20TH ANNUAL WORLD CONFERENCE AIR TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY (ATRS)
The Concept of Well-being and Its Effect on Airline Ticket Purchasing Daum Sebastian Sebastian DAUM Am Lindenbaum 55 60433 Frankfurt
[email protected]
Andreas Wittmer Center for Aviation Competence University of St. Gallen Dufourstrasse 40a CH-9000 St. Gallen Switzerland +41 - 71 224 25 25
[email protected]
For very long time questions on and about well-being were discussed by several authors and are still present in recent literature. Although well-being research has grown increasingly within the last decade and in the field of consumer behavior, a transfer and use of its concept into the airline ticket purchasing process cannot be found. Until now, only a few authors have taken efforts to apply well-being as a potential factor within the consumer decision-making in travel and transportation research. Based on the theoretical roots of well-being, this paper analyses its constitution, function and use within human behavioral motivation to first describe and define wellbeing in general and second to investigate potential well-being factors that can be used within the airline ticket purchasing process. By combining a review of relevant literature and qualitative research, well-being is defined as a condition or state of good, positive and pleasant feelings and a general feeling of happiness. It is mainly constituted by six major attributes: Positive social environment, being relaxation, freedom, trust, good feeling and myself. The transfer of general well-being factors from travel and transportation research identified seven aviation factors that supposedly affect passengers’ ticket purchases. These key factors are linked to specific airline options and are further specified in order to test the most appropriate on their effect within the airline ticket purchasing process. In the end, a conjoint analysis reveals that the derived well-being factors are only partly relevant for passengers’ ticket purchases. Yet, it is shown that air travelling is affected by hedonic well-being options, such as comfort, relaxation or joy. Airlines that focus on implementing effective hedonic
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
1
well-being factors, such as seat comfort and ticket flexibility, can thus create additional value for customers through the creation of well-being.
KEYWORDS: Well-being, airline, passengers, consumer behaviour, purchasing decision.
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
1
2
Introduction
Due to their intensive cost structure, full service network airlines face difficulties in competition especially in short haul markets where they compete against Low Cost Carriers. External factors, make the situation for airlines even worse. The very competitive airline market has undergone a massive restructuring in the previous decades. Alone within the last 15 years, tragic terrorist attacks, fluctuating oil prices, industry changes, economic downturns, changing customer needs, and business model changes cast high pressure on traditional airlines (Hanlon, 2007). Previous flag carriers today compete against low cost carriers, such as EasyJet or Rynair on short haul routes and against state supported carries from Asia and Middle East. Finding new ways to successfully compete against other airlines is of increasing importance. In the past, businesses focused on internal improvement, such as restructuring or organizational reengineering, in order to retain a competitive edge over the competition by reducing costs. However, the next major source for competitive advantage will likely come from the outward orientation towards customers (Woodruff, 1997). In the long-term customer preferences decide about the business success, which is why creating customer value should be in the focus of today’s business strategies. Customer value influences customer demand and that focuses on customer perceived benefits compared to its perceived costs (Bieger et al., 2007), and by this on increasing revenues, rather than reducing costs. Using customer value as framework to identify customer benefits within travel and transportation, studies identified well-being as a potential factor that on the one hand creates customer value but on the other hand was never really defined and combined with consumer behaviour studies. The concept of well-being gained much interest within the last years. Especially, the subjectively experienced well-being was increasingly transferred into travel behaviour studies as travelling affects well-being in various ways (De Vos et al., 2013). Different studies showed that well-being has much weight in the individual consumer decision-making process and that well-being is able to create customer value (Ettema et al., 2010; Wittmer & Riegler, 2014). Though well-being is an elusive concept that is far from being deeply researched, it includes some very interesting insights. The Objective of this study is to gain insights into the concept of well-being, its potential usage in the field of aviation and to discover if well-being can be used as a potential factor in the airline ticket purchasing process.
Therefore, the aim of this study is to answer three major questions:
(1) What is the concept of well-being? How is it defined and constituted and which factors mainly contribute to well-being?
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
3
(2) How can well-being be used as a factor in the airline ticket purchasing process? (3) What is the effect of well-being on the consumer airline ticket purchasing process?
