Why do cars get a free ride? The social-ecological roots of motonormativity

• People apply different criteria when judging motorized mobility compared to other comparable topics. • Social environments, physical environments, and government policy environments are all related to motonormativity. • People assumed that other people’s support for non-car transport was lower than their own support – a possible barrier to change. • We suggest that working inward from the most high-level structural influences on people’s views is likely most effective. Motonormativity is a shared bias whereby people judge motorised mobility differently to other comparable topics. This works against societies addressing climate and public health crises effectively. A social-ecological explanation has been suggested for the phenomenon, in which motonormativity is shaped by people’s environments, but this has not been tested. Here we used a large international sample (N = 2035) and novel within-participants testing to show, for the first time, at least two environmental pathways linked to judgement biases: one related to people’s social surroundings and linked with their explicit views on transport, and a separate, more implicit pathway related to higher-level structural influences such as nationality, and living in rural areas. Additionally, respondents dramatically underestimated public support for non-motorised transport relative to their own, a pluralistic ignorance effect likely reflecting another facet of motonormativity. The social-ecological explanation, with its nested environmental influences, helps explain the ‘stickiness’ of automobility, and implies change will be most likely when multiple facets of a person’s social, physical and cultural surroundings align in supporting non-motorised mobility.