Ridesharing is safer than solo driving (unless you're a male teenager)

Handsfree phone calls still cause accidents

Keen to contribute towards your state government's treasury? Just drive past a police car with your mobile phone held to your head and you'll get the opportunity to donate around $200 to the government. Road safety authorities aren't too fond of people talking on the phone.

And for good reason: talking on the phone dramatically increases your risk of having an accident up to 600% (Violanti and Marshall 1996). It slows your reaction time down by 0.25 seconds, (equivalent to a blood alcohol reading of 0.08) which is apparently enough to cause an accident (Caird et al. 2008). It doesn't matter whether you're hands free or using a handset, talking on the phone while driving, is a very bad idea.

Having passengers in the car reduces accidents
What I've been curious about is whether having passengers in the car has a similar effect. Sometimes when I'm chatting in the car with someone and having an in depth conversation, I notice that they often start making driving errors (e.g. not looking before changing lanes) that could lead to a major incident. I get particularly concerned when I'm in the car with very visual conversationalists who insist on maintaining eye contact while driving. "Keep your eyes on the road", I want to scream!

I needn't worry. The research shows that having passengers in the car actually reduces the risk of an accident and the more passengers you have, the safer everyone is (Lee and Abdel-Aty 2007). It might be because the driver feels a greater sense of responsibility for safety when they've got other people in the car, it might be because 'back seat drivers' notice hazards that the driver didn't pick up or it might be because in our sleepless modern society, passengers help keep the driver awake.

Visual cues are vital for driving safety
The reason why having conversations with someone in the car is safety enhancing, whilst talking on your bluetooth headset with someone will make you more likely to have a crash, is apparently because of 'conversation modulation'. That's basically when you stop talking to the driver because you can see and feel a dangerous situation coming up on the road.

Maciej et al. (2010) put people in a driving simulator and found that when the conversational partner had visual cues, they usually slowed down the conversation or stopped talking altogether to give the driver a chance to concentrate on driving. The person on the other end of a mobile phone can't see what's going on and so they keep blabbering on regardless. The hapless driver is distracted to death!
 
Stay safe: share a ride
The takeaway message is: leave your bluetooth headset in your bag, keep your phone switched off and have a conversation with the person next to you instead.

...Unless you're a teenage male driver
In which case, you should kick your passengers out as well because the research shows they'll make you more likely to crash. You can imagine why: having four testosterone charged males encourage you to 'drag' other drivers is hardly a recipe for safety.

Rebuilding social capital by gamifying ridesharing

Rebuilding social capital by gamifying ridesharing

Word count: 2100

Abstract

China's roads are about to get much busier. Many city dwellers in China now own washing machines, televisions and refrigerators, but few own cars [1]. That will soon change according to projections from the IMF. In the last ten years, vehicle ownership rates have increased by 2000% in China [2] and show no signs of slowing. Per capita income in China has exceeded a critical threshold of $4500 per annum which marks the 'tipping point' of car ownership [1]. As other countries reach this income threshold, they will be likely to experience this same explosion in car ownership. By 2050, there may be close to three billion cars on the roads globally [1] compared to one billion in 2011 [3]. Two billion of these cars will be owned by people in developing countries [1]. 

 

This dramatic increase in car ownership presents many challenges to policy makers. In this essay, I argue that the impacts on social capital are an unrecognised risk that will come from greater car ownership. I also present a proposal to take advantage of this trend in private mobility by encouraging ridesharing using a behavioural change strategy based on 'gamification'. The 'Connect Up Your City' game is being trialled in Melbourne, Australia and if successful could be rolled out to other countries. 

Environmental risks

A future with three billion cars is troubling news for the environment. Already, the stereotypical image of a Chinese city features a dark, gloomy skyline with a thick layer of smog clogging the lungs of the few remaining cyclists. Indeed, respiratory illnesses are one of the leading causes of death in developing countries – 1.5 million people die every year [4]. As well as the public health impacts, soot from vehicle exhaust is now seen as one the strongest drivers of climate change, due to its effects on Arctic ice [5]. 

 

If it's this bad already, what will happen when another two billion cars join the roads? Pauliuk et al. have predicted that China's CO₂e emissions from transport could increase by 500% by 2050 if current trends in car ownership continue [6]. Under this scenario, dangerous climate change beyond the 2^oC limit proposed by the IPCC is almost inevitable [6].

However, hope is in sight. China and other countries are pumping billions of dollars into research and development for electric vehicles [7]. Jacobson et al. present evidence showing that it is technically feasible that the new fleet of vehicles could be powered by 100% renewable electricity [8]. Under this scenario, the environmental risks of three billion cars would be negligible. 

