In Hollnagel, E. (Ed.)
Handbook of Cognitive Task Design (pp. 147-169). LEA
[224] Isani, R. (1963). From hopelessness to hope. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 1(2), 15-17.
257
[225] Islam, Z. and Hoque, N.M.S. (2004, December). Road users behavioral culture of Dhaka,
Bangladesh: an anthropological perspective. Paper presented at the First International
Conference-Seminar on Culture, Asian Institute of Medicine, Science & Technology, Sungai
Petani, Kedah, Malaysia.
[226] Iverson, H. and Rundmo, T. (2002). Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among
Norwegian drivers. Personality and Individual Differences 44, 1251-1263.
[227] Jacobs, G. and Baguley, C. (2004). Traffic safety. In Robinson, R. and Thagesen, B. (Eds.) Road
Engineering for Development (pp. 57-77). London: Spon.
[228] Jaffe, E. (2004). What was I thinking: Kahneman explains how intuition leads us astray.
Association for Psychological Science Observer, 17, 5.
[229] James, L. and Nahl, D. (2000). Road Rage and Aggressive Driving. Amherst NY: Prometheus.
[230] James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., and Brett, J.M. (1982). Causal Analysis: Assumptions Models and
Data. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
[231] Johnson, H.M. (1946). The detection and treatment of accident-prone drivers. Psychological
Bulletin, 43(6), 489-532.
[232] Johnston, I. (2007). Road trauma in the region – avoiding a pandemic. Journal of the Road
Engineering Association of Asia & Australasia, 14(2), 5-12.
[233] Jonah, B.A. (1997a). Sensation seeking and risky driving. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell
Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 259-267),
Amsterdam: Pergamon.
[234] Jonah, B.A. (1997b). Sensation seeking and risky driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18,
255-271.
[235] Joseph, C. (2006). Negotiating discourses of gender, ethnicity and schooling: ways of being
Malay, Chinese and Indian schoolgirls in Malaysia. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 141), 35-53.
258
[236] Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics.
American Economic Review, 93, 1449-1475.
[237] Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and
Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[238] Kanfer, F.H. and Goldstein, A.P. (Eds.) (1990). Helping People Change: A Textbook of Methods.
London: Allyn & Bacon
[239] Karlberg, L., Undén, A.-L., Elofsson, S. and Krakau, I. (1998). Is there a connection between car
accidents, near accidents, and Type A drivers? Behavioral Medicine, 243(3), 99-106.
[240] Kawazoe, H., Murakami, T.., Sadano, O., Suda, K. and Ono, H. (2001). Development of a lane-
keeping support system. Proceedings of Intelligent Vehicle Technology and Navigation Systems
pp. 29-35). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
[241] Kenny, D.A. (2006. February 7). Mediation. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from
http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm
[242] Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
[243] Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M. and Katila, A. (1992). Inner models as a basis for traffic behaviour.
Journal of Traffic Medicine, 20(4), 147-152.
[244] Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M., Laaapotti, S., Katila, A. and Peräho, M. (2004). Driver behaviour as
a hierarchical system. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport
Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 9-24). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[245] King, A. (2004) Measures and meanings: the use of qualitative data in social and personality
psychology. In Sansone, C., Morf, C.C. and Panter, A.T. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Methods
in Psychology (pp. 145-172). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
[246] King, Y. and Parker, D. (2008). Driving violations, aggression and perceived consensus. Revue
européenne de psychologie appliqué, 58(1), 43-19.
259
[247] Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.)
Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Washington DC: American
Psychological Association.
[248] Klockars, A.J. and Hancock, G.R. (2000). Scheffé’s more powerful F-protected post hoc
procedure. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 13-19.
[249] Koh, S. (2005, October 31). Stop the road carnage! Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA)
Online. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from
http://www.mca.org.my/services/printerfriendly.asp?file=/articles/exclusive/2005/10/47611.html
&lg=1
[250] Korff, R. (2001). Globalisation and communal identities in the plural society of Malaysia.
Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 22(3), 270-284.
[251] Krishnan, R., & Radin Umar, R.S. (1997). An update on road traffic injuries in Malaysia. Journal
of University Malaya Medical Centre, 2(1), 39-41.
[252] Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Differences in fatal loss-of-control accidents between
young male and female drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(4), 435-442.
[253] Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004a). Are female drivers adopting male drivers’ way of driving?
In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and
Application. (pp. 201-208). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[254] Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004b). Has the difference in accident patterns between male and
female drivers changed between 1984 and 2000? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 577-584.
[255] Laapotti, S., Keskinen, E. and Rajalin, S. (2003). Comparison of young male and female drivers’
attitude and self-reported traffic behaviour in Finland in 1978 and 2001. Journal of Safety
Research, 34(5), 579-587.
[256] Laapotti, S., Keskinen, Htakka, M. and Katila, A. (2001). Novice drivers’ accidents and
violations – a failure on higher or lower hierarchical levels of driving behaviour. Accident
260
[257] Lajunen, T. (2001). Personality and accident liability: are extraversion, neuroticism and
psychoticism related to traffic and occupational fatalities? Personality and Individual
Differences, 31(8), 1365-1373.
[258] Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safety-
motive dimensions in drivers’ self-assessments. Personality and Individual Difference, 19, 307-
318.
[259] Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1997). Effects of driving experience, personality, driver’s skill
and safety orientation on speed regulation and accidents (pp. 283-294). In Rothengatter, T. and
Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 283-
294), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
[260] Lam, L.T. (2004). Environmental factors associated with crash-related mortality and injury
among taxi drivers in New South Wales, Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 905-
908.
[261] Lambie, J.A. and Marcel, A.J. (2002). Consciousness and the varieties of emotion experience: a
theoretical framework. Psychological Review, 109, 219-259.
[262] Langdridge, D. (2004). Introduction to Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology.
London: Pearson Prentice Hall.
[263] Lau, G., Seow, E. and Lim, E.S.Y. (1998). A review of pedestrian fatalities in Singapore from
1990 to 1994. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, 27(6), 830-837.
[264] Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S.,and Wong, S.V. (2005). The Malaysian government’s road accident
death reduction target for year 2010. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and
Safety Sciences, 29(1), 42-49.
[265] Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S., Zulkaurnain, S. and Kulanthayan, S. (2005). Impact of the effect of
economic crisis and the targeted motorcycle safety programme on motorcycle-related accidents,
injuries and fatalities in Malaysia. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion,
12(1), 9-21.
261
[266] Lawton, R. and Nutter, A. (2002). A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in
everyday and driving situations. British journal of Psychology, 93,407-423.
[267] Lee, H.G. (2002). Malay dominance and opposition politics. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An
Annual Review. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 177-196.
[268] Leech, N.L., Barrett, K.C. and Morgan, G.A. (2005). SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and
Implementation. 2nd Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[269] Lefcourt, H.M. (1976). Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. Hillsdale NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[270] Lefcourt, H.M. (1983). The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. In Lefcourt, H.M.
(Ed.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Volume 2: Developments and Social
Problems (pp. 253-269). New York: Academic.
[271] Lenior, D., Janssen, W., Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). Human-factors engineering for smart
transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. Applied Ergonomics, 37,
479-490.
[272] Lerner, E.B., Jehle, D.V.K., Billittier, A.J. IV, Moscati, R.M. Conner, C.M. and Stiller, G.
(2001). The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle
crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 3, 659-662.
[273] LeShan, L. (1989). Cancer as a turning point. New York: E.P. Dutton.
[274] Levenson, H. (1973). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry, 41, 397-401.
[275] Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internal-
external control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 377-383.
[276] Levenson, H. (1975). Additional dimensions of internal-external control. Journal of Social

