Thesis (Ph.D.)--Murdoch University, 2006. / Thesis submitted to the Division of Health Sciences. Bibliography: leaves 114-124.

Thesis--PlanB (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Stout, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (MScIng)--University of Stellenbosch, 2007. / Bibliography. Also available via the Internet.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Notre Dame, 2005. / Thesis directed by Michael Welch for the Department of Sociology. "April 2005." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 44-49).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Iowa, 2009. / Thesis supervisor: John D. Lee. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 130-137).

Motorists are slowly becoming aware that they are legally and morally responsible for ensuring that they are fully rested and not at risk from sleepiness when driving, while vehicle manufacturers continue to attempt to find fail-safe warning systems. What further practical and theoretical advice can we give to drivers in order to reduce sleepiness-related accidents? Are technological countermeasures a viable alternative? Can we further predict the types of people who are most at risk by examining individual differences? This thesis outlines a series of experimental studies to investigate possible answers to these questions, and discusses the philosophy behind them.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2003. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 37-38). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2003. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 37-38). Also available on the Internet.

Purpose: In the United States, motor-vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for individuals 18–24 years of age. Multiple factors place young drivers at an increased risk including risky and aggressive driving behaviors. Aggressive driving has been shown to account for more than half of the driving fatalities in the United States. Driving anger is predictive of aggressive driving and adverse driving outcomes. Research outside the context of driving has demonstrated associations between multiple dimensions of forgiveness and anger, aggressive behaviors, and health outcomes. A very small body of research suggests a modest relationship between forgiveness and both driving anger and aggressive driving. The current study expands on previous research to examine the impact of multiple dimensions of forgiveness on adverse driving outcomes. Methods: Undergraduate students (N = 446) completed, self-report measures of forgiveness, driving anger, driving anger expression, aggressive driving behaviors, and aversive driving outcomes. Results: Bivariate correlations indicated a significant negative relationship between each dimension of forgiveness and driving anger, driving anger expression, and aggressive driving. Forgiveness (of others and of uncontrollable situations) was found to have a significant indirect only effect on traffic violations through the mediators of driving anger and aggressive driving. Discussion: Current findings support and expand on previous research examining the association of forgiveness with adverse driving outcomes. Forgiveness of others and forgiveness of uncontrollable situations, but not forgiveness of self, were shown to indirectly impact traffic violations/warnings, but not crashes, within the past five years through reduced driving-related anger, anger expression, and/or aggression. Implications, limitations, and future research are discussed.

The aim of this study is to further establish the validity and reliability of the Dula Dangerous Driving Index (DDDI). The reliability and validity of the instrument was investigated by comparing data from a US university sample, a US community sample, and a sample of Belgian traffic offenders. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis supported the presence of a four-factor structure with items for Drunk Driving forming a separate scale apart from items for Risky Driving, Negative Cognitive/Emotional Driving and Aggressive Driving. A multi-group confirmatory factor analysis with model constraints supported the validity of the DDDI. Inter-correlations revealed that the DDDI subscales are closely interrelated and uni-dimensionality of the measure was found in all three samples. This suggests the DDDI Total score can be used as a composite measure for dangerous driving. However, the validity of the subscales was demonstrated in the Belgian sample, as specific traffic offender groups (convicted for drunk driving, aggressive driving, speeding) scored higher on corresponding scales (Drunk Driving, Aggressive Driving, and Risky Driving, respectively), indicating that it is clinically meaningful to differentiate the subscales.