Social impact 

Much attention has been paid to the environmental risks of an increase in car ownership. However, there is little research into the social impact that three billion cars would have on the world. In Robert Putnam's seminal work, “Bowling alone”, he charts the precipitous decline in social capital in the United States and shows that a key driver for the decline was a rise in rates of solo commuting [9]. With another two billion cars worldwide, it is possible that this same pattern will repeat itself in other countries.

What is social capital?

According to Bordieu, social capital is the value of the resources available through a social network [10]. Social capital increases with the size of a social network, the strength of the ties between members and the individual resources accessed by each member. Communities with high social capital are characterised by high levels of trust and reciprocity, which in turn leads to collective action for public good.

An example of collective action reliant on social capital is ridesharing. Ridesharing involves people driving to a common destination together. Passengers give up almost all control of the situation and are potentially putting themselves at risk of a car accident or even violent crime at the hands of the driver. As such, ridesharing depends on trust and therefore on social capital. Indeed, numerous studies have found a link between higher social capital and ridesharing [11–13].

Social capital improves quality of life

In recent years, policy makers have begun to question the value of gross domestic product (GDP) as a measure of progress. Stiglitz et al. argue that quality of life is far more meaningful than GDP [14]. Following that report, France and the UK have begun tracking quality of life using a 'National Happiness Index' and other countries are following suit [15]. Interestingly, there is now evidence that social capital has a causal relationship with quality of life [16–18].

 

Solo commuting reduces social capital

Given that social capital improves quality of life, anything that threatens social capital is worthy of attention from policy makers. One of those threats is solo commuting. Time use studies by Putnam's research team in the US revealed that “every ten minutes of [solo] commuting results in ten per cent fewer social connections” [9]. This conclusion has been backed up by numerous other studies [19–25]. Solo commuting would reduce social capital in two ways: decreased time for social interaction and spillover commuting stress.

 

Time cost of commuting

Solo commuting and community participation are almost mutually exclusive [9]. Travelling alone leaves less time to mix with neighbours, volunteer or serve on the school’s parent teacher association. 

 

Emotional cost of commuting

Although many commuters claim to enjoy the solitude of solo commuting [26], research shows that commuting is one of the largest causes of stress in people’s lives [27–29]. The IBM Global Commuter Pain survey shows that drivers are experiencing ever more stress from traffic congestion [30]. Tempers flare as traffic stops and starts: 50% of Australians surveyed admitted to committing road rage in 2011 [31]. What’s more, this emotional pain is contagious: studies have found ‘spillover’ from commuting stress into the workplace and the home [32], [29], [33]. Compellingly, Novaco et al. found that commuting stress was lower in rideshare drivers than solo drivers [34] presumably due to the effect of social buffering [28].

What can we do about it?

The damaging effects of solo commuting on social capital are not likely to magically fix themselves. Commuter behaviour change is necessary. In this essay, I advocate one such change: a move away from ‘solo commuting’ to ‘ridesharing’. 

 

Using ridesharing to improve social capital

Interestingly, while one study has looked at ridesharing as a way of measuring social capital [36], no studies have examined whether ridesharing can build social capital within a community. 

 

As part of my PhD, I propose to develop CoCoRide (short for collaborative consumption ride) a ridesharing project focused primarily on building social capital. CoCoRide currently caters to niche sporting groups. For example, in January 2012, we partnered with a running event that was inaccessible by public transport and helped runners form rideshare relationships.

Social Benefits of Ridesharing

The CoCoRide project could extend beyond car-based ridesharing to all transport modes. The primary objective is to link up CoCoRide users to encourage conversations between strangers and thus build 'bridging' social capital (connections between people with different backgrounds). 

 

As well as this intangible effect, ridesharing could reduce commuter stress. Ridesharing has been shown to reduce stress and anxiety felt during traffic congestion for car drivers [34]. In a study comparing solo drivers with ridesharing drivers, solo drivers had significantly higher blood pressure readings after their commute [34]. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the same phenomenon applies for public transport passengers [37]. The likely explanation for this is ‘social buffering’. A large body of psychological research shows that when someone experiences a stressful situation (e.g. experimentally induced pain [38] or bullying [39]) with a supportive stranger nearby, their physiological stress response is far lower than for someone on their own [35].

Roadblocks to ridesharing

There are some obvious barriers to ridesharing that have prevented mass participation in ridesharing schemes.

Stranger danger

One of the most immediate barriers to car-based ridesharing is trust between strangers. After the Ivan Milat backpacker murders in the 80s, hitch-hiking has all but disappeared in Australia [40]. Given the strong resemblances between hitch-hiking and ridesharing (the only difference being that ridesharing is generally pre-arranged and a match is made through a ridesharing organisation), many people have fears around ‘stranger danger’ [41]. Results from the CoCoRide pilot study show that although some people (early adopters) are willing to share a car ride regardless of this danger, ridesharing will never become a mainstream transport method while this fear persists.

