Poster Session - Template-final

Slide 1:

Commuting is a large part of the American lifestyle, and in many instances it is a daily activity that simply cannot be avoided. People need to get to work and to school, errands need to be run, and appointments need to be attended. Many American commuters are struggling with a large amount of daily drive time. In fact, the nationwide average drive-time in America is approximately 24.3 minutes, but the numbers are even higher in urban areas like New York and Los Angeles.  This means that Americans spend more than 100 hours a year commuting to work (Longley, 2005). Method Discussion Commuters’ Preferences Chad McCain, Alianna Low, Teresa Soto, and Jennifer Lash AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY Logo (optional) Chart #1 Chart #2 References Literature Review Results Our participants was made up of family members, friends (who have college degrees), and non-grad students. Our question was based on people preferring to talk to someone instead of listening to music or talk radio. It is more difficult to put together a survey that will confirm a hypothesis than I had expected; and there are at least four crucial problems with our survey. Our survey states that people may feel more inclined to talk on the phone than listen to the radio to alleviate the stress of their commutes. The results of this study do not support our hypothesis: “If commuters could talk to someone else while driving over long periods of time, they will prefer it to listening to music or talk radio.” Bandyk, M. (2009). 15 Cities for people who hate driving and long commutes. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/15-cities-for-people-who-hate-driving-and-long-commutes.html .

Slide 2:

Literature Review Commuting is a large part of the American lifestyle, and in many instances it is a daily activity that simply cannot be avoided. People need to get to work and to school, errands need to be run, and appointments need to be attended. Many American commuters are struggling with a large amount of daily drive time. In fact, the nationwide average drive-time in America is approximately 24.3 minutes, but the numbers are even higher in urban areas like New York and Los Angeles.  This means that Americans spend more than 100 hours a year commuting to work (Longley, 2005). Commuting can be a rather taxing activity, especially when it is done often and over long periods of time. A driver’s adrenaline can rise just from being stuck in traffic (Pouliot, 2007). Studies have shown that heightened levels of commuting distance, commute time, commute speed, and months on the commute were significantly correlated with increased systolic and diastolic blood pressure (Stokols & Novaco, 1978). The repeated stress that comes along with commuting can do more than lead to high blood pressure – in severe cases it can cause damage to the heart (Pouliot, 2007). The length of one’s commute is an important factor. The longer that it takes to get to work, the more dissatisfied that commuters are with their commutes (Cantwell, Caulfield, & O’Mahoney, 2009). A study conducted by Evans and Wener (2006) found that longer commutes were associated with elevated salivary cortisol levels, an increase in perceived stress levels, and even poorer task performance at the end of the commute. Commuting time has been shown to have a negative effect on life satisfaction. People make the best possible decisions about commuting based on the idea of compensation, meaning that they tend to accept a longer commute time only if it offers them an improvement in some other domain, such as a higher salary or living in a better neighborhood (Stutzer & Frey, 2007). Unaccompanied commuters have options which include public transportation and even carpooling. However, commuting without a car typically is not faster than public transportation (Bandyk, 2009). Furthermore, commuters prefer to drive alone, without a passenger (Dumitrache, 2010). Driving solo may improve one’s psychological well-being. While driving alone is not good for the environment, it is good for the mind. Driving alone can promote psychological health because it offers a safe-haven for “me-time” and for plenty of thoughtful reflection (Williams, 2009). For many, commuting is an opportune time to do things like meditate, listen to a book on tape, or listen to music, all of which are great alternatives to the feelings of aggravation brought on by heavy traffic (Edmondson, 1994). According to a study conducted by the Southern California Broadcasters Association, Arbitron, and Edison Media Research (1999), commuters preferred listening to the radio over all other activities while driving. A similar report indicated that commuters preferred listening to the radio more than sharing their time with other passengers (Endsleigh Insurance Services, Ltd., 2010).