2
Literature
2.1 Decision Theory According to Hastie & Dawes (2010, p. 24), a decision is a response to a specific situation. For instance, a consumer purchase can be seen as a response to a problem; the need for a new car (problem) initiates a purchase/ no purchase (response) decision (Solomon et al., 2006, p. 258). Judgement refers to the components of the larger decision-making process including assessing, estimating, and inferring of possible actions that will occur and how the decision maker’s reaction to these outcomes will be (Hastie, 2010, pp. 656-657). Often, judgement evaluates in terms of accuracy while decision-making gets evaluated in terms of its consequences (Eysenck, 2010, p. 499). Although there are slight differences in the concise definition between decision-making and judgment, the terms shall be used synonymously for the purpose of the following article, as it is also practiced in other research (Wittmer & Riegler, 2014, p.107). In economics, decision theory tries to explain “how to predict decisions”. Normative theories Edwards (1954) and Morgenstern & Von Neumann (1953) describe what rational consumers “should do” based on rationality and complete information (Thaler, 1980, p. 39). Nearly all of the normative models share the assumptions of complete information, infinite sensitivity and rationality (Edwards, 1954, p.381). So far the rational model of consumer behaviour dominates economic analysis (McFadden et al., 2000, p. 73). In contrast, Simon’s research on rational choice (Simon, 1955) instituted a behavioural approach that focused on the process of decision-making instead of the decision outcomes. He proved that the human mind is limited in its’ processing capabilities. People often search for “a good enough” rather than “the best” possible decision. Instead of processing all relevant information, consumers may use simplifying heuristics - so called short cuts or “rules of thumb” (Bettman et al., 1991, p.57; Solomon, 2006, p.260; Skah & Oppenheimer, 2008, p.207). In the field of aviation the question arises if consumers use a rather rational, systematic or implicit, heuristic decision-making approach when purchasing an airline ticket. According to Sirakaya & Woodside (2005, p. 823) purchasing an airline ticket involves a high amount of time and involves
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
4
a potential high risk of making a bad decision that might lead to high costs. In order to come to a decision, consumers need to apply risk reduction strategies. Depending on which theory a researcher applies, these risk reduction strategies are either based on rational decision theory by collecting all relevant information to minimise a given risk or one assumes that at a certain point individuals are not able to proceed more information and therefore apply heuristics. The decision behaviour is conflicted between the desire to achieve a good decision and the desire to minimise the cognitive effort to reach it (Payne et al., 1993, p. 9). In the last years, emotions and affect got in the focus within decision-making. Expected and immediate emotions, i.e. emotions experienced while making a decision, influence decisionmaking as they undermine rational behaviour and lead to potential biases (Loewenstein & Lerner, 2003, p. 636). For instance, individuals which find themselves in an “excited” positive emotional state apply other search and decision strategies when choosing out of a fictional car bundle and make their decisions more quickly than when finding themselves in a normal emotional state (Isen & Means, 1983). One theoretical stream that is naturally based on human emotions and affect is well-being and its theoretical foundation within economics, psychology and other disciplines. Depending on the theoretical argumentation, well-being can be defined as an affective balance between positive and negative affect and a cognitive long-term dimension (Kahneman, 1999). Well-being recently gained much attention as it goes beyond a simple satisfaction measurement tool. Studies from commuting experiments show that well-being can be used to predict customer decision-making as customer perceived utility.
3
The concept of well-being
Well-being has gained increasing attention within and across the fields of economics, psychology, sociology, politics and public health (Ryan and Deci, 2001; Helliwell and Putnam, 2004; Kahneman and Krueger, 2006; Diener, 2009a). Well-being itself is commonly understood as a state of happiness, satisfaction and quality of life (Miriam-Webster’s Online dictionary, 2015). Two distinct but overlapping paradigms or perspectives developed within time: a hedonic view on wellbeing and an eudemonic view on well-being. The hedonic justification implies that the basis of personal well-being lies in the individual utility, in this case experienced happiness or pleasure, which individuals try to maximize (Ryan and Deci, 2001). The literature describes the hedonic perspective as the subjective well-being as it is assumed that eudemonic well-being is more a combination out of subjective and objective criteria (Kahneman, 1999; Ettema et al., 2010). The opposite eudemonic stance, based on the philosophy of Aristotle, argues that well-being is not only a pure happiness experience, but that in fact
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
5
happiness is only achievable through excellence, virtue and self-realisation. That is why well-being needs to be recognised in terms of realizing one’s true potential or reaching one’s true goals. One of the most common eudemonic approaches of well-being is the concept of Ryff and Singer (1989) that seeks to integrate all eudemonic perspectives into one approach. Yet, the general question whether it is reasonable to differentiate between hedonic and eudemonic dimensions or not arises (De Vos et al., 2013, p.426). McCabe & Johnson (2013, p. 44) understand well-being more as a concept that comprises multiple hedonic and eudemonic dimensions. In the early happiness research, most authors never differentiated between these two perspectives (Kashdan et al., 2008, p. 221). Therefore, it is assumed that well-being is best conceived as a multidimensional phenomenon (Ryan & Deci, 2001, p. 148, Henderson & Knight, 2012, p. 201). Waterman (2005) introduced a well-being construct that combines hedonia and eudaimonia aspects by differentiating between lower and higher forms of pleasures that affects behavioural motivation differently. In this view, higher forms of well-being lead to a greater well-being and thus affect individual behaviour more than lower forms of well-being. This theory is based on Ryan and Deci’s well-being differentiation (2001). As a result from the literature review on well-being in the field of travelling and transportation, relevant well-being factors were summarized and grouped together in table 1. For this, a basic differentiation of well-being factors from Ettema et al. (2010) is used and extended with facilitator factors, thus, well-being factors that go beyond direct and indirect travel related impacts. Passengers value and differentiate between instrumental and non-instrumental (or affective) factors for a travel mode or travel option. Instrumental factors are predominant in travel planning or for transportation companies (Ettema et al., 2010, p. 729). While classical instrumental factors are definitely important, affective factors such as privacy, safety or stress are also relevant for passengers’ well-beings.
