Passenger reactions and passenger actions: improving public transport

2/24/2014 Passenger reactions and passenger actions: improving public transport, article

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/passenger_reaction_experience.shtml#references 1/14

Passenger reactions and passengeractions:improving public transport

Article Paper for the: 6thIIID Traffic &Transport 2011conferenceTraffic, Transportand Social Media8 - 9 September2011, Vienna,AustriaLeonard VerhoefContact

Contents ofthis page:

Introduction1. What ispassengerreaction?2. What is apassengeraction?3. Passengeraction versuspassengerreaction3.1 Objectiveknowledge3.2 Synthesisand analysis3.3 Reliability3.4Comparison 3.5 Standards3.6 Validity4. DiscussionReferences

Introduction There aretwostrategies toimprovepublictransport.First there isthepassengeremotionbasedexperienceand reactionstrategy.Themethodologyis askingpassengersopinions.

The secondstrategy isthepsychologybasedpassengeractionsstrategy.Themethodologyis analysingandobservingpassengeractions andperformance.

Thetheoreticalbasis for thecomparisonof thesestrategies isthemethodologythat iscommonpractice inpsychology(De Groot,1961,Drenth,1968 ;Kaplan,1964).

For several years now one of the main problems of Dutch Public Transportis 1.5% passengers forgetting to check out after their trip. See tag cloudvergeten uit te checken

1. What is passengerreaction?

The question to be answered in the call for papers ofthis conference is: How to evaluate user/customersreactions? In the current papers terminology used is:experience, participation, user co-creation and sound ofthe crowd. Why was the term passenger reactionchosen and not the more common term passengerexperience? Is experience an unstable concept(Drenth, 1968)?

Today experience is the most common term (Norman,1998). Human behaviour can be driven by emotion orreason. There is a clear difference betweenphysiological structures for emotion (limbic systems)and for reason (neo-cortex). To maintain this strongphysiological basis for the role of the passenger in thedesign process, we suggest to define experience andreaction as an emotion based opinion.

Philosophy

Nietzsche studied experience 150 yearsago. Visser (1998 ) summarized hisconclusion as: experience is … the tomb ofa language that does not give life a voice.Experience might provide a standardbringing experience itself underdiscussion. Experience is subjective, basedon emotion and consequently capricious.Therefore it is difficult to use experience asa basis for rational actions.

Improving public transport

Consequently a publictransport company should notask passengers theirexperience for rational actionsas planning a trip orimproving public transport.The public transport companyshould help the passenger tosort out his rational actionsand his feelings.

An example would be toannounce a delay as aconsequence of the lowerservice reliability of the trainthe passenger has chosen.

Certaintyof time todeparture

There areseveralways topresentcertaintyof time ofdeparture.Whencertaintyispresented,it is the

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/cve.shtml



When the certainty of aservice is presented, thepassenger is the one takingthe risk for a negativeemotional experience (seeFigure right).

passengerwho takesthe risk ofa negativeemotionalexperiencecaused bya delay.

Source:Demo-design,Verhoef,2008.

Psychology

There might be some philosophical discussionsabout the concept of experience. What is theanswer of a more practical science as psychology?After an extensive study Frijda (1988) concludedthat it is very difficult to specify the emotionalexperience. When humans explain their emotions, itis not sure that their analysis is correct.


The consequence of this causal dis-attribution is that apassenger might evaluate a train as being too dirtybecause his train has a delay. When a passengerevaluates trains as being too late he might do sobecause his train is dirty. The reaction of the passengerdoes not tell the transport company what to do: bettertrain cleaning or longer driving times to reduce delays.

Physiology

There are no useful answers ofphilosophy and psychology so far.What does natural science tell?Few will doubt there is a ‘me’ thathas experiences. The physiologistVan Riemsdijk (2002) tried to findthis ‘me’ in the human brains.Unfortunately he did not find anyphysiological structure that couldbe attributed to experience.


Public transport is designed by managers,politicians and designers. Passenger reactionresearch also gives the passenger a voice.When a design concept is (1) a psychologicalconcept, as user experience is; (2) impliespsychological research methodology; as theestablishment of passenger experience does,and (3) the concept has no basis in naturalscience; as Van Riemsdijk (2002) concluded,there is no gravity to show that thepsychological pie backed will not fly.

That allowsmanagers,politicians,marketers anddesigners to fill inwith their privatepsychologicaltheories andinterests. Theabsence of gravity isa recipe forconfusion, will impairimproving publictransport andincrease costs.

Passenger experience research

In The Netherlands, measurement of passengerexperience has been elaborated into the Dutch-Public-Transport-Barometer (DPT-barometer). In2010, for instance, 90.370 passengers gave theiropinion on Dutch public transport (KPVV, 2010). TheDPT-barometer project does not define the conceptof passenger experience but the way passengerexperience is measured. A typical definition is: TheDutch-Public-Transport-Barometer-research is anational research project that establishes the opinion ofpublic transport passengers on public (city and national)transport. (Beek, 2009).

