PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION OF WAITING
TIME AT STATIONS OF NETHERLANDS
RAILWAYS (NS)
Mark van Hagen, Mirjam Galetzka & Ad Pruyn12
Summary
Although the railway sector has long invested in shortening the train journey, less
attention has been paid to passengers waiting at the station and how they experience this
wait, i.e. the subjective wait and travelling time. In order to find out how much time
passengers spend at a station and how they experience the time and the wait, a study was
conducted whereby observations of behaviour were combined with structured (selfreported) questionnaires. The results show that passengers spend on average 7 minutes at
a station, the majority of which is on the platform. Passengers generally appear to
overestimate the length of the wait at the station. The shorter the wait, the greater the
overestimation of the waiting time. Passengers particularly overestimate the waiting time
when they have nothing to do and when they have to wait longer than expected.
It also appeared that passengers attach importance to a pleasant waiting environment. It is
advisable to limit the waiting time to a minimum and to organize the surroundings in such
a way that irritation and stress be prevented as much as possible. This can be realized by
a specific deployment of atmospheric elements. Pleasant surroundings are conducive to
passengers’ forgetting the time and being more positive in their evaluation of the wait.
Improving the waiting environment on the platform can be achieved by stimulating the
senses in such a way that passengers experience a maximum level of comfort.
1
Mark van Hagen is Senior project leader at NS Commercie; Mirjam Galetzka (Assistant Professor) and
Ad Pruyn (Professor of Consumer Psychology) work at the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of
Twente.
2
The authors would like to thank all students for helping us to gather the data, and Diane Ricketts for her
helpful comments.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
1
Perception and evaluation of waiting time at stations of
Netherlands Railways (NS)
1.
Introduction
Travelling costs time, money and effort. People are thereby inclined to opt for the line of
least resistance (van Hagen, 1998), i.e. with as little exertion as possible, as cheaply as
possible and with little delay. Time, money and effort are the three budgets on which
passengers must draw in order to realize movement between one place and another. In
today’s affluent society, money and physical exertion are less and less of a restriction for
consumers. We are, however, under increasing mental pressure and for more and more of
us time is scarce. As a result of this, not money but time is becoming increasingly
important when choices have to be made (Ackerman & Gross, 2007; Breedveld, 2006;
Gourville, 2006; Grotenhuis e.a., 2006; Grotenhuis e.a., 2007; Kotler & Stonich, 1991;
Pine & Gilmore,1999).
Investments in the railway sector have long been aimed at shortening the train journey,
particularly with the optimization of the objective wait and travelling time. The timetable
is fixed to the exact minute and the resulting calculations give insight into the extra
number of passengers that can be expected as a result of shortening the journey (Brouwer,
2007; van Hagen, 1998). These efforts are geared to minimizing the wait at the station
and thus to meet the time shortage of passengers. Less attention is paid to the passengers
waiting at the station and how they experience this wait, i.e. the subjective wait and
travelling time. How long passengers are actually at a station, as compared with how long
they think they have been there, how they feel there and the value they attach to the wait
is still unclear (Prorail, 2002, NS/Prorail 2005). Yet it is this subjective (waiting) time
perception that often appears to be a good predictor of consumer satisfaction, as is also
the strong influence of the waiting environment (Pruyn & Smidts, 1998; Taylor, 1994).
By specifically tailoring the waiting environment, the NS can possibly make the journey
more pleasant. This article aims to contribute more insight into the perception and
evaluation of waiting time at NS stations.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
2
2.
Theoretical framework
NS is a service provider and the appraisal thereof is determined by the experiences of the
customer. A service that runs smoothly is indispensable to keeping customers happy.
Almost intrinsic to this is nevertheless the occurrence of ‘service failures’ (Zeithaml,
Bitner & Gremler, 2006). At such a time it is of the utmost importance that the service
provider reacts adequately. An adequate reaction can yield much goodwill among
customers, sometimes even more than when the service was carried out correctly from
the start (Chung, Beverland & Gabbott, 2004; Hart, Heskett & Sasser, 2000; Maxham,
2001; Zeithaml & Bitner, 1996).
An adequate reaction entails, for example, that the right information is promptly given on
the reason and duration of a delay, and that the staff concern themselves with the
passengers. Without information passengers are uncertain, are prone to negative emotions
and will ultimately be dissatisfied with the service provider (Customer Relevancy, 2007;
Groth & Gillilian, 1999; van Hagen, 2006; Hui e.a., 2006; Hui & Tse, 1996; Taylor,
1994).