Key factors
Description
Literature
Hedonic
Instrumental factors
Ettema et al.,2010 Travel time, Travel Olsson et al, 2013 costs, Travel frequency Abou-Zeid 2009
Hedonic
Non instrumental factors
Cleanliness, privacy, safety, convenience, stress, social interaction, scenery, reliability, crowding, enjoyment, comfort
Stradling et al., 2007
Anable & Gatersleben, 2005
Well-being dimension
= lower form of wellbeing
= lower form of wellbeing
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
De Vos et al., 2013 Travel as facilitator
Flexibility, autonomy, mobility, sense of movement, activities
Mokhatarian et al., 2015
6
Hedonic & eudaimonic = higher form of wellbeing
Table 1: Well-being factors for travelling and transportation
4
A transfer of Well-being into aviation and transportation
To the knowledge of the authors, a transfer of well-being factors into the field of air travel and aviation is quit a new approach. However, as most of travel behaviour studies focus on well-being in the context of commuting situations, recent theoretical insights should be transferred with caution in the field of air travel. Well-being effect, motivation and impact for a public transportation pass or for commuting situations are surely different to the nature of air travel, for instance comparing the sole frequency of travelling or travel demand models. From the instrumental factors mainly travel time and the frequency of the travel mode have been in the focal point of well-being studies. Generally speaking, longer trips influence well-being negatively (Olsson et al, 2013; Abou-Zeid 2009). Consequently, the total trip duration should be minimised in order to maximise well-being. However, in the field of aviation this is quite unrealistic due to operational reasons. Especially waiting queues are experienced as negative for instance at the security check or while boarding (Cantwell et al., 2009). Consequently, offering priority boarding and priority check-in options may increase well-being for passengers. Affective or non-instrumental factors are usually not considered as important for passengers, although they affect well-being in various ways, which is why they should definitely be taken into consideration as potential well-being factors. Complicated trips with transfers between different travel modes decrease well-being (Wener et al., 2003). Thus, direct flights will more likely be preferred from passengers as they make travelling easier and demand less cognitive effort, which reduces stress. Yet also, the transfer to the airport by bus, train or car influences complexity of a trip, which is why a more convenient and easier access to the airport should also increase wellbeing. Besides the ease of a trip, also its predictability plays a vital role for well-being as for instance trip planning can be quite challenging for non-habitual travellers (Wener et al., 2003). Furthermore, crowding is a major factor that influences stress, perception of control, predictability and travel comfort (Cox et al., 2006). For air travel, crowding might be a significant issue as passengers realise a relatively high perceived crowding on the airport and while flying as typically the load factor of airplanes is high in order to maximise the yield. Li & Hensher (2011) propose a different seat design, for instance offering a two-seated row that excludes a middle seat or a general reduction of the load factor in order to maximise travel comfort. On the airport, express check-in
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
7
and security options might also be factors that decrease perceived crowding and increase comfort and relaxation. Comfort elements such as seat quality, in-flight temperature, on-board service and the accessibility of airport resting or working facilities should be mentioned as well, as those typically influence passengers on-board relaxation at most (Balcombe et al., 2009). Activities during the process of travelling also have an effect on well-being (De Vos et al., 2013, p. 430) as traveling people tend to work, read, relax or talk to each other (Ohmori & Harata, 2008). Especially talking to other passengers seems to have a strong effect on travel well-being, while entertaining or relaxing seems to have a rather low effect as it often reflects the attempt to abate boredom (De Vos et al., 2013, p. 430). For air travel this might be similar though this surly depends on the purpose of travelling. Business travellers might focus on relaxing and working in order to arrive in best shape at their business appointment while leisure travellers might value social interaction and relaxation. Nevertheless, activities and the ease and comfort to conduct them while flying are important. Also, the sole potential to travel seems to enhance the feeling of feeling free, flexible, spontaneous and self-governed, which creates freedom and autonomy. Wittmer & Riegler (2014) showed that the potential of unlimited travel creates well-being by enabling freedom and flexibility. A transfer into airline travelling could follow a similar idea, enabling individuals to fly within a geo-location limitless and as often as they want. That ability would create well-being and enhance freedom. Yet the practical, financial and operational implementation of such an option is as questionable as the demand for such a service. Though, some airlines start to build on such options, for instance USairline JetBlue or Belgium airline Take Air. Next, the sole act of movement through a beautiful landscape and scenery affects well-being. People enjoy the positive feelings short-term as well as long-term due to the control and power, the act of fast movement and the sole process of travelling which provides meaning and purpose and helps to create personal growth (De Vos et al., 2013, Mokhtarian, 2001; 2005). Table 2 summarizes travel well-being effects and transfers them into the field of aviation.
Factor
Relevance
Well-being
Queues at check-in, security check, boarding,
Express check-in, security check and boarding; Hedonic
Crowding Charge factor of the airplane
Modifications
Reduce airplane charge factor; Improve subjective feeling of crowding through seat design (2 seat row instead of 3 seat row)
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
Delays, flight Predictability cancellation, airport Hedonic & Complexity navigation, complex trip to airport, trip length
Improve ease of access to and on the airport; Provide live information; Communication when delays and cancellations
Comfort & cleanliness
Airplane comfort: seats, Hedonic interior, temperature etc.