This way of defining apsychological concept is a déjàvu for psychologists. The conceptof ‘intelligence’ is, even forpsychologists, a very difficult oneand sometimes is defined as:The numerical score of the test .Vroon (1980) analysedmeasurement of intelligence in abook with the subtitle: About themeasurement of a myth and thepolitical, social and educationalconsequences.

Improving publictransport

Measurementof intelligencehas a traditionof more thanone century.The userexperiencedebate startedtwo decadesago (Normanet al., 1995).As mentionedabove,terminology isnot stable yet.

The concept ofintelligenceeasily can bemade concreteaskingknowledgefacts andcognitiveproblems tosolve. Makingpassengerexperiencemore concreteproves to bemore difficult

http://www.ov-klantenbarometer.info/



To top.

as will beshown below.

Measurementof intelligenceis restricted toahomogeneousscientificpsychologicalcommunity. Theterm userexperience isused in aninterdisciplinarypracticalenvironment.This makes thedebate moredifficult.

The concept ofpassengerexperience mightbe too vague topinpoint how toimprove publictransport.

2. What is apassenger action?

Passenger experience is defined as anemotion based opinion. A passenger actionis defined as a motor, perceptual, language,memory or thinking action with a concrete ormore abstract object.

An example is the actions needed to decide Take another coffeeor run for the train? The total performance and theperformance of the individual actions can be measured usingobjective measurements such as: time needed, error proneand goals efficient (costs, comfort, safety).

Philosophy

Action psychology can bebased on the philosophy ofdialectical materialism.‘Materialism’ means:concrete objects determinethe development of humanbeings (Bedny, 2001;Wertsch, 1981; Zinchenko,& Gordon, 1981).

Psychology

The psychological and more practical elaboration ofthe dialectical materialism is straightforward. It hasbeen elaborated in educational psychology (Haenen,1998). There are motor, visual, verbal, memory andcognitive actions, e.g. with units that are counted.Human cognition starts with motor actions withconcrete objects, like wooden blocks to learn theabstract actions for doing 47+54 by heart (van Eerdeen Verhoef, 1978).

Physiology

The instruments forthese actions arenatural sciencebased: the musclesfor movement, theeye for perception,the parts of thebrains performinglanguage, memoryand thinkingfunctions.

To top.

Passenger action research

There is not much action research inWestern psychology. It‘s basis,dialectical materialism, is also used asthe basis for communism. Scientists don‘twant to be associated with communism.Nevertheless, passenger actions easilycan be specified for objective detailedquantitative observations (Verhoef,2007).


A visual action might be noticing check-out gates.

A verbal action might be the interpretation of the word currentlyused: DPT-chip-card.

A working memory action might be: recall of the need forchecking-out at the end of the trip.

And finally there are cognitive actions such as understandingthat the passenger should check per company.

Below it will be shown that analysis of these actionsstraightforwardly will specify the best public transport system.

3. Passenger actionversus passengerreaction

Knowledge on the behaviour of humans is sound when theconcepts have validity, are objective and reliable. Thereshould be some kind of coherent top down structure(synthesis and analysis).

On a practical level the knowledge shouldenable comparisons of hypotheses anddesigns. Finally, research should allow thedevelopment of standards.

For the empirical basis and the public transport application of this comparison of research and design strategiesin this article, two research projects are available.



To top.

Since 2007 theDutch PublicTransport-barometerestablishes theopinion ofpassengers(n=90.370 in2010) (DPT-barometer).

The second research project available focused on the use of the Dutch NationalPublic Transport electronic card (DPT-chip-card). The passenger has to check-incontact free by passing a pole. After check-out, the price of the trip is calculated.Dutch Parliament wanted to know the opinion of the passenger on one characteristicof the card: having to check-out and check-in again when changing transportcompany. In this investigation passenger experience and passenger actions both,were measured (Kassenberg & Verhoef, 2011).

3.1 Objectiveknowledge

Research data should be objective. Subjectivity in the results allows researchers, managers and politicians toselect an interpretation that is compatible with their personal psychological theories and interests. There stillcan be discussion on how to improve public transport.

3.1.1 Objectivity in reactionresearch

Objectivity in experience research

At the moment the DPT-barometer was developed,increasing crime was a politicalissue. When these kinds ofinfluences are possible, the resultare not objective from amethodological point of view(Drenth, 1968).

Several of the experience measurements in the DPT-barometer can bemeasured in an objective way using natural science based variables. Theinvestigator might not ask whether it was easy to find a seat and whetherthe train was clean but just count the number of vacant seats and theamount of dirt on the floor. Debating in media and politics the publictransport manager easily can explain that the number of vacant seats islarger than it should be according to the concession.

Improving crime safety experience in public transport

When, for whatever reason, crime safety experience in public transport should be improved, there are severaloptions.

As crime risk in public transport is a popular subject in media and politics, the risk of a crime might beoverestimated by passengers. Public transport should present criminological data showing that the risk ofbeing a subject of a crime in public transport is low. Whatever the crime safety level is, the crime safetyexperience will decrease.