To address this fear, CoCoRide users could begin with the lower risk option of ridesharing on public transport. By sharing a train, tram or bus ride together, users still have the opportunity to have a conversation while retaining far greater control over the situation. At the same time, early adopters who are sharing car rides would kick-start a reputation economy within the CoCoRide network. After each ride, users would leave feedback for their fellow ridesharers. Survey results from a CoCoRide pilot project indicate that users would feel safer if they could see positive feedback from other users. This correlates with research examining the effectiveness of reputation systems in generating trust [39].

Shyness

Although not quite as acute a fear as ‘stranger danger’, many people have an aversion to talking to strangers [43]. This aversion is understandable given the social norms around avoiding social interaction on public transport. Even dating back to 1860, transport etiquette advised against conversing with strangers on the train [44]. Bucking this trend would require significant courage. 

 

Overcoming shyness using Gamification

As such, CoCoRide has designed a strategy to facilitate social interaction between commuters. This strategy is based on gamification. Gamification is a behavioural change methodology, which involves using principles from games to motivate behaviours [45]. The methodology is attracting attention from businesses and government: Deloitte consulting named gamification as one of the top ten technology trends for 2012 [46]. An example of an effective gamification strategy is the speed camera lottery in Sweden [47]. Rather than simply penalising motorists for exceeding the speed limit, the new speed cameras reward positive driving habits: motorists who drive under the speed limit are entered into a lottery to win the proceeds from speeding fines. The results of a three day trial showed a 22% reduction in average speed [47].

CoCoRide aims to use the same principles to facilitate conversations between strangers and thus boost social capital. The CoCoRide project invites players to play a social game: ‘Connect up your city'.

Connect Up Your City game play

Connect Up Your City (CUYC) casts players as heroes working together to create a vibrant social network in their city. It encourages players to overcome their own fears around talking to strangers and boost their conversational skills and self confidence in the process.

Players download a mobile application, which they use to find other players at train, bus or tram stations. They wear distinctive name badges to find each other. When they spot another player, they ‘check in’ using the mobile app and are given an icebreaker question to help start the conversation. During the train ride, they carry on the conversation, choosing another icebreaker question if they hit a conversational dead-spot. At the end of the conversation, players give each other anonymous feedback on four criteria: ‘listening skills’, ‘humour’, ‘voice tone’ and ‘body language’. The feedback allows players to continuously improve their conversational skills, motivating them to keep playing.

In essence, CUYC incentivises players to start conversations and keeps them interested through ongoing challenges. Given that most people find conversation intrinsically pleasurable once they are in conversational flow [48], the CoCoRide game is only necessary at the conversation initiation stage. As such, the game avoids the trap of ‘pointsification’ [49], whereby marketers package an unrewarding experience (e.g. filling out surveys) with game elements in an attempt to make an uninteresting activity ‘fun’. 

 

Three billion ridesharers?

In this essay, I have argued that solo commuting poses significant risks to social capital and thus to subjective well-being. If car ownership trends continue, developing countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China will soon have tens of millions of new solo drivers on their roads who will be increasingly isolated from their communities. However, this risk can be averted through ridesharing schemes like CoCoRide that encourage people to travel together and have conversations along the way. In such a manner, the risk of uncontrolled car ownership could be transformed into an opportunity to build social capital.

'Connect Up Your City', the gamified ridesharing project mentioned in this essay, is being launched in Melbourne, Australia in July 2012 and if successful, could be rolled out to other cities around the world.

References

[1] M. Chamon, P. Mauro, and Y. Okawa, ‘Mass car ownership in the emerging market giants’, Economic Policy, vol. 23, no. 54, pp. 243-296, Apr. 2008.

[2] ‘Driving Force: Energy and Climate Strategies for China’s Motorization’, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

[3] ‘World Vehicle Population Tops 1 Billion Units | News & Analysis content from WardsAuto’. [Online]. Available: http://wardsauto.com/ar/world_vehicle_population_110815. [Accessed: 01-Feb-2012].

[4] D. P. Pope, V. Mishra, L. Thompson, A. R. Siddiqui, E. A. Rehfuess, M. Weber, and N. G. Bruce, ‘Risk of Low Birth Weight and Stillbirth Associated With Indoor Air Pollution From Solid Fuel Use in Developing Countries’, Epidemiologic Reviews, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 70 -81, Apr. 2010.

[5] M. Z. Jacobson, ‘Global direct radiative forcing due to multicomponent anthropogenic and natural aerosols’, Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, vol. 106, no. D2.

[6] S. Pauliuk, N. M. A. Dhaniati, and D. B. Müller, ‘Reconciling Sectoral Abatement Strategies with Global Climate Targets: The Case of the Chinese Passenger Vehicle Fleet’, Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 140-147, 2011.