It appears from numerous studies in the service industries, such as banks, restaurants,
shops and hospitals (Bitner, 1992; Baker & Cameron, 1994; Pruyn & Smidts, 1998, Tse,
1996; Turley & Milliman, 2000), that not only the service itself influences the quality
assessment but also the persons who offer the service and the environment in which the
service is offered (Rust & Oliver, 1994; Senta, 2005). The service environment comprises
tangible elements, such as floors, walls, the interior design, furniture and signposts, and
intangible elements, such as the atmospheric temperature and smell, music, colour and
light (Bitner, 1992). Research in the retail sector has shown that intangible atmospheric
elements have a large influence on the quality perception of the service (Baker, Grewal &
Parasuraman, 1994). A number of these studies have also shown an effect of the service
environment on the duration of the wait or the perceived duration of the wait (see e.g.
Turley & Milliman, 2000 for an extensive overview). The environment thus influences
the perception of the waiting time, i.e. the notion that the time passes pleasantly or
unpleasantly and quickly or slowly. From studies in which the actual time is compared
with the perceived time, it appears that people are prone to either over- or
underestimation (Groth & Gillilian, 1999; Maltha, 2006; Moreau, 1992; Durrande-
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
3
Moreau, 1999; Pruyn & Smidts, 1999; Taylor, 1994, 1995;). Manipulating the
surroundings with e.g. music, smell or colour appears to demonstrably influence the
perception of the wait (Boes, 2007; Turley & Milliman, 2000).
2.1
Perception of waiting time and distraction
When we make use of a service it is often inevitable that we will have to wait for either
our turn or until the service runs, such as waiting in the queue at a ticket machine, a cash
desk or until the train leaves. Waiting is considered lost time and is usually experienced
as being annoying (van Hagen, 2003, 2006).
Since the 1980s, scientific studies have been carried out, and articles written, on the
perception of the wait (Bitner 1992; Baker & Cameron 1996; Pruyn et al., 1993, 1997,
1998, 1999; Turley & Milliman, 2000). Apparent from these is just how greatly the
waiting environment determines how we feel and how we evaluate the service.
Maister (1985) was one of the first to focus on the effects of waiting on customers. He
predicted that waiting is particularly annoying before the service commences (pre-process
wait, as opposed to in-process wait) and furthermore when one has nothing to do, is
worried or uncertain, when the wait is unfair, when the value for which one is waiting is
poor or when one has to wait alone, and when one does not understand why one has to
wait in the first place. Providing information about the whys and wherefores of the wait
remove much uncertainty and has a positive effect on the customers’ emotions and
judgement and on their perception of the duration (Taylor, 1994; Hui & Tse, 1996; Groth
& Gillilian, 1999; Hui e.a. 2006).
Hui and Zhou (1996) distinguish two methods to improve the perception of the wait. The
first is to enable the customer to accept the wait, for example by providing information
about the reason and the duration (e.g. Hui, Tse & Zhou, 2006). The second method is to
shorten the perceived duration of the wait by, for example, distracting the customer by an
absorbing, useful or interesting environment (e.g. Katz, Larson & Larson, 1991). Studies
of the intangible atmospheric elements show that these not only influence the (perceived)
length of the wait and the subjective time perception, but also the actual time spent in the
environment. A study by Areni and Kim (1994) in a retail environment, for example,
shows that with lighting retailers are able to influence the time consumers spend shopping
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
4
in their store. A brightly lit environment ‘arouses’ more than one with dimmed light.
With dimmed lights consumers tend to spend longer time in a store. In a similar vein, a
study by Milliman (1982) shows that people walk faster through a space when up-tempo
music is played.
Spangenberg, Crowley and Henderson (1996) compared the actual time that people spent
in a test store (recorded by a researcher) with the perceived time by asking them how
long they had been there. They found that in a sweetly-smelling retail environment
customers thought they had spent less time there than was actually the case. At the same
time, Spangenberg and his colleagues found that customers in a ‘scent free’ store were
adamant they had been there longer than was the case. These findings are in line with
those of Bailey and Areni (2006), who demonstrated in a simulated waiting situation
(laboratory setting) that background noises (music) could lengthen or shorten the
subjective estimation of time, depending on the kind of music or the tempo of the music.
2.2
Waiting time research in the transport sector
In the transport sector only a few studies are known to have been carried out on the
perception of the wait (Dhollander, 2005; GUIDE, 1999; Maltha, 2006; Moreau, 1992;
Mortier, 2003; Pruyn & Smidts, 1999; Pruyn, Smidts & van Dijke, 199l; Taylor, 1994;
van Hagen & de Munck Mortier, 2003; Wardman, 2004). Dhollander found that people at
traffic lights overestimated the wait by more than twice its actual duration (Dhollander,
2005). Moreau (1992), in his study, found that people who were waiting for a bus or tram
also overestimated the average waiting time (of 3½ minutes) by 14%. The shorter people
waited, the greater the overestimation. With average waiting times (around 5 minutes) the
time was generally valued correctly, and with more than average waiting times, up to 15
minutes (the maximum duration in this study) slightly undervalued (Moreau, 1992). For
small Dutch railway stations Maltha found that on average passengers wait 7 minutes 19
seconds and that the waiting times are overestimated to a considerable extent (16%).
