Assessing acceptance of electric automated vehicles after exposure in a realistic traffic environment

PLoS ONE

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2019, Pages

  Zoellick, Jan C ^a   Kuhlmey, Adelheid ^a   Schenk, Liane ^a   Schindel, Daniel ^a   Blüher, Stefan ^a  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY FEEDBACK; BOREDOM; CONFUSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRIVING ABILITY; ELECTRIC AUTOMATED VEHICLE; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; FEAR; FEMALE; GERMANY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MOTOR VEHICLE; PILOT STUDY; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; SAFETY; TRAFFIC; VALIDITY; VISUAL FEEDBACK; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; AUTOMATION; CAR DRIVING; ELECTRICITY; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ADULT; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; AUTOMATION; AUTOMOBILE DRIVING; ELECTRICITY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 85065559899     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215969     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Waldrop MM. Autonomous vehicles: No drivers required. Nature. 2015; 518(7537):20–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/518020a PMID: 25652978
2. Henderson J, Spencer J. Autonomous vehicles and commercial real estate. Cornell Real Estate Rev. 2016; 14(1):44–55.
3. Bagloee SA, Tavana M, Asadi M, Oliver T. Autonomous vehicles: Challenges, opportunities, and future implications for transportation policies. J Mod Transp. 2016; 24(4):284–303.
4. Moorthy A, De Kleine R, Keoleian G, Good J, Lewis G. Shared autonomous vehicles as a sustainable solution to the last mile problem: A case study of Ann Arbor-Detroit area. SAE Int J Passeng Cars Electron Electr Syst. 2017; 10(2):54–62. https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-1276
5. Pettigrew S. Why public health should embrace the autonomous car. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2017; 41 (1):5–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12588 PMID: 27774760
6. NHTSA. Automated driving systems 2.0: A vision for safety [Internet]. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2017 [29 November 2017]. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf.
7. Nordhoff S, van Arem B, Happee R. Conceptual model to explain, predict, and improve user acceptance of driverless podlike vehicles. Transport Res Rec. 2016; 2602:60–7. https://doi.org/10.3141/2602-08
8. 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: ACM; 2012. p. 51–8.
9. Adell E. Driver experience and acceptance of driver support systems—a case of speed adaptation Lund: Lund University; 2009.
10. Adell E, Várhelyi A, Nilsson L. The definition of acceptance and acceptability. In: Regan MA, Horberry T, Stevens A, editors. Driver acceptance of new technology. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited; 2014. p. 31–42.
11. Bansal P, Kockelman KM. Forecasting Americans’ long-term adoption of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies. Transp Res A Policy Pract. 2017; 95:49–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.10. 013
12. Krueger R, Rashidi TH, Rose JM. Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles. Transp Res C Emer. 2016; 69:343–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.06.015
13. König M, Neumayr L. Users’ resistance towards radical innovations: The case of the self-driving car. Transportation Research: Part F. 2017; 44:42–52.
14. Schoettle B, Sivak M. A survey of public opinion about autonomous and self-driving vehicles in the US, the UK, and Australia. 2014.
15. Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Without title. Berlin: Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin; 2018. https://www.wir-fahren-zukunft.de/en/pictures/#iLightbox[gallery_image_1]/16 and https://www.wirfahren-zukunft.de/en/pictures/#iLightbox[gallery_image_1]/36.
16. Cho Y, Park J, Park S, Jung ES. Technology acceptance modeling based on user experience for autonomous vehicles. J Ergon Soc Korea. 2017; 36(2):87–108. https://doi.org/10.5143/JESK.2017.36.2.87
17. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. ManSci. 1989; 35(8):982–1003.
18. Chuttur MY. Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments and future directions. Working Papers on Information Systems. 2009; 9(37):9–37.
19. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Manag Inf Sys Q. 2003; 27(3):425–78.
20. Rotter JB. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol Monogr—Gen A. 1966; 80(1):1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
21. Pavlou PA. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int J Electron Comm. 2003; 7(3):101–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275
22. Doney PM, Cannon JP. An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. J Mark. 1997:35–51.
23. 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. Transportation Research: Part F. 2017; 50:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.07.007
24. Choi JK, Ji YG. Investigating the importance of trust on adopting an autonomous vehicle. Int J Hum Comput Int. 2015; 31(10):692–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1070549
25. Bansal P, Kockelman KM. Are we ready to embrace connected and self-driving vehicles? A case study of Texans. Transportation. 2016; 45(2):1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-016-9745-z
26. Bansal P, Kockelman KM, Singh A. Assessing public opinions of and interest in new vehicle technologies: An Austin perspective. Transp Res C Emer. 2016; 67:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.01.019
27. Shabanpour R, Mousavi SND, Golshani N, Auld J, Mohammadian A, editors. Consumer preferences of electric and automated vehicles. Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems (MT-ITS), 2017 5th IEEE International Conference on; 2017: IEEE.
