IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v49y2022i6d10.1007_s11116-021-10229-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneity of autonomous vehicle adoption behavior due to peer effects and prior-AV knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • Yue Ding

    (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)

  • Ruimin Li

    (Tsinghua University)

  • Xiaokun Wang

    (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)

  • Joshua Schmid

    (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)

Abstract

Despite all the promising benefits, the adoption of fully autonomous vehicles (FAVs) is expected to require a long transitional process. While innovators and early adopters tend to adopt the technology fast, most will gradually adopt the technology after varying periods. Meanwhile, today’s social networking technologies have strengthened the influence of peer effects and caused noticeable changes to decision-making behavior. To date, there is relatively little study on how peer effects influence autonomous vehicles (AVs) adoption. The current paper explores how AV adoption is influenced by various factors, especially by different levels of individual susceptibility and prior-AV knowledge. Susceptibility is a latent variable measuring to what extent individuals will follow the influence of their peers in AV adoption. Prior-AV knowledge is another latent variable that measures people’s knowledge about AVs, which will further impact their price sensitivity. A stated preference (SP) survey was carried out in five cities in China. 1132 new car buyers were surveyed, resulting in 3855 valid records for vehicle preference. The Integrated Choice and Latent Variable (ICLV) Model is used to measure the susceptibility and prior-AV knowledge attributes, and identify their contribution to the heterogeneity of AV adoption intentions. The results show that many demographic factors influence the adoption of AVs. Younger individuals, those with higher education levels, higher income, and more driving experience are more readily influenced by their peers. High market penetration has a significant influence on FAV adoption, but to a varying degree depending on the individual susceptibility level. People with prior-AV knowledge, who are more likely to be older drivers, have no children under 18, have higher incomes and higher education levels, are found to be less sensitive to vehicle price.