After analysing various studies of Values of Time in Transport, Wardman (2004)
concludes that an average overestimation of the waiting time has a factor of 2.5.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
5
3.
Observation research
The (partly explorative) research presented here is aimed at providing insight into the
time perception of passengers at railway stations. The key question to be answered here
is:
“What are the differences between the actual waiting time and the perceived waiting
time and to what extent does the evaluation and appreciation of the train station
affect the subjective waiting experiences?”
3.1
Method
In order to find out how much time passengers spend at the station and how they
experience their time and stay there, a combined research was carried out whereby
observations were linked to a structured questionnaire. Fifty students from the University
of Twente (Enschede, the Netherlands) paired up and inconspicuously followed every
tenth passenger from the moment he/she entered the station to the moment he/she got on
the train. Subsequently, questionnaires on the perception of both the station and time
were handed out to those passengers who were followed as well as to a number of other
passengers who were not followed and observed. The choice for this rather roundabout
and time-consuming method was made because it is almost impossible for passengers to
give a correct assessment of the duration and emotions at the station and on the platform
later on (Pruyn, Smidts & van Dijke, 1999). Moreover, if the respondents had been asked
to fill in the questionnaire on the platform, this would have directly influenced the results
(and the assessment of the service), i.e. time on the platform would thus have been filled,
whereas on the train passengers have more time to fill in a questionnaire anyway. The
students followed and interviewed passengers on and from four medium-sized stations,
namely Enschede, Deventer, Zwolle and Amersfoort. These stations were specifically
chosen because both the numbers of people getting on and off the train and their location
are reasonably comparable yet differ in appeal. NS compared 40 stations on ambiance.
Amersfoort and Zwolle were perceived as stations with a better ambience then Deventer
and Enschede (Senta, 2005).
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
6
3.2
Procedure
The students divided themselves into pairs among the four stations according to a prearranged plan. One of the two researchers recorded the observed behaviour of the
respondent using an MP3 player which recorded the time in seconds. The moment the
observed respondents got on the train, they were asked by the second interviewer whether
they would like to cooperate in a research on the perception of railway stations. With
both the pair of students having boarded the train with the passenger, the second student
then supervised the respondent whilst he/she filled in the questionnaire. As the train left
the station, the first student stopped the MP3 player and distributed the same
questionnaire among passengers who had not been followed but who had got on the train
at the same station. The questionnaires were collected as soon as the respondents had
filled them in. On the journey back the researchers filled in a registration form with the
aid of recordings on the MP3 player. This form is a precise register of the activities and
the time they took.
3.3
Research instrument: questionnaire and registration form
Both the actual length of time spent at the station and the delays were recorded on a
registration form. Actual length of stay was measured by clocking the exact length of
passengers’ time spent at the station and on the platform (from arrival at the station to the
departure of the train). Perceived length of stay was measured by asking the passengers in
the questionnaire to indicate how long they thought they had been at the station and on
the platform. The questionnaire also made it possible to measure emotions, evaluation of
the stations, etc.
Perception of waiting time was measured with 3 items. Passengers were first asked how
they had experienced their time at the station (1 = went very quickly, 5 = went very
slowly). Subsequently they were asked to what degree they had spent their time in a
useful and pleasant manner (1 = not at all, 5 =perfectly well).
Station evaluation was measured by asking passengers to give a mark for the station.
They also had to indicate how comfortable (1 = uncomfortable, 5 =comfortable) or
irritated (1 = not at all, 5 = quite severely) they had felt at this station.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
7
Staff assessment was measured with 3 items. Passengers could indicate on a 5-point scale
how professional, decisive and approachable they found the staff. These 3 items form a
reliable scale. Coëfficiënt alpha is .80.
Finally, the passengers were asked how they felt on the platform. Based on the PANAS
scale of Watson, Clark & Tellegen (1988), passengers could indicate how they felt (1 =
not at all, 5 = very much so) toward 20 emotions: interested, agitated, strong,
enthusiastic, proud, alert, inspired, determined, observant, active, distressed, upset, guilty,
anxious, hostile, irritated, embarrassed, tense, nervous, and frightened.
4.
