nach oben

Erschienen in:

11.01.2022

A multi-group analysis of the behavioral intention to ride in autonomous vehicles: evidence from three U.S. metropolitan areas

verfasst von: Christos Gkartzonikas, Lisa Lorena Losada-Rojas, Sharon Christ, V. Dimitra Pyrialakou, Konstantina Gkritza

Erschienen in: Transportation | Ausgabe 2/2023

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper proposes a well-grounded theoretical model to assess the factors influencing the intention to ride in autonomous vehicles (AVs). The model is based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which has been decomposed to account for key components of the Diffusion of Innovation (DoI) theory and extended to include other influential attitudinal components (such as driving-related sensation seeking, safety perceptions, environmental concerns, and affinity to innovativeness). The extent to which these factors are expected to affect the diffusion of AVs uniformly across different urban settings is also examined. Data were collected through stated preference surveys targeting adult residents in three metropolitan statistical areas, Chicago (Illinois), Indianapolis (Indiana), and Phoenix (Arizona). Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the validity and reliability of the components included in the theoretical model, followed by the estimation of a multi-group structural equation model. The findings of the measurement model show that the survey questions are measured equally across the three areas, and hence, the theoretical model is transferrable. The results of the structural model suggest that the synergistic effects between TPB and DoI can better explain the behavioral intention to ride in AVs. It was also found that the effect of the TBP components is similar across various areas; however, this is not the case for the DoI components. In general, the findings reinforce the need for wider testing of AV technology in urban areas coupled with public education campaigns to harvest public awareness and acceptance.

Vorheriger Artikel Congestion pricing and positive incentives: conceptual analysis and empirical findings from Israel

Nächster Artikel The edge and the center in neighborhood planning units: assessing permeability and edge attractiveness in Abu Dhabi

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

The indirect effects are calculated by multiplying the different paths associated with each latent variable. For example, the indirect effect of Self-Efficacy on Behavioral Intention, which was found to be similar in all MSAs, can be calculated by multiplying 0.966*0.533 = 0.051, as also shown in Table 6.

Aarts, H., Paulussen, T., Schaalma, H.: Physical exercise habit: on the conceptualization and formation of habitual health behaviours. Health Educ. Res. 12(3), 363–374 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1093/her/12.3.363CrossRef

Abraham, H., Lee, C., Brady, S., Fitzgerald, C., Reimer, B., & Coughlin, J. F. (2016). Autonomous vehicles, trust, and driving alternatives: a survey of consumer preferences. 16.

Acheampong, R.A., Cugurullo, F.: Capturing the behavioural determinants behind the adoption of autonomous vehicles: conceptual frameworks and measurement models to predict public transport, sharing and ownership trends of self-driving cars. Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 62, 349–375 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.01.009CrossRef

Adell, E. (2010). Acceptance of driver support systems. Drivers’ Needs and Acceptance of Assistance Functions, 12.

Adnan, N., Md Nordin, S., bin Bahruddin, M. A., & Ali, M. (2018). How trust can drive forward the user acceptance to the technology? In-vehicle technology for autonomous vehicle. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 118, 819–836.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.10.019

Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2), 179–211 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-TCrossRef

Allen, J., Muñoz, J.C., de Dios Ortúzar, J.: On the effect of operational service attributes on transit satisfaction. Transportation 47(5), 2307–2336 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-10016-8CrossRef

Alumran, A., Hou, X.-Y., Sun, J., Yousef, A.A., Hurst, C.: Assessing the construct validity and reliability of the parental perception on antibiotics (PAPA) scales. BMC Public Health 14, 73 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-73CrossRef

Anderson, J. M., Kalra, N., Stanley, K. D., Sorensen, P., Samaras, C., Oluwatola, T. A. (2016). Autonomous vehicle technology: a guide for policymakers. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR443-2.html

Arnett, J.J.: Sensation seeking, aggressiveness, and adolescent reckless behavior. Personality Individ. Differ. 20(6), 693–702 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00027-XCrossRef

Bamberg, S.: How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J. Environ. Psychol. 23(1), 21–32 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00078-6CrossRef

Bamberg, S., Möser, G.: Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 27(1), 14–25 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002CrossRef

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (1st Edition). Worth Publishers.

