Public Preference for Transportation System Depends on Individuals Social Value Orientations - Lab Report Example

Examining whether Public Preference for Transportation System Depends on Individual’s Social Value Orientations Abstract The main objective of this study was to examine whether public preference for transportation system is influence by individual’s social value orientations. The original sample of the study was four hundred employees from a public company in Melbourne, though only 202 employees completed the questionnaires. The findings of the study supported that prosocials are likely to support projects that are beneficial to the whole community, while individualists and competitors are only concerned with their self-interests. It was concluded that individual’s social value orientations affect our behavior as prosocials tended to support the train projects that was beneficial to general public whereas individualists and competitors tended to support the road projects that was beneficial to the rich only. Future research should evaluate the effects of social value orientations on issues such as environmental pollution. An individual’s preference while dealing with other people especially strangers is generally described in psychology as social value orientation. Many studies have discussed this subject at length with different aims. For instance, the motivation behind the individual’s social orientation is the subject in [van97], in (Olekalns & Adair, 2013) mixes social motives and the Triple Dominance Measure is the subject of discussion. Both these studies agree on the fact that social value orientations contribute greatly to the individual’s interactions at different spheres where people’s existence is inextricably linked. The decisions that are taken by the individuals will greatly depend on the persons social orientation and in a case where the decision affect a large number of people in different sectors, the decision will depend on whether the persons social orientation is prosocial, individualistic or competitive[Bie08]. Prosocial individuals are defined by this study as persons who prefer social equity. On the other hand, individualistic oriented and competitive persons on look at personal interest first and seek to maximize on the difference between them and others respectively. Social value orientation as described by [van97] deals mainly with the approach that is taken by an individual in dealing with interdependent others. In this study, the individual’s orientation could cooperative or less cooperative. The persistent pattern of preference of outcomes that the individual displays will determine the orientation of the same individual. Even though the study recognizes the fact that there could be many other theoretical typology of social orientations, the focus is on three basic types of orientation. That is the prosocial orientation or the equity, the individualistic orientation and the competitors. Prosocials are described as people with general preference for equity among all members of a society. This group show high tendencies to cooperate with their interdependent other unless the interdependent refuses to cooperate. The other two, individualists and competitors show little concern about cooperation and only care about maximizing their gains. In this study, the main focus is on where the social values come from. A couple of studies are included in this research. This include the investigation of whether the social values did originate from the interactions that individual has had since childhood. In this context, the attributes of the person are described as dispositional. This means that the person possesses this characteristic internally right from childhood and very little can change that. There are other orientation as identified in other studies. Pratto, James, Lisa, & Bertram (1994), introduces a new orientation called the social dominance in trying to understand what shapes social and political attitudes. In this orientation, the individual is either classified as socially dominant or less socially dominant. Individuals with high social dominance seek high professional hierarchy and roles while the individuals with low social dominance will not seek higher hierarchical powers and responsibility. In this study, prosocials are defined to have low social dominance and likewise to altruism. In their set of decisions, the general benefit and wellbeing of the community is at the fore front. The reverse is true for some cases with the socially dominant group of people. It should be noted here that the socially dominant group are not totally similar to the individualists but share a considerable personality to the competitors. This is due to the clamor for hierarchy and position. Some studies have tried to identify the origin of social orientations. van Lange, Otten, de Bruin, & Joireman (1997), tried to investigate the origin of these social orientations. That work has been boosted by the work of [Ten12]. In this study, the origin of actions of an individual is described not to purely originate from the rational self-interest of the individual. Specific outcomes that are intended by the person are floated as the possible motivation of the actions performed by the person. In van Lange, de Cremer, van Dijk, & van Vugr (2007), the Lewinian equation of behavior is explained. In this equation, the environmental situation of a person and properties of the same person in as in this equation B=f(P,E). Where B is the behavior, P is the properties of the person and E is the environmental situation. Hypotheses Depending on the different orientations one would support or not support the different transport projects if their consent was needed. In the road project, a large number of dwellers would not be in a position to afford the toll and therefore would not benefit. This is approximately about 56 percent of the total population that is served by the proposed road. Hypothesis 1: competitors are the most likely social orientation group to support the road project. This is due to the fact the road project is going to be very expensive for the average population. Assuming that these competitors majorly ail from the upper class and can afford to pay the toll fees, then the gap between them and the people who cannot afford increases since they get to use privately owned transportation means and system. Competitors in the lower wage ranking would not benefit in this project. But since their intention could be to maximize on the different social stratifications, it is highly likely that their opinion would be similar to those of their counterparts in the high end. Hypothesis 2: Prosocials are most unlikely to support the proposed road project. The reasoning here is simple and direct. The number of beneficiaries is limited to the rich group who are a minority in the community. The impact of the project on the environment is also very high. Hypothesis 3: gender does not affect social value orientations of prosocials, and individualists and competitors. The reason here is that if someone is a prosocial his or her social value orientations cannot be affected by gender because people of the same social value orientation tend to share the same values. Therefore, males and females with similar social value orientations are likely to support same project. Hypothesis 4: individualists and competitors are most unlikely to