Reserach Paper

The Role of Situational Factors on Pedestrians'
Intention to Jaywalk
Examination ID: 140125

Research paper
on
The Role of Situational Factors on Pedestrians' Intention to Jaywalk
Prepared For
Institute of Business Administration

Jahangirnagar University
Savar, Dhaka-1342
Prepared By
Exam ID: 140125

Area of Concentration: Marketing
Academic Session: 20013-2014
MBA Program
15th September, 2015

April 15, 2012
The Chairman
Examination Committee
MBA Program
Institute of Business Administration
Jahangirnagar University
Savar, Dkaka-1342
Subject: Submission of the Research Paper on “The Role of Situational Factors on Pedestrians'
Intention to Jaywalk”
Dear Sir/Madam:
It is my pleasure to submit the paper on “The Role of Situational Factors on Pedestrians'

Intention to Jaywalk””. The paper is submitted as part of the partial fulfillment of the MBA
program.
The purpose of this study is to identify major role and influence of situational factors behind
jaywalking and some recommendation to the problem.
I am grateful to you for providing me the opportunity to have such an excellent experience.
Sincerely yours,
Exam ID: 140125

Area of Concentration: Marketing
Academic Session: 2013-2014
MBA Program
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is an immense pleasure for the author to submit this report on “Factors’ influence in
pedestrians' road crossing behavior or jaywalking”. First of all, the author acknowledges that all
the praises due to the Almighty Allah who has enabled the author to successfully complete this
research work.
The author pays gratitude to Mr. Nazmul Islam, Director, Institute of Business Administration,
Jahangirnagar University. She also conveys gratitude to the batch manager, Md. Dr. Mohammad
Baktiar Rana.
Specially, the author expresses her deep sense of gratitude to her honorable faculty supervisor,
Mr. Chowdhury Golam Kibria, Associate Professor, Institute of Business Administration,
Jahangirnagar University, for his patient guidance, keen supervision and constructive suggestion
and Dr. Md. Zahidul Islam, for his cordial support.
She likes to thank to all other honorable faculty members of the Institute for their
encouragement. Her special thanks also to all the staff of the Institute for their cordial co-
operation.
She likes to thank all the respondents of the survey that is conducted.
Last but not least, the author likes to thank all her class mates, friends and family members who
time to time helped her with their support and encouragement to finish this research paper.
Executive summary
This study has analyzed the effect of situational factors on pedestrian intention to jaywalk.
Jaywalk is an illegal act by pedestrians' where they violate traffic rules when crossing roads.
Three situational factors, namely, time pressure, descriptive norm, and official supervision were
manipulated between them to design 7 unique situations that influences pedestrians' to jaywalk.
A total of 260 participants took part in an online questionnaire survey with 7 sets of questionnaire
each with an unique situational scenario and the rest of the questions being identical.
The main purpose of this study is to reveal whether the situational factors have any influence in
pedestrians' road crossing behavior. Earlier conducted researches used data about pedestrian
from Dhaka were limited somewhat to the demographic factors and the accidental analysis, which
failed to address the impact of situational factors over pedestrian behavior to jaywalk. This study
is not only aimed at finding out the linkage between situational factors and pedestrian behavior,
but also focused at finding out future research scopes.
Multivariate Variable Analysis (MANOVA) test is used to determine whether the dependent
variables among groups are “reliable” or statistically significant. The test indicated that
hypothetical high time pressure, negative (unsafe) descriptive norm, and unsupervised traffic
condition significantly affecting pedestrian intention to jaywalk.
Participants behavior related to wait for the signal, mode used to cross roads and the reason
people prefers jaywalk were also analyzed under descriptive statistics. Almost 71% of the
participants reported that they follow traffic signals and wait for the green light to blink when
crossing roads. The majority of the participants preferred using zebra-crossing, where the least
number of participants responded jaywalking as a medium. Participants mostly blamed improper
traffic system of Dhaka as the reason for traffic rule violation.
This report also finds out probable ways to solve the ever rising problem of jaywalking and
identifies the limitations of this research. Added more, the study gives light to the future work that
may further enlighten this subject matter.
v
Table of Content
SL no. Page no.
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-3
1.1 Origin of the report Background of the study 1
1.2 Background of the study 1
1.3 Objective of the study 2
1.3.1 Broad objective 2
1.3.2 Specific Objective 2
1.4 Scope of the report 2
1.5 Limitation of the report 3
2.0 Problem Statement 3-8
2.1 Current situation of Jaywalking in Bangladesh 3
2.2. Existing Facilities for pedestrians in Dhaka 4
2.3 The Law 4
2.4 Major Problem Areas 5
2.5. The research scope 6
2.6. The situational factors studied 6
2.6.1. TIME PRESSURE 6
2.6.2. DESCRIPTIVE NORM 7
2.6.3. OFFICIAL SUPERVISION 7
2.6.4. The reason of using situational factors 8
3.0 Literature Review 8-9
4.0 Research Methodology 9-14

4.1 Source of Data 9
4.2 Nature of Questionnaire 9
4.3 Situational analysis 9
4.4 Scaling Technique 10
4.5 Data analysis 10
4.5.1 Descriptive analysis and multivariate variance analysis 10
4.5.2 A sample scenario is described below 10
4.6 Test Statistic 11-14
4.6.1 Descriptive Statistic 11
4.6.1.1 Univariate Descriptive Statistics 11
4.6.1.2. Bivariate Descriptive Statistics 12
4.6.2 Multivariate Analysis of Variance 12-14
4.6.2.1 Decision Rule: 14
4.6.2.2 Assumptions of MANOVA 14
5.0 Test result and analysis 14-19

5.1 Descriptive Statistics 14
5.2 Multivariate analysis of variance 16-19
6.0 Scope for future work 19
7.0 Recommendations 19
8.0 Conclusion 20
Reference
Appendix
List of Illustration
Figure no. Page no.
Fig.1 Age of the participants 14
Fig.2 Crossing Behavior of Pedestrians 15
Fig 3 Reason for Traffic Rule Violation 15
Fig 4 Mode Used for crossing roads 16
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION
Crossing of public streets at illegal locations is termed as jaywalking. Crossing streets, especially in busy
urban areas, involves more than merely stepping off curbs and walking. Most municipalities designate
crosswalks for pedestrians to cross streets. Jaywalking occurs when a pedestrian crosses a roadway where
regulations do not permit doing so. In Bangladesh, people are less considerate about safety of their lives or
the others while walking through road crossings/intersections. Jaywalking is the violation of traffic rule where
pedestrian crossing outside of a marked or unmarked.
1.1 Origin of the report

As people of Bangladesh are less educated, having lack of awareness of downside of crossing roads while
violating traffic signal, it is high time to find out the reason why people are finding interest in jaywalking.
Number of fatalities caused by vehicle-pedestrian accidents is increasing at an alarming rate in Dhaka. In this
megacity of almost 12.5 million (approx) inhabitants, streets are seemingly belongs to the Jaywalkers,
pedestrians who violate the traffic rules while crossing roads.
1.2 Background of the report

Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh is highly populated city and the population of Dhaka is showing an ever
increasing trend where streets are seemingly belongs to the Jaywalkers, pedestrians who violate the
traffic rules while crossing roads. According to the most recent (2011) census by Bangladesh Bureau of
Statistic (BBS), Dhaka has a total populace of 12,043,977 with population density of 8,229 persons per
square kilometer and only 7.5% road of its total area (for a standard city, the minimum road
requirement is 25%) of which 30% is occupied by hawkers, salesman and shopkeepers is presumably
destined to be a slow-moving city. According to World Bank, by 2020, the megacity's population is
expected to rise to 22 - 25 million.
According to a report published in 2013 by Accident Research Institute (ARI) of Bangladesh University of
Engineering and Technology (BUET), total number of pedestrian casualties in 2013 was 984 of which
about 20% (197) were female and the rest of 80% (787) were male. The most pedestrian casualty by age
string was for 26-30 years, which was 138 pedestrians where the least casualties (11) was found to be
for the age series between 71 and 75 years. In year 2013, the number of accidents in Dhaka
Metropolitan Police (DMP) area caused by pedestrian action was 91, which was more than doubled
compare to year 2012 and the highest between years 1998 and 2013. This shows how badly roads in
Dhaka are affected with the pedestrian behavior. In another report by ARI published in 2014, reported
Page 1 of 20
pedestrian accidents in different intersections of Dhaka City Corporation area was 149 during 2009-
2014, among them the most of the accidents (17) took place in Jashimuddin Road of Uttara. The total
number of accidents during this period was 303, among which 49.17% of the accidents were caused by
pedestrian.
1.3 Objective of the report
1.3.1 Broad Objective

 Understanding and observing of people’s the characteristics towards jaywalking.
 Identify the reasons and variables individually influence the behavior intend to jaywalking.
1.3.2 Specific objective
 This study will be exploring the effect of situational factors on pedestrian intention to jaywalk in the
capital city. Three situational factors, namely, time constraint, descriptive norm, and official
supervision.
 Actual behavior can be observed in real-time situation to check relationship between the factors
studied with pedestrian intention of jaywalking.
 Interdependence between the factors (time constraint, descriptive norm and official supervision) on
jaywalking can be analyzed.
 The following three hypotheses will be tested among the participants:
 H1: Pedestrians under high time pressure will be more likely to violate traffic rules than those
under low time pressure.
 H2: Pedestrians under a negative (unsafe) descriptive norm condition will be more prone to
jaywalking than those who under a positive (safe) descriptive norm condition.
 H3: Pedestrians under an unsupervised condition will be more likely to jaywalk than those under
a supervised condition.
These three situational factors are chosen because these are believed to be the vital factors influencing
pedestrian to jaywalk. People are often violating traffic rules while crossing roads due to the time constraint,
where pedestrians sometimes influenced with jaywalking as they have a tendency to follow what others
(descriptive norm). Lastly, participants will be given with official supervision by traffic officers to observe their
behavior while being supervised.
1.4 Scope of the report

No such studies carried out using situational factors in Dhaka. This study will give light to the previous studies
that have identified several factors related to jaywalk. This will further open the scope of future research in
this subject matter for better understanding this ever rising problem for Dhaka inhabitants. Time pressure,
Page 2 of 20
descriptive norm, and official supervision- these three situational factors are chosen because these are
believed to be the vital factors influencing pedestrian to jaywalk. People are often violating traffic rules while
crossing roads due to the time constraint, where pedestrians sometimes influenced with jaywalking as they
have a tendency to follow what others (descriptive norm). Lastly, participants will be given with official
supervision by traffic officers to observe their behavior while being supervised.
1.5 Limitations of the report

 Generalization of the analysis was not possible due to the use of specific sample (university
students) and the sample size is also small for each situation (varied between 31 and 48). In
order to generalize conclusion further, a larger sample is needed.
 The participants included in this study are university students. Due to lack of traffic
knowledge/language barrier, random participants are not considered in analysis.
 The study was based on simulation of situational factors, no actual behavior was observed.
 No such explanation for the interaction between situational factors was provided. .
 This survey is often time consuming and involves some important ethical considerations.
CHAPTER 2 | Problem Statement
2.1 Current situation of Jaywalking in Bangladesh

Many people are not aware of the term 'jaywalking', although most of us have done it at some point or the
other. Jaywalking is the illegal or the reckless crossing of a road by a pedestrian. It is a very common sight in
the streets of Dhaka, so much so that many people, while jaywalking, are at a high risk of accidents.
There are zebra crossings and foot over-bridges for pedestrians to cross the road. Yet over the past few years
there has been a significant number of accidents resulting from the reckless crossing of roads.
Recently, a campaign was initiated in Dhaka to raise awareness on the risks related to jaywalking. In the past
week, law enforcement agencies have penalized jaywalkers as part of the current drive to enforce a law
pertaining to jaywalking.
However, there is another side to the coin. Although it is well understood by all that jaywalking is an offence,
many of them still prefer jaywalking over other means of crossing roads simply because the facilities are not
adequate. Pedestrians find foot over-bridges unclean and often packed with hawkers and beggars.
Last year, the Dhaka metropolitan police (DMP) started an anti-jaywalking drive with a couple of mobile
courts. Apart from trying to motivate pedestrians to use the foot-over bridges instead of running to the
Page 3 of 20
other end of the road in the midst of heavy traffic, the court also conducted draws against illegal
makeshift shops and vendors occupying the footpath meant for the pedestrians.
While the drive is a welcome gesture from a law enforcement agency that is often accused of doing next
to nothing to curb road accidents, critics point out that this will prove to be an ineffective measure in
the long run; pedestrians will continue to cross a busy, traffic-filled road instead of using the foot over
bridges and footpaths until strict measures are taken to improve the sate of these facilities.
2.2. Existing Facilities for pedestrians in Dhaka

