"BREAKING THROUGH HABITUAL BEHAVIOUR

IS CAR SHARING AN INSTRUMENT FOR REDUCING CAR USE?"

Reus Meijkamp
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, TU Delft
Henk Aarts
Faculty of Technology Management, TU Eindhoven
1.

INTRODUCTION

Car Sharing is an innovative and emerging concept that raises large interests from many
societal actors, like policy makers, entrepreneurs, consumer organisations and the
individual consumers. Car Sharing is basically a service that offers rental cars as an
alternative to the privately owned car. The service is aimed at providing access to and
utilisation of a car whenever necessary. The Car Sharing concept relies on a new
organisation structure for the car system. The car is no more the users' property, but it
is owned by an organisation, the fleet manager. This fleet manager provides all its
clients with a car, whenever they need one.
The focal interest in the concept can be explained by the rather inefficient use of the
privately owned car in western societies. Although cars in the Netherlands are
relatively frequently used, on the average, they are occupied only 72 minutes a day.
(CBS, 1992) The fact that many ears are not intensively used (despite their large fixed
costs) and the fact that these cars put a high pressure on (scarce) space, especially in
crowded cities, make the privately owned car a rather inefficient solution for the need
for individual mobility.
For the individual consumer the relevance of Car Sharing schemes can be found in
some relative advantages of this alternative to the private car: Sharing cars is far more
cheaper for those who do not frequently use their car. The consumer has to pay only for
the use of the car, whenever needed. And the service supplier takes care for (the costs
of) the repairs, maintenance, the insurance and the taxation.
The policy relevance is basically twofold. First, by means of Car Sharing the number of
cars for private purposes could be reduced significantly. Especially in crowded
innercities this means a positive contribution to the quality of living within cities and a
more efficient utilisation of scarce space. Secondly, Car Sharing is assumed to have a
positive effect on the mobility behaviour of its participants. Dutch (Meijkamp and
Douma, 1995) as well as other international, tentative studies (Muheim, 1992; Hauke,
1993; Petersen, 1993; Baum ea.., 1994), most of them small scale, suggest a reductional
effect on car use and on modal split towards relatively more public transport use.
However, until now it remains unclear how these effects can be explained, and what
variables influence the variations.
The present research aims, to examine the effects on mobility behaviour, and especially
on car use of those who already have adopted Car Sharing. Through a survey research
among participants of Car Sharing schemes in the Netherlands the behavioural effects
have been established. The present paper serves basically three goals. First, we will
explain the psychological antecedents of the adoption of the Car Sharing system by
testing a model that describes the adoption. Secondly we will present the reported
changes on mobility behaviour among the present participants in Car Sharing systems.
And thirdly, the effects on mobility behaviour of those participants will be discussed for
exploratory reasons by means of the self reported effects on mobility behaviour.
In general, the reported aggregate changes on mobility behaviour in the above
mentioned studies have been confirmed. Therefore possible" explanations for the
reported changes on mobility behaviour have been developed and investigated by
making an inventory on the perceptions of the participants regarding the effects of Car
Sharing on their own mobility behaviour.

309

In search for a plausible explanation for the changes on mobility behaviour one basic
assumption is guiding: If Car Sharing is used as an alternative to the private car, the
cognitive process involved in travel mode choices, is being influenced. Since, Car
Sharing requires planned car use, and prevents from spontaneous car usage, traveI
mode decisions are forced to be taken more deliberately. Habitual behaviour and
habitual car use, as a consequence is therefore less likely, instead, a deliberate choice
between the various travel modes is being stimulated.
The effects on mobility behaviour of the participants will however only occur if Car
Sharing has been adopted. People, who have build up a strong car habit, won't adopt
Car Sharing at all, due to the absence of making deliberate travel mode choices. Hence,
the effects might only be expected among people that didn't built up a strong car habit.
In the remainder of the introductional sections we will elaborate on the main issues
relevant for understanding the adoption of Car Sharing systems and their potential
effects. First the focus is on Car Sharing in the current practice. Next, we will discuss
some theoretical issues as to the way in which the adoption of Car Sharing may be
modelled, and the factors that may play an important role in this model. In the paper a
discussion regarding reasoned action versus habit formation will be set up. After that,
we present our conceptual model, and proceed with empirical data concerning a test of
the model, and the subsequent effects of Car Sharing on relevant mobility parameters.
Based on the findings in the empirical study, some implications of the analysis for
transport policy regarding Car Sharing will be discussed.
2.

CAR

SHARING IN PRACTICE

recent developments

Car Sharing has become an official instrument in transport policy in the Netherlands.
Both the development of supply of Car Sharing services and the adoption of Car
Sharing by the public is strongly supported by many recent transport policy initiatives
(Nora Milieu en Economie, 1997; Stichting voor Gedeeld Autogebruik, 1997; Sweers,
1996). Co-operation among the different suppliers is strongly encouraged and
facilitated by the government and the continuous communication of the innovative
concept to the market is realised by means of several national campaigns. Mid 1997, an
estimated 24.000 households have been registered as participant in one of the more
than 20 various schemes.