Results
A total of 181 subjects were randomly selected for observation. Of these, 130 agreed to
participate in the study by filling in the questionnaire. Another 758 (non-observed)
passengers cooperated by also filling in the questionnaire. Of the total of 888 respondents
47% were men and 53% women. Their average age was 32 years (standard deviation
(SD) = 16.49).
4.1
Duration of the wait at station and on platform
It appeared that passengers spend on average 7 minutes and 7 seconds at a station
(N=129, SD = 0:07:24). On the actual platform passengers spend on average 4 minutes
and 56 seconds (N = 120, SD = 0:06:11). This means that at these stations passengers
take on average just over 2 minutes between entering the station and arriving on the
platform and hence spend 62% of the duration of time spent at the station actually on the
platform (see Table 2). These average waiting times differ significantly per station
(F(3,125) = 6.32, p < .001): In Deventer one tends to wait the longest (more than 12
minutes), whereas in Enschede on average the shortest (over 4 minutes (see Table 1)).
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
8
Table 1.
Average time (and standard deviations) spent at the stations and on the platforms in Amersfoort,
Deventer, Enschede and Zwolle
Amersfoort
Deventer
Enschede
Zwolle
Total
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
N
N
N
N
N
a
(0:06:51)
(0:10:42)
(0:03:27)
(0:06:05)
(0:07:26)
32
27
39
29
127
(min – sec)
0:04:54
a
0:09:05
b
0:02:13
0:05:35
a
station (in min –
Platform time in
0:04:30
a
0:07:24
sec)
0:12:15
b
Time spent at
a
0:04:38
a
0:07:07
0:04:56
(0:06:00)
(0:08:33)
(0:01:46)
(0:05:36)
(0:06:11)
28
27
38
26
119
Notes. The time was recorded by students in hh:mm:ss. Averages with various superscripts (a and b)
differ significantly in the column. Only in 119 cases, it was actually recorded at what time the passengers
entered the platform.
Also the waiting times on the platforms differ significantly (F(3,116) = 6.87, p < ,001). In
Deventer passengers spend on average the longest time on the platform (more than 9
minutes), whereas in Enschede passengers spend the shortest (over 2 minutes).
Table 2
Percentage of the total time spent on the platform
Mean %
SD
N
Amersfoort
61.6
29
28
Deventer
74.9
18
27
Enschede
52.1
27
38
Zwolle
63.8
27
26
Total
62.0
27
119
Station:
4.2
Perception of waiting time
A comparison of the actual lengths of waiting observed and those perceived by the
passengers indicates that passengers overestimate by on average 01:36 (SD = 06:08).
In proportion this is an average of 23%, whereby more passengers overestimate the wait
(60%) than underestimate it (40%). Long waiting times carry more weight in the average
waiting time comparison and can negate individual differences, particularly among those
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
9
whose wait is short. The collected data enabled us to determine a Subjective Time Factor
(STF) per individual. This STF shows the difference in a ratio between actual time and
the passenger’s perceived waiting time, defined as: estimated duration of wait divided by
actual duration of wait. The average STF appears to be 1.90 at the station and 1.95 on the
platform, which means that on average passengers overestimate their time spent at the
station by almost 200%. Hence this overestimation based on individual
experience/perception is larger than when we only look at the average overestimation
(+23%).
As long waiting periods carry much weight in the average differences between the
measured and perceived time, we also looked at how long passengers had been at the
station and whether the duration of the wait had an influence on the over- or
underestimation of the time. The waiting period was thus divided into four time blocks
(see Table 3): shorter than 5 minutes, 5-10 minutes, 10-15 minutes and longer than 15
minutes. Table 3 shows that passengers with a short wait – less than 5 minutes –
overestimate the duration at the station more (factor 2.6).
The longer one has to wait, the closer the estimation is of the actual waiting time.
Passengers who waited between 5 and 10 minutes still slightly overestimated the waiting
time (1.35), passengers who waited between 10 and 15 minutes appear to be the best
predictors (1.05). Finally, passengers who waited longer than 15 minutes underestimate
their wait at the station by one quarter (factor 0.75).
The platform is the spot where passengers spend the most time. If we determine the STF
on the platform, then it also appears that time there is overestimated despite the
passengers having a more clear notion of time. People who spend less than 5 minutes on
the platform overestimate the wait with a factor 2.4. Under longer waiting conditions the
factor eventually decreases to 1. Interestingly, there appears to be no underestimation of
time spent on the platform, not even under the longest waiting conditions (>15 minutes).
