Ian WalkerJan 17, 2023

We have a new study out!

The short version is this: "Car Brain" - the cultural blind spot that makes people apply double standards when they think about driving - is real, measurable and pervasive.

Read on for more details... 1/14 @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]

Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
This work was carried out with top-class humans @[email protected] and @[email protected]. We did something deliberately very simple: we had an independent polling agency contact a representative sample of 2157 people across the UK and ask them five questions 2/14
Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
Randomly, people either got questions about driving or they got the same set of questions with a couple of words changed so that they asked exactly the same things, but not about driving 3/14
Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023

For example, half were asked if they agreed:

"People shouldn't drive in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe the car fumes"

and half got:

"People shouldn't smoke in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe the cigarette fumes"

4/14

Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023

(We originally considered specific v general questions, e.g.,

"People driving cars in public places should be liable for any harm..."

"People operating machinery in public places should be liable..."

but decided that changing the context was neater and less subjective) 5/14

Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023

Here's the full set of answers. As you can see, responses could change dramatically when driving was mentioned. All except Question 2 were hugely statistically different.

This doesn't make sense! The principle is the same in both forms of each question; only context changes 6/14

Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
What we demonstrated is an example of the "Special Pleading Fallacy" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading where certain specific cases get a free ride in thought and discourse. People selectively fail to apply the moral and ethical standards they would use in other contexts 7/14
Special pleading - Wikipedia

Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023

Is this self-interest? Cognitive dissonance? Most people drive, so it might make sense they'd make excuses.

But no. We separated out the subset of people who didn't themselves drive and they basically responded the same as the drivers, also making special pleading for cars 8/

Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
This all required a deeper explanation. We interpreted the findings within a socio-ecological framework: each of us is surrounded by a series of social, physical and cultural environments that shape how we think and act. And how do these look when it comes to motoring...? 9/14
Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
We routinely see people driving short distances, speeding, parking badly, all while given priority over pedestrians; free parking; urban and residential streets designed for fast driving; subsidies; lax enforcement of traffic laws; clearly deadly vehicles made legal... 10/14
Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
Growing up surrounded by that environment, people internalise the idea that fast, untrammelled, near-consequence-free motoring is normal and, moreover, people conclude that *this must surely be the proper way of things*. In our paper we call this mindset "Motonormativity" 11/14
Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
We chose this term to draw parallels with other areas such as heteronormativity, where similarly a certain perspective unthinkingly gets accepted as both normal and proper, with other groups obliged to accommodate this https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-heteronormativity.html 12/14
What Is Heteronormativity?

Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
We suggest this mindset isn't just present in the public, it's also endemic in policymakers and people who look after public health. This explains a lot of planning and policy decisions: they make sense if you assume everyone drives and that this can't, or shouldn't, change 13/14
Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023

We end with a call for policymakers to recognise their unconscious and institutional biases and to implement mechanisms to overcome them in planning and health decisions.

You can read the full paper here for free https://psyarxiv.com/egnmj

Thanks for reading! 14/14

Show threadjnbhlr
@ianwalker that sounds like great research and aligns well with my personal experience as a person trying to change traffic policies. Do you plan on releasing some king of campaigners handbook like "how to make people care about traffic deaths and start changing"? For me that's the big open question. Lately I had the though to mentally treat car users like addicts.
Jan 17, 2023 at 1:16pmWeb
Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023

@jnbhlr If only I had enough answers to write the book on this!

Actually, we do know a lot of things that would work, but a key barrier to enacting them is cultural resistance to change. That was a big motivator for this study: we wanted to challenge the cultural biases that make it so hard to enact the fixes that we know would help (make driving harder and slower, basically...)

Show threadjnbhlrJan 17, 2023
@ianwalker Well I don't need a book, just a toot or two might help :-) Now that you pinpointed cultural resistance to be a key barrier, I hoped you might have an idea or two. It contributes to the tripping point concept: Once our car-centric environment gets fixed, people will want car-centric rules less and less.
Show threadMonte Paulsen, Climate Ready Buildings GroupJan 19, 2023

@ianwalker @jnbhlr

A book would good. A bike would be better.

My (unscientific) observation of many years is that the simple act of cycling in cities is the only consistently effective treatment for motonormativity (fun phrase). Within weeks, new cyclists start talking about motorist behavior.

It would have been interesting to track “daily urban cyclists” as a subgroup of your participants. My thesis would be daily cyclists would rank lowest on a motonormativity scale.