IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cjutxx/v28y2021i3-4p5-24.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Autonomous vs. Self-Driving Vehicles: The Power of Language to Shape Public Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Eva Kassens-Noor
  • Mark Wilson
  • Meng Cai
  • Noah Durst
  • Travis Decaminada

Abstract

Public perception of the next generation of vehicles will affect their design, deployment, and ultimately their use. As the engineering terms of self-driving, driverless, fully automated, and autonomous were introduced to the social sciences and the public at large, the subtle differences among these terms have been lost. However, using them as synonyms even though they may not be interchangeable is problematic. To explore the semantics of different future vehicle terms we surveyed 963 Michigan residents on their understanding of “autonomous” and “self-driving.” We found significant differences in perceptions between the terms autonomous and self-driving vehicles. While the former invokes many more uncertain responses, the latter is laden with concerns. These results suggest that the language used to describe the next generation of vehicles may shape public reaction and acceptance. As new mobility options are introduced to the public, our understanding of them will be shaped, in part, by the language used to name and explain the technology. Far from being inconsequential, word choice plays a major, yet underappreciated, role in shaping public opinion.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva Kassens-Noor & Mark Wilson & Meng Cai & Noah Durst & Travis Decaminada, 2021. "Autonomous vs. Self-Driving Vehicles: The Power of Language to Shape Public Perceptions," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3-4), pages 5-24, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:cjutxx:v:28:y:2021:i:3-4:p:5-24
    DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2020.1847983
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10630732.2020.1847983
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10630732.2020.1847983?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Devon McAslan & Farah Najar Arevalo & David A. King & Thaddeus R. Miller, 2021. "Pilot project purgatory? Assessing automated vehicle pilot projects in U.S. cities," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-16, December.

    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:taf:cjutxx:v:28:y:2021:i:3-4:p:5-24. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cjut20 .

    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.