Ben-Elia, E. and Ettema, D. (2011) Changing commuters' behav- ior ...

Socio-demographic characteristics
As noted, this is hardly a novel assumption in travel behavior studies. Gender (marginally)
and education, were found to have an impact on the response to the rewards. It seems that
men (mainly in the money group) are more likely to avoid the rush-hour compared to women.
The lower motivation of women to avoid the rush-hour can be associated with many issues.
One idea that has been suggested in social mobility studies (Palma et al., 2009) is that
women are more constrained in time compared to men for various reasons, mainly
household tasks and child raising obligations. Dutch women quite often leave work early in
the afternoon to pick up children from nurseries (Schwanen, 2007). This limits their ability to
change their schedule - e.g. to start work later even when extrinsically motivated by a
reward. However, a larger sample is needed to clearly mark the causation between gender
and time-use behavior.
Education had a negative effect on behavior change (driving later). Participants (in the
money group) with higher education were less likely to drive later. Education is a known
proxy for latent income effects. Income is regarded as a key issue determining willingness to
pay for travel purposes as well as the value of travel time savings (Ben-Akiva & Lerman,
1985; Axhausen & Gärling, 1992). In the context of the money group, the significance of
higher education strengthens the notion of diminishing sensitivity in relation to the monetary
reward: participants with higher real income are likely to be less sensitive to a marginal
monetary gain compared to participants with lower incomes. As a result motivation to avoid
the rush-hour would be negatively associated with real income. Education did not appear to
be a relevant factor on the behavior of Yeti users, possibly because it is cognitively and
affectively appreciated as an endowment, rather than in monetary (how much it’s worth)
value.
Scheduling
This is a new territory of travel behavior research, lately identified by Gärling and Fujii
(2006). The results suggest that behavior change and more so the choice of behavior
change is associated with the ability or disability to change daily schedules. Both home
related and work related flexibilities are relevant. Family obligations, such as children
chauffeuring - a constraint associate positively with rush-hour driving - make it more difficult
for parents to change travel behavior. The ability to accommodate a flexible schedule and
the support provided by others are also significant factors. Participants that could start
working later or could telework were more likely to drive later. Participants reporting to have
received support from their employer with arranging flexible working times were also less
likely to drive in the rush-hour. We see these results as supporting evidence that flexibility,
especially at the work place is a key issue in promoting changes in travel behavior. Contrary
to our expectations, home-related support measures such as household arrangements did
not have a significant effect on behavior-change. A possible explanation to the effects of
scheduling is the extent of control over one’s actions and their outcomes. The Theory of
Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) suggests perceived situational control is a key factor in
encouraging a conscience behavior-change. Thus flexibility in time-use promotes a sense of
self confidence and ability to contend with the schedule’s change.
Habitual behavior, experience and attitudes
As suggested by Theory of Interpersonal Behavior (Triandis, 1977, 1980) we found that
factors relating to habitual behavior play an important role in the choice how to change
behavior. This corroborates findings from other studies (e.g. Gärling et al., 2001; Gärling &
Axhausen, 2003). The effect of habitual behavior is well manifested in the significance of the
reward class, usual departure time, the preferred start of work time (in the case of shifting
driving times) as well as the use of other modes for commuting purposes (in the case of
switching mode). Participants with higher rush-hour commute frequencies during the pre-test
(reward class A, B) were relatively less likely to avoid the rush-hour compared to participants
13