Enhance ventilation, warm temperature and warm lightning within flight, offer noise protection headphones, seat configuration and seat quality
Facilitate activities
Long and complicated transfer to airport, uncomfortable gate and airport atmosphere, airplane design
Hedonic and eudaimonic
Enhance passengers’ “me-time” to conduct vital activities, such as resting, enjoying, working; Airport atmosphere at gate, airplane design, such as seats, tables
Flexibility & Freedom
Strict fare policies, costly flight replacement, unexpected delays, missing flights
Hedonic and eudaimonic
Absolute ticket flexibility for any uncertainty, automatic rebooking if flight missed
No ability to fly whenever you want, no unlimited flying
Hedonic and eudaimonic
Unlimited flying options for passengers
One can value the high speed movement or seeking to enjoy environmental scenery
Hedonic and eudaimonic
Offer wide window options, Enhance the trip with information about the environment, point of interests; Foster an art or culture of flying
Potential travel / unlimited flying
1
Joy of movement and sensation
8
Table 2: Well-being factors for airline ticket decision-making
5
Research approach
First, qualitative research shall help to build a better understanding of well-being, to identify the most important well-being factors, to evaluate the dependency between hedonic and eudemonic well-being and to conduct if and how much these factors influence travel well-being. Therefore, a workshop to further understand the concept of well-being and its impact on the airline ticket purchasing process was set up on the 15 April 2015 at the University of St. Gallen. It lasted one
1
Potential travel refers mainly to train yearly transportation pass, such as the SWISS Pass, that give one year unlimited access to an extensive public transportation system. Having such an option evokes a feeling of freedom and independence, i.e. just to move whenever one want
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
9
hour, during which five people with different experiences, life situations and air travel experiences were invited. These included airline, academic experts in the field of consumer-decision making, and a small sample of frequent travellers. In the beginning of the workshop all participants were introduced and informed about the participants, the topic and the structure of the workshop. In a second step, every participant had to answer the following two questions: 1. “How would you define well-being?” and 2.“What are (for you) elements, attributes or factors of well-being?”. All participants individually wrote their answers on a piece of paper, in order to minimize the effect of opinion leaders and biases in the following discussion. Additionally, it allowed for a comparison during the discussion and the final prioritisation. Afterwards, everybody was asked to present their results in front of the panel while later an open discussion was held to clarify open or unclear comments. Consequently, all ideas, definitions or factors were collected and similar statements combined. As a result, relevant factors and attributes of the participants were pinned at a wall. Everyone was given three votes to vote for the three most appropriate statements. After that, all participants were asked again to write down how well-being would affect their travel experience and behaviour. Second, a conjoint analysis was conducted. A conjoint analysis allows measuring the utility of certain attributes in a specific decision situation. For this paper a choice based conjoint analysis determines the importance of well-being attributes for a consumer airline ticket purchasing process. It shall be analysed if individuals prefer certain well-being attributes in their airline ticket purchasing process and if well-being attributes are included in the decision process. Also, the importance (weight) of these attributes will be analysed. An important step is the selection and definition of relevant attributes and attribute levels for the conjoint analysis. According to Backhaus et al. (2008) the attributes should be 1) relevant, 2) changeable, 3) independent, 4) marketable, 5) compensatory, 6) no K.O. criteria, and 7) limited. Within the workshop the most important well-being attributes were selected. Ideally, the conjoint analysis would include all six selected attributes with every identified well-being factor, but this increase complexity, time and effort needed for the participants in order to complete the conjoint analysis questionnaire. Therefore, a reduction to the four most important attributes and well-being factors that also are relevant for airlines is made. Each factor is divided into different levels which were selected by the workshop participants with the help of an individual weighting of the defined well-being attributes. Furthermore, an online survey was set up to select the most important well-being attributes and attribute levels for passengers. That is why factors positive social environment, being myself, relaxation and freedom with their respective levels were chosen. The survey covered questions about demography, travel behaviour and later, questions where relevant well-being criteria hat to be evaluate on a rating scale. Within the rating part, the
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
10
respondents were asked to evaluate a number of possible well-being configurations for their next flight. The rating scale included the following criteria: “very important”, “rather important”, “rather unimportant”, “very unimportant” and “without relevance”. The scale excluded a neutral rating option and thus forced respondents to choose a side. The possible well-being configurations were constructed based on the theoretical and qualitative insights of this study. All results are specified in table 8.
Well-being attribute
Aviation factors
Airline configuration
Rather important
Positive social environment
Other passengers
Free seat neighbour selection
51%
Potential matching by proposals (type of passenger and activity)
44%
High cabin crew courtesy and personalized service
54%
Higher proportion per passenger of cabin crew than usual
35%
Pre and on day information
75%
Live information via Mobile App
70%
Airline support for airport transfer until reaching final destination
59%
Live Support: When missing flight, automatic standby option for next similar connection
86%
Reduce loading factor (passengers)
51%
Offer middle seat free option
58%
Offer 2 seat rows instead of 3 or multiple seat rows
60%
No queues at check-in, security-check and boarding: Express Options
81%
Comfortable working and relaxing space at the gate while waiting for boarding
75%
Offer comfortable seats
90%
Enough and free food
76%
Ensure comfortable temperature
93%
Provide an individual entertainment system
66%
Cabin crew
Being myself
Personal control
Crowding & controllable environment
Relaxation
Convenience
On board comfort
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
Freedom
Offer choice
Flexible tickets
11
Isolation tool kit (headphones and other visual cues)
64%
Free seat selection
75%
Being able to upgrade ticket on day of travel
60%
Full changeable and refundable ticket until day of travel
75%
Decide short-term the day of travel and return flight
63%
Table 3: Aviation well-being attributes
For the subsequent conjoint analysis all attributes were further evaluated if they fulfil above mentioned general criteria according to Backhaus (2008). Those are summarized in table 4.
- Attribute does not fulfil criterion
Relevant
Changeable
Independent
Marketable
Compensatory
No K.O criteria
Limited
Legend:
Free seat neighbour selection
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Potential matching by proposals (type of passenger and activity)
?
x
x
x
x
High cabin crew courtesy and personalized service
x
?
x
?
x
Higher proportion per passenger of cabin crew than usual
?
x
x
?
x
Pre and on day information
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Live information via Mobile App
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Airline support for airport transfer until reaching final destination
x
x
x
x
x
X Attribute fulfils criterion ? Attribute fulfils criterion partially
x
x
x
x
x
x
?
x
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
12
Live Support: When missing flight, automatic standby option for next similar connection
x
x
x
x
x
Reduce loading factor (passengers)
x
?
x
-
x
x
-
Offer middle seat free option
x
?
x
x
x
x
x
Offer 2 seat rows instead of 3 or multiple seat rows
x
?
x
x
x
No queues at check-in, security-check and boarding: Express Options
x
x
x
x
x
Comfortable working and relaxing space at the gate while waiting for boarding
x
-
x
?
x
Offer comfortable seats
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Enough and free food
x
x
x
x
x
x
-
Ensure comfortable temperature
x
-
x
?
x
x
-
Provide an individual entertainment system
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Isolation tool kit (headphones and other visual cues)
x
x
x
x
x
Free seat selection
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Being able to upgrade ticket on day of travel
x
?
x
?
x
x
x
Full changeable and refundable ticket until day of travel
x
x
x
x
x
Decide short-term the day of travel and return flight
x
-
-
?
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-
?
?
x
x
Table 4: Attribute evaluation for conjoint experiment
Consequently, for the subsequent conjoint analysis the attributes seat selection, information availability, seat comfort and freedom were chosen. Out of these attributes, relevant levels must be created in which these attributes can occur. In this way, fictitious airline service elements are
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
13
developed that represent general well-being attributes for the aviation field. Table 5 summarizes the selected levels within the attribute selection.
Levels
Positive social environment
Being myself
Relaxation
Freedom
Seat selection
Information availability
Seat comfort
Ticket flexibility
Level 1
No free seat selection = A1 (basis)
Basic trip information via E-Mail = B1 (basis)
Standard economy seats = C1 (basis)
No ticket changes and refund = D1 (basis)
Level 2
Free seat selection = A2
Standard Airline-App = B2
Standard economy Plus seats (20% more legroom) = C2
Limited ticket changes = D2
Level 3
Seat selection due to passengers’ activities (Social seating) = A3
Live travel navigation-App + support function = B3
Comfort seats (+ with 20% legroom, 20% more seating size and ergometric design) = C3
Unlimited ticket changes and refund = D3
Table 5: Attributes and their respective levels
The attribute seat selection refers to the well-being factor positive social environment. The ability of seat selection allows passengers to directly influence their social environment in a positive way. Results from the pre-study and qualitative workshop showed that other passengers have a strong impact on perceived air travel well-being. The ability to choose between seat neighbours and especially between passengers that prefer the same inflight activities were selected as mainly important. Accordingly, three different attribute levels were defined for the conjoint analysis: no free seat selection, free seat selection and seat selection according to passengers’ activities and social profiles. The latter attribute level is the optimum configuration concerning well-being because it allows passengers to positively influence their social environment. The next attribute information availability considers the well-being factor being myself. Hereby, the pre-study reveals that personal control within air travel is the most important aspect for a positive feeling of being myself. Information availability during the entire air travel process, especially live information, has been rated positively. Further, having the ability to influence and communicate in case of uncertainties, such as flight cancellation or delays, is crucial for passenger
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
14
self-control of the air trip. Thus, the three information availability attribute levels are: basic pre trip information via E-Mail, standard airline-app and, a live travel navigation app plus live support function. Again, the latter configuration includes the best well-being configuration as it supports passengers with real time information about the trip and includes a helping live support function for uncertain situations. The third attribute seat comfort represents the well-being factor relaxation, which is the third most important well-being factor according to the pre-study’s results. That is why seat comfort seems to be one of the strongest drivers for a passenger’s on-board relaxation experience. The availability of comfortable seats on the airplane with more legroom and a more comfortable design was ranked very high in the pre-study. Consequently, the three levels for seat comfort are: standard economy class seats, standard economy class plus seats with more legroom, and comfort seats that also add more seating size and have an ergonometric seat design. Finally, ticket flexibility is selected as transfer attribute for the well-being factor freedom. As the ability of unlimited flying was excluded due to practical implementation issues for airlines, flexible tickets offer passengers the ability of freedom by providing change and refund options. Hence, the levels are: no ticket change and refund options, limited changes possible, and unlimited changes and refunds possible.
6
Analysis and results
The data set for the conjoint analysis involves n= 263 respondents. As control variable for the representativeness age and gender were extracted. Normally, the proportion of age distribution for Germany is 30% for the age group until 30 years, 12% between 30-39 years, 18% for 40-49 years, 14% for 50-59 years, 11% for 60-69 years and 15% for above 70 years (Statista, 2015). 51% of the population is female and 49% are male. As the official statistical office in Switzerland uses other age scale the proportion appears slightly different (bfsadmin, 2015). For Switzerland the age distribution is 47% until 39 years, 35% for years between 40-64 years, 13% for 65-79 years, and 5% above 80 years. The gender distribution is similar to Germany (female 50,5% to 49,5% male). Table 12 indicates that the sample includes all ages and genders sufficiently but not good enough in order to be representative for Germany or Switzerland. Generally, younger respondents are represented above average. That could cohere with the fact that the conjoint study was conducted only online where usually a younger sample is predominately represented. Furthermore, the sample includes slightly more males than females. However, the sample size of over 260 respondents compensates this imbalance to some degree. 81% of the respondents predominant fly for private purpose, for instance leisure or social activities, while 19% mainly fly for business reasons. Hence, business flyers are less considered in the sample. Yet, slightly less than the half (46,7%) flies 3 or more times per year. Also it is interesting that only
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
15
42% of the respondents usually fly less than two hours, which can be seen as a normal European flight distance (For instance Zürich – Manchester). Over the half usually flies more than two hours (48%). Economy Class is booked by nearly 90% of the respondents.
Frequency flying
n
%
Household size
n
%
< 3 times per year
141
53,4%
1 person
70
26,50%
3-5 times per year
53
20,10%
2 persons
98
37,10%
> 5 times per year
70
26,50%
3 persons
45
17,00%
Purpose of flying
n
%
4 or more
51
19,30%
Business
50
18,90%
Education
n
%
Private
214
81,10%
No high school
2
0,80%
Fare class
n
%
Secondary Education
7
2,70%
Economy Class
236
89,40%
Vocational education
63
23,90%
Business Class
25
9,50%
High School
57
21,60%
First Class
3
1,10%
College/Grad School
111
42%
Flight Duration
n
%
Doctorate
15
5,70%
< 2 hours
112
42,40%
Others
9
3,40%
2-3 hours
73
27,70%
Residence
n
%
> 3 hours
79
29,90%
German
214
81,10%
Gender
n
%
Swiss
39
14,80%
Male
142
53,80%
Others
11
4,20%
Female
122
46,20%
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
16
Age group
n
%
Annual household income
n
%
CHF 140 000 > EURO 128 000
21
8%
>70 years
1
0,4%
Table 5: Conjoint data sample
The percentage of correct match of the model is 64.2%, which is on the lower end of acceptance level as the dividing rule is 50%. The percentage of correct match shows the percentage of cases for which the dependent variables, so the actual choice, was correctly predicted within the model. The evaluation of the likelihood-ratio test computes the impact of the attributes on the model. Therefore, the likelihood function for each attribute is calculated. These are outlined in table 13 below through the -2log-Liklihood. By itself, the total maximum likelihood function value for the model is not very informative. But, it can be used to compare the differences in the -2logLiklihoods by reducing one attribute after another. The higher the value after reducing one attribute out of the model, the higher the impact of the attribute on the model (Louviere et al., 2010, p. 54). It is notable that the attribute information availability is ranked with only 0.4% impact on the model. Then ticket flexibility is the second least important attribute with 25%. The attributes seat comfort (45%) and seat selection (29%) combine for 74% of the difference in contrast to the maximum likelihood function. Consequently, these two attributes mainly impact the consumer decision process. In other words, information availability has no significant influence on individual decision-making and relevance for passengers’ choice decision.
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
17
Excluded attributes
-2logLikelihood
Difference
% sum of difference
Accumulate difference
Ranking
None
5.942,326
0
0
0
Seat Comfort
6.223,478
281,152
0,451
0,451
1
Seat selection 6.124,265
181,939
0,292
0,743
2
Ticket flexibility
6.099,831
157,505
0,253
0,996
3
Information availability
5.944,707
2,381
0,004
1,000
4
Table 6: Impact of sole attributes on overall model
The regression coefficients (B) depicted in table 7 state the relative importance for each attribute level. The beta coefficients are values for predicting the dependent variable from the independent variable. The beta coefficients estimate the amount of increase or decrease in the predicted log-odd ratios and thus calculate the impact of the levels (A-D) on the odd-ratios. Two parameters are negative, which means that they don’t add a higher value for passengers while choosing an airline ticket. Within the attribute seat selection (A1-A3) free seat selection has a higher regression coefficient B (1.005) than social seating according to activities and passengers (0.715). Accordingly, passengers don’t prefer the ability to positively change their direct social environment over a general free seat selection. The first survey indicates that passengers value activities that focus on their own, such as reading, relaxing and entertaining to a greater extent. Air travel may be seen as free-time or me-time where individuals can shut down and relax and where they value relaxation factors more than social environment factors. That may explain why passengers don’t value to change their social environment and prefer free seat selection over social seating. Another explanation would be that free seat selection also affects the well-being attribute freedom and thus autonomy as it indicates a free choice of seats and that it therefore has more preference weight for passengers. The attribute information availability (B1-B3) has surprisingly negative beta regression, which means that better, live and all around support information pre, on and after the trip, has no positive effect on the respondents ticket purchase decision process. It is likely that the well-being attribute being myself is incorrectly transferred into the aviation field because within pre studies it constantly showed higher relevance for individuals. The attribute seat comfort is easy to explain. Comfort seats have the highest beta coefficients (1.264) and also standard economy seats with extra legroom (0.690) have quite an important weight. On-board relaxation actions are
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
18
very relevant for passengers’ choice making and they seek to maximize them. Within the last attribute, ticket flexibility, again the option with the highest well-being configuration scored on top (0.898). Taken together, within two attributes (seat comfort and ticket flexibility) the top well-being configurations were ranked positive while by seat selection the middle option, free seat selection, was preferred above the well-being option. Parameter C3 (comfort seats) has the highest positive effect on the consumer decision. Choice cards that include C3 raise the purchase likelihood in comparison to the basis variable (standard economy class seats) by factor 3.5 (OR = 3.541). Consequently, the well-being category relaxation has the highest weight on the airline ticket purchasing process. Variables in the Equation B
Step 1a
S.E.