diversity in operational forms

Car Sharing is an umbrella concept for a large variety of commercial schemes aimed at
providing consumer services for car access and regular car use. All schemes can be
characterised as a kind of (innovative) rental services. All these schemes, however,
have to a certain extent different characteristics. The way in which the service is
delivered, varies. The outlet (unmanned in the living area or centralised at a regular
rental office), the minimum rental period (one hour or one day), the reservation time
(no need or even 24 hours), the payment procedure and the availabihty of different
type of cars are the most important characteristics that makes the various schemes
distinct from each other. In the research here, the investigations are made on the
conceptual level.

behavioural consequences of Car Sharing

The concept of Car Sharing has in any case at least two major consequences for
customers in their daily practice:
1.
Car use with the scheme requires planning and mostly reservation in advance.
Direct ear access is prohibited because the car is not available in front of the house.
This might facilitate to search for alternative travel modes, especially on the shorter
distances.
2.
The costs of car use are based on utilisation only, without separate fixed costs.
That makes that there is a regular feedback on the costs for car use, not on a perception
basis, but on real economic basis. The full-cost accounting and its feed-back may
therefore balance the cost benefit analysis between public transport and car use better
and stimulate more frequent public transport use.

3.

THEORY

reasoned based approaches to prediction and regulation of travel mode choices

In general research on the prediction and the regulation of individual transport
behaviour relies on expectancy value models, strongly rooted in theories of rational
choice (see, for example Ben-Akiva, 1992). The "subjective expected utility" (SEU)
model is probably one of the best known in this field (Edwards, 1954). According to the
SEU model, the estimation of the utility of alternatives can be calculated by adding the
products of the subjectively perceived likelihood's and values of various consequences
associated with each alternative. Essentially, the SEU model is concerned with the
assessment of utility of options, that is to form deliberately attitudes about options. The
model assumes that individuals try to maximise their economic utility and that they
therefore use a value function to evaluate alternatives among which a choice must be
made. With regard to behaviour, the model assumes that the alternative with the
highest option is chosen.
One of the most influential and well documented expectancy-value models, that
explicitly relates utilities (or attitudes) to actual behaviour, is Fishbein and Ajzens'
attitude-behaviour model, also known as the theory of reasoned action (1975, Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980). The theory of reasoned action postulates that, prior to the execution of
an act, individuals trade off the perceived positive and negative consequences of that
act, and thus decide to perform or not to perform the behaviour. The model is widely
used in studies on the explanation of human behaviours in general, and car choice
behaviour in particular (e.g. Shepard, Hartwick & Warshaw, 1988; Aarts, 1997) Of
importance here is, that the model of reasoned action emphasises the deliberate
character of individual choice. It is the exactly the deliberate manner of choice making
-which is reflected by a strong behaviour prediction value of attitudes and intentionsthat is questioned here!
habitual behaviour
The last two decades, more and more research on travel mode choice behaviour have
started to argue that the model of reasoned action (and other models based on the
assumption of rational choice) ignores an important aspect of travel mode choice, i.e.
travel mode choices are made on a repetitive basis (Goodwin, 1977; Banister, 1978;
Verplanken et al., 1994; Aarts, Verplanken & Van Knippenberg, 1997). On the
average, a consumer has to make more than 1000 times a year a choice about a travel
mode. If every trip would be a completely different one, a rational choice would be
more likely. However, generally, transportation behaviour consists of similar trips, on
similar conditions, like daily commuting, weekly shopping, etc.
In many studies on repeated behaviour and especially transport behaviour, which is to a
large extent repeated behaviour, researchers have concluded that what once was a
rational choice, has become repeated behaviour from the past. (see for a review,
Ouelette & Wood, 1996) Behaviour that has been performed successfully many times
tends to become habitual. Habitual behaviour can be best understood by the immediate
relationship between stimulus and response, or by the direct association between
specific trip goals and the travel mode choice, without the need to trade-off travel mode
options. We may say, therefor, that habits reflect the automatic or heuristic nature of
behaviour, while non habitual behaviours are guided by reasoning processes.
habits, attitudes and intentions
The research so far (Triandis, 1977; 1980; Ronis ea., 1989; Eagly and Chaiken, 1993)
suggests that in the case of repeated actions, subsequent behaviour is determined both
by attitudes and intentions on the one hand and by habit strength on the other. That
means that, on the one hand, the relationship between choices of options relies on
deliberate decisional processes, in which attitudes towards options and the behavioural
intentions precede choices and behaviour. On the other hand the research suggests that
future behaviour and choices are guided by a heuristic or less elaborate decision
making process in which the impact of past behaviour and habits are strong. Triandis
(1977) proposed a model that describes the relationship between habit and decision
making in terms of an interaction between intention and habit in the prediction of
behaviour. In his model the probability of an act (Pa)is a weighted function of habit
(H) and behavioural intention (I), multiplied by "facilitated conditions" (F).