Psychology, 97, 303-304.
262
[277] Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others and chance. In Lefcourt,
H.M. (Ed.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp.
15-63). New York: Academic.
[278] Levy, D.A. (1997). Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
[279] Lim, K.S. (1999, February 2). 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. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader
and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from
http://www.limkitsiang.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541.htm.
[280] Lin, M-R., Huang, W., Hwang, H-F., Wu, H-D. I., and Yen, L-L. (2004). The effect of crash
experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. Accident Analysis and
[281] Lindsey, F. (1980). Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health, 10, 8-9
[282] Liverant, S. and Scodel, A. (1960). Internal and external control as determinants of decision
making under conditions of risk. Psychological Reports, 7, 59-67.
[283] Lonczak, H.S., Neighbors, C. and Donovan, D.M. (2007). Predicting risky and angry driving as a
function of gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39(3), 536-545.
[284] Lonero, L.P. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. In Rothe, J.P. (Ed.) Driving
Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press.
[285] Loo, R. (1979). Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver
violations and accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 11, 125-127.
[286] Looi, E. (2007, March 26). Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. The Star Online.
Retrieved May 14, 2007 from
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1.
263
[287] Lourens, P.F., Vissers, J.A.M.M., and Jessurun, M. (1999). Annual mileage, driving violations
and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex, age, and level of education. Accident
[288] Luckner, J.L. (1989). Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by
outdoor-adventure courses. Journal of Rehabilitation, 55(2), 62-67.
[289] Maakip, I. (2003). Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists

information requirements in Kuala lUmpur, Malaysia. In Dorn, L. (Ed.) Driver Behaviour and
Training (pp. 233-252). Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
[290] Macdonald, W.A. (1994). Young driver research program – a review of information on young
driver performance characteristics and capabilities. Report No. C. R. 129, Monash University
Accident Research Centre, Victoria NSW, Australia.
[291] Marcoulides, G.A. and Hershberger, S.L. (1997). Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First
Course. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[292] Marsh, H.W. and Balla, J.R. (1994, May). Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and
model parsimony. Quality & Quantity,28, 185-217.
[293] Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R. and McDonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory
factor analysis: the effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-411.
[294] Martin, R., Watson, D. and Wan, C.K. (2000). A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions, of
affect, behavior and cognition. Journal of Personality, 68(5), 869-897.
[295] Maruyama, G.M. (1998). Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
[296] Massie, D.L., Campbell, K.L. and Williams, A.F. (1995). Traffic accident involvement rates by
driver age and gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 27(1), 73-87.
[297] Matthews, M.L. and Mooran, A.R. (1986). Age differences in male drivers’ perception of
accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 18(4), 299-
313.
264
[298] Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. (2005, November 6).
Malaysia Today. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-
e/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day.htm
[299] McConnell, J.V. (1989). Understanding Human Behavior. Fort Worth TX: Holt, Rinehar and
Winston.
[300] McKenna, F.P. (1983). Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis. Accident Analysis and
[301] McKenna, F.P., Duncan, J. and Brown, I.D. (1986). Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a
re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures.
[302] McKenna, F.P., Waylen, A.E. and Burkes, M.E. (1998). Male and female drivers: how different
are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research, The University of Reading, Hampshire UK.
[303] McMillan, D., Gilbody, S., Beresford, E. and Neilly, L. (2007). Can we predict suicide and non-
fatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. Psychological Medicine, 37(6),
769-778.
[304] McRae, R.R. and Costa, P. (1990). Personality in Adulthood. New York: Guilford.
[305] Md-Sidin, S., Sambasivan, M., Ismail, I. (2009). Relationship between work-family conflict and
the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, [ in press].
[306] Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. New