The Dutch public transport e-card is named: Public Transport-Chip-Card, stressing chip technology. It would bebetter to stress contactless technology used. When the passenger is informed about contactlessness he cancheck in a safer way (see two Figures below). When the DPT-chip-card would communicate contactlessnessand safe checking actions, as Nietzsche would say, it is the passenger who takes the risk of a negativeemotional crime experience.

The blue passenger checks with the DPT-chip-card still inhis right pocket.Unfortunately for this tall passenger, card reader and hispocket are not at the same level.

Source: Utrecht Central Station, HC-side, 2011.

Passenger left is not using contactless properties of theDPT-chip-card system.With an open briefcase, an open brown wallet and focuson the operation of an e-device, this passenger is an easytarget for pickpockets.

Source: Utrecht Central Station, HC-side, 2011.

Asking: What is your opinion on public transport? by having 40% of the questions related to crime safety,associates crime with public transport and suggests there is a crime problem. After 5 years DPT-barometer,6% of the total Dutch population might be aware of the safety problem because they filled in a DPT-barometer questionnaire. Consequently, safety experience in public transport can be increased by not asking

http://www.ov-klantenbarometer.info/



these questions.

There are threeconclusions.

It is politics andnot someobjective logic thatdetermines whichquestions to ask.That opens thedoors forsubjectivity.

Some of theexperiencevariables measuredcan be measuredusing objectivenatural sciencebased methods(vacant seats, dirt).

None of these above mentioned methods to improve crimesafety experience need passenger experience researchdata. Whatever the opinion of politicians and passengeris, public transport crime safety and experience willincrease. All these methods together are cheaper thanasking 6% of the Dutch population their experience oncrime safety in public transport.

3.1.2 Objectivity inaction research

Objectivity in actionresearch

The focus of the DPT-chip-card-researchwas checking-out andin when changingcompany (see note *,below for anexplanation). It is easyto see a passengercheck-in and check-outwhen changingcompany.Unfortunatelypassengers notperforming a check-outaction while theyshould, can‘t beobserved. Thosepassengers are themost interesting.

Consequently, theexperimenter asked apassenger, checking-out orchecking-in at a changecompany gate (see the Figureright), for help: Excuse me, Iarrived with that train(company 1), I want tocontinue with that train(company 2). Should I checkagain? In this way theexperimenter is as close andas objective as he can cometo the actions the passengerhimself would perform whenchanging company. There islittle doubt that passengerswould lie and give anotherpassenger deliberately wronginformation.

Two checkgates andinformationboards forchangingcompanyApassengerfrom a NStrain willpass thesetwo poleswhenchangingto Veolia.He shouldfirst check-out at thefirst NSpole andthancheck-in atthe Veoliapole. Thenhe canproceed tothe Veoliatrain at theright. Thepassengershouldhave aVeoliaticket onhis DPT-chip-card.

Source:NijmegenCentralStation,2011.

Note *)

Check systems for national Public Transport cards.

Checking per trip:Check-in entering the first vehicle, change to any type of vehicle or company, check-out when leaving the lastvehicle.

Checking per vehicle: Check-in entering any vehicle and check-out leaving that vehicle. When changing underground train of the samecompany you have to check-out and to check-in when changing trains.

Checking per modus: Check-in entering the first vehicle e.g. a train, change any train without checking, check-out when leaving thelast train and ending trip of entering other type of vehicle, e.g. bus. This is applicable in a straightforwardnational system, e.g. long distance is trains only and short distance is busses only. However, in TheNetherlands there are short distance trains and long distance busses.

Checking per companyCheck-in entering the first vehicle, check-out at the end of the trip or when changing transport company.

Combinations: Complicated company structures and concessions will result in combinations of these systems.



Improving checking per company actions

63% (n=191) of the experienced DPT-chip-cardpassengers gave the correct answer on the companychange question. 0.23% (2 110 000 each year) of allDutch public transport trips will be a company changewithout a company change check. These resultssuggested the investigators to analyse how changingper company was presented to the passengers.

The improvement suggested was: do not give thepassengers incorrect information on checking (e.g.checking per company is not needed). Presenting correctinformation is not more expensive than presentingincorrect information. The objectivity of this suggestionfor improvement can be established with the examplesat the right and one below.

The conclusion is that the checking action can beobserved in an objective way and that the observationsindicated how to improve public transport.

Always check-in andcheck-out.This is incorrect,passengers shouldcheck-out and in againonly when changingcompany.

Source: RET, RotterdamMetro.

Traveling with one cardfor tram, train, bus andmetro.Suggesting checking pertrip, not informingchecking per company.

The DPT-chipcard-logoalso suggest checkingper trip. It shows sixchanges and only onecheck in and one checkout.

This bus shows a DPT-chip-card trip from:Amersfoort, Soestdijk, DenDolder, Austerlitz, De Bilt,Utrecht, to Rhenen.On the top of the bus only onecheck-in and only one check-out is shown (checking pertrip).This trip requires 2 changes ofcompanies, i.e. 3 check-insand 3 check-outs.There might be a need formore checks for this trip whenchanging bus within companyrequires checking.

