Transportation Research Part F 20 (2013) 3951

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part F

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trf

Time pressure and driving: Work, emotions and risks

Stphanie Cugnet a,b,c,, Janick Naveteur a,b,c,d, Pascal Antoine a,e, Franoise Anceaux a,b,c
a
Univ Lille Nord de France, F-59000 Lille, France
b
UVHC, LAMIH, F-59313 Valenciennes, France
c
CNRS, UMR 8201, F-59313 Valenciennes, France
d
Lille 1, Neurosciences, F-59655 Villeneuve dAscq, France
e
Lille 3, URECA, F-59653 Villeneuve dAscq, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Little is known about how time pressure affects driving behavior. The present question-
Received 7 May 2012 naire-based research addresses this gap in the literature. We used roadside assessment,
Received in revised form 31 March 2013 out-of context self-assessment and hetero-assessment approaches. These approaches (1)
Accepted 10 May 2013
identify situational factors eliciting time pressure behind the wheel, (2) explore the emo-
tional reactions of time-pressured drivers, and (3) investigate links between time pressure
and risky driving. Our results suggest that time constraints, time uncertainty and goal
Keywords:
importance are causal factors for time pressure, which is mostly encountered chronically
Car driving
Time pressure
in professional elds requiring driving. Time pressure is associated with negative emotions
Emotion and stress, though some motorists also appreciate driving under time pressure because
Risk doing so potentially heightens feelings of self-efcacy. Time pressure might increase risk
Work taking, but self-reported accidents were not more numerous. This null nding is critically
discussed, but it could result from increased driving ability in chronically time pressured
drivers and from adequate adjustments of other drivers. Assessments of objective and sub-
jective factors should be integrated in interventions designed to help working people cope
with time pressure behind the wheel.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

1.1. Time pressure, driving and work

In France, the SUMER survey (2003) revealed that over a quarter of workers were frequently required to drive as part of
their business (Arnaudo et al., 2004). According to a probabilistic view, more time spent at the wheel increases the risk of car
accidents. An analysis of police accident data by Charbotel, Martin, and Chiron (2010) supports this view by showing that
professional drivers, i.e., professionals for whom driving is their main work activity (e.g., bus driver, truck driver, delivery
driver), have the highest risk of accidents. In the non-professional driving population, craftsmen and shopkeepers exhibit
a higher risk for driving accidents than do manual workers and employees. Independent professionals, such as veterinarians
and housecleaners, are also at risk. In several European countries, including France, road accidents are considered work acci-
dents not only if they occurred during the course of work but also if they occurred during a work commute (Charbotel et al.,
2010). As a result, half of all fatal work accidents are classied as road accidents (CNAMTS, 2006).
An increase in risk taking behaviors with the goal of reaching the destination sooner may contribute to these alarming
statistics. In our clock time culture (Szollos, 2009), time cannot be wasted. This rule extends to time on the road.

Corresponding author at: UVHC, LAMIH, Le Mont Houy, F-59313 Valenciennes, France. Tel.: +33 678924451.
E-mail address: stephanie.coeugnet@hotmail.fr (S. Cugnet).

1369-8478/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.05.002
40 S. Cugnet et al. / Transportation Research Part F 20 (2013) 3951

A distinction between employees for whom the activity of driving is their main occupation (e.g., delivery drivers, drivers of
services) and those who are not stricto sensus professional drivers (e.g., salesmen, construction engineers or managers of pub-
lic works) may be important. For the latter, time spent behind the wheel is not really productive time. To avoid wasting time
in trafc congestion, exible work hours may allow the worker to avoid traveling during peak hours. However, whether ex-
ible work hours are implemented or not, drivers often believe that they have less time available than the time required for
achieving the journey (Forrierre & Six, 2010). Such a mismatch between available time and required time is one of the basic
components of time pressure (Rastegary & Landy, 1993). Time pressure could itself be considered a risk factor for accidents,
especially in a work context (Salminen & Lhdeniemi, 2002). The link between time pressure and accident occurrence has
been illustrated by Weyman, Clarke, and Cox (2003) in their risk model in miners. Time pressure has been identied as a
causal factor for risk taking in a survey of 9475 drivers (McKenna, 2005). Those who claim that they frequently exceed speed
limits also report that time pressure plays a signicant role in their choice of speed behaviors. However, there is currently no
direct evidence that time pressure negatively affects multi-determined transport accidents.
As mentioned above, individuals are generally under time pressure when a discrepancy exists between what they want to
do or feel that they should do and what can realistically be performed before the temporal deadline (Svenson & Benson Iii,
1993), or what can realistically be performed considering that the task has to be completed as soon as possible (e.g., a sales-
man who wishes to quickly reach a potential client to be the rst to respond to a business proposition). The French survey on
working conditions conducted in 2005 by the Department of Animation Research, Studies and Statistics (DARES, 2007) indi-
cated that 48% of employees always or often feel in a hurry, and 53% admit that their work rhythm depends on demands
that have to be completed immediately. This report testies to the frequent presence of work-related time constraints.
Rastegary and Landy (1993) also indicated that such time constraints would result in time pressure only if the individual
feels like it is mandatory to respect the deadline and if the violation of this limit entails a penalty. Many work-related
journeys, including work commuting, might have negative consequences if workers are late at the journey arrival.
Time pressure is often seen as a cause of negative emotional reactions and, in the case of chronicity, a source of stress
(Szollos, 2009). For instance, Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) reported an association between, on the one hand, time pressure
resulting from a combination of work-related and family-related demands and, on the other hand, the number of family con-
icts and the level of stress. Time pressure has been identied as a psychosocial factor in somatization (Jansson, Wallander,
Johansson, Johnsen, & Hveem, 2010; Warming, Precht, Suadicani, & Ebbehj, 2009). Recurrent time pressure has also been
associated with severe depression, especially when both professional and personal sectors are affected as is commonly the
case for women (Roxburgh, 2004). The occurrence of negative emotions and stress can be explained within the model of
cognitive appraisal (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Stress occurs when a situation is assessed as exceeding adaptive resources
(Lazarus, 1966). In the context of driving under time pressure, the motorists primary appraisal would estimate the time
needed to arrive at a destination with respect to the time constraints (a process that needs to be constantly updated as a func-
tion of the road events) and the consequences of missing this goal. The secondary appraisal might concern the assessment of
the drivers ability to adjust to the situation (e.g., driving control, choice of alternative route) and his/her ability to reduce the
negative outcome of a time failure (e.g., to persuade himself/herself that everything will be alright, to communicate about any
delay by phone). If coping strategies cannot be implemented and if evaluations are unfavorable, then negative emotions
emerge (Maule & Svenson, 1993). Time pressure might thus increase the negative outcome of appraisals. Similarly, OBrien,
Tay and Watson (2004) identied time pressure as a factor in the increase in angry driving and in aggressive driving.
The appraisal model also predicts positive emotions if the situation is appropriate and does not interfere with the goals.
Such a situation may occur at the wheel when time pressure is moderate because the individual is able to perform optimally
(Rastegary & Landy, 1993). This rule could apply more for individuals who experience recurrent time pressure, and could
result in an increased sense of control over driving activity and an enhanced feeling of self-efcacy (Bandura, 1997), which
are both in turn sources of positive emotions. Overall, the meaning that the individual assigns to the activity modulates the
emotions induced by time pressure. According to the Karasek model (1979), professional strain results from high job
demands associated with low job decision latitude. Time pressure at the wheel arises often from high professional demands,
but is there also decision latitude? If one regards driving as a task (cf. Leplat & Hoc, 1983), i.e., to go somewhere to do
something, time pressure might reduce decision latitude. However, if one considers driving as an activity, i.e., referring to
the driving actions and associated cognitive decisions, the drivers decision latitude might be preserved under time pressure
because he/she can usually still decide the behavior he/she will adopt (e.g., driving type, itinerary), even if the behavior fails
to comply with the highway code. Consequently, driving under time pressure does not necessarily lead to professional strain,
and could even be sometimes characterized as an active job. An active job is dened by Karasek (1979) as one with high
demands and high decision latitude, and it is associated with higher satisfaction and lower work-related depression risks. In
the same vein, the Siegrist model (1996) predicts a low stress level if high professional effort is rewarded. Therefore, driving
under time pressure may not be perceived negatively if the effort made by the driver is reinforced by simply reaching the
goal within the temporal constraints or by a signicant feeling of control over driving or over his/her professional activity.
All of this highlights that positive emotions deserve to be studied in the framework of time pressure, although their occur-
rence in such a context may appear counterintuitive.
Despite the potentially great inuence that time pressure may have on driving in everyday life, there are few studies that
have examined this topic. (For recent data in bus drivers, see Dorn, Stephen, af Wlberg & Gandol, 2010). This paucity of
dedicated studies is largely explained by the fact that time-pressured individuals are often reluctant to take part in scientic
studies because of their perceived lack of time for extraneous activities (Peer, 2010). Research about time-pressured drivers
 S. Cugnet et al. / Transportation Research Part F 20 (2013) 3951 41

must therefore limit the time required to participate. Laboratory studies are often not able to accommodate this goal and
questionnaires are favored despite their susceptibility to biases. Karlaftis, Kotzampassakis, and Kanellaidis (2003) dened
motorist self-assessment as the value that a driver attributes to his/her personal driving characteristics (p. 208).
Delhomme (1991) concluded the drivers tend to exaggerate the difference between their skills and those of others, claiming
that they have the best abilities or behaviors. They also report that their abilities are not shared by many drivers but that
their errors are (Delhomme, 1997). These effects can be explained by a personal need for differentiation as well as by a social
desirability bias resulting either from a deliberate desire to make a good impression (distortion or lie) or through subtle ef-
fects of self-worth or denial (Gough, 1952; see also Lajunen & Summala, 1995; zkan, Lajunen, & Summala, 2006). It is also
possible that drivers evaluate the emergence of positive events as more likely than negative events, a bias known as com-
parative optimism (Armor & Taylor, 1998; Harris & Middleton, 1994), which can operate in the assessment of the risks of
negative outcomes. Reconstruction or recalling bias can be reduced by in situ methods (such as roadside assessment).
Self-assessments can be combined with hetero-assessments to track response biases. Moreover, the attitude and behavior
of ordinary drivers with respect to time-pressured drivers are important because the outcomes of situations depend upon
the decisions of every driver involved. Although a multiplicity of approaches is a fruitful strategy for understanding time
pressure in driving, it still does not solve the problem of the low availability of potential study participants. Consequently,
in case of the road study, a scientic partnership with the police force is helpful because drivers might be more likely to par-
ticipate if the proposal is made by the police, even without coercion.

1.2. Objectives

The main goals of the present research were (1) to identify situational factors eliciting time pressure behind the wheel, (2)
to explore emotional reactions elicited by driving under time pressure and (3) to investigate potential links between time
pressure and risky driving. Questionnaires constituted the core approach. Using self-assessment, respondents were invited
to answer with regard to their own experience of driving under time pressure. Short questionnaires about time pressure dur-
ing the interrupted journey or about their previous driving experiences of time pressure were administered roadside. This
on-site approach was complimented by out-of-context data collection, including longer questionnaires about behavior or
emotions related to driving under time pressure or investigating the expected positive link between chronic time pressure
and driving control. In the hetero-assessment approach, data about time pressured drivers were collected from an external
point of view, with questions being asked to either a sample of ordinary drivers or to police ofcers. The specic goals here
were to determine as follows: (1) whether time pressured drivers are easily identied as such by others, and (2) whether
others adjust their own driving to the driving of individuals under time pressure. Additional sources of variability from
age and gender were examined.

2. Methods

2.1. Respondents

A fresh sample was used for each study.

2.1.1. Roadside self-assessment (study 1)

A sample of drivers answered roadside questions about their current trip (study 1.a). The sample included 25 drivers who,
during the rst data collection, reported driving under time pressure before being stopped by the gendarmes (14.12% of 177
drivers; CTP for Current Time Pressure group). Two other groups of 25 drivers were each paired with the CTP respondents
with respect to age, sex and duration of the journey before being stopped and were recruited thereafter. One group was com-
posed of drivers who were not pressed during the current journey but who had previously experienced driving under time
pressure (ETPc for Experience of Time Pressure control group), and the other group was composed of drivers who indicated
that they never drive under time pressure (ITPc for Inexperienced with Time Pressure control group).
Among the drivers who were not currently under time pressure during the rst data collection, those who reported driv-
ing at least sometimes under time pressure (ETP for Experience of Time Pressure group) answered questions about these
experiences (study 1b). The sample size was 88 drivers (46.71% of 152 drivers).
In total, 227 drivers were surveyed on the roadside, 171 of them were currently working (75.33%). Information about the
participants ages was collected in terms of age class (1825, N = 13; 2645, N = 76; 4660, N = 59; 60+, N = 29). Due to time
limitations, we did not seek information about their overall driving experience. For ethical reasons, drivers under time pres-
sure for emergency reasons were not solicited. Most of the other drivers accepted our request for participation, including
multiple time-pressured drivers who explained spontaneously and repeatedly that they considered it important that re-
search be carried out on the topic.

2.1.2. Out-of-context self-assessment of driving behavior and emotions (study 2)

The sample consisted of 108 respondents, with 36 respondents (18 men) in each of the following age ranges: 2330,
3145, and 4660. The respondents had held a driving license for at least three years and traveled over 1000 km per year.
42 S. Cugnet et al. / Transportation Research Part F 20 (2013) 3951

2.1.3. Out-of-context self-assessment of driving control (study 3)

The sample consisted of 110 respondents (71 men), aged between 18 and 79 (mean: 39.04, standard deviation: 14.42).
They had held a driving license from 1 to 48 years (mean: 18.05, standard deviation: 11.39) and traveled over 1,000 km
per year.

2.1.4. Hetero-assessment of drivers under time pressure (study 4)

Two separate samples were questioned about time-pressured drivers. The rst sample (study 4.a) included 100 ordinary
drivers (46 men), aged between 19 and 69 (mean: 39.53, standard deviation: 12.83). They had held a driving license from
9 months to 48 years (mean: 19.02, standard deviation: 12.25) and travelled over 500 km per year. The second sample (study
4.b) included 49 gendarmes (47 men) aged between 20 and 52 (mean: 39.33, standard deviation: 9.45). Their time served in
the gendarmerie varied between 2 and 32 years (mean: 19.00, standard deviation: 9.82). These gendarmes did not take part
in the roadside study (study 1).

2.2. Questionnaires and procedures

2.2.1. Roadside self-assessment (study 1)

This study was performed in collaboration with the General Staff of the Far North National Gendarmerie (French police
force; the gendarmes are military professionals). We intervened during routine vehicle stops made for controlling papers
and/or vehicles. These checks were carried out along national or regional roads and out/in the center of small and med-
ium-sized towns, ensuring easier and safer conditions for the survey compared to areas of high trafc density. The gen-
darmes invited motorists who were not ticketed to answer the questionnaire. The volunteers entered the gendarmes
vehicle where a female researcher was waiting for them. She insisted that she was working independently from the gen-
darmes and that survey responses would not lead to any sanctions. The gendarmes always stayed outside the vehicle. Com-
pleting the questionnaire required no longer than 5 min per person in order to respect the rhythm of the intervention of the
gendarmes and to delay unduly delaying the time-pressured drivers. The questionnaire was tree structured with response
lters and presented on a graphic tablet equipped with Sphinx software. Responses were predominantly given on Likert-type
scales.
In the rst data collection, participants completed some general questions and the rst lter divided drivers who were
under time pressure from those who were not (study 1a versus study 1b). The former (CTP group) were asked about time
pressure related to the current displacement (i.e., before the trafc check) and about the consequences of this time pressure
for driving behavior and intense emotions. In the second data collection, the gendarmes invited drivers to participate only if
they corresponded to the paired inclusion criteria. These respondents in the ETPc or ITPc groups answered the same ques-
tions as the CTP group. Moreover, the ETPc group reported double the fear of wasting time on the road because of incident
occurrence, corresponding to situations of driving with time pressure and without. This item was added since the time-pres-
sured drivers in the rst data collection round repeatedly referred to such fears.
For study 1b, drivers who did not report time pressure during the current journey were further ltered to distinguish par-
ticipants included in the ETP group from those who never drove under time pressure. The latter were only asked a few ques-
tions common to the entire surveyed population about the time characteristics of their usual trips. The former were also
asked questions about their past experiences of time pressure, i.e., their associated behaviors and emotions assessed in terms
of frequency, a criterion easiest to qualify in relation to past experience.

2.2.2. Out-of-context self-assessment of driving behavior and emotions (study 2)

The questionnaire was divided into two parts. The rst part included questions concerning driving behaviors and emo-
tions (bearing also on physiological reactions) experienced on the road. A 5-point frequency Likert scale was chosen and re-
sponse modality ranged from never to very often. It was completed twice in counterbalanced order, corresponding either
to experiences driving under time pressure or to experiences driving without time pressure. When the participants lled in
the questionnaire for the second time, their previously completed responses were no longer available. The second part of the
questionnaire collected information about demographic characteristics, reported frequencies driving under time pressure,
driving habits and time preferences regarding work-related schedule and rhythm (5 point intensity Likert scales).

2.2.3. Out-of-context self-assessment of driving control (study 3)

There is no validated driving ability test in the French language. We used the Self-Assessment of Driving Ability
(Tronsmoen, 2008) after translation into French by a bilingual speaker. Standardized validation of our translation was not
possible within the time frame of this research program. Each item was thus considered separately. The questionnaire in-
cluded 22 items to which the response modality was a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from Not at all to Completely.
As advocated by Tronsmoen (2008), a question about the number of driving accident(s), whether they were caused by
the respondents, was added. Our respondents also indicated the numbers of accident(s) and the frequency of near-accidents
for which they were responsible while driving either under time pressure or without time pressure. Each question was
answered twice. Finally, questions were asked about the demographic characteristics of the respondents, their driving
experience, the distance they travelled per year, and the frequency with which they drove under time pressure.
 S. Cugnet et al. / Transportation Research Part F 20 (2013) 3951 43

2.2.4. Hetero-assessment of drivers under time pressure (study 4)

The questionnaire administered to the two control samples (ordinary drivers and gendarmes) included (1) a set of com-
mon questions about the how many drivers, on average, drive under time pressure, (2) how often these drivers contribute to
road accidents and (3) a set of specic questions. The ordinary drivers responded to questions about the driving behaviors
they adopt when they meet time- pressured drivers on the road, and the gendarmes responded to a question concerning the
reasons given by ticketed drivers to explain their offenses. The respondents completed the questionnaire using a self-
administration procedure. The ordinary drivers took approximately 30 min to ll in the questionnaire under the supervision
of the researcher. The gendarmes completed the questionnaire during their free time and returned the form by postal mail.
They were told by their superiors to ll in the questionnaire in isolation, without discussing it with their colleagues.
Every out of context questionnaire (studies 24) was completed in the presence of the researcher, in different settings
never closely related to a driving situation. Participants took between 20 and 30 min to ll out the questionnaires. Fig. 1
summarizes the different studies.

2.3. Data analysis

The Likert responses were numerically coded using the 15 values and were treated as ordinal data by means of non-
parametric statistics (Jamieson, 2004). The Spearman test was used to analyze the correlation between parameters.
Within-group comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Between-group comparisons were performed
using the KruskalWallis Test (comparisons about the current trip between the three groups in the roadside study) and the
MannWhitney test for two groups, with the mean scores provided as descriptive data. However, percentages of responses
were privileged when they appeared more informative or when a categorical approach focused preferentially on some
responses (e.g., often and very often contrasted to the other responses). For these frequency data, the chi-squared test
was used to test the hypothesis of independence between samples of respondents.

3. Results

3.1. Driving under time pressure: frequency of occurrence

Providing prevalence information about time pressure during driving was not a goal of the present research. Cohort stud-
ies are required for this purpose, as the phenomenon appears to be context-dependant. In line with this, study 2 indicated
that the frequency of time pressure on the road correlated positively with the frequency with which respondents drove in
large cities (q(108) = 0.239, p < .05) and on highways or expressways (q(108) = 0.329, p < .001). The following prevalence
data are provided for information.

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the time pressure (TP) research.

44 S. Cugnet et al. / Transportation Research Part F 20 (2013) 3951

As reported above, in the roadside self-assessment study (study 1a) performed in low trafc density conditions, 14.12% of
the drivers reported driving under time pressure before being checked by the gendarmes. Pooling the data provided by the
other drivers about the frequency with which they drove under time pressure with those collected in the two out-of-context
self-assessment studies (studies 2 and 3), 67.84% of the respondents (N = 370, mostly urban drivers) reported at least some-
times experiencing time pressure in driving, with 28.11% responding often or very often. In the hetero-assessments
(study 4), ordinary drivers reported that 62.78% (SD = 17.84) of drivers are usually pressed for time and the gendarmes re-
ported the frequency to be 57.76% (SD = 19.53) (U = 2159.5, Z = 1.18, p = .20).

3.2. Predictive factors of time pressure in driving

3.2.1. Work
In the roadside self-assessment (study 1a), 76% of the respondents under time pressure were performing a work-related
trip, (19 respondents in the CTP group) while only 49.15% of the drivers not under time pressure during the current trip were
performing a work-related trip. Moreover, within the CTP group, the ratio of work-related trips was higher for drivers report-
ing being very or extremely under time pressure compared to those who reported being only moderately under time
pressure (10/13 versus 4/12, v2(1, 25) = 4.81, p < .05). The former drove more often than the latter during their work or in
relation to their other activities (6/12 versus 11/13, v2(1, 25) = 4.25, p < .05).
In the entire sample in the rst data collection, the intensity of time pressure during the current trip was positively re-
lated to the importance of the goal of the journey (q(175) = 0.244, p < .01) and to the frequency with which the respondents
are late due to an overload of activity (q(175) = 0.249, p < .001). This second result was corroborated by the out-of-context
self-assessment (study 2), with time pressure in driving considered in terms of frequency of occurrence (q(108) = 0.294,
p < .01). Additionally, this parameter negatively correlates with the frequency at which drivers leave early when they go
somewhere (q(108) = 0.251, p < .01). Interestingly, the more the respondents drove under time pressure, the more they at-
tested that time constraints motivate them in their work (q(108) = 0.225, p < .05).

3.2.2. Age
In the roadsideself-assessment, there was only 1 driver over the age of 60 (4%) among the drivers under time pressure.
Study 1b showed that only 8 respondents in this age class (9.10%) reported themselves to be (rarely or sometimes in
equal ratio) exposed to time pressure while driving, and no seniors reported that they drove often or very often under
time pressure. Instead, these older drivers represented 37.50% of the respondents who said they never drive under time pres-
sure, although they made up only 16.38% of the surveyed population (v2(1, 227) = 7.25, p < .01). By contrast, 67.69% of drivers
under 60 years old reported they drive at least rarely under time pressure, with 15% providing the often and very often
responses. Drivers of less than 25 years were more likely to encounter occasional situations of driving under time pressure,
with 69% of them selecting the sometimes response.
In the hetero-assessments (study 4), when asked about the frequency at which different age groups (under 25 years,
2545 years, 4660 years and over 60 years old) drive under time pressure, both ordinary drivers and gendarmes conrmed
the inequality of these age classes (v2(12, 100) = 256.21, and v2(12, 49) = 133.27, ps < .001). Those over the age of 60 were
described as driving less often under time pressure, followed by drivers aged 4660 years and then by both drivers less than
46 years and those less than 25 years, who did not signicantly differ. In the out-of-context self-assessment (study 2), there
was no age-related effect on the frequency of driving under time pressure (v2(8, 110) = 12.18, ns); however, the age range
was smaller in this study (2360 years).

3.2.3. Gender
In the roadside self-assessment study, 21.62% of women and 8.75% of men were currently under time pressure (respec-
tively, N = 15 and N = 10, v2(1, 25) = 5.89, p < .05). However, these men reported higher time pressure intensity than the wo-
men (v2(2, 25) = 7.47, p < .05). In the hetero-assessment study, ordinary drivers, whether they were male or female, thought
that men were more likely to drive often or very often under time pressure (v2(1, 100) = 48.74, p < .001), an opinion
which was not shared by the gendarmes who reported no gender differences (v2(1, 49) = 0.02, ns). There were also no sig-
nicant differences between males and females with regard to the frequency with which they drove under time pressure in
either the roadside self-assessment (study 1b, ETP group: v2(1, 88) = 2.79, ns) or in the out-of-context self-assessment (studies 2,
v2(4, 110) = 5.74, ns).

3.3. Emotional reactions linked to driving under time pressure

3.3.1. Negative emotions

The roadside self-assessment (study 1a) revealed no signicant differences in the current trip between CTP, ETPc and ITPc
groups with regard to driving anxiety (v2(8, 75) = 7.38, ns) or anger/aggressiveness (v2(8, 75) = 10.04, ns). Only the fear of
wasting time on the road because of an incident was reported more frequently among those under time pressure than those
not under time pressure (intra-individual comparison in the ETPc group: v2(4, 25) = 18.31, p < .001).
The pattern of results in the out-of-context self-assessment (study 2) was completely different. Nearly every negative
emotion that the respondents had to rate was reported to be experienced signicantly more often while driving under time
 S. Cugnet et al. / Transportation Research Part F 20 (2013) 3951 45

pressure, and the frequency of occurrence of bodily reactions was signicantly greater under time pressure (Table 1).
Corroborating the idea that time pressure increases anger and aggressiveness in driving, the hetero-assessment performed
by ordinary drivers (study 4.a) indicated that hostile words and gestures towards other road-users were one of the 5 most
easily identiable behaviors of time-pressured drivers.
The out-of-context self-assessment (study 2) also showed that, compared to their counterparts, the chronically time-pres-
sured drivers demonstrated a greater relative increase in both their incentive to move a vehicle which does not start at a
green light (q(108) = 0.212, p < .05), and the annoyance felt behind a slow vehicle (q(108) = 0.209, p < .05), and they were
less likely to quiver during time pressure-induced risk taking (q(108) = 0.267, p < .01).

3.3.2. Positive emotions

The roadside self-assessment (study 1a) highlights that driving was commonly described as a pleasant activity, but the
intensity of pleasure experienced during the current trip differed between the CTP, ETPc and ITPc groups
(v2(2, 75) = 13.67, p < .01, Fig. 2). Drivers under time pressure during the current trip (CTP group) were characterized by a
U-shaped pattern. More respondents reported either a total lack of pleasure or a lot of pleasure during driving. They were
less likely overall to report moderate pleasure.
In the out-of-context self-assessment (study 2), the sentences I enjoy driving and Driving relaxes me were less fre-
quently endorsed by those who had experienced time pressure than those who had not (respectively, 3.14 1.42 versus
3.79 1.20, T = 135, p < .001, and 2.81 1.24 versus 3.18 1.24, T = 338, p < .001).

3.4. Time pressure and driving behavior

3.4.1. Attentional resources

One may consider that time pressure reduces attention devoted to the task of driving and/or increases tiredness. The out-
of-context self-assessment (study 2, Table 2) supports this idea, showing also that greater attentional resources are devoted to
time monitoring. In contrast, we failed to show that time pressure was related to overt multitasking. Study 2 also suggests
that the total amount of resources required to drive is greater under time pressure, resulting in greater pain or fatigue.

3.4.2. Risky driving style

The roadside self-assessment (study 1a) showed that when questioned about the risks they had taken during the current
trip, drivers under time pressure (CTP group) had higher scores than the other drivers, whether the latter were accustomed

Table 1
Comparisons of driving with and without time pressure in terms of anger, stress and bodily reactions. Bold values indicate the highest value between under/
without time pressure when the comparisons are signicant.