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
10
Table 3
Average Subjective Time Factor of wait on platform and at station
Platform
5-10 min
10-15 min
> 15 min
Total
N
63
22
7
7
Minimum
0.0
0.0
0.44
0.33
Maximum
17.14
2.88
1.79
1.81
M
2.40
1.22
1.08
1.00
1.95
SD
3.66
0.71
0.44
0.50
3.0
< 5 min
5-10 min
10-15 min
> 15 min
Totaal
55
29
9
13
105
Minimum
0.00
0.12
0.44
0.32
Maximum
10.00
3.43
2.08
1.15
M
2.60
1.35
1.05
0.75
1.9
SD
2.22
0.92
0.63
0.26
1.85
Station
N
4.3
< 5 min
99
Time and station experience
On scrutinizing the link between the duration of the wait and the evaluation of the station,
it appears that passengers who wait less than 5 or longer than 10 minutes award the
highest marks. Between 5 and 10 minutes the score decreases. Possibly there is just not
enough time to undertake something yet long enough to get annoyed.
When we look at the perception of time that people have been at the station and on the
platform, then it appears that the longer passengers thought they had to wait the more
irritated they were This significant relationship applies to both the estimated time on the
platform and the estimated time at the station (F(3,699) = 11.24, p <.001, u 2 = .05 and
F(3,696) = 10.04, p <.001, u 2 = .04 and respectively). On the other hand, the shorter
passengers thought they had to wait, the more usefull their time was spent (F(3,782) =
7.05, p <.001, u 2 = .03).
These results are irrespective of the fact that one might or might not have experienced a
delay. In itself this has a logical bearing. People who have had to wait longer are more
annoyed than those whose wait was short. (see Table 4)
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
11
Table 4
Average irritation, amusement on the platform/at the station vis-à-vis length of time
Platform
irritation
Station
irritation
Amusement at
the station
Time usefully
spent
less than 5
5 to 10
10 to 15
minutes
minutes
minutes
> 15 minutes
Total
1.30
a
1.52
b
1.55
b
1.88
c
1.44
1.30
a
1.34
a
1.57
b
1.76
b
1.46
4.70
3.69
a
4.69
3.41
b
4.65
3.04
c
4.55
3.16
bc
4.66
3.38
Note: . Averages with various superscripts (a, b and c) differ significantly in the row
4.4
Delay
Passengers who were delayed found that the time passed more slowly in comparison with
those who experienced none (F(1,782) = 64.32, p < .001). On the emotional scales we see
a difference between people with or without a delay with regard to the emotions:
disconcerted, excited, irritated, alert and observant. People with a delay score
significantly higher on all of these emotions. This is evidence itself how delayed
passengers become annoyed or stressed. With regard to the other emotions there was no
significant difference to other passengers. People who have been delayed also give a
significantly lower score in their assessment of the station (F(1,772) = 7.63, p < .01) (see
Table 5). This means that when the primary service is not in order this will also reflect on
the evaluation of the station.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
12
Table 5
Average marks (and standard deviation) for the station and the
accompanying emotions of people who have/have not experienced a
delay with the train
No delay
Delay
M (SD)
M (SD)
Distressed
1.2 (.57)
1.4 (.82)**
Agitated
1.3 (.72)
1.4 (.85)*
Irritated
1.3 (.67)
1.9 (1.15)***
Alert
2.2 (1.09)
2.5 (1.14)**
Observant
2.4 (1.12)
2.6 (1.13)*
Mark station
7.1 (.84)
6.9 (.81)
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
4.5
Time perception and performed activities
Passengers who perform activities on the platform, such as reading, appear to experience
the time as more useful and pleasant than those who do not. Passengers who engage in
conversation experience the time as significantly more pleasant than those who do not.
Passengers who eat and drink have the sense they have spent their time in a more useful
manner.
There are also activities regarded as less useful. People who look around tend to see their
time as less usefully spent than those who do not. People who phone or send an SMS
perceive their time as less pleasantly spent. There is no significant difference in time
perception (useful or pleasant) between people who reflect or are deep in thought and
those who claim they are not.
When we look at the differences between people who are actively doing something
(reading, talking, eating/drinking, looking round) and those who are not, then it appears
that it is the passive people who significantly overestimate the time spent at the station (3
minutes and 3 seconds as opposed to 31 seconds for active people), (F(1,102) = 4.82, p =
.03, u = .05) (see Table 6).