York: Plenum.
[307] Mendel, G. (1974). Unconscious suicides. Perspectives Psychiatriques, 34(47), 173-181.
[308] Mercer, G.W. (1989). Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer
driven. Risk Analysis, 9, 71-77.
265
[309] Michon, J.A. (1985). A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know, what
should we do? In Evans, l. and Schwing, R.C. (Eds.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. New
York: Plenum.
[310] Michon, J.A. (1989). Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 21(4), 341-353.
[311] Mikkonen, V. and Keskinen, E. (1983, May). Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. In Helkama,
K. and Niemi, P. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes,
Turku, Finland.
[312] Miles, D.E. and Johnson, G.L. (2003). Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and
attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6(2),
147-161.
[313] Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007). Statistics. Retrieved May 23, 2007, from
http://www.panducermat.org.my/en/street_smart_statistik.php.
[314] Mintz, A. (154). Time intervals between accidents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38(6), 401-
406.
[315] Mintz, A. and Blum, M.L. (1949). A re-examination of the accident proneness concept. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 33(3), 195-211.
[316] Mizel, L. (1997). Aggressive driving. In Aggressive driving: three studies. AAA Foundation for
Traffic Safety. Washington DC. Retrieved December 15, 2006 from
http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/agdr3study.pdf
[317] Moller, H.J., Kayumov, L., Bulmas, E.L., Nhan, J. and Shapiro, C.M. (2006). Simulator
performance, microsleep episodes, and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent
methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 61(3), 335-342.
[318] Monárrez-Espino, J., Hasselberg, M. and Laflamme, L. (2006). First year as a licensed car
deriver: gender differences in crash experience. Safety Science, 44(2), 75-85.
266
[319] Montag, I. and Comrey, A.L. (1987). Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in
fatal driving accidents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 339-343.
[320] Moore, R.L. (1956). Accident proneness and road accidents. Journal of the Institute of
Automobile Assessors, 8, 32-37.
[321] Morris, P. and Maniam, T. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the
literature. Transcultural Psychiatry, 38(1), 51-63.
[322] Most, S.B. and Astur, R.S. (2007). Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents.
Visual Cognition, 15(2), 125-132.
[323] Mousser, A.E. (2007). Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the
veil. Religioin 37, 164-174.
[324] Näätänen, R. and Summala, H. (1974). A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’
decision-making. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 6, 243-261.
[325] Näätänen, R. and Summala H. (1976). Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. Amsterdam:
North Holland.
[326] Nandy, A. (1999). Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and
ecumenical traditions in India. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka, J., Rajasingham-Senanayake, D., Nandy, A.
and Gomez, E.T. (Eds.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. 167-202).
Petaling Jaya, MY: Sage.
[327] Neuman, W.L. (2003). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
Fifth Edition. Boston: Pearson.
[328] Niméus, A., Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. Journal of
Affective Disorders, 42, 137-144.
[329] Novaco, K. (1994). Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress
coping skills approach. In O’Donoghue , W. and Krasner, L. (Eds.) Handbook of Psychological
Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. 320-388). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
267
[330] Novaco, R.W. (2000). [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and
Application]. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 34, 654-656.
[331] Novaco, R.W. (2001). Aggression on roadways. In Baenninger, R. (Ed.) Targets of Violence and
Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. 253-326). Oxford UK: North Holland.
[332] Noy, I. (1997). Human factors in modern traffic systems. Ergonomics, 40(10), 1016-1024.
[333] N-S highway still one of the safest roads, says operator. (1996, December 9). Straits Times, p.38.
[334] Ochando, F.S., Temes, M.B. and Hermida, J.R.F (2001). The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish
psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. Spanish Journal of
Psychology, 4(2), 237-252.
[335] O’Connell, M. (2002). Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. In Fuller.
R. and Santos, J.A. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. 201-215). Amsterdam: Elsevier
[336] Odero, W., Garner, P. and Z. Zwi (1997). Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a
comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. Tropical Medicine and International Health,
2(5), 445-460.
[337] Ogden, K.W. (1996). Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate.
[338] Ohberg, A., Pentilla, A. and Lonnqvist, J. (1997). Driver suicides. British Journal of Psychiatry,
171, 468-472.
[339] Olson, P.L (2002). Driver perception-response time. In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.)
Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 43-76). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges.
[340] O’Neill, B. and Williams, A. (1998). Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. Injury Prevention,
4, 92-93.
[341] Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. (2007, February 8). [Letter to the Editor] The Star, p.
N51.
268
[342] Özkan, T. and Lajunen (2005). Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC):
factor structure and relationship to risky driving. Personality and Individual Difference, 38(3),
533-545.
[343] Özkan, T., Lajunen, T. and Kaistinen, J. (2005). Traffic locus of control, driving skills and
attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). Poster session presented at the 18th
International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT), Helsinki,
Finland. Retrieved December 20, 2007 from www.ictct.org/workshops/05-
Helsinki/P1_Ozkan.pdf -
[344] Pai, C.W. and Saleh, W. (2008). 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. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40, 479-486.
[345] Papacostas, C.S. and Synodinos, N.E. (1988). Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver
characteristics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 37(1), 3-13.
[346] Parker, D. (2004). Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter, T. and
Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (pp. 125-134).
[347] Parker, D., Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (2002). Anger and aggression among drivers in three
European countries. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 34, 229-235.
[348] Parker, D., Reason, J.T., Manstead, A.S.R and Stradling, S.G. (1995). Driving errors, driving
violations and accident involvement. Ergonomics, 38(5), 1036-1048.
[349] Parkinson, B. (2001). Anger on and off the road. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 507-526.
[350] Parsons, O.A. and Schneider, J.M. (1974). Locus of control in university students from eastern
and western societies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 456-461.
[351] Parsons, R., Tassinary, L.G., Ulrich, R.S., Hebl, M.R. and Grossman-Alexander, M. (1998). The
view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 18, 113-140.
269
[352] Peden, M. and Hyder, A. (2002). Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem
[Letters]. British Medical Journal, 324, 1153.
[353] Peden, M., Scurfield, R., Sleet, D., Mohan, D., Hyder, A.A., Jarawan, E. and Mathers (Eds.)
(2004). World report on road traffic injury prevention. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization.
[354] Peltzer, K. and Renner, W. (2003). Superstition, risk-taking and risk perception of accidents
among South African taxi drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 619-623.s
[355] Pelz, D.C.and Schuman, S.H. (1971). Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling
for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research, 3, 68-79.
[356] Per, L. and Al Haji, G. (2005). Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety.
Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety
(ICTCT) Extra Workshop, Campo Grande, Matto Grosso do Sul, Brazil, March 20-22. Retrieved
March 31, 2007 from http:www.ictct.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande
[357] Perry, A.R. (1986). Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 63, 875-878.
[358] Perry, A.R. and Baldwin, D. (2000). Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores
and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 147-154.
[359] Pestonjee, D.M. and Singh, U.B. (1980). Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident
occurrence. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 12(3), 201-204.
[360] Peters, G.A. and Peters, B.J. (2002). Automotive Vehicle Safety. London: Taylor & Francis.
[361] Phares, E.J. (1976). Locus of Control in Personality. Morristown NJ: General Learning.
[362] Philip, P., Taillard, J., Quera-Salva, M.A., Bioulac, B. and Åkerstedt, T. (1999). Simple reaction
time, duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. Journal of