Source: a bus of Utrecht citytransport with a national DPT-chip-card advertisement,2011.

3.2 Synthesis andanalysis

A system is a synthesis of general knowledge ofthe disciplines of design, public transport,psychology, marketing and management. Thistheory is elaborated into the details of thesystem design.

There should be in between consistency in the theory ofthe disciplines and the model of the system. There shouldbe downward consistency in the details of the systems.Research data should give insight in the total systemconsistency.

3.2.1 Reaction research

Analysis of experience data

The psychologist Frijda (1988) concluded: it isdifficult to analyse emotional experience. Thisalso is the conclusion of Beek (2009) analysingDPT-barometer-research. As mentioned above,trains can be evaluated as dirty, just becausethey are late.

The theoretical conclusion might be thatexperience data do not give insight in the totalsystem consistency and, consequently can notbe used to improve public transport.

Improving DPT-chip-card experience with reaction researchanalysis

The DPT-barometer (2010) measures a 6,8 (min.0, max.10) for the userfriendlyness experience of passengers forthe DPT-chip-card. The DPT-barometer provides ananalysis of this figure: 7,1 for Rotterdam and 6,8 forAmsterdam.

How to improve public transport and the DPT-chip-cardwith these empirical experience data? Dutch public opinionmight suggest: This is not new knowledge. Rotterdammersare workers and Amsterdammers are complainers, so don't



change the DPT-chip-card but change the character ofpassengers in Amsterdam.

This analysis of empirical experience data supports thetheoretical conclusion that experience data does notimprove public transport.

3.2.2 Action research

Passengers perform detailed actions with public transport system using their general psychological functions(perception, language, memory and thinking). Checking-out with the new DPT-chip-card is a working memoryaction. Basic psychological knowledge predicts that passengers will forget to check-out. There are severalreasons for this prediction.

Analysis of checking-out actions

For check-out, working memory actions are required andworking memory capacity is limited (7+/-2) (Baddeley, 1987;Miller (1957). For passengers this capacity is reduced byother information requiring working memory space (Travelinformation: departure time and platform number, where tochange. Non travel information: what to buy, calls tomake.).

There also might be stress becausepassengers have the impression there arealways problems when traveling with publictransport and politicians and media tellpassengers that there is a high risk tobecome a victim of a crime. Stress reducesworking memory capacity.

Checking-out is an explicit finishing act where thepassenger does not perform a finishing act. Notperforming a finishing act proved to be 15% ofprogramming errors (see the figure at the right).Computers force users to end their input bypresenting the next step only after the OK button ofthe window has been pressed.

For the passenger the situation is more complicatedas there also might be incompatibility between thetime and position of trip end of the passenger(leaving the vehicle) and the DPT-chip-card system(entering a shopping mall, when leaving the station).In public transport spaces, many perceptual designstry to enter passenger‘s working memory.

End check

The program checks if a statement is closed. When noclosing is found the colour of the all the remaining code islight blue. This is an aide de mémoire for theprogrammer: ‘After this point a closure is missing.’ Theerror made is a missing end quote at the end of line 3.

Source: Dreamweaver

Working memory load can be reduced by consistency. While driving a carthe knowledge: "middle brake pedal is for braking" is not in your workingmemory but in your feet. Check-out is a new uncommon action in asequence of old automatic ending actions of a public transport trip.Introducing a check-out for a public transport trip is like swapping brakepedal and accelerator.

Introducing a check whenchanging company, is likeswapping brake pedal andaccelerator in some car brandsonly. In that case automationof the action is not possible.

From this theoretical working memory action analysis it can be concluded that public transport systems shouldnot impose a load on working memory.

Research data of checking-out actions

In the DTP-chip-cardresearch, forgetting the lastcheck-out was notinvestigated. That was notthe focus of the researchproject and that alsodifficult to establish. Butthere are some indications.

A tag cloud on the homepage of NetherlandsRailways shows that themain problem forRailways passengers isforgetting to check-out

NetherlandsRailwayshome pageThe largesttag clouditem“Forget tocheck-check-out”(Vergetenuit techecken).

Source:www.ns.nl,



(see Figure right).

DTP-chip-card reactionresearch unveils that41% of the DTP-chip-cardpassengers is afraid toforget to check-out.

2011.

These empirical observations support the conclusion suggested by the theoretical action analysis that publictransport systems should not impose a load on working memory.

Improving DTP-chip-card by giving aide de mémoires

When the passenger knows and understands that checking per company is needed, there still is a need formemory actions. He should recall that information at the right time and the right moment. As suggested above,this might be a problem because of the unreliability of human working memory. So the system should provideaide de mémoires to reduce passengers forgetting checking when changing company.

When a passenger changes company and he does not check-outat the first company but does check-in at the second company,the second company's gate says: Beep, have a nice tripsubscription. The DPT-chip-card system should not accept bi-location and say: Beep, beep, beep, please check-out at firstcompany's gate first.

The DPT-chip-card system can guesswhich companies were involved whenthe passenger did not check percompany. The e-system couldcalculate the most likely fee andinform the passenger, e.g. by email.