Due to several constraints, the road crossing facilities provided by the authority in Dhaka is not
sufficient, disordered and unfriendly. Dhaka Urban Transport Plan (DUTP) project had placed indications
below the traffic lights to specify the time for people to cross roads. When the sign with a red person lit
up, it meant pedestrians were to wait, and green meant they could cross. The system is still there, but
not in effect. The traffic flows according to the police's manual signals and the pedestrians simply slip
through somehow. There are 45 footbridges in Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC) region, with 2
underpasses. Among the limited facilities offered for the inhabitants, few over-bridges/underpasses are
actually used by the pedestrians to cross roads where majority of the footbridges/underpasses are
remaining under or perhaps unutilized. Most of the pedestrians are not at all interested to use the over-
bridges and simply cross through the road surface, making the investment an unnecessary one. It may
be a question to solve for the behavioral scientists what make these pedestrians reluctant to use the
over-bridges even by risking their lives; some even cross the high hurdles set in the middle of the roads
which is set up to enforce the pedestrians to use the over-bridges. In some places hurdles are
broken down by these pedestrians. The scenario can be seen in all major places like Gulistan, Shahbag,
Mouchak, Farmgate, Kakoli-Banani, New Market, Mirpur 1 & 10, Uttara, to be more precise, practically
everywhere. More interestingly, the same behavior is observed from people of all class.
According to a 2011 study by Work for Better Bangladesh (WBB), 44% of Dhaka's roads don't even have
footpaths. And 82% of the existing footpaths are in a deplorable state. A total of 31% of the pedestrians
using these footpaths say they get hurt while walking.
2.3 The Law

The government has given "priority to pedestrians" in the national integrated multimodal transport
policy of 2013. The policy has directed that clearing of footpaths; construction of wide footpaths and
pedestrian-friendly roads; ensuring maintenance and cleaning; slopes on footpaths for the people with
Page 4 of 20
special needs; protection for pedestrians to safely cross the streets; and, giving priority to pedestrians in
the traffic signal light changes.
Motor vehicle ordinance 1983 states that it is compulsory for all drivers to halt at the street crossing.
The government has drawn up a draft to update the motor vehicle ordinance and here too it states that
the drivers must halt at the street crossings. Pedestrians are to use zebra crossings, over-bridges and
underpasses to cross the roads. It does not specify the penalty for violating these rules.
Efforts to stop Dhaka pedestrians from jaywalking have not been successful, despite several high-
visibility programmes to stem the tide of illegal road-crossing. The Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP)
traffic department, Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC) and Dhaka South City Corporation (DSCC) have
initiated a variety of costly projects to bring jaywalking to a stop, but all to no avail. According to a
decision of the Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) in November 2014, jaywalkers would be sentenced to
maximum six months’ imprisonment or fined BDT 200 for jaywalking between the Ruposhi Bangla Hotel
intersection and Farmgate Police Box. A three-day long campaign was launched by the DMP, ahead of
the mobile court operation, to create pedestrian awareness to create the practice of the use of the
footbridges and the only underground pass near the Karwan Bazar intersection. Police used banners and
distribute leaflets during the campaign, to make the public conscious of the use of such footbridges and
underpasses – a part of a pilot project to discipline pedestrians.
2.4 Major Problem Areas
People jaywalk for various reasons, including convenience, impracticality, and sometimes even personal
safety. Oftentimes the crosswalk may be too far and require a long walking detour. Pedestrians are often
forced to walk outside the crosswalks when the crosswalk is blocked by cars due to traffic congestion. The
common practice of car-centric traffic-signal synchronization produces green waves for motorists but not
necessarily for pedestrians, who may encounter little or no conflicting traffic at cross streets where signals
instruct them to wait. The following could be the major problem areas that are identified as the reason of
jaywalking.
 Proper education and awareness raising activities was not there for the general mass
 In many cases the over-bridges are not actually usable; they are full of filth, dark at night
without lighting facilities, unsecured (especially for women), encroached by the addicts as a
hideout and by the hawkers etc.
Page 5 of 20
 Proper enforcement of law and the situation to enforce the law is not there.
 A non-leaning behavior by the city dwellers towards the law in absence of lack of mass
awareness and low education level.
 Constructions materials are stocked on the road/road sides as if the road is the proper place for
stocking. It eats up a huge amount of space of the city roads.
 Total absence of enforcement of law.
As the population and the number of accidents caused by pedestrians in DMP area is increasing
alarmingly, government should address the reason(s) why people are interested to jaywalk and take
initiatives to improve pedestrian facilities under transport planning of Dhaka city.
2.5. The research scope

The research question for this study:
Whether the situational factors have any influence in pedestrians' road crossing behavior.
This paper aims to analyze the effect of situational factors on pedestrian intention to jaywalk in the
capital city. Three situational factors, namely, time constraint, descriptive norm, and official supervision
are considered for the pedestrian towards following traffic rule in crossing a road. These three
situational factors are chosen because these are believed to be the vital factors influencing pedestrian to
jaywalk. People are often violating traffic rules while crossing roads due to the time constraint, where
pedestrians sometimes influenced with jaywalking as they have a tendency to follow what others
(descriptive norm). Lastly, participants will be given with official supervision by traffic officers to observe
their behavior while being supervised.
2.6. The situational factors studied
2.6.1. TIME PRESSURE
Nowadays, people in modern urban communities are affected by time pressure, a major stressor due to
the increasingly rapid pace of life. Time pressure is closely related to reckless and unsafe behavior, such
as risky driving during working hours. In a traffic environment, time pressure is commonly identified as a
major situational factor contributing to traffic accidents. For instance, a questionnaire-based study
found that time pressure is one of the five major constructs contributing to driver speeding behavior.
Page 6 of 20
Similarly, time pressure is known as a factor that can increase driving anger and aggressiveness. Hence,
this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H1: Pedestrians under high time pressure will be more likely to violate traffic rules than those under low
time pressure.
2.6.2. DESCRIPTIVE NORM
Action of the majority of people in a particular situation, regardless of whether such action is morally
right, is called descriptive norm in social psychology. Descriptive norm functions by informing people of
what is generally regarded as effective or adaptive behavior in a specific context. Regarding the traffic
environment, numerous studies found that an unsafe descriptive norm, which refers that majority of
pedestrians didn’t follow the traffic rule, is a major predictor of traffic violation. In this study, the
following hypothesis is going to be tested against situational factor descriptive norm:
H2: Pedestrians under a negative (unsafe) descriptive norm condition will be more likely to violate traffic
regulations than those who under a positive (safe) descriptive norm condition.
2.6.3. OFFICIAL SUPERVISION
The presence of other individuals, even strangers, can enhance some individual performance, which is
known as social facilitation. Unlike descriptive norm, which informally provides information and helps
individuals adjust to a particular situation, the presence of others mainly improve individual’s motive to
perform well. Traffic assistants (i.e.: traffic police, community traffic), who are responsible for
maintaining the order of traffic on behalf of the local traffic management bureau, have been assigned to
some crossroads for controlling and educate the pedestrians. A traffic assistant can officially supervise
pedestrian behavior as an agent of the public administrative department on one hand, and can observe
pedestrian behavior as an individual on the other hand. Therefore, this study tries to explore official
supervision and its interactive effects with informal descriptive norms.
The following hypothesis has been proposed:
H3: Pedestrians under an unsupervised condition will be more likely to violate the traffic regulations
than those under a supervised condition.
Page 7 of 20
2.6.4. The reason of using situational factors
There are few researches conducted mostly over the demographic factors influencing people to jaywalk.
But no such studies carried out using situational factors in Dhaka. This study will give light to the
previous studies that have identified several factors related to jaywalk. This will further open up the
scope of future research in this subject matter for better understanding this ever rising problem for
Dhaka inhabitants.
CHAPTER 3 | LITERATURE REVIEW
Basch et.al (2015) quantified technology-related distracted pedestrian behavior. The pilot study on
which this study was based was the first study of distracted walking in New York City. Data for ‘Walk’
and ‘Don’t Walk’ signals were tallied separately. Out of the pedestrians observed, nearly one-third
crossed on a ‘Walk’ signal and nearly half crossed on a ‘Don’t Walk’ signal were wearing headphones,
talking on a mobile phone, and/or looking down at an electronic device with wearing headphones the
most common distraction followed by looking down at a device and talking on a mobile phone.
Li et.al (2014) explored the effect of situational factors and concluded with significant increase in
pedestrian intention to jaywalk when time pressure is set hypothetically high, negative (Unsafe)
descriptive norm, and (disordered) unsupervised effect. In his study, the participants under high time
pressure, unsafe descriptive norm and unsupervised condition indicated significantly higher violation
intention than those under low time pressure, safe descriptive norm and supervised condition
respectively. The study reflects Chinese pedestrians' prone to be affected by situational factors.
Kothuri et. al (2013) conducted a survey in Portland, Oregon. Using Binary logistic regression models
tland, Oregon to gain better understanding over crossing behavior and find respondents indicated that
safety was a factor in crossing. On the other hand, people who had positive perceptions of safety and
frequent users of the intersections were more likely to be satisfied with delay.
Sabet (2013) in his research finds that individuals who are very worried about being hit by a vehicle
actually having been hit are not more likely to use pedestrian footbridges. The research finds that risk
assessments have little impact on actual behavior and individuals who were hit by a car are no more
likely to use pedestrian bridges. While there is some evidence that those who recognize that traffic
Page 8 of 20
situation would improve if everyone was less aggressive are more likely to use the bridges, individuals
who express a commitment to the law are no more likely to do so.
Saha et.al (2013) analyzed the effect of demographic factor that shape the behavioral pattern of the
pedestrian towards following traffic rule in crossing roads. He observed the percentage of women is
relatively more than the men in case of using the existing road-crossing system. According to the survey,
Young people intend to violate the rules more frequently than the older ones. Among the respondents,
safety is ranked as the first important consideration, where required time, comfort and convenience are
ranked 2nd and 3rd respectively.
Lavalette et.al (2009) carried out a study to determine the role environmental factors are playing in
pedestrians’ violation of rules when crossing roads and to establish a hierarchy of these factors which
act as constraints upon pedestrians. In some case it found that the rate of violation rises in the absence
of crossing signals and in proportion to the number of lanes of traffic. But it is not uniform.
CHAPTER 4 | RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Source of Data

This study is conducted only through primary research using questionnaire survey. Although, primary
research has certain strengths such that it allows for greater control (as it can be designed specifically for the
purposes of the research). Very few Secondary data were used for providing the theoretical background
to the research problem. Primary data was collected through an online survey using ‘Google form’.
4.2 Nature of Questionnaire

Close-ended questions were included in the questionnaire. At this survey, all questions are the same to
the interviewee apart from the last situational reaction related questions which is specific to the
research problem. There are seven situational reaction related questions in the total survey and one
each in each questionnaire. Interviewee’s age, gender, reason of jaywalking- this type of questions are
included in the questionnaire. A sample questionnaire is attached in the appendix section.
4.3 Situational analysis

This analysis is primarily based on situational analysis among pedestrians who are university students of
Dhaka. The participants will be given with real-world situation (simulation) with questionnaires related with
Page 9 of 20
each situation. The three situational factors make a combination of seven scenarios (2n-1). With each
scenario, participants' behavior is observed to get the intention of the pedestrian to jaywalk. The participants
are also asked few questions related to the other factors influencing jaywalk to find out the common reason
why pedestrians prefer violating traffic code.
4.4 Scaling Technique

After each scenario, participants were asked to report their violation intention on a five-point Likert scale (1
being impossible and 5 being very possible). In the first scale, the participants needed to report the possibility
to cross at a red light in the given situation. A higher score indicates a greater intention to violate traffic rules.
4.5 Data analysis

