Transportation Research Part F 12 (2009) 6876

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part F

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trf

Modelling motivation and habit in stable travel mode contexts

Benjamin Gardner *
Department of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 21 April 2008
Received in revised form 29 July 2008
Accepted 4 August 2008

Keywords:
Travel mode
Commuter
Habit
Theory of planned behaviour
Transport policy

a b s t r a c t
The habitual action perspective suggests that where transport users have strong travel
choice habits, motivation will have no effect on behaviour. This has commonly been demonstrated in situations where travel habits and intentions conict, but in stable decision
settings intentions and habits will correspond. This paper reports two studies which demonstrate the moderating effect of habit on the intentionbehaviour relationship within
established commuting contexts. Results illustrate how motivational accounts of travel
behaviour may be misleading if statistical signicance of correlational data is the main criterion for model acceptance. Alternative methods for theory testing are discussed, and
strategies for disrupting driving habits reviewed.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Private car travel accounts for around 13% of UK CO2 emissions (Department for Transport [DfT], 2006). Around a quarter
of UK car journeys cover less than 2 miles, and it is likely that many of these could reasonably be undertaken using alternative transport (Goodwin, 1997). Commuting represents a key intervention target, because 70% of UK commutes are driven
(DfT, 2007). Psychological driving reduction programmes offer promising low-cost routes to behaviour change (Tisato & Robinson, 1999), but developing effective such interventions depends on identifying modiable psychological antecedents of car
use (cf. Bartholomew, Parcel, Kok, & Gottlieb, 2006).
The most widely applied model of cognitive determinants of car use is the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB; Ajzen,
1991), which suggests that behaviour is most closely determined by an intention to act, which summarises motivation
(see e.g. Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003; Bamberg, Ajzen, & Schmidt, 2003). The TPB offers a reasoned account of behaviour which
assumes that driving arises from deliberation over the advantages and disadvantages of available transport options, and the
utility of intention for predicting transport behaviour is supported by a wealth of evidence, mostly from modelling studies
based on correlational data (e.g. Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003; Forward, 2004; Kaiser & Gutscher, 2003). Motivational models
however neglect the often repetitive nature of travel mode decisions, because frequently repeated behaviours may become
habituated and thus automated (Verplanken, Aarts, van Knippenberg, & Moonen, 1998; Verplanken, Aarts, van Knippenberg,
& van Knippenberg, 1994).
The habit approach is consistent with the TPB in that it suggests that, faced with a new or unfamiliar choice situation, an
actor will deliberate and form an intention to choose the most attractive goal-directed option, which will inform subsequent
action (Aarts, Verplanken, & Van Knippenberg, 1998). For example, the transport user faced with a goal of arriving at a new
workplace at 9 am may form a conscious decision to use a car, and thus initiate the sequence of actions involved in driving
* Present address: Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E
7HB, UK. Tel.: +44 020 7679 5947; fax: +44 020 7916 8511.
E-mail address: b.gardner@ucl.ac.uk.
1369-8478/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.trf.2008.08.001