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
13
Table 6
Average difference in actual time and perceived time
Performed activities
No performed activities
(n = 53)
(n = 51)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Clock time – perceived
time
0:00:31
0:03:03*
(0:06:20)
(0:05:20)
Note: * p < .05
4.6
Time pressure and emotions
A remarkable outcome is that there is a considerable difference between people who have
arranged to arrive somewhere at a specific time and those who have not. Almost all
emotions are significantly more intense for the group of people who have arranged to be
somewhere at a specific time. Passengers who have to be on time feel significantly
(p<0.05) more: observant, anxious, nervous, frightened, irritated, hostile, embarrassed,
guilty, disconcerted and upset, but also more excited, strong and enthusiastic. The
experienced time pressure effects a higher state of emotional excitement, which is usually
considered negative. We had already seen that people with a delay are significantly
(p<0.05) more upset, excited, irritated, nervous, observant and alert, but this applies even
more to people who have arranged to be somewhere on time.
5.
Conclusion and recommendations
At stations passengers appear to overestimate the waiting time. The shorter the wait, the
greater the overestimation of the waiting time. Passengers who spend 15 minutes or
longer on a platform have a clearer notion of the actual time spent there. When they
spend 15 minutes or longer at the station, they underestimate the time.
Passengers particularly overestimate the waiting time when they have nothing to do and
when they have to wait longer than expected. The perception of both subjective time and
the station are significantly linked to the feeling that one has spent the time usefully. The
experienced time pressure plays an important role in the emotions felt, particularly with
delays.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
14
Passengers attach importance to a pleasant waiting environment. It is advisable to keep
waiting times to a minimum and to facilitate the environment in avoiding as much
irritation and stress as possible. This can be brought about by the purposeful deployment
of atmospheric elements. Tempo research has shown that slow music has a lulling or
soothing effect (Oakes, 2003), but that up-tempo music can speed up the traffic flow
(Milliman, 1986). Further research will have to establish the degree to which atmospheric
elements, such as music, colour and lighting, can contribute to a more pleasant waiting
environment.
Passengers’ perception of time is at variance with actual time. As a rule the length of the
wait is overestimated. Despite the fact that passengers at stations are so focussed on time
– aware as they are of the exact departure time of their train – there is a considerable
discrepancy between clock time and experienced time. When passengers have a long wait
at a station, they underestimate the time. One explanation might be that people who have
to wait longer at a station will undertake activities and forget the time, hence the
underestimation. On the platform there is no question of underestimating the time. The
explanation for this might be that people on a platform do not undertake many activities
but stand idly waiting for the train to arrive. Meanwhile they keep a close eye on the time
and the longer they have had to wait, the more precisely they know just how long they
have been waiting. Moreover, the platform offers fewer distractions and fewer
possibilities to fill the time with distracting activities than elsewhere at the station.
Our findings concur with those of previous research which show that shorter waiting
times are overestimated more than longer ones (Moreau, 1992). Passengers who are in a
hurry or are delayed experience significantly more negative emotions (irritated,
disconcerted, nervous and agitated. It is also clear that people who undertake activities
overestimate the time less and have more positive emotions than those who do not. They
also feel that they have spent their time at the station significantly more usefully.
Apparently, people are able to fill their ‘spare’ time with activities which help them to
forget the time for a while and feel better because of it.
All in all this study has confirmed that time is of the essence to train passengers. The
question is whether passengers actually experience this time as ‘waiting time’ or that
waiting at a station/on a platform is a luxury that only few passengers can afford. Time at
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
15
a station, in fact, is primarily and purposefully devoted to catching the train on time and
all should be done (by the service providers) to facilitate this. Irritation and stress are
lying in wait, so to speak, and will influence the perception of time.
Passengers attach considerable importance to time. For those in a hurry to catch their
train on time, time will pass too quickly. Others have more time, which if not spent in a
pleasant or useful way will be regarded as lost time.
Seeing as people will always have to wait, it is advisable to invest in particularly making
the platforms more pleasant. The spot where passengers spend on average 62% of their
time and where they overestimate time the most. Moreover, the evaluation of the
platforms is significantly lower than for the rest of the station. A pleasant environment is
conducive to passengers’ forgetting the time and passing a more positive judgement on
their time there. Making the waiting environment more pleasant can be achieved by
stimulating the senses in such a way that passengers experience a maximum level of
comfort. Possibilities are sufficient shelters and seating, pleasant background music, to
use congenial and calming colours, to diffuse fresh scent or to offer sufficient distraction,
such as a beautiful view, something to read or television screens offering infotainment.
The effects of such measures on platforms warrants further research.
Literature
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ackerman, David S. & Barbara L. Gross. So many choices, so little time: measuring the effects of
free choice and enjoyment on perception of free time, time pressure and deprivation. In: Advances
of Consumer Research, vol. 30, eds. 2007. Punam Anand Keller & Dennis W. Rook, Valdsota,
GA: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 290-294.
Baker, Julie & Michaella Cameron. The effects of the Service Environment on Affect and
Consumer Perception of Waiting time: An Integrative Review and Research Propositions. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, vol. 4, no. 4 1996, pp. 338-349.