Qualitative data analysis which involves non-numerical data has been chosen for data analysis and will
provide justifications as to why they are suitable for answering the research questions.
 4.5.1 Descriptive analysis and multivariate variance analysis
Descriptive analysis and multivariate variance analysis will be performed using SPSS software. In this
analysis, time constraint, descriptive norm and official supervision are the independent variable, and the
dependent variable is pedestrian intention to jaywalk.
 4.5.2 A sample scenario is described below
You are approaching an intersection, and the light is red. At this moment, all pedestrians are waiting for a
green light (the opposite condition: most pedestrians around you are going through the red light). As you
know, the intersection traffic is well-ordered, where a traffic-assistant is supervising pedestrian road
crossing behavior and preventing jaywalking (the opposite condition: the order of intersection traffic is
poor, without a traffic assistant supervising pedestrian road crossing behavior). At this point, you have
sufficient time to reach the university campus (the opposite condition: time is too limited for you to
reach the campus for attending class).
After each scenario, participants were asked to report their violation intention on a five-point Likert
scale (1 being impossible and 5 being very possible). In the first scale, the participants needed to
report the possibility to cross at a red light in the given situation. A higher score indicates a greater
intention to violate traffic rules.
The participants were asked to answer three questions, which included their perceived time
pressure, perceived descriptive norm, and perceived supervised effect when reading the scenarios.
The answers were collected by using a five-point Likert scale. Finally, demographic data were
collected.
Page 10 of 20
4.6 Test Statistic
Both descriptive statistical and multivariate analyses of variance were performed by using SPSS version
19.0.
 4.6.1 Descriptive Statistic
A statistic is a quantifiable characteristic of a sample. It is a known number that can differ from sample
to sample. A descriptive statistic is a numerical measure that describes a characteristic of the sample
data. Descriptive statistics measures the central tendency and dispersion. There are two types of
descriptive statistics: Univariate descriptive statistics and Bivariate descriptive statistics.
o 4.6.1.1 Univariate Descriptive Statistics
Univariate descriptive statistics describe the characteristics of the data for a single variable. The two
characteristics of most interest are the following: center of the data which is measured by mean,
median, or mode) and the dispersion of the data which is measured by range, variation, variance,
standard deviation, or coefficient of variation.
Measures of Center of Data
The most often used measure of the center of data is the sample mean. Let X, denote a variable. Let x t
denote the value of X for the tth unit in the sample. Let n, denote the number of units/observations in
the sample. The sample mean is Xbar=  xi / n.
Measures of Dispersion of Data
The range is the difference between the maximum and minimum values of X. The sample variation (also
called the total sum-of-squares) is TSS =  (xi – xbar)2. The sample variance is s2 =  (xi – xbar)2/ (n-1) = TSS
/ (n – 1). The sample standard deviation is s =  s2.
The range is the least used measure because it wastes information about dispersion. Larger values of
variation (TSS), variance (s2), and standard deviation (s) indicate more dispersion in the values of X about
its mean. The advantage of standard deviation is that it can be interpreted as the average deviation of X
from its mean. The major disadvantage of each of these measures is that they are not unit-free
measures. We cannot use these measures to compare dispersion for two or more variables measured in
Page 11 of 20
different units. The major advantage of the coefficient of variation is that it is unit-free, and can be used
to make such a comparison.
o 4.6.1.2. Bivariate Descriptive Statistics
Bivariate descriptive statistics describe the characteristics of the data for two variables. The
characteristic of most interest is linear association between two variables. The most often used
measures of linear association are the following: Covariation, Covariance and Correlation coefficient.
The basic idea for each of these measures is as follows. Two variables X and Y have a positive linear
association if when X is above (below) its mean Y tends to be above (below) its mean. Two variables
have a negative linear association if when X is above (below) its mean Y tends to be below (above) its
mean. If two variables do not display this tendency, then they have no linear association. The stronger
this tendency, the stronger the degree of linear association. The sample covariation of X and Y is:
Sample Covariation =  (xi – xbar)(yi – ybar). The sample covariance is sxy =  (xi – xbar)(yi – ybar) / (n – 1).
The sample correlation coefficient is rxy = sxy / sxsy.
The major advantage of these 3 measures is that they tell us something about the linear relationship
between X and Y in the sample. If X and Y have a linear relationship in the sample, then they may be
related in the population.
 4.6.2 Multivariate Analysis of Variance
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) is simply an ANOVA with several dependent variables.
MANOVA is used to determine whether the differences on criterion or dependent variables among
groups are “reliable” or statistically significant. Variable(s) that create group membership are called
control or independent variable(s). There are two major situations in which MANOVA is used. The first is
when there are several correlated dependent variables, and the researcher desires a single, overall
statistical test on this set of variables instead of performing multiple individual tests. The second, and in
some cases, the more important purpose is to explore how independent variables influence some
patterning of response on the dependent variables. An ANOVA gives one overall test of the equality of
means for several groups for a single variable where the MANOVA gives one overall test of the equality
of mean vectors for several groups. MANOVA has all the properties as an ANOVA apart from the only
Page 12 of 20
difference is that an ANOVA deals with a (1 x 1) mean vector for any group while a MANOVA deals with
a (p x 1) vector for any group, p being the number of dependent variables.
In terms of notation, let us assume that there are q dependent variables in the MANOVA, and let λ i
denote the ith eigenvalue of matrix A which equals HE-1
The first statistic is Pillai's trace. The formula is
𝜆𝑖
Pillai's trace = trace [H (H +E) -1] =Σ 1+𝜆𝑖
The second test statistic is Hotelling-Lawley's trace.
Hotelling-Lawley's trace = trace (A ) = trace(HE-1 ) = Σλi.
The third is Wilk's lambda. Wilk’s Lambda was the first MANOVA test statistic developed and is very
important for several multivariate procedures in addition to MANOVA.
|𝐸|
Wilk's lambda = ʌ =
|𝐻+𝐸|
The fourth and last statistic is Roy's largest root. This gives an upper bound for the F statistic.
Roy's largest root = max (λi)
The maximum eigenvalue of A = HE-1. This statistic could also be called Roy's largest eigenvalue. All the
formula in the above equations are based on the eigenvalues of A = HE-1. This is the major reason why
statstical programs such as SAS print out the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of A = HE-1. Once the four (4)
statistics are obtained, they are translated into F statistics in order to test the null hypothesis. The
reason for this translation is identical to the reason for converting Hotelling's T 2 -the easy availability of
published tables of the F distribution. The important issue to recognize is that in some cases, the F
statistic is exact and in other cases it is approximate. In some cases, the four will generate identical F
statistics and identical probabilities. In other's they will differ. When they differ, Pillai's trace is often
used because it is the most powerful and robust. Because Roy's largest root is an upper bound on F, it
will give a lower bound estimate of the probability of F. Thus, Roy's largest root is generally disregarded
when it is significant but the others are not significant.
Page 13 of 20
o 4.6.2.1 Decision Rule
𝑛1 + 𝑛2 − 𝑝 − 1
Note that, F = 𝑝 (𝑛1 + 𝑛2 − 2)
T2 is distributed as F-distribution with p and (n1 +n2 −p−1) degrees of
freedom and p is number of dependent variables. If F >Fp,n1+n2−p−1(α), then reject the null hypothesis.
Alternatively, if the probability of F statistic is less than or equal to α, then I would reject the null
hypothesis.
o 4.6.2.2 Assumptions of MANOVA

 Each test unit is independent from others.
 Variance-covariance matrices of both groups are about equal.
 Each observation has equal influence in constructing group means and variance-covariance
matrices.
 Variations within group are similar.
CHAPTER 5 | TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
5.1 Descriptive Statistics:

A total of 260 respondents participated in this survey, of which majority of the participants (about 66%)
were in age group 18-25 as the survey sample is university students. Male dominated this survey with
about 72%, while female participants accounted for 27% (approx.).
Fig. 1: Age of the participants
Among all the respondents 26% denied to follow traffic rules and regulations where the rest of them
(71%) agreed that they follow traffic rules. The rest of the 3% were confused and answered both.
Page 14 of 20
Fig. 2: Crossing Behavior of Pedestrians
40% of the people surveyed stated that the improper traffic system of Dhaka is the main reason of
traffic rule violation, 21% of them believed that saving time is the reason why people violate traffic
rules. Rest of the participants believed several factors influences traffic rule violation. About 12%
recognizes "Impatience" of the pedestrians as one of the reason.
Fig: 3: Reason for Traffic Rule Violation
About 45% of the respondents preferred zebra-crossing to cross roads, while 32% of them preferred
footbridge. About 15% chose underpass as a mode of crossing roads.
Page 15 of 20
Fig. 4: Mode Used for crossing roads
5.2 Multivariate analysis of variance
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to check the effect of manipulated
situational factors. Pedestrians' behavior for each of the seven (7) situations is evaluated separately.
 For situation 1, there was an insignificant change in behavior when all other pedestrians are
waiting for the green light to blink, where there is well-ordered traffic system with a traffic-
assistant guiding pedestrian to follow signal and the respondent have enough time (low time
pressure). When considering the three factors jointly on the variables gender, level of
satisfaction, level of safety, intention to follow signal , considering traffic rule violation, Wilk's ʌ=
.560, F(18,77)=.970, p=.502 (>0.05). The null hypothesis is accepted as the p value is greater
than 0.05. It means participants had a tendency of jaywalking while violating the traffic signal. A
separate ANOVA was conducted for each situational factor. The participants under high time
pressure indicated significantly higher violation intention (mean =2.304, SD=.254) than those
under low time pressure (mean =2.00, SD=.861). Participants under safe descriptive norm
condition reported significantly lower violation intention (mean =4.00, SD=0.897) than those
under an unsafe descriptive norm condition (mean =3.174, SD=0.264).
 For the 2nd situation, there was an significant change in behavior when all other pedestrians are
waiting for green light, when there is well-ordered intersection traffic to guide pedestrian and
pedestrian have limited time (high time pressure). When considering the three factors jointly on
the variables gender, level of satisfaction, level of safety, intention to follow signal , considering
traffic rule violation, Wilk's ʌ= .413, F(24,113)=1.355, p=.147 (>0.05). In this situation, the null
Page 16 of 20
hypothesis is accepted as the p value is greater than 0.05. It means participants are accepting
the fact of high time pressure and starting to jaywalk. The participants under high time pressure
indicated significantly higher violation intention with p=0.044 (<0.05) (mean =2.750, SD=.440)
than those under low time pressure (mean =1.692, SD=.244). Participants under unsafe
descriptive norm condition reported significantly higher violation intention p=0.708 (mean
=1.923, SD=0.283) than those under safe descriptive norm condition (mean =1.750, SD=0.510).
 In the next scenario, situation 3, participants behaved insignificantly when all other pedestrians
violating the signal, where there is well-ordered intersection traffic and participants have
enough time (low time pressure). When considering the three factors jointly on the variables
gender, level of satisfaction, level of safety, intention to follow signal , considering traffic rule
violation, Wilk's ʌ= .729, F(18,105)=.690, p=.814 (>0.05). Likewise 2 of the earlier situations, null
hypothesis is accepted as p value is greater than 0.05, meaning, the participants are following
the other pedestrians who are trying to cross the road in red signal and started jaywalking. For
the individual ANOVA in this situation, the participants under low time pressure indicated
insignificantly higher violation intention with p=0.644(>0.05) (mean =2.200, SD=.239) than those
under high time pressure (mean =1.944, SD=.252). Participants under unsafe descriptive norm
condition reported significantly higher violation intention (mean =2.000, SD=0.293) than those
under safe descriptive norm condition (mean =1.778, SD=0.308).
 In the 4th situation, participants again behaved insignificantly when all other pedestrians trying
to cross road while violating traffic signal where there is no traffic-assistant and the participant
have enough time (low time pressure). When considering the three factors jointly on the
variables, Wilk's ʌ= .311, F(24,67)=1.117, p=.351 (>0.05). Since, p value is greater than 0.05, null
hypothesis is accepted for the 4th situation and pedestrians' are influenced for jaywalking. For
the individual ANOVA in this situation, the participants under low time pressure indicated
insignificantly higher violation intention with p=0.438 (>0.05) (mean =2.500, SD=.454) than
those under high time pressure (mean =1.667, SD=.642). Participants under unsafe descriptive
norm condition reported significantly higher violation intention (mean =2.833, SD=0.401) than
those under safe descriptive norm condition (mean =1.333, SD=0.567).
 For situation 5, there was an insignificant change in behavior when other pedestrians are trying
to cross the road by violating traffic signal, where the intersection traffic is well-ordered but the
participant have limited time (high time pressure). Considering the three factors mutually on the
variables, Wilk's ʌ= .226, F(24,67)=1.50, p=.100 (>0.05). Having p-value greater than 0.05, null
Page 17 of 20
hypothesis is accepted and the participants are considering the high time pressure and decided
to follow other pedestrians who are violating the signal. According to the individual ANOVA,
participants under high time pressure indicated insignificantly higher violation intention (mean
=2.667, SD=.536) than those under low time pressure (mean =1.600, SD=.294). On the other
hand, participants under unsafe descriptive norm condition reported significantly higher
violation intention (mean =1.800, SD=0.401) than those under a safe descriptive norm condition
(mean =-1.333, SD=0.733).
 For situation 6, there was a significant change in behavior when other pedestrians are waiting
for green signal, where the intersection traffic is disordered with no traffic supervision and the
participants have limited time (high time pressure). When considering the three factors jointly
on the variables, Wilk's ʌ= .478, F(24,78)=.765, p=.767 (>0.05). Null hypothesis here is accepted
as the p-value is greater than 0.05. Pedestrians started jaywalking in a situation when
participants have limited time along with disordered traffic supervision. For the individual
ANOVA in this situation, the participants under high time pressure indicated insignificantly lower
violation intention with p=0.510 (>0.05) (mean =2.500, SD=.851) than those under low time
pressure (mean =2.750, SD=.425). Participants under unsafe and safe descriptive norm condition
reported same level of violation intention with a mean of 2.500.
 In the last scenario, situation 7, all the factors are unfavourable for the pedestrian where other
pedestrians are trying to cross road while violating traffic rule, the traffic system is disordered
without any traffic supervision and the participant have limited time (high time pressure). Here,
the participants' behavior had an insignificant change when considering the three factors jointly
on the variables, Wilk's ʌ= .492, F(24,70)=.666, p=.867 (>0.05), the null hypothesis is accepted
again as the p-value is higher than 0.05. Since, all the situational factors are unfavorable for the
participants, they would start jaywalking. For the individual ANOVA in this situation, the
participants under high time pressure indicated insignificantly higher violation intention with
p=0.746 (>0.05) (mean =3.000, SD=1.216) than those under low time pressure (mean =2.700,
SD=.385). And the participants under unsafe and safe descriptive norm condition reported same
level of violation intention with a mean of 2.00.
In short, three situational factors (time pressure, descriptive norm and official supervision) combined
with variables gender, level of satisfaction with waiting time, level of safety with descriptive norm,
Page 18 of 20
intention to follow signal has significant influence over pedestrian behavior in this study. However,
when considering each dependent variable separately over the situational factors, pedestrian behavior
varied in different situations.
CHAPTER 6 | SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK

Few of the possible future work could be:
 Actual behavior can be observed in real-time situation to check relationship between the factors
studied with pedestrian intention of jaywalking.
 Interdependence between the factors (time constraint, descriptive norm and official
supervision) on jaywalking can be analysed.
 Further investigate the mechanism of interaction with empirical approach.
CHAPTER 7 | RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to solve/minimize the harm caused by jaywalking, government may consider the following
recommendation:
 All street hawkers from footpaths should be removed so that footpaths ensure safe pedestrian
movement.
 Elimination of taxi stand, bus stoppage haphazard parking on road side and illegal parking from
traffic congested area.
 More traffic police and/or community traffic police should be deployed at least during the peak
hours of traffic flow.
 Print media should publish regular columns on traffic safety rules. Electronic media should carry
out regular traffic safety campaigns for the listeners and viewers to aware, motivate, educate
and above all to change the mindset of people regarding traffic rules and regulation.
 Traffic signs and traffic light posts should be modernised so that people can use these automatic
facilities without waiting for manual supervision.
 Impose stricter penalties, i.e.: imprisonment or notable penalties or both for violating traffic
rules by pedestrians'.
Page 19 of 20
CHAPTER 8 | CONCLUSION
The present study demonstrated that a pedestrian’s intention to violate traffic rules (jaywalking) is
driven more by situational factors. Time pressure, descriptive norm and official supervision when jointly
manipulated in 7 different situations, eventually influenced pedestrians' intention towards jaywalk. This
study gives light to the previous studies that have identified mainly the demographic factors affecting
jaywalk. This study further opens up the scope of future research in this subject matter for better
understanding this ever rising problem for Dhaka inhabitants.
Page 20 of 20
Reference
Kothure, S., Clifton, K., & Monsere, K. (2014, January 12-16). Instights into Pedestrian attitude and
perception of delay,safety and crossing decisions at signalized intersection. Portland.
Li, D., Li, Y., & Yuan, X. (2014, October 8-11). Effect of situational factors on pedestrian intention to
jaywalk. Qingdao, China.
Jiang , X., Wang , W. Mao ,Y., Bengler, k. & Bubb, H., (2011),”Situational Factors of Influencing Drivers to
Give Precedence to Jaywalking Pedestrians at Signalized Crosswalk”, International Journal of
Computational Intelligence Systems, 4:6, 1407-1414, DOI: 10.1080/18756891.2011.9727892
Saha M.K, Tishi T.R., Mitra S.R., “Pedestrian Behavioral pattern and preferences in different road crossing
system of Dhaka city”, Journal of Bangladesh Institute of Planners, vol. 6, pg no. 149-160 December
2013
Basch C.H., than D., Zybert P., Basch C.E., “Pedestrian behavior at five dangerous and busy Manhattan
intersections”, Springer Science + Business Media New York 2015
Xu Y., Li Y., Zhang F., “Pedestrians’ intention to jaywalk: automatic or planned? A study based on a dual
process model in china”, China 20 March 2012
Sabet D.M., “Fear is not enough: Testing the impact of pedestrian behavior in Dhaka, Bangladesh”, CES
working paper, ULAB, September 2013
Rahman R., Hoque M.H., Mahmud S.M.S., Ahmed S.N., “Pedestrian accident characteristics in urban
area od developing countries- a case study of Dhaka metropolitan city”, BUET, ARC, Dhaka.
Speech of the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Traffic Jam in Dhaka City: Challenges and Possible
Solution, January 15, 2008. Seehttp://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:WJv30d5eR-
YJ:www.amchambd.org/amcham2/all_files/Speech%2520on%2520Traffic%2520Jam%2520By%2520IGP..
doc+dhaka+traffic+problems&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk.
Bureau of Statistics: http://www.bbs.gov.bd/, [Accessed August 21, 2015] Acccident Research Institute
(ARI): http://www.buet.ac.bd/ari/Downloads.php [Accessed August 24, 2015] Dhaka Transport Co-
ordination Authority: http://www.dtcb.gov.bd/Project_Archive.aspx [Accessed August 29, 2015]
Work for a Better Bangladesh Trust: http://www.wbbtrust.org/view/all_research_publication/research--

publications [Accessed August 18, 2015]
Bangladesh road Transport Authority: http://www.brta.gov.bd/index.php/ordinance [Accessed September

1, 2015]
Dhaka Metropolitan Police: http://www.dmp.gov.bd/application/index/page/traffic-division [Accessed
August 28, 2015]
Dhaka North City Corporation: http://www.dncc.gov.bd/ [Accessed August 17, 2015]
Dhaka South City Corporation: http://www.dhakasouthcity.gov.bd/ [Accessed August 17, 2015]

APPENDIX A- REPORT PROPOSAL
The Role of Situational Factors on Pedestrians' Intention to Jaywalk
Number of fatalities caused by vehicle-pedestrian accidents is increasing at an alarming rate

in Dhaka. In this megacity of almost 100 million inhabitants, streets are seemingly belongs to
the Jaywalkers, pedestrians who violate the traffic rules while crossing roads. This study will
be exploring the effect of situational factors on pedestrian intention to jaywalk in the capital
city. Three situational factors, namely, time constraint, descriptive norm, and official
supervision will be considered to relate pedestrian intention to jaywalk.
These three situational factors are chosen because these are believed to be the vital factors
influencing pedestrian to jaywalk. People are often violating traffic rules while crossing roads
due to the time constraint, where pedestrians sometimes influenced with jaywalking as they
have a tendency to follow what others (descriptive norm). Lastly, participants will be given
with official supervision by traffic officers to observe their behavior while being supervised.
Hypothesis
The following three hypotheses will be tested among the participants:
H1: Pedestrians under high time pressure will be more likely to violate traffic rules than
those under low time pressure.
H2: Pedestrians under a negative (unsafe) descriptive norm condition will be more prone to
jaywalking than those who under a positive (safe) descriptive norm condition.
H3: Pedestrians under an unsupervised condition will be more likely to jaywalk than those
under a supervised condition.
Research Scope
No such studies carried out using situational factors in Dhaka. This study will give light to the
previous studies that have identified several factors related to jaywalk. This will further open
the scope of future research in this subject matter for better understanding this ever rising
problem for Dhaka inhabitants.
Methodology
This analysis will be primarily based on situational analysis among pedestrians who are
university students of Dhaka. The participants will be given with real-world situation
(simulation) with questionnaires related with each situation. The three situational factors
will make a combination of seven scenarios (2n-1). With each scenario, participants' behavior
will be observed to get the intention of the pedestrian to jaywalk. The participants will also
be asked few questions related to the other factors influencing jaywalk to find out the
common reason why pedestrians prefer violating traffic code.
Descriptive analysis and multivariate variance analysis will be performed using SPSS
software. In this analysis, time constraint, descriptive norm and official supervision are the
independent variable, and the dependent variable is pedestrian intention to jaywalk.
Limitations
 Generalization of the analysis will not be possible due to the use of specific sample
(university students) and the sample size is also small (n=140)
 The participants included in this study are university students. Due to lack of traffic
knowledge/language barrier, random participants are not considered in analysis.
 The study will be based on simulation of situational factors, no actual behavior will
be observed.
Scope for Future Work
 Actual behavior can be observed in real-time situation to check relationship
between the factors studied with pedestrian intention of jaywalking.
 Interdependence between the factors (time constraint, descriptive norm and official
supervision) on jaywalking can be analysed.
 Further investigate the mechanism of interaction with empirical approach.
APPENDIX B – QUESTIONNAIRE
7KHHIIHFWRIVLWXDWLRQDOIDFWRUVRQSHGHVWULDQLQWHQWLRQWRYLRODWHWUDIILFUXOHLQWKHFDSLWDOFLW\*RRJOH)RUPV
V\HGKRVVDLQ#QRUWKVRXWKHGX
7KHHIIHFWRIVLWXDWLRQDOIDFWRUVRQSHGHVWULDQLQWHQWLRQWRYLRODWHWUDIILFUXOHLQWKHFDSLWDOFLW\
)LOH (GLW 9LHZ ,QVHUW 5HVSRQVHV 7RROV $GGRQV +HOS 6HQGIRUP
(GLWTXHVWLRQV &KDQJHWKHPH 9LHZUHVSRQVHV 9LHZOLYHIRUP
3DJHRI
7KHHIIHFWRIVLWXDWLRQDOIDFWRUVRQSHGHVWULDQLQWHQWLRQWRYLRODWHWUDIILFUXOHV
1XPEHURIIDWDOLWLHVFDXVHGE\YHKLFOHSHGHVWULDQDFFLGHQWVLVLQFUHDVLQJDWDQDODUPLQJUDWHLQ'KDND,QWKLVPHJDFLW\RI
DOPRVWPLOOLRQLQKDELWDQWVVWUHHWVDUHVHHPLQJO\EHORQJVWRWKH-D\ZDONHUVSHGHVWULDQVZKRYLRODWHWKHWUDIILFUXOHVZKLOH
FURVVLQJURDGV
7KLVVWXG\ZLOOEHH[SORULQJWKHHIIHFWRIVLWXDWLRQDOIDFWRUVRQSHGHVWULDQLQWHQWLRQWRMD\ZDONLQWKHFDSLWDOFLW\7KUHH
VLWXDWLRQDOIDFWRUVQDPHO\WLPHFRQVWUDLQWGHVFULSWLYHQRUPDQGRIILFLDOVXSHUYLVLRQZLOOEHFRQVLGHUHGWRUHODWHSHGHVWULDQ
LQWHQWLRQWRMD\ZDON
:KDWLV\RXUDJH"

:KDWLV\RXUJHQGHU"
0DOH
)HPDOH
3UHIHUQRWWRVD\
'R\RXSUHIHUWRZDON"
<HV
1R
KWWSVGRFVJRRJOHFRPDQRUWKVRXWKHGXIRUPVGRBPWI/R:KO::<Z,-/O5&$:FWS=0+5777(V*+\<(,HGLW
+RZRIWHQGR\RXZDONWKURXJKURDGLQWHUVHFWLRQV"
RQFHDPRQWK
GD\VPRQWK
GD\VZHHN
DOPRVWHYHU\GD\
+RZVDWLVILHGDUH\RXZLWKWKHDPRXQWRIWLPH\RXKDYHWRZDLWEHIRUHFURVVLQJWKHLQWHUVHFWLRQ"

9HU\'LVVDWLVILHG 9HU\6DWLVILHG
,QJHQHUDOKRZVDIHGR\RXIHHOFURVVLQJLQWHUVHFWLRQ"

9HU\XQVDIH 9HU\6DIH
'R\RXZDLWIRUWKHVLJQDOZKLOHFURVVLQJLQWHUVHFWLRQV"
<HV
1R
:KDWPDNHV\RXYLRODWHWKHWUDIILFUXOHDQGLQVSLUHVMD\ZDONLQJLIDQ\"
:KDWPDNHV\RXYLRODWHWKHWUDIILFUXOHDQGLQVSLUHVMD\ZDONLQJLIDQ\"

