‘Soft’ transport measures should reflect people’s social networks and build on these networks People have a tendency to compare with others when making decisions or evaluating the consequences of these decisions. For instance, people may stick with travel habits (such as commuting by car) even when there are faster and/or cheaper options available, simply because most people they know also commute by car. In a group, actions of a group member receive higher influence than those of the wider population. Therefore ‘soft’ measures, such as travel awareness campaigns may be more useful if they have a local and personalised focus (e.g. targeting schools, companies or communities), instead of targeting the whole population. • People compare with others when making decisions or evaluating consequences. • People may stick with sub-optimal travel habits, simply because most people they know behave similarly. • ‘Soft’ measures may be more useful if they have a local and personalised focus. Aristotle wrote that man is, by nature, a social animal. Some minimal introspection is sufficient to understand that social aspects are key in several mobility related decisions, including the decision to travel in the first place. One of the channels through which social influence affects travel behaviour is the tendency to compare with others when making decisions or evaluating the consequences of these decisions. Abou-Zeid and Ben-Akiva (2011) distinguish the following three channels through which social comparison could affect behaviour: People obtain information from others, and this affects both their level of awareness of options and the perception of the attributes of these options. The satisfaction and advice of others is used in the assessment of the attractiveness of different options. This will especially be the case in fields where people have little experience: gaining information from others allows them to spend less time and energy in finding the relevant information. In the case of transport, this is obviously an important element whenever an individual has to make decisions outside their daily routine (for instance, after changing jobs, after moving house or when planning for holiday trips). People seek the approval of others and adhere to group norms. In other words, they exhibit herd behaviour, are influenced by peers, conform, etc. This can be both an important barrier to change and an engine for change if the group norms start changing. Downward comparison (comparing oneself to others who are perceived as doing worse on an item of comparison) may make one feel happier, while upward comparison to others who are better off may make one feel less happy (Wills, 1981). Research has shown that social influences are very strong in influencing behaviour. In experiments (see Thaler and Sunstein, 2008), people tend to conform to other people’s judgements, even if these others are complete strangers and if the tasks are very simple. The policy relevance of these issues is evident. For instance, people may stick with travel habits (such as commuting by car) even when there are faster and/or cheaper options available, simply because most people they know also commute by car. Social influences in transport are not limited to choices related to commuting behaviour. For instance, Axsen and Kurani (2011) have studied car buyer perceptions of plug‐in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and concluded that conformity and other mechanisms of social influence played a role in the assessment and adoption of these vehicles. – link to electric vehicle search tag? Social norms and information obtained from colleagues are also key in the decision to telecommute (Páez and Scott, 2007; Wilton et al., 2011; Scott et al., 2012). – link to anything on social norms? Social interaction and social learning/imitation may also have a considerable role in responses to ‘soft’ transport policy measures (e.g. travel awareness campaigns, travel plans, car-sharing). According to Sunitiyoso et al. (2011a), in a group, actions of a group member receive higher influence than those of the wider population, since within a group there exists a feeling of belonging and responsibility as a group member. Sunitiyoso et al. therefore conclude that ‘soft’ measures, such as travel awareness campaigns may be more useful if they have a local and personalised focus (e.g. targeting schools, companies or communities), instead of targeting the whole population. As an example of ‘soft’ measures with a local and personalised focus, consider Bartle et al.’s (2011) study on how a small group of commuter cyclists interacted with one another through a map-based website, where they could share their routes and other cycling-related information. Besides its functional role in diffusing practical travel information, the information sharing process could perform a social role as well: perceived in-group membership reinforced positive views of cycling as a commuter mode. Thus, learning does not only pertain to the behaviour of others, but also to factual information, or to a combination of both. – link to cycling? Abou-Zeid , M. & M. Ben-Akiva. The effect of social comparisons on commute well-being Transportation Research Part A 45 (2011) 345–361 Axsen, J. and K. S. Kurani (In Press). Interpersonal Influence within Car Buyers’ Social Networks: Applying Five Perspectives to Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle Drivers. Environment and Planning A (doi: 10.1068/a43221). Bartle, C., Avineri, E. and Chatterjee, K. (2011) Information-sharing, community-building and trust: A case study amongst commuter cyclists. In: 43rd Universities Transport Study Group Conference, Milton Keynes, UK, 5th-7th January, 2011. Available from: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/16914 Dugundji, E. and Gulyas, L. (2008). “Sociodynamic discrete choice on networks in space: Impacts of agent heterogeneity on emergent outcomes.” Environment & Planning Part B, 35, 1028-1054 Fukuda, Daisuke & Morichi, Shigeru, 2007. “Incorporating aggregate behavior in an individual’s discrete choice: An application to analyzing illegal bicycle parking behavior,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 313-325, May Páez, A., Scott, D.M., 2007. Social influence on travel behavior: a simulation example of the decision to telecommute. Environment and Planning A 39, 647–665. Scott, D.M., Dam, I., Páez, A. and Wilton, R.D. (2012) Investigating the effects of social influence on the choice to telework. Environment and Planning A, 44: 1016-1031. Sunitiyoso , Erel Avineri & Kiron Chatterjee (2011) On the potential for recognising of social interaction and social learning in modelling travellers’ change of behaviour under uncertainty, Transportmetrica, 7:1, 5-30, DOI: 10.1080/18128600903244776 Thaler, R.H. and C.R. Sunstein (2008), Nudge, Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Yale University Press. Wills, T.A., 1981. Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin 90 (2), 245–271. Wilton, R.D., Páez, A. and Scott, D. M. (2011) Why do you care what other people think? A qualitative of investigation of social influence and tele-commuting. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45:269-282