Sleep Research, 8(1), 9-14
270
[363] Plous, S. (1993). The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. New York: McGraw Hill.
[364] Porter, C.H. and Corlett, E.N. (1989). Performance differences of individuals classified by
questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. Ergonomics, 32(3), 317-333.
[365] Preston, C.E. and Harris, S. (1965). Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 49(4), 284-288.
[366] Prociuk, T.J., Breen, L.J. and Lussier, R.J. (1976). Hopelessness, internal-external locus of
control and depression. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32(2), 299-300.
[367] Proctor, S. (1991). Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes. Traffic Engineering
and Control, 3112), 566-573.
[368] Radin Umar, R.S. (2005). Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. IATSS Research /
International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 29(1), 78-80.
[369] Ranney, T.A. (1994). Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. Accident Analysis
and Prevention, 26, 733-750.
[370] Rautela, P. and Pant, S.S. (2007). Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. Disaster
Prevention and Management, 16(3), 334-343.
[371] Reason, J. (1990). Human Error. Cambridge University Press.
[372] Reason, J., Manstead, S., Stradling, S., Baxter, J. and Campbell, K. (1990). Errors and violations
on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics, 33, 1315-1332.
[373] Reeder, A.I., Chalmers, D.J. and Langley, J.D. (1996). Rider training, reasons for riding and the
social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 20(4), 369-374
[374] Renner, W. and Anderle, F.-G. (2000). Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of
juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 673-678.
271
[375] Retting, R.A., Weinstein, H.B. and Solomon, M.G. (2003). Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at
stop signs in four U.S. cities. Journal of Safety Research, 34(15), 485-489.
[376] Rice, P.L. (1999). Stress and Health. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole.
[377] Richardson, S. and Downe, A.G. (2000). Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual
framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. In Lim, K.Y. (Ed). Proceedings of the
joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the
Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference, Singapore: Elsevier.
[378] Rimmö, P-A. (2002). Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in
samples differing in age and gender. Ergonomics, 45(8), 569-582.
[379] Risser, R. (2003, April). European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on
Traffic Psychology. Report to the General Assembly. Retrieved December 11, 2007 from
http://www.efpa.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003.pdf
[380] Risser, R. and Nickel, W-R. (2004). Theories of science in traffic psychology. In Rothengatter,
T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.
[381] Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. (2007) Statistik-
2006. Retrieved May 23, 2007 from http://202.190.64.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006.html
[382] Robbins, P.R. (2000). Anger, Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach, Jefferson
NC: McFarland & Company.
[383] Robbins, S.P. (2005). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.
[384] Romano, E., Tippetts, S. and Voas, R. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity
on fatal crashes. Journal of Safety Research, 37(1), 1-7.
[385] Romano, E., Tippetts, S. and Voas, R. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and
ethnicity. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37(3), 453-460.
272
[386] Rosenbloom, T. and Shahar, A. (2007). Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male
drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 10, 428-435
[387] Rothe, J.P. (2002). Traffic safety: content over packaging. In Rothe, J.P. (Ed.) Driving Lessons:
Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press.
[388] Rothengatter, T. (1998). An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In
Grayson, G.B. (Ed.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. (pp. 214-220). Crowthorne UK:
Transport Research Laboratory.
[389] Rothengatter, T. (2001) Objectives, topics and methods. In Barjonet, P-E. (Ed.) Traffic
[390] Rothengatter, T. (2002). Drivers’ illusions – no more risk. Transportation Research Part F:
Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 249-258.
[391] Rothengatter, T. (2005). Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. In Underwood,
G.(Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 595-600). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[392] Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, whole issue.
[393] Rotter, J.B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus
external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(1), 56-67.
[394] Rotter, J.B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable.
American Psychologist, 45, 489-493.
[395] Rowley, C. and Bhopal, M. (2006). The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of
Malaysia. Capital & Class, 88, 84-115.
[396] Rowley, C. and Bhopal, M. (2005). The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of
Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 43(3), 308-331.
273
[397] Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.
[Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. IBU Pejabat Polis. Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur.
[401] Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya &
Kematian. Retrieved December 11, 2007 from http://www.rmp.gov.my.
[402] Rude drivers lack emotional control. (2005, September 29). The Star, p.A2.
[403] Saad, F. (2002). Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution
of psychological research. In Fuller. R. and Santos (Eds.), J.A. Human Factors for Engineers
(pp. 23-42). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[404] Sabey, B. (1999). Road Safety – Back to the Future. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road
Safety Research.
[405] Salminen, S. (2005). Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. Accident Analysis
and Prevention, 37(2), 373-376.
[406] Salminen, S. and Heiskanen, M. (1997). Correlations between traffic, occupational, sports and
home accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29(1), 33-36.
[407] Sadiq, J. (2006, September 26). Thrills, spills & death plague Malaysian roads. Malaysiatoday
(Reuters). Retrieved May 22, 2003 from http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrills-
spills-death-plague-malaysian.htm
274
[408] Sagberg, F., Fosser, S. and Sætermo, I.F. (1997). An investigation of behavioural adaptation to
airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29(3), 293-
302
[409] Salih, K. and Young, M.L. (1981). Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of
peninsula Malaysia. In Honjo, M. (Ed.), Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. 117-147).
Regional Development Series, v. 6, Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro
Regional Development. Nagoya: Japan.
[410] Sambasivan, M. (2008, November 15). Personal correspondence.
[411] Sansone, C., Morf, C.C. and Panter, A.T. (2004). The research process: of big pictures, little
details, and the social psychological road in between. In Sansone, C., Morf, C.C. and Panter,
A.T. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. 3-16). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
[412] Sendut, H. (1966). Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia. Asian Survey, 6(9), 484-491.
[413] Schlag, B. and Schade, J. (2000). Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe.
Traffic Engineering + Control, 41, 314-318.
[414] Schneider, V.I., Healy, A.F., Ericsson, K.A. and Bourne, L.E. Jr. (1995). The effects of
contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. In Healy, A.F. and
Bourne, L.E. Jr. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity.
Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
[415] Schwebel, D.C., Severson, J., Ball, K.K. and Rizzo, M. (2006). Individual difference factors in
risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility, conscientiousness, and sensation seeking. Accident
[416] Scuffham, P.A. (2003). Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. Applied
Economics, 35, 179-188.
[417] Scuffham, P.A. and Langley (2002). A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. Accident
275
[418] Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. Fourth Edition.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[419] Selzer, M.L. and Payne, C.E. (1962). Automobile accidents, suicide and unconscious motivation.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 119(3), 237-240.
[420] Shapiro, J.P. (2000). Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ).
Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services.
[421] Sharkin, B.S. (1988). The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 66, 361-365.
[422] Sharma, M. and Kanekar, A. (2007). Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in
alcohol and drug education. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 51(1), 3-7.
[423] Sheppard, B.H., Hartwick, J. and Warshaw, P.R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: a meta-
analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of
