skip to main content
10.1145/1620509.1620526acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesautomotiveuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Acceptance of future persuasive in-car interfaces towards a more economic driving behaviour

Published:21 September 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

Measuring user acceptance to avoid system rejection by the users in pre-prototype stage of product development is of high interest for both researchers and practitioners. This is especially true when technology uses strategies of persuasion in an emotional laden environment like the car. This paper presents the results of an online survey aiming at evaluating the acceptance of future persuasive in-car interaction approaches for a more economic driving behaviour. Five different persuasive interface concepts are presented and studied towards their acceptance. The results show an overall acceptance of the system concepts and the usefulness of the presented method. We show that individual expectations of the systems' disturbance and risk have an effect on the acceptance of technology and the behavioural intention to use.

References

  1. Ablassmeier, M., Poitschke, T.,&Rigoll, G. 2006. A new approach of a context-adaptive search agent for automotive environments. In Proc. CHI '06 Extended Abstracts, New York, NY, USA, 1613--1618. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Comte, S. Wardman, M., Whelan, G. 2000, Drivers' acceptance of automatic speed limiters: implications for policy and implementation, Transport Policy 7(4), 259--267Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Davis, F. D.&Venkatesh, V. 2004. Toward preprototype user acceptance testing of new information systems: implications for software project management. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 51(1), 31--46.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Davis, F. D. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 318+.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Dillon, A.&Morris, M. G. 1996. User acceptance of new information technology: theories and models. http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1261/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Fiat, eco: Drive, http://www.fiatecodrive.com (last accessed on 25th May 2009)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Fogg, B. J. 2003. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, CA, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ford, SmartGauge with EcoGuide, http://media.ford.com/images/10031/SmartGauge.pdf (last accessed on 25th May 2009)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Graf, S., Spiessl, W., Schmidt, A., Winter, A., and Rigoll, G. 2008. In-car interaction using search-based user interfaces. In Proc. CHI '08. ACM, New York, NY, 1685--1688. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Green Car Advisor, http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2009/04/eco-driving-systems-now-your-car-can-gently-nag-you-into-being-more-fuel-wise.html (last accessed on 25th May 2009)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Honda, Ecological Drive Assist System, http://world.honda.com/news/2008/4081120Ecological-Drive-Assist-System/ (last accessed on 25th May 2009)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Hu, J., Winterboer, A., Nass, C. I., Moore, J. D.,&Illowsky, R. 2007. Context&usability testing: user-modelled information presentation in easy and difficult driving conditions. In Proc. CHI '07, New York, NY, USA, 2007 1343--1346. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Kantowitz, B. H., Hankowski, R. J., and Kantowitz, S. C. 1997. Driver acceptance of unreliable traffic information in familiar and unfamiliar settings. Human Factors 39, 164--176.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Kern, D., Müller, M., Schneegaß, S., Wolejko-Wolejszo, L.,&Schmidt, A. 2008. CARS - Configurable Automotive Research Simulator. In Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Applications -- AUIIA 08, Workshop at Mensch und Computer 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Kern, D., Schmidt, A., Arnsmann, J., Appelmann, T., Pararasasegaran, N., and Piepiera, B. 2009. Writing to your car: handwritten text input while driving. In Proc. CHI '09 Extended Abstracts. ACM, New York, NY, 4705--4710. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Kim, S., Dey, A. K. 2009. Simulated augmented reality windshield display as a cognitive mapping aid for elder driver navigation. In Proc. CHI '09. ACM, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Krum, D. M., Faenger, J., Lathrop, B., Sison, J., and Lien, A. 2008. All roads lead to CHI: interaction in the automobile. In Proc. CHI '08 Extended Abstracts. New York, NY. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kumar, M. and Kim, T. 2005. Dynamic speedometer: dashboard redesign to discourage drivers from speeding. In Proc. CHI '05 Extended Abstracts. New York, NY. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Nissan, ECO Pedal, http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/NEWS/2008/_STORY/080804--02-e.html (last accessed on 25th May 2009)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Pace, T., Ramalingam, S., and Roedl, D. 2007. Celerometer and idling reminder: persuasive technology for school bus eco-driving. In Proc. CHI '07 Extended Abstracts. New York, NY, 2085--2090. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Schmidt, A., Boll, S., Spießl, W.,&Kranz, M. 2008. Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Applications. In Workshop at the Conference Mensch und Computer 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Siewiorek, D., Smailagic, A.,&Hornyak, M. 2002. Multimodal Contextual Car-Driver Interface. Multimodal Interfaces, In Proc. Multimodal Interfaces, 367--373. IEEE. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Tester, J., Fogg, B., and Maile, M. 2000. CommuterNews: a prototype of persuasive in-car entertainment. In Proc. CHI '00 Extended Abstracts. New York, NY, 24--25. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Thorndike, E. L. 1920. A constant error in psychological rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25--29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Toyota, 3rd Generation Prius, http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/minisite/newprius/ (last accessed on 25th May 2009)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Várhelyi, A., Hjälmdahl, M., Risser, R., Draskóczy, M., Hydén, C.,&Almqvist, S. 2002. The effects of Large Scale use of active accelerator pedal in urban areas. In International Cooperation of Theories and Concepts in Traffic safety (ICTCT) Workshop, Nagoya, Japan, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., Davis, F. D. 2003 "User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view," MIS Quarterly (27:3). 425--478. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Wochinger, K., Boehm-Davis, D. 1997. Navigational preference and driver acceptance of advanced traveler information systems. In Ergonomics and Safety of intelligent Driver interfaces. NJ, 345--362. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Acceptance of future persuasive in-car interfaces towards a more economic driving behaviour

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      AutomotiveUI '09: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications
      September 2009
      143 pages
      ISBN:9781605585710
      DOI:10.1145/1620509

      Copyright © 2009 Copyright held by author(s).

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 21 September 2009

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate248of566submissions,44%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader