Effects of Driving Goals on Driving Behaviour

1. Copyright: Shell Brands International AG 2008
Projects & Technology
8/29/2013
Effect of driving goals on driving behaviour
Stephen Skippon, Nick Reed & Ryan Robbins
6th International Conference on Driver Behaviour & Training, Helsinki, August 2013

2. Driving style, fuel economy and CO2 emissions
Dynamic driving styles - high acceleration, heavy braking, close
following, overtaking and aggressive manoeuvres
• high fuel consumption and high CO2 emissions
• less safe
Yet many drivers adopt these styles:
• >50% of UK drivers exceed the speed limit on motorways (Dept. of Transport,
2012)
• 53.4% of drivers “tailgate” a leading car (Glendon & Sutton, 2005; Glendon,
2007)
Why is this so?

3. Self-regulation theories of driver behaviour
Risk Allostasis Theory (Fuller, 2011)
Drivers adjust their driving behaviour to fall within a target range of
task difficulty - experienced as feelings of risk
Other motivational influences have their effect by adjusting where
in the target range the feedback loop will operate, e.g.
driver is motivated to reach a destination quickly
→ higher level of feeling of risk accepted
→ feedback loop output is higher speed
Example of theories based on self-regulation of a single variable

4. Self-regulation theories of driver behaviour
Multiple Comfort Zone Model (Summala, 2007)
Drivers seek to keep several functional control variables within
“comfort zones”:
• Safety margin
• Good or expected progress of trip
• Rule following (avoiding violations; and conforming to social norms)
• Vehicle/road system (maintaining smooth car/road operation and
performance, etc.)
• Pleasure of driving (arising from a sense of control, and also from sensation
seeking)
Example of broader class of models of human behaviour: goal
competition or inter-goal dynamics theories (Kruglanski et al., 2002)

5. Inter-goal dynamics theories of human behaviour
Behaviour: result of simultaneous pursuit of
multiple goals
Goals are hierarchically organised
Some goals influence behaviour without
conscious awareness
Active goals may:
•COMPETE for control of limited
resources – especially behaviour
•CONFLICT, such that successful pursuit
of one hinders pursuit of another
•COMPLEMENT each other: the same
behaviour supports pursuit of both
People attend to those aspects of their
perceptual environments that are salient to
their most active goals
Principle Goals
Activity goals
Task goals
Goal P2
Goal A3
Goal T4Goal T3
Goal P1
Goal A2Goal A1
Goal T2Goal T1
Goal SC1 Self-Concept Goal
Goal BI1 Biological imperative
Behaviour b1 Behaviour b2 Behaviour b3 Behaviour b4 Behaviour b5 Behaviour b6 Behaviours
From moment to moment, the actor’s behaviour is
the result of a process of INTERACTIVE
ACTIVATION AND COMPETITION between her/his
active goals
Carver & Scheier, 1998; Powers, 2005; Kruglanski et al., 2002

6. Goals when driving: summary of findings from
qualitative research in UK and Malaysia
Individual interviews, dyadic interviews and group discussions aimed
at mapping travel-related goals
Participants from two life-stage segments (young people (aged 21-25)
and adult members of families with children at home)
UK and Malaysia
Four categories of goals when driving identified:
•Journey goals (functional/instrumental goals that the driver seeks to achieve by
making the journey, or during it)
• Safety goals (functional/instrumental goals to avoid harm while driving)
•Symbolic goals (using driving style to signal something about oneself to other
people)
•Affective goals (achievement of pleasure from driving)

7. Research questions
1. Does conflict between goals affect driving
behaviour?
•Safety goals vs. Journey goals
•Safety goals vs. Symbolic goals
2. Are drivers’ perceptions of the performance of their
vehicles affected by the activation levels of goals for
which performance is salient?

8. TRL DigiCar Driving simulator
DigiCar simulator at TRL: Honda Civic
simulator vehicle; Renault vehicle
dynamics model; OKTAL SCANeR II
Vehicle dynamics updated at 100Hz;
visuals refreshed at 60Hz; data recorded at
20 Hz
Three projection screens, 210o forward field
of view; one rear screen, 60o rear field of
view
Visual scene resolution1280 × 1024 pixels
per screen
Motion system with three degrees of
freedom (pitch; roll and heave)
Participants walked up to and entered the
car as they would a real vehicle,
encouraging expectations of a close-to-
normal driving experience

9. Simulated route
10.2 km of rural single carriageway A-road
Appropriate UK signage and markings, and road-side features such as
trees, bushes, fences, walls and buildings.
Repeated opportunities for mid-range accelerations:
•Six sharp bends (radius 45m, turning through 100-105°)
•Twelve gentle bends (radius 90m, turning through 70°)
•Three hill climbs (gradient 1 in 8)
•Three long straight sections
Each drive took approximately 10 minutes

10. Participants
30 UK males: full UK manual driving licence, >5 years driving
experience, > 8,000 miles annual driving
Mean age 49.8 (SD 13.8) years - older, experienced drivers who might
be expected to have established driving styles
Two groups:
•General drivers (N =15): recruited from TRL’s participant pool
•Performance-oriented drivers (N = 15): regular buyers of premium,
performance-oriented fuel
• Assumption that this group would have more active symbolic and affective
driving goals