Consumer Research, 15(3), 325-343.
[424] Shinar, D. (1998). Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation.
[425] Shinar, D., Dewar, R.E., Summala, H. and Zakowska, L. (2003). Traffic sign symbol
comprehension: a cross-cultural study. Ergonomics, 46(15), 1549-1565.
[426] Shook, C.L., Ketchen, D.J., Hult, G.T.M and Kacmar, K.M. (2004). An assessment of the use of
structural equation modeling in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal,
25, 397-404.
[427] Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw
Hill.
[428] Siegriest, S. and Roskova, E. (2001). The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. In
Barjonet, P-E. (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 180-205). Boston: Kluwer.
276
[429] Sinha, B.K. and Watson, D.C. (2007). Stress, coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural
study. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(4), 386-397.
[430] Slinn, M., Matthews, P. and Guest, P. (1998). Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and
Practice. London: Arnold.
[431] Slovic, P., Fishchoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Corrigan, B. and Coombs, B. (1977). Preference for
insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications. Journal of Risk and Insurance,
44, 237-258.
[432] Smiley, A. (2001, Winter). Auto safety and human adaptation. Issues in Science and Technology.
Retrieved December 25, 2007 from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1
[433] Snyder, C.R., Crowson, J.J. Jr., Houston, B.K., Kurylo, M. and Poirier, J. (1997). Assessing
hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 21(4), 477-492.
[434] Social Issues Research Centre (2004, August). 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. Oxford UK. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from
http://www.sirc.org/publik/driving.pdf
[435] Spielberger, C.D. and Frank, R.G. (1992). Injury control: a promising field for psychologists.
American Psychologist, 47(8), 1029-1030.
[436] Spielberger, C.D., Reheiser, E.C. and Sydeman, S.J. (1995). Measuring the experience,
expression and control of anger. In Kassinove, H. (Ed.) Anger Disorders: Definition and
Treatment (pp. 49-68). Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis.
[437] Stanton, N.A. (2004). Product design with people in mind. In Stanton, N.A. (Ed.), Human
Factors in Consumer Products (pp. 1-18). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
[438] Stanton, N.A. (2007). Editorial. Ergonomics, 50(8), 1151-1158.
277
[439] Stanton, N.A. and Pinto, M. (2000). Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when
using a vision enhancement system. Ergonomics, 43(9), 1359-1370.
[440] Stein, N.L., Trabasso, T. and Liwag, M. (1993). The representation and organization of emotion
experience: unfolding the emotion episode. In Lewis, M. and Havland, J.M. (Eds.) Handbook of
Emotions (pp. 279-300). New York: Guilford.
[441] Steiner, E. (1988). The Methodology of Theory Building. Sydney AU: Educology Research
Associates.
[442] Stevenson, M.R., Palamara, P., Morrison, D. and Ryan, G.A. (2001). Behavioral factors as
predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers. Traffic Injury Prevention, 2(4), 247-254.
[443] Stewart, A.E. (2005). Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. Accident Analysis
and Prevention, 37(4), 681-688.
[444] Stokols, D., Novaco, R.W., Stokols, J. and Campbell, J. (1978). Traffic congestion, Type A
Behavior, and stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 467-480.
[445] Storey, N. (1996). Safety-Critical Computer Systems. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley.
[446] Stough, R. R., Maggio, M.E. and Jin, D. (2001). Methodological and technical challenges in
regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects. In Stough, R.R. (Ed.) Intelligent
Transportation Systems. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
[447] Subramaniam, N. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in
Malaysia. Medical Journal of Malaysia, 44(3), 178-182.
[448] Sümer, H.C., Bilgic, R., Sümer, N. and Erol, T. (2005). Personality attributes as predictors of
psychological well-being for NCOs. Journal of Psychology, 139(6), 529-544.
[449] Sümer, N. (2003). Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual
mediated model. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 949-964.
278
[450] Sümer, N., Karanci, A.N., Berument, S.K. and Gunes, H. (2005). Personal resources, coping self-
efficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999
earthquake in Turkey. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18(4), 331-342.
[451] Sümer, N., Özkan, T. and Lajunen, T. (2006). Asymmetric relationship between driving and
safety skills. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38, 703-711.
[452] Summala, H. (1988). Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour
and its implications. Ergonomics, 31, 491-506.
[453] Summala, H. (1986). Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior
and its implications. (Report 11), University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit, Helsinki.
[454] Summala, H. (1996). Accident risk and driver behaviour. Safety Science, 22(1-3), 103-117.
[455] Summala, H. (1997). Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. In In
Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya E. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and
Application (pp. 41-52). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[456] Summala, H. (2005). Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and
safety efforts. In Underwood, G. (Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 383-394).
Amsterdam: Elsevier
[457] Summala, H. and Merisalo, A. (1980). A psychophysical method for determining the effects of
studded tires on safety. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 21, 193-199.
[458] Summala, H. and Näätänen, R. (1988). The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. In
Rothengatter, T. and de Bruin, R. (Eds.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. 82-92).
Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum.
[459] Summala, H., Nieminen, T. and Punto, M. (1996). Maintaining lane position with peripheral
vision during in-vehicle tasks. Human Factors, 38(3), 442-451.
[460] Swaddiwudhipong, W., Nguntra, P., Mahasakpan, P., Koonchote, S. and Tantriratna, G. (1994).
Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers, vehicles, pedestrians and road environments involved in
279
road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public
Health, 25(1), 37-44.
[461] Synodinos, N.E. and Papacostas, C.S. (1985). Driving habits and behaviour patterns of
university students. International Review of Applied Psychology, 34, 241-257.
[462] Tanaka, J.S. and Huba, G.J. (1985). A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary
GLS estimation. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics, 42,233-239.
[463] Tanaka, E., Sakamoto, S., Ono, Y., Fujihara, S. and Kitamura, T. (1996). Hopelessness in a
community population in Japan. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52(6), 609-615.
[464] Tanaka, E., Sakamoto, S., Ono, Y., Fujihara, S. and Kitamura, T. (1998). Hopelessness in a
community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Social
Psychology, 138(5), 581-590.
[465] Tavris, C. (1989). Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion. New York: Simon & Schuster.
[466] Tavris, D.R., Kuhn, E.M. and Layde, P.M. (2001). Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle
crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
33(2), 167-172.
[467] Taylor, J.G. and Fragopanagos (2005). The interaction of attention and emotion. Neural
Networks, 18(4), 353-369.
[468] Theeuwes, J. (2001). The effects of road design on driving. In Barjonet, P-E. (Ed.) Traffic
[469] Theodorson, G.A. and Theodorson, A.C. (1969). A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. New York:
Thomas & Cromwell.
[470] Thompson, B. (2000). Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. In Grimm, L. G. and
Yarnold, P.R. (eds.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Washington DC:
American Psychological Association.
280
[471] Thurman, C.W. (1985). Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A
behavior among university faculty – one year later. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(3),
445-448.
[472] Tiliman, W.A and Hobbs, G.E. (1949). The accident prone automobile driver. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 106(5), 321-333.
[473] Trick, L.M., Enns, J.T., Mills, J. and Vavrik, J. (2004). Paying attention behind the wheel: a
framework for studying the role of attention in driving. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science,
5(5), 385-424.
[474] Trimpop, R. and Kirkcaldy, B. (1997). Personality predictors of driving accidents. Personality
and Individual Differences, 23(1), 147-152.
[475] Turner, C. and McClure, R. (2003). Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an
explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. Injury
Control and Safety Promotion, 10(3), 123-130.
[476] Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and
probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-332.
[477] Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty. Science, 185, 1124-1130.
[478] Ulleberg, P. (2001). Personality subtypes of young drivers. Relationship to risk-taking