Bandura, A.: Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-Efficacy Beliefs Adolesc. 5, 307–337 (2006)

Bansal, P., Kockelman, K.M.: Forecasting Americans’ long-term adoption of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 95, 49–63 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.10.013CrossRef

Bansal, P., Kockelman, K.M., Singh, A.: Assessing public opinions of and interest in new vehicle technologies: an Austin perspective. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 67, 1–14 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.01.019CrossRef

Bateman, I. (Ed.). (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar.

Beck, L., Ajzen, I.: Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. J. Res. Pers. 25(3), 285–301 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(91)90021-HCrossRef

Becker, F., Axhausen, K.W.: Literature review on surveys investigating the acceptance of automated vehicles. Transportation 44(6), 1293–1306 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-9808-9CrossRef

Bennett, R., Vijaygopal, R., Kottasz, R.: Willingness of people with mental health disabilities to travel in driverless vehicles. J. Transp. Health 12, 1–12 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2018.11.005CrossRef

Brown, B., Drew, M., Erenguc, C., & Hasegawa, M. (2014). Global Automotive Consumer Study: The Changing Nature of Mobility—Exploring Consumer Preferences in Key Markets Around the World. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Manufacturing/gx-mfg-geny-automotive-consumer.pdf

Buckley, L., Kaye, S.-A., Pradhan, A.K.: Psychosocial factors associated with intended use of automated vehicles: a simulated driving study. Accid. Anal. Prev. 115, 202–208 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.03.021CrossRef

Casley, S., Jardim, A., and Quartulli, A. (2013). A Study of Public Acceptance of Autonomous Cars [Bacherlor of Science, tial fulfillment of the requirements of t]. https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-043013-155601/unrestricted/A_Study_of_Public_Acceptance_of_Autonomous_Cars.pdf

Cestac, J., Paran, F., Delhomme, P.: Young drivers’ sensation seeking, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control and their roles in predicting speeding intention: how risk-taking motivations evolve with gender and driving experience. Saf. Sci. 49(3), 424–432 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.10.007CrossRef

Chiu, H., Fogel, J.: The role of manager influence strategies and innovation attributes in innovation implementation. Asia-Pacific J. Bus. Admin. 9(1), 16–36 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-02-2016-0026CrossRef

Choi, J.K., Ji, Y.G.: Investigating the importance of trust on adopting an autonomous vehicle. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 31(10), 692–702 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1070549CrossRef

Christensen, C.M.: The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business Review Press, Harvard (1997)

Cronbach, L.J.: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3), 297–334 (1951). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555CrossRef

Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989). https://doi.org/10.2307/249008CrossRef

Daziano, R.A., Bolduc, D.: Incorporating pro-environmental preferences towards green automobile technologies through a Bayesian hybrid choice model. Transportm. A Transp. Sci. 9(1), 74–106 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/18128602.2010.524173CrossRef

Daziano, R.A., Sarrias, M., Leard, B.: Are consumers willing to pay to let cars drive for them? Analyzing response to autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 78, 150–164 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.03.003CrossRef

Delhomme, P., Chaurand, N., Paran, F.: Personality predictors of speeding in young drivers: anger vs. sensation seeking. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 15(6), 654–666 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2012.06.006CrossRef

Delhomme, P., Verlhiac, J.-F., Martha, C.: Are drivers’ comparative risk judgments about speeding realistic? J. Saf. Res. 40(5), 333–339 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2009.09.003CrossRef

Deng, L., Yuan, K.-H.: Multiple-group analysis for structural equation modeling with dependent samples. Struct. Equ. Model. 22(4), 552–567 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.950534CrossRef

Deng, X., Doll, W.J., Al-Gahtani, S.S., Larsen, T.J., Pearson, J.M., Raghunathan, T.S.: A cross-cultural analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument: a multi-group invariance analysis. Inf. Manag. 45(4), 211–220 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.02.002CrossRef

Deng, X., Doll, W.J., Hendrickson, A.R., Scazzero, J.A.: A multi-group analysis of structural invariance: an illustration using the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 42(5), 745–759 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2004.08.001CrossRef

Donald, I. J. (2014). An extended theory of planned behaviour model of the psychological factors affecting commuters’ transport mode use. J. Environ. Psychol., 10.