6DYLQJWLPH
,PSDWLHQFH
7KHDFWRIRWKHUSHGHVWULDQV
7KHLPSURSHUWUDIILFV\VWHPRI'KDND
0\FURVVLQJGHFLVLRQVDUHLQIOXHQFHGE\FRQFHUQVDERXWVDIHW\
6SHFLI\WKHOHYHORIDJUHHPHQWZLWKWKLVVWDWHPHQW

6WURQJO\'LVDJUHH 6WURQJO\$JUHH
0\FURVVLQJGHFLVLRQVDUHLQIOXHQFHGE\FRQFHUQVDERXWZKHWKHU,DPYLRODWLQJWUDIILFFRGHMD\ZDONLQJFURVVLQJ
DJDLQVWWKHVLJQDOHWF
6SHFLI\WKHOHYHORIDJUHHPHQWZLWKWKLVVWDWHPHQW

:KLFKRIWKHRSWLRQZRXOG\RXSUHIHUXVLQJZKLOHFURVVLQJURDGV"
)RRWEULGJH
8QGHUSDVV
=HEUDFURVVLQJ
-D\ZDONLQJ
:KLFKRIWKHRSWLRQZRXOG\RXSUHIHUXVLQJZKLOHFURVVLQJURDGV"
)RRWEULGJH
8QGHUSDVV
=HEUDFURVVLQJ
-D\ZDONLQJ
5HDGWKLV6FHQDULRFDUHIXOO\DQG5HVSRQVH<RXDUHDSSURDFKLQJDQLQWHUVHFWLRQDQGWKHVLJQDOLV5('$WWKLV
PRPHQWDOORWKHUSHGHVWULDQVDUHZDLWLQJIRUDJUHHQOLJKW7KHLQWHUVHFWLRQWUDIILFLVZHOORUGHUHGZKHUHDWUDIILF
DVVLVWDQWLVVXSHUYLVLQJSHGHVWULDQURDGFURVVLQJEHKDYLRUDQGSUHYHQWLQJMD\ZDONLQJ$WWKLVSRLQW\RXKDYH
OLPLWHGWLPHKLJKWLPHSUHVVXUHDQGUXVKWRUHDFKWKHXQLYHUVLW\IRUDWWHQGLQJFODVV
5HSRUW\RXUFKDQFHVRIWUDIILFUXOHYLRODWLRQ

,PSRVVLEOH +LJKO\3RVVLEOH
$GGLWHP
&RQILUPDWLRQ3DJH
<RXUUHVSRQVHKDVEHHQUHFRUGHG7KDQNVIRU\RXUYDOXDEOHWLPHDQGHIIRUW
6KRZOLQNWRVXEPLWDQRWKHUUHVSRQVH
3XEOLVKDQGVKRZDSXEOLFOLQNWRIRUPUHVXOWV
APPENDIX C- TEST RESULT
Scenario 1: All pedestrians waiting for green signal, with well-ordered traffic-assistant and enough time (low time pressure)
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
Level_of_satisfaction 38 1 5 2.29 1.206 .868 .383 .045 .750
Level_of_safety 38 1 5 2.24 1.304 .616 .383 -.899 .750
Following_Signal 37 1 2 1.49 .507 .056 .388 -2.114 .759
Safety_consideration 38 1 5 3.29 1.313 -.118 .383 -.978 .750
Traffic- 38 1 5 3.00 1.252 .000 .383 -.957 .750
rule_violation_Consideratio
n
Gender 37 1 2 1.38 .492 .523 .388 -1.828 .759
Valid N (listwise) 36
Between-Subjects Factors
N
Scenario 1: All other 1 23
pedestrians waiting for green 2 6
signal, with traffic-assistant 3 5
and enough time
4 2
Scenario 1: All other
pedestrians waiting for green
signal, with traffic-assistant
and enough time Mean Std. Deviation N
Gender 1 1.43 .507 23
2 1.33 .516 6
3 1.20 .447 5
4 1.50 .707 2
Total 1.39 .494 36
Level_of_satisfaction 1 2.30 1.185 23
2 2.67 1.506 6
3 1.60 .894 5
4 2.00 1.414 2
Total 2.25 1.204 36
Level_of_safety 1 2.39 1.270 23
2 2.00 1.549 6
3 2.00 1.414 5
4 2.50 2.121 2
Total 2.28 1.323 36
Following_Signal 1 1.48 .511 23
2 1.33 .516 6
3 1.60 .548 5
4 1.50 .707 2
Total 1.47 .506 36
Safety_consideration 1 3.17 1.337 23
2 4.33 1.033 6
3 2.80 1.095 5
4 4.00 1.414 2
Total 3.36 1.313 36
Traffic- 1 2.87 1.217 23
rule_violation_Consideration 2 3.33 1.633 6
3 2.40 .894 5
4 4.50 .707 2
Total 2.97 1.276 36
Multivariate Testsc
Partial Eta
Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Squared
Intercept Pillai's Trace .970 144.362a 6.000 27.000 .000 .970
a
Wilks' Lambda .030 144.362 6.000 27.000 .000 .970
Hotelling's Trace 32.080 144.362a 6.000 27.000 .000 .970
a
Roy's Largest Root 32.080 144.362 6.000 27.000 .000 .970
Scenario1Allotherpedestrians Pillai's Trace .517 1.007 18.000 87.000 .460 .172
waitingforgreensignalwithtraffi Wilks' Lambda .560 .970 18.000 76.853 .502 .176
cassi Hotelling's Trace .653 .931 18.000 77.000 .546 .179
b
Roy's Largest Root .357 1.724 6.000 29.000 .151 .263
a. Exact statistic
b. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.
c. Design: Intercept + Scenario1Allotherpedestrianswaitingforgreensignalwithtrafficassi
a
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances
F df1 df2 Sig.
Gender 2.514 3 32 .076
Level_of_satisfaction .544 3 32 .656
Level_of_safety .309 3 32 .819
Following_Signal .762 3 32 .524
Safety_consideration .433 3 32 .731
Traffic- 1.381 3 32 .266
rule_violation_Consideration
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal
across groups.
a. Design: Intercept +
Scenario1Allotherpedestrianswaitingforgreensignalwithtrafficassi
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Type III Sum of Partial Eta
Source Dependent Variable Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared
a
Corrected Model Gender .270 3 .090 .348 .791 .032
Level_of_satisfaction 3.347b 3 1.116 .753 .529 .066
c
Level_of_safety 1.244 3 .415 .221 .881 .020
d
Following_Signal .200 3 .067 .243 .866 .022
e
Safety_consideration 8.868 3 2.956 1.839 .160 .147
Traffic- 7.330f 3 2.443 1.575 .215 .129
Intercept Gender 32.852 1 32.852 126.881 .000 .799
Level_of_satisfaction 80.715 1 80.715 54.488 .000 .630
Level_of_safety 86.860 1 86.860 46.342 .000 .592
Following_Signal 38.397 1 38.397 140.064 .000 .814
Traffic- 188.636 1 188.636 121.598 .000 .792
Scenario1Allotherpedestrian Gender .270 3 .090 .348 .791 .032
swaitingforgreensignalwithtr Level_of_satisfaction 3.347 3 1.116 .753 .529 .066
afficassi Level_of_safety 1.244 3 .415 .221 .881 .020
Following_Signal .200 3 .067 .243 .866 .022
Traffic- 7.330 3 2.443 1.575 .215 .129
Error Gender 8.286 32 .259
Level_of_satisfaction 47.403 32 1.481
Level_of_safety 59.978 32 1.874
Following_Signal 8.772 32 .274
Safety_consideration 51.438 32 1.607
Traffic- 49.642 32 1.551
Total Gender 78.000 36
Level_of_satisfaction 233.000 36
Level_of_safety 248.000 36
Following_Signal 87.000 36
Safety_consideration 467.000 36
Traffic- 375.000 36
Corrected Total Gender 8.556 35
Following_Signal 8.972 35
Traffic- 56.972 35
a. R Squared = .032 (Adjusted R Squared = -.059)
b. R Squared = .066 (Adjusted R Squared = -.022)
c. R Squared = .020 (Adjusted R Squared = -.072)
d. R Squared = .022 (Adjusted R Squared = -.069)
e. R Squared = .147 (Adjusted R Squared = .067)
f. R Squared = .129 (Adjusted R Squared = .047)
Estimated Marginal Means
Scenario 1: All other pedestrians waiting for green signal, with traffic-assistant and enough time
Scenario 1: All other 95% Confidence Interval
pedestrians waiting for green
signal, with traffic-assistant
Dependent Variable and enough time Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Gender 1 1.435 .106 1.219 1.651
2 1.333 .208 .910 1.756
3 1.200 .228 .736 1.664
4 1.500 .360 .767 2.233
Level_of_satisfaction 1 2.304 .254 1.787 2.821
2 2.667 .497 1.655 3.679
3 1.600 .544 .491 2.709
4 2.000 .861 .247 3.753
Level_of_safety 1 2.391 .285 1.810 2.973
2 2.000 .559 .862 3.138
3 2.000 .612 .753 3.247
4 2.500 .968 .528 4.472
Following_Signal 1 1.478 .109 1.256 1.701
2 1.333 .214 .898 1.769
3 1.600 .234 1.123 2.077
4 1.500 .370 .746 2.254
Safety_consideration 1 3.174 .264 2.635 3.712
2 4.333 .518 3.279 5.388
3 2.800 .567 1.645 3.955
4 4.000 .897 2.174 5.826
Traffic- 1 2.870 .260 2.341 3.399
rule_violation_Consideration 2 3.333 .508 2.298 4.369
3 2.400 .557 1.265 3.535
4 4.500 .881 2.706 6.294
Scenario 2: other pedestrians are waiting for green light, intersection traffic is well-ordered and you have limited time (high time pressure)
Satisfaction 47 1 5 2.21 .931 .397 .347 .192 .681
Safety_consideration 47 1 5 1.94 1.009 1.061 .347 .767 .681
Follow_Signal 44 1 2 1.27 .451 1.057 .357 -.927 .702
Consider_safety 45 1 5 3.44 1.235 -.397 .354 -.634 .695
Consider_violating_rule 45 1 5 2.78 1.126 .261 .354 -.374 .695
Scenario_limited_time 46 1 5 2.61 1.341 .191 .350 -1.175 .688
Gender 47 1 2 1.19 .398 1.620 .347 .651 .681
N
Scenario_all othe 1 13
pedestrians waiting for 2 5
green signal with well 3 12
ordered traffic assistant
4 8
but limited time (high time
5 4
pressure)
Scenario_limited_time Mean Std. Deviation N
Satisfaction 1 1.69 .947 13
2 2.00 .707 5
3 2.25 .754 12
4 2.88 1.126 8
5 2.75 .500 4
Total 2.21 .951 42
2 1.40 .548 5
3 2.17 1.267 12
4 2.00 .756 8
5 1.75 .957 4
Total 1.93 .997 42
Follow_Signal 1 1.15 .376 13
2 1.20 .447 5
3 1.25 .452 12
4 1.38 .518 8
5 1.75 .500 4
Total 1.29 .457 42
Consider_safety 1 3.15 1.345 13
2 3.60 1.517 5
3 3.33 1.231 12
4 3.50 .535 8
5 4.25 .957 4
Total 3.43 1.172 42
Consider_violating_rule 1 2.69 1.251 13
2 2.80 1.304 5
3 2.75 1.055 12
4 2.88 .641 8
5 2.50 1.915 4
Total 2.74 1.127 42
Gender 1 1.23 .439 13
2 1.00 .000 5
3 1.25 .452 12
4 1.00 .000 8
5 1.75 .500 4
Total 1.21 .415 42
Box's Test of Equality

of Covariance
Matricesa
Box's M 24.524
F .831
df1 21
df2 1915.324
Sig. .682
Tests the null hypothesis
that the observed
covariance matrices of
the dependent variables
are equal across groups.
Scenario_limited_time
Multivariate Testsc
Partial Eta
a
Intercept Pillai's Trace .973 192.136 6.000 32.000 .000 .973
a
Wilks' Lambda .027 192.136 6.000 32.000 .000 .973
a
Hotelling's Trace 36.026 192.136 6.000 32.000 .000 .973
Roy's Largest Root 36.026 192.136a 6.000 32.000 .000 .973
Scenario_limited_time Pillai's Trace .740 1.323 24.000 140.000 .160 .185
Wilks' Lambda .413 1.355 24.000 112.845 .147 .198
Roy's Largest Root .577 3.367b 6.000 35.000 .010 .366
a. Exact statistic
c. Design: Intercept + Scenario_limited_time
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