Items Mean score Mean score T P

under without (Wilcoxon)
time pressure time pressure
Anger, aggressiveness, impatience
I make negative remarks about other drivers mentally or in a low voice 3.66 2.92 118.00 <.001
I get angry when I am stuck in a trafc jam 3.07 2.33 314.00 <.001
When the light turns green and the car in front of me does not accelerate, I pressure the 3.01 2.27 263.00 <.001
driver to move quickly
Stuck behind a slow car on a two-lane road, I feel annoyed 3.45 2.76 228.50 <.001
In heavy trafc, Im annoyed by drivers who merge forcefully into trafc 3.68 3.43 599.00 <.05
When someone impedes my progress, I honk insistently 1.98 1.51 123.00 <.001
I become aggressive easily towards other drivers (hostile gestures, insults, horn ...) 2.44 1.96 87.50 <.001
I am impatient when pedestrians cross the street 2.69 1.74 204.50 <.001
Stress and anxiety
Driving makes me nervous 2.24 1.73 105.00 <.001
At the wheel, I tend to get overwhelmed by the stress of driving 2.07 1.66 148.50 <.001
When Im driving, my hands grip the wheel 2.33 1.89 108.00 <.001
In heavy trafc, I do not feel safe 2.71 2.47 297.00 <.05
Bodily reactions
When Im involved in a risky situation, my face feels hot 2.89 2.36 454.50 <.001
When Im stuck in trafc jams, one or both of my legs will twitch 2.06 1.51 70.00 <.001
When Im stuck in trafc jams, I feel some nausea 1.19 1.06 15.00 <.01
When I take some risks, the surface of my skin tingles 2.24 1.92 465.50 <.01
When Im stuck in trafc jams, I feel short of breath 1.49 1.30 172.50 <.05
I sweat more often than usual when driving 2.06 1.54 230.00 <.001
My heart speeds up when I exceed the legal speed limit 2.57 2.36 519.00 <.05
When Im driving, I tense my face 1.81 1.48 87.00 <.001
In heavy trafc, I feel the need to stop because I have vertigo (e.g., dizzy) 1.23 1.12 12.00 <.05
When Im driving, I feel like there is weight on my chest 1.24 1.11 21.00 <.05
When Im driving in heavy trafc, I tense my neck or my shoulders 2.09 1.94 233.00 <.05

Paired comparisons by Wilcoxon T for scores of items in the self-assessment of driving with time pressure and without (maximum score: 5).
46 S. Cugnet et al. / Transportation Research Part F 20 (2013) 3951

Fig. 2. Percentage distribution of respondents as regards the intensity of driving pleasure felt during the current journey. Current time pressure (CTP)
group: respondents were under time pressure during the current journey. Experienced time pressure control (ETPc) group: respondents were not under
time pressure during the current journey but reported that they have experienced time pressure in driving. Inexperienced time pressure control (ITPc)
group: drivers were not under time pressure during the current journey and had no previous experience of time pressure in driving. These data were
collected roadside, the cars being stopped by the French police.

Table 2
Comparison of driving with and without time pressure in terms of time monitoring, journey length and multitasking.

Items Mean score under Mean score without T P

time pressure time pressure (Wilcoxon)
Multitasking
When I have an important thing to do at a destination, I focus on it and I am 2.66 2.34 239.50 <.001
not sufciently careful with my driving
When Im driving, I multitask in ways such as by eating, reading or talking on 2.40 2.35 538.00 0.608
the phone
Time monitoring
I keep a watchful eye on the vehicle clock 3.49 2.36 244.50 <.001
When Im driving to an appointment, I check the clock 4.30 3.58 166.50 <.001
When Im driving, I keep track of the time that each part of the journey takes 3.05 2.58 363.50 <.001
Journey length
Its difcult to me to accumulate short trips 2.66 2.26 215.00 <.001
Driving a long route bothers me 2.74 2.35 165.00 <.001
Im exhausted after driving a lot during the day 3.28 2.97 297.50 0.003

Wilcoxon T paired comparisons for scores of items in the self-assessment of driving with time pressure and without (maximum score: 5).

to driving under time pressure or not (v2(1, 50) = 3.95, p < .05). In addition, drivers in the ETP group reported that they drive
more nervously when they are under pressure than when they are not (v2(1, 25) = 9.68, p < .01). In the out-of-context
self-assessment (study 2), every risk-related comparison between driving with time pressure and driving without time
pressure reached signicance (Table 3) as follows: increased speed and overtaking/changing lanes, decrease in headway
distances as well as increased risk taking and trafc-rule violations were reported under time pressure. Conversely, behavior
described as courteous was reported to be less frequent when the driver was pressed for time. The frequency with which the
respondents drove under time pressure was not signicantly related to their raw scores for risky behaviors or to the
differences in these scores between driving with time pressure and without.
In the hetero-assessments (study 4), 78% of the ordinary drivers and 60% of the gendarmes estimated that it is easy or
very easy to recognize a driver pressed for time. Their judgment was mainly based on the presence of potentially risky
behaviors described as follows: (1) an excessive speed, (2) an increased frequency of overtaking, (3) a lack of respect for
headway distances, (4) driving through an orange light (the French equivalent of the yellow light), (5) the use of warning
signals (horn or lights) according to the ordinary drivers, and (6) the rapid acceleration from a stop position according to
the gendarmes. The gendarmes also reported that time pressure was the most frequent reason given to explain delinquent
behavior by ticketed drivers (mean ratio: 39.71% of cases), followed by attentional disruption (25.24%), responsibility of
others road-users (10.23%), not knowing the relevant rule (10.23%) and lack of visibility (9.61%).
 S. Cugnet et al. / Transportation Research Part F 20 (2013) 3951 47

Table 3
Comparisons of driving with and without time pressure in terms of driving behaviors.

Items Mean score under Mean score without T P

time pressure time pressure (Wilcoxon)
Speed
When I do not have the priority, I speed to avoid being stopped 2.65 1.87 220.00 <.001
I am used to driving fast 3.32 2.55 42.00 <.001
When the light turns orange, I want to accelerate 3.25 2.43 191.50 <.001
I accelerate as much as possible so that I quickly reach the speed at which I 3.56 2.80 216.00 <.001
wish to drive
Overtaking and lanes changing
I try to overtake other vehicles as quickly as possible 3.62 2.71 237.00 <.001
When Im behind a slow car on a two-lane road, I act to overtake it even if 2.29 1.69 284.00 <.001
the circumstances are risky
On the motorway, I frequently change lanes to improve my position 3.18 2.65 405.00 <.001
In heavy trafc, if one lane is moving faster than the other, I try to merge 3.27 2.56 241.50 <.001
into it
Headway distances
When a vehicle slows down in front of me, I tail it until it accelerates or 2.41 1.60 57.00 <.001
facilitates my overtaking
I drive very close to the vehicle in front of me 2.45 1.83 164.50 <.001
Risk taking and road violations
Im tempted to not respect the road rules in order to save time 2.54 1.84 147.00 <.001
My driving may be dangerous for both others and me 2.29 1.69 198.00 <.001
I may not respect a stop if I have seen that there is no other vehicle on the 2.06 1.67 15.00 <.001
road
Im tempted to take risks to save time 2.57 1.76 82.00 <.001
In a trafc jam, I seek any way, legal or not, to move more quickly 2.11 1.59 264.50 <.001
Courtesy
When a vehicle tails me, I try to let it to pass and to continue its journey 3.24 3.69 252.00 <.001
When a person waits to cross the street on a pedestrian crossing (without 3.43 4.16 38.00 <.001
a red light), I let him/her pass
When it is possible, I facilitate the merging of other road users the trafc 3.31 4.08 160.00 <.001

Wilcoxon T paired comparisons for scores of items in the questionnaire self-assessment of driving with time pressure and without (maximum score: 5).

3.4.3. Accidents and near accidents

In regard to road accidents (data gathered from the self-assessment of driving control, study 3), we failed to obtain a sig-
nicant effect of time pressure in the number of reported accidents, either serious material accidents, serious corporal acci-
dents or minor material accidents (respectively, v2(3, 104) = 4.06; v2(1, 104) = 0.15; v2(3, 104) = 2.77, ns). However, the
respondents admitted being more frequently responsible for critical situations on the road (i.e., near accidents) under time
pressure than without time pressure (v2(4, 104) = 11.24, p < .05).

