skm graciousness index study 2013

Commercial-in-Confidence | All rights reserved

Graciousness Index Study 2013 A research report for Singapore Kindness Movement (SKM)

9th April 2013

RESEARCH OVERVIEW

2 | Slide

Graciousness Index Survey into its 5th year

Scientifically Grounded

Snapshot of Singapore’s

Graciousness Level

To Track Measurable Outward Changes in Behaviours to Help SKM Achieve its Vision & Mission

No CHANGE to Index Methodology

to ensure full comparability

Concepts & Behavioural Statements Understood by the

Average Singapore Resident

Behavioural theory & Survey Instrument Validated with

Academic Consultant

Fieldwork conducted Jan-Feb; similar to past years

Additional Non-Index questions to better understand kindness spheres


RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3 3 | Slide

Segment Sub-

Segments

2013 Sample

Size

2012 Sample

Size Method Notes

Singapore Citizens* n/a 859 860 NO CHANGE: Online Survey in English,

Malay, Tamil and Mandarin

n=217 (2013) / n=220 (2012) surveys allocated to those >55yo in face to face

interviews Singapore PR* n/a 141 140

Long Term Pass Holders

WP 98 100 NO CHANGE:

Household & Intercept Face to Face Surveys in English, Malay, Tamil &

Mandarin

Random selection

EP 103 100

Total Sample Size 1,201 1,200 NO CHANGE NA

* Quota based on demographic statistics from the Department of Statistics, using Singapore Census of Population 2010


RESEARCH COVERAGE

4 4 | Slide

Graciousness Pillars

Consideration norms

Courtesy norms Appreciation/

Gratitude norms

• To not interrupt when others are talking

• Respect for other religion and races

• Respecting others’ privacy

• To not speak ill of others

• Apologize when in the wrong

• Give up seat • Give way on the road • Turn on indicator • Allow others to alight • Greet with a smile • Open doors • Allow use of lift • Say please • Say excuse me • Volume control • Make space for

passengers • Offer help

proactively

• Repay or return favors in kind

• Thank those who have helped you

“thoughtful behaviors in social interactions”

“polite behaviors in public space”

“appreciation for others”

Graciousness Index Components

Experience: • Have you received, witnessed or

performed Graciousness?

Perception: • Overarching: Graciousness • Courtesy • Consideration • Appreciation/Gratitude

Overall Evaluation: • Has Singapore improved?

Various Community Attitudes

Post SKM Campaign Evaluation


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


KEY INDEX FINDINGS

6 6 | Slide

Graciousness Index Has Dropped from 61 last year to 53 this year

• All “experience” metrics declined significantly this year

• Overall perceived graciousness rating dropped 0.4 points to 5.8 this year

• 22% rated Singapore as having improved on its overall graciousness levels, a drop of 5% points

• Bar few exceptions, most pillar and related behaviours ratings remained generally stable

• Behaviours specific, we saw improvements in: • commuters giving up seats to those

in need • commuters making space to

accommodate incoming passengers on board public transport

• those appreciating and returning favours


GRACIOUSNESS INDEX


2013 Index vs. 2012 Index

DECLINE IN EXPERIENCE RATINGS CONTRIBUTED MOST TO THE DIP IN INDEX

Index is a composite scores; comprised of 8 metrics; ratings multiplied by 10 to make them consistent to the rest Total sample; Unweighted; base n = 1201; SG + PR + WP + EP

8 | Slide

2012 Index 2013 Index

74% 52%


60% 59%


27% 22%


61% 53%


19% drop

13% drop

2% drop

30% drop

Experience: Received graciousness? (65%)

Done graciousness? (83%) Witnessed graciousness? (73%)

Perception: Graciousness (6.2)

Courtesy (5.7) Consideration (5.8)

Gratitude (6.1)

Overall Evaluation: SG graciousness improved? (27%)

= 61

Experience: Received graciousness? (41%)

Done graciousness? (62%) Witnessed graciousness? (53%)

Perception: Graciousness (5.8)

Courtesy (6.0) Consideration (5.9)

Gratitude (5.8)

Overall Evaluation: SG graciousness improved? (22%)

= 53

Commercial-in-Confidence | All rights reserved 9 | Slide

EXPERIENCE: RECIPIENTS OF A RANDOM GRACIOUS ACT

RECIPIENT OF A RANDOM GRACIOUS ACT

54% 65%

41%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2011 Received 2012 Received 2013 Received

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f “Y

es”

A8a. Have you been a recipient of a random act of graciousness in the last 6 months? Total sample; Unweighted; base n = 1200 (2011), 1200 (2012), 1201 (2013)

Key Findings

• After showing improvement in 2012, the proportion of those who claimed that they are recipients of a random gracious act has dropped 24 %-points to 41%.