28. Lavieri PS, Garikapati VM, Bhat CR, Pendyala RM, Astroza S, Dias FF. Modeling individual preferences for ownership and sharing of autonomous vehicle technologies. Transport Res Rec. 2017;(2665):1–10. https://doi.org/10.3141/2665-01
29. Nordhoff S, de Winter J, Madigan R, Merat N, van Arem B, Happee R. User acceptance of automated shuttles in Berlin-Schöneberg: A questionnaire study. Transportation Research: Part F. 2018; 58:843–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.06.024
30. Hulse LM, Xie H, Galea ER. Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: Relationships with road users, risk, gender and age. Saf Sci. 2018; 102:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.001
31. Verberne FMF, Ham J, Midden CJH. Trusting a virtual driver that looks, acts, and thinks like you. Hum Factors. 2015; 57(5):895–909. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815580749 PMID: 25921302
32. Fraedrich E, Lenz B. Societal and individual acceptance of autonomous driving. In: Maurer M, Gerdes JC, Lenz B, Winner H, editors. Autonomous driving Technical, legal and social aspects. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer; 2016. p. 621–40.
33. Schmalfuß F, Mühl K, Krems JF. Direct experience with battery electric vehicles (BEVs) matters when evaluating vehicle attributes, attitude and purchase intention. Transportation Research: Part F. 2017; 46:47–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.01.004
34. Schaefer KE, Chen JY, Szalma JL, Hancock PA. A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation: Implications for understanding autonomy in future systems Hum Factors. 2016; 58(3):377–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816634228
35. Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JY, De Visser EJ, Parasuraman R. A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Hum Factors. 2011; 53(5):517–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254 PMID: 22046724
36. Kim YM. Validation of psychometric research instruments: The case of information science. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2009; 60(6):1178–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21066
37. Izard CE. Human emotions. New York: Springer Science+Business Media; 1977.
38. Van der Laan JD, Heino A, De Waard D. A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transp Res C Emer. 1997; 5(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-090X(96)00025-3
39. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975.
40. Scherer KR. What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Soc Sci Inf. 2005; 44(4):695–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018405058216
41. Izard CE. Measuring emotions in infants and children. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1982.
42. Merten J, Krause R. DAS (Differentielle Affekt Skala): Arbeiten der Fachrichtung Psychologie, Universität des Saarlandes, Nr. 173. Saarbrücken; 1993.
43. Renaud D, Unz D. Die M-DAS—eine modifizierte Version der Differentiellen Affekt Skala zur Erfassung von Emotionen bei der Mediennutzung. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie. 2006; 18(2):70–5. https://doi.org/10.1026/1617-6383.18.2.70
44. Bartsch A, Appel M, Storch D. Predicting emotions and meta-emotions at the movies: The role of the need for affect in audiences’ experience of horror and drama. Commun Res. 2010; 37(2):167–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209356441
45. Menold N, Bogner K. Gestaltung von Ratingskalen in Fragebögen (Version 1.0). Mannheim: GESIS—Leibniz Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, 2014.
46. Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Without title. Berlin: Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin; 2017. https://www.wir-fahren-zukunft.de/en/the-routes/.
47. Graham JW. Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009; 60:549–76. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530 PMID: 18652544
48. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. 25.0 ed. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.; 2017.
49. Wu W, Jia F, Enders C. A comparison of imputation strategies for ordinal missing data on Likert scale variables. Multivariate Behav Res. 2015; 50(5):484–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2015. 1022644 PMID: 26610248
50. Kaiser HF. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1958; 23 (3):187–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289233
51. Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. J Educ Res. 2006; 99(6):323–38. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
52. Döring N, Bortz J. Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften. 5. ed. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer; 2016.
53. Garson GD. Testing statistical assumptions. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates Publishing; 2012.
54. Kuckartz U. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. 3. ed. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Juventa; 2016.
55. VERBI Software. MAXQDA Analytics Pro 11.0. Berlin: VERBI; 2017.
56. Kirilenko AP, Stepchenkova S. Inter-coder agreement in one-to-many classification: fuzzy kappa. PLoS One. 2016; 11(3):e0149787. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149787 PMID: 26933956
57. Yong AG, Pearce S. A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology. 2013; 9(2):79–94. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2. p079