3.4.4. Driving ability

The out-of-context self-assessment (study 3) showed that drivers who frequently feel pressed for time reported higher
driving scores than those who never drive, or those who rarely drive, under time pressure as regards (1) driving control
(v2(8, 110) = 21.81, p < .05), (2) the ability to drive fast if necessary (v2(16, 110) = 26.29, p = .05), (3) the ability to drive in
heavy trafc (v2(16, 110) = 30.86, p < .001), (4) the ability to accurately anticipate road events (v2(8, 110) = 19.77, p < .05),
and (5) the ability to judge correctly the distances between vehicles (v2(12, 110) = 25.68, p < .02). However, when invited
to comparatively judge their own driving as a function of time pressure in the roadside self-assessment (study 1a), only a
few drivers in the CTP and ETPc groups believed that their driving control was better under time pressure (4% and 8%, respec-
tively). Some drivers reported that their driving control was worse when they were under time pressure (28% and 40%) and
most of them believed that it was the same whether they were pressed for time (68% and 52%). In the out-of-context self-
assessment of driving behavior and emotions (study 2), within-subject comparisons indicated that most drivers feel less in con-
trol of their vehicle when they are pressed for time (T(108) = 328, p < .01), and they more often fear creating a road accident
(T(108) = 122, p < .001).

3.4.5. The others road-users and the time-pressured drivers

In the hetero-assessment study (study 4), 73% of the ordinary drivers believed that time-pressured drivers often or very
often threaten their safety, and 70% of the former disagreed with the idea that the time-pressured drivers are good drivers.
Moreover, 65% said they at least sometimes feel anxious when they meet time-pressured drivers on the road. Every ordin-
ary driver reported increased vigilance at least sometimes (69%, often or very often) when detecting a time-pressured
driver in his/her proximity. In addition, 69% reported that they (at least sometimes) tend to anticipate the actions of the
drivers pressed for time, and 73% reported that they adapt their own driving consequently. Sixty-eight percent reported that
48 S. Cugnet et al. / Transportation Research Part F 20 (2013) 3951

they tend to indicate to the time-pressured road users that they are dangerous. Aggressiveness from these users was de-
scribed at least sometimes by 68% of the ordinary drivers. Moreover, 43% said they try (at least sometimes) to impede
the progress of the drivers pressed for time, the frequency of such behaviors depended upon the frequency with which the
respondents themselves were used to driving under time pressure (v2(4, 100) = 14.77, p < .001). Those who drive often or
very often under time pressure were more numerous than those who never drove under time pressure and try often of-
ten or very often to hinder the journey of the driver pressed for time (v2(1, 12) = 8.87 p < .001).

4. Discussion

The intent of this research was to improve knowledge about time pressure in driving using assessment methods. The orig-
inality of this study was based on the use of multiple data collection methods. This strategy was rewarding because it re-
vealed several discrepancies in results that nally made sense in the overall analysis. The prevalence data are context-
dependent but because about one-half to two-thirds of the drivers in our samples indicated that they drive under time pres-
sure at least sometimes or more frequently, the phenomenon appears sufciently common to warrant attention. The
rather low ratio of drivers who indicated that they are seldom under time pressure while driving suggests that driving under
time pressure is a chronic experience for the majority of drivers.
Evidence of a strong link between time pressure in driving and work is plentiful. The similarity in the prevalence of time
pressure in driving (present study) and at work (DARES, 2007) supports the idea that both activity contexts are immersed in
a clock time culture (Szollos, 2009). Professionals who often drive during work hours were more often likely to drive under
time pressure. Drivers in the roadside study who were under time pressure when the gendarmes stopped them were pre-
dominantly itinerant professionals, and people of working age were the most concerned by time pressure in driving. Work
may be inuential because it imposes time constraints and also because the goals of work-related journeys are considered to
be important by drivers (cf. Cugnet, Charron, Van de Weerdt, Anceaux, & Naveteur, 2011; Rastegary & Landy, 1993), with
the possibly of sanction if a time limit is violated. The goal can thus be described as a type of catalyst, but our results in the
roadside study modulate this view. Having an important goal associated with the journey might even be a causal factor for
time pressure, capable of acting in the absence of time constraints. In such cases, time-pressured respondents obviously
encountered difculties explaining their urgency. Keeping in mind that time pressure in driving is mostly a chronic state,
the hypothesis that time pressure results from classical conditioning cannot be discarded. The driving setting is repeatedly
associated with professional hurry and becomes a conditioned stimulus that elicits a time-pressure response. In the same
vein, time pressure should be associated with increased physiological reactions (Wahlstrom, Hagberg, Johnson, Svensson,
& Rempel, 2002), the persistence of which could yield the sensation of being pressed for time even in the absence of any
objective reason at a given time. Be it based on physiological reactivity or not, and be these reactions perceived or not, time
pressure could be seen as subjected to inter-situational contagion effect, i.e., a persistent subjective feeling experienced by a
person in a particular situation extending to situations encountered just thereafter. The professional activity would have
thus formatted the temporal patterns of the journeys that are more or less associated with it.
We showed that people drive less often under time pressure when getting older. This is possibly due to more than a gen-
eralized decrease in activity level, especially with such decreases in activity level not as often observed in the new generation
of elders (Angus & Reeve, 2006). Unfortunately, we did not collect activity information, but the fact that half of the respon-
dents over 60 years old reported that they drive often or very often for their activities indirectly supports this hypothesis.
Alternatively, one should consider that the importance of the goal destination could be reduced in those who are retired, a
fact which, in addition to greater control over time scheduling, might act against time pressure (Cugnet et al., 2011). The
data about younger drivers were slightly discrepant. Most of these drivers described themselves as being only occasionally
pressed for time while driving, whereas they were considered by others to often drive in that condition. Because it is less
related to stereotypes, the self-assessment is most likely more accurate. First, social representations of modern life could bias
the hetero-assessments, especially those of the older respondents who often consider all younger people under time pres-
sure. Second, the driving style of younger drivers could be erroneously interpreted as reecting time pressure. This is espe-
cially true for higher driving speeds (see below), which are actually predominantly related to several other factors, including
social pressure and self-gratication, in younger drivers (Gabany, Plummer, & Grigg, 1997).
The corpus of gender-related ndings is equivocal. The idea of a predominance of males among pressured drivers arose
from the hetero-assessment performed by ordinary drivers. This view might be biased by social representations of men and
by the fact that men could more overtly express their time pressure (e.g., by using their horn), as shown by Salminen (2000)
in professional contexts. Such an effect could be partly related to the facts that men described their time pressure as being
intense and that they drive more than women both within and outside work (Johansson-Stenman, 2002). The higher ratio of
women under time pressure in our roadside data may be predicated on the fact that it is women, more so than men, who
deal both with work (only two females were unemployed in our sample) and family constraints (Dumontier & Pan K Shon,
2000). The non-signicant gender effect in both the hetero-assessment by the gendarmes and the out-of-context self-assess-
ment could result from the negating inuences of either frequency and intensity or social representation and individual
experience.
A main goal of the study was to explore the emotional reactions experienced by time- pressured drivers. The intuitive
hypothesis of a positive link between time pressure in driving and negative emotions was upheld by a main effect of time
 S. Cugnet et al. / Transportation Research Part F 20 (2013) 3951 49