Edison, S.W., Geissler, G.L.: Measuring attitudes towards general technology: antecedents, hypotheses and scale development. J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 12(2), 137–156 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740104CrossRef

Egbue, O., Long, S.: Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: an analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy Policy 48, 717–729 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.009CrossRef

Eisinga, R., te Grotenhuis, M., Pelzer, B.: The reliability of a two-item scale: pearson, cronbach, or spearman-brown? Int. J. Public Health 58(4), 637–642 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3CrossRef

Fagnant, D.J., Kockelman, K.: Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 77, 167–181 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003CrossRef

Federal Highway Administration.: 2017 National Household Travel Survey. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC (2018)

Chen, F., Curran, P.J., Bollen, K.A., Kirby, J., Paxton, P.: An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociol. Methods Res. 36(4), 462–494 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124108314720CrossRef

Fincham, J.E., Draugalis, J.R.: The importance of survey research standards. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. (2013). https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7714CrossRef

Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1975)

Gardner, B., Abraham, C.: Going green? Modeling the impact of environmental concerns and perceptions of transportation alternatives on decisions to drive. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 40(4), 831–849 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00600.xCrossRef

Gefen, D., Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C.: Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. (2000). https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00407CrossRef

Gkartzonikas, C. (2020). A Stated Preference Study for Assessing Public Acceptance Towards Autonomous Vehicles. 2520294 Bytes. https://doi.org/10.25394/PGS.12210293.V1

Gkartzonikas, C., Gkritza, K.: What have we learned? A review of stated preference and choice studies on autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 98, 323–337 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.12.003CrossRef

Golbabaei, F., Yigitcanlar, T., Paz, A., Bunker, J.: Individual predictors of autonomous vehicle public acceptance and intention to use: a systematic review of the literature. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 6(4), 106 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040106CrossRef

Golob, T.F.: Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 37(1), 1–25 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(01)00046-7CrossRef

Haboucha, C.J., Ishaq, R., Shiftan, Y.: User preferences regarding autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 78, 37–49 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.01.010CrossRef

Hair, J. F. (Ed.). (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed). Prentice Hall.

Hartwich, F., Witzlack, C., Beggiato, M., Krems, J.F.: The first impression counts—a combined driving simulator and test track study on the development of trust and acceptance of highly automated driving. Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 65, 522–535 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.05.012CrossRef

Heath, Y., Gifford, R.: Extending the theory of planned behavior: predicting the use of public transportation1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32(10), 2154–2189 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02068.xCrossRef

Hohenberger, C., Spörrle, M., Welpe, I.M.: How and why do men and women differ in their willingness to use automated cars? The influence of emotions across different age groups. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 94, 374–385 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.09.022CrossRef

Howard, D., & Dai, D. (2014). Public perceptions of self-driving cars: the case of Berkeley, California. In: Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board. https://trid.trb.org/view/1289421

Hu, L., Bentler, P.M.: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6(1), 1–55 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118CrossRef

Hulse, L.M., Xie, H., Galea, E.R.: Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: relationships with road users, risk, gender and age. Saf. Sci. 102, 1–13 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.001CrossRef

Jansson, J.: Consumer eco-innovation adoption: assessing attitudinal factors and perceived product characteristics. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 20(3), 192–210 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.690CrossRef

Jia, N., Li, L., Ling, S., Ma, S., Yao, W.: Influence of attitudinal and low-carbon factors on behavioral intention of commuting mode choice—a cross-city study in China. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 111, 108–118 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.03.010CrossRef

Jonah, B.A., Thiessen, R., Au-Yeung, E.: Sensation seeking, risky driving and behavioral adaptation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 33(5), 679–684 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(00)00085-3CrossRef

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide (2. ed., updated to LISREL 8). Scientific Software International.