[7] M. Z. Jacobson and M. A. Delucchi, ‘Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials’, Energy Policy, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1154-1169, Mar. 2011.

[8] R. D. Putnam, Bowling alone. Simon and Schuster, 2001.

[9] P. Bourdieu and L. J. D. Wacquant, An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press, 1992.

[10] D. Gray, J. Shaw, and J. Farrington, ‘Community transport, social capital and social exclusion in rural areas’, Area, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 89-98, Mar. 2006.

[11] K. Lovejoy and S. Handy, ‘Social networks as a source of private-vehicle transportation: The practice of getting rides and borrowing vehicles among Mexican immigrants in California’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 248-257, May 2011.

[12] J. Silvis and D. Niemeier, ‘Social Network and Dwelling Characteristics That Influence Ridesharing Behavior of Seniors’, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 2118, no. ?1, pp. 47-54, Dec. 2009.

[13] J. E. Stiglitz, A. Sen, and J.-P. Fitoussi, Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up. New Press, 2010.

[14] C. Barker, ‘Cameron’s pursuit of happiness, a policy made in Bhutan...’, The Telegraph.

[15] L. Becchetti, E. G. Ricca, and A. Pelloni, ‘The 60es turnaround as a test on the causal relationship between sociability and happiness’, Econometica, Econometica Working Papers 07, 2009.

[16] S. Bartolini, E. Bilancini, and F. Sarracino, ‘Social capital predicts happiness: World-wide evidence from time series’, Siena University, Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia Politica, no. 573, 2009.

[17] S. Bartolini, E. Bilancini, and M. Pugno, ‘Did the decline in social connections depress Americans’ happiness?’, forthcoming Social Indicators Research, 2011.

[18] T. Williamson, ‘Sprawl, Politics, and Participation: A Preliminary Analysis’, National Civic Review, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 235-244, Sep. 2002.

[19] L. M. Besser, M. Marcus, and H. Frumkin, ‘Commute time and social capital in the U.S’, Am J Prev Med, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 207-211, Mar. 2008.

[20] W. M. Rahn, Kwang Suk Yoon, M. Garet, S. Lipson, and K. Loflin, ‘Geographies of Trust’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 1646 -1663, 2009.

[21] L. Freeman, ‘The effects of sprawl on neighborhood social ties: An explanatory analysis’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 69–77, 2001.

[22] K. P. Derose, ‘Do Bonding, Bridging, and Linking Social Capital Affect Preventable Hospitalizations?’, Health services research, vol. 43, no. 5p1, pp. 1520–1541, 2008.

[23] S. Farber and A. Páez, ‘Running to stay in place: the time-use implications of automobile oriented land-use and travel’, Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 782-793, Jul. 2011.

[24] M. Flood and C. Barbato, ‘Off to Work-Commuting in Australia’, 2005.

[25] D. T. Ory, P. L. Mokhtarian, L. S. Redmond, I. Salomon, G. O. Collantes, and S. Choo, ‘When is Commuting Desirable to the Individual?’, Growth and Change, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 334-359, Sep. 2004.

[26] M. Koslowsky, ‘Commuting stress: problems of definition and variable identification’, Applied Psychology, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 153–173, 1997.

[27] R. W. Novaco, D. Stokols, and L. Milanesi, ‘Objective and subjective dimensions of travel impedance as determinants of commuting stress’, American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 231–257, 1990.

[28] R. Wener, G. Evans, and P. Boately, ‘Commuting Stress: Psychophysiological Effects of a Trip and Spillover into the Workplace’, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 1924, no. ?1, pp. 112-117, Jan. 2005.

[29] ‘IBM Global Commuter Pain Survey: Traffic Congestion Down, Pain Way Up’. [Online]. Available: http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/35359.wss. [Accessed: 01-Feb-2012].

[30] AAMI, ‘AAMI Crash Index 2011’, 2011.

[31] D. A. Hennessy, ‘The Impact of Commuter Stress on Workplace Aggression’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 2315-2335, Sep. 2008.

[32] D. A. Hennessy, ‘From driver stress to workplace aggression’, in 111th Annual American Psychological Association Convention. August 7-10, Toronto, Canada, 2003.

[33] R. W. Novaco and C. Collier, Commuting stress, ridesharing, and gender: Analyses from the 1993 state of the Commute Study in Southern California. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Irvine, 1994.

[34] M. B. Hennessy, S. Kaiser, and N. Sachser, ‘Social buffering of the stress response: diversity, mechanisms, and functions’, Frontiers in neuroendocrinology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 470–482, 2009.

[35] O. for E. C. and Development, Road travel demand: meeting the challenge. OECD Publishing, 2002.