F df1 df2 Sig.
Satisfaction 1.951 4 37 .122
Safety_consideration .906 4 37 .471
Follow_Signal 1.090 4 37 .376
Consider_safety 1.212 4 37 .322
Consider_violating_rule 1.885 4 37 .134
Gender 7.858 4 37 .000
across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Scenario_limited_time

Corrected Model Satisfaction 8.427a 4 2.107 2.721 .044 .227
Safety_consideration 2.246b 4 .561 .539 .708 .055
c
Follow_Signal 1.204 4 .301 1.512 .219 .140
Consider_safety 3.977d 4 .994 .703 .595 .071
e
Consider_violating_rule .425 4 .106 .076 .989 .008
Gender 1.764f 4 .441 3.074 .028 .249
Intercept Satisfaction 181.981 1 181.981 235.066 .000 .864
Follow_Signal 61.580 1 61.580 309.268 .000 .893
Consider_safety 432.727 1 432.727 306.083 .000 .892
Consider_violating_rule 252.199 1 252.199 180.511 .000 .830
Gender 52.801 1 52.801 368.079 .000 .909
Scenario_limited_time Satisfaction 8.427 4 2.107 2.721 .044 .227
Safety_consideration 2.246 4 .561 .539 .708 .055
Follow_Signal 1.204 4 .301 1.512 .219 .140
Consider_safety 3.977 4 .994 .703 .595 .071
Consider_violating_rule .425 4 .106 .076 .989 .008
Gender 1.764 4 .441 3.074 .028 .249
Error Satisfaction 28.644 37 .774
Follow_Signal 7.367 37 .199
Consider_safety 52.309 37 1.414
Consider_violating_rule 51.694 37 1.397
Gender 5.308 37 .143
Total Satisfaction 243.000 42
Follow_Signal 78.000 42
Consider_safety 550.000 42
Consider_violating_rule 367.000 42
Gender 69.000 42
Corrected Total Satisfaction 37.071 41
Follow_Signal 8.571 41
Consider_safety 56.286 41
Consider_violating_rule 52.119 41
Gender 7.071 41
Scenario_limited_time Mean Std. Deviation N
Satisfaction 1 1.69 .947 13
2 2.00 .707 5
3 2.25 .754 12
4 2.88 1.126 8
5 2.75 .500 4
Total 2.21 .951 42
2 1.40 .548 5
3 2.17 1.267 12
4 2.00 .756 8
5 1.75 .957 4
Total 1.93 .997 42
Follow_Signal 1 1.15 .376 13
2 1.20 .447 5
3 1.25 .452 12
4 1.38 .518 8
5 1.75 .500 4
Total 1.29 .457 42
Consider_safety 1 3.15 1.345 13
2 3.60 1.517 5
3 3.33 1.231 12
4 3.50 .535 8
5 4.25 .957 4
Total 3.43 1.172 42
Consider_violating_rule 1 2.69 1.251 13
2 2.80 1.304 5
3 2.75 1.055 12
4 2.88 .641 8
5 2.50 1.915 4
Total 2.74 1.127 42
Gender 1 1.23 .439 13
2 1.00 .000 5
3 1.25 .452 12
4 1.00 .000 8
5 1.75 .500 4
a. R Squared = .227 (Adjusted R Squared = .144)
c. R Squared = .140 (Adjusted R Squared = .048)
e. R Squared = .008 (Adjusted R Squared = -.099)
f. R Squared = .249 (Adjusted R Squared = .168)

Scenario 2: All other pedestrians waiting for the green signal with wellordered traffic assistance but limited time
95% Confidence Interval
Dependent Variable Scenario_limited_time Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Satisfaction 1 1.692 .244 1.198 2.187
2 2.000 .393 1.203 2.797
3 2.250 .254 1.735 2.765
4 2.875 .311 2.245 3.505
5 2.750 .440 1.859 3.641
Safety_consideration 1 1.923 .283 1.350 2.497
2 1.400 .456 .475 2.325
3 2.167 .295 1.570 2.764
4 2.000 .361 1.269 2.731
5 1.750 .510 .716 2.784
Follow_Signal 1 1.154 .124 .903 1.405
2 1.200 .200 .796 1.604
3 1.250 .129 .989 1.511
4 1.375 .158 1.055 1.695
5 1.750 .223 1.298 2.202
Consider_safety 1 3.154 .330 2.486 3.822
2 3.600 .532 2.523 4.677
3 3.333 .343 2.638 4.029
4 3.500 .420 2.648 4.352
5 4.250 .595 3.045 5.455
Consider_violating_rule 1 2.692 .328 2.028 3.357
2 2.800 .529 1.729 3.871
3 2.750 .341 2.059 3.441
4 2.875 .418 2.028 3.722
5 2.500 .591 1.303 3.697
Gender 1 1.231 .105 1.018 1.444
2 1.000 .169 .657 1.343
3 1.250 .109 1.028 1.472
4 1.000 .134 .729 1.271
5 1.750 .189 1.366 2.134
Scenario 3: Other pedestrians violating the red signal with well-ordered traffic assistant and enough time (low time pressure)
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
Gender 47 1 2 1.09 .282 .080 3.073 .347 7.770 .681
Level of satisfaction 46 1 5 2.15 1.053 1.110 .637 .350 -.230 .688
Level of safety 46 1 5 2.00 1.300 1.689 1.207 .350 .350 .688
consideration
Safety consideration for 46 1 5 3.35 1.464 2.143 -.463 .350 -1.097 .688
decision
Concerns about violating 46 1 5 2.54 1.277 1.631 .267 .350 -.836 .688
traffic code
Preference to walk 46 1 2 1.07 .250 .062 3.642 .350 11.772 .688
General Linear Model
N
Scenario: other pedestrians 1 20
violating the signal 3 5
4 3
5 18
Scenario: other
pedestrians violating the
signal Mean Std. Deviation N
Gender 1 1.05 .224 20
3 1.20 .447 5
4 1.00 .000 3
5 1.06 .236 18
Total 1.07 .250 46
Level of satisfaction 1 2.20 1.056 20
3 2.40 1.517 5
4 2.67 2.082 3
5 1.94 .725 18
Total 2.15 1.053 46
Level of safety consideration 1 2.00 1.257 20
3 2.80 2.049 5
4 2.00 1.000 3
5 1.78 1.166 18
Total 2.00 1.300 46
Safety consideration for 1 3.05 1.234 20
decision 3 3.80 1.643 5
4 4.67 .577 3
5 3.33 1.680 18
Total 3.35 1.464 46
Concerns about violating 1 2.55 1.191 20
traffic code 3 3.00 1.581 5
4 3.00 2.000 3
5 2.33 1.237 18
Total 2.54 1.277 46
Preference to walk 1 1.05 .224 20
3 1.20 .447 5
4 1.00 .000 3
5 1.06 .236 18
Total 1.07 .250 46

of Covariance
Matricesa
Box's M 28.070
F 1.094
df1 21
df2 4646.289
Sig. .346
Tests the null
hypothesis that the
observed covariance
matrices of the
dependent variables
are equal across
groups.
Scenariootherpedestria
nsviolatingthesignal
Multivariate Testsc
Partial Eta
a
a
Wilks' Lambda .025 238.892 6.000 37.000 .000 .975
a
Scenariootherpedestriansvio Pillai's Trace .294 .705 18.000 117.000 .800 .098
latingthesignal Wilks' Lambda .729 .690 18.000 105.137 .814 .100
Hotelling's Trace .341 .675 18.000 107.000 .829 .102
b
a. Exact statistic
c. Design: Intercept + Scenariootherpedestriansviolatingthesignal
a
F df1 df2 Sig.
Gender 2.013 3 42 .127
Level of satisfaction 5.796 3 42 .002
Level of safety 2.296 3 42 .092
consideration
Safety consideration for 2.583 3 42 .066
decision
Concerns about violating .318 3 42 .812
traffic code
Preference to walk 2.013 3 42 .127
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is
equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Scenariootherpedestriansviolatingthesignal

a
b
Level of satisfaction 1.924 3 .641 .561 .644 .039
c
Level of safety consideration 4.089 3 1.363 .796 .503 .054
Safety consideration for 8.018d 3 2.673 1.270 .297 .083
decision
Concerns about violating 2.463e 3 .821 .486 .694 .034
traffic code
f
Preference to walk .110 3 .037 .571 .637 .039
Level of satisfaction 132.800 1 132.800 116.173 .000 .734
Level of safety consideration 115.166 1 115.166 67.263 .000 .616
Safety consideration for 345.166 1 345.166 163.962 .000 .796
decision
Concerns about violating 185.395 1 185.395 109.748 .000 .723
traffic code
Preference to walk 29.016 1 29.016 452.286 .000 .915
Scenariootherpedestriansvio Gender .110 3 .037 .571 .637 .039
latingthesignal Level of satisfaction 1.924 3 .641 .561 .644 .039
Level of safety consideration 4.089 3 1.363 .796 .503 .054
Safety consideration for 8.018 3 2.673 1.270 .297 .083
decision
Concerns about violating 2.463 3 .821 .486 .694 .034
traffic code
Preference to walk .110 3 .037 .571 .637 .039
Level of satisfaction 48.011 42 1.143
Level of safety consideration 71.911 42 1.712
Safety consideration for 88.417 42 2.105
decision
Concerns about violating 70.950 42 1.689
traffic code
Preference to walk 2.694 42 .064
Level of satisfaction 263.000 46
Level of safety consideration 260.000 46
Safety consideration for 612.000 46
decision
Concerns about violating 371.000 46
traffic code
Preference to walk 55.000 46
Level of satisfaction 49.935 45
Level of safety consideration 76.000 45
Safety consideration for 96.435 45
decision
Concerns about violating 73.413 45
traffic code
Preference to walk 2.804 45
of Covariance
Matricesa
Box's M 28.070
F 1.094
df1 21
df2 4646.289
Sig. .346
Tests the null
hypothesis that the
observed covariance
matrices of the
dependent variables
are equal across
groups.
d. R Squared = .083 (Adjusted R Squared = .018)
f. R Squared = .039 (Adjusted R Squared = -.029)

Scenario: other pedestrians violating the signal
Scenario: other 95% Confidence Interval
pedestrians violating the
Dependent Variable signal Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Gender 1 1.050 .057 .936 1.164
3 1.200 .113 .971 1.429
4 1.000 .146 .705 1.295
5 1.056 .060 .935 1.176
Level of satisfaction 1 2.200 .239 1.718 2.682
3 2.400 .478 1.435 3.365
4 2.667 .617 1.421 3.912
5 1.944 .252 1.436 2.453
Level of safety consideration 1 2.000 .293 1.410 2.590
3 2.800 .585 1.619 3.981
4 2.000 .755 .475 3.525
5 1.778 .308 1.155 2.400
Safety consideration for 1 3.050 .324 2.395 3.705
decision 3 3.800 .649 2.491 5.109
4 4.667 .838 2.976 6.357
5 3.333 .342 2.643 4.023
Concerns about violating 1 2.550 .291 1.963 3.137
traffic code 3 3.000 .581 1.827 4.173
4 3.000 .750 1.486 4.514
5 2.333 .306 1.715 2.952
Preference to walk 1 1.050 .057 .936 1.164
3 1.200 .113 .971 1.429
4 1.000 .146 .705 1.295
5 1.056 .060 .935 1.176
Scenario 4: Other pedestrians trying to cross road while violating traffic signal where there is no traffic-assistant and enough time (low time
pressure)
Gender 31 1 2 1.35 .486 .638 .421 -1.708 .821
Level_of_satisfaction 31 1 5 2.55 1.150 .155 .421 -.902 .821
Level_of_safety 31 1 5 1.94 .998 1.212 .421 1.685 .821
Crossing_behaviour 31 1 2 1.39 .495 .487 .421 -1.889 .821
Safety_concern 31 1 5 3.39 1.256 -.481 .421 -.347 .821
Concern_for_violating_rule 29 1 5 2.97 1.085 -.288 .434 -.047 .845
N
Scenario 4: other pedestrians 1 6
trying to cross road violating 2 6
traffic signal where there is no 3 6
traffic-assistant and you have
4 8
enough time (low time
5 3
pressure) to reach university
Scenario 4: other pedestrians
trying to cross road violating
traffic signal where there is no
pressure) to reach university Mean Std. Deviation N
Gender 1 1.00 .000 6
2 1.67 .516 6
3 1.17 .408 6
4 1.38 .518 8
5 1.33 .577 3
Total 1.31 .471 29
Level_of_satisfaction 1 2.50 .837 6
2 2.83 .983 6
3 3.17 .753 6
4 2.63 1.598 8
5 1.67 .577 3
Total 2.66 1.111 29
2 1.83 .983 6
3 1.67 .816 6
4 1.75 .707 8
5 1.33 .577 3
Total 1.93 1.033 29
Crossing_behaviour 1 1.33 .516 6
2 1.17 .408 6
3 1.67 .516 6
4 1.25 .463 8
5 1.33 .577 3
Total 1.34 .484 29
Safety_concern 1 3.67 1.633 6
2 3.33 1.366 6
3 3.17 1.329 6
4 3.75 1.035 8
5 2.67 1.528 3
Total 3.41 1.296 29
Concern_for_violating_rule 1 2.83 1.169 6
2 3.33 1.211 6
3 3.33 .516 6
4 2.75 1.282 8
5 2.33 1.155 3
Total 2.97 1.085 29
c
Multivariate Tests
Partial Eta
Wilks' Lambda .021 146.157a 6.000 19.000 .000 .979
a
Scenario4otherpedestrianstryi Pillai's Trace .959 1.157 24.000 88.000 .304 .240
ngtocrossroadviolatingtrafficsi Wilks' Lambda .311 1.117 24.000 67.493 .351 .253
gnal Hotelling's Trace 1.455 1.061 24.000 70.000 .408 .267
b
a. Exact statistic
c. Design: Intercept + Scenario4otherpedestrianstryingtocrossroadviolatingtrafficsignal
a
F df1 df2 Sig.
Gender 7.953 4 24 .000
Level_of_satisfaction 3.870 4 24 .015
Level_of_safety 2.006 4 24 .126
Crossing_behaviour .655 4 24 .629
Safety_concern .478 4 24 .751
Concern_for_violating_rule .718 4 24 .588
across groups.
Scenario4otherpedestrianstryingtocrossroadviolatingtrafficsignal