Kaiser, F.G., Scheuthle, H.: Two challenges to a moral extension of the theory of planned behavior: moral norms and just world beliefs in conservationism. Personal. Individ. Differ. 35(5), 1033–1048 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00316-1CrossRef

Kaplan, D. (2009). Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.): Foundations and Extensions. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226576

Kaye, S.-A., Lewis, I., Buckley, L., Rakotonirainy, A.: Assessing the feasibility of the theory of planned behaviour in predicting drivers’ intentions to operate conditional and full automated vehicles. Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 74, 173–183 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.08.015CrossRef

Kenny, D. A. (2015). Measuring Model Fit [Blog]. Structural Equation Modeling. http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm

Kline, R.B.: Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York (2005)

König, M., Neumayr, L.: Users’ resistance towards radical innovations: the case of the self-driving car. Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 44, 42–52 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.10.013CrossRef

Krueger, R., Rashidi, T.H., Rose, J.M.: Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 69, 343–355 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.06.015CrossRef

Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., de Winter, J.C.F.: Public opinion on automated driving: results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 32, 127–140 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014CrossRef

Lavasani, M., Jin, X., Du, Y.: Market penetration model for autonomous vehicles on the basis of earlier technology adoption experience. Transp. Res. Record (2016). https://doi.org/10.3141/2597-09CrossRef

Lavieri, P.S., Garikapati, V.M., Bhat, C.R., Pendyala, R.M., Astroza, S., Dias, F.F.: Modeling individual preferences for ownership and sharing of autonomous vehicle technologies. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2665(1), 1–10 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3141/2665-01CrossRef

Lee, C., Ward, C., Raue, M., D’Ambrosio, L., & Coughlin, J. F. (2017). Age differences in acceptance of self-driving cars: a survey of perceptions and attitudes. In J. Zhou & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Aging, Design and User Experience (Vol. 10297, pp. 3–13). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58530-7_1

Lee, J., Lee, D., Park, Y., Lee, S., Ha, T.: Autonomous vehicles can be shared, but a feeling of ownership is important: examination of the influential factors for intention to use autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 107, 411–422 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.08.020CrossRef

Lee, Y.-C., Mirman, J.H.: Parents’ perspectives on using autonomous vehicles to enhance children’s mobility. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 96, 415–431 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.10.001CrossRef

Lei, P.-W., Wu, Q.: Introduction to structural equation modeling: issues and practical considerations. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 26(3), 33–43 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00099.xCrossRef

Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. The Science Press.

Little, T.D.: Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: practical and theoretical issues. Multivar. Behav. Res. 32(1), 53–76 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3201_3CrossRef

Losada-Rojas, L.L., Gkartzonikas, C., Pyrialakou, V.D., Gkritza, K.: Exploring intercity passengers’ attitudes and loyalty to intercity passenger rail: evidence from an on-board survey. Transp. Policy 73, 71–83 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.10.011CrossRef

Luo, Q., Saigal, R., Chen, Z., Yin, Y.: Accelerating the adoption of automated vehicles by subsidies: a dynamic games approach. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 129, 226–243 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2019.09.011CrossRef

MacDonald, K. (2016). Group comparisons in structural equation models: Testing measurement invariance. The Stata Blog. http://blog.stata.com/2016/08/23/group-comparisons-in-structural-equation-models-testing-measurement-invariance/

Madigan, R., Louw, T., Dziennus, M., Graindorge, T., Ortega, E., Graindorge, M., Merat, N.: Acceptance of automated road transport systems (ARTS): an adaptation of the UTAUT model. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2217–2226 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.237CrossRef

Madigan, R., Louw, T., Wilbrink, M., Schieben, A., Merat, N.: What influences the decision to use automated public transport? Using UTAUT to understand public acceptance of automated road transport systems. Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 50, 55–64 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.07.007CrossRef

Mat Nawi, F.A., Abdul Malek A.T., Muhammad F.S., Wan Masnieza, W.M.: A review on the internal consistency of a scale: the empirical example of the influence of human capital investment on Malcom Baldridge quality principles in TVET institutions. Asian People J. (APJ), 3(1), 19–29 (2020). https://doi.org/10.37231/apj.2020.3.1.121

