IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v126y2019icp215-229.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk preference and adoption of autonomous vehicles

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Shenhao
  • Zhao, Jinhua

Abstract

Despite an increasingly large body of research that focuses on the potential demand for autonomous vehicles (AVs), risk preference is an understudied factor. Given that AV technology and how it will interact with the evolving mobility system are highly risky, this lack of research on risk preference is a critical gap in current understanding. By using a stated preference survey of 1142 individuals from Singapore, this study achieves three objectives. First, it develops one measure of psychometric risk preference and operationalizes prospect theory to create two economic risk preference parameters. Second, it examines how these psychometric and economic risk preferences are associated with socioeconomic variables. Third, it analyzes how risk preference influences the mode choice of AVs. The study finds that risk preference parameters are significantly associated with socioeconomic variables: the elderly, poor, females, and unemployed Singaporeans appear more risk-averse and tend to overestimate small probabilities of losses. Furthermore, all three risk preference parameters contribute to the prediction of AV adoption. These modeling results have policy implications at both the aggregate and disaggregate levels. At the aggregate level, people misperceive probabilities, are overall risk-averse, and hence under-consume AVs relative to the social optimum. At the disaggregate level, the elderly, poor, female, and unemployed are more risk-averse and thus are less likely to adopt AVs. These results suggest that it might be valuable for governments to implement policies to encourage technology adoption, particularly for disadvantaged social groups, although caution remains due to uncertainty in the long-term effects of AVs. Individualized risk preference parameters could also inform how to design regulations, safety standards, and liability allocations of AVs since many regulations are essentially mechanisms for risk allocation. One limitation of the paper is that risk preference is measured and modeled only as individual-specific but not alternative-specific variables. Future studies should examine the relationship between the multiple components of risk preference and the multiple risky aspects of AVs.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Shenhao & Zhao, Jinhua, 2019. "Risk preference and adoption of autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 215-229.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:126:y:2019:i:c:p:215-229
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.06.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856417310315
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2019.06.007?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. Lamotte, Raphaël & de Palma, André & Geroliminis, Nikolas, 2017. "On the use of reservation-based autonomous vehicles for demand management," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 205-227.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Romani de Oliveira, Ítalo, 2017. "Analyzing the performance of distributed conflict resolution among autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 92-112.
    4. Helga Fehr-Duda & Thomas Epper, 2012. "Probability and Risk: Foundations and Economic Implications of Probability-Dependent Risk Preferences," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 567-593, July.
    5. Brigitte C. Madrian, 2014. "Applying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 663-688, August.
    6. Dhami, Sanjit, 2016. "The Foundations of Behavioral Economic Analysis," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198715535, Decembrie.
    7. Quang Nguyen & Colin Camerer & Tomomi Tanaka, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences Linking Experimental and Household Data from Vietnam," Post-Print halshs-00547090, HAL.
    8. Cindy D. Kam, 2012. "Risk Attitudes and Political Participation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(4), pages 817-836, October.
    9. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Correia, Gonçalo Homem de Almeida & Looff, Erwin & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Snelder, Maaike & van Arem, Bart, 2019. "On the impact of vehicle automation on the value of travel time while performing work and leisure activities in a car: Theoretical insights and results from a stated preference survey," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 359-382.
    12. Pascaline Dupas, 2014. "Short‐Run Subsidies and Long‐Run Adoption of New Health Products: Evidence From a Field Experiment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(1), pages 197-228, January.
    13. Wu, Xing & (Marco) Nie, Yu, 2011. "Modeling heterogeneous risk-taking behavior in route choice: A stochastic dominance approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 896-915, November.
    14. Correia, Gonçalo Homem de Almeida & van Arem, Bart, 2016. "Solving the User Optimum Privately Owned Automated Vehicles Assignment Problem (UO-POAVAP): A model to explore the impacts of self-driving vehicles on urban mobility," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 64-88.
    15. 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.
    16. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    17. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    18. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer & Quang Nguyen, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 557-571, March.
    19. Andre Palma & Moshe Ben-Akiva & David Brownstone & Charles Holt & Thierry Magnac & Daniel McFadden & Peter Moffatt & Nathalie Picard & Kenneth Train & Peter Wakker & Joan Walker, 2008. "Risk, uncertainty and discrete choice models," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 269-285, December.