Corrected Model Gender 1.499a 4 .375 1.910 .141 .241
b
Level_of_satisfaction 4.843 4 1.211 .978 .438 .140
Level_of_safety 6.695c 4 1.674 1.734 .175 .224
d
Crossing_behaviour .885 4 .221 .937 .459 .135
Safety_concern 3.368e 4 .842 .463 .762 .072
f
Concern_for_violating_rule 3.299 4 .825 .667 .621 .100
Level_of_safety 92.529 1 92.529 95.857 .000 .800
Crossing_behaviour 47.543 1 47.543 201.361 .000 .894
Safety_concern 286.964 1 286.964 157.721 .000 .868
Concern_for_violating_rule 221.920 1 221.920 179.531 .000 .882
Scenario4otherpedestrianstr Gender 1.499 4 .375 1.910 .141 .241
yingtocrossroadviolatingtraffi Level_of_satisfaction 4.843 4 1.211 .978 .438 .140
csignal Level_of_safety 6.695 4 1.674 1.734 .175 .224
Safety_concern 3.368 4 .842 .463 .762 .072
Level_of_safety 23.167 24 .965
Crossing_behaviour 5.667 24 .236
Safety_concern 43.667 24 1.819
Concern_for_violating_rule 29.667 24 1.236
Crossing_behaviour 59.000 29
Safety_concern 385.000 29
Concern_for_violating_rule 288.000 29
c. R Squared = .224 (Adjusted R Squared = .095)
Scenario 4: other pedestrians trying to cross road violating traffic signal where there is no traffic-assistant and you
have enough time (low time pressure) to reach university
Dependent Variable Scenario 4: other pedestrians Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
pressure) to reach university Lower Bound Upper Bound
Gender 1 1.000 .181 .627 1.373
2 1.667 .181 1.293 2.040
3 1.167 .181 .793 1.540
4 1.375 .157 1.052 1.698
5 1.333 .256 .806 1.861
Level_of_satisfaction 1 2.500 .454 1.563 3.437
2 2.833 .454 1.896 3.771
3 3.167 .454 2.229 4.104
4 2.625 .393 1.813 3.437
5 1.667 .642 .341 2.992
Level_of_safety 1 2.833 .401 2.006 3.661
2 1.833 .401 1.006 2.661
3 1.667 .401 .839 2.494
4 1.750 .347 1.033 2.467
5 1.333 .567 .163 2.504
Crossing_behaviour 1 1.333 .198 .924 1.743
2 1.167 .198 .757 1.576
3 1.667 .198 1.257 2.076
4 1.250 .172 .895 1.605
5 1.333 .281 .754 1.912
Safety_concern 1 3.667 .551 2.530 4.803
2 3.333 .551 2.197 4.470
3 3.167 .551 2.030 4.303
4 3.750 .477 2.766 4.734
5 2.667 .779 1.059 4.274
Concern_for_violating_rule 1 2.833 .454 1.897 3.770
2 3.333 .454 2.397 4.270
3 3.333 .454 2.397 4.270
4 2.750 .393 1.939 3.561
5 2.333 .642 1.009 3.658
Scenario 5: other pedestrians trying to cross the road while violating traffic signal, the intersection traffic is well-ordered but limited
time (high time pressure)
Gender 33 1 2 1.21 .415 1.476 .409 .187 .798
Level_of_satisfaction 33 1 5 1.97 .984 .902 .409 .962 .798
Level_of_safety 32 1 5 1.87 1.212 1.415 .414 1.163 .809
Crossing_behaviour 31 1 2 1.13 .341 2.327 .421 3.648 .821
Safety_concern 32 1 5 3.31 1.447 -.452 .414 -1.102 .809
Concern_for_violating_rule 32 1 5 2.84 1.298 .214 .414 -.749 .809
N
trying to cross the road while 2 4
violating traffic signal, the 3 8
intersection traffic is well-
4 4
ordered but limited time (high
5 3
time pressure)
trying to cross the road while
violating traffic signal, the
time pressure) Mean Std. Deviation N
Gender 1 1.20 .422 10
2 1.00 .000 4
3 1.25 .463 8
4 1.00 .000 4
5 2.00 .000 3
Total 1.24 .435 29
2 1.75 .957 4
3 1.88 .835 8
4 3.00 1.414 4
5 2.67 .577 3
Total 2.00 1.000 29
2 1.75 .957 4
3 1.88 1.458 8
4 2.25 1.893 4
5 1.33 .577 3
Total 1.83 1.197 29
Crossing_behaviour 1 1.00 .000 10
2 1.00 .000 4
3 1.13 .354 8
4 1.25 .500 4
5 1.67 .577 3
Total 1.14 .351 29
Safety_concern 1 2.70 1.703 10
2 3.50 1.000 4
3 3.75 1.389 8
4 3.75 .957 4
5 4.00 1.000 3
Total 3.38 1.399 29
Concern_for_violating_rule 1 2.90 1.370 10
2 2.50 .577 4
3 3.00 1.604 8
4 3.25 1.258 4
5 1.67 1.155 3
Total 2.79 1.320 29
c
Multivariate Tests
Partial Eta
a
Wilks' Lambda .029 105.000a 6.000 19.000 .000 .971
a
Scenario5otherpedestrianstryi Pillai's Trace 1.116 1.418 24.000 88.000 .122 .279
ngtocrosstheroadwhileviolatin Wilks' Lambda .226 1.496 24.000 67.493 .100 .311
gtraff Hotelling's Trace 2.102 1.533 24.000 70.000 .086 .345
b
c
Multivariate Tests
Partial Eta
a
a
Wilks' Lambda .029 105.000 6.000 19.000 .000 .971
a
a
Scenario5otherpedestrianstryi Pillai's Trace 1.116 1.418 24.000 88.000 .122 .279
ngtocrosstheroadwhileviolatin Wilks' Lambda .226 1.496 24.000 67.493 .100 .311
gtraff Hotelling's Trace 2.102 1.533 24.000 70.000 .086 .345
b
a. Exact statistic
c. Design: Intercept + Scenario5otherpedestrianstryingtocrosstheroadwhileviolatingtraff

F df1 df2 Sig.
Gender 5.195 4 24 .004
Level_of_satisfaction .663 4 24 .623
Level_of_safety .982 4 24 .436
Crossing_behaviour 6.476 4 24 .001
Safety_concern 1.892 4 24 .145
across groups.
Scenario5otherpedestrianstryingtocrosstheroadwhileviolatingtraff

a
Corrected Model Gender 2.210 4 .553 4.278 .009 .416
b
c
Level_of_safety 1.496 4 .374 .232 .917 .037
d
Crossing_behaviour 1.157 4 .289 3.028 .037 .335
e
Safety_concern 7.478 4 1.869 .948 .454 .136
Concern_for_violating_rule 5.442f 4 1.360 .754 .565 .112
Level_of_safety 76.677 1 76.677 47.624 .000 .665
Safety_concern 296.022 1 296.022 150.043 .000 .862
yingtocrosstheroadwhileviol Level_of_satisfaction 7.308 4 1.827 2.119 .110 .261
atingtraff Level_of_safety 1.496 4 .374 .232 .917 .037
Crossing_behaviour 1.157 4 .289 3.028 .037 .335
Safety_concern 7.478 4 1.869 .948 .454 .136
Concern_for_violating_rule 5.442 4 1.360 .754 .565 .112
Level_of_satisfaction 20.692 24 .862
b. R Squared = .261 (Adjusted R Squared = .138)
Scenario 5: other pedestrians trying to cross the road while violating traffic signal, the intersection traffic is well-
ordered but limited time (high time pressure)
Scenario 5: other pedestrians 95% Confidence Interval
trying to cross the road while
violating traffic signal, the
Dependent Variable time pressure) Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Gender 1 1.200 .114 .965 1.435
2 1.000 .180 .629 1.371
3 1.250 .127 .988 1.512
4 1.000 .180 .629 1.371
5 2.000 .207 1.572 2.428
Level_of_satisfaction 1 1.600 .294 .994 2.206
2 1.750 .464 .792 2.708
3 1.875 .328 1.197 2.553
4 3.000 .464 2.042 3.958
5 2.667 .536 1.560 3.773
Level_of_safety 1 1.800 .401 .972 2.628
2 1.750 .634 .441 3.059
3 1.875 .449 .949 2.801
4 2.250 .634 .941 3.559
5 1.333 .733 -.179 2.845
2 1.000 .155 .681 1.319
3 1.125 .109 .900 1.350
4 1.250 .155 .931 1.569
5 1.667 .178 1.298 2.035
Safety_concern 1 2.700 .444 1.783 3.617
2 3.500 .702 2.051 4.949
3 3.750 .497 2.725 4.775
4 3.750 .702 2.301 5.199
5 4.000 .811 2.326 5.674
Concern_for_violating_rule 1 2.900 .425 2.023 3.777
2 2.500 .672 1.114 3.886
3 3.000 .475 2.020 3.980
4 3.250 .672 1.864 4.636
5 1.667 .776 .066 3.268
Scenario 6: Other pedestrians are waiting for green signal, with no traffic supervision and you have limited time (high time pressure)
Gender 32 1 2 1.37 .492 .542 .414 -1.824 .809
Level_of_safety 32 1 5 2.25 1.270 .706 .414 -.558 .809
Crossing_behavior 32 1 2 1.50 .508 .000 .414 -2.138 .809
Safety_consideration 32 1 5 3.16 1.347 -.049 .414 -.850 .809
Concern_about_violation 32 1 5 2.81 1.256 .169 .414 -.684 .809
N
are waiting for green light, 2 4
intersection traffic is 3 7
disordered and you have
4 11
limited time (high time
5 8
pressure)
Scenario 6: other
pedestrians are waiting for
green light, intersection traffic
is disordered and you have
pressure) Mean Std. Deviation N
Gender 1 1.00 .000 2
2 1.25 .500 4
3 1.57 .535 7
4 1.36 .505 11
5 1.38 .518 8
Total 1.37 .492 32
2 3.25 .500 4
3 2.29 1.380 7
4 2.09 1.221 11
5 2.75 1.282 8
Total 2.47 1.191 32
Level_of_safety 1 2.50 .707 2
2 2.25 .500 4
3 1.86 1.215 7
4 2.27 1.489 11
5 2.50 1.512 8
Total 2.25 1.270 32
Crossing_behavior 1 2.00 .000 2
2 1.75 .500 4
3 1.14 .378 7
4 1.45 .522 11
5 1.63 .518 8
Total 1.50 .508 32
Safety_consideration 1 2.50 .707 2
2 3.00 .000 4
3 3.00 1.155 7
4 3.18 1.722 11
5 3.50 1.512 8
Total 3.16 1.347 32
Concern_about_violation 1 2.50 .707 2
2 2.75 .500 4
3 2.71 .951 7
4 3.27 1.489 11
5 2.38 1.506 8
Total 2.81 1.256 32