Baker J., Grewal, D. & Parasuraman, A. (1994). The influence of store environment on quality
inferences and store image, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (4), pp. 328-329.
Bailey, N., & Areni, C. S. (2006). When a few minutes sound like a lifetime: Does atmospheric
music expand or contract perceived time? Journal of Retailing, 82 (3), pp. 189 – 202.
Bellenger, Danny N. & Pradeep K. Korgaonkar (1980). “Profiling the recreational shopper” In:
Journal of retailing 56 (Fall), pp. 77-92.
Bitner, Mary Jo. Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and
Employees. In Journal of Marketing, April 1992.
Breedveld, K.; A. van den Broek, J. de Haan, L. Harms, F. Huysmans & E. van Ingen. De tijd als
spiegel, hoe Nederlanders hun tijd besteden. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, October 2006.
Boes, Elsbeth. Stations? Daar zit muziek in! Een onderzoek naar de effecten van muziektempo op
stationsbeleving. Afstudeeronderzoek Universiteit Twente, faculteit gedragspsychologie, February
2007.
Brouwer, Suzanne, 2007 Evaluatie Dienstregeling 2007, June 2007 (NS interne notitie).
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
16
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chung, E., Beverland, M. B., & Gabbott, M. (2004). An exploration of consumer forgiveness
following marketer failure. Paper presented at the ANZMAC 2004 Marketing Accountabilities and
Responsibilities, Wellington Australia.
Cotte, June, S. Ratneshwar, David Glen Mick. The Times of Their Lives: Phenomenological and
Metaphorical Characteristics of Consumer Timestyles. In: Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 31,
September 2004.
Customer Relevancy. Klantwensenonderzoek 2007, interne notitie NS.
De Wall, C. Nathan, Penny S. Visser, Lindsey Clark Levitan. Openness to Attitude Change as a
Function of Temporal Perspective. In PSPB, vol. 32, no. 8, August 2006.
Dhollander, Tom, David Buyle, Egwin van Beeck & Illisva Dikec. Passantenenquête,
Oversteekkwaliteit voor voetgangers in Vlaanderen. Voetgangersbeweging vzw, Duffel, October
2005.
Durrande-Moreau, A. (1999) Waiting for service: ten years of empirical research. International.
Journal Of Service Industry Management, 10, 171-189.
Geenberger D., Strasser S., Cummings L.D.R. (1989). The impact of personal control on
performance and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior of Human Processes; 43: pp. 29-51
Gourville, John T., Eager Sellers, Stony Buyers. Understanding the Psychology of New-Product
Adoption. Harvard Business Review, June 2006.
Grotenhuis, Jan-Willem, Bart W. Wiegmans, Piet Rietveld. The desired quality of integrated
multimodal travel information in public transport: Customer needs for time and effort savings. In:
Transport Policy 14 (2007), pp. 27-38.
Groth, Markus,Stephen W. Gilliland . Having to Wait for Service: Customer reactions to Delays in
Service Delivery. In: Applied psychology: an international review, 2006,55 (1), pp. 107-129.
Hagen, M. van. De trein in de keten, Kwaliteitsaspecten van het voor- en natransport. NSR
Marketingonderzoek & Advies, February 1998 (interne notitie).
Hagen, M. van. Op zoek naar de perfecte overstap. Bijdrage aan Colloquium
Vervoersplanologisch Speurwerk 1998.
Hagen, M. van. Lust- en mustmotieven, MOAgrafie 6. NSR Marketingonderzoek en advies,
January 1999 (interne notitie).
Hagen, M. van & Evelien de Munck Mortier. Belevingswaarde op stations. Je komt uit waar je je
thuisvoelt. May 2003, interne notitie NS.
Hagen, M. van en G.J. Peek. Maak het snel mooier. In Nova Terra. 2006.
Hart, C. W. L., Heskett, J. L., & Sasser Jr, W. E. (1990). The profitable art of service recovery.
Harvard Business Review, 68 (4), pp. 148-156.
Hui, Michael K. & David K. Tse. What to tell Consumers in Waits of Different Lengths: An
Integrative Model of Service Evaluation. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 60, April 1996, pp. 81-90
Hui, Michael K. – Alan C. Tse-Lianxi Zhou. Interaction between two types of information on
reactions to delays. In: Market Lett, 2006 (pp. 151-162).
James C. ward, John W. Barnes. Control and affect: the influence of feeling in control of the retail
environment on affect, involvement, attitude and behavior. In Journal of Business Research, 2001
pp. 139-144.
James, William (1890). The Principles of Psychology, New York: Henry Holt.