pressure in the out-of-context self-assessment, but it was not corroborated by between-group comparisons in the roadside
study. A lack of statistical power may be implicated as regards the latter, but also the lower trafc conditions in our study
regions may play a role. However, these null ndings could result from the fact that negative emotions (fear, anger/aggres-
siveness) under time pressure might be less frequent than initially expected. If negative emotions arise only sporadically,
they can nevertheless elicit a better memory storage (for an illustration, see Thompson, Skowronski, Larsen, & Betz,
1996). Responses provided in the out-of context self-assessment can thus articially increase the negative emotional impact
of time pressure because responses are based on the worst and most well-memorized experiences. Moreover, driving is
mainly described as a rather pleasant experience, and the roadside study illustrated a complex emotional pattern. Pleasure
may actually decrease under time pressure for some drivers but increase for others. This increase may be related to the fol-
lowing: (1) the time pressure level experienced by the drivers, even if described as rather high by more than half of the
respondents, is still within the window ensuring an optimal level of performance (cf. Rastegary & Landy, 1993), (2) the driv-
ing ability of chronically time-pressured drivers may benet from a larger and more diversied body of experience compared
to others drivers (Duncan, Williams, & Brown, 1991) and (3) as the road is a forgiving environment, the favorable outcomes
of most of the critical situations, the frequency of which increases with time pressure, would also lead drivers who often
drive under time pressure to develop a favorable estimate of their driving ability, whether this perception is accurate or
not. Consequently, not only may the negative emotional outcomes of the emotional appraisal process (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984) be reduced in situations of time-pressured driving, but people also might experience increasing pleasure due to their
feeling of self-efcacy (Bandura, 1997).
The idea that time pressure is responsible for car accidents on the road has not been directly documented in the literature.
However, it has shown to be a causal factor for risk taking (McKenna, 2005). The present research suggests that time pressure
increases the rate of near-accidents but does not increase the number of actual accidents. If the superior driving ability that
time-pressured drivers reported is effective and not only presumed to be, these drivers could demonstrate a great ability to
escape the worst outcomes. Additionally, because time-pressured drivers are easily identied by others and are seen as being
potentially dangerous, the protective adjustment of the other protagonist(s) involved in critical situations might be crucial
for avoiding accidents.
Caution is nevertheless required in any null nding about car accidents. There are indeed multiple reasons to believe that
time pressure is actually dangerous. The high rate of accidents among professional drivers and among those who most often
drive for work (Charbotel et al., 2010) points to this, despite the possibility of a probabilistic account. In the present study,
insufcient statistical power may be suspected, considering that the overall number of accidents taken into account
(N = 124) may have been too small to detect a difference. Near accidents are notably more numerous (Taylor, 1964). Addi-
tionally, uncontrolled biases may have inuenced the self-reports of trafc accidents (af Wlberg, Dorn, & Kline, 2010).
Moreover, time pressure is described here as being potentially deleterious on a cognitive level. It could induce attentional
disruption from driving and could require a greater amount of cognitive resources, rendering driving more tiring. Drivers
themselves indicated that they adopt a more risky driving style when under time pressure, an opinion which is corroborated
by the less-pressured drivers and the gendarmes. Even if they encounter time pressure only occasionally, young drivers
could be particularly at risk because they could tend to take more risks but also tend not to benet from a sufcient body
of experience to avoid adverse consequences.
Emotions and the risk taking could be related. For instance, in a simulator study of time pressure, emotion-focused coping
was associated with a deterioration in the driving performance of bus drivers, in addition to avoidance coping (Dorn,
Stephen, af Whlberg, & Gandol, 2010). On-site, we observed that fear was only reported under time pressure in relation
to the potential of losing time on the road, but not to the possibility of a fatal consequence resulting from risky driving.
A focus on the goal may lead one to neglect the risks taken, and the fear of accidents would not exert a protective role in
terms of safety. In the same vein, it has been reported that under time pressure the link between visceral reactivity and
behavior would be weakened (Loewenstein, 1996), a phenomenon also described by Ku (2008) as preventing protective
strategies. Our data also show that the more people drive under time pressure, the more they hinder the journey of other
time-pressured drivers. This might be explained by either the fact that they are in a competitive state (Malhotra, 2010)
and react to time as a zero-sum commodity or by the fact that time pressure and associated goal-oriented processes reduce
empathy for other drivers. The latter effect is compatible with the Good Samaritan effect reported by Darley and Batson
(1973). Participants who believed they were late did not help a person feigning illness along their way. In any case, when
two protagonists are under time pressure, the probability is reduced that one of them adopts avoidant driving behaviors,
increasing the complexity of the interactions and the possible risk for accident. All of this indirectly supports the idea that,
under time pressure, a vicious circle takes place between emotion and risky driving behaviors.
In summary, there are several limitations associated with this research. These include the following: (1) for safety rea-
sons, the roadside study was performed in a rather low trafc density area, (2) in the absence of adequate tools in the French
language, response biases have not been directly tracked, and (3) data are missing about potentially relevant personality
traits such as type A personality (Friedman & Rosenman, 1959), sensation seeking (Desrichard & Denari, 2005), and driving
trait-anxiety (Dorn & Matthews, 1995). In the absence of the latter, the generalizability of the ndings is still under question,
but the present set of ndings helps us to better identify determining factors for time pressure in driving, including time
constraints, uncertainty and goal importance. Chronic time pressure appears to be a salient phenomenon in the framework
of driving, but in some drivers the possible associated stress could be reduced or even cancelled by an increased feeling of
self-efcacy, thus ultimately resulting in pleasurable driving. In the process of data collection, we never encountered
50 S. Cugnet et al. / Transportation Research Part F 20 (2013) 3951

respondents who reported a high level of stress related to driving under time pressure. This does not mean that such indi-
viduals do not exist, and further research may identify these people to study them in light of the results reported here. The
present results can substantiate a reection on the topic at organizational and institutional levels, identifying time pressure
on the basis of both objective and subjective criteria (Cugnet et al., 2011). Due to the importance of the latter, an individ-
ualized approach appears to be the most powerful basis for educational interventions aimed at reducing risks associated
with time pressure drive (Dorn et al., 2010).

Acknowledgments

The rst author has been funded by a PhD priority topic fellowship from the French Ministre de lEnseignement Supe-
rieur et de la Recherche. The authors are indebted to the General Staff of the Far North National Gendarmerie, especially the
County Squadron of Road Safety of Valenciennes and the Motorized Brigade of Valenciennes, for their help in the roadside
study. Thanks are due to Justine Huyghe, Mathieu Cnocquaert, Karine Duriez, Guillaume Dorlans, Nomie Phisel, and Syl-
vain Pontzeele for their help in the data collection of studies 2, 3 and 4. We thank Michel Labour for the translation of the
Self-Assessment of Driving Ability (Tronsmoen, 2008). Many thanks are also due to Holly Miller for reading and commenting
on the manuscript.