DID A RANDOM GRACIOUS ACT

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f “Y

es”

Key Findings

EXPERIENCE: DID A RANDOM GRACIOUS ACT

78% 83%

62%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2011 Done 2012 Done 2013 Done

A8b. Have you done a random act of graciousness in the last 6 months? Total sample; Unweighted; base n = 1200 (2011), 1200 (2012), 1201 (2013)

• Having been stable over the last two years, those who claimed that they have done a random gracious act has dipped 21 %-points this year; recording 62% in 2013.


WITNESSED A RANDOM GRACIOUS ACT

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f “Y

es”

Key Findings

EXPERIENCE: WITNESS OF A RANDOM GRACIOUS ACT

73%

53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2011 Witnessed

2012 Witnessed

2013 Witnessed

A8c. Have you witnessed a random act of graciousness in the last 6 months? Total sample; Unweighted; base n = 1200 (2011), 1200 (2012), 1201 (2013)

• Only 1 in 2 has witnessed a random gracious act this year; a significant drop from 7 in 10 in 2012.

NA


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f “Y

es”

Key Findings

PERCEPTIONS: OVERALL GRACIOUSNESS IN SINGAPORE

6.3 6.2

5.8

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

2011 Average 2012 Average 2013 Average

A5. Using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is Very Poor and 10 is Excellent, in terms of showing graciousness, how would you rate Singapore overall? Total sample; Unweighted; base n = 1200 (2011), 1200 (2012), 1201 (2013)

• Overall graciousness, having remained stable over 2011 and 2012 Index surveys, has dropped 0.4 points to an average rating of 5.8 in the 2013 Index survey.

OVERALL GRACIOUSNESS RATINGS


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f “Y

es”

Key Findings

OVERALL COURTESY RATINGS

PERCEPTIONS: OVERALL COURTESY IN SINGAPORE

6.3

5.7 6.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


A7b. Using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is Very Poor and 10 is Excellent, in terms of being courteous, how would you rate Singapore overall? Total sample; Unweighted; base n = 1200 (2011), 1200 (2012), 1201 (2013)

• Having been the lowest-rated pillar in 2012, the courtesy pillar has improved by 0.3 points this year and became the best performing pillar this year.


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f “Y

es”

Key Findings

OVERALL CONSIDERATION RATINGS

PERCEPTIONS: OVERALL CONSIDERATION IN SINGAPORE

6.5

5.8 5.9

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


• Overall consideration ratings have remained stable this year albeit with some signs of improvement.

A7b. Using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is Very Poor and 10 is Excellent, in terms of showing consideration for others, how would you rate Singapore overall? Total sample; Unweighted; base n = 1200 (2011), 1200 (2012), 1201 (2013)


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f “Y

es”

Key Findings

OVERALL GRATITUDE RATINGS

PERCEPTIONS: OVERALL GRATITUDE IN SINGAPORE

6.1 5.8

5

6

7

8


A7b. Using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is Very Poor and 10 is Excellent, in terms of showing gratitude, how would you rate Singapore overall? Total sample; Unweighted; base n = 1200 (2011), 1200 (2012), 1201 (2013)

• Overall gratitude has taken a significant dip this year, dropping 0.3 points to 5.8 (on a rating scale of 0-10).

NA


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f “Y

es”

Key Findings

OVERALL IMPROVEMENT RATINGS

EVALUATION: OVERALL IMPROVEMENT IN SINGAPORE

31% 27%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2011 Improved 2012 Improved 2013 Improved

A12. Overall, how would you rate the level of graciousness over the last 12 months in Singapore using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is Declined a lot, 5 is No Change, and 10 is Improved a lot? Total sample; Unweighted; base n = 1200 (2011), 1200,(2012), 1201 (2013)

• Overall improvement ratings have been on a downward slope since the 2011 Index survey. Only 22% of those surveyed thought that Singapore has improved overall in terms of graciousness in the country.