Slide 3:

The drawback to this is that performing sentence-listening tasks, whether it is listening over the phone, to a passenger, or to the radio, has a negative effect on driving performance (Just, Keller, & Cynkar, 2008). When it comes to engaging in a phone conversation while driving, it has been found that some drivers would prefer to put these conversations on hold. Commuting may not be the most suitable context in which to talk on the phone. Not only is it dangerous and illegal, but it is also distracting and inconvenient (Colbert & Livingstone, 2006). The commuting lifestyle brings with it both costs and benefits. For instance, commuting couples, defined as those couples who live in different residences, were less satisfied with life as a whole than were working couples who live together. On the other hand, commuting couples were more satisfied with their work lives and with their personal time (Bunker, Zubek, & Vanderslice, 1992). Commuting stress is a significant, yet largely overlooked topic (Evans & Wener, 2006). Commuting activities affect individuals in a variety of ways, but commuters must do something to ensure that not every commute is a negative experience (Pouliot, 2007). Literature Review, Continued

Slide 4:

Method Participants Our participants was made up of family members, friends (who have college degrees), and non-grad students. Our question was based on people preferring to talk to someone instead of listening to music or talk radio. An informed consent was included in the email they were sent. The participants the email was sent out to was 12 via email and included a post of facebook in order to gather more respondents to our survey on commuting. We wanted at least 18 participants to respond to our survey on commuting in order to receive acceptable results. Instruments The participants were asked to fill out a survey with a link on their email from SurveyMonkey. In order to have a higher percentage of participants respond, it was presented on facebook sent out to another group of members. The survey consisted of eight multiple-choice questions and one short answer question. Procedure After we sent out our survey via email and facebook and receiving a group of responds on our survey based on commuting, the information was sent to OIRA (Office of Institutional Research and Assessment). The results were computed and were then formed into different graphs and charts.

Slide 5:

It is more difficult to put together a survey that will confirm a hypothesis than I had expected; and there are at least four crucial problems with our survey. Our survey states that people may feel more inclined to talk on the phone than listen to the radio to alleviate the stress of their commutes. Our hypothesis: “If commuters could talk to someone else while driving over long periods of time, they will prefer it to listening to music or talk radio.” The problems are firstly, the way the information was arranged in the survey seems to obscure the respondents’ preferences; secondly, we do not get a sense of how they rated the three activities in relation to each other; next, some questions are irrelevant to the hypothesis; and finally, and most importantly, we seem to have missed the mark in terms of locating a group of commuters who sustain a long commute for work. Of course, the old adage seems appropriate: everything becomes much clearer in hindsight. The first problem arises from the way in which, from the start, the survey seems to lose the hypothetical situation implied in the hypothesis. The point of the hypothesis is to gauge whether people would be inclined to change what they do if the option to have conversations was available and safe during commutes. This hypothetical situation is not clearly communicated in the survey. The second problem arises from the way in which key questions obscures the intentions or actual preferences of the respondents. The three questions most closely related to the hypothesis begin with; “my commute would be better enjoyed . . . .” The first of the three offers the activity, “in conversation with a personal friend or relative,” the second continues with: “listening to music, talk radio, or news,” (see chart 1) and the third follows with: “communicating with others in work related matters. These Likert-type questions ask the respondents to rate each activity as stand alone options. We get a clear view how people feel about each one as it is offered alone. The problem is that we do not get to see how they prefer each as a truly available option during their commute. So, it may be that these questions could have revealed more had they been given as a single question. A multiple choice option would have revealed what the respondents prefer most, but this seems less revealing about preferences. A modified, single Likert-type question consisting of each option would have served best in this case. For example, we could have posed it this way; “Rate your preference for each activity from strongly agree to strongly disagree: 1. Listening to Radio, 2. Personal Conversation, 3. Work Related Conversation. If we had put the question to them in this way, we would have a clear preference and a rating of the three activities as they relate to each other. Furthermore, respondents ratings would not be equal for any one activity. If one respondent had indicated “strongly agree” for personal conversation, he/she would not likely have indicated the same for the other options. Results

Slide 6:

Whatever problems arise out of poor design, the questions do reveal a clear preference. When we look at the commuter preferences for activities posed as individual, or abstracted concepts, there is a clear preference for listening to radio. When asked how they rate their preference for listening to radio programs while driving, 61% indicated they agree or strongly agree. What may be more revealing is the ratio of those who “strongly” prefer this activity to merely indicating agreement. For radio listening the ratio 17/44, so, 38% of those indicating favorably toward this activity, were highly inclined to prefer this activity. This is significant since the next most preferred activity, enjoying conversation with a personal friend or relative did not elicit the same degree of commitment with only 15% of respondents who agreed indicating a “high” level of preference. Fortunately, this does show a clear preference. However, unfortunately, it disconfirms our hypothesis completely. People prefer listening to the radio while driving. A third problem is that the first several questions of the survey, though eliciting interesting information (see Table), do little for our hypothesis. There is not much to say about it. It just seems the design was not honed completely to serve its purpose. Finally, the results may not have revealed much about commuters with long commutes. With 89% of respondents indicating they spend less than 10 hours per week in commute (see chart 2), we do not seem to have reached our targeted group. The point of the study is to find out what people might prefer to do with their time who sustain long commutes; that is, whether they would rather spend their time differently if they had a choice, or are satisfied engaging in the available activities. I believe ultimately, this is the confounding factor for our study. We needed to find commuters, and we found people who are not commuting enough. Results