preferences, accident involvement, and response to a traffic safety campaign. Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 4(4), 279-297.
[479] Underwood, G., Chapman, P., Wright and Crundall, D. (1999). Anger while driving.
[480] Underwood, G. and Everatt, J. (1996). Automatic and controlled information processing: the role
of attention in the processing of novelty. In Neumann, O. and Sanders, A.F. (Eds.) Handbook of
Perception and Action, Volume 3: Attention. London: Academic.
[481] Underwood, G. and Milton, H. (1993). Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road
accident with and without discussion. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 11-22.
281
[482] Utzelmann, H.D. (2004). Driver selection and improvement in Germany. In Rothengatter, T. and
Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
[483] Vaa, T. (2001). Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints.
Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in
Traffic Safety (ICTCT), Caserta, Italy. Retrieved December 5, 2007 from
www.ictct.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa.pdf
[484] Vallières, É.F., Bergerson, J. and Vallerand, R.J. (2005). The role of attributions and anger in
aggressive driving behaviours. In Underwood, G. (Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.
181-190). Amsterdam: Elsevier
[485] Van der Hulst, M., Meijman, T.F. and Rothengatter, J.A. (1999). Anticipation and the adaptive
control of safety margins in driving. Ergonomics, 42, 336-345.
[486] Vasconcellos, E.A. (2005). Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased
approaches. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic
Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop, Campo Grande, Matto Grosso do Sul, Brazil, March 20-22.
Retrieved September 1, 2007 from http:www.ictct.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande
[487] Vassallo, S., Smart, D., Sanson, A., Harrison, W., Harris, A., Cockfield, S. and McIntyre, A.
(2007). Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 444-458.
[488] Vavrik, J. (1998). “Accident prone.” Recovery, 9(2), 24-29.
[489] Velting, D.M. (1999). Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck
Hopelessness Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 913-921.
[490] Verwey, W.B. (2000). On-line driver workload estimation. Effects of road situation and age on
secondary task measures. Ergonomics, 43(2), 210-222.
282
[491] Verwey, W.B. and Zaidel, D.M. (2000). Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal
attributes, eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 28,
123-142.
[492] Walker, G.H., Stanton, N.A. and Young, M.S. (2001). An on-road investigation of vehicle
feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics. International
Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5(4), 421-444.
[493] Wállen Warner, H. and Åberg, L. (2006). Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the
theory of planned behavior. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,
9, 427-433.
[494] Waller, P.F. (1997). Transportation and society. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya E. (Eds.)
Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 1-8). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[495] Waller, P.F., Elliot, M.R., Shope, J.T., Raghunathan, T.E. and Little, R.J.A. (2001). Changes in
young adults offense and crash patterns over time. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 117-
128.
[496] Waterman, A. (2009, January 21). Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave. Here’s the story of
Burma-Shave. Backwoods Home Magazine. Retrieved December 15, 2008 from
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/waterman37.html.
[497] Watson, B. (1998). Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. In
Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research, Policing and Educatino Conference 2,
Wellington, New Zealand.
[498] Waylen, A. and McKenna, F.P. (2002). Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences. The
development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary
Report). Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. Retrieved November 2, 2007 from
http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave.pdf
[499] Wei, M., Heppner, P.P. and Mallinckrodt (2003). Perceived coping as a mediator between
attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 50(4), 438-447.
283
[500] Weissman, M., Fox, K. and Klerman, G.L. (1973). Hostility and depression associated with
suicide attempts. American Journal of Psychiatry, 130(4), 450-455.
[501] Wells, P. (2007). Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of
Cleaner Production, 15(11/12), 1116-1121.
[502] Wells-Parker, E., Ceminsky, J., Hallberg, Snow, R.W., Dunaway, G., Guiling, S., Wiliams, M.
and Anderson, B. (2002). An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash
experience in a representative sample of US drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 271-
278.
[503] West, R., Elander, J. and French, D. (1993). Mild social deviance, Type-A behaviour pattern and
decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. British
Journal of Psychology, 84, 207-219.
[504] Wheatley, G.M (1956). Preventions of accidents in childhood. Advances in Paediatrics, 8, 195.
[505] Wheatley, G.M. (1961). Childhood accidents. In Halsey, M.N. (ed.), Accident Prevention. (pp.
469-529) New York: McGraw Hill.
[506] Wilde, G.J.S. (1982). The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. Risk
Analysis, 2, 209-225.
[507] Wilde, G.J.S. (1984). On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. In
Yager, S. (Ed.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. 135-154). University of Waterloo Press.
[508] Wilde, G.J.S. (1988). Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions, deductions and
discussion of recent commentaries. Ergonomics, 31, 441-468.
[509] Wilde, G.J.S. (1994). Target Risk. Toronto: PDE Publications.
[510] Wilde, G.J.S. (2002). Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British
Medical Journal, 324, 1149-1152.
[511] Wilde, G.J.S. (2005). Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. Proceedings of
the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra
284
Workshop, Campo Grande, Matto Grosso do Sul, Brazil, March 20-22. Retrieved March 31,
2007 from http:www.ictct.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande
[512] Willford, A. (2003). Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape.
International Social Science Journal, 55(175), 99-109.
[513] Williams, A.F. and Shabanova, V.I. (2003). Responsibility of drivers, by age and gender, for
motor-vehicle crash deaths. Journal of Safety Research, 34(5), 527-531.
[514] Williams, A.F. and Well, J.K. (1994). Driver experience with antilock brake systems. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 26(6), 807-811.
[515] Williams, L.J., Gavin, M.B. and Hartman, N.S. (2004). Structural equation modeling in strategy
research: applications and issues. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, 1, 303-
346.
[516] Williams, T.Y., Boyd, J.C., Cascardi, M. and Poythress, N.G. (1996). The factor structure and
convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. Psychological
Assessment, 8, 398-403.
[517] Williamson, T. (1999). Countries and Their Cultures. Farmington Hills MI: Gale.
[518] Williamson, T. (2003). The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway. Space and Culture, 6(2),
110-131.
[519] Wilson, J.R. (2000). Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Applied Ergonomics,
31, 557-567.
[520] Wood, S.E., Wood, E.G. and Boyd, D. (2008). Mastering the World of Psychology. Boston:
Pearson.
[521] Woodcock, A., Lenard, J., Welsh, Flyte and Garner, S. (2001). Designing for the in-car safety
and security of women. In Hanson, M.A. (Ed.) Contemporary Ergonomics. New York: Taylor &
Francis.
285
[522] World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for
Prevention. Report of an Advisory Group. Technical Report Series No. 118. Geneva.
[523] World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). Country reports. Regional Office for the Western
Pacific.
[524] Yaapar, S. (2005). Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society, Islam, theatre and
tourism. Asian Journal of Social Science, 33(3), 473-485.
[525] Yergil, D. (2005). Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical
research. In Underwood, G. . (Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 487-503). Amsterdam:
Elsevier
[526] Young, M.S. and Stanton, N.A. (2007). Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and
automated vehicles. Ergonomics, 50(1), 46-58.
[527] Zhang, X. and Chaffin, D. (2000). A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for
simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. Ergonomics,
43(9), 1314-1330.
[528] Zikovitz, D.C. and Harris, L.R. (1999). Head tilt during driving. Ergonomics, 42(5), 740-746.
286
GLOSSARY
Acronyms and Symbols:
ABS Anti-lock braking system