[36] K. Charles and P. Kline, ‘Relational Costs and the Production of Social Capital: Evidence from Carpooling’, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, vol. No. 9041, 2002.

[37] L. Hirsch and K. Thompson, ‘I can sit but I’d rather stand: Commuter’s experience of crowdedness and fellow passenger behaviour in carriages on Australian metropolitan trains’.

[38] J. L. Brown, D. Sheffield, M. R. Leary, and M. E. Robinson, ‘Social Support and Experimental Pain’, Psychosomatic Medicine, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 276 -283, Mar. 2003.

[39] M. Heinrichs, T. Baumgartner, C. Kirschbaum, and U. Ehlert, ‘Social support and oxytocin interact to suppress cortisol and subjective responses to psychosocial stress’, Biological Psychiatry, vol. 54, no. 12, pp. 1389-1398, Dec. 2003.

[40] B. Caulfield, ‘Estimating the environmental benefits of ride-sharing: A case study of Dublin’, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 527–531, 2009.

[41] S. H. Jacobson and D. M. King, ‘Fuel saving and ridesharing in the US: Motivations, limitations, and opportunities’, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 14–21, 2009.

[42] ‘DB Bahn: Gruppe&Spar der Bahn ab 6 Personen’. [Online]. Available: http://www.bahn.de/p/view/angebot/gruppen/gruppe_spar.shtml. [Accessed: 01-Feb-2012].

[43] T. Parry, Thumbs Up Australia: Hitchhiking the Outback. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2006.

[44] A. Amey, J. Attanucci, and R. Mishalani, ‘Real-Time Ridesharing’, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 2217, no. ?1, pp. 103-110, Dec. 2011.

[45] A. Jøsang, R. Ismail, and C. Boyd, ‘A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision’, Decision Support Systems, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 618-644, Mar. 2007.

[46] L. A. Schmidt and A. H. Buss, ‘Understanding shyness: Four questions and four decades of research’, in The development of shyness and social withdrawal., New York, NY, US: Guilford Press, 2010, pp. 23-41.

[47] J. Simmons, The Railway traveller’s handy book of hints, suggestions and advice: before the journey, on the journey and after the journey. Adams and Dart, 1862.

[48] R. H. Jr, The Gamification Handbook - Everything You Need to Know about Gamification. Lightning Source Inc, 2011.

[49] W. Fleeson, A. B. Malanos, and N. M. Achille, ‘An intraindividual process approach to the relationship between extraversion and positive affect: Is acting extraverted as “good” as being extraverted?’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 83, no. 6, pp. 1409-1422, 2002.

[50] ‘Can’t play, won’t play | Hide&Seek - Inventing new kinds of play’. [Online]. Available: http://www.hideandseek.net/2010/10/06/cant-play-wont-play/. [Accessed: 01-Feb-2012].

Is there such a thing as 'Innate Innovativeness'?

Is there such a thing as ‘Innate Innovativeness’?

Innovativeness research is a huge area. A search for ‘innovativeness’ in Google Scholar brings up 64,500 papers. One of the biggest debates in the literature is the question “is there such a thing as ‘innate innovativeness’?”. Innate innovativeness is the idea that some people love change for the sake of change. You might imagine it as the idea that way back in our evolution, there were some cavemen who preferred to play safe and sit in their caves and pick fungi off the walls and there were some brave (or stupid) cavemen who ventured outside to hunt woolly mammoths and dodge sabre toothed tigers. Stories like this romanticise innovation and gloss over the perils of change for the sake of changing - so called ‘pro-innovation bias’ (also known as ‘shiny object syndrome’).

Looking for fellow sufferers of shiny object syndrome

I’ll freely admit that I suffer from ‘shiny object syndrome’. I see many problems with our society right now and I am committed to fixing a few of them (social isolation and traffic congestion). It’s pretty apparent though that I’m not going to get very far if I go it alone. I need to enrol other people in my vision of a world where people share rides instead ofdriving alone. More than that, I need to get them to change their behaviour and to embrace innovation.

Preaching the unconverted

Some people get ridesharing right away. It’s pretty easy to convince the hippies who used to hitchhike:P But given that ridesharing has a ‘critical mass requirement’ (you can’t find a ride unless a lot of people are using the system), I need a way to capture the attention and change the behaviour of the unwashed masses. That will require some smart marketing. It will mean I need to be pretty clear about how to segment the population and tailor our message to entice them in to sharing a car ride with a stranger.

Finding the path of least resistance

I fundamentally believe that it’s always best to find the path of least resistance in everything I do. So when designing this marketing campaign, I want to appeal to the people who are more likely to change. That’s why I became interested in the fabled ideal of the ‘innate innovator’, someone who loves change for the sake of changing. Someone who most assuredly suffers from ‘shiny object syndrome’.

