Habitual, safety and security factors related to mode use on two types of travels among urban Norwegians

This study aims to investigate psychological factors related to mode use on urban work/education and leisure travels, and to examine such factors related to intentions of using public transport. A survey was conducted in a random representative sample of the Norwegian population living in urban regions recruited from the Norwegian population registry (n = 1039). A two-cluster solution for mode use was revealed: individuals who mainly used public or health-promoting transport, and individuals who primarily used a car on the respective travels. The results suggest that car habit strength is more strongly related to car use on work/education travels. The probability component of risk perception was related to mode use on leisure travels, and there was a weak association between the consequence component and use. High perceived probability of accidents in public transport was associated with use of public transport, while high corresponding risk estimates in private motorized transport were associated with car use. Strong car habit strength and high perceived probabilities of accidents and security issues in public transport were related to a reduced intention of using public transport. Increased worry of private motorized transport and a high demand for risk mitigation related to public modes were associated with an increased intention to use public transport. Work/education travels could be more habitual than leisure travels. Risk perception may be a result of exposure to specific modes, rather than a predictor of mode use. Safety and security factors also appeared as more relevant for leisure travels than for work/education travels.

[1]  Patricia Delhomme,et al.  Risk of crashing with a tram: Perceptions of pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists , 2012 .

[2]  B. Verplanken,et al.  ATTITUDE VERSUS GENERAL HABIT -- ANTECEDENTS OF TRAVEL MODE CHOICE / , 1994 .

[3]  S. Galea,et al.  Participation rates in epidemiologic studies. , 2007, Annals of epidemiology.

[4]  K. Axhausen,et al.  Introduction: Habitual travel choice , 2003 .

[5]  H. Andersson,et al.  Perception of Own Death Risk: An Assessment of Road‐Traffic Mortality Risk , 2011, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  P. Costa,et al.  Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO-Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) , 1992 .

[7]  P. Slovic,et al.  The affect heuristic , 2007, European Journal of Operational Research.

[8]  I. Rosenstock.  Historical Origins of the Health Belief Model , 1974 .

[9]  R. W. Rogers,et al.  A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change1. , 1975, The Journal of psychology.

[10]  Bjørg-Elin Moen,et al.  Determinants of safety priorities in transport – The effect of personality, worry, optimism, attitudes and willingness to pay , 2007 .

[11]  Inger Synnøve Moan,et al.  Whether or not to ride with an intoxicated driver: Predicting intentions using an extended version of the theory of planned behaviour , 2013 .

[12]  Torbjørn Rundmo,et al.  Transport mode preferences, risk perception and worry in a Norwegian urban population. , 2013, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[13]  Agathe Backer-Grøndahl,et al.  Accidents and Unpleasant Incidents: Worry in Transport and Prediction of Travel Behavior , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  Kypros Kypri,et al.  Assessment of nonresponse bias in an internet survey of alcohol use. , 2004, Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research.

[15]  Shaul Oreg,et al.  Resistance to change: developing an individual differences measure. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[16]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Consequences of perceived risk: Demand for mitigation , 1999 .

[17]  T. Rundmo,et al.  Predictors of demand for risk mitigation in transport , 2013 .

[18]  Louise Eriksson,et al.  Acceptability of single and combined transport policy measures: The importance of environmental and policy specific beliefs , 2008 .

[19]  T. Rundmo,et al.  Associations between risk judgments and demand for transport risk mitigation , 2012 .

[20]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Factors in Risk Perception , 2000 .

[21]  C. Vlek,et al.  Factors influencing car use for commuting and the intention to reduce it: A question of self-interest or morality? , 2009 .

[22]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Risk as Feelings , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  B. Verplanken,et al.  Habit, information acquisition, and the process of making travel mode choices , 1997 .

[24]  Rune Elvik,et al.  How accurately does the public perceive differences in transport risks? An exploratory analysis of scales representing perceived risk. , 2005, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[25]  B. Verplanken,et al.  Reflections on past behavior: A self-report index of habit strength , 2003 .

[26]  Torbjørn Rundmo,et al.  The role of risk perception and other risk-related judgements in transportation mode use , 2011 .

[27]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Choice of Travel Mode in the Theory of Planned Behavior: The Roles of Past Behavior, Habit, and Reasoned Action , 2003 .

[28]  C. Klöckner,et al.  Travel Mode Choice of Women , 2002 .

[29]  P. Slovic.  Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.