support the train project. As indicated in the ability to transport large number of people cheaply thereby benefiting anyone, competitors would not further their exploits of a bigger social gap between every member of the community. Everyone is likely to afford the transportation since it will be cheap. In this case, individualists have no specific direct benefit from the project and thus could just flag it anyway. Methods Participants Four hundred questionnaires were distributed among the employees of a public company in Melbourne. A total of 202 questionnaires were returned, yielding a general response rate of 50.5%. Among the 202 questionnaires, 116 were by males and 86 by females. The average age of the participants was 33 years. More than half of the participants used public transportation (65%) on daily basis. The rest occasionally commuted by their personal car (10%) or by bike (25%). Involvement in the study was voluntary and no reward was given to the participants. Materials The questionnaire contained questions concerning participants’ preference mode of transportation. First, participants rated their preference mode of transport (1 = less preferable; 5 = very preferable). Second, they rated whether they consider the following concerns in choosing their mode of transport: travel flexibility, travel time, travel convenience, environmental pollution, and protection against weather (1 = very unimportant; 5 = very important). Finally, participants rated the reliability of the proposed road project (1 = not at all reliable; 5 = very reliable). Procedure The questionnaires were given out to individuals at the entrance of a public company on a Monday morning, and filled in at the working place in around 30 minutes. The participants were not aware of the purpose of the questionnaire and the objective of the study. The questionnaire was made up of 3 sections: a) the evaluation of the participant’s social value orientation; b) the explanation of the proposed project; and c) a number of assessment questions. Results To determine whether public preference for transportation system depends on individual’s social value orientation, the scores from the questionnaires were changed to percentages. The results were grouped into two categories on basis of gender. The percentages of the proposed project support with each gender group and two social orientation grouping is shown in Table 1 below: Table 1: Percentage of Mode of Transportation Preference within different Social Orientations based on Gender Social Orientation Preferred Proposed Project Male Female Prosocials Train Project 76 87 Road Project 9 15 Individualists and Competitors Train Project 5 23 Road Project 78 72 The results suggest some differences among the two social orientation groups and their preferred mode of transportation. As expected, a higher percentage (76% for males and 87% for females) of prosocials supports the proposed train project. On the contrary, a very low percentage (9% for males and 15% for female) of prosocials supports the proposed road transport. The results also indicate that a higher percentage (78% foe males and 72% for females) of individualists and competitors support the proposed road project. A low percentage in support of proposed train project in this category also supports the hypothesis of the study. In general, the trends of the results support all the four hypotheses. Discussion The main aim of this study was to examine whether public preference for transportation system depends on individual’s social value orientation. The current results provided strong evidence in support of all the four hypotheses, in that individuals preferred options were in line with their social value orientations. The current study tried to separate males and females in the analysis to see whether gender played any role in the preferences of mode of transportation. The current findings indicated that social value orientation influenced individuals preferred options irrespective of gender. The small percentages differences between males and females were very insignificant to associate any gender with a certain preference. The current findings are consistent with the findings of van Vugt, van Lange, & Meertens (1996), van Lange, Otten, de Bruin, & Joireman (1997), van Lange, de Cremer, van Dijk, & van Vugr (2007), Tennen, Suls, & Weiner (2012) and support the notion that individuals’ preference of transportation system depends on social value orientation. As the current study analyzed the results on basis of gender, the findings provided further support that social value orientation influence the choice of transportation system irrespective of gender. This is in line with Pratto, James, Lisa, & Bertram (1994) and van Lange, de Cremer, van Dijk, & van Vugr (2007), where prosocials are described to have low social dominance and likewise to altruism, and in their set of decisions, the general benefit and wellbeing of the community is at the fore front. The findings of the current study provide support to all the four hypotheses. However, it is difficult to draw a general conclusion because the sample used in this study is very small. Moreover, the sample was collected from one public company which could also limit the findings of the study. This is because individuals from same company may have an organizational culture of preferring a certain mode of transportation and may therefore not represent the real picture of the community[Dau12]. A large sample is required in this type of study and preferably from a diverse population. Another unintended limitation was that most of the participants were individualists and competitors, around 70% and 49.5% of the participants did not return the questionnaires. Actually, previous studies have indicates that individualists and competitors are less likely to take part as subjects in a study[van96]. Therefore, the currents findings concerning preference for proposed transportation projects may have been positively biased. The findings of the current study indicate that social value orientation does have an impact on the preferable mode of transportation. Enhanced knowledge in this field may be useful in understanding the way people weigh their own needs against those of others for big social and environmental issues. Additionally, the study may enable government institutions to come up with projects that are beneficial to the general public. Some benefits that the government institutions might consider include minimizing costs for everyone[van96]. In conclusion, the study indicated that social value orientation affects our behavior including the decision to choose a transportation system. This was evident in both categories of social value orientation: prosocials, and individualist and competitors. The study was significant for researchers to obtain a better understanding of how social value orientation affects behavior. The findings may enable the researchers to design and implement studies that will help in resolving some dilemmas faced by the society today such as global warming and environmental pollution[van96]. References van97: , (van Lange, Otten, de Bruin, & Joireman, 1997), Bie08: , (Biel, Eek, Garling, & Gustafsson, 2008), van97: , (van Lange, Otten, de Bruin, & Joireman, 1997), Ten12: , (Tennen, Suls, & Weiner, 2012), Dau12: , (Dauber, Fink, & Yolles, 2012), van96: , (van Vugt, van Lange, & Meertens, 1996), Read More

