Time to drive: Present vs. future orientation and self-reported driving behaviour

Highlights

• Measuring driving time orientation strengthens associations with driving behaviours.

• Present and future time orientation differentially predict driving behaviours.

• Trait mindfulness independently predicts driving behaviour.

• Current conceptualisation of present orientation is not sufficient.

• Driving interventions should target multiple facets of present orientation.

Abstract

Understanding the individual-level factors that influence driver decision-making and behaviour has important applied implications for driver training and intervention programmes. Time orientation is one factor that is known to influence behaviour across all domains of life, yet research examining the association between time orientation and driving behaviour specifically is limited. This study explores associations between driving behaviour and three indicators of time orientation; the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale (CFC), a newly-developed driving-specific CFC scale (CFC-driving), and the Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), in a sample of 386 adult drivers. The aims were: (a) to explore associations between the CFC and both risk and safety-related driving behaviours; (b) to examine domain specificity in CFC in relation to driving; (c) to explore associations between trait mindfulness and driving behaviour; and (d) compare the predictive utility of the CFC-driving and the MAAS measures, as each capture a distinct facet of present orientation. Findings support an overall association between time orientation and driving behaviour, and evidence the utility of a driving-specific CFC measure over a general measure. The CFC-driving subscales differentially predicted driving behaviours. Trait mindfulness significantly predicted both risk and safety-related driving behaviour independent of the CFC-driving subscales. The research has applied implications for the development of driving safety campaigns and interventions that target risky driving behaviour, as well as theoretical implications for time orientation conceptualisation and measurement.

Introduction

According to the World Health Organization. (2015), more than 1.2 million people die, and between 20 and 50 million people sustain non-fatal injuries, as a result of road-traffic accidents each year. Some road-traffic accidents occur as a result of unsafe road infrastructure or weather conditions (Gopalakrishnan, 2012). However, the majority can be attributed to driver behaviours such as speeding, drink driving, driving unsafe vehicles, or driver distraction (WHO, 2015). Understanding the individual level factors that influence both positive and negative driving behaviour is critical for informing driver education and training programmes, legislation and media campaigns. The current study examines a construct that has been somewhat neglected in the driving-safety literature: Time orientation.

Driving is a domain that encompasses a complex collection of behaviours that require intentional decision-making, both behind the wheel (e.g. deciding whether to speed up or slow down when approaching a traffic light), and independent of the driving task itself (e.g. decision-making regarding seatbelt use). When deciding whether to perform a particular behaviour, individuals often engage in a decision-making process whereby the present and/or future costs and benefits of the behaviour are evaluated. There are individual differences in the extent to which individuals consider and value the present and the future, a concept known as time orientation (Van Beek, Handgraaf, & Antonides, 2017). Although a number of time orientation conceptualisations and measures currently exist (Van Beek et al., 2017), the most widely studied aspect is the Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC; Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994). Defined as “the extent to which people consider the potential distant outcomes of their current behaviours and the extent to which they are influenced by these potential outcomes” (p.743), the construct is measured using the 14-item CFC scale (Joireman et al., 2012, Strathman et al., 1994). The CFC can be conceptualised as either a unidimensional or a bidimensional construct. In the unidimensional conceptualisation, items that measure concern for immediate behavioural outcomes are reverse scored and summed (or averaged) with the remaining future CFC items. As such, individuals receive one total CFC score that represents the extent to which they consider future behavioural outcomes (low to high). Alternatively, the bidimensional conceptualisation consists of two related, yet distinct, 7-item subscales; the CFC-immediate subscale (CFC-I), where high scores represent greater concern for short-term outcomes (i.e. present orientation), and the CFC-future subscale (CFC-F), where high scores represent greater concern for future outcomes (i.e. future orientation). The distinction between the CFC-I and CFC-F subscales holds theoretical implications for increased understanding of the mechanisms through which the CFC influences decision-making and behaviour; it is possible that some behaviours are predominantly driven by concern for either immediate or future consequences. Converging evidence seems to suggest that the construct indeed consists of two factors (e.g. Joireman et al., 2010, Joireman et al., 2012, McKay et al., 2013, McKay et al., 2016, Milfont et al., 2017). However, debate regarding the dimensionality of the scale is on-going (Crockett et al., 2009, Hevey et al., 2010, Petrocelli, 2003, Rappange et al., 2009, Ryack, 2012).