To top.

The conclusion is that there is consistency between general theory on working memory actions, details of theempirical data and detailed suggestions for no-costs or low-costs improvements of the DPT-chip-card system.The details of the current system are not consistent with working memory theoretical and empirical data.

3.3 Reliability A measurement is reliable when two measurements of the same object give the same results (De Groot 1969).Asking the same question twice the two answers should be the same.


A questionnaire is an important instrument in user experienceresearch. The user gives his opinion filling in multiple choicequestions. Such a list on paper, in a handheld, or on theInternet is an efficient method to obtain a large number ofdata. The large numbers of subjects interviewed increasereliability and statistical significance. When no humanexperimenter is present this also increases reliability becausethere are no experimenter effects such as a male subjectbeing nice to a beautiful lady experimenter. Anotheradvantage is that anybody can make a questionnaire.

There are some disadvantages.

A disadvantage is that making aquestionnaire is difficult (Robins et al.,2007) and investigating thinking ofpassengers is much more difficult than isthought (Verhoef, 2008).

Another disadvantage is that psychological(intelligence) tests and personalityquestionnaires measure characteristics thatremain stable over many years. This allowsthe development of reliable and robusttests. Public transport, however, is notstable and changing, e.g. by introducing e-ticketing and privatisation. There is no timefor the development of robust tests andonce the tests might be stable and robust,public transport is changed somehow.

Reliability in the DPT-barometer

An example of such an easy question in the DPT- DPT-



barometer is: 1. Was it difficult for you to find a seatafter boarding? (see Figure right). When repeated,the question might measure different variables, suchas number of seats vacant, driving style of thedriver, physical condition of the passenger andinteractions between these determinants, e.g. doesthe driver change his driving style when an old ladystill is searching for a seat?

barometer“1. Was itdifficult tofind a seatafterboarding?”

To top.

Improving public transport with reactions on seat finding questions

The conclusion is that the finding seat question is not reliable. When the finding a seat score is low, thecompany does not know how to improve it's score: more seats, driver education or changing the interior of thebusses.

3.3.2 Action research

In action research the user does not give opinions butperforms tasks. The reliability does not come from the largenumber of subjects and the standard procedure but from thequality of the observations. The experimenter should befamiliar with the problem investigated, be able to do relevantobservations and ask more questions to figure out whatexactly the passenger is meaning.

During the investigation he might change thequestions to get more insight in passengerthinking. (Ericsson & Simon, 1980, 1984). Themore complex a system is and the morecognitive actions are involved, e.g. as in aDPT-chip-card, the more appropriate thisqualitative action research methodology is.

Action research DPT-barometer, seat question

When the question is: 1. Was it difficult for you to find a seat whenboarding? with No for an answer, the reaction experimenter will askthe next question: 2. What is the cleanliness of this vehicle?.

The action experimenter will not go to the next question but mightask: Difficult to find a seat? You are the only passenger in this bus!Then the passenger might answer: I always sit in the rear of the bus.When leaving the bus I'm more close to my destination. But the driverwas in a hurry and it took me three stops to get at my seat.

Improving public transport with seatfinding reactions

One answer provoked by a smartextra question of the actionexperimenter unveils several optionsfor improvement of public transport.

Drivers should be instructed to drivemore carefully when passengersstill are searching for a seat.

Travel planners should indicatewhat is closer to the destination ofthe passenger; the front or the rearof the vehicle. In the case of longtrains this can reduce travel timeseveral minutes.

Action research, DPT-chip-card checking per company

In the DPT-chip-card-research the instructions for the experimenters was:Observe if the passengers checks (i.e. out and in as well) at a typical changecompany gate. It was observed that some passengers checked only once.However, checking once means: not changing company but checking-in orout for a one company trip. The gate observed was not in a route for onecompany passengers. Initially this went unnoticed because theexperimenters had difficulty understanding the changing per companysystem as well. After discussion it was decided to observe this in moredetail.

It turned out that 18% (n=197)of the passengers thought thatwhen changing companychecking-out at the firstcompany was not neededbecause the modern e-systemwould be so smart tounderstand that checking-in atcompany 2 meant checking-outat company 1.

Other interesting cognitive actions that were unveiled by the ‘smart’ action experimenters are:Always check, than you never make errors. Correct, you don‘t make errors but it makes traveling much moreexpensive because the passenger will pay two entrance fees.

Don‘t check when changing, longer trips are cheaper. Correct, when you travel with one company. Not correct,when changing company.



To top.

Yes, check-out and in when changing company, but wait three minutes before checking out. Not correct. Youshould wait three minutes when you checked in, but changed your mind, does not make the trip but want toleave the station again.

Only check-out when leaving the station. Correct when traveling with NS only. However, non-NS trains call atNS-stations and even NS-platforms.

There are two gates here to facilitate checking when two passengers travel together. Wrong answer.