      • André de Palma & Moshe Ben-Akiva & David Brownstone & Charles Holt & Thierry Magnac & Daniel McFadden & Peter Moffatt & Nathalie Picard & Kenneth Train & Peter Wakker & Joan Walker, 2008. "Risk, Uncertainty and Discrete Choice Models," THEMA Working Papers 2008-02, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    20. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    21. Chen, Zhibin & He, Fang & Yin, Yafeng & Du, Yuchuan, 2017. "Optimal design of autonomous vehicle zones in transportation networks," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 44-61.
    22. Yap, Menno D. & Correia, Gonçalo & van Arem, Bart, 2016. "Preferences of travellers for using automated vehicles as last mile public transport of multimodal train trips," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-16.
    23. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    24. Chen, Danjue & Ahn, Soyoung & Chitturi, Madhav & Noyce, David A., 2017. "Towards vehicle automation: Roadway capacity formulation for traffic mixed with regular and automated vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 196-221.
    25. Colin F. Camerer & Howard Kunreuther, 1989. "Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 565-592.
    26. Sunstein, Cass R, 2003. "Terrorism and Probability Neglect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(2-3), pages 121-136, March-May.
    27. Yonah Freemark & Anne Hudson & Jinhua Zhao, 2019. "Are Cities Prepared for Autonomous Vehicles?," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 85(2), pages 133-151, April.
    28. Hensher, David A. & Ho, Chinh & Knowles, Louise, 2016. "Efficient contracting and incentive agreements between regulators and bus operators: The influence of risk preferences of contracting agents on contract choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 22-40.
    29. Elias, Wafa & Shiftan, Yoram, 2012. "The influence of individual’s risk perception and attitudes on travel behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1241-1251.
    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. Sungwon Lee & Devon Farmer & Jooyoung Kim & Hyun Kim, 2022. "Shared Autonomous Vehicles Competing with Shared Electric Bicycles: A Stated-Preference Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-19, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Wang, Fei & Zhang, Zhentai & Lin, Shoufu, 2023. "Purchase intention of Autonomous vehicles and industrial Policies: Evidence from a national survey in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    4. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    5. 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.
    6. Limin Tan & Changxi Ma & Xuecai Xu & Jin Xu, 2019. "Choice Behavior of Autonomous Vehicles Based on Logistic Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Margarita Martínez-Díaz & Maximilià-Miquel Montes Carbó, 2024. "Assessing User Acceptance of Automated Vehicles as a Precondition for Their Contribution to a More Sustainable Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-22, January.
    8. Kornélia Lazányi, 2023. "Perceived Risks of Autonomous Vehicles," Risks, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Qian, Lixian & Yin, Juelin & Huang, Youlin & Liang, Ya, 2023. "The role of values and ethics in influencing consumers’ intention to use autonomous vehicle hailing services," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    11. Wang, Shenhao & Mo, Baichuan & Zhao, Jinhua, 2021. "Theory-based residual neural networks: A synergy of discrete choice models and deep neural networks," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 333-358.
    12. Subodh Dubey & Ishant Sharma & Sabyasachee Mishra & Oded Cats & Prateek Bansal, 2021. "A General Framework to Forecast the Adoption of Novel Products: A Case of Autonomous Vehicles," Papers 2109.06169, arXiv.org.
    13. 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.
    14. Qingyi Wang & Shenhao Wang & Yunhan Zheng & Hongzhou Lin & Xiaohu Zhang & Jinhua Zhao & Joan Walker, 2023. "Deep hybrid model with satellite imagery: how to combine demand modeling and computer vision for behavior analysis?," Papers 2303.04204, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    15. Dubey, Subodh & Sharma, Ishant & Mishra, Sabyasachee & Cats, Oded & Bansal, Prateek, 2022. "A General Framework to Forecast the Adoption of Novel Products: A Case of Autonomous Vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 63-95.
    16. Shenhao Wang & Baichuan Mo & Stephane Hess & Jinhua Zhao, 2021. "Comparing hundreds of machine learning classifiers and discrete choice models in predicting travel behavior: an empirical benchmark," Papers 2102.01130, arXiv.org.
    17. Anuradha M. Annaswamy & Vineet Jagadeesan Nair, 2022. "Human Behavioral Models Using Utility Theory and Prospect Theory," Papers 2210.07322, arXiv.org.
    18. Jen Sim Ho & Booi Chen Tan & Teck Chai Lau & Nasreen Khan, 2023. "Public Acceptance towards Emerging Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Bibliometric Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-18, January.
    19. Hansson, Lisa, 2020. "Regulatory governance in emerging technologies: The case of autonomous vehicles in Sweden and Norway," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. Nader Zali & Sara Amiri & Tan Yigitcanlar & Ali Soltani, 2022. "Autonomous Vehicle Adoption in Developing Countries: Futurist Insights," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    23. Neil Quarles & Kara M. Kockelman & Moataz Mohamed, 2020. "Costs and Benefits of Electrifying and Automating Bus Transit Fleets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-15, May.
    24. 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.

