IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v124y2019icp354-369.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Peng
  • Xu, Zhigang
  • Zhao, Xiangmo

Abstract

We focus on the pathways (affective vs. cognitive) that guide people’s acceptance of road tests (ART) for self-driving vehicles (SDVs) and behavioral intention (BI) to use SDVs, and propose and test a psychological model to explain these two behavioral responses (i.e., ART and BI) based on the trust heuristic and affect heuristic. These heuristics suggest that affective factors (social trust, positive affect, and negative affect) can directly determine ART and BI following the affective pathway or indirectly influence them through two cognitive responses (perceived benefit and risk) following the cognitive pathway. We conducted a field study involving a Level 3 automated vehicle (AV), invited 300 participants to experience how an AV works in the self-driving mode, and collected their affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses related to SDVs before and after the AV experience. The AV experience increased the psychological model’s explanatory power for perceived benefit, perceived risk, and ART. The affective pathway (vs. cognitive pathway) played a more important role in forming BI and ART. BI was predicted by perceived benefit, social trust, and positive affect, while ART was predicted by social trust and positive affect. The predictive ability of the model for BI and ART was validated. We discuss implications of the results for theory and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:124:y:2019:i:c:p:354-369
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.04.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856418307183
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2019.04.004?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. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    2. Paul Slovic, 1999. "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 689-701, August.
    3. Ali, Murad & Seny Kan, Konan Anderson & Sarstedt, Marko, 2016. "Direct and configurational paths of absorptive capacity and organizational innovation to successful organizational performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5317-5323.
    4. Cepeda Carrión, Gabriel & Henseler, Jörg & Ringle, Christian M. & Roldán, José Luis, 2016. "Prediction-oriented modeling in business research by means of PLS path modeling: Introduction to a JBR special section," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4545-4551.
    5. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    6. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    7. Bart W. Terwel & Fieke Harinck & Naomi Ellemers & Dancker D. L. Daamen, 2009. "Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1129-1140, August.
    8. Teun Terpstra, 2011. "Emotions, Trust, and Perceived Risk: Affective and Cognitive Routes to Flood Preparedness Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1658-1675, October.
    9. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    10. Michael Siegrist & Melanie Connor & Carmen Keller, 2012. "Trust, Confidence, Procedural Fairness, Outcome Fairness, Moral Conviction, and the Acceptance of GM Field Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1394-1403, August.
    11. Peter Taylor‐Gooby & Jens O. Zinn, 2006. "Current Directions in Risk Research: New Developments in Psychology and Sociology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 397-411, April.
    12. Robertson, Robyn D. & Meister, Shawna R. & Vanlaar, Ward G.M. & Mainegra Hing, Marisela, 2017. "Automated vehicles and behavioural adaptation in Canada," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 50-57.
    13. Hengstler, Monika & Enkel, Ellen & Duelli, Selina, 2016. "Applied artificial intelligence and trust—The case of autonomous vehicles and medical assistance devices," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 105-120.
    14. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    15. Hohenberger, Christoph & Spörrle, Matthias & Welpe, Isabell M., 2016. "How and why do men and women differ in their willingness to use automated cars? The influence of emotions across different age groups," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 374-385.
    16. Fagnant, Daniel J. & Kockelman, Kara, 2015. "Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 167-181.
    17. Mustapha Harb & Yu Xiao & Giovanni Circella & Patricia L. Mokhtarian & Joan L. Walker, 2018. "Projecting travelers into a world of self-driving vehicles: estimating travel behavior implications via a naturalistic experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1671-1685, November.
    18. Anania, Emily C. & Rice, Stephen & Walters, Nathan W. & Pierce, Matthew & Winter, Scott R. & Milner, Mattie N., 2018. "The effects of positive and negative information on consumers’ willingness to ride in a driverless vehicle," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 218-224.
    19. 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.
    20. Skippon, Stephen M. & Kinnear, Neale & Lloyd, Louise & Stannard, Jenny, 2016. "How experience of use influences mass-market drivers’ willingness to consider a battery electric vehicle: A randomised controlled trial," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 26-42.
    21. 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.
    22. Tenenhaus, Michel & Vinzi, Vincenzo Esposito & Chatelin, Yves-Marie & Lauro, Carlo, 2005. "PLS path modeling," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 159-205, January.
    23. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    24. 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.
    25. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    26. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    27. Salonen, Arto O., 2018. "Passenger's subjective traffic safety, in-vehicle security and emergency management in the driverless shuttle bus in Finland," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 106-110.
    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. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang, 2020. "Public attitude toward self-driving vehicles on public roads: Direct experience changed ambivalent people to be more positive," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. 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).
    3. Manon Feys & Evy Rombaut & Lieselot Vanhaverbeke, 2021. "Does a Test Ride Influence Attitude towards Autonomous Vehicles? A Field Experiment with Pretest and Posttest Measurement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-20, May.
    4. Wang, Song & Li, Zhixia & Wang, Yi & Wyatt, Daniel Aaron, 2024. "How effective is automated vehicle education? – A Kentucky case study revealing the dynamic nature of education effectiveness," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 140-157.
    5. Kenesei, Zsófia & Ásványi, Katalin & Kökény, László & Jászberényi, Melinda & Miskolczi, Márk & Gyulavári, Tamás & Syahrivar, Jhanghiz, 2022. "Trust and perceived risk: How different manifestations affect the adoption of autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 379-393.
    6. Rosell, Jordi & Allen, Jaime, 2020. "Test-riding the driverless bus: Determinants of satisfaction and reuse intention in eight test-track locations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 166-189.
    7. Kapser, Sebastian & Abdelrahman, Mahmoud & Bernecker, Tobias, 2021. "Autonomous delivery vehicles to fight the spread of Covid-19 – How do men and women differ in their acceptance?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 183-198.
    8. Fatemeh Nazari & Mohamadhossein Noruzoliaee & Abolfazl Mohammadian, 2023. "Behavioral acceptance of automated vehicles: The roles of perceived safety concern and current travel behavior," Papers 2302.12225, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    9. Namgung, Hyewon & Chikaraishi, Makoto & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2023. "Influence of real and video-based experiences on stated acceptance of connected public transportation and autonomous vehicles in a transit mall: A hybrid choice modeling approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    10. Chong Li & Yingqi Li, 2023. "Factors Influencing Public Risk Perception of Emerging Technologies: A Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-37, February.
    11. Weina Qu & Hongli Sun & Yan Ge, 2021. "The effects of trait anxiety and the big five personality traits on self-driving car acceptance," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 2663-2679, October.
    12. Liu, Peng, 2020. "Positive, negative, ambivalent, or indifferent? Exploring the structure of public attitudes toward self-driving vehicles on public roads," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 27-38.
    13. Fei Zhou & Yingqi Liu & Ruijun Chen, 2021. "Research on Collaborative Innovation of Intelligent Connected Vehicles Industry Based on Test Field: Embedded Case Study from the Perspective of Open Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, May.
    14. Yoganathan, Vignesh & Osburg, Victoria-Sophie, 2024. "Heterogenous evaluations of autonomous vehicle services: An extended theoretical framework and empirical evidence," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    15. Macht, Janine & Klink-Lehmann, Jeanette & Hartmann, Monika, 2023. "Don't forget the locals: Understanding citizens' acceptance of bio-based technologies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    16. Xin, Xiuying & Jia, Ning & Ling, Shuai & He, Zhengbing, 2023. "The effect of the ‘yield to pedestrians’ policy on risky pedestrian behaviors: Is it a ‘two-edged sword’?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    17. Baig, Farrukh & Zhang, Dong & Lee, Jaeyoung & Xu, Hongda, 2022. "Shaping inclusiveness of a transportation system: Factors affecting seat-yielding behavior of university students in public transportation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 79-94.