Suggested Citation

  • Yue Ding & Ruimin Li & Xiaokun Wang & Joshua Schmid, 2022. "Heterogeneity of autonomous vehicle adoption behavior due to peer effects and prior-AV knowledge," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 1837-1860, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:49:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s11116-021-10229-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-021-10229-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11116-021-10229-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-021-10229-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 326-341, February.
    2. Roman Beck & Daniel Beimborn & Tim Weitzel & Wolfgang König, 2008. "Network effects as drivers of individual technology adoption: Analyzing adoption and diffusion of mobile communication services," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 415-429, September.
    3. Sacerdote, Bruce, 2011. "Peer Effects in Education: How Might They Work, How Big Are They and How Much Do We Know Thus Far?," Handbook of the Economics of Education, in: Erik Hanushek & Stephen Machin & Ludger Woessmann (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Education, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 4, pages 249-277, Elsevier.
    4. Fortin, Bernard & Yazbeck, Myra, 2015. "Peer effects, fast food consumption and adolescent weight gain," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 125-138.
    5. Nael Alsaleh & Bilal Farooq & Yixue Zhang & Steven Farber, 2021. "On-Demand Transit User Preference Analysis using Hybrid Choice Models," Papers 2102.08256, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    6. McVicar, Duncan, 2011. "Estimates of peer effects in adolescent smoking across twenty six European Countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(8), pages 1186-1193.
    7. David Card & Laura Giuliano, 2013. "Peer Effects and Multiple Equilibria in the Risky Behavior of Friends," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1130-1149, October.
    8. Joan Costa-Font & Mireia Jofre-Bonet, 2013. "Anorexia, Body Image and Peer Effects: Evidence from a Sample of European Women," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 80(317), pages 44-64, January.
    9. Bryan Bollinger & Kenneth Gillingham, 2012. "Peer Effects in the Diffusion of Solar Photovoltaic Panels," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 900-912, November.
    10. Godlonton, Susan & Thornton, Rebecca, 2012. "Peer effects in learning HIV results," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 118-129.
    11. Augustus Ababio-Donkor & Wafaa Saleh & Achille Fonzone, 2020. "Understanding transport mode choice for commuting: the role of affect," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 385-403, May.
    12. Bansal, Prateek & Kockelman, Kara M., 2017. "Forecasting Americans’ long-term adoption of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 49-63.
    13. Joan Costa-Font & Mireia Jofre-Bonet, 2013. "Anorexia, Body Image and Peer Effects: Evidence from a Sample of European Women," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 80(317), pages 44-64, January.
    14. Kaltenhäuser, Bernd & Werdich, Karl & Dandl, Florian & Bogenberger, Klaus, 2020. "Market development of autonomous driving in Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 882-910.
    15. Nielsen, Thomas Alexander Sick & Haustein, Sonja, 2018. "On sceptics and enthusiasts: What are the expectations towards self-driving cars?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 49-55.
    16. Peng Jing & Hao Huang & Bin Ran & Fengping Zhan & Yuji Shi, 2019. "Exploring the Factors Affecting Mode Choice Intention of Autonomous Vehicle Based on an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior—A Case Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-20, February.
    17. Enam, Annesha & Konduri, Karthik C. & Pinjari, Abdul R. & Eluru, Naveen, 2018. "An integrated choice and latent variable model for multiple discrete continuous choice kernels: Application exploring the association between day level moods and discretionary activity engagement choi," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 80-100.
    18. Hani S. Mahmassani, 2016. "50th Anniversary Invited Article—Autonomous Vehicles and Connected Vehicle Systems: Flow and Operations Considerations," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(4), pages 1140-1162, November.
    19. Cunningham, Mitchell L. & Regan, Michael A. & Horberry, Timothy & Weeratunga, Kamal & Dixit, Vinayak, 2019. "Public opinion about automated vehicles in Australia: Results from a large-scale national survey," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1-18.
    20. Kalra, Nidhi & Paddock, Susan M., 2016. "Driving to safety: How many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 182-193.
    21. Xu Lin, 2010. "Identifying Peer Effects in Student Academic Achievement by Spatial Autoregressive Models with Group Unobservables," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(4), pages 825-860, October.
    22. Gopindra Sivakumar Nair & Sebastian Astroza & Chandra R. Bhat & Sara Khoeini & Ram M. Pendyala, 2018. "An application of a rank ordered probit modeling approach to understanding level of interest in autonomous vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1623-1637, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ana Balsa & Carlos Díaz, 2018. "Social interactions in health behaviors and conditions," Documentos de Trabajo/Working Papers 1802, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales y Economia. Universidad de Montevideo..
    2. Chih‐Sheng Hsieh & Hans van Kippersluis, 2018. "Smoking initiation: Peers and personality," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(2), pages 825-863, July.
    3. Jonathan Norris, 2019. "Identify economics: social influence and skill development," Working Papers 1908, University of Strathclyde Business School, Department of Economics.
    4. Boucher, Vincent & Fortin, Bernard, 2015. "Some Challenges in the Empirics of the Effects of Networks," IZA Discussion Papers 8896, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Peng Jing & Gang Xu & Yuexia Chen & Yuji Shi & Fengping Zhan, 2020. "The Determinants behind the Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-26, February.
    6. Ishant Sharma & Sabyasachee Mishra, 2023. "Ranking preferences towards adopting autonomous vehicles based on peer inputs and advertisements," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(6), pages 2139-2192, December.
    7. Kassens-Noor, Eva & Dake, Dana & Decaminada, Travis & Kotval-K, Zeenat & Qu, Teresa & Wilson, Mark & Pentland, Brian, 2020. "Sociomobility of the 21st century: Autonomous vehicles, planning, and the future city," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 329-335.
    8. Hussain, Qinaat & Alhajyaseen, Wael K.M. & Adnan, Muhammad & Almallah, Mustafa & Almukdad, Abdulkarim & Alqaradawi, Mohammed, 2021. "Autonomous vehicles between anticipation and apprehension: Investigations through safety and security perceptions," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 440-451.
    9. Ljubi, Klara & Groznik, Aleš, 2023. "Role played by social factors and privacy concerns in autonomous vehicle adoption," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 1-15.
    10. Agee Mark D., 2021. "Endogenous Peer Group Effects on Adolescents’ Crime Reporting Intentions," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 21(2), pages 577-610, April.
    11. Mao, Wei & Shepherd, Simon & Harrison, Gillian & Xu, Meng, 2024. "Autonomous vehicle market development in Beijing: A system dynamics approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    12. Guo, Yuntao & Souders, Dustin & Labi, Samuel & Peeta, Srinivas & Benedyk, Irina & Li, Yujie, 2021. "Paving the way for autonomous Vehicles: Understanding autonomous vehicle adoption and vehicle fuel choice under user heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 364-398.
    13. Lin, Zhongjian & Hu, Yingyao, 2024. "Binary choice with misclassification and social interactions, with an application to peer effects in attitude," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 238(1).
    14. Chee, Pei Nen Esther & Susilo, Yusak O. & Wong, Yiik Diew, 2020. "Determinants of intention-to-use first-/last-mile automated bus service," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 350-375.
    15. Hemesath, Sebastian & Tepe, Markus, 2023. "Framing the approval to test self-driving cars on public roads. The effect of safety and competitiveness on citizens' agreement," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    16. Rokhaya Dieye & Bernard Fortin, 2017. "Gender Peer Effects Heterogeneity in Obesity," Cahiers de recherche 1702, Centre de recherche sur les risques, les enjeux économiques, et les politiques publiques.
    17. Yingyao Hu & Zhongjian Lin, 2018. "Misclassification and the hidden silent rivalry," CeMMAP working papers CWP12/18, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    18. Duncan McVicar & Julie Moschion & Chris Ryan, 2013. "Right Peer, Right Now? Endogenous Peer Effects and Achievement in Victorian Primary Schools," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2013n22, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    19. Xing, Yingying & Zhou, Huiyu & Han, Xiao & Zhang, Meng & Lu, Jian, 2022. "What influences vulnerable road users’ perceptions of autonomous vehicles? A comparative analysis of the 2017 and 2019 Pittsburgh surveys," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    20. Behnood, Ali & Haghani, Milad & Golafshani, Emadaldin Mohammadi, 2022. "Determinants of purchase likelihood for partially and fully automated vehicles: Insights from mixed logit model with heterogeneity in means and variances," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 119-139.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:49:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s11116-021-10229-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.