Do innate innovators exist?

As mentioned, there has been an ongoing debate in the academic community about whether ‘innate innovativeness’ exists and whether it’s a useful concept. Since Midgley and Dowling first introduced the concept in 1978, there have been 656 research articles that refine the concept and suggest ways of measuring it. Interestingly, recent research has attacked the precept that innovativeness can be linked back to personality. For example, Roerich et al (2004) argue that all of the innate innovativeness measures were pretty hopeless at predicting whether people would buy a particular new product. It makes sense in a way: unless you’re a playboy Russian billionaire, you can’t buy every new thing that comes on the market.

No? How about domain specific innovativeness

 Rather than innate innovativeness, Roerich argues that it makes more sense to look at ‘domain specific innovativeness’. For example, let’s take a fictional character: Barry (or Bazza as he likes to be known). Bazza is a petrol head: he’s a motorbike mechanic, he goes to formula one events and he loves watching Top Gear. I don’t know about you, but I figure Bazza would be fairly innovative when it comes to motorbikes. He probably spends an afternoon each weekend fixing up his bike and spends a fair bit of cash on new parts. He’d be the one you’d go to if you wanted some advice on what bike to buy.

Hoffman and Soyez (2010) back up this little hunch I have with some empirical evidence. They surveyed 521 German car drivers and found that the drivers who had the latest car gadgetry were the ones who consumed a lot of car-related media (e.g. they watched Top Gear), were highly involved in the car industry (e.g. they went to F1 events), had a specific need for cognition (e.g. they liked having debates about whether BMWs are better than Mercedes when driving 170km/h down the Autobahn) and were opinion leaders (e.g. they’re the ones you’d go to when you wanted some advice on what car to buy).

Ok great. So that narrows down the search a bit for these innovators to help me change the world. If I decided to use the domain of ‘sustainability and transport’, I might decide to look for people who:

1. Consume ridesharing-related media (maybe they read sustainability magazines and blogs)
2. Are highly involved in sustainability and transport planning (maybe they protest at the Walk Against Warming)   
3. Have a need for ridesharing-related cognition (maybe they’ve studied environmental science or go to public lectures on sustainability)
4. Are opinion leaders (maybe they have a blog on sustainability themselves or are active on twitter).

How helpful is domain specific innovativeness?

Domain specific innovativeness is a nice idea. But Roehrich etal (2003) argue that it’s not really that useful. While Domain Specific Innovativeness scales might help predict whether someone is likely to buy stuff in a general category, it doesn’t tell us whether a particular product is going to be a hit or not. For example, Bazza might like buying new engine parts but never spend any money on seat covers or paint jobs because he only cares about how fast his car goes, not what it looks like. It’s clear that we need to get a bit more nuanced, once we’ve narrowed down the domain.

Motivated Consumer Innovativeness

This is where a new scale, motivated consumer innovativeness (MCI) comes in. MCI resurrects the ‘innate innovativeness’ concept with a few changes. Vandecasteele and Geuens (2003) chuck motivation theory into the mix. They argue that people have underlying motives for being innovative. The four reasons they give are:

1. Functional innovativeness: when people buy products/services to improve their performance. e.g. Bazza wants his car to go fast so he buys new engine parts.
2. Cognitive innovativeness: when people buy products/services for intellectual stimulation. e.g. I spent $80 on a Lumosity.com membership because I like the idea of training my brain.
3. Social innovativeness: when people buy stuff to one-up their neighbours and show off to strangers. E.g. Bazza’s friend Jared spent $1000 on a metallic paint job for his Subaru WRX
4. Hedonic innovativeness: when people buy new stuff to make them feel good. E.g. a wine lover who goes to a different vineyard once per month and buys a different bottle of wine each time because he loves the experience of wine tasting

Vandecasteele et al (2010) have got some pretty convincing empirical evidence to show that their MCI model works. It’s a really nice study: they surveyed over 2000 people, worked out their primary motivation style and then compared that to the kind of products they’d be interested in buying. There was a tight fit between the motivation styles and the marketing angle of the product. For example, people who were hedonically motivated (they like new experiences that make them feel good) were attracted to products that were marketed that way.

Using the Motivated Consumer Innovativeness model

To simplify some pretty dense research, I’m going to use Vandecasteele’s work to come up with four innovator archetypes: the Over Achiever, the Showoff, the Shopaholic and the Geek.

The Overachiever (functional motivation)

 Overachievers are constantly on the lookout for innovations that will make them more productive. They are obsessed with efficiency and effectiveness. They want to save time and save money. They don’t really care about what it looks like, they only care whether it works.