311

In fact, Triandis hypothesised that as the same behaviour is more frequently executed
in the past and thus increases in habit strength, the behaviour is less guided by attitudes
and intentions toward performing that behaviour. Habit strength may thus moderate
the relationship between reasoned-based concepts (attitudes and intention) and
subsequent goal-directed behaviour (see also Ronis et al., 1989). Indeed, empirical tests
of Triandis model have shown that habit and attitudinal concepts interact in the
prediction of repeated behaviours (e.g. Aarts et al., 1997; Mittal, 1988; Montano &
Taplin, 1991).

the relevance for Car Sharing

The idea that travel mode choices not only are guided by attitudes and intentions,
which is fundamental for the model of reasoned action, but also driven by habits, could
have at least a threefold relevance for understanding Car Sharing and predicting the
potential effectiveness of this concept.
First, it can be expected that habitual behaviour will form a explanation of nonadoption, and possibly a stronger explanation than the (negative) attitudes and
intentions. The mere fact that many individuals do not make deliberate choices on
travel modes, implies that these people also do not consider seriously to change to a
Car Sharing system as an alternative to the private car. Hence, The attitude towards
Car Sharing will not be very predictive for the (non-)adoption.
Secondly, Car Sharing demands implicitly from its users to differentiate more between
the various transport means, in contrast to the privately owned car. It is likely that if the
car is not immediately available, alternative travel mode options are being considered
and chosen more frequently, just because of the fact that the barrier to use a car has
increased to a certain extent. In other words, the decision making process regarding
travel mode choices is likely to become more deliberate.
And thirdly, since Car Sharing forces the individual towards a more deliberate travel
mode choices over time, it can be expected that the adoption of Car Sharing leads to
effects on mobility behaviour, and more specifically to a reduced car use.
operationaIisation of habit
Habits have been operationalised in different ways in transportation research and other
types of psychological research. (Aarts, 1996; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) Many
researchers have measured habit simply by asking the respondents to report on their
frequency of past behaviour. It can be questioned whether this is an appropriate
measure. Repeated occurrence is necessary for the formation of habit, but it is not the
same. Conceptually, it is being investigated to what extent decisions are based on
deliberate choices or whether the travel mode choices are made rather automatically.
Mittal (1988) concludes this discussion regarding the operationalisation of habits with
the statement: "awareness is the discriminating factor ". If a behaviour recurs -even very
frequently- with awareness and much deliberation, it must be considered as driven by
attitudes and intentions, and not by habit. Exactly the extent to which people form an
opinion about behavioural options and arrive at subsequent choices is relevant here.
The way in which habits have been operationalised in this study about the adoption of
Cat Sharing must be seen in the light of what this system wants to achieve with its
participants: that is to make more differentiated travel mode choices, less dependent on
solely the car. The extent to which individuals are used to trade off alternative travel
modes for the car is therefor of major interest here. For short trips, the bicycle, and for
other trips public transport, if available, can be an appropriate alternative to the car.
Thus the key of our measure of habit, is the extent to which people choose deliberately
between the car and other travel modes, as public transport and the bicycle.
4.

HYPOTHESES

From the preceding discussion one central assumption may hold regarding the
explanation of the changes on mobility behaviour: If Car Sharing is used as an
alternative to the private car, the decision process involved in travel mode choices, is
being influenced. It can be assumed that a more deliberate travel mode choice is likely,
which results in a changed mobility behaviour.

For these effects to take place, it is a precondition that people have to have adopted
Car Sharing first. The adoption itself is likely to be affected by habits as well. That
means that in the adoption of Car Sharing already a filtering function with respect to
habitual decision making exists. People, who have build up a strong habit, won't adopt
Car Sharing at all, due to the absence of making deliberate travel mode choices. Hence,
it can reasonably be expected that effects on mobility behaviour only take place among
those people who do not have built up a strong car habit.

attitude and
intentiontowards
Car Sharing
adoption of
Car Sharing

I habit
strength

figure i.

the interaction between attitude/intention and habit strength

It can be hypothesised from the forgoing theoretical framework that habit in travel
mode choices will negatively and significantly relate to the adoption (H1), that the
attitude and intention towards Car Sharing will be positively and significantly related to
the adoption (H2) and that a significant moderating effect of habit on the predictive
value of the intention on the adoption can be expected (H3).
These hypothesis will be tested for the (former) car owners only, for several reasons:
-Tentative foreign research suggests that for this group the effects of Car Sharing are
likely to be highest.
-For this group the change in direct car access is largest, since this group lacks suddenly
private car access. The expected effects on travel mode choices will therefore be larger.
-From a transport policy perspective the former car owners are most difficult to
influence in their car use, and therefore most interesting for research purposes.
5. i

RESEARCH METHOD

respondents

In the context of the national evaluation program on Car Sharing in the Netherlands,
co-ordinated and funded by the Dutch ministry of Transport ( A W ) a survey research
has been conducted (Meijkamp & Theunissen, 1997). This research was aimed at two
groups: (1) all participants of four Car Sharing schemes, as well as (2) people that
showed interest over the last year in these schemes by demanding more (specific)
information. Of four Car Sharing schemes all participants (847 households), at that
time (1996), were mailed with a response of 40% (337 questionnaires). Those who
showed once interest in one of the four schemes were mailed as well. The response rate
on 2445 questionnaires was 33% (809 questionnaires). The group of the interested is
selective and has a certain pro-adoption bias, in a sense that these people have
knowledge about what Car Sharing is; they are familiar with a specific scheme and they
showed initiative in getting more information.
EventuaUy we selected for the analysis 458 respondents, who all of them own a car, or
owned a car before participation in the scheme.

measures
adop6on Adoption was identified by the criteria whether people have signed the
contract or not.
inten6on towards adoption of Car Sharing The intention towards Car Sharing was
measured by asking whether they (the participants) were intended to extent their
contract next year, or whether they (the interested) were intended to become member
of the Car Sharing organisation the next year. The opinion was measured on a 5-point
scale, from very sure to certainly not.