May, K.R., Noah, B.E., and Walker, B.N.: Driving acceptance: applying structural equation modeling to in-vehicle automation acceptance. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications Adjunct, pp. 190–194 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3131726.3131755

Milakis, D., van Arem, B., van Wee, B.: Policy and society related implications of automated driving: a review of literature and directions for future research. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. 21(4), 324–348 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2017.1291351CrossRef

Moons, I., Pelsmacker, P.D.: Emotions as determinants of electric car usage intention. J. Mark. Manag. 28(3–4), 195–237 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.659007CrossRef

Moons, I., Pelsmacker, P.D.: An extended decomposed theory of planned behaviour to predict the usage intention of the electric car: a multi-group comparison. Sustainability 7(5), 1–34 (2015)CrossRef

Moták, L., Neuville, E., Chambres, P., Marmoiton, F., Monéger, F., Coutarel, F., Izaute, M.: Antecedent variables of intentions to use an autonomous shuttle: moving beyond TAM and TPB? Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 67(5), 269–278 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2017.06.001CrossRef

Motional. (2020). Motional Consumer Mobility Report. https://motional.com/mobilityreport/

Musselwhite, C.: Attitudes towards vehicle driving behaviour: categorising and contextualising risk. Accid. Anal. Prev. 38(2), 324–334 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.10.003CrossRef

Musselwhite, C.B.A.: Driver Attitudes, Behavior and Speed Management Strategies. PhD thesis. University of Southampton (2007).

Mustonen-Ollila, E., Lyytinen, K.: Why organizations adopt information system process innovations: a longitudinal study using diffusion of innovation theory. Inf. Syst. J. 13(3), 275–297 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2575.2003.00141.xCrossRef

Nastjuk, I., Herrenkind, B., Marrone, M., Brendel, A.B., Kolbe, L.M.: What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investigation of acceptance factors from an end-user’s perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 161, 120319 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120319CrossRef

Nazari, F., Noruzoliaee, M., Mohammadian, A.: Shared versus private mobility: modeling public interest in autonomous vehicles accounting for latent attitudes. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 97, 456–477 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.11.005CrossRef

NHTS. (2017). National Household Travel Survey. https://nhts.ornl.gov/

Nilsson, M., Küller, R.: Travel behaviour and environmental concern. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 5(3), 211–234 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00034-6CrossRef

Nordhoff, S., de Winter, J., Kyriakidis, M., van Arem, B., Happee, R.: Acceptance of driverless vehicles: results from a large cross-national questionnaire study. J. Adv. Transp. 2018, e5382192 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5382192CrossRef

Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E., Thorbjørnsen, H.: Intentions to use mobile services: antecedents and cross-service comparisons. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 33(3), 330 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305276149CrossRef

Panagiotopoulos, I., Dimitrakopoulos, G.: An empirical investigation on consumers’ intentions towards autonomous driving. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 95, 773–784 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.08.013CrossRef

Payre, W., Cestac, J., Delhomme, P.: Intention to use a fully automated car: attitudes and a priori acceptability. Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 27, 252–263 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.04.009CrossRef

Penmetsa, P., Adanu, E.K., Wood, D., Wang, T., Jones, S.L.: Perceptions and expectations of autonomous vehicles—a snapshot of vulnerable road user opinion. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 143, 9–13 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.02.010CrossRef

Petschnig, M., Heidenreich, S., Spieth, P.: Innovative alternatives take action—investigating determinants of alternative fuel vehicle adoption. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 61, 68–83 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.01.001CrossRef

Pyrialakou, V.D., Gkartzonikas, C., Gatlin, J.D., Gkritza, K.: Perceptions of safety on a shared road: driving, cycling, or walking near an autonomous vehicle. J. Saf. Res. 72, 249–258 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2019.12.017CrossRef

Pyrialakou, V.D., and Gkritza, N.: Exploring the opinions of passenger rail riders: evidence from the hoosier state train. In: 2016 Joint Rail Conference, pp. V001T08A002–V001T08A002 (2016). http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=2528485