Maltha, Jorien (2006). Stationsbeleving. Hoe ervaren reizigers hun verblijf op een klein station.
Prorail, Utrecht, August 2006.
Maister, David H. The psychology of waiting lines. 1985.
Maxham, I., James G. (2001). Service recovery's influence on consumer satisfaction, positive
word-of-mouth, and purchase intentions. Journal of Business Research, 54(1), pp. 11-24.
Mehrabian , A., & Russel, J.A. (1974). An approach to environment Psychology, Cambridge. MA:
Journal of Marketing, 46 (2), pp. 86-91.
Milliman, R.E. (1982). Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers.
Journal of Marketing, 46, pp. 86-91.
Moreau, A. Public transport waiting times as experienced by customers, marketing research
involving the Grenoble system. In :Public Transport International, vol. 41, no 3 (Aug.-Nov. 1992,
pp. 52-68).
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
17
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Need, Yvonne en Karen Nieuwenhuis. Beleving van tijd en wachten in het verkeer, een
literatuurscan. Uitgave van directoraat generaal Rijkswaterstaat, wegen naar de toekomst. March
2003.
NS/Prorail. Stations in beeld, regie over de beleving van stations, Utrecht, May 2005.
Pine, Joseph and Gilmore, The experience economy. 1999.
PPGH/JWT, Tijd het nieuwe ruilmiddel, Amsterdam, JWT onderzoek 2005.
Pruyn A. Ale Smidts. Consumer Time Orientation: Conceptualization and Cross-Cultural
Differences. Proceedings European Marketing Academy, 1997.
Pruyn A. Ale Smidts. De psychologische beleving van wachtrijen. Management report series 126.
In: Tijdschrift voor Marketing, September & October 1993.
Pruyn, A. Ale Smidts & Leen-Jan van Dijke. Understanding the dynamics of customer experiences
throughout extended service processes. In: L.Hildebrand, D Annacker & D. Klapper (Eds.),
Marketing and Competition in the Information age: Proceedings of the 28th EMAC Conference,
Berlin: Humboldt University, 1999.
Pruyn, A. Ale Smidts. Customers’ reactions to waiting: Effects of the presence of ’fellow
sufferers’ in the waiting room.. In Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 26, 1999, pp. 211-216.
Pruyn, A. Ale Smidts. Effects of waiting on the satisfaction with the service: Beyond objective time
measures. In International Journal of Marketing 15 (1998), pp. 321-334
PRORAIL/NS. Station in Balans, visie op stations van Railinfrabeheer, Railned en NS, Utrecht,
July 2002.
Rust, R.T. & Oliver, R.L. (1994) The relative utility of “pleasantness” and “liking” dimensions in
preceding the emotions expressed by music, Psychology of music 32 (1), pp. 5-22.
SENTA, Prorail, NS. Monitor Integrale Kwaliteit Stations. Hoofdrapportage fase 2, September
2005.
Sherman, Elaine, Anil Mathur, Ruth Belk Smith. Store Environment and Consumer Purchase
Behavior: Mediating Role of Customer Emotions. In: Psychology & Marketing, 1997, pp. 361378.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The experience and perception of time, October 2004.
Spangenberg, E. A., Crowley, A. E., & Henderson, P. W. (1996). Improving the store
environment: Do olfactory cues affect evaluations and behaviors? Journal of Marketing, 60(2), pp.
67-80.
Swee Hoo Ang & Siew Meng Leon (1997). In: Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, vol.
4, no. 1, pp. 13-24.
Taylor, Shirley. Waiting for service: the relationship between delays and evaluations of service.
In: Journal of Marketing, April 1994 (54-69).
Terzis, G. & Andrew Last. GUIDE, Urban Interchanges - A good Practice Guide, Final Report.
Prepared for EG DG VII, London, July 1999.
Turley, L. W., & Milliman, R. E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: A review of
the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), pp. 193-211.
Velitchka D. Kaltcheva & Barton A. Witz. When Should a Retailer Create an Exciting Store
Environment? In: American Marketing Association; Journal of Marketing, vol. 70, January 2006
(1007-1018).
Watson, David, Lee Anna Clark & Auke Tellegen. Development and Validation of Brief Measures
of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. !988, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1063-1070.
Ward, James C. & John W. Barnes. Control and affect: the influence of feeling in control of the
retail environment on affect, involvement, attitude and behavior. In Journal of Business Research,
2001, pp. 139-144.
Wardman, M., Public Transport values of time, Transport Policy, 11, 2004, pp. 363-377.
Zeithaml & Bitner (1996).
Zeithaml, V., Bitner, M.J,, & Gremler, D.D. (2006). Services marketing. Integrating customer
focus across the firm (4th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
18