Improving public transport with changing company check actions

These are actions of experienced DPT-chip-card users who have been thinking about how the system works. Inmost cases they were very helpful explaining fellow passengers the results of their clever but in several casesincorrect analyses. It is suggested that the total of not anticipated and incorrect cognitive actions unveiled bythe empirical action analysis, provide a reliable mental model of the passenger. That model does not match thecheck per company model of the system. The empirical action analysis suggests that the system is too complexfor passengers.

3.4 Comparison Establishing the quantitative difference between two piles of blocks is a milestone in human cognitivedevelopment (Piaget, 1969). Predicting which experimental condition will score higher improves theoreticalknowledge (De Groot, 1961). Predicting which public transport design will give better passenger performancewill improve public transport. Presenting two public transport improvement strategies, as in this article, shouldimprove the discussion on how to improve public transport.

3.4.1 DPT-barometer comparisons

The DPT-barometer compares months

The DPT-barometer brakes the data downper month and per company (see Figureright).

The DPT-barometerenablescomparisonsof formalpropertiessuch ascompany andmonth.

Improving public transport with brake downs per month and per company

To top.

There are many differences between the months of the year. InDecember there are more delays because of bad weather and inJune there are more free seats because of holidays. How toimprove public transport knowing that passenger experience inJune is higher than passenger experience in December? Theseconditions might be unknown to the experimenter and out ofcontrol of the experimenter. This makes it difficult to attributepassenger opinion to changes in public transport, e.g. a newsystem, a new concession or a new manager.

There are many differences betweentransport companies. The conditions ofthe concession are different, there aredifferences in the infrastructure and theschedule. How to interpret delays of ahigh frequent closed public transportsystem like an underground with a lowfrequent open public transport systemhaving many accident prone levelcrossings?

The conclusion is that the comparisonsoffered by the DPT-barometer do notimprove public transport.

3.4.2 DPT-chip-card-research comparisons



The DPT-chip-card-research compares payment systems

The Dutch Parliament requested for the establishment of passenger opinion on check per company only. TheDPT-chip-card system to be evaluated, was compared with similar systems.

The interfaces of the current company driven DPT-chip-card was compared with interfaces of a passenger drivensystem DPT-chip-card system. Examples of such system were developed by the DPT-chip-card-research team.

All passengers know the paper train tickets from the current Netherlands Railways train ticket vendingmachine.39% of the experienced DPT-chip-card passengers report to expect more problems in the train whenusing a the DPT-chip-card than using a paper ticket from the train ticket vending machine (n=1044).

The old DPT-paper-short-distance-strip-card is a multiple trips card. Forevery trip some strips are validated by stamping (see Figure right). 28%expects more problems with the DPT-chip-card (n=1044).

The oldDPT-paper-short-distance-strip-card

To top.

Improving public transport comparing opinions

It is concluded that these passenger comparisons provide more insight in the DPT-chip-card passengerexperience than evaluations without comparison and than evaluations comparing months and transportcompanies.

3.5 Standards Norms and standards facilitate the growth of knowledge and the quality of the design process.

The DPT-barometer provides norms for management

The DPT-barometer delivers a number between 0 and 10. In Dutch public transport this number is used as astandard for payment of the concession and the bonus of management (Bruyn & Gemke, 2009). The life cycle ofmanagement and a concession might be shorter than the life cycle of public transport systems. It might beconcluded that this type of standards does not improve public transport.

Action research provides norms for passengers

To top.

Based on the workingmemory action analysisabove it should be astandard that publictransport systems do notimpose a load onpassenger workingmemory. In train stations it iscommon practice torepeat information ondeparture time andplatform number of trainsat each decision point inthe route of thepassenger.

The DPT-chip-card abuses the suggested working memory load standard byrequiring a check-out where the system cannot give an aide de mémoire and byrequiring an intermediate checks when changing company. It is concluded thatmaintaining this standard in the DPT-chip-card the checking per company mightnot have been accepted. When, nevertheless checking per company isimplemented, consciously abusing the standard should at least have beencompensated by system support for working memory load.

3.6 Validity Above content validity of the concept ‘experience’ was discussed on a theoretical level. This paragraphdiscusses DPT-barometer-research and the DPT-chip-card-research validation on a more empirical level, i.e.does an item of the test measure the total concept?


40% of the questions in the DPT-barometer of 2009 are about crime safety.In the graphical presentation the area forcrime safety is approximately 33% (seethe Figure right). This might be considered

Graphicalpresentationof the DPT-barometerThe lowestbar is forsafety



as over proportional.

Crime safety and public transport areindependent concepts. When crime safetyand public transport are in one questionthere is an unknown interaction effect. Tocontrol this effect there should have beena question like: What is your crimeexperience in general?

(general, trip,bus stop).Thedepartureinformationarea is red.

Source:www.kpvv.nl,2009.

Improving public transport with crime experience data

To top.

Mixing crime safety with public transport meansthat transport companies might improve publictransport crime safety experience by having morepolice officers on the street. When the governmentraises the budget for police officers, the DTP-barometer will rise.

One of the questions in the DPT-barometer is: 20. Howsafe do you feel in public transport? The implicitinterpretation of the researchers is: How large is the riskto be a subject of a crime in public transport? Theinterpretation of the passenger might be: How large isthe risk of traffic accident in public transport?