B. Gardner / Transportation Research Part F 12 (2009) 6876

69

(e.g. unlocking the garage, unlocking the car door etc.). Initially, satisfactory goal attainment (arriving at work on time) provides positive feedback regarding the utility of the chosen transport mode for achieving the goal and so makes future performance more likely. However, the habit perspective diverges from the TPB in suggesting that goal achievement also creates
a goal-behaviour association which, if the decision setting is stable so that driving remains the most attractive goal-directed
option and opportunities for driving are consistently available, is reinforced with each subsequent performance (Grling, Fujii, & Boe, 2001). Crucially, a habituation point is reached at which the behaviour becomes an automated response to goal
activation within this setting. Habits may thus be dened as goal-directed behavioural patterns which have become sufciently associated with specic cues as to be initiated automatically (Verplanken & Aarts, 1999).
The habit perspective suggests that the deliberation processes described by the TPB occur only in novel or unfamiliar situations, but in unvarying decisional environments, behaviour is likely to be governed by habits in the absence of conscious
reasoning (e.g. Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2000a). The hypothesised relationship between habit and motivation in predicting
behaviour is therefore inversely proportional: intentions inform behaviour where habit is weak, but strong habits disrupt
the transition of intention into action (Triandis, 1977; Verplanken et al., 1994). Habit thus presents a challenge for transport
policy: even if drivers can be motivated to reduce their car use, habitual driving tendencies are likely to nullify motivational
gains (Eriksson, Garvill, & Nordlund, 2008). Modifying habitual behaviour may thus require different intervention strategies
to those used to change motivation (see Aarts, Verplanken, & Van Knippenberg, 1997).
Habits are most clearly revealed where habitual and intentional tendencies diverge, because in such situations behavioural outcomes will correspond with habits but not intentions; such conicts may be brought about by purposive intervention or naturally occurring motivational shifts (see e.g. Eriksson et al., 2008). For example, Verplanken et al. (1998) showed
that villagers intentions not to drive to a nearby city predicted travel mode choice where car use habits were weak, but
intentions had no effect on behaviour where driving habits were strong. Similar results have been found with other formulations of the motivationbehaviour relationship, with habit attenuating relations between personal norms for non-car travel and car use (Eriksson et al., 2008), and between car use attitudes and driving (Verplanken et al., 1994). The emphasis on
habit-intention conict in the extant transport literature potentially overlooks that, in the absence of modications of the
decisional environment, habits are likely to correspond with intentions, having developed from frequently enacted intentions. In unchanging choice settings, behaviour will thus be governed by habit but also in line with motivation. In this respect, motivational models which omit habit are likely to provide statistically satisfactory accounts of stable behaviour
but may overestimate the deliberative nature of such behaviour. This in turn may inform misplaced policy applications
which target motivation but may have little effect on habitual behaviour.
The present studies aimed to show that, where stable over time, commuting mode choice can be predicted by intention
alone, but that, when added to the model, habit will moderate the intentionbehaviour relationship. We focused on commuting mode choice, because this is likely to represent an archetypal habituated behaviour, typically being performed frequently at the same time of day in response to unchanging contextual cues (Aarts et al., 1998). Two studies are described, the
rst on UK car commuting and the second on bicycle commuting in the Netherlands, to demonstrate the robustness of effects
across travel modes. Participants were university staff and students, and measures were taken midway through the academic year, by which time commuting behaviour is likely to have habituated (Ronis, Yates, & Kirscht, 1989). Behavioural
stability was tested by observing correlations between behaviour measures taken one week apart.1 We tested the following
hypotheses derived from the habitual action perspective (Triandis, 1977; Verplanken et al., 1994):
Hypothesis 1. Behaviour and past behaviour will be highly positively correlated, demonstrating that commuting mode
choice is stable over time.
Hypothesis 2. Intention will be a statistically signicant and sufcient predictor of behaviour, showing that commuting
mode choice can be modelled as a planned behaviour.
Hypothesis 3. Habit will moderate the effect of intention on behaviour: where habit is weak, intention will predict behaviour, but where habit is strong, intention will have a negligible effect on behaviour.
2. Study 1
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants and procedure
Participants were 107 staff and student university-based car commuters (33 males, 74 females) with access to a car over
the preceding week. The university campus is situated 3 miles from the city centre and served by frequent bus services, a
train station with intra- and inter-city links, and cycle paths, making non-car transport a feasible option. No participants
had physical impairments necessitating car use.
1
Although originally conceived of as a proxy measure of habit strength (Triandis, 1977), past behaviour has no intrinsic explanatory value, and past-future
behaviour correlations indicate only behavioural stability and the continued inuence of determinants of behaviour at both timepoints (Ajzen, 2002;
Verplanken, Myrbakk, & Rudi, 2005).

70

B. Gardner / Transportation Research Part F 12 (2009) 6876

Table 1
Study 1: descriptive statistics and correlations
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Behaviour (T2)a
Past behavioura
Habit
Intention

2.

3.

4.

Range

Mean

SD

.86

.79
.80

.83
.86
.87

1100
1100
17
17

77.94
77.13
4.52
5.08

35.76
38.43
1.80
2.32

NB: All ps < .001; N = 107.

a
Behaviour and past behaviour measured as percentage of eligible commutes made by car. Higher habit and intention scores indicate stronger car use
habits and intentions, respectively.

