What influences the decision to use automated public transport? Using UTAUT to understand public acceptance of automated road transport systems

Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

Volumn 50, Issue , 2017, Pages 55-64

  Madigan, Ruth ^a   Louw, Tyron ^a   Wilbrink, Marc ^b   Schieben, Anna ^b   Merat, Natasha ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b GERMAN AEROSPACE CENTER DLR   (Germany)

Author keywords

Acceptance of automation; Automated public transport; Social psychological model; User acceptance

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; ROADS AND STREETS; SURVEYS;

BEHAVIOURAL INTENTIONS; FACILITATING CONDITIONS; HEDONIC MOTIVATIONS; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PUBLIC TRANSPORT; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYS; THE UNIFIED THEORY OF ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY(UTAUT); USER ACCEPTANCE;

MOTOR TRANSPORTATION;

EID: 85029454721     PISSN: 13698478     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2017.07.007     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Adell, E., Acceptance of driver support systems. Krems, J., Petzoldt, T., Henning, M., (eds.) Proceedings of the European Conference on Human Centred Design for Intelligent Transport Systems, 2010, Humanist VCE, Berlin, Germany, 475–486.
2. Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. 1991, Sage, Newbury Park, London.
3. Ajzen, I., From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. Kuhl, J., Beckman, J., (eds.) Action-control: From Cognition to Behaviour, 1985, Springer, New York, 11–39.
4. AlAwadhi, S., Morris, A., The use of the UTAUT model in the adoption of E-Government services is Kuwait. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Waikoloa, Hawaii, 2008, 1–5.
5. Alessandrini, A., Campagna, A., Delle Site, P., Filippi, F., Persia, L., Automated vehicles and the rethinking of mobility and cities. Transportation Research Procedia 5 (2015), 145–160.
6. Carlsson, C., Carlsson, J., Hyvönen, K., Puhakainen, J., Walden, P., Adoption of mobile devices/services – Searching for answers with the UTAUT. Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. 6, 2006 pp. 132a–132a.
7. Chan, K.Y., Gong, M., Xu, Y., Thong, J.Y.L., Examining user acceptance of SMS: An empirical study in China and Hong Kong. Proceedings of the 12th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 3rd–7th July, Suzhou, China, 2008.
8. Chen, C.-F., Chao, W.-H., Habitual or reasoned? Using the theory of planned behaviour, technology acceptance model, and habit to examine switching intentions towards public transit. Transportation Research Part F 14 (2011), 128–137.
9. CityMobil2 (2016). What are Automated Systems? Accessed at < http://www.citymobil2.eu/en/About-CityMobil2/What-are-automated-systems/> on 28th June 2016.
10. Costello, A.B., Osborne, J.W., Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 10 (2005), 1–9.
11. Csepinszky, A., Giustiniani, G., Holguin, C., Parent, M., Flament, M., Alessandrini, A., Safe integration of fully automated road transport systems in urban environments: Basis for missing legal framework. Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting (No. 15–4073), 2015.
12. Davis, F.D., Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13 (1989), 319–340.
13. Delle Site, P., Filippi, F., Giustiniani, G., Users’ preferences towards innovative and conventional public transport. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences 20 (2011), 906–915.
14. Field, A., Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 2013, Sage, London.
15. Ghazizadeh, M., Lee, J.D., Boyle, L.N., Extending the technology acceptance model to assess automation. Cognition, Technology & Work 14 (2012), 39–49.
16. st May 2016.
17. Hötl, A., Trommer, S., Driver assistance systems for transport system efficiency: Influencing factors on user acceptance. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems: Technology, Planning and Operations 17 (2012), 245–254.
18. Kuo, Y.F., Yen, S.N., Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to use 3G mobile value-added services. Computers in Human Behaviour 25 (2009), 103–110.
19. Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., de Winter, J.C.F., Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transportation Research Part F 32 (2015), 127–140.
20. Laerd Statistics (2015). Multiple regression using SPSS Statistics. Statistical Tutorials and Software Guides. Retrieved from https://statistics.laerd.com/premium/spss/mr/multiple-regression-in-spss-20.php on 1st May 2016.
21. 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. Transportation Research Procedia 14 (2016), 2217–2226.
22. Merat, N., Louw, T., Madigan, R., Dziennus, M., & Schieben, A. (2016). Road users’ comprehension of automated driverless vehicles. CityMobil2 Deliverable 18.1: European Commission Seventh Framework Programme.