PILLAR BEHAVIOURS METRICS (Non Index)


DESPITE SOME IMPROVEMENTS, TRANSPORT BEHAVIOURS CAN STILL BE BETTER

2013 Average

2012 Average

6.0 5.6

5.6 5.3

5.8 5.4

5.5 5.2

5.8 5.6

6.1 5.8

5.8 5.6

5.9 5.7

6.1 6.0

5.7 5.4

5.6 5.1

5.6 5.3

A10a/b. Based on our discussions with the community, we have collated a list of behaviours that many Singaporeans think are important to building a more gracious society. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is Very Poor and 10 is Excellent, how would you rate Singapore on the following behaviours? Total sample; Unweighted; base n = 1200 (2011), 1200,(2012), 1201 (2013)

COURTESY

0: Very Poor.............................…………………….10: Excellent 0-2 3-4 5 6-7 8-10

18 | Slide

Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent

Give up public transport seat to thosewho need it more

Give way on the road

Turn on indicator signal in advanceon the road

Allow others to alight/board publictransport first

Greet people with a smile

Open doors including lift doors forothers

Allow those who have a greater needto use the lift to go first

Say please

Say excuse me

Volume control (being conscious ofown noise to not affect others)

Make space for incoming passengerswhen taking public transport

Offering help without being asked

8%

13%

9%

11%

9%

6%

9%

7%

7%

10%

12%

8%

11%

14%

15%

17%

11%

9%

15%

12%

8%

12%

13%

14%

16%

18%

17%

16%

21%

21%

18%

21%

18%

23%

21%

25%

42%

36%

37%

38%

40%

35%

36%

38%

44%

36%

34%

35%

23%

19%

22%

18%

20%

28%

22%

23%

23%

20%

20%

18%

Row %


Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent

To not interrupt when others talk

Respect for other religions and races

Respecting others' privacy

Being punctual

To not speak ill of others

Apologize when in the wrong

Repay or return favours in kind

Thank those who have helped you

Donating money to the needy

Volunteering time in charity services

4%

3%

5%

6%

9%

6%

3%

3%

4%

4%

11%

7%

10%

13%

16%

12%

8%

7%

8%

15%

21%

16%

19%

20%

21%

22%

26%

16%

21%

26%

45%

45%

38%

42%

34%

40%

42%

47%

45%

38%

18%

29%

28%

20%

20%

20%

20%

26%

22%

16%

Row %

OTHER BEHAVIOURS STABLE WITH SOME SHOWING IMPROVEMENTS

2013 Average

2012 Average

5.9 5.8

6.5 6.5

6.2 6.0

5.9 5.7

5.6 5.2

5.9 5.6

6.0 5.6

6.4 6.3

6.2 6.2

5.8 5.5

CONSIDERATION

A10a/b. Based on our discussions with the community, we have collated a list of behaviours that many Singaporeans think are important to building a more gracious society. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is Very Poor and 10 is Excellent, how would you rate Singapore on the following behaviours? Total sample; Unweighted; base n = 1200 (2011), 1200,(2012), 1201 (2013)

GRATITUDE

KINDNESS

0: Very Poor.............................…………………….10: Excellent 0-2 3-4 5 6-7 8-10

19 | Slide


COMMUNITY ATTITUDES (Non Index)


2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Majority in Singapore are kind

Many do kindness for the sake of itand not truly sincere

SG is not a place where one can bekind

Donation is the best form of kindness

Fostering neighbourliness would helpimprove kindness

Not possible to improve kindness

Not enough is done to improvekindness

Imposing fines is the best way toimprove kindness

6.4

5.3

4.8

5.5

7.0

5.0

5.9

4.0

THERE IS RECOGNITION THAT MORE CAN BE DONE TO IMPROVE KINDNESS

A6c. The following describes some attitudes the community may have towards kindness in Singapore. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is Strongly Disagree and 10 is Strongly Agree, how much do you agree or disagree on the following statements? Total sample; Unweighted; base n = 1200 (2011), 1200,(2012), 1201 (2013)

0: Strongly Disagree....…….....................…..10: Strongly Agree


SOME CONCERN ON ATTITUDES TOWARDS AND BEHAVIOUR IN SOCIAL MEDIA

A8d. The following describes some attitudes the community may have towards the Internet. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is Strongly Disagree and 10 is Strongly Agree, how much do you agree or disagree on the following statements? Total sample; Unweighted; base n = 1200 (2011), 1200,(2012), 1201 (2013)

Polarization about online media credibility

Next 2 readings show willingness to express more..

.. but not enough recognition of the need to be gracious online.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Information from online more credible

Internet allows people to talk aboutthings they normally wouldn't

Regardless of content, Internet givesone the freedom to express them

Gracious behaviors are notapplicable in a digital world (Internet)

5.4

6.7

5.7

4.4

0: Strongly Disagree....…….....................…..10: Strongly Agree

skm graciousness index study 2013

Documents

index methodology

index decline

overall graciousness

perceived graciousness

key index findings

rated singapore

favours commercial

change na