References

af Wlberg, A. E., Dorn, L., & Kline, T. (2010). The effect of social desirability on self-reported and recorded road trafc accidents. Transportation Research Part
F, 13, 106114.
Angus, J., & Reeve, P. (2006). Ageism: The threat to ageing-well in the 21st century. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 25, 137152.
Armor, D. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1998). Situated optimism: Specic outcome expectancies and self-regulation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 309379). New York: Academic Press.
Arnaudo, B., Magaud-Camus, I., Sandret, N., Coutrot, T., Floury, M. C., Guignon, N., et al. (2004). Lexposition aux risques et aux pnibilits du travail de 1994
2003: Premiers rsultats de lenqute SUMER 2003, Premires Synthses, No. 52.1, DARES, December 2004.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efcacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Charbotel, B., Martin, J. L., & Chiron, M. (2010). Work-related versus non-work-related road accidents, developments in the last decade in France. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 42, 604611.
CNAMTS (2006). Statistiques des Accidents de Trajet et de Mission. Direction de la Stratgie, des tudes et des Statistiques, dcembre, 7p. <http://www.asso-
psre.com/documents.php?id=4> (29.08.07).
Cugnet, S., Charron, C., Van de Weerdt, C., Anceaux, F., & Naveteur, J. (2011). Pourquoi est-il urgent dtudier la pression temporelle lie au travail ou
lactivit? Le Travail Humain, 74, 157181.
DARES (2007). Conditions de travail, une pause dans lintensication du travail. Premires synthse et premires informations. Enqute Conditions de travail,
Ministre de lemploi, de la cohsion sociale et du logement: Direction de lanimation de la recherche, des tudes et des statistiques (DARES), janvier, no.
01.2, 7p. <http://www.travail-solidarite.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/2007.01-01.2.pdf> (10.05.10).
Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 27, 100108.
Delhomme, P. (1991). Comparing ones driving with others: Assessment of abilities and frequency of offences. Evidence for a superior conformity of self-
bias? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 23, 493508.
Delhomme, P. (1997). The modication of unsafe driving behaviour The links between attitude and behaviour. Recherche Transports Scurit, 10, 2940.
Desrichard, O., & Denari, V. (2005). Sensation seeking and negative affectivity as predictors of risky behaviors: A distinction between occasional versus
frequent risk-taking. Addictive Behaviors, 30, 14491453.
Dorn, L., & Matthews, G. (1995). Prediction of mood and risk appraisals from trait measures: Two studies of simulated driving. European Journal of
Personality, 9, 2542.
Dorn, L., Stephen, L., af Whlberg, A. E., & Gandol, J. (2010). Developing and validating a self-report measure of bus driver behaviour. Ergonomics, 53,
14201433.
Dumontier, F., & Pan K Shon, J. -L. (2000). Enqute emploi du temps 19981999. Description des activites quotidiennes. INSEE Results (pp. 693694).
Duncan, J., Williams, P., & Brown, I. (1991). Components of driving skill: Experience does not mean expertise. Ergonomics, 34, 919937.
Forrierre, J., & Six, F. (2010). Comprendre le risque routier professionnel par lanalyse de lactivit. Lexemple des conducteurs de travaux. Pistes (vol. 12(2)).
<http://www.pistes.uqam.ca/v12n2/articles/v12n2a5s.htm>.
Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R. H. (1959). Association of specic overt behavior pattern with blood and cardiovascular ndings. Journal of American Medical
Association, 169, 12861296.
Gabany, G. G., Plummer, P., & Grigg, P. (1997). Why drivers speed: The speeding perception inventory. Journal of Safety Research, 28, 2936.
Gough, H. G. (1952). On making good impression. Journal of Educational Research, 46, 3342.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conict between work and family roles. The Academy of Management Review, 10, 7688.
Harris, P., & Middleton, W. (1994). The illusion of control and optimism about health: On being less at risk but no more in control than others. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 33, 369386.
Jansson, C., Wallander, M. A., Johansson, S., Johnsen, R., & Hveem, K. (2010). Stressful psychosocial factors and symptoms of gastroesophageal reux disease:
A population-based study in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 45, 2129.
Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Medical Education, 38, 12121218.
Johansson-Stenman, O. (2002). Estimating individual driving distance by car and public transport use in Sweden. Applied Economics, 34, 959967.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implication for job redesign. Administrative Science Quaterly, 24, 285308.
Karlaftis, M. G., Kotzampassakis, I., & Kanellaidis, G. (2003). An empirical investigation of European drivers self-assessment. Journal of Safety Research, 34,
207213.
Ku, G. (2008). Before escalation: Behavioral and affective forecasting in escalation of commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 14771491.
Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safety-motive dimensions in drivers self-assessments. Personality and
Individual Differences, 19, 307318.
Lazarus, R. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Leplat, J., & Hoc, J. M. (1983). Tche et activit dans lanalyse psychologique des situations. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 3, 4963.
Loewenstein, G. F. (1996). Out of control: Visceral inuences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 272292.
Malhotra, D. (2010). The desire to win: The effects of competitive arousal on motivation and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
111, 139146.
 S. Cugnet et al. / Transportation Research Part F 20 (2013) 3951 51

Maule, A. J., & Svenson, O. (1993). Theoretical and empirical approaches to behavioral decision making and their relation to time constraints. In O. Svenson &
A. J. c. N. Y. Maule (Eds.), Time pressure end stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 325): Plenum Press.
McKenna, F. P. (2005). What shall we do about speeding-education? In G. Underwood (Ed.), Trafc and transport psychology (pp. 521528). Oxford: Elsevier.
OBrien, S., Tay, R., & Watson, B. (2004). Situational factors contributing to the expression of agression on the roads. IATSS Research, 28, 101107.
zkan, T., Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (2006). Driver behaviour questionnaire: A follow-up study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38, 386395.
Peer, E. (2010). Speeding and the time-saving bias: How drivers estimations of time saved in higher speed affects their choice of speed. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 42, 19781982.
Rastegary, H., & Landy, F. J. (1993). The interactions among time urgency, uncertainty, and time pressure. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maule (Eds.), Time pressure and
stress in human judgement and decision making (pp. 217240). New York: Plenum Press.
Roxburgh, S. (2004). There Just Arent enough hours in the day: The mental health consequences of time pressure. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45,
115131.
Salminen, S. (2000). Trafc accidents during work and work commuting. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 26, 7585.
Salminen, S., & Lhdeniemi, E. (2002). Risk factors in work-related trafc. Transportation Research Part F, 5, 7786.
Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of hight-efforts/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 2741.
Svenson, O., & Benson Iii, L. (1993). Framing and time pressure in decision making. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maule (Eds.), Time pressure and stress in human
judgement and decision making (pp. 133144). New York: Plenum.
Szollos, A. (2009). Toward a psychology of chronic time pressure: Conceptual and methodological review. Time & Society, 18, 332350.
Taylor, D. H. (1964). Drivers galvanic skin response and the risk of accident. Ergonomics, 7, 439451.
Thompson, C. P., Skowronski, J. J., Larsen, S., & Betz, A. L. (1996). Auto-biographical memory: Remembering what and remembering when. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tronsmoen, T. (2008). Associations between self-assessment of driving ability, driver training and crash involvement among young drivers. Transportation
Research Part F: Trafc Psychology and Behaviour, 11, 334346.
Wahlstrom, J., Hagberg, M., Johnson, P. W., Svensson, J., & Rempel, D. (2002). Inuence of time pressure and verbal provocation on physiological and
psychological reactions during work with a computer mouse. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 87, 257263.
Warming, S., Precht, D. H., Suadicani, P., & Ebbehj, N. E. (2009). Musculoskeletal complaints among nurses related to patient handling tasks ans
psychosocial factors Based on logbook registrations. Applied Ergonomics, 40, 569576.
Weyman, A., Clarke, D. D., & Cox, T. (2003). Developing a factor model of coal minersattributions on risk-taking at work. Work & Stress, 17, 306320.