313

attitude towards Car Sharing The attitude toward Car Sharing was measured by asking
the opinion about the statement "Car Sharing is for me a good alternative to a private
ear". Their opinion was measured by a 5-point scale ranging from agree to disagree.
habit strength Habit strength was measured by a two items scale. The statements to
which people gave their opinions (5-point scale, from agree to disagree) were: "I never
trade off between the car and public transport" and "I never trade off between the car
and the bicycle". Both items correlated .39 (Pearsons' r) and were therefor added into
one measure.
car use (in annual mileage) Both car use in the year before, as well as after participation
was measured by asking the respondents to estimate their mileage by private, rental,
borrowed and shared car per year.
frequency of use of various transport means The frequency of use of the various
transport means was measured by asking the respondents to estimate their weekly use,
just before participation and in the present situation. The frequency of use is measured
for cars, bicycles, intercity busses, trams and city transport and requested explicitly to
calculate a to-and-return trip as two trips. The frequency of car use in the past serves as
a measure for past behaviour.
Decisional involvement Decisional involvement, as a measure for the awareness in the
travel mode decision making could be established by applying an 8-item scale,
developed by Aarts (3_996).
6.

RESULTS

This research alms, in general, to examine the changes in mobility behaviour, and
especially on car use of those who have adopted Car Sharing. As argued, the effects of
those who substitute the private car for a shared car are particularly interesting. Since,
it can be expected that especially this group shows substantial changes in mobility
behaviour, due to an enhanced deliberate decision making process. In the assessment of
the psychological antecedents of the adoption process however, we will address the
former car owners as one single group; whether these people finally realised
substitution, will be left out, because conceptually it is not possible to differentiate to
this criterion for the interested.
a.

explaining adoption and non-adoption by attitudes/intention and habit

Descriptives &
Intercorrelations a

1
2
3
4
5

Adoption
(1= adoption, 2= non-adoption)
Intention
(1= positive, 5= negative)
Attitude
(1= positive, 5= negative)
Habit
(2= strong, 10= weak)
Past beh~viour
(frequency of car u s e / w e e k /

Table 1.

SD

458

1,7

0,4

452

2,7

1,3

44*"

447

2,4

1,3

33**

54"*

440

7,3

2,4

458

6,6

7,8

-24**
t3**

-13"*
27.'*

-17"*
28**

-15""

Descriptives o/~measured variables among (former) car owners.

= Decimal points are omitted.

*p<.05. **p<.01.

Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics presented in table 1. show that, for our data
(1) non-adoption was over represented, (2) the intentions were moderate (M=2,7 on 15 scale), (3) the attitudes towards Car Sharing were moderate as well and varied widely
(M=2,4 with SD=1,3 on a 5-point scale), (4) the habit was relatively weak, and (5)
compared with the Dutch population the respondents the respondents showed a
moderate ear use, but the variance among the sample is considerable.
Intercon'elations. With respect to almost all correlations, we must conclude that the
values are rather low. Obviously, as one would expect, the highest correlations exist
between adoption and intention (r=. 44), between adoption and attitude (r= .33) and
between attitude and intention (r= .54). These three central concepts in reasoned action
theory suggest that dehberate decision making is an important factor in the explanation
of the adoption of Car Sharing.

314

The operationalisation of habit is a very peculiar issue in the explanation of the

adoption of Car Sharing. Habit, as operationalised by some researchers in terms of past
behaviour, correlates only very weakly with the adoption. It is however quite confusing
how this should be interpreted. Low levels of car use contribute to positave attitudes (r
=. 28), intentions (r =. 22) and finally adoption (r =. 13). In a cost benefit analysis the
frequency of use is both for practical reasons, as well as for the economic evaluation an
important indicator, and thus for deliberate decision making. On the other hand it
could also be seen as a measure for habitual behaviour. If the intercorrelations between
past behaviour, and habit (r =-. 15) are analysed, we may conclude that past behaviour,
at least to a small extent expresses some relevant aspects of habits.
We also have calculated the correlation between our habit measure (in terms of the two
item scale on making trades-offs between various travel modes) and an general
accepted measure for habit in transport research. This last measure, the 8-item scale on
decisional involvement (Aarts, 1996), which has a high internal consistency
(Crombachs' alpha = .83) and expresses the extent to which people make for every
single trip a deliberate travel mode choice, correlates (r= -.42; p< .01) substantially with
our habit measure. That means that both measure similar concepts; however decisional
involvement seems to be of less relevance for our study on the adoption of Car Sharing

(r= .02, n.s.).

tests of hypothesis
Table 1. shows the correlations between adoption and respectively attitude, intention
and habit. From these findings it can be concluded that hypothesis 1 is accepted, since,
though rather low, the correlation between adoption and habits is negative (r= -.24) and
significant (p= .000). This means in practice that the less individuals trade off
alternatives for the car in their travel mode decision making and thus behave more
habitually, the less they will be likely to adopt Car Sharing as an alternative to the
private ear.
Hypothesis 2 is accepted as well, because positive attitudes towards Car Sharing (with
an r of .33 and p= .000) and the behavioural intentions (with an r of .43 and p= .000) do
both correlate significantly with the adoption. That means that, despite the rather low
values, rational decision making regarding the adoption of Car Sharing is likely to be
true.
For the testing of the interaction effect (H3) a diseriminant analysis has been made with
the adoption as grouping or the dependent variable (table 2.). The discriminant analysis
was chosen because of the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable. Three
independent variables were stepwise (F to enter = 3,84, F to remove = 2,71) entered,
maximising the minimum Mahalanobis distance (D squared) between the two groups:
the intention (I), the habit measure (H) and the interaction variable (IxH). In the table
below the results of the analysis are shown.
Summary table
Predictor

step 1
step 2
step 3

Intention (I)
Habit (H)
Interaction (I x H)

Wi[ks'
Lambda
.8098
.7797
.7668

Sign.