of Covariance
Matricesa
Box's M 64.145
F .881
df1 42
df2 1181.628
Sig. .688
that the observed
of Covariance
Matricesa
Box's M 64.145
F .881
df1 42
df2 1181.628
Sig. .688
that the observed
Scenario6otherpedestria
nsarewaitingforgreenlight
intersectiontraf
Multivariate Testsc
Partial Eta
a
Wilks' Lambda .028 128.347 6.000 22.000 .000 .972
Hotelling's Trace 35.004 128.347a 6.000 22.000 .000 .972
a
Scenario6otherpedestriansare Pillai's Trace .637 .789 24.000 100.000 .742 .159
waitingforgreenlightintersectio Wilks' Lambda .478 .765 24.000 77.959 .767 .168
ntraf Hotelling's Trace .865 .739 24.000 82.000 .797 .178
b
a. Exact statistic
c. Design: Intercept + Scenario6otherpedestriansarewaitingforgreenlightintersectiontraf
a
F df1 df2 Sig.
Gender 5.497 4 27 .002
Crossing_behavior 5.520 4 27 .002
Safety_consideration 3.906 4 27 .013
Concern_about_violation 1.898 4 27 .140
across groups.
Scenario6otherpedestriansarewaitingforgreenlightintersectiontraf

a
Level_of_satisfaction 4.881b 4 1.220 .843 .510 .111
c
Level_of_safety 1.711 4 .428 .239 .914 .034
Crossing_behavior 1.791d 4 .448 1.946 .131 .224
e
Concern_about_violation 4.140f 4 1.035 .625 .649 .085
Level_of_safety 116.798 1 116.798 65.306 .000 .707
Crossing_behavior 57.324 1 57.324 249.259 .000 .902
Concern_about_violation 167.111 1 167.111 100.860 .000 .789
Scenario6otherpedestriansa Gender .615 4 .154 .603 .664 .082
rewaitingforgreenlightinterse Level_of_satisfaction 4.881 4 1.220 .843 .510 .111
ctiontraf Level_of_safety 1.711 4 .428 .239 .914 .034
Crossing_behavior 1.791 4 .448 1.946 .131 .224
Concern_about_violation 4.140 4 1.035 .625 .649 .085
Crossing_behavior 6.209 27 .230
Concern_about_violation 44.735 27 1.657
Crossing_behavior 80.000 32
Concern_about_violation 302.000 32
Crossing_behavior 8.000 31
Concern_about_violation 48.875 31
Scenario 6: other pedestrians are waiting for green light, intersection traffic is disordered and you have limited time
(high time pressure)
Scenario 6: other 95% Confidence Interval
pedestrians are waiting for
green light, intersection traffic
is disordered and you have
Dependent Variable pressure) Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Gender 1 1.000 .357 .267 1.733
2 1.250 .252 .732 1.768
3 1.571 .191 1.180 1.963
4 1.364 .152 1.051 1.676
5 1.375 .179 1.009 1.741
Level_of_satisfaction 1 2.500 .851 .754 4.246
2 3.250 .602 2.016 4.484
3 2.286 .455 1.353 3.219
4 2.091 .363 1.347 2.835
5 2.750 .425 1.877 3.623
Level_of_safety 1 2.500 .946 .560 4.440
2 2.250 .669 .878 3.622
3 1.857 .505 .820 2.894
4 2.273 .403 1.445 3.100
5 2.500 .473 1.530 3.470
Crossing_behavior 1 2.000 .339 1.304 2.696
2 1.750 .240 1.258 2.242
3 1.143 .181 .771 1.515
4 1.455 .145 1.158 1.751
5 1.625 .170 1.277 1.973
Safety_consideration 1 2.500 1.001 .446 4.554
2 3.000 .708 1.547 4.453
3 3.000 .535 1.902 4.098
4 3.182 .427 2.306 4.058
5 3.500 .501 2.473 4.527
Concern_about_violation 1 2.500 .910 .632 4.368
2 2.750 .644 1.429 4.071
3 2.714 .487 1.716 3.713
4 3.273 .388 2.476 4.069
5 2.375 .455 1.441 3.309
Scenario 7: Other pedestrians are trying to cross road while violating traffic rule, and there is disordered traffic supervision with limited time
(high time pressure)
Gender 32 1 2 1.41 .499 .401 .414 -1.967 .809
Level_of_safety 32 1 5 2.16 1.347 .965 .414 -.243 .809
Crossing_behaviour 31 1 2 1.23 .425 1.379 .421 -.109 .821
Safety_concern 31 1 5 3.55 1.179 -.581 .421 .125 .821
Concern_for_violating_rule 31 1 5 2.97 1.080 -.272 .421 -.162 .821
N
trying to cross road violating 2 1
traffic signal where there is no 3 9
4 9
5 10
pressure)
pressure) Mean Std. Deviation N
Gender 1 1.00 . 1
2 1.00 . 1
3 1.44 .527 9
4 1.67 .500 9
5 1.30 .483 10
Total 1.43 .504 30
Level_of_satisfaction 1 3.00 . 1
2 3.00 . 1
3 3.11 1.364 9
4 2.33 .866 9
5 2.70 1.337 10
Total 2.73 1.172 30
Level_of_safety 1 2.00 . 1
2 2.00 . 1
3 2.56 1.509 9
4 1.89 1.364 9
5 2.00 1.333 10
Total 2.13 1.332 30
Crossing_behaviour 1 1.00 . 1
2 1.00 . 1
3 1.11 .333 9
4 1.33 .500 9
5 1.30 .483 10
Total 1.23 .430 30
Safety_concern 1 3.00 . 1
2 3.00 . 1
3 4.33 .866 9
4 3.56 1.236 9
5 3.20 1.033 10
Total 3.63 1.098 30
Concern_for_violating_rule 1 4.00 . 1
2 4.00 . 1
3 3.11 .928 9
4 2.78 1.093 9
5 2.70 1.252 10
Total 2.93 1.081 30

of Covariance
a
Matrices
Box's M 61.334
F .930
df1 42
df2 1815.733
Sig. .601
that the observed
Scenario7otherpedestria
nstryingtocrossroadviolati
ngtrafficsignal
Multivariate Testsc
Partial Eta
a
Wilks' Lambda .040 80.497a 6.000 20.000 .000 .960
a
a
Scenario7otherpedestrianstryi Pillai's Trace .611 .691 24.000 92.000 .848 .153
ngtocrossroadviolatingtrafficsi Wilks' Lambda .492 .666 24.000 70.982 .867 .162
gnal Hotelling's Trace .833 .642 24.000 74.000 .888 .172
b
a. Exact statistic
c. Design: Intercept + Scenario7otherpedestrianstryingtocrossroadviolatingtrafficsignal
F df1 df2 Sig.
Gender 4.345 4 25 .008
Crossing_behaviour 3.276 4 25 .027
Safety_concern .896 4 25 .481
across groups.
Scenario7otherpedestrianstryingtocrossroadviolatingtrafficsignal

a
Corrected Model Gender 1.044 4 .261 1.033 .410 .142
Level_of_satisfaction 2.878b 4 .719 .486 .746 .072
c
Level_of_safety 2.356 4 .589 .300 .875 .046
Crossing_behaviour .378d 4 .094 .473 .755 .070
e
Safety_concern 7.144 4 1.786 1.605 .204 .204
Concern_for_violating_rule 3.322f 4 .831 .680 .612 .098
Level_of_safety 46.975 1 46.975 23.913 .000 .489
Safety_concern 125.755 1 125.755 112.998 .000 .819
yingtocrossroadviolatingtraffi Level_of_satisfaction 2.878 4 .719 .486 .746 .072
csignal Level_of_safety 2.356 4 .589 .300 .875 .046
Safety_concern 7.144 4 1.786 1.605 .204 .204
e. R Squared = .204 (Adjusted R Squared = .077)
Scenario 7: other pedestrians trying to cross road violating traffic signal where there is no traffic-assistant and you
have limited time (high time pressure)
Scenario 7: other pedestrians 95% Confidence Interval
Dependent Variable pressure) Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Gender 1 1.000 .503 -.036 2.036
2 1.000 .503 -.036 2.036
3 1.444 .168 1.099 1.790
4 1.667 .168 1.321 2.012
5 1.300 .159 .972 1.628
Level_of_satisfaction 1 3.000 1.216 .495 5.505
2 3.000 1.216 .495 5.505
3 3.111 .405 2.276 3.946
4 2.333 .405 1.498 3.168
5 2.700 .385 1.908 3.492
Level_of_safety 1 2.000 1.402 -.887 4.887
2 2.000 1.402 -.887 4.887
3 2.556 .467 1.593 3.518
4 1.889 .467 .927 2.851
5 2.000 .443 1.087 2.913
2 1.000 .447 .080 1.920
3 1.111 .149 .804 1.418
4 1.333 .149 1.027 1.640
5 1.300 .141 1.009 1.591
Safety_concern 1 3.000 1.055 .827 5.173
2 3.000 1.055 .827 5.173
3 4.333 .352 3.609 5.058
4 3.556 .352 2.831 4.280
5 3.200 .334 2.513 3.887
Concern_for_violating_rule 1 4.000 1.105 1.724 6.276
2 4.000 1.105 1.724 6.276
3 3.111 .368 2.352 3.870
4 2.778 .368 2.019 3.537
5 2.700 .350 1.980 3.420

Reserach Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reserach Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Situational Factors on Pedestrians'

Examination ID: 140125

The Role of Situational Factors on Pedestrians' Intention to Jaywalk

Institute of Business Administration

Exam ID: 140125

15th September, 2015

It is my pleasure to submit the paper on “The Role of Situational Factors on Pedestrians'

Exam ID: 140125

3.0 Literature Review 8-9

4.0 Research Methodology 9-14

5.0 Test result and analysis 14-19

6.0 Scope for future work 19

1.1 Origin of the report

1.2 Background of the report

1.3 Objective of the report

1.3.1 Broad Objective

1.4 Scope of the report

1.5 Limitations of the report

CHAPTER 2 | Problem Statement

2.1 Current situation of Jaywalking in Bangladesh

2.2. Existing Facilities for pedestrians in Dhaka

2.3 The Law

2.4 Major Problem Areas

2.5. The research scope

2.6. The situational factors studied

2.6.1. TIME PRESSURE

2.6.2. DESCRIPTIVE NORM

2.6.3. OFFICIAL SUPERVISION

The following hypothesis has been proposed:

CHAPTER 3 | LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 4 | RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 Source of Data

4.2 Nature of Questionnaire

4.3 Situational analysis

4.4 Scaling Technique

4.5 Data analysis

 4.6.1 Descriptive Statistic

o 4.6.1.1 Univariate Descriptive Statistics

Measures of Center of Data

Measures of Dispersion of Data

o 4.6.1.2. Bivariate Descriptive Statistics

The sample correlation coefficient is rxy = sxy / sxsy.

 4.6.2 Multivariate Analysis of Variance

The first statistic is Pillai's trace. The formula is

The second test statistic is Hotelling-Lawley's trace.

Hotelling-Lawley's trace = trace (A ) = trace(HE-1 ) = Σλi.

Roy's largest root = max (λi)

o 4.6.2.2 Assumptions of MANOVA

CHAPTER 5 | TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

5.1 Descriptive Statistics:

Fig. 1: Age of the participants

Fig: 3: Reason for Traffic Rule Violation

5.2 Multivariate analysis of variance

CHAPTER 6 | SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK

Work for a Better Bangladesh Trust: http://www.wbbtrust.org/view/all_research_publication/research--

Bangladesh road Transport Authority: http://www.brta.gov.bd/index.php/ordinance [Accessed September

Dhaka North City Corporation: http://www.dncc.gov.bd/ [Accessed August 17, 2015]

Dhaka South City Corporation: http://www.dhakasouthcity.gov.bd/ [Accessed August 17, 2015]

The Role of Situational Factors on Pedestrians' Intention to Jaywalk

Number of fatalities caused by vehicle-pedestrian accidents is increasing at an alarming rate

(GLWTXHVWLRQV &KDQJHWKHPH 9LHZUHVSRQVHV 9LHZOLYHIRUP

(GLWTXHVWLRQV &KDQJHWKHPH 9LHZUHVSRQVHV 9LHZOLYHIRUP

:KDWPDNHV\RXYLRODWHWKHWUDIILFUXOHDQGLQVSLUHVMD\ZDONLQJ LIDQ\ "

:KDWPDNHV\RXYLRODWHWKHWUDIILFUXOHDQGLQVSLUHVMD\ZDONLQJLIDQ\"

:KDWPDNHV\RXYLRODWHWKHWUDIILFUXOHDQGLQVSLUHVMD\ZDONLQJLIDQ\"