    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. Wang, Shenhao & Mo, Baichuan & Zhao, Jinhua, 2021. "Theory-based residual neural networks: A synergy of discrete choice models and deep neural networks," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 333-358.
    2. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    3. Arjan Verschoor & Ben D’Exelle, 2022. "Probability weighting for losses and for gains among smallholder farmers in Uganda," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 223-258, February.
    4. Thomas Sproul & Clayton P. Michaud, 2017. "Heterogeneity in loss aversion: evidence from field elicitations," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 77(1), pages 196-216, May.
    5. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    6. Stephen G Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Olivia S Mitchell & Kim Peijnenburg, 2021. "Household Portfolio Underdiversification and Probability Weighting: Evidence from the Field," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(9), pages 4524-4563.
    7. Visser, Martine & Jumare, Hafsah & Brick, Kerri, 2020. "Risk preferences and poverty traps in the uptake of credit and insurance amongst small-scale farmers in South Africa," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 826-836.
    8. Campos-Vazquez, Raymundo M. & Cuilty, Emilio, 2014. "The role of emotions on risk aversion: A Prospect Theory experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-9.
    9. Petraud, Jean & Boucher, Stephen & Carter, Michael, 2015. "Competing theories of risk preferences and the demand for crop insurance: Experimental evidence from Peru," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211383, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Ryan O. Murphy & Robert H. W. ten Brincke, 2018. "Hierarchical Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimation for Cumulative Prospect Theory: Improving the Reliability of Individual Risk Parameter Estimates," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 308-328, January.
    11. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    12. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    13. Ward, Patrick S. & Bell, Andrew R. & Droppelmann, Klaus & Benton, Tim, 2016. "Understanding compliance in programs promoting conservation agriculture: Modeling a case study in Malawi," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235610, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Nadia A. Streletskaya & Samuel D. Bell & Maik Kecinski & Tongzhe Li & Simanti Banerjee & Leah H. Palm‐Forster & David Pannell, 2020. "Agricultural Adoption and Behavioral Economics: Bridging the Gap," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 54-66, March.
    15. Kemel, Emmanuel & Paraschiv, Corina, 2013. "Prospect Theory for joint time and money consequences in risk and ambiguity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 81-95.
    16. Bartczak, Anna & Chilton, Susan & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "Wildfires in Poland: The impact of risk preferences and loss aversion on environmental choices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 300-309.
    17. Alexis H. Villacis & Jeffrey R. Alwang & Victor Barrera, 2021. "Linking risk preferences and risk perceptions of climate change: A prospect theory approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 863-877, September.
    18. Immanuel Lampe & Daniel Würtenberger, 2019. "Loss Aversion And The Demand For Index Insurance," Working Papers on Finance 1907, University of St. Gallen, School of Finance.
    19. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter Martinsson & Pham Khanh Nam & Nghi Truong, 2019. "Risk preferences and development revisited," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 1-21, February.
    20. Quang Nguyen, 2011. "Does nurture matter: Theory and experimental investigation on the effect of working environment on risk and time preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 245-270, December.

    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:126:y:2019:i:c:p:215-229. 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.