The conclusion is that just the word ‘safe’ is not valid.One of the consequences of not knowing what ismeasured is that the data do not show how to improvepublic transport: with crime fighting or with accidentreduction?

3.6.2 Passenger action research

The materialistic basis and the elaboration in material, perceptual, language, memory and thinking actions withpublic transport systems ensures construct validity. Actions can be based on physiology.

To top.

The DPT-chip-card-research gives insight

8% of the experienced DPT-chip-card passengers know you have to checkper company (n=562, Kassenberg & Verhoef, 2011). Other passengersthink they know but have the wrong concept. Most of them think you needto check-in and out when changing vehicle (43%), changing vehicle type(bus - train) (38%) or per trip (6%). These empirical result give moreinsight in the problem than a DPT-barometer score of 6,8 (in 2010) for theDPT-chip-card.

Improving public transport withaction research data

The general conclusion that thepassenger action analysesunveiled is that the DPT-chip-card is valid as a company andtechnology driven strategy only(Kassenberg & Verhoef, 2011).The passenger does not exist.

4. Discussion This article applied some basicmethodological researchrequirements to reaction researchand action research. It analysed howthese research and design strategiescan improve the design of publictransport system. Action researchgave insight in how the passengerdeal with a complex system as apublic transport e-card-paymentsystem. The insight can be used toimprove the system.

This insight raises thefollowing question. Ifless than 8% of theexperienced DPT-chip-card passengersunderstands thesystem, what is thevalue of thepassenger experience6.8 DPT-barometerscore (min. 0, max 10)for the DPT-chip-card?

Shouldn't the question in the DPT-barometer have been: Dear passenger. Inorder to maintain the traditional paper faresystem of each individual company the DPT-chip-card is company based. As 92% of allpassengers, you probably will not understandthe system. When you do, you will forgetevery now and then checking when changingcompany. When you do so, you will get one ortwo fines per trip. The fines reduce yourbalance but your are not informed of that.Please, what is your opinion on DPT-chip-card?

To top.

References Baddeley, A. , (1987). Working memory Oxford psychology series no. 11. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bedny, G. , (2001). Activity theory. Vol. I, pag. 358-362. Karwowski, W. International Encyclopedia ofErgonomics and Human Factors.

Beek, P. Van , (2009). Waardering door de klant. En dan? KPVV. Oog voor de reiziger. no 11 september 2009.

Bruyn, M. De & Gemke, J. , (2009). Het meethuis Naar een nieuw systeem van klanttevredenheidsmetingen.KPVV. Oog voor de reiziger. no 11 september 2009.

Drenth, P.J.D. , (1968). De psychologische test. Een inleiding in de theorie van de psychologische test en zijntoepassingen. Van Loghum Slaterus. Arnhem.



Eerde, H.A.A. van Eerde, & Verhoef, L.W.M. , (1978). Het leren optellen en aftrekken op de basisschoolPedagogische Studiën, vol. 55, pag. 354 - 367.

Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. , (1980). Verbal Reports as Data Psychological Review. Vol. 87, no 3 pag. 215-251.

Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. , (1984). Protocol analysis Verbal reports as data. Cambridge Mass: The MITPress.

Frijda, N.H. , (1988). De emoties Een overzicht van onderzoek en theorie. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.

Groot, A.D. de , (1961). Methodologie Grondslagen van onderzoeken en denken in degedragswetenschappen. 's-Gravenhage: Mouton, & Co.

Haenen, J. , (1998). Piotr Galperin: Psychologist in Vygotsky’s Footsteps Culture & Psychology. Vol. 4, no 4pag. 501-506, http://www.bgcenter.com/Galperin.htm .

Kaplan, A. , (1964). The conduct of inquiry Methodology for Behavioral Science. San Francisco: ChandlerPublishing Company.

Kassenberg, M. & Verhoef, L.W.M. , (2011). Reizigersperspectief CICO met de OV-chipkaart in de railketen inopdracht van de commissie Meijdam. Den Haag: Van Brienen,http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten-en-publicaties/rapporten/2011/07/26/reizigersperspectief-op-check-in-check-out-met-de-ov-chipkaart-in-de-railketen/reizigersperspectief-cico-in-de-railketen-b.pdf .

Miller, G.A. , (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity forProcessing Information. The Psychological Review, vol. 63, pag. 81-97.

Norman, D., Miller, J. & Henderson, A. , (1995). What You See, Some of What's in the Future, And How We GoAbout Doing It Proceedings of CHI 1995, Denver, Colorado, USA HI at Apple Computer.Proceedings ofCHI 1995, Denver, Colorado, USA.

Piaget, J. , (1969). Zes psychologische studies Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.

Riemsdijk, J. van , (2002). Het lied van de neuronen naar een biofilosofisch model. Kampen: Klement.