Minimum
D squared
1,36
1,66
1,79

After
Fcn

Wilks'
ChiLambda square

df

Sign.

.766

.0000

.0000
.000O
.0O0O

Sign.
.0000
.000O
.O00O

Canonical Discriminant functions

Fcn

Eigenvalue

% of
Var.

Cure.
%

Canonical
Corr.

.8041

100

100

.4829

114,8

Standardised canonical discriminant function coefficients:

Independent variables
Intention (I)
Habit (H)
Interaction (l x H)

Table 2.

Discriminant Function coefficients: Function 1.

.6793
.3971
.2666

Results of discriminant analysis on the adoption of Car Sharing

315

The discriminant function 1. is highly significant and consists of three independent

variables. All three contribute significantlyin discriminating the adopters from the nonadopters. Not only the behavioural intention and the habit, as could have been
expected, but also the interaction term (HxI) are entered into the function. The
standardised canonical loadings are listed above, of which the reasonable loading of the
interaction term is of particular interest her. The conclusion of the discriminant analysis
is that also hypothesis 3 (H3) has been accepted. The diseriminant function 1. explains
(.4829) 2 = 23,3% of the variance.
The nature of the interaction is revealed when a sample split is made as close as
possible at the median of the distribution of the habit measure. Based on a split
between the values 7 and 8 a split has been made and then the correlations between
respectively intention and adoption and attitude and adoption were calculated for the
two subgroups (see table 3.).
-non split
weak habit
strong habit

Table 3.

attitude
.33"*

inteni~on
.44"*

N
440

.32"*
,28"*

.46"
.38"*

234
206

Correlations of attitude/intention with the adoption.

As can be seen in table 3., for both habit groups the correlations are still highly
significant (p< .01). However the difference is not very significant in a Fishers z-test, z=
.85. The intention-behaviour correlation is stronger among the weak habit group and
this is what could have been expected. In the weak habit group, the deliberate choice is
(a little) stronger than among those who have a stronger habit. The last group is less
guided by deliberate choices, but by habits. Thus when habits are strong 14% of the
variance is explained by the intention and when habits are weak by only 21%.
b.

Descriptive results on behaviour change

bl.

changes in car ownership

In the context of this paper not the fact whether people owned a car or not before
participation, is held relevant, but the actual change in car ownership. Whether Car
Sharing functions as a substitute for the private car, or, is an addition to the already
available transport means and mobility services, is of major interest, since only in the
first case a possible habitual behaviour could be broken through. So, not only car
ownership before participation, but also during participation should be taken into
account when analysing the hypotheses. We therefore distinguish not only between
former carless people and former car owners, but also among former car owners
between "second car drivers" and "substituters".
The table 4. below lists the proportions of each group, and gives an overview of the
variations of the proportions among the four different schemes or subsamples. From
this table it can be concluded that Car Sharing at the moment prlmarily (71%)
functions as an addition to available transport services for the former carless, and that
9% uses it as a second car alternative.
car ownership during
participation
no private car

% respondents

new cardfivers

car ownership before

participation
carless

substitutere

car owner

no pnvate car

21%

one or more pdvate cars

9%

second oardrivers

table 4.
b2.

71%

Segmentation on changes in car ownership

the effects on ear mileage, overall results

The total car mileage can be calculated by adding the yearly estimated mileages by
private car, by rental car, by borrowed car and -in the after situation- by "Car Sharing"cars (shared cars). In the table 5. below, the results of what the respondents reported on

316

their own car use are listed, split up in changed car ownership. It is therefor not
surprising that although some people didn't own a car before, the (former) carless have
a considerable car mileage as we ll As a reference, the values for the interested people
are added.
participants
average

cartess

carowner
substauter

"sign. p<. 05
ear mileage
BEFORE
car mileage
AFTER

table 5.

second car
driver

8450

5360

13.380

5660 *

3820 *

4.730"

(-33%)
(-29%)
C langes in car mileage Ckm/year~

21.700
(-65%)

22.386

(+3%)

If the differences between the mileages before and after are being compared, it can be
concluded that a substantial average reduction of 33% has been reported by all
respondents, from 8450 down to 5660 kilometres per year. Split up to changed
carownership, a clear difference between the three groups can be reported; 29%
reduction for the carless and a 65% reduction for the substituters, in contrast to an -non
significant- increase (+3%) in mileage by the second car drivers. Besides the large
differences in relative changes the absolute levels of mobility by car are substantial.
All these values suggests large variations among the participants and the interested, as
well as between the participants and the interested. It can be questioned what variables,
besides former car ownership constitute the variations in changed car use.
b3.