    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. 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. Liu, Peng & Ma, Yanjiao & Zuo, Yaqing, 2019. "Self-driving vehicles: Are people willing to trade risks for environmental benefits?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 139-149.
    3. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    4. Martina Raue & Lisa A. D'Ambrosio & Carley Ward & Chaiwoo Lee & Claire Jacquillat & Joseph F. Coughlin, 2019. "The Influence of Feelings While Driving Regular Cars on the Perception and Acceptance of Self‐Driving Cars," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 358-374, February.
    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. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    7. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    8. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    9. Ho, Shirley S. & Oshita, Tsuyoshi & Looi, Jiemin & Leong, Alisius D. & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2019. "Exploring public perceptions of benefits and risks, trust, and acceptance of nuclear energy in Thailand and Vietnam: A qualitative approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 259-268.
    10. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    11. Weina Qu & Hongli Sun & Yan Ge, 2021. "The effects of trait anxiety and the big five personality traits on self-driving car acceptance," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 2663-2679, October.
    12. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    13. Foroughi, Behzad & Nhan, Pham Viet & Iranmanesh, Mohammad & Ghobakhloo, Morteza & Nilashi, Mehrbakhsh & Yadegaridehkordi, Elaheh, 2023. "Determinants of intention to use autonomous vehicles: Findings from PLS-SEM and ANFIS," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    14. Kassens-Noor, Eva & Kotval-Karamchandani, Zeenat & Cai, Meng, 2020. "Willingness to ride and perceptions of autonomous public transit," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 92-104.
    15. Liu, Peng & Zhang, Yawen & He, Zhen, 2019. "The effect of population age on the acceptable safety of self-driving vehicles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 341-347.
    16. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    17. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    18. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    19. Pettigrew, Simone & Dana, Liyuwork Mitiku & Norman, Richard, 2019. "Clusters of potential autonomous vehicles users according to propensity to use individual versus shared vehicles," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 13-20.
    20. Klaus, Geraldine & Ernst, Andreas & Oswald, Lisa, 2020. "Psychological factors influencing laypersons’ acceptance of climate engineering, climate change mitigation and business as usual scenarios," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).

    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:eee:transa:v:124:y:2019:i:c:p:354-369. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    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.