The study used a prospective design. At the rst timepoint (time 1; T1), participants completed an electronic questionnaire comprising habit and behaviour items. One week later (time 2; T2), participants completed identical behaviour measures via email.
Participants age ranged from 18 to 55 years (M = 27.53 years, SD = 9.69). A priori power analysis with signicance set at
.05 and presupposing medium effect sizes for three predictors of behaviour (intention, habit, habit  intention) indicated a
sample of 76 participants was sufcient to achieve statistical power at .80.
2.1.2. Measures
Behaviour was measured using participants reports of how many journeys over the preceding week they had made to the
university campus: (a) in total; (b) by car; (c) by public transport; and (d) by any other form of transport2. Behaviour was
indexed as the percentage of journeys to the university campus made by car. At T2, participants also reported the number of
journeys over the past week for which a car was unavailable; these journeys were excluded from the T2 behaviour calculation.
T2 behaviour was the dependent variable for our analyses, and T1 behaviour scores were used as an index of past behaviour.
Responses indicated that no journeys were made using multiple modes (e.g. car and public transport) at either timepoint.
Habit was measured using a ten-item version3 of Verplanken and Orbells (2003, p. 1329) self-report habit index (SRHI).
Each item related to using a car to commute to campus (e.g. Using a car to commute to campus is something I do automatically, Using a car to commute to campus is something I do without having to consciously remember) and was measured on a
7-point scale (strongly disagreestrongly agree; a = .94).
Intention was measured using four items, with responses given on a 7-point scale (e.g. I intend to use a car for most of my
journeys to the university campus over the next week, I will try to use a car for most of my journeys to the university campus over the next week, I plan to use a car for most of my journeys to the university campus over the next week, I aim to
use a car for most of my journeys to the university campus over the next week; [strongly disagreestrongly agree]; a = .96).
2.2. Results
2.2.1. Descriptives and correlations
As Table 1 shows, participants tended to commute by car (M = 77.94, SD = 35.76), have moderate car use habits (M = 4.52,
SD = 1.80), and intend to drive (M = 5.08, SD = 2.32). Intention, habit and behaviour were signicantly positively correlated
(ps < .001). Behaviour correlated strongly with past behaviour (r = .86, p < .001), demonstrating the stability of commuting
mode choice and thus supporting Hypothesis 1.
2.2.2. Habit as moderator of the intentionbehaviour relation
Intention alone predicted 68% variance in behaviour (F[1, 105] = 225.78, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 2; see Table 2. At
the second step, adding habit as an independent predictor of behaviour contributed 2% additional variance in behaviour
(DF = 6.73, p = .01) and adding the habit x intention interaction term at the third step caused a further increment in explained variance (DR2 = .03, DF = 12.40, p = .001). Within the latter model, habit operated as a direct predictor of behaviour
(b = .34, p = .002), but moreover moderated the transition of intention into behaviour (b = .28, p = .001).
This effect was decomposed using simple slopes analysis, whereby behaviour was regressed on to mean-centred intention
values at three levels of habit (i.e. at one standard deviation below the mean [weak or no habit], at the mean, and at one
standard deviation above the mean [strong habit]; see Aiken & West, 1991). Slopes were plotted by calculating behaviour
scores for minimum and maximum mean-centred intention values. As Fig. 1 shows, the signicant direct effect of intention
shown at step three in Table 2 (b = .32, p = .01) reects only intention effects at moderate levels of habit. Where habit was
weak, intention had a stronger effect on behaviour (b = .60, p < .001), but where habit was strong there was no relationship
between intention and behaviour (b = .04, p = .82).

2
The distinction between non-car transport modes was unimportant for our analyses, but was intended to reduce participants awareness of the study
purpose, which could potentially have affected behaviour self-reports for self-presentational reasons (see Steg, Vlek, & Slotegraaf, 2001).
3
Our SRHI omitted two behavioural frequency items from Verplanken and Orbells (2003) original formulation (Using a car to commute to campus is
something: . . .I do frequently, . . .I have been doing for a long time), to achieve a measure of habit as cognition independent of behavioural frequency (see Ajzen,
2002; Verplanken, 2006).