the effects on the frequency o f use of the various means for transport

Besides changes in carmileage, also changes in the use of the various means for
transport have been reported by the respondents. Based on estimated frequencies of
use (per week) of the car, the train, city transport and intercity busses as well as the
bicycle, some substantial changes in mobility behaviour have been determined, as can
be viewed in table 6. below.
pa~cipants
avemge

freq. car use

BEFORE
AFTER, of which by
SHARED OAR
freq. cycle use
BEFORE
AFTER
freq. train use
BEFORE
AFTER
freq. use intercity transport
BEFORE
AFTER
traq. use city transport
BEFORE
AFTER

table 6.

caness

car owner
sues~tuter

2,5
2,0
1,9"

1,6
1,6
1,6

3,8
1,6 *
1,5"

6,5
5,8
5,0

14,3
16,3"

15,1
16,5

11,6
14,8 *

14,5
17,3

2,2
3,0 *

2,4
3,0

2,0
3,5"*

1,0
1,4

0,6
1,3"

0,8
1,4"

0,2
1,5 *

0,3
0,4

2,9
3,9"

3,2
4,0"

2,0
3,5"

2,9
3,8

sign. p<. 05

seconcl car
driver

Changes in frequency of use of the various travel modes (per week)

An overall reduction in frequency of car use, as estimated by the respondents, can be

reported, from 3,5 down to 2,0 times a week, of which only a minor share can be
accounted for by private cars. In contrast to a reduction in frequency of car use, an
increase in the use of the bicycle (+5%), the train (+3%), city transport (+5%) and
!ntercity transport (+58%) has been reported. These results suggest that the reduction
m car use and an increase in the use of alternative travel modes, are connected. A
travel mode shift seems to be one of the effects too on the mobility behaviour of the
participants of Car Sharing schemes. From these results it can be concluded that,
although the amount of trips increases with 1%, the relative importance of the cars in
the provision of mobility has been reduced from 13% to 7%.

Again, substantial differences in changes of mobility behaviour have been reported

between the former car owners and the former carless. In general, the substitutional
effects seem to be much stronger among substituters. For the relative importance of the
car in fulfilling mobility needs, it can be questioned here again which variables
constitute the variations.
c.

Qualitative changes in mobility behaviour

The above reported changes provide insight in the effects on mobility behaviour among
the respondents. These effects -over a year- are however on a highly aggregate level,
and do not suggests which kind of habits are being maintained within a pattern of
mobility behaviour and which habits are (being) changed. For exploratory purposes 19
items with a 5-point Likert scale have been formulated, that enable to get some further
insight in possible changing habits related to the adoption of Car Sharing. The items
question some possible effects of Car Sharing as perceived by the participants. The
table 7.-below shows the scores on the items (1 = agree, 5 = disagree) and the overall
percentages of agreement.

Since I participate in Car Sharing,

choose more consciously how to travel.
use the car more consciously.
I know better what car driving costs.
it makes it easier to visit people far away.
combine more often my tdps.
am likely to take the car in the weekends.
we do not use the car for shoppin9 anymore.
we make, within the household, more car trips.
the car has not been used (anymore) for commuting.
I take the bicycle or go walking more often.
we use the only for holidays and leisure trips.
we make, within the household, far less short trips by car.
we make, within the household, less ear thps.
I travel far more by public transport.
I travel far more by train.
I am likely to take the car in the evenings.
it is more likely to take the car for holidays.
I stay more often at home.

table 7.

average
score
2,4
2,6 *
2,7
2,8 *
3,0
3,1
3,1
3,2 *
3,3 *
3,3 *
3,3 *
3,3
3,4
3,6 "
3,7 *
4,0
4,0"
4,0 *
4,3

earless

2,4
2,8
2,7
2,5
3,0
3,0
3,2
2,8
3,5
3,6
3,3
i 3,6
I 3,8
I 3,8
3,9
4,0
3,9
4,2
4,3

earowner
suhstltuter
2,0
1,8
2,5
3,6
8,3
3,1
2,8
4,3
2,4
2,4
8,1
2,4
2,0
2,7
3,1
4,0
4,2
3,5
4,5

second car
ddver
2,7
2,8
2,8
3,4
2,8
4,1
3,7
4,2
4,0
3,5
4,4
3,5
3,3
3,9
3,7
4,1
4,5
4,3
4,2

Qualitative changes in mobility behaviour

* significant differences between three groups, one-way A N O V A , post-hoe Scheff~-test

The research provides, based on self reported changes some remarkable results
concerning qualitative changes in mobility behaviour. Overall, regarding the effects on
the cognitive process with respect to travel mode choices a large agreement among all
respondents seems to exist. This supports the basic assumptions that have been
formulated on theoretical grounds. Relatively high percentages of participants agree
nith the statements that Car Shariug makes them choose mo~e consciously trave[
modes, and use the car more consciously as well. Above all many (51% of all
participants) agree with the fact that Car Sharing raises cost knowledge about the car. It
must be stressed that these effects are perceptions that do not necessarily have to
correspond exactly with what really changed.
From the table 7. it can be concluded that the effects differ among different user
groups. The distinction has been made with regard to the changed situation in car
ownership. The former carless enjoy within the Car Sharing scheme a larger car
availability.That seems to have consequences for their mobility behaviour: it enhances
their possibilities to visit more remote places, and it seems to stimulate car use. In
contrast to the reported frequency of car use -that would remain unchanged- and to the
reported mileage -that would have been reduced with 29%- the former carless agree
relatively stronger with the statement that Car Sharing make them drive more frequent
by car.
The former car owners have been split up into those who have substituted and those
who still have their car, besides their membership. In the results that makes a
difference:

The substituters state, stronger than the others that they use the car more consciously.
In comparison to the others, they tend to be more influenced in their car use for
shopping, for commuting, in their use of the car for short trips and in general in their
frequency of car use. This is supported by the reported changes in frequency of car use.
Compared to the others they seem to substitute the ear stronger for train use and even
the bicycle.
Regarding the "second car drivers" the results suggest that these people are being least
influenced in their mobility behaviour. They still have a car at their disposal. The
shared car is thus an addition to their option. High values on the more conscious travel
mode choices and the more conscious car use suggest that social desirable answers are
very likely. It is hard to see how their availability of cars, which has rather increased,
could have any effect on travel mode decision making.
7.

-CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The title of this paper "Breaking through habitual behaviour, Is Car Sharing an
instrument for reducing car use?" suggested that Car Sharing, when adopted, results in
a less habitual mobility behaviour and thus in a reduced car use. This suggestion is
actually put forward by most of the empirical studies till now on the effects on mobility
behaviour of Car Sharing (Muheim, 1992; Petersen, 1993; Baum ca., 1994). This study
shows that, at least in the Dutch practice, it is not possible to characterise the effects of
Car Sharing on mobility behaviour with "breaking through habits", since that would
mean that people would change their decisions regarding travel mode choices from a
rather habitually based process into a rather deliberately one by adopting Car Sharing
as an alternative to the private car.
In this study we first investigated the role of habit in the adoption of Car Sharing. We
showed that habit influences the adoption negatively. By an mcreasing habit in travel
mode choices, operationalised in this study as the extent to which people trade-off
between the car and alternative travel modes, the adoption becomes less likely. As a
consequence we may expect that the adoption decision selects the people that finally
use Car Sharing as an alternative to the private car. The participants, as a results will be
less habitual in their travel mode choices. It can be expected as well that this
selectiveness in the participating population affects the influences on behavioural
changes as well.
Obviously, in the adoption of Car Sharing the attitude and the intention play a
dominant role. The importance of these two central concepts of "reasoned action"
prove that deliberate choices regarding the pros and cons of Car Sharing, as an
alternative to the private car are underlying the adoption decision. In this study it is not
investigated how these attitudes and intentions regarding Car Sharing are being
formed. It can be questioned which factors contribute to a positive and negative
opinion about Car Sharing. For both marketing purposes, as well as for transportation
policy purposes, it would be indispensable to study further the evaluation process of
consumers regarding the pros and cons of Car Sharing. As Car Sharing seems to have a
high potential for reducing the amount of cars (in crowded cities) further stimulation of
the concept would be beneficial from a societal perspective.
For a further understanding of Car Sharing, the mediating effect of habit on the
attitude-intention-adoption process (the reasoned action), is also of importance. In this
study we showed an rather modest interaction effect of habit on the (reasoned) decision
making process in the prediction of the adoption, that is the relation between attitude/
intentmns and the adoption: In case of a strong habit the relation between people's
opinions and their intentions regarding Car Sharing play a less important role in the
explanation of adoption, than in the case of a weak habit. That means that nonadoption could be explained differently from the adoption of Car Sharing. In case of
adoption, it is very likely that people become a participant of such schemes, because
they acknowledge the benefits of these systems for their situation. In case of nonadoption, instead of the negative opinion towards Car Sharing, habitual behaviour
seems to play an important role. Merely the fact that people do not trade-off between
Car Sharing and the private car, or between the private car and other travel modes,
prevents them from building up an opinion about Car Sharing and thus from a
deliberate, but negative or positive decision. In order to convince these people, it is

319

important not only convince them in their reasoning, but foremost to break trough their
habits and stimulate them to make a deliberate decision about whether or not to adopt.
In needs luther research how the habitual behaviour of the non-adopters could be
broken through.
The title also questioned whether Car Sharing would be an instrument for reducing car
use. We have in this study also reported on the behavioural changes of the participants.
Not only the changes in car use, but also the changes in the use of alternative travel
modes have been established, based on self reported behaviour of the participants.
These estimations showed e.g. that, especially among those who substituted their
private car for Car Sharing, realised a considerable reduction in car use of 65%, in
contrast to an increase in the use of alternative travel modes.
For this substantial change in mobility behaviour it is difficult to provide one single
explaining factor. Certainly the adoption of Car Sharing and the inherent properties of
such schemes, is one of the (important) contributing factors, however no controlling for
many-determinants of mobility behaviour has been performed. By means of an
investigation on the perceived effects of Car Sharing on the participants' own mobility
behaviour, some empirical evidence has been found for some theoretical explanations
regarding the effects of Car Sharing. In general, it could be expected that participants in
Car Sharing schemes differ from non-adopters on their habit strength and that these
people seem to be influenced, according to their own perceptions in their decision
making process regarding travel mode choices; that means that participants in contrast
to private car owners choose more consciously their travel mode, and that they have a
better cost knowledge about cars. To what extent these perceptions of the participants
relate to the actual changes in decision making, and to what extent these possible
influences relate to the reported behaviour changes is still unclear. Further research to
clarify the changes in mobility behaviour must be conducted in order to be able to
explain these changes and the variation in changes of mobility behaviour. As a
consequence, in the future research more attention must be paid to a further
segmentation in users groups with regard to the changes on mobility behaviour. At
least, as reported and perceived by the participants themselves, some important
differences need further explanation.
Answering the question whether Car Sharing is an instrument for reducing car use must
be related to the research design and the sampling. The reported changes on mobility
behaviour refer only to a rather selective group of participants of Dutch Car Sharing
schemes and form a very specific group of so called "lead-users". As we have shown,
this group is a selected group, with both specific psychological characteristics (habit), as
well as specific mobility behaviour. By no means we can therefor extent the
behavioural changes directly to a larger population of potential future participants of
Car Sharing schemes, moreover because no clear explanation for the reported changes
could be given yet. However, given the positive changes from a policy perspective, we
may conclude that Car Sharing deserves, despite a lack of insight in the relevant
psychological mechanisms, bather support from local and national governments, and
that it certainly has -a yet unknown- market potehtial.
REFERENCES
Aarts, H. (1996). Habits and decision making, the case o travel mode choice
Dissertation, KU Nijmegen.
Aarts, H. (1997). Predicting behaviour from actions in the past: repeated decision
making or a matter of habit? submitted for publication
Aarts, H., Verplanken, B. & Van Knippenberg, (1997). Habit and information use in
travel mode choices. Acta Psychologica, 1996, 1-14
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behaviour. Engiewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Banister, D. (1978). The influence of habit formation on modal choice: a heuristic
model. Transportation, 7, 5-18.
Baum, H. en Pesch, S. (1994). Untersuchung der Eignung von Car-Sharing ira Hinblick
auf Reduzierung von Stadtverkehrsproblemen. Institut bar
Verkehrswissenschaft an der Universit~t K6in.
Ben-Akiva, M. (1992). The evaluation of transport models: A twenty year review.

320

Keynote presentation PTRC.

CBS (1992) Auto s in Nederland. Cijfers over gebruik, kosten en effecten, Voorburg/
Heerlen.
Eagly, A.H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth (TX):
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51,380 417.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: an
introduction to theoly and research. Reading (MASS>) Addison-Wesley.
Goodwin, P.B. (1977) Habit and hysterisis in mode choice. Urban Studies, 14, 95-98.
Hauke, U. (1992). Car-Sharing: eine empitische ZielgrnppenanaIyse unter
Einbeziehung sozialpsychologisehe Aspekte zur Ableitung einer MarketingKonzeption. Diplom-arbeit im Faeh Psychologic, Universitat Kiel.
Meijkamp, R.G. en Douma, G. (1995) Een evaluatie van gedeeld autogebruikin
Leiden, TU Delft, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering.
Meijkamp, R. & Theunissen, R. (1996). The Car Sharing: Consumer Acceptance and
changes on mobility behaviour, in: PTRC. Proceedings 24th PTRC European
Transport Forum, London
Meijkamp, R.G. & Theunissen, R. (1997). De Deelanto in Nederland. (report on the
evaluation program among four Car Sharing schemes). Minstry of Transport,
Rotterdam/TU Delft
Mittal, B. (1988). Achieving higher seat-belt usage: the role of habit in bridging the
attitude-behaviour gap. Iournal of Applied SociaI Psychology, 18, 993-1016.
Montano, D.E. & Taplin, S.H. (1991). A test of an expanded theory of reasoned action
to predict mzmmography participation. Social Science and Medicine, 32, 733741.
Muheim, P. (1992) Das energiesparpotential des gemeinschafflichen gebrnuchs von
Motorfahrzeugen als Alternative zum Besitz eines eigenen Autos, Bundesamt
for Energiewirtschaft, Bern
Muheim, P. (1996)
Car-Sharing-Forschung, eine Recherche, Luzern
Nota Milieu en Economie (1997). Policy plan on the integration of environmental
issues in the economy. Dutch government. SDU Den Haag.
Nieuwsbrief (1997). Stichting voor Gedeeld Auogebruik, Utrecht, Jaargang 3, nummer
2, juni 1997
Ouelette & Wood, (1996) Habit: Predicting frequently-occurring behaviours in constant
contexts (man..uscrpt submitted for publication).
Petersen, M. (1993) Okonomische Analyse des Car-Sharing Doktorarbeit
Wirtschaftswissenschaftder TU Berlin.
Ronis, D.L., Yates, J.F. & Kirscht, J.P. (1989). Attitudes, decisions, and habits as
determinants of repeated behaviour. In: A.R. Pratkanis, S.J. Breclder & QA.G.
Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function. Hfllsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sheppard, B.H., Hartwiek, J. & Warshaw, P.R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: a
meta analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and
future research. Journal of Consumer research, 15,325-343.
Sweers, W. (1996) The Car Sharing policy in the Netherlands. Market incentives for
service arrangements that encourage selective car use. in: PTRC. Proceedings
24th PTRC European Transport Forum, London
Triandis, H.C. (1977). Interpersonal behaviour. Monterey (CA): Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company.
Triandis, H.C. (1980). Values, attitudes and interpersonal behaviour. In: I-I.E. Howe, Jr.
& Page, M. (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 27. Lincoln (NE):
University of Nebraska Press.
Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., Van Knippenberg, A. & Van Knippenberg, C. (1994).
Attitude versus general habit: Antecedents of travel mode choice. Iournal of
Applied Social Psychology., 24, 285-300.

321