LoC Locus of control
AQ Aggression Questionnaire
MVA Motor vehicle accident
BA Behavioural adaptation
P Powerful others
BHS Beck Hopelessness Scale
PBC Perceived behavioural control
BIT Behaviour-in-Traffic
RHT Risk Homeostasis Theory
C Chance
SEM Structural equation modelling
DDB Dangerous driving behaviour
SRS Supplementary restraint system
FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System
TAPB Type A Behaviour Pattern
HAT Hostile automatic thoughts
TCI Task capability theory
I Internality
TPB Theory of Planned Behaviour
ITS Intelligent transportation system
TRA Theory of Reasoned Action
IFRB Industrial Fatigue Research Board
Definitions:
Accident-proneness: a tendency toward accidents, presumably because of personality factors, a concept

generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926; 1939) and arising from the individual differences
approach in psychology. (see also, differential accident involvement).
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, the brake line pressure is relates, allowing the
wheel to turn. Immediately after releasing the pressure, the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to
lock-up again. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre, traction is maintained
steering and braking actions continue to be effective. As a result, ABS ensures that, on most surface
types, drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking
systems.
Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences, the
outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages, or benefits, to the individual” (Brown &
287
Noy, 2004; p. 25). Also referred to as risk compensation, BA is a core concept in all risk theories of
driver behaviour. The central idea is that, when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective
risk in the environment, drivers will alter their behaviour (see also, risk homeostasis theory, hierarchical
driver adaptation theory, task capability theory) .
Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept, it refers to a combination of circumstances,
including driver behaviour, that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. The
concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000)
task capability theory. (see also, black spot)
Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of
Helsinki. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics, where effort to save
lives may be concentrated. Usually based on geographical location of the crash, it is essential when
searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units
by type, road and traffic conditions, time of week and, where possible, characteristics of road users. (see
also, black event)
Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis, first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle
East Technical University in Ankara, Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic,
driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash
outcomes. In the present research, the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’
responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. The model posits certain variables as distal to the
crash event and predicts that their influence will moderate drivers’ self-reported tendencies to behave in
certain ways when in traffic situations. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering
variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. (see also, proximal variable; distal
variable; crash outcome)
Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. McKenna of the University of Reading,
as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. It differs from accident proneness
in that it (a) denotes an area of study, rather than a theory; (b) does not prejudge the causation of
personality variables, therefore allowing for the influence of external factors; and (c) assumes that
individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. (see also,
accident proneness)
Differential psychology: see individual differences approach.
288
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U.S.
Department of Transportation. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor
vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975.
Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst, William Haddon Jr., which combines
the three components of the road traffic system – the human, the vehicle and the road – with the three
phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash, in-crash, and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells.
Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety.
Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other.
Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology, 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. Individual differences research typically focuses on the
domains of personality, motivation, intelligence, ability, aptitudes, interests, values, self-concept, self-
efficacy and self-esteem. In traffic psychology, a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been
generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality, demographic
and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. (see also, 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. The name was changed to the British
Industrial Health Research Board in 1931. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined
the distribution of accident frequency, leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident
proneness. (see also, accident proneness)
Inner speech: see self-talk.
Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. Rotter of the University of Connecticut,
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). Later conceptualisations have viewed
LoC, not as a unidimensional, bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums, but
rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. One such multidimensional
model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson, then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in
San Francisco, who posited three dimensions: Internality (I); Externality Chance (C) and Externality
Powerful Others (P).
289
Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land,
most usually on roads. For the purposes of the present research, motor vehicles included automobiles,
motorcycles, motorised bicycles, trucks (lorries), mobile construction equipment or platforms, and buses,
but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails.
Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury, occurring on a public road
and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. For the purposes of the present research, motor vehicle
crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident.
Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. Included in this
term are walking, bicycling, and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices.
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. 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”; the individual differences
approach, as expressed by Raymond Cattell, regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a
person will do in a given situation; Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the
integration of the id, the ego and the superego; Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of
life, or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems, including life goals” (Chaplin, 1985; p.
333-334).
Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour, PBC refers
to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour.
Private speech: see self-talk.
Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation.
Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J.S. Wilde, Professor Emeritus at
Canada’s Queen’s University, the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system, somewhat analogous to
a thermostat, operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. When there is a discrepancy
between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level, individuals
will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. That is, if perceived risk exceeds target
risk, individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour; conversely, if perceived risk falls below the
target risk, individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal
290
research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. (see also, behavioural
adaptation; target risk; zero risk theory)
Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment, including the network, signage, parking spaces,
stopping places, draining system, bridges, overpasses, tunnels, archways and footpaths.
Road safety engineering: “a process, based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information,
which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements
that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. Opportunities for road safety engineering in
general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks; (b) incorporation of
safety features in the design of new roads; (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid
future problems; and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network.” (Ogden, 1996;
p. 35).
Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash, as the result of injury
sustained in the crash.
Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash.
Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human,
the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in
the system.
Road user: a person using any part of the road system as a non-motorised transport user or as a user of a
motor vehicle.
Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism, most frequently attributed to
Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that
goes on in one’s mind, at both conscious and unconscious levels. Cognitive self-statements may be either
negative or positive. Within the context of this research, self talk related to drivers’ cognitive statements
about other drivers was studied in terms of its direct effect on driving behaviour and as a mediator of trait
aggression on driving behaviour. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech.
Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice- and snow-covered roads during the winter
months, these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the
treads. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts, but only
291
when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. On dry roads, studded tyres actually increase
braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle.
Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. 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, instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar.
Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. According to RHT proponents, it is a level
of risk that each individual is willing to accept. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the
level of risk in which they are engaged, remains constant at the target level. According to Wilde (1994),
target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour
alternatives; (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives; (3) the benefits expected from
cautious behaviour alternatives; and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. (see also,
risk homeostasis theory)
Task cube. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix, where i represents the number of factors defining the functional
taxonomy dimension, derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour.
Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the
theory. (see also, hierarchical adaptation theory)
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of Massachusetts-
Amherst, the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions, which are the
best predictors of behaviour. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation
of the behaviour); (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the
behaviour); and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which
jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). The TPB has been applied to a wide
range of research problems in traffic psychology. (see also, theory of reasoned action; perceived
behaviour control)
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. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. The theory of reasoned action
(TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions, which in turn are a function of attitudes and
subjective norms. 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. (see
also, theory of planned behavriour)
292
Traffic management: planning, coordinating, controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and
effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity.
Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport, motorised and non-motorised, that
share the same road infrastructure.
Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that, from its outset, has
embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology, ergonomics, road
engineering, community planning, management science and economics. It is primarily concerned with the
study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. In the
present research, 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.
Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from
one place to another. The five basic transportation factors include: safety; comfort, time, convenience and
economy.
Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of
Helsinki, it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk,
adapting behaviourally to driving conditions, only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings
of fear” are experienced. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. (see
also, behavioural adaptation; risk homeostasis theory)
293
Appendix A:
List of Published and Research Scales
294
A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales
copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed.
Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable
of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise. Research scales (BIT and
HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors, with the understanding
that they would not be re-published.
Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below:
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ; Buss & Warren, 2000).
Available from:
Western Psychological Services
12031 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90025
USA
http://portal.wpspublish.com/portal/page?_pageid=53,70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS; Beck & Steer, 1993).
Available from:
The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt, Brace & Company),
19500 Bulverde Road. San Antonio, TX 78259
USA
http://pearsonassess.com/cgi-
bin/MsmGo.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; Papacostas & Synodinos, 1988)
Obtained with permission from the authors:

c/o Dr. C.S. Papacostas
Department of Civil Engineering
2540 Dole Street
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
USA
http://www.eng.hawaii.edu/~csp/csp.html
295
Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT; Snyder, Crowson, Houston, Kurylo & Poirier)
Obtained with permission from the late Dr. C.R. Snyder. 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, Kansas 66045
USA
www.psych.ukans.edu/hope.
296
Appendix B:
Personal Information Form (PIF)
297
CONFIDENTIAL
Personal Information Form
Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about
YOURSELF. We are not asking for your name, so please answer all questions as truthfully as
you can.
1. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no
If yes, please answer the following questions:
2. For how long have you had your driver’s licence?
__________ years and ___________months

(number) (number)
3. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________, _________, __________

(city/town) (state) (country)
4. In what city/town have you lived most of your life?

_______________, _________, __________
(city/town) (state) (country)
5. Most of the time when you travel, what kind of transportation do you use? (please check
only one)
___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver)
___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion, sitting behind driver)
___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized)
___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________)
6. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one)
___ car -- what manufacturer & model (e.g., Proton Wira) _______________
___ motorcycle – what engine size (e.g., 250 cc) ______________
___ other (please specify: _________________)
7. How often do you travel in a car:

as a driver (please check only one): as a passenger (please check only one)
___ every day ___ every day
___ several times a week ___ several times a week
___ about once or twice a week ___ about once or twice a week
___ about once every two weeks ___ about once every two weeks
___ almost never ___ almost never
___ never ___ never
298
8. How often do you travel on a motorcycle:
as a driver (please check only one): as a passenger (please check only one)
___ every day ___ every day
___ several times a week ___ several times a week
___ about once or twice a week ___ about once or twice a week
___ about once every two weeks ___ about once every two weeks
___ almost never ___ almost never
___ never ___ never
9. When you want to use a car, do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one)
___ yes, all the time ___ yes, some of the time
___ yes, most of the time ___ no
10. When you want to use a motorcycle, do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please
check only one)
___ yes, all the time ___ yes, some of the time
___ yes, most of the time ___ no
11. Within the last twelve (12) months, have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required
you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no
If yes, in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred?
___ 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:__________________________________________ )
299
12. Within the last twelve months, have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you
to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no
13. Within the last twelve months, have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in
damage over RM100 to your vehicle, but no injuries?
15. What is your gender? ___ male ___ female
16. What is your age? _____ years
17. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:)
___ Malay ___ Chinese-Malaysian
___ Indian-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________)
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION
300

PH.D Tesis On SEM by Alan Tez

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

PH.D Tesis On SEM by Alan Tez

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CAUSE AND PREVENTION OF ROADWAY

CRASHES AMONG YOUNG,

ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE

Siti Digitally signed by Siti

 Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008

First, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my supervisor, Dr. Stanley

Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of

I wish to acknowledge the Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM),

It is to these two very special people that I dedicate this work.

Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency),

LIST OF FIGURES xviii

1.1 Background of the Study 1

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 12

CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 78

3.1 Conceptualization and the Research Framework 78

4.1 Description of the Sample 112

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 179

5.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233

No. Table Page

2.1 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties, 2002-2006 13

2.2 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road

2.3 Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group 57

3.1 Research Hypotheses 91

3.2 Dimensions of the BIT scale 95

3.3 The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire 97

3.5 Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing 101

4.2 Age, Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1, 2 and 3 114

4.5 Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results 117

4.6 Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) 118

4.7 Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses 119

4.8 Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of

4.9 Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis 121

4.11 Normality Tests, Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 122

4.15 Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables

4.16 Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables

4.17 Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables

4.18 Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables

4.19 Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables

4.20 Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT

4.21 Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT

4.22 The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores

4.23 The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores

4.24 The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores

4.25 The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores

4.26 The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores

4.27 Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores 139

4.28 Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores 144

4.29 Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 145

4.31 Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 150

4.33 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses 160

4.34 SEM Comparison (Study 1C) 163

4.35 Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) 167

4.36 Different Contextual Models (Study 2) 169

4.37 Different Contextual Models (Study 3) 171

4.38 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and

4.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought

5.2 Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State 206

5.4 State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and

5.5 Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in

5.6 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 225

No. Figure Page