Wald
df
Sig.
Exp(B)
A3
,715
,077
86,673
1
,000
2,044
A2
1,005
,078
166,110
1
,000
2,732
B3
-,119
,078
2,301
1
,129
,888
B2
-,084
,078
1,156
1
,282
,920
C3
1,264
,077
266,385
1
,000
3,541
C2
,690
,076
81,379
1
,000
1,993
D3
,898
,077
136,916
1
,000
2,455
D2
,731
,077
89,002
1
,000
2,077
-1,711
,106
259,793
1
,000
,181
Constant
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: A3, A2, B3, B2, C3, C2, D3, D2. Table 7: Regression coefficient and odd ratios
Table 8 states the relative importance of the attribute for the respondents’ preference making (Backhaus et al., 2008, p. 481). The relative importance indicates how preferences change within an attribute from the most to the least preferred level. In this way statements about the attribute’s sensitivity are possible (Wittmer, 2005, p. 244). Attribute “seat comfort” influences preference making most with 54%. Consequently, individuals mainly consider seat comfort and thus relaxation actions for their preference making. A variation within seat comfort has a strong effect on the perceived total utility for passengers. An explanation for the low percentage of the attribute information availability might be that individuals are satisfied with the current amount of travel
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
19
and trip information support and moreover they don’t consider a better information service as factor in their airline ticket decision making. That’s supported by the low attributes’ range (0.035). So a variation within the attribute has nearly no effect for the respondent’s total utility. Seat selection and ticket flexibility together account for 43%. Passengers do value the flexibility and freedom they get through flexible ticket options.
Attribute
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Relative importance
Seat Comfort
1,264
0,690
0,574
0,54
Seat selection
0,715
1,005
0,290
0,27
Ticket flexibility
0,898
0,731
0,167
0,16
Information availability
-0,119
-0,084
0,035
0,03
SUM
1,066
1
Table 8: Attributes' relative importance
7
Conclusion
The objective of this study was to investigate the concept of well-being and its effect on airline ticket purchasing. Well-being was outlined as a multi-dimensional construct between hedonic and eudemonic aspects. It cannot be defined and described by a single measure as it includes both feeling good and functioning well. Hence, well-being should be understand as a multi-dimensional construct out of multiple well-being factors and attributes. This study defined well-being as a generic term that describes a condition of good, positive and pleasant feelings and a general feeling of happiness. Apparently, it can be seen as very situation depending. Generally, six major factors that mainly constitute well-being were identified: Positive social environment, being myself, relaxation, freedom, trust and good feeling. Self-fulfilment, positive social environment and freedom could be determined as rather eudemonic factors while relaxation, trust and a good feeling included more hedonic elements. Even though eudemonic factors were ranked high, hedonic aspects were mentioned more frequently within the qualitative study and within the discussion. An explanation
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
20
for that could be that usually hedonic well-being focuses on instant happiness that appears directly in well-being, such as joy, pleasure or relaxation. People tend to focus more on hedonic factors than on eudemonic factors as those usually include a higher effort level. Concerning the practicability of well-being as factor within the ticket purchasing process, no distinct conclusion can be made. At the one side this study showed, that a multi-step research approach out of literature analysis and qualitative research is feasible to determine general wellbeing and specific airline well-being factors. Accordingly, possible modifications, such as free seat neighbour selection, getting fully flexible fare tickets that allow flexible flying, live travel information and creating a comfortable environment to conduct activities while flying were identified as relevant factors. On the other side, it became apparent that the elusive character of well-being makes an accurate deduction and definition of potential factors within the ticket purchasing process difficult. The reasons for that are the before mentioned theoretical and practical multidimensionality and second, the research focus on commuting and public transportation characteristics that can only be transferred with limitations in the field of aviation. Nevertheless, the transfer of general well-being attributes into specific airline factors is possible and promising as it is considering new ways of individual utility that can create further customer value. The third objective of this study was to analyse the effect of well-being within the consumer ticket purchasing process. Only within two selected attributes, the top well-being configurations were ranked as the highest perceived utility stimuli. Furthermore, the percentage of correct match of the model was 64,2%, which is on the lower end of the model’s quality acceptance. That means that well-being can partly be used to create a better perceived passenger’s utility but not in general. Concerning the practical relevance for airlines, seat quality and thus comfort and relaxation was by far the most important attribute. The attribute “seat comfort” influences preference-making most with 54% of relative importance. Passengers, however, constantly want to maximize their relaxation experience while flying. For air travelling, relaxation is most relevant and should be a focus for airlines when maximizing passengers’ well-being. That is definitely a big challenge for airlines, as bigger and more comfortable seats affect the general seat availability, seat configuration and yield management. Yet it could be a potential source for detecting and defining additional consumer value through maximizing seat comfort or offering flexible ticket options. Free seat selection seems to be preferred over social seating. Overall, it is shown that air travelling is affected by hedonic well-being options, such as comfort, relaxation or joy. Airlines that focus on implementing effective hedonic well-being factors, such as seat comfort and ticket flexibility, can thus create additional value for customers through the creation of well-being.