Studies have found significant associations between CFC, decision-making and behaviour across a range of domains, including health behaviour, environmental behaviour and spending behaviour (for a review, see Joireman & King, 2016). Future-oriented individuals are more likely to consider the long-term outcomes associated with a given behaviour, and findings typically show significant associations between high CFC (or CFC-F) scores and protective behaviours which encompass long-term benefits (e.g. physical exercise; Ouellette, Hessling, Gibbons, Reis-Bergan, & Gerrard, 2005). Alternatively, present-oriented individuals tend to prioritise maximising immediate benefits (Strathman et al., 1994), and researchers typically report significant associations between low CFC (or high CFC-I) scores and risk behaviours that encompass immediate pay-off (e.g. cigarette smoking; Daugherty & Brase, 2010). Similar to behaviours in other domains such as health, the outcomes associated with driving risk and safety behaviours are temporally situated (i.e. outcomes that can be classed as either immediate or future). Yet research exploring the association between CFC and driving behaviour specifically has been relatively limited, despite a rational theoretical basis for which individual differences in CFC may influence driver behaviour. A driver who considers future consequences may be more likely to engage in protective driving behaviours for which the associated outcomes are predominantly long-term (e.g. frequent tyre checking to avoid the consequences of wear and tear). Conversely, a driver who focuses on the immediate outcomes of some driving behaviours may place greater emphasis in immediate benefits of certain behaviours despite the associated risks (e.g. speeding to arrive at a destination faster, or eating when driving to satisfy hunger).

Of the handful of studies that have explored associations between CFC and driving behaviour, findings have been mixed. Moore and Dahlen (2008), and Wickens, Toplak, and Wiesenthal (2008) reported significant associations between low CFC scores and intentional driving violations. Alternatively, Lin (2009) and Piko (2008) failed to find an association between CFC and other risky driving behaviours such as drink driving and phone use when driving. Similarly, Daugherty and Brase (2010) found a positive association between high CFC scores and seatbelt use, whereas Piko (2008) did not. This inconsistency may be due to the nature of participant samples or driver behaviour assessment. For example, all four studies employed third level student or adolescent population samples with limited driving experience, and in three of the four studies, behaviours were combined to form a composite measure of driving behaviour rather than examined independently (e.g. phone use, drink driving and driving without a seatbelt measures were combined to create one total risk score). Equally, the contradictory findings may be due to CFC conceptualisation. Prior to the year 2012, few researchers distinguished between the CFC subscales, and all of the previously mentioned studies of CFC and driving behaviour were conducting using total CFC scores only. Similar to studies of credit card debt and impulsive spending (Joireman et al., 2010), it may be that some driving behaviours are driven by greater concern for either immediate or future consequences, a possibility which would have been overlooked in studies that did not test associations using CFC subscale scores.

The first aim of the current research is to explore associations between CFC (total and subscale scores) and driving behaviour more thoroughly by examining a range of risk and safety-related driving behaviours independently, using a broader sample of drivers. Based on the outline provided above, we formulated the following hypothesis:

H1

High CFC total and CFC-F scores will be negatively associated with risky driving behaviour and positively associated with safety-related behaviour. Conversely, high CFC-I scores are hypothesised to be positively associated with risky driving behaviour, and negatively associated with safety-related behaviour.

An emerging area of investigation in CFC research is the notion of domain specificity (i.e. variability in the extent to which an individual considers immediate or future outcomes according to the domain in question). Evidence for domain specificity in CFC was originally provided by van Beek, Antonides, and Handgraaf (2013). Van Beek and colleagues developed two tailored CFC measures and reported that eating behaviour was best predicted by a food specific CFC measure, whereas exercise behaviour was best predicted by an exercise-specific CFC measure. Although these behaviours fall under the same life domain (i.e. health), the study was the first to highlight the utility of using tailored CFC scales. More recently, McKay, Perry, Cole, and Magee (2017) developed an 18-item measure to assess the extent to which adolescents considered the future in relation to education, dental attendance, financial planning, environmental concern, eating and exercise. The measure was developed using items from the CFC scale, as well as items from other measures of time orientation (e.g. the Future Orientation Questionnaire; Nurmi, Seginer, & Poole, 1990). Using large adolescent population samples across two studies, exploratory structural equation modelling and confirmatory factor analyses provided evidence for domain specificity in CFC by revealing four distinct factors, each representing a particular domain: (a) health and wellbeing; (b) global warming; (c) school; and (d) finance. Due to issues with CFC readability in younger populations (Crockett et al., 2009), the measure developed was not a tailored CFC scale per se, but rather a measure of time orientation that is based on existing measures, including the CFC.