58. Girden ER, Kabacoff R. Evaluating research articles from start to finish: Sage; 2010.
59. Bühler F, Cocron P, Neumann I, Franke T, Krems JF. Is EV experience related to EV acceptance? Results from a German field study. Transportation Research: Part F. 2014; 25:34–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.05.002
60. Blömacher K, Nöcker G, Huff M. The role of system description for conditionally automated vehicles. Transportation Research: Part F. 2018; 54:159–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.01.010
61. Beggiato M, Pereira M, Petzoldt T, Krems J. Learning and development of trust, acceptance and the mental model of ACC. A longitudinal on-road study. Transportation Research: Part F. 2015; 35:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.10.005
62. Hartwich F, Beggiato M, Krems JF. Driving comfort, enjoyment and acceptance of automated driving–effects of drivers’ age and driving style familiarity. Ergonomics. 2018:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2018.1441448
63. Surden H, Williams M-A. Technological opacity, predictability, and self-driving cars. Cardozo L Rev. 2016; 38:121.
64. de Waard D, Dijksterhuis C, Brookhuis KA. Merging into heavy motorway traffic by young and elderly drivers. Accid Anal Prev. 2009; 41(3):588–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.02.011 PMID: 19393811
65. Boudette NE. Fatal Tesla crash raises new questions about autopilot system New York: New York Times; 2018 [updated 31 March; retrieved 7 August 2018]. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/31/business/tesla-crash-autopilot-musk.html.
66. Scherer KR, Shuman V, Fontaine JJR, Soriano C. The GRID meets the Wheel: Assessing emotional feeling via self-report. In: Fontaine JJR, Scherer KR, Soriano C, editors. Components of emotional meaning: A sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.
67. Payre W, Cestac J, Delhomme P. Intention to use a fully automated car: Attitudes and a priori acceptability. Transportation Research: Part F. 2014; 27:252–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.04.009
68. Nordhoff S, de Winter J, Kyriakidis M, van Arem B, Happee R. Acceptance of driverless vehicles: Results from a large cross-national questionnaire study. Journal of Advanced Transportation. 2018; 2018(Article ID 5382192):22 Pages. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5382192
69. Kyriakidis M, Happee R, de Winter JCF. Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transportation Research: Part F. 2015; 32:127–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014
70. Lee J-G, Kim KJ, Lee S, Shin D-H. Can autonomous vehicles be safe and trustworthy? Effects of appearance and autonomy of unmanned driving systems. Int J Hum Comput Int. 2015; 31(10):682–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1070547
71. McDonald M, Delle Site P, Stam D, Salucci MV. CityMobil2 evaluation framework. In: Alessandrini A, editor. Implementing Automated Road Transport Systems in Urban Settings. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2017. p. 84–107.
72. Eden G, Nanchen B, Ramseyer R, Evéquoz F, editors. On the road with an autonomous passenger shuttle: Integration in public spaces. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2017: ACM.
73. Piao J, McDonald M, Hounsell N, Graindorge M, Graindorge T, Malhene N. Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp Res Procedia. 2016; 14:2168–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.232
74. Rödel C, Stadler S, Meschtscherjakov A, Tscheligi M. Towards autonomous cars: The effect of autonomy levels on acceptance and user experience. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications: ACM; 2014. p. 1–8.
75. Haboucha CJ, Ishaq R, Shiftan Y. User preferences regarding autonomous vehicles. Transp Res C Emer. 2017; 78:37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.01.010
76. Martinez LM, Viegas JM. Assessing the impacts of deploying a shared self-driving urban mobility system: An agent-based model applied to the city of Lisbon, Portugal. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology. 2017; 6(1):13–27.
77. Fagnant DJ, Kockelman KM. The travel and environmental implications of shared autonomous vehicles, using agent-based model scenarios. Transp Res C Emer. 2014; 40:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2013.12.001
78. Bazilinskyy P, Kyriakidis M, de Winter JCF. An international crowdsourcing study into people’s statements on fully automated driving. Procedia Manufacturing. 2015; 3:2534–42.
79. Lu Z, Du R, Dunham-Jones E, Park H, Crittenden J. Data-enabled public preferences inform integration of autonomous vehicles with transit-oriented development in Atlanta. Cities. 2017; 63:118–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.01.004
80. Fraedrich E, Lenz B. Gesellschaftliche und individuelle Akzeptanz des autonomen Fahrens. Autono-mes Fahren: Springer; 2015. p. 639–60.
81. Hoffmann M, Graff A, Kramer S, Kuttler T, Hendzlik M, Scherf C, et al. Bewertung integrierter Mobilitäts-dienste mit Elektrofahrzeugen aus Nutzerperspektive. Ergebnisse der Begleitforschung im Projekt BeMobility—Berlin elektroMobil. Berlin: innoz—Innovationszentrum für Mobilität und gesellschaftli-chen Wandel, 2012.
82. Deffner J, Birzle-Harder B, Hefter T, Götz K. Elektrofahrzeuge in betrieblichen Fahrzeugflotten—Akzep-tanz, Attraktivität und Nutzungsverhalten. Ergebnisbericht im Rahmen des Projekts Future Fleet. Frankfurt am Main: Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung, 2012.