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
21
Further research research could focus on measuring stress of travelers during a journey. It could be interesting to evaluate how stress levels change during certain interactions on a journey.
8
List of References
Abou-Zeid, M., & Ben-Akiva, M. (2012). Well-being and activity-based models. Transportation, 39(6), 1189-1207. Anable, J., & Gatersleben, B. (2005). All work and no play? The role of instrumental and affective factors in work and leisure journeys by different travel modes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(2), 163-181. Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W., Weiber, R. (2008). Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W., & Weiber, R. (2013). Multivariate Analysemethoden: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung. Springer-Verlag. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Balcombe, K., Fraser, I., & Harris, L. (2009). Consumer willingness to pay for in-flight service and comfort levels: A choice experiment. Journal of Air Transport Management, 15(5), 221-226. Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1991). Consumer decision making. Handbook of consumer behavior, 44(2), 50-84. BfsAdmin (2015). Bevölkerung nach Alter. Retrieved on September 23th 2015 from: http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/01/02/blank/key/alter/gesamt.html Bieger, T., Wittmer, A., & Laesser, C. (2007). What is driving the continued growth in demand for air travel? Customer value of air transport. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(1), 31-36. Cantwell, M., Caulfield, B., & O’Mahony, M. (2009). Examining the factors that impact public transport commuting satisfaction. Journal of Public Transportation, 12(2), 1. Cox, T., Houdmont, J., & Griffiths, A. (2006). Rail passenger crowding, stress, health and safety in Britain. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 40(3), 244-258. De Vos, J., Schwanen, T., Van Acker, V., Witlox, F. (2013). Travel and subjective well- being: A focus on findings, methods and future research. Transport Reviews: A Transnational Transdiciplinary Journal, 33, 4, 421-442 Diener, E. (2009a). The science of well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener . Volume 1. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological bulletin, 51(4), 380. Ettema, D., Gärling, T., Olsson, L.E., Friman, M. (2010). Out-of-home activities, daily travel, and subjective well-being. Transportation Research Part A, 44, 723-732
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
22
Eysenck, M. W. (2013). Cognitive psychology: a student's handbook. 6th ed. Hove; New York : Psychology Press, 2010 Hanlon, J. P. (2007). Global airlines: competition in a transnational industry. Routledge. Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (Eds.). (2010). Rational choice in an uncertain world: The psychology of judgment and decision making. Sage. Helliwell, J. F., and R. D. Putnam. 2004. The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 359 (1449): 1435–46 Isen, A. M., & Means, B. (1983). The influence of positive affect on decision-making strategy. Social cognition, 2(1), 18-31. Kahneman, D. 1999. “Objective Happiness.” In Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, edited by D. Kahneman, E. Diener, and N. Schwarz, 3–25. Washington, DC: Russel Sage Foundation. Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective wellbeing. The journal of economic perspectives, 20(1), 3-24. Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: The costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 219233. Li, Z., & Hensher, D. A. (2011). Crowding and public transport: A review of willingness to pay evidence and its relevance in project appraisal. Transport Policy, 18(6), 880-887. Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. Handbook of affective science, 619(642), 3. McCabe, S., & Johnson, S. (2013). The happiness factor in tourism: Subjective well-being and social tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 41, 42-65. McFadden, D., Machina, M. J., & Baron, J. (2000). Rationality for economists?. In Elicitation of Preferences (pp. 73-110). Springer Netherlands. Mokhtarian, P. L., Salomon, I., & Singer, M. E. (2015). What moves us? An interdisciplinary exploration of reasons for traveling. Transport reviews, 35(3), 250-274. Morgenstern, O., & Von Neumann, J. (1953). Theory of games and economic behavior. Ohmori, N., & Harata, N. (2008). How different are activities while commuting train? A case in Tokyo. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 99(5), 547–561.
Wittmer, Daum: The concept of well-being and its effect on Airline ticket purchasing
23
Olsson, L. E., Friman, M., Pareigis, J., & Edvardsson, B. (2012). Measuring service experience: Applying the satisfaction with travel scale in public transport. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(4), 413-418. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 141-166. Ryff, C. D. 1989. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations of the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (6): 1069–81. Shah, A. K., Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. In: Psychological bulletin, 134(2) Simon, H.A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. In: Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, pp 99–118 Sirakaya, E., & Woodside, A. G. (2005). Building and testing theories of decision making by travellers. Tourism management, 26(6), 815-832. Solomon, M. R. (2006). Consumer behaviour: a European perspective. Pearson education. Third Edition Stradling, S. G., Anable, J., & Carreno, M. (2007). Performance, importance and user disgruntlement: A six-step method for measuring satisfaction with travel modes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(1), 98-106. Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39-60. Wener, R. E., Evans, G. W., Phillips, D., & Nadler, N. (2003). Running for the 7: 45: The effects of public transit improvements on commuter stress. Transportation, 30(2), 203-220. Wittmer, A. (2005). Internal Service Systems and Cultural Differences: An Exploratory Study of Switzerland, Australia, and Singapore (Doctoral dissertation, University of St. Gallen). Wittmer, A., & Riegler, B. (2014). Purchasing a general ticket for public transport–A means end approach. Travel Behaviour and Society, 1(3), 106-112. Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 25(2), 139-153.