IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0215969.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Jan C Zoellick
  • Adelheid Kuhlmey
  • Liane Schenk
  • Daniel Schindel
  • Stefan Blüher

Abstract

After years of hypothetical surveys and simulator studies, automated vehicles (AVs) are now being tested in realistic traffic environments adding validity to knowledge about their acceptance. We present data from a pilot test with participants (n = 125) after experiencing a ride in an electric AV on a large clinic area in Berlin, Germany. As a first contribution, we bridge the gap between missing definitions of key constructs, confusion about their operationalisations, and a rigorous test of their statistical properties and data structure by examining scales on acceptance, trust, perceived safety, intention to use, and—for the first time applied to AVs—the emotions amusement, fear, surprise, and boredom. Tests of reliability and normality were satisfying for almost all constructs (Cronbach’s alphas ≥ .69; six of eight scales normally distributed). The vehicles were accepted (M = 1.22; SD = 0.70; range -2 to 2), trusted (M = 3.29; SD = 0.81; range 1 to 5), and perceived as safe (M = 3.29; SD = 1.03; range 1 to 5). However, factor analyses did not reflect the hypothesised data structure, and validity concerns question the suitability of some constructs for attitude assessment of electric AVs. Our open item for comments added valuable insights in qualitative aspects of user attitudes towards electric AVs regarding driving style, technical features, and (unsettling) audio-visual feedback. We thus argue for broader conceptualisations of key constructs based on interdisciplinary exchange and multi-methodical study designs.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan C Zoellick & Adelheid Kuhlmey & Liane Schenk & Daniel Schindel & Stefan Blüher, 2019. "Assessing acceptance of electric automated vehicles after exposure in a realistic traffic environment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0215969
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215969
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215969
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215969&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0215969?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Mitchell Waldrop, 2015. "Autonomous vehicles: No drivers required," Nature, Nature, vol. 518(7537), pages 20-23, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Areej Ahmad Alshaafee & Noorminshah A. Iahad & Mohammed A. Al-Sharafi, 2021. "Benefits or Risks: What Influences Novice Drivers Regarding Adopting Smart Cars?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Nordhoff, Sina & Stapel, Jork & van Arem, Bart & Happee, Riender, 2020. "Passenger opinions of the perceived safety and interaction with automated shuttles: A test ride study with ‘hidden’ safety steward," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 508-524.
    3. Manon Feys & Evy Rombaut & Lieselot Vanhaverbeke, 2020. "Experience and Acceptance of Autonomous Shuttles in the Brussels Capital Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Zhao, Xiaoyun & Susilo, Yusak O. & Pernestål, Anna, 2022. "The dynamic and long-term changes of automated bus service adoption," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 450-463.
    5. Kurani, Kenneth S., 2019. "User Perceptions of Safety and Security: A Framework for a Transition to Electric-Shared-Automated Vehicles," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt40g1637b, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.

    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. Müller, Simon C. & Böhm, Markus & Schröer, Marina & Bahkirev, Alexander & Baiasu, Bogdan-Cristian & Krcmar, Helmut & Welpe, Isabell M., 2016. "Geschäftsmodelle in der digitalen Wirtschaft. Vollstudie," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 13-2016, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    2. Hohenberger, Christoph & Spörrle, Matthias & Welpe, Isabell M., 2017. "Not fearless, but self-enhanced: The effects of anxiety on the willingness to use autonomous cars depend on individual levels of self-enhancement," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 40-52.
    3. Tripat Gill & Eileen Fischer & Amna Kirmani & Pankaj Aggarwal, 2020. "Blame It on the Self-Driving Car: How Autonomous Vehicles Can Alter Consumer Morality [When Brands Seem Human, Do Humans Act like Brands? Automatic Behavioral Priming Effects of Brand Anthropomorph," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 47(2), pages 272-291.
    4. EFI - Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (ed.), 2016. "Gutachten zu Forschung, Innovation und technologischer Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2016," Reports on Research, Innovation and Technological Performance in Germany, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin, volume 127, number 2016, September.
    5. Müller, Simon C. & Böhm, Markus & Krcmar, Helmut & Welpe, Isabell M., 2016. "Machbarkeitsstudie: Geschäftsmodelle in der digitalen Wirtschaft," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 12-2016, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0215969. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.