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

Citations of this article
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text


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.




Murphy, L., & Murphy, G. (2018). Time to drive: Present vs. future orientation and self-reported driving behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 56, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.03.026

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free