71

B. Gardner / Transportation Research Part F 12 (2009) 6876

Table 2
Study 1: habit as moderator of intentionbehaviour relationship
Step

Variable(s) entered

b(t)

b(t)

b(t)

1.

Intention

.83
(15.03)

<.001

<.001

Habit

3.

Habit  intention

.32
(2.54)
.34
(3.21)
.28
( 3.52)

.01

2.

.58
(5.27)
.29
(2.59)

Unadjusted R2
Model F
F change

.68
225.78

<.001

.70
122.41
6.73

.01

<.001
.01

.73
94.69
12.40

.002
.001

<.001
.001

NB: N = 107.

Fig. 1. Study 1: habit as moderator of intentionbehaviour relation. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

2.3. Discussion
A study of car commuters driving behaviour showed that, in line with our expectations, behaviour was stable over time,
and intention predicted behaviour, and so car commuting could be modelled as a reasoned action, in accordance with TPB
predictions. Crucially however, contrary to TPB tenets and in line with the habit perspective (Triandis, 1977; Verplanken
et al., 1994), habit moderated the effect of intention on behaviour: intention predicted behaviour where habit was weak,
but where self-reported habit was strong, behaviour was determined solely by habit, and not by intention.
3. Study 2
To establish the robustness of ndings of Study 1, a replication was conducted which focused on bicycle use among a
sample of commuters in the Netherlands, where cycling is the dominant mode of transport for short trips and is hence most
likely to be habitually chosen (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2000b; Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat [Ministry of Transport &
Water Management], 2004).
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants and procedure
102 English-speaking staff and students (25 male, 77 female) at a Dutch university with access to a bicycle over the preceding week were recruited. The university site used by all participants is situated 2 miles from the city centre and served by
frequent bus services, a train station with intra- and inter-city links, and cycle paths.

72

B. Gardner / Transportation Research Part F 12 (2009) 6876

The same design and procedure used in Study 1 was employed. Participants were aged between 18 and 37 years
(M = 21.58 years, SD = 3.47).
3.1.2. Measures
Behaviour, habit and intention were measured using identical items to those used in Study 1, but the focal behaviour was
reworded from driving or using a car to using a bicycle (e.g. I intend to use a bicycle for most of my journeys to the university campus next week). Items were presented in English, and formed reliable scales (habit: a = .94; intention: a = .96).
3.2. Results
3.2.1. Descriptives and correlations
Cycling was the dominant mode of commuting, with mean behaviour scores mirroring those in the preceding driving
study (behaviour: M = 78.17, SD = 36.56; past behaviour: M = 78.84, SD = 35.51; see Table 3). Mean habit (M = 5.05,
SD = 1.65) and intention (M = 5.93, SD = 1.81) scores were above the midpoint, signifying habitual and reasoned bicycle

Table 3
Study 2: descriptive statistics and correlations
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Behaviour (T2)a
Past behavioura
Habit
Intention

2.

3.

4.

Range

Mean

SD

.92

.85
.89

.80
.87
.84

1100
1100
17
17

78.17
78.84
5.05
5.93

36.56
35.51
1.65
1.81

NB: All ps < .001; N = 102.

a
Behaviour measured as percentage of eligible commutes made by bicycle. Higher habit and intention scores indicate stronger car use habits and
intentions, respectively.

Table 4
Study 2: habit as moderator of intentionbehaviour relationship
Step

Variable(s) entered

b(t)

1.

Intention

.80
(13.15)

<.001

2.

Habit

3.

Habit  intention

Unadjusted R2
Model F
F change

.63
173.03

<.001

b(t)
.28
(3.03)
.61
(6.58)

.75
144.75
43.29

p
.003
<.001

<.001
<.001

NB: N = 102.