11. Design
2 × 2 mixed factorial design with one between-participants variable (driver group) and
one within-participants variable (goal condition)
Each driver completed four drives in total, two in each goals condition:
•Relaxed (no-conflict) condition: complete the route safely, driving as they normally
would
•Time-Pressured (goal conflict) condition: imagine you are late for an important
appointment - complete the route safely but as fast as you reasonably can
15-20 minutes familiarisation with the simulator prior to experimental drives
Measures:
•Mean accelerator pedal depression
•Number of gear changes
•Time out of lane (nearside)
•Perceived vehicle acceleration
•Perceived vehicle responsiveness

12. Effect of goal condition and driver group on dynamic
driving: mean accelerator pedal depression
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Relaxed Time Pressured
Meanaccelerator(gas)pedaldepression
Goal condition
Performance oriented drivers General drivers
Significant main effect of goal condition on mean accelerator pedal position (F(1,56) =
11.19; p = 0.001). Neither main effect of driver group nor goal condition × driver group
interaction were significant

13. Effect of goal condition and driver group on number of
gear changes during drive
Main effect of driver group was nearly significant at p < 0.05: (F(1,56) = 2.98; p = 0.088). Neither main
effect of goal condition nor goal condition × driver group interaction were significant
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Relaxed Time Pressured
Numberofgearchanges
Goal condition
Performance oriented drivers General drivers

14. Effect of goal condition and driver group on perception
of the acceleration performance of the vehicle
Goal condition × driver group interaction was significant (F(1.56) = 5.11; p = 0.027)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Relaxed Time Pressured
Ratingofperceivedaccelerationof
vehicle
Goal condition
Performance oriented drivers General drivers

15. Effect of goal condition and driver group on perception
of responsiveness of the vehicle to its accelerator pedal
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Relaxed Time Pressured
Ratingofperceivedresponsiveness
ofvehicle
Goal condition
Performance oriented drivers General drivers

16. Discussion: effect of goal competition
Key finding: change in relative activation of conflicting goals leads to
change in driving behaviour
Even though level of task difficulty similar between goal conditions
Finding supports view that driving behaviour results from inter-goal
dynamics – i.e. it is the resultant of the combined influences of multiple
goals, pursued simultaneously

17. Discussion: effect of driver group
Hypothesis: Performance-oriented drivers have chronically active
symbolic and/or affective goals that conflict with the goal to avoid harm,
so will lead to more dynamic driving compared to General drivers
Differences in driving behaviour, while in the predicted direction, were
not statistically significant
Two possible explanations:
(1) chronic activation of symbolic and/or affective goals made no
significant difference to these driving behaviours
(2) in fact little difference in chronic goal activation between the
driver groups
Recruitment based on fuel purchasing behaviour - indirect way to try to
create inter-group differences in goal activation

18. Discussion: perception of performance
General drivers:
•Perceived acceleration was HIGHER in the Time Pressured condition
• Made more extensive use of the accelerator pedal – i.e. to make faster
accelerations
Thus their own goal-directed behaviour afforded more experience of acceleration
during the Time Pressured drives, and they mis-attributed this to the car having
faster acceleration performance
Performance-oriented drivers:
•Perceived acceleration was LOWER in the Time Pressured condition
•Also made more extensive use of the accelerator pedal in this condition
Speculation: performance-oriented drivers set themselves a high target rate of
progress towards the journey goal, experienced negative affect on failing to
achieve this rate (Carver & Scheier, 1998), thus experienced the acceleration of the
car as inadequate in relation to the journey goal

19. Conclusions
This study provides evidence that driving behaviour is not
just determined by self-regulation aimed at a single goal,
but rather results from inter-goal dynamics – i.e. it is the
resultant of the combined influences of multiple goals,
pursued simultaneously

20. Acknowledgments
Thank you for your attention!
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Lena
Weaver of TRL for running the driving simulator experiment, and
thank our participants for helping us carry out the study

21. References
Carver, C.S. & Scheier, M.F. (1998). On the Self-Regulation of Behavior. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Department for Transport (2012). Table SPE0101, Transport Statistics Great Britain:2012, p216.
Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transport-statistics-great-britain-2012, 21
January 2013.
Fuller, R. (2011). Driver Control Theory. In B.E. Porter (Ed.), Handbook of Traffic Psychology.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Glendon, I. (2007). Driving violations observed: An Australian study. Ergonomics, 50, 1159-82.
Glendon, I. & Sutton, D.C. (2005). Observing motorway driving violations, in Contemporary Issues in
Road User Behaviour and Safety, edited by D.A. Hennessey and D.L. Wiesenthal. New York: Nova
Science, 81-100.
Kruglanski, A.W., Shah, J.Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W.Y. & Sleeth-Keppler, W. (2002). A
theory of goal systems. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 34, pp.
331-378. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Powers, W.T. (2005). Behavior: the control of perception (2nd edition). New Canaan, CT: Benchmark
Publications.
Summala, H. (2007). Towards Understanding Motivational and Emotional Factors in Driver Behaviour:
Comfort Through Satisficing. In P.C.Cacciabue (Ed.), Modelling Driver Behaviour in Automotive
Environments: Critical Issues in Driver Interactions with Intelligent Transport Systems. London,
England: Springer-Verlag London Ltd.