Case description

To explain the updated model, two case descriptions of interviewees are made. One with the outcome behaviour being careful, the other one with careless behaviour. To describe careful behaviour, interviewee 7 (Sw7) is used as an example as he mentions a lot of influential determinants that are similar to other interviewees. To describe careless behaviour, interviewee 10 (Sw10) is used as an example. It must be noted that these are just examples of cases that were specific in certain

34 connections in the model. Therefore, not all the aforementioned new connections to get to careful or careless behaviour are described.

5.2.1 Case 1: Description of careful behaviour

The first case describes an example of some of the connections made in de model when performing careful behaviour. To get an idea of the interviewees perception towards PSSs, his attitude can be describes as unfavourable, since he thinks that the service is quite expensive. His overall attitude towards his own behaviour in particular, is positive. Moreover, from the following quote we can conclude that his behaviour is careful.

“I try to handle the bike as normal as possible, I don’t do crazy things with it. I am not going to cross with it or something because it is not my bike”

Swapfiets tries to give users an incentive to double lock their bikes by setting a high fine when your bike gets stolen. The fine is less high when you double lock the bike, however, Sw7 says the following when being asked if he would still double lock his bike if this fine was not in play:

“Yes [would still double lock it], because I still need to get from A to B and from B to A. And it would be very annoying when it would get stolen because then I can’t go anywhere, which costs me money. But apart from that, it is super annoying”

So even if the fines are not applied, Sw7 would still double lock his bike because of its own habits and the fact that he wants to stay in control (PBC). When talking about the subjective norms, Sw7 tells the following: “I try to handle all my stuff with care anyhow, (…) I learned that from my parents at home”.

This shows a positive contribution of the subjective norm, more specifically the influence of parents on careful behaviour.

When talking about the facilitating conditions of using a Swapfiets, Sw7 tells the following: “I still am a student, so I can’t afford my bike get stolen three times, I am very conscious of this when locking my bike”. With this quote, the added value to the awareness of the facilitating conditions is described.

An important note to make is that this interviewee in particular is not experiencing feelings of guilt, while resulting from the interviews, the feeling of guilt towards the company or parents can have considerable contributions to careful behaviour. In the figure below, the ‘flow’ of the steps made in performing carefull behaviour is displayed. The determinants that are influential in careful outcome behaviour are outlined with a thicker (bold) line. The other determinants that have a negligible influence on carefull behaviour are not emphasised with a bold line. As mentioned before, guilt has

35 influence on this outcome behaviour but not mentioned in this case description, therefore, this determinant is shaded in grey.

Figure 20: Behavioural flow and influence on Careful behaviour.

5.2.2 Case 2: Description of careless behaviour

To explain the flow of determinants of careless behaviour, interviewee 10 (Sw10) is used. In the interview, he starts with telling that he uses his Swapfiets the most within Utrecht. Additionally he told that if the destination is far or he does not feel like taking too long to get there, he uses his Swap-bike.

Which is his only bicycle at his disposal. With using the bike he has a strong habit of not double locking his bike. He mentions that:

“Only if I am in the city centre, or in central station, I double lock my bike. But in front of my own or my girlfriends’ home I don’t double lock it. Just out of laziness, and the fact that I don’t see the urge to double lock it (…) because I think the risk of theft is lower, so you think it is safer to park here”

This is a good example of a lack of habits in terms of double locking his bike. When talking about his attitude towards PSSs and his careless behaviour he tells the following:

“I think it [Swapfiets] is very convenient, the fact that you have one place where you can get a bike is helpful. And I think that it is better for the environment as well, because they can recycle internally. Or maybe they just throw everything in a junkyard, I don’t know. But I have to say that they are not helping you as quickly as they used to, their service site is pretty far which is not really accessible for me. (…) I had a flat tire, and I pumped it but then the inner tube came out of the outer tire (…) then I thought; fack-it, and then I biked on the empty tire to the service point of Swapfiets. My idea behind this is: because they are not coming to pick up the bike, only on weekdays and during the day, but then I am working. (…) So then I was like; I have to

36 go to Swapfiets but I live in Zuilen and that is half an hour by foot, and I did not feel like doing this. You already have a bike that is supposed to be working, that is what you pay for. Resulting in me biking on my flat tire to Swapfiets, ending in the inner tube totally coming out of the outer tire and of the rim, that was the point I really needed to go walking because I know that is not good for the rim”

The fact that he damages his bike in this way, results from a positive attitude towards this careless behaviour. He thinks he pays for a bike that always should be working. When it is not working he does not feel guilty about his careless behaviour, because he blames the lack of service by Swapfiets (lack of interest by Swapfiets, thus the influence of the Subjective norm). However, he gives hints about the power of Swapfiets to be more involved, and that he would not have done this if Swapfiets would have collected his bike. As he mentions:

“you subscribe on the assumption that (...) if its broken [the bike] you can ‘swap’ your bike, and they stop by your place and you get a new one or they fix it on the site. After Covid that is not the case anymore. If I have to go to them anyway, I am not going to sacrifice my time for something that I pay for”

When talking about his facilitating conditions, the interviewee was asked if his knowledge about the product is helping or withholding him of performing careful behaviour. His answer was: “I think it is withholding me to act carefully (…) because you know what you pay for it and you know what to expect from them [a bike that is always functional/working]”. This shows the influence of the facilitative conditions on careless behaviour.

The figure below shows the flow of determinants that are influential on careless behaviour.

Again, this is only one example that gives an overview of some of the important determinants of careless behaviour. With this example, the influence of emotions of pride towards careless behaviour is not described. However, as previously stated, this determinant can have influence on careless behaviour, and is therefore shaded grey in the figure below. The determinants that are influential in careless outcome behaviour are outlined with a thicker (bold) line. The other determinants that have a negligible influence on careless behaviour are not emphasised with a bold line.

37

Figure 21: Behavioural flow and influence on Careless behaviour.

Having defined the similarities and differences between behavioural determinants of users that behave carefully and carelessly. The next chapter will discuss the findings, after that, the research question will be answered.