Psychological predictors in context: Travel intentions among university staff and students Rob Wall Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development De Montfort University Leicester, UK July Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development

Research aims To identify psychological influences on drivers’ intentions to reduce or maintain their car use To understand how psychological influences interact with contextual conditions Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development

Background to the study Focus on drivers Based on Schwartz’s Norm-activation theory (NAT) and Ajzen’s Theory of planned behaviour (TPB) –Two most common theories in environmentally significant behaviour research –Emphasise different behavioural motivations: altruistic and subjective expected utility Added influence of people’s context on their intentions Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development

Norm-activation theory (NAT) Shalom Schwartz (1977) Explains ‘altruistic’ behaviour PN experienced as feeling of personal obligation to act PN activated by: –Awareness of consequences for valued objects (AC) –Ascription of responsibility to self for consequences (AR) Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development Behaviour Awareness of consequences (AC) Ascription of responsibility (AR) Personal norm (PN)

Theory of planned behaviour (TPB) Icek Ajzen (1991) General theory of social behaviour Behaviour follows from Intention, which is determined by: –Attitude toward the behaviour (Att) –Perceived control over performing the behaviour (PBC) –Subjective norms surrounding the behaviour (SN) Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development Attitude toward the behaviour (Att) BehaviourIntention Perceived behavioural control (PBC) Subjective norm (SN)

Method Participants were De Montfort University staff and students Data collected by questionnaire in April questionnaires returned, 312 drivers used in analysis Data gathered on: –Norm-activation theory variables –Theory of planned behaviour variables –aspects of physical context (e.g. journey time) –socio-demographics (e.g. age, income) –Drivers intentions to maintain or reduce car use for commute during next 12 months Logistic regression used to test explanatory power Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development Independent variables Dependent variable

Exploratory analysis Factor analysis ‘Reducers’ had higher mean scores on ‘anti-driving’ scales ‘Maintainers’ had higher mean Attitude score But even ‘reducers’ were very positive about driving Significant (p <.05) differences on all variables except SN2 Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development AC = awareness of consequences of car use AR/PN = responsibility and obligation for reducing own car use Att = Attitude toward own car use PBC = perceived control over reducing own car use SN1 = pressure from friends to reduce car use SN2 = pressure from “people I know” to reduce car use

Results: Logistic regression Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development Stepwise logistic regression AR/PN and PBC were significant (p <.05) psychological predictors AR/PN had the strongest influence on intentions Eight (of 13) contextual variables were also significant (p <.05) Bicycle ownership (+) Perceived cost of car travel (+) Journey time from home to DMU (-) Perceived journey distance (+) Taking passengers to DMU (-) Age (-) Full-time (-) or part-time (+) Income level (-) Explained 48.1% of variance in intentions

Results: PBC-AR/PN interaction Low PBCHigh PBC AR/PN level LowHighLow High IntentionMaintain car usen % Reduce car usen % Difference in % across AR/PN levels12.8%20.1% Differences across AR/PN levels –With low PBC, AR/PN level made 12.8% difference to intentions –With high PBC, AR/PN level made 20.1% difference AR/PN has greater effect when PBC is high (additive effect) Supported by correlations between AR/PN and intentions –Low PBC φ =.16 (p =.020) –High PBC φ =.24 (p <.001) Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development

Additive effects Similar interactions between AR/PN and some contextual variables Feelings of responsibility and obligation had greater influence on intentions when participants… –Owned a bicycle –Took no passengers in their car to university –Perceived driving as expensive Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development Weak Strong Influence of AR/PN on intentions Contextual influences Inhibiting Moderate Facilitating Maximum likelihood of acting on psychological motivations

The ‘A-B-C’ model Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development Guagnano et. al. (1995) proposed an alternative to additive In their ‘Attitude-Behaviour-Context’ model, the influence of psychological factors is greatest when the influence of contextual factors is moderate –When context makes behaviour easy, strong motivation isn’t needed –When context makes behaviour hard, even strong motivation insufficient Weak Strong Contextual influences Inhibiting Moderate Facilitating Maximum likelihood of acting on psychological motivations Influence of AR/PN on intentions

One interaction followed the ‘A-B-C’ model People whose journey took a medium time (21-40 mins) were more likely to intend to reduce car use than those whose journeys were short (≤ 20 mins) or long (> 40 mins) They also showed the only statistically significant correlation between AR/PN and intentions –≤ 20 mins τ =.13 (p =.203) –21-40 mins τ =.30 (p <.001) –> 40 mins τ =.21 (p =.054) Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development Results: An ‘A-B-C’ interaction

Conclusions and implications Interventions could target: –Feelings of responsibility and obligation for reducing car use –Perceived control over reducing car use Responsibility and obligation have most effect when PBC is high And when certain contextual conditions are present: –Bike ownership –No passengers –Perception of driving as expensive So interventions should also take account of drivers’ context Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development