Scale to measure motives for car use and personal norms for reducing car use in the metropolitan area of the Valley of Mexico ( Escalas de motivos para uso del auto y de norma personal de reducción del uso de auto en la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México )
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2023
Scale to measure motives for car use and personal norms for reducing car use in the metropolitan area of the Valley of Mexico ( Escalas de motivos para uso del auto y de norma personal de reducción del uso de auto en la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México )
The motives for car use and the personal norms for reducing car use have been studied to understand the motivational processes underlying car use. Motives have been classified as instrumental, symbolic and affective, while personal norms have been classified as introjected and integrated. The aim of this study is to validate scales measuring motives for car use and personal norms for car use reduction in Mexico City. Both scales were applied, together with a measure of car use, to a sample of 257 motorists. The results indicate a good fit for the three-factor model for the motives for car use scale and a good fit for the two-factor model for personal norms for car use reduction. A linear regression model was run, which showed that both constructs explain 21.3% of variance in car use, and the significant predictors are instrumental motives and integrated norms. Both scales show initial evidence of reliability, validity and parsimony.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamseW.StegL.GiffordR.VlekC. (2009). Factors influencing car use for commuting and the intention to reduce it: A question of self-interest or morality?Transportation Research Part F, 12, 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2009.04.004
2.
BambergS.HuneckeM.BlöbaumA. (2007). Social context, personal norms and the use of public transportation: Two field studies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.04.001
3.
BambergS.SchimdtP. (2003). Morality or habit? Predicting student’s car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz and Triandis. Environment and Behavior, 35(2), 264–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502250134
4.
ByrneB. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming(2nd ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
5.
CarminesE. G. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. Social measurement: Current issues, 80. Sage Publications.
6.
Díaz-AcostaR.Shiba-MatsumotoA. R.GutiérrezJ. P. (2015). Medición simplificada del nivel socioeconómico en encuestas breves: Propuesta a partir de acceso a bienes y servicios. Salud Pública de México, 57, 298–303. http://repositorio.insp.mx:8080/jspui/handle/20.500.12096/6971
7.
DittmarH. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. Palgrave MacMillan.
8.
DonaldI.CooperS.ConchieM. (2014). An extended theory of planned behavior model of the psychological factors affecting commuters transport mode use. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.03.003
9.
FornellC.LarckerD. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
10.
HausteinS.KlöcknerC.BlöbaumA. (2009). Car use of young adults: The role of travel socialization. Transportation Research Part F, 12, 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2008.10.003
11.
HeathY.GiffordR. (2002). Extending the theory of planned behavior: Predicting the use of public transportation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(10), 2154–2189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02068.x
12.
HingS.van BreukelenG.PetersG.KokG. (2016). Commuting travel mode choice among office workers: Comparing an extended theory of planned behavior model between regions and organizational sectors. Travel Behavior and Society, 4, 1–10. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.tbs.2015.11.002
13.
Hoang-TungN.KojimaA.KubotaH. (2017). Transformation from intentions to habits in travel behavior: An awareness of a mediated form of intention. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 49, 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.07.001
14.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
15.
HuneckeM.BlöbaumA.MatthiesE.HögerR. (2001). Responsibility and environment: Ecological norm orientation and external factors in the domain of travel mode choice behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33, 830–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973269
16.
HuneckeM.HausteinS.GrischkatS.BöhlerS. (2007). Psychological, sociodemographic, and infrastructural factors as determinants of ecological impact caused by mobility behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.08.001
JakobssonC.GambleA.HagmanO.PolkM.GärlingT.OlssonL. (2011). Affective–symbolic and instrumental–Independence psychological motives mediating effects of socio-demographic variables on daily car use. Journal of Social Geography, 19, 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.11.006
19.
KeizerK.SchultzP. (2013). Social norms and pro-environmental behavior. In StegL.van den BergA.De GrootJ. (Eds.), Environmental psychology an introduction (pp. 153–164). BPS Blackwell.
20.
LoisD.López-SáenzM. (2009). The relationship between instrumental, symbolic and affective factors as predictors of car use: A structural equation modeling approach. Transportation Research Part A, 43, 790–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2009.07.008
21.
MalleB. F. (2011). Attribution theories: How people make sense of behavior. In ChadeeD. (Ed.), Theories in social psychology (pp. 72–95). Wiley-Blackwell.
22.
MartínA. M.HernándezB.AlonsoI. (2017). Pro-environmental motivation and regulation for environmental laws as predictors of illegal anti-ecological behaviors. Psyecology, 8(1), 33–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2016.1267134
23.
MartínA. M.HernándezB.RuizC. (2007). Variables predictoras de la norma personal en transgresiones de las leyes medioambientales. Medio ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 8(1–2), 137–157. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2693865
24.
MilesJ.ShevlinM. (2001). Applying regression & correlation. A guide for students and researchers. Sage Publications.
25.
Moral-de la RubiaJ. (2019). Revisión de los criterios para validez convergente estimada a través de la Varianza Media Extraída. Psychologia, 13(2), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.21500/19002386.4119
26.
PáezA.WhalenK. (2010). Enjoyment of commute: A comparison of different transportation modes. Transportation Research Part A, 44, 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2010.04.003
RamosÉ. M. S.BergstadC. J.NässénJ. (2020). Understanding daily car use: Driving habits, motives, attitudes, and norms across trip purposes. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 68, 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.11.013
29.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. A. (2000). A method for comparing completely standardized solutions in multiple groups. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(2), 292–308. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0702_9
30.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
31.
SivasubramaniyamR. D.CharltonS. G.SargissonR. J. (2020). Mode choice and mode commitment in commuters. Travel Behavior and Society, 19, 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2019.10.007
32.
StegL. (2005). Car use: Lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(2–3), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2004.07.001
33.
StegL.BolderdijkJ. W.KeizerK.PerlaviciuteG. (2014). An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behavior: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.002
34.
StegL.VlekC.SlotegraafG. (2001). Instrumental-reasoned and symbolic-affective motives for using a motor car. Transportation Research Part F, 4, 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(01)
35.
StradlingS. (2011). Travel mode choice. In PorterB. (Ed.), Handbook of Traffic Psychology (pp. 485–502). Elsevier Academic Press.
36.
TaoS.HeS.ThøgersenJ. (2019). The role of car ownership in attitudes towards public transport: A comparative study of Guangzhou and Brisbane. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 60, 685–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.12.005
37.
ThøgersenJ. (2006). Norms for environmentally responsible behavior: An extended taxonomy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.004
38.
YuanK. H.BentlerP. M.ZhangW. (2005). The effect of skewness and kurtosis on mean and covariance structure analysis: The univariate case and its multivariate implication. Sociological Methods & Research, 34(2), 240–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124105280200