To extend this work on domain specificity to the domain of driving, the second aim of the current research is to investigate the existence of a driving-specific time orientation. To do so, we created an adapted CFC measure; the CFC-driving. Although we consider this approach an appropriate and useful means by which to investigate domain specificity in CFC, scale development is not the primary focus of this research. Based on previous work conducted by van Beek, McKay and colleagues, we formulated the following hypotheses:

H2

Associations with driving risk and safety-related behaviours will be stronger for CFC-driving than for CFC-general scores (total and subscale).

H3

The CFC-general and the CFC-driving will emerge as different, but related constructs, each consisting of two distinct subscales; CFC-future and CFC-immediate.

In time orientation literature, low CFC (or high CFC-I) scores are typically associated with risk behaviours like compulsive spending and cigarette smoking (Adams, 2012, Joireman et al., 2010), and as a result, present orientation is predominately conceptualised as a less desirable attribute or as a risk factor for negative outcomes. However, the CFC measure captures an aspect of present orientation that involves greater concern for convenience, and preoccupation with obtaining immediate satisfaction or avoiding short-term losses, and this conceptualisation is reflected in scale items. For example, ‘My convenience is a big factor in the decisions I make or the actions I take’ (item 5) and ‘I only act to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring that the future will take care of itself’ (item 3). In this sense, it is unsurprising that CFC-I items are predominately associated with behaviours that afford immediate gain but pose long-term risk to health or wellbeing. This approach to understanding present orientation is evident in other frequently used temporal measures, such as the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory, which assesses present-day thinking using the present-hedonism and present-fatalism subscales (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). However, this conceptualisation may not capture the entire picture, as studies have shown that an alternative form of present-day thinking not typically explored in time orientation research can promote engagement in positive behaviours.

Mindfulness can be defined as “the awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment” (Kabat-Zinn, 2003, p.145). Trait (or dispositional) mindfulness can be defined as the predisposition to be mindful in everyday life (i.e. an individual’s baseline level of mindfulness; Siegling & Petrides, 2014). It is differentiated from state mindfulness which involves intentional focus on the present-moment as practiced in mindfulness meditation (Kiken, Garland, Bluth, Palsson, & Gaylord, 2015). Research has shown that there are individual differences in levels of trait mindfulness (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Contrary to the CFC-I subscale, measures of trait mindfulness have been positively associated with healthy behaviours such as healthy eating (Jordan, Wang, Donatoni, & Meier, 2014), and negatively associated with risk behaviours such as cigarette smoking (Black, Sussman, Johnson, & Milam, 2012). There is also evidence linking higher levels of trait mindfulness to safer driving. For example, one mindfulness training study conducted in a driving simulator reported a significant positive association between mindfulness and situation awareness post training (Kass, VanWormer, Mikulas, Legan, & Bumgarner, 2011). Lower trait mindfulness has also been significantly associated with more frequent texting while driving (Feldman, Greeson, Renna, & Robbins-Monteith, 2011), and more near accidents (Terry & Terry, 2015), suggesting that trait mindfulness may facilitate attention regulation. We contend that measures of trait mindfulness capture a distinct, more protective facet of present orientation that is not typically considered or measured in time orientation research. The final aims of the current research are to explore associations between trait mindfulness and driving behaviour, and further, to compare the utility of the CFC-driving scale and a measure of trait mindfulness to predict driving behaviour. Based on the outline provided above, we formulated the following hypotheses:

H4

Trait mindfulness will be positively associated with safety-related driving behaviours and negatively associated with risk behaviours.

H5

Trait mindfulness and the CFC-driving-immediate subscale will be negatively correlated and predictive of driving behaviours in opposite directions.