Slide 7:

Chart #1

Slide 8:

Chart #2

Slide 9:

Table

Slide 10:

The results of this study do not support our hypothesis: “If commuters could talk to someone else while driving over long periods of time, they will prefer it to listening to music or talk radio.” Adequacy of the study After reviewing the results of our study we came to an understanding that we are not familiar with how many of the people we emailed or sent our survey to in reality responded. We can estimate that there were at least 18 respondents and no more then 25. To ensure a stronger level of adequacy with our hypothesis a larger number of participants would have been more valid. Generalizability The study conducted was not specific towards our target group in discovering whether people prefer to talk to someone over long commutes rather than listening to the radio. The questions that were listed in our survey were not intentional in answering our hypothesis. There were no questions that stated what constituted a long commute. Relevance of data gathered After gathering the results to our survey questions and looking more closely at our hypothesis, we concluded that our questions were based on receiving the participants preference instead of focusing on our hypothesis. There is the possibility that a number of the participants have a short commute rather than a long commute and being involved in the study targeted for those with long commutes is not applicable to that particular group of participants. Necessity of further research in this area For deeper research into the study of commuting, it will be essential to first establish what will be considered as long commuting and stating what that is. It will be critical to have participants who fall under the basket of long commuting to be involved in the study. In the future it will also be helpful to be aware of other aspects that were not included in our study: How many males and females were involved in our study, delegate questions that are geared towards our hypothesis, and extending the survey to at least 30 participants. Discussion

Slide 11:

References Bandyk, M. (2009). 15 Cities for people who hate driving and long commutes. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/15-cities-for-people-who-hate-driving-and-long-commutes.html . Bunker, Barbara, Zubek, Josephine, & Vanderslice, Robert. (1992). Quality of life in dual-career families: commuting versus single-residence couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54 (2), 399-407. Cantwell, M., Caulfield, B., & O’Mahoney, M. (2009). Examining the factors that impact public transport commuting satisfaction [electronic version]. Journal of Public Transportation, 12, 2. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT12-2Cantwell.pdf . Colbert, Martin, & Livingstone, David. (2006). Important context changes for talking and text messaging during homeward commutes. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25 (5), 433-441. Dumitrache, A. (2010). Motorists prefer to drive alone, Skoda survey shows . Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://www.autoevolution.com/news/motorists-prefer-to-drive-alone-skoda-survey-shows-21203.html . Edmondson, B. (1994). Alone in the car. American Demographics, 16 (6), 44. Endsleigh Insurance Services, Limited. (2010). Most people ‘prefer to drive alone.’ Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://www.endsleigh.co.uk/News/Pages/news-20100608-c3a7c869c70d4e88b0d098ed4f5875a8.aspx . Evans, Gary, & Wener, Richard. (2006). Rail commuting duration and passenger stress. Health Psychology, 25 (3), 408-412. Just, M.A., Keller, T.A., & Cynkar, J. (2008). A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak [electronic version]. Brain Research, 1205, 70-80. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://www.distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/carnegie-mellon.pdf . Longley, R. (2005). Americans now spend over 100 hours a year commuting. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/commutetimes.htm .

Slide 12:

References, Continued Pouliot, K. (2007). Killer commute: five ways to make your work commute stress free. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305763,00.html . Southern California Broadcasters Association, Arbitron, & Edison Media Research. (1999). The Los Angeles in-car listening study. Retrieved March 6, 2011 from http://www.arbitron.com/downloads/la_incar_study.pdf . Stokols, Daniel, & Novaco, Raymond. (1978). Traffic congestion, type a behavior, and stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63 (4), 467-480. Stutzer, A., & Frey, B.S. (2007). Commuting and life satisfaction in Germany [electronic version]. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, 2/3 . Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://www.bsfrey.ch/articles/456_07.pdf . Williams, D. (2009). Driving alone in a car. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/7811849/Driving-alone-in-a-car.html