The Showoff (social motivation)

Showoffs buy stuff because they want to impress other people. They love the rat race. They’re into competition and beating the Joneses. They like flashy cars and new clothes.

The Shopaholic (hedonic motivation)

”Ooh it’s on sale!” Shopaholics love the feeling of buying stuff. They’re sensationalists. They like to be pampered. They like going nightclubbing and bunjee jumping.

The Geek (cognitive innovation)

 Geeks love new ideas. They’ll embrace new products or services that challenge their thinking and spark their creativity. They spend their cash on books and educational courses.

Overlaying demographic data with MCI to make it useful

The archetypes sound kinda fun but how do you actually use them? I can see two ways of using them: a product-centric approach, and a customer-centric approach.

Product-centric approach

With a product-centric approach, you look at your product or service and decide what kind of motivational-style it best appeals to. For example, at its core, ridesharing is a functional innovation. It allows people to save money on their journey into work. Then, you choose a target demographic that are most aligned with that motivation. For instance, Vandecasteele and Geuens show that university students are highly motivated by functional innovation (they want to save money!). Therefore, it would make sense to market the product to university students and stress the money saving aspects of the service.

Customer centric approach

The other approach you could take is to decide on what target market is most likely to buy your product/service and then tailor your marketing message according to their motivations. As it turns out, university students would be a great market for ridesharing because the fact that they all travel to one common destination means ridesharing makes sense logistically as well. When Vandecasteele and Geuens surveyed uni students, they found that they were motivated by functional innovation but also by hedonic innovation (hedonic innovation is actually even stronger than functional innovation). Therefore, it would make sense to tailor the marketing message to stress not only the cost savings from ridesharing but also the fun experience of chatting to another student on your way to university.

Where to from here?

This research has swayed my thinking in some ways. It makes me question whether gamification is appropriate for all target demographics. My sense right now is that gamification primarily appeals to hedonic motivation and given that not all target groups are interested by hedonistic pursuits, it might not be appropriate. It’s also making me realise how important the functional side is. There’s no point building a gamification layer on top of a ridesharing system that doesn’t work.

The next thing I will be exploring is theories around innovation diffusion at a system level (I like the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology mark 2).

The 'Snakeskin problem' and its implications for ridesharing services

The risks of CouchSurfing
I spent a lot of time today browsing through some murky threads on CouchSurfing.org. CouchSurfing is a social network where people open up their homes for free for travellers who need a place to stay. There was an unpleasant incident in Japan last month, where Cristiano-de-Angelis, an alleged sexual predator apparently raped a young Japanese woman after having contacted hundreds of other single women on CouchSurfing. He had deleted his profile several times after receiving negative feedback from hosts and was essentially untrackable within the system. A tragic abuse of trust but also evidence that feedback alone is not sufficient to guarantee safety within CouchSurfing.

The snakeskin problem
I'm calling this issue the 'snakeskin problem' - without a formal identity check, users can slough off profiles with negative feedback and start new ones that are not traceable back to the old one.  

Public feedback limits honesty
This isn't the first negative incident on CouchSurfing. Although the website claims that 99.6% of stays are positive (and I've only ever had good experiences myself), this is likely biased by the way that the website collects feedback. Forcing people to write feedback public pretty much guarantees that they're not going to say anything negative for fear of retribution (Teng et al).

Arguably, this public feedback mechanism is the cause of another high profile CouchSurfing rape case, where the culprit behaved inappropriately towards several previous couch surfers, who felt too uncomfortable to leave honest feedback.

Implications for ridesharing
I find these stories frightening and sobering. My ridesharing project, CoCoRide, would open up users to the same potential risks. When passengers get into the car with a stranger, they are opening themselves to all kinds of risks. They surrender almost all control over the situation. In this sense, ridesharing demands at least as much trust, if not more, than CouchSurfing.

The question I've been pondering is what can we do to ensure user's safety beyond just asking them to trust each other. I've come up with three strategies and would appreciate feedback on them.

Strategy one: Identity Verification
The reason why Cristiano-de-Angelis was able to wangle his way into the woman's house in Japan despite having received negative feedback from other couchsurfing hosts was because CouchSurfing has no serious identity verification. They send a postcard with a verification code to your home address, but that's it. No police check, no driver's licence check, no passport photos, nothing. It's weird when you think about it. In Europe, you can't check in to a hotel without handing your passport over. Even in Australia and the US, you have to give your credit card number as a bond, so that if you decide to steal the towels, they can charge you for it. But with CouchSurfing (and with AirBnB for that matter), you don't have to provide any ID. If you choose, you can take on an assumed name and wreak havoc, cutting a swathe through the warm and fuzzy network built on trust.

