Intergroup Comparison of Personalities in the Preferred Pricing of Public Transport in Rush Hours: Data Revisited

Antonin Pavlicek, Frantisek Sudzina

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
5 Downloads (Pure)


Public authorities and administrations in the developed world are trying to reduce air pollution through the introduction and promotion of public transport. Typically, passengers are charged flat fares. However, with passenger numbers rising, this flat rate pricing model ceases to be sustainable, and a new trend arises—to charge more during traffic peaks as an incentive to even the load and travel outside of rush hours. However, it can be also argued that prices should be lower during rush hours due to poorer service quality—public transportation tends to be crowded and slow. Our on-line questionnaire did not discuss the logic of pricing models, having only measured the preferences of Czech university students (N = 256). The objective was to investigate whether there is a difference in demographic factors or in personality traits between respondents preferring a lower, flat, or higher pricing model. One-way analysis of variance was used for the intergroup comparison. The majority of respondents prefer flat pricing; higher pricing was the least preferred of the three considered models. The main findings were that men, narcissists and people who tend to find fault with others (i.e. lower in one facet of agreeableness) were in favor of higher prices during rush hours. In particular, the latter finding may be useful for policy makers, as it suggests that there ought to be no or only a little tension after higher rush hours prices are introduced.
Original languageEnglish
Article number5162
Issue number12
Publication statusPublished - 2020


  • Gender
  • Personality traits
  • Preference
  • Pricing
  • Public transport


Dive into the research topics of 'Intergroup Comparison of Personalities in the Preferred Pricing of Public Transport in Rush Hours: Data Revisited'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this