Fig. 2. Study 2: habit as moderator of intentionbehaviour relation. *p < .05.

b(t)
.05
(0.37)
.60
(6.61)
.28
( 2.60)
.76
104.35
6.75

p
.71
<.001
.01
.63
<.001
.01

B. Gardner / Transportation Research Part F 12 (2009) 6876

73

commuting tendencies. All variables were strongly positively correlated. Behaviour over the two timepoints was highly stable (r = .92, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 1.
3.2.2. Habit as moderator of the intentionbehaviour relation
Table 4 demonstrates that intention was sufcient to explain 63% variance in commuting mode choice (F[1, 100] = 173.03,
p < .001), in support of Hypothesis 2. Adding habit as an independent predictor at the second step explained 11% additional
variance (DF = 43.29, p < .001), and adding the habit x intention interaction at the third step contributed an additional 2% variance (DF = 6.75, p = .01). Within the latter model, habit had a direct effect on behaviour (b = .60, p < .001) and also moderated
the transition of intention into behaviour (b = .28, p = .01). Simple slope analysis (see Fig. 2) showed that, in accordance with
Hypothesis 3, intention only had an effect on behaviour where habit was negligible (b = .22, p = .02). Where habit was strong
or moderate, there was no association between intention and behaviour (b = .13, p = .48; b = .05, p = .71, respectively).
3.3. Discussion
Results from a study of bicycle commuters echoed those previously obtained among car commuters and supported our
three hypotheses: behaviour was stable over time and intention was sufcient to predict behaviour, but habit moderated the
translation of intention into behaviour, so that intention only predicted behaviour where habit was weak. There was no effect for intention where habit was strong or moderate.
4. General discussion
Two studies of habit and motivation in commuting showed that commuters mode choice was stable over time and, perhaps consequently, habit and intentions were strongly positively correlated: commuters who initially formed stronger intentions to use a particular travel mode were more likely to have used the chosen mode and so developed habits for use of this
mode. Moreover, habit moderated the motivationbehaviour relationship so that intention did not inform behaviour where
habit was strong, in line with theoretical predictions (Triandis, 1977; Verplanken et al., 1994) and previous empirical research (e.g. Eriksson et al., 2008; Klckner & Matthies, 2004; Verplanken et al., 1998).
The strong correlations observed between intention and behaviour (r  .80) exceeded the typical travel mode intention
behaviour association of r  .50 (Gardner & Abraham, 2008). Hence, where habit was not accounted for, intention predicted
around 65% of variance in behaviour, apparently supporting a reasoned model of commuting mode choice.4 Similarly, in
Study 1, intention remained a signicant independent predictor of behaviour over and above the habit  intention interaction
term. However, this effect was qualied by the observed interaction between habit and intention whereby intentions determined behaviour only where habit was weak or moderate. Previous reasoned action research might therefore have overemphasised the deliberative nature of mode choice for many transport users (Aarts et al., 1998), and future transport
psychology models should incorporate measures of habit to explore the boundaries of motivational accounts.
4.1. How should travel choice theories be evaluated?
Consideration of situations in which motivation and habit correspond reveals the limitations of testing theory using correlational data, because strong intentionbehaviour correlations conceal habit effects. Our ndings highlight the potential
for mistakenly accepting models as valid depictions of real-world behaviour where statistical signicance of the multiple
correlation coefcient (R2) is the main criterion by which theory is evaluated.
Theories should ideally be tested using experimental methods to assess behaviour change attributable to manipulations
of hypothesised predictors of performance, preferably derived from competing theoretical accounts to allow theory comparison (Weinstein, 2007). The habit approach has been evaluated experimentally: Thgersen and Mller (2008) showed that a
free one-month travelcard was sufcient to break driving habits and enhance public transport motivation and behaviour.
Such economic incentives may operate by restructuring the decisional context so as to disrupt habits and permit concomitant motivation change to impact on behaviour (Fujii & Kitamura, 2003; Thgersen & Mller, 2008). Employing these intervention methods for experimental theory evaluation requires habit measurement, because motivation shift will appear
sufcient to modify established behaviour if habit is not accounted for. Bamberg et al. (2003), for example, found that free
public transport passes promoted bus use intentions and behaviour, but did not measure pre-intervention habits and so, perhaps prematurely, concluded that the TPB was valid. The habitual action approach may be assessed more clearly using persuasive techniques which change motivations but do not impact on habit; to our knowledge however, no such tests have
been reported in the transport literature.
Quasi-experimental procedures, which capitalise on naturally occurring changes in theory-specied constructs, are also
likely to be helpful for evaluating theory (Weinstein, 2007). If driving motivations shift (e.g. due to raised environmental concern; Polk, 2003) after habits have formed, behaviour should remain stable.