The persistent pattern of preference of outcomes that the individual displays will determine the orientation of the same individual. Even though the study recognizes the fact that there could be many other theoretical typology of social orientations, the focus is on three basic types of orientation. That is the prosocial orientation or the equity, the individualistic orientation and the competitors. Prosocials are described as people with general preference for equity among all members of a society.

This group show high tendencies to cooperate with their interdependent other unless the interdependent refuses to cooperate. The other two, individualists and competitors show little concern about cooperation and only care about maximizing their gains. In this study, the main focus is on where the social values come from. A couple of studies are included in this research. This include the investigation of whether the social values did originate from the interactions that individual has had since childhood.

In this context, the attributes of the person are described as dispositional. This means that the person possesses this characteristic internally right from childhood and very little can change that. There are other orientation as identified in other studies. Pratto, James, Lisa, & Bertram (1994), introduces a new orientation called the social dominance in trying to understand what shapes social and political attitudes. In this orientation, the individual is either classified as socially dominant or less socially dominant.

Individuals with high social dominance seek high professional hierarchy and roles while the individuals with low social dominance will not seek higher hierarchical powers and responsibility. In this study, prosocials are defined to have low social dominance and likewise to altruism. In their set of decisions, the general benefit and wellbeing of the community is at the fore front. The reverse is true for some cases with the socially dominant group of people. It should be noted here that the socially dominant group are not totally similar to the individualists but share a considerable personality to the competitors.

This is due to the clamor for hierarchy and position. Some studies have tried to identify the origin of social orientations. van Lange, Otten, de Bruin, & Joireman (1997), tried to investigate the origin of these social orientations. That work has been boosted by the work of [Ten12]. In this study, the origin of actions of an individual is described not to purely originate from the rational self-interest of the individual. Specific outcomes that are intended by the person are floated as the possible motivation of the actions performed by the person.

In van Lange, de Cremer, van Dijk, & van Vugr (2007), the Lewinian equation of behavior is explained. In this equation, the environmental situation of a person and properties of the same person in as in this equation B=f(P,E). Where B is the behavior, P is the properties of the person and E is the environmental situation. Hypotheses Depending on the different orientations one would support or not support the different transport projects if their consent was needed. In the road project, a large number of dwellers would not be in a position to afford the toll and therefore would not benefit.

This is approximately about 56 percent of the total population that is served by the proposed road. Hypothesis 1: competitors are the most likely social orientation group to support the road project. This is due to the fact the road project is going to be very expensive for the average population. Assuming that these competitors majorly ail from the upper class and can afford to pay the toll fees, then the gap between them and the people who cannot afford increases since they get to use privately owned transportation means and system.

Competitors in the lower wage ranking would not benefit in this project. But since their intention could be to maximize on the different social stratifications, it is highly likely that their opinion would be similar to those of their counterparts in the high end.

Read More