Qu, W., Sun, H., Ge, Y.: The effects of trait anxiety and the big five personality traits on self-driving car acceptance. Transportation (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-020-10143-7CrossRef

Qu, W., Xu, J., Ge, Y., Sun, X., Zhang, K.: Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess public receptivity toward autonomous vehicles and its relation with the traffic safety climate in China. Accid. Anal. Prev. 128, 78–86 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.04.006CrossRef

Ren, H., Folmer, H.: Determinants of residential satisfaction in urban China: a multi-group structural equation analysis. Urban Stud. 54(6), 1407–1425 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015627112CrossRef

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed). Free Press.

Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of innovations (Fifth edition, Free Press trade paperback edition). Free Press, Cambridge (2003).

Sanbonmatsu, D.M., Strayer, D.L., Yu, Z., Biondi, F., Cooper, J.M.: Cognitive underpinnings of beliefs and confidence in beliefs about fully automated vehicles. Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 55, 114–122 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.02.029CrossRef

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., and Müller, H.: Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. 8(2), 52 (2003).

Sener, I.N., Zmud, J., Williams, T.: Measures of baseline intent to use automated vehicles: a case study of Texas cities. Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 62, 66–77 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.12.014CrossRef

Shabanpour, R., Golshani, N., Shamshiripour, A., Mohammadian, A.: Eliciting preferences for adoption of fully automated vehicles using best-worst analysis. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 93, 463–478 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.06.014CrossRef

Shin, J., Bhat, C.R., You, D., Garikapati, V.M., Pendyala, R.M.: Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for advanced vehicle technology options and fuel types. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 60, 511–524 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2015.10.003CrossRef

Simpson, J.R., Mishra, S., Talebian, A., Golias, M.M.: An estimation of the future adoption rate of autonomous trucks by freight organizations. Res. Transp. Econ. 76, 100737 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2019.100737CrossRef

Sprei, F.: Disrupting mobility. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 37, 238–242 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.029CrossRef

Sweet, M.N., Laidlaw, K.: No longer in the driver’s seat: how do affective motivations impact consumer interest in automated vehicles? Transportation (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-10035-5CrossRef

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S.: Using Multivariate statistics (6th ed). Pearson Education (2013).

Talebian, A., Mishra, S.: Predicting the adoption of connected autonomous vehicles: a new approach based on the theory of diffusion of innovations. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 95, 363–380 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.06.005CrossRef

Tavakol, M., Dennick, R.: Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2, 53–55 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfdCrossRef

Taylor, S., Todd, P.A.: Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf. Syst. Res. 6(2), 144–176 (1995)CrossRef

Teo, T., Lee, C.B., Chai, C.S., Wong, S.L.: Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: a multigroup invariance analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Comput. Educ. 53(3), 1000–1009 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.017CrossRef

Thøgersen, J.: Promoting public transport as a subscription service: effects of a free month travel card. Transp. Policy 16(6), 335–343 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.10.008CrossRef

Tornatzky, L.G., Klein, K.J.: Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: a meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. EM 29(1), 28–45 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.1982.6447463

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). 2018 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?t=Commuting&tid=ACSST5Y2018.S0801&hidePreview=true

U.S. DoE.: Electric Vehicle Registrations by State. Alternative Fuels Data Center (2020). https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10962

Vagnani, G., Volpe, L.: Innovation attributes and managers’ decisions about the adoption of innovations in organizations: a meta-analytical review. Int. J. Innov. Stud. 1(2), 107–133 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2017.10.001CrossRef

Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test*. Decis. Sci. 27(3), 451–481 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00860.xCrossRef

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540CrossRef

Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., van Knippenberg, A., van Knippenberg, C.: Attitude versus general habit: antecedents of travel mode choice1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 24(4), 285–300 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00583.xCrossRef

Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., van Knippenberg, A., Moonen, A.: Habit versus planned behaviour: a field experiment. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 37(Pt 1), 111–128 (1998)CrossRef

Verplanken, B., Walker, I., Davis, A., Jurasek, M.: Context change and travel mode choice: combining the habit discontinuity and self-activation hypotheses. J. Environ. Psychol. 28(2), 121–127 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.005CrossRef