4
Indeed, pre-intention TPB cognitions (attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control) were also measured in both questionnaires and explained
60% of variance in intention in Study 1 and 47% in Study 2.

74

B. Gardner / Transportation Research Part F 12 (2009) 6876

Alternatively, where experimental or quasi-experimental procedures are unfeasible, correlational data can be more informative if the utility of competing theories is compared. We know of only one transport theory comparison study: using
cross-sectional correlational data, Bamberg and Schmidt (2003) concluded that the TPB was superior to a moral norm-based
model, and a motivational model which incorporated habit. However, the habit  intention interaction was not tested and so
the habituation perspective was not adequately assessed.
Our ndings demonstrate that correlational data can be misleading. Correlation-based modelling studies including the
present studies are useful in suggesting potential predictors of behaviour for experimental investigation, but should be
viewed as pilot research rather than sufcient tests of theory (Weinstein, 2007).
4.2. How can driving habits be broken?
Our results showed that, where habit was weak, travel mode choice could be modelled as reasoned action, and so we
acknowledge the role of deliberation for commuters with weak or no habit. However, among habitual transport users, behaviour was dominated by habitual tendencies rather than intentions. Although strongly correlated in both studies, the conceptual distinction between habit and intention is important. Reasoned action models state that intentions are formed on the
basis of deliberation over available information regarding choice options, but habit is characterised by reduced predecisional
information searches and use relating to available options and the choice setting (Aarts et al., 1997; Verplanken, Aarts, & van
Knippenberg, 1997). Information-based driving reduction initiatives which target attitude and belief change may have only
limited impact on habituated behaviour and so intervention strategies must be employed which acknowledge the limited
cognitive engagement that characterises habitual decision-making.
The extant literature suggests a number of strategies to address habitual driving. Removing opportunities for enactment
of habits, or otherwise modifying the structure of the decisional environment, via, for example, temporary road closures or
withdrawal of parking spaces, may be effective for disrupting habitual action (Brown, Werner, & Kim, 2003; Fujii, Grling, &
Kitamura, 2001). Naturally occurring contextual changes e.g. residential or workplace relocations (Bamberg, 2006) also
offer potential in this regard, because the unfamiliarity of these settings may prompt deliberation, and so drivers might thus
be at least initially sensitised to motivational campaigns in such situations (Bamberg, 2006). During these periods, longerterm change is likely to be effected through the use of persuasive information and provision of incentives for non-car travel,
which can promote non-car transport intentions and behaviour (Brown et al., 2003); in this way, transport users may form
pro-environment transport habits (Fujii & Kitamura, 2003). Fujii and Kitamura (2003) showed that the provision of nancial
incentives (a free one-month bus pass) was sufcient to disrupt driving habits and create new bus use habits (see too
Thgersen & Mller, 2008). While withdrawal of the economic incentive unsurprisingly reduced public transport use, levels
of public transport use one month after the free pass expired remained higher than at pre-intervention (Fujii & Kitamura,
2003; Thgersen & Mller, 2008).
The attributes of the decisional setting that require modication to disrupt habits are however currently under-researched. Some situational cues (e.g. time of day) may be experienced in various settings, prompting initially situation-specic habits (e.g. driving to work in the morning) to be abstracted and generalise across contexts (e.g. making all morning
journeys by car; Fujii & Grling, 2007). In such instances, contextual changes such as residential relocation might be insufcient to break habits. Further work is needed to pinpoint features of the decisional context that can be altered to disturb
habits and promote deliberative behavioural decisions.
Where drivers are not motivated to reduce their car use, structural interventions might prompt psychological reactance,
resulting in increased car use as a means of asserting freedom (Brehm, 1966; Tertoolen, van Kreveld, & Verstraten, 1998).
Motivational campaigns thus provide an important foundation for changing habitual driving, but are unlikely to be sufcient
to modify behaviour where habit overrides intention. Implementation intentions, i.e. detailed plans regarding where, when
and how intentions will be implemented (Gollwitzer, 1999), offer a promising means of facilitating enactment of non-car use
intentions. Forming implementation intentions involves cognitive rehearsal of a specied behaviour in response to anticipated contextual cues (e.g. the need to commute to work at 8 am; Sheeran, Milne, Webb, & Gollwitzer, 2005). Upon encountering these cues, the planned action is initiated automatically and thus is prioritised over the habitual tendency (Gollwitzer
& Sheeran, 2006). Eriksson et al. (2008) showed that drivers with strong personal norms for not driving were unlikely to act
upon their motivation where driving habits were strong, but where these drivers formed implementation intentions for noncar use, habit was disrupted and the motivationbehaviour relationship restored (see too Bamberg, 2000).
Elsewhere, Garvill, Marell, and Nordlund (2003) found that habitual drivers that deliberated over and recorded journey
requirements and non-car transport prior to each journey subsequently drove less than did weak-habit drivers, or drivers
who did not record journey requirements (see too Verplanken et al., 1998). Predecisional recording of reasons for driving
may therefore promote deliberative behaviour even in the presence of habits.
4.3. Limitations
Limitations of the current studies should be acknowledged. We measured behaviour at two timepoints one week apart,
but accurate reections of true behaviour patterns may require multiple timepoint measures spanning a longer period
(Gardner & Abraham, 2008).