Even though I'd like to think that most people can be trusted, the evidence from CouchSurfing shows that trust alone is not enough. There needs to be recourse. I believe the act of supplying one's identity will impress upon people the importance of behaving with social decorum. Their information does not need to be shown publicly, but it needs to be on file. Identity verification will prevent people like Mr De Angelis from creating multiple accounts to circumvent negative feedback.

Barriers to identity verification
I reckon the chief reason why CouchSurfing and AirBnB haven't instituted proper identity verification yet is because it's not easy to do. Until recently, there haven't been any good or cheap ways to verify identity online. I'm not absolutely certain, but I think Deloitte's new product, GreenID, could change that. The idea is that people can verify their ID online using their name and address (electoral roll), their phone number (WhitePages), their credit card, their medicare card or their passport (plus a few other options). It all takes less than three minutes. It sounds amazing. If GreenID is available at a decent price, I think this could be the game changer in identity verification. (Disclaimer: I've sent Deloitte an email asking for a free subscription:P)

Strategy two: anonymous packaged feedback
There's been a fair bit of research into the best way to collect honest feedback about other people. Teng et al. demonstrate that CouchSurfing's model of public feedback is almost certainly not the best way to do it. When people know that the other person will see their feedback, they hold back from giving the unvarnished truth. It's the whole concept behind a 360 degree review: workers will only give useful feedback to managers when they have no fear of retribution.

Packaging feedback
So the feedback has to be anonymous. How do you do that though when people are typically going to give feedback right after they share a ride with someone? Can't the other person work out who it was based on the time stamp?

That's why the feedback needs to be packaged. What I mean by that is the feedback isn't released immediately. The feedback goes into a queue until there are two other reviews for the driver/passenger, and then it gets aggregated so that the other person has no way to work out who gave what score.

Strategy three: a proactive complaints team
The reason why AirBnB copped such a beating in the press is because they handled the home wrecking incidents very poorly. In both cases, the company didn't react until the victim had blogged about it and even then the complaints team apparently asked the victim to keep quiet.

CouchSurfing has a bad rap as well for being a bit too neutral after serious complaints. Their official policy is that they will stay out of it unless the police are called. This creates a problem when it might take a few days for the victim to be emotionally stable enough to report the incident to the police, and meanwhile, the perpetrator is potentially attacking other people as happened in the first CouchSurfing rape case.

In light of that, I believe that ridesharing organisations need to have a toll free number that users can ring if anything goes wrong. The complaints team need to be able to handle any emergencies that arise. They need to be able to ring a taxi, ring the police and do absolutely anything else necessary to make the person feel safe.

What are your thoughts?
Will these measures be enough to make people feel safe while ridesharing?

Gamifying ridesharing: why do it?

Background:
I'm doing a PhD researching this question: "Gamifying ridesharing: how can gamification be used to improve participation in ridesharing services?". The outcome of the research will be an actual ridesharing service used by real people (I've already started the experiment).

Ridesharing
Ridesharing is another word for carpooling ('carpooling' is now getting confused with 'carsharing'). The basic scenario is where two or more people are going to the same place and rather than taking separate cars, they hop in together and share the ride (and potentially share the petrol costs).

Ridesharing is big (but not in Australia)
Ridesharing is a big deal in the US and Europe. The number of people ridesharing is trending up (mainly because of fuel prices but also potentially because of a growing acceptance of collaborative consumption). Companies are cashing in - four startups have raised over $20 million in recent years: Avego ($5.6 mill), ZimRide ($6 mill), RideJoy ($1.2 mill), BlaBlaCar ($12 million).

Yet in Australia, ridesharing has got very little traction. Only 7.6% of people rideshare in Australia compared to 12.6% in the US (2001 stats). A likely reason for this is that Australia's economy is doing relatively well, so people can afford to waste money by driving alone. There is a strong inverse correlation between personal income and ridesharing: the more money people have, the less likely they are to rideshare.

Mainstreaming ridesharing
The challenge for my research group is how can we encourage people to rideshare when many people aren't particularly comfortable about having others in their car?


This is where gamification could potentially come in. Gamification is feted as one of the biggest trends by Gartner research, who reckon that 70% of the world's top companies will use at least one gamified app by 2014.



What is gamification?
Gamification is the idea of turning real life into a game to encourage behaviour change. A good example is Nike+ a site where people can share how far they run each day and get encouragement (earn points, 'level up', praise from other players) to run further. Millions of people now use the website and the little doover you can stick in your running shoes to get semi-accurate data on running distance and pace (ref).


Why use gamification?
The promise of gamification is to shift attitudes and change behaviours. This is particularly relevant for ridesharing where negative attitudes towards ridesharing are a key reason why more people aren't doing it.

How do we gamify ridesharing?
This is the big question for my thesis. I will begin the answer in my next post:

Designing a gamification strategy for the ridesharing market.