Wang, C., Hsu, H.-C.K., Bonem, E.M., Moss, J.D., Yu, S., Nelson, D.B., Levesque-Bristol, C.: Need satisfaction and need dissatisfaction: a comparative study of online and face-to-face learning contexts. Comput. Hum. Behav. 95, 114–125 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.034CrossRef

Wang, S., Fan, J., Zhao, D., Yang, S., Fu, Y.: Predicting consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles: using an extended version of the theory of planned behavior model. Transportation 43(1), 123–143 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9567-9CrossRef

Wang, X., Yuen, K.F., Wong, Y.D., Teo, C.C.: An innovation diffusion perspective of e-consumers’ initial adoption of self-collection service via automated parcel station. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 29(1), 237–260 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-12-2016-0302CrossRef

Washington, S., Karlaftis, M.G., Mannering, F.: Statistical and Econometric Methods for Transportation Data Analysis (2nd ed). CRC Press/Chapman & Hall. (2011)

Weigel, F.K., Hazen, B.T., Cegielski, C.G., Hall, D.J.: Diffusion of innovations and the theory of planned behavior in information systems research: a metaanalysis. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 34 (2014). https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03431

Wood, W., Neal, D.T.: A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface. Psychol. Rev. 114(4), 843–863 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.843CrossRef

Wood, W., Tam, L., Witt, M.G.: Changing circumstances, disrupting habits. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88(6), 918–933 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.918CrossRef

Wu, J., Liao, H., Wang, J.-W., Chen, T.: The role of environmental concern in the public acceptance of autonomous electric vehicles: a survey from China. Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 60, 37–46 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.09.029CrossRef

Yuen, K.F., Chua, G., Wang, X., Ma, F., Li, K.X.: Understanding public acceptance of autonomous vehicles using the theory of planned behaviour. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17(12), 4419 (2020a). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124419CrossRef

Yuen, K.F., Wong, Y.D., Ma, F. and Wang, X.: The determinants of public acceptance of autonomous vehicles: an innovation diffusion perspective. J. Clean. Prod., 13 (2020).

Zhang, T., & Wang, J.: Human reliability analysis of traffic safety. In S. Long & B. S. Dhillon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Man-Machine-Environment System Engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp. 491–498 (2014)

Zhu, G., Chen, Y., Zheng, J.: Modelling the acceptance of fully autonomous vehicles: a media-based perception and adoption model. Transport. Res. f: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 73, 80–91 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.06.004CrossRef

Zmud, J., Sener, I., & Wagner, J.: Consumer Acceptance and Travel Behavior Impacts of Automated Vehicles (2016).

Zoellick, J.C., Kuhlmey, A., Schenk, L., Schindel, D., Blüher, S.: Amused, accepted, and used? Attitudes and emotions towards automated vehicles, their relationships, and predictive value for usage intention. Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 65, 68–78 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.07.009CrossRef

Zuckerman, M., Neeb, M.: Sensation seeking and psychopathology. Psychiatry Res. 1(3), 255–264 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781(79)90007-6CrossRef

Titel: A multi-group analysis of the behavioral intention to ride in autonomous vehicles: evidence from three U.S. metropolitan areas
verfasst von: Christos Gkartzonikas
Lisa Lorena Losada-Rojas
Sharon Christ
V. Dimitra Pyrialakou
Konstantina Gkritza
Publikationsdatum: 11.01.2022
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Transportation / Ausgabe 2/2023
Print ISSN: 0049-4488
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-9435
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-021-10256-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2023

Combining disparate surveys across time to study satisfaction with life: the effects of study context, sampling method, and transport attributes

Modeling household online shopping demand in the U.S.: a machine learning approach and comparative investigation between 2009 and 2017

Development of Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) model and satisfaction perception rating models for pedestrian infrastructure for mixed land-use urban areas

Gender differences in active travel in major cities across the world

A theoretical investigation of user acceptance of autonomous public transport

Justifying toll payment with biased travel time estimates: Behavioral findings and route choice modeling

Premium Partner