B. Gardner / Transportation Research Part F 12 (2009) 6876

75

Additionally, we presumed that, midway through the academic year, transport habits had formed. Although this appeared
to be the case for many participants, some participants reported weak or no habit, despite the observed stability of behaviour.
Considerably more work is needed to explore the latency or number of goal-response repetitions required to form habits.
4.4. Conclusion
Our studies have shown that, in stable contexts, habits and intentions concur yet habits dominate behavioural outcomes.
We acknowledge that strong correspondence between behaviour, habit and intention in our studies may not generalise to
unstable travel settings, in which decisions may be more deliberative. However, correlation-based assessments of motivational transport choice models undertaken in unvarying decisional contexts may overstate the role of deliberation in travel
mode choice. Transport models should rather be evaluated in light of their utility for informing modication of stable mode
choice.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council, UK.
References
Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2000a). Habits as knowledge structures: Automaticity in goal-directed behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,
5363.
Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2000b). The automatic activation of goal-directed behavior: The case of travel habit. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20,
7582.
Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1997). Habit and information use in travel mode choices. Acta Psychologica, 96, 114.
Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1998). Predicting behavior from actions in the past: Repeated decision-making or a matter of habit? Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 13551374.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.
Ajzen, I. (1991). A theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179211.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Residual effects of past on later behavior: Habituation and reasoned action perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6,
107122.
Bamberg, S. (2000). The promotion of new behavior by forming an implementation intention: Results of a eld experiment in the domain of travel mode
choice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 19031922.
Bamberg, S. (2006). Is a residential relocation a good opportunity to change peoples travel behavior? Results from a theory-driven intervention study.
Environment and Behavior, 38, 820840.
Bamberg, S., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned behavior: The roles of past behavior, habit, and reasoned action.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 175187.
Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Incentives, morality or habit? Predicting students car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz and
Triandis. Environment and Behavior, 35, 264285.
Bartholomew, L. K., Parcel, G. S., Kok, G., & Gottlieb, N. H. (2006). Intervention mapping: Designing theory and evidence-based health promotion programs. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Brown, B. B., Werner, C. M., & Kim, N. (2003). Personal and contextual factors supporting the switch to transit use: Evaluating a natural transit intervention.
Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy ASAP, 3, 139160.
Department for Transport (2006). Transport trends: 2006 edition. London: The Stationery Ofce.
Department for Transport (2007). Transport statistics Great Britain, 2007 edition. London: The Stationery Ofce.
Eriksson, L., Garvill, J., & Nordlund, A. M. (2008). Interrupting habitual car use: The importance of car habit strength and moral motivation for personal car
use reduction. Transportation Research Part F, 11, 1023.
Forward, S. (2004). The prediction of travel behaviour using the theory of planned behaviour. In T. Rothengatter & R. D. Huguenin (Eds.), Trafc and transport
psychology (pp. 481492). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fujii, S., & Grling, T. (2007). Role and acquisition of car-use habit. In T. Grling & L. Steg (Eds.), Threats from car trafc to the quality of urban life: Problems,
causes, and solutions (pp. 235250). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fujii, S., Grling, T., & Kitamura, R. (2001). Changes in drivers perceptions and use of public transport during a freeway closure: Effects of temporary
structural change on cooperation in a real-life social dilemma. Environment and Behavior, 33, 796808.
Fujii, S., & Kitamura, R. (2003). What does a one-month free bus ticket do to habitual drivers? An experimental analysis of habit and attitude change.
Transportation, 30, 8195.
Gardner, B., & Abraham, C. (2008). Psychological correlates of car use: A meta-analysis. Transportation Research Part F, 11, 300311.
Grling, T., Fujii, S., & Boe, O. (2001). Empirical tests of a model of determinants of script-based driving choice. Transportation Research Part F, 4, 89102.
Garvill, J., Marell, A., & Nordlund, A. (2003). Effects of increased awareness on choice of travel mode. Transportation, 30, 6379.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493503.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. In M. Zanna (Ed.).
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 69119). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Goodwin, P. B. (1997). Mobility and car dependence. In T. Rothengatter & E. Carbonell Vaya (Eds.), Trafc and transport psychology (pp. 449464). Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Kaiser, F. G., & Gutscher, H. (2003). The proposition of a general version of the theory of planned behavior: Predicting ecological behavior. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 33, 586603.
Klckner, C. A., & Matthies, E. (2004). How habits interfere with norm-directed behavior: A normative decision-making model for travel mode choice.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 319327.
Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat [Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management] (2004). Passenger transport in the Netherlands: Key
gures 2004. <http://www.rws-avv.nl/pls/portal30/docs/10197.PDF> Accessed 27.05.07.
Polk, M. (2003). Are women potentially more accommodating than men to a sustainable transportation system in Sweden? Transportation Research Part D, 8,
7595.
Ronis, D. L., Yates, J. F., & Kirscht, J. P. (1989). Attitudes, decisions, and habits as determinants of repeated behavior. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G.
Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 213239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