Robins, R.W., Fraley, R.C. & Krueger, R.F., (2007). Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology Psychology.New York The Guildford Press

Verhoef, L.W.M. , (2008). Hoe onderzoek je het denken van reizigers Verkeerskunde. no 7 pag. 63,http:www.humanefficiency.nl/public/onderzoek_denken_reizigers.shtml

Verhoef, L.W.M. , (2007). Why designers can't understand their users Developing a systematic approachusing cognitive psychology. Utrecht: Human Efficiency,http://www.humanefficiency.nl/designers_understanding.shtml

Visser, G. , (1998). De druk van de beleving Filosofie en kunst in een domein van overgang en ondergang.Nijmegen: Sun.

Vroon, P. , (1980). Intelligentie Over het meten van een mythe en de politieke, sociale en onderwijskundigegevolgen. Baarn: Ambo.

Wertsch, J.V.W. , (1981). The concept of activity in Sovjet Psychology New York M.E.: Sharpe Inc.

Zinchenko, V.P., & Gordon, V.M. , (1981). Methodological Problems in the Psychological Analysis of Activitypag. 72-133. Wertsch The concept of activity in Sovjet Psychology.

To top.

Improving publictransportwith psychology

Decision making of vending machine users

Discords in signposting.

From buttons for fingers towards graphics for brains

Less other train accidents on level crossings

Logo, complex company logo

Logo, 1 logo, 9 interpretations

Passenger reactions and passenger actions: improvingpublic transport

Pictogram, lift and arrows

Pictogram, muster station confusion

Naming public transport lines for passengers

Naming ring roads

Naming targets for way finding

A new conceptual structure for passenger information

The information street

The right way for wrong driving way signs

Bewegwijzeraars moeten meer egocentrisch werken

Cognitieve psychologie & OV

Communiceren met de OV-chipkaart

Kijken achter de horizon, orientatie schermautonavigatie

Hoe aanleggen uitleggen

Hoe onderzoek je het denken van reizigers

Met het OV naar het Oog van de reiziger

OV kan reizigers geen verstoringsinfo geven

Teksten en grafische symbolen op automaten

Vertrektijd is passe, leve de afteltijd.

Voor de business in het OV bestaat de reiziger niet

Waarom vergeet de reiziger check-out bij de OV-chipkaart

Cursus:Designing information for fast, safe and errorless

http://www.bgcenter.com/Galperin.htm

http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten-en-publicaties/rapporten/2011/07/26/reizigersperspectief-op-check-in-check-out-met-de-ov-chipkaart-in-de-railketen/reizigersperspectief-cico-in-de-railketen-b.pdf

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/www.humanefficiency.nl/public/onderzoek_denken_reizigers.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/designers_understanding.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/decision_making_vending_machine_users.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/discords_signposting.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/history_vending_machines.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/level_crossing.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/logo_company.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/logo_ambiguous.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/passenger_reaction_experience.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/pictogram_elevator_arrows.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/pictogram_muster_station.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/naming_public_transport_lines.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/naming_ring_roads.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/naming_way_finding.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/new_conceptual_structure_passenger_information.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/information_street.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/wrong_way_driving_signs.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/bewegwijzering_verdwalen_pictogram.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/cognitieve_psychologie_openbaar_vervoer.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/ov-chipkaart_reizigers_vriendelijk.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/auto_navigatie_scherm_orientatie.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/haven_aanleg_bord.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/onderzoek_denken_reizigers.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/beleving_openbaar_vervoer.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/openbaar_vervoer_verstoring_vertraging.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/teksten_pictogrammen_automaten.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/vertrektijd_openbaar_vervoer.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/business_ov_klanten.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/ov-chipkaart_vergeten_checken.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public_information_course.shtml



search in humanefficiency.nl

Threats and opportunities for wayfinding systems

Turn right please, navigation screens should obeyperception

Structuring departures on dynamic displays.

Structuring chaotic space with a visual list

Why car park signs should lie

Course:Designing information for fast, safe and errorlesspassenger, car driver and skipper performancee

passenger, car driver and skipper performance

Improvingnon-public transportapplicationswith psychology:

Interface and web

Future systems, how to organise or live in a technical future

ETCS mmi, high speed train drivers train control interface

To top.

Contact Leonard Verhoef.

+31 (653) 739 750Parkstraat 193581 PB UtrechtNederland

humanefficiency.nl

[email protected]

Chamber of commerce, trade register, subscription number: 39057871.

To top of this page.

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/wayfinding_signposting.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/car_navigation_screen_orientation.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/structure_departures.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/structure_space.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/public/why_car_park_signs_should_lie.shtml



http://www.humanefficiency.nl/gui/artse.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/toekomst/arts.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/etcs/etcs-dmi.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/cve.shtml

http://www.humanefficiency.nl/humanefficiencye.shtml

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.kvk.nl/handelsregister/zoekenframesetext.asp?url=https://server.db.kvk.nl/TST-BIN/ZS/ZSWWW01@?TAAL=NL%26AANT=0%26HIST=N&TYPE=PCHN&NHVC=0&kenmerk=kellysearchNL&AWCD=3581PB

Passenger reactions and passenger actions: improving public transport

Documents