23. Merat, N., Louw, T., Madigan, R., Dziennus, M., & Schieben, A. (submitted). Communication between VRUs and fully automated road transport systems: What's important? Manuscript submitted for publication.
24. Meschtscheriakov, A., Wilfinger, D., Scherndl, T., Tscheligi, M., Acceptance of future persuasive in-car interfaces towards a more economic driving behaviour. Proceedings of the First International Conference of Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Automotive UI), 21st–22nd September, 2009, Essen, Germany, 2009.
25. Milanés, V. - INRIA (2014). Selection of Offers for the City Demonstrations. CityMobil2 Deliverable D15.6: European Commission Seventh Framework Programme.
26. Najm, W.G., Stearns, M.D., Howarth, H., Koopman, J., Hitz, J., Evaluation of an Automotive Rear-End Collision Avoidance System. Report no. DOT HS-810-569. 2006, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC.
27. Nordhoff, S., van Arem, B., & Happee, R. (2016). A conceptual model to explain, predict, and improve user acceptance of driverless vehicles. In Proceedings of the 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January 2016, Washington, USA.
28. Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric Theory. 1978, McGraw-Hill, New York.
29. Osswald, S., Wurhofer, D., Trösterer, S., Beck, E., Tscheligi, M., Predicting information technology usage in the car: Towards a car technology acceptance model. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 2012, ACM, 51–58.
30. Park, J., Junghwan, K., Changi, N., Seongcheol, K., Driver's intention to use smartphone-car connectivity. Proceedings of the 24th European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunication Society, Florence, Italy, 20–23rd October, 2013, 2013.
31. Park, E., Kim, K.J., Driver acceptance of car navigation systems: Integration of locational accuracy, processing speed, and service and display quality with technology acceptance model. Personal Ubiquitous Computing 18 (2014), 503–513.
32. Roberts, S.C., Ghazizadeh, M., Lee, J.D., Warn me now or inform me later. Drivers’ acceptance of real-time and post-drive mitigation systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 70 (2012), 967–979.
33. Roldão, L., Pérez, J., González, D., Milanés, V., Description and technical specifications of cybernetic transportation systems: An urban transportation concept. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Vehicular Electronics and Safety, Yokohama, Japan, November 5–7, 2015, 2015.
34. SAE On-Road Automated Vehicle Standards Committee (2016). Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-Road Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems; Technical Report J3016_201609, SAE International.
35. Schade, J., Schlag, B., Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies. Transportation Research Part F 6 (2003), 45–61.
36. Schoette, B. & Sivak, M. (2014). A Survey of Public Opinion about Autonomous and Self-Driving Vehicles in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia. Michigan, USA. Accessed at https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/108384/103024.pdf on 7th June 2016.
37. Schuitema, G., Steg, L., Forward, S., Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A 44 (2010), 99–109.
38. Sessa, C., Pietroni, F., Alessandrini, A., Stam, D., Delle Site, P., & Holguin, C. (2015). Results of the On-Line DELPHI Survey. CityMobil2 Deliverable 27.2: European Commission Seventh Framework Programme.
39. Stevens, J., Applied Multivariate Statistics for Social Sciences. 1986, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
40. TESLA. (2016). Model S Software Version 7.0. Accessed at https://www.teslamotors.com/en_GB/presskit/autopilot on 1st May 2016.
41. Transport Systems Catapult (2016). Self-driving pods. Accessed at https://ts.catapult.org.uk/pods on 1st May 2016.
42. Urmson, C., Progress in Self-Driving Vehicles. 2015, National Academy of Engineering, The Bridge.
43. Van der Heijden, H., User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly 28 (2004), 695–704.
44. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27 (2003), 425–478.
45. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X., Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly 36 (2012), 157–178.
46. Volvo Cars (2016). Intellisafe Autopilot. Accessed at http://www.volvocars.com/uk/about/our-innovations/intellisafe/autopilot on 1st May 2016.
47. Zhou, T., Lu, Y., Wang, B., Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user adoption. Computers in Human Behaviour 26 (2010), 760–767.
48. Zmud, J., Sener, I.N., & Wagner, J. (2016). Consumer acceptance and travel behaviour impacts of automated vehicles. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, PRC15-49F.