76

B. Gardner / Transportation Research Part F 12 (2009) 6876

Sheeran, P., Milne, S., Webb, T., & Gollwitzer, P. (2005). Implementation intentions and health behavior. In M. Conner & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting health
behavior: Research and practice with social cognition models (pp. 276323). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Slotegraaf, G. (2001). Instrumental-reasoned and symbolic-affective motives for using a motor car. Transportation Research Part F, 4,
151169.
Tertoolen, G., van Kreveld, D., & Verstraten, B. (1998). Psychological resistance against attempts to reduce private car use. Transportation Research Part A, 3,
171181.
Thgersen, J., & Mller, B. (2008). Breaking car use habits: The effectiveness of a free one-month travelcard. Transportation, 35, 329345.
Tisato, P., & Robinson, T. (1999). A cost benet analysis of travel blending. Papers of the 23rd Australasian transport research forum, pp. 687702.
Triandis, H. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
Verplanken, B. (2006). Beyond frequency: Habit as mental construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 639656.
Verplanken, B., & Aarts, H. (1999). Habit, attitude, and planned behavior: Is habit an empty construct or an interesting case of goal-directed automaticity?
European Review of Social Psychology, 10, 101134.
Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., & van Knippenberg, A. (1997). Habit, information acquisition, and the process of making travel mode choices. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 27, 539560.
Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., van Knippenberg, A., & Moonen, A. (1998). Habit versus planned behavior: A eld experiment. British Journal of Social Psychology,
37, 111128.
Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., van Knippenberg, A., & van Knippenberg, C. (1994). Attitude versus general habit: Antecedents of travel mode choice. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 24, 285300.
Verplanken, B., Myrbakk, B., & Rudi, E. (2005). The measurement of habit. In T. Betsch & S. Haberstroh (Eds.), The routines of decision-making (pp. 231247).
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Verplanken, B., & Orbell, S. (2003). Reections on past behavior: A self-report index of habit strength. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 13131330.
Weinstein, N. (2007). Misleading tests of health behavior theories. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 33, 110.