IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i17p10508-d895611.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Perceptions and Public Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles: A Comparative Study in Japan and Israel

Author

Listed:
  • Diana Khan

    (Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation, Development Technology Department, Hiroshima University, 1-5-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima 734-8529, Japan)

  • Akimasa Fujiwara

    (Graduate School of Advanced Science and Engineering, Transdisciplinary Science and Advanced Engineering Program, Hiroshima University, 1-5-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima 734-8529, Japan)

  • Yoram Shiftan

    (Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel)

  • Makoto Chikaraishi

    (Graduate School of Advanced Science and Engineering, Transdisciplinary Science and Advanced Engineering Program, Hiroshima University, 1-5-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima 734-8529, Japan)

  • Einat Tenenboim

    (Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel
    School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA)

  • Thi Anh Hong Nguyen

    (Graduate School of Advanced Science and Engineering, Transdisciplinary Science and Advanced Engineering Program, Hiroshima University, 1-5-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima 734-8529, Japan)

Abstract

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are rapidly transforming the automotive industry due to rising consumer interest in these vehicles worldwide. However, few studies have compared different countries in terms of public acceptance of AVs. This study compares public acceptance of AVs as a function of risk perceptions in two countries leading the AV industry—Japan and Israel. We set our study within the risk-as-feelings framework. In contrast to “risk as analysis,” which invokes factual reasoning to bear on risk assessment and decision making, “risk as feelings” takes affective cues such as the sense of dread and unfamiliarity into judgments of risk. To this end, we conducted two web-based surveys in Japan in 2017 and Israel in 2021. In a between-subjects design, we manipulated introductory video information to portray various combinations of risk factors commonly associated with AVs: system errors, external interferences with car controls (e.g., hacking), and the inability of the AV to cope with unexpected events. Next, participants were surveyed about how they perceive the risks of AVs and other well-known technologies and activities. Results showed that acceptable risk, perceived risk, and perceived benefit of AVs were all generally higher in Israel than in Japan. The opposite pattern was found for a “risk adjustment factor,” suggesting that the Japanese seek more safety before acceptance than Israelis. Furthermore, we conducted a factor analysis on seven risk dimensions, resulting in a two-factor model of dread and unfamiliarity. Cognitive mapping of AVs and other technologies and activities in the two-factor plane revealed that the AV technologies we studied (i.e., AV-car levels 3 and 4; AV-bus levels 3 and 4) have high unfamiliarity risk but moderate dread risk compared to technologies and activities such as smoking, flying, and handguns. After exposure to video-based educational content, unfamiliarity risk was less influential but dread risk—in particular, related to human-made risks—became more influential. The results indicated that manufacturers and policymakers should emphasize mitigating human-made risks instead of focusing on improving public familiarity with AVs to garner trust and improve public acceptance of the technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Diana Khan & Akimasa Fujiwara & Yoram Shiftan & Makoto Chikaraishi & Einat Tenenboim & Thi Anh Hong Nguyen, 2022. "Risk Perceptions and Public Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles: A Comparative Study in Japan and Israel," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-21, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10508-:d:895611
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10508/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10508/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hiroshi Nittono & Shiri Lieber-Milo & Joshua P. Dale, 2021. "Cross-Cultural Comparisons of the Cute and Related Concepts in Japan, the United States, and Israel," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    2. Ortwin Renn & Christina Benighaus, 2013. "Perception of technological risk: insights from research and lessons for risk communication and management," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3-4), pages 293-313, April.
    3. Roth, Alvin E. & Vesna Prasnikar & Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara & Shmuel Zamir, 1991. "Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1068-1095, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Joshua D. Kertzer & Ryan Brutger, 2016. "Decomposing Audience Costs: Bringing the Audience Back into Audience Cost Theory," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(1), pages 234-249, January.
    6. Elad Segev & Atsushi Tago & Kohei Watanabe, 2022. "Could leaders deflect from political scandals? Cross-national experiments on diversionary action in Israel and Japan," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(5), pages 1056-1069, September.
    7. Teresa Brell & Ralf Philipsen & Martina Ziefle, 2019. "sCARy! Risk Perceptions in Autonomous Driving: The Influence of Experience on Perceived Benefits and Barriers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 342-357, February.
    8. Amalia Polydoropoulou & Ioannis Tsouros & Nikolas Thomopoulos & Cristina Pronello & Arnór Elvarsson & Haraldur Sigþórsson & Nima Dadashzadeh & Kristina Stojmenova & Jaka Sodnik & Stelios Neophytou & D, 2021. "Who Is Willing to Share Their AV? Insights about Gender Differences among Seven Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, April.
    9. Fleetwood, J., 2017. "Public health, ethics, and autonomous vehicles," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 107(4), pages 532-537.
    10. Xiaobei Jiang & Wenlin Yu & Wenjie Li & Jiawen Guo & Xizheng Chen & Hongwei Guo & Wuhong Wang & Tao Chen, 2021. "Factors Affecting the Acceptance and Willingness-to-Pay of End-Users: A Survey Analysis on Automated Vehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-12, November.
    11. repec:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2016.303628_6 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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.
    13. Inder Sekhar Yadav & Debasis Pahi & Rajesh Gangakhedkar, 2019. "Financial Markets Development and Financing Choice of Firms: New Evidence from Asia," Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, Springer;Japanese Association of Financial Economics and Engineering, vol. 26(4), pages 429-451, December.
    14. Zeyang Cheng & Zhenshan Zu & Jian Lu & Yunxuan Li, 2019. "Exploring the Effect of Driving Factors on Traffic Crash Risk among Intoxicated Drivers: A Case Study in Wujiang," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-13, July.
    15. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    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. Charli Sitinjak & Zurinah Tahir & Mohd Ekhwan Toriman & Novel Lyndon & Vladimir Simic & Charles Musselwhite & Wiyanti Fransisca Simanullang & Firdaus Mohamad Hamzah, 2023. "Assessing Public Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles for Smart and Sustainable Public Transportation in Urban Areas: A Case Study of Jakarta, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-20, April.

    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. 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.
    2. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Li, Dun & Huang, Youlin & Qian, Lixian, 2022. "Potential adoption of robotaxi service: The roles of perceived benefits to multiple stakeholders and environmental awareness," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 120-135.
    5. Mei‐Chih Meg Tseng & Yi‐Ping Lin & Fu‐Chang Hu & Tsun‐Jen Cheng, 2013. "Risks Perception of Electromagnetic Fields in Taiwan: The Influence of Psychopathology and the Degree of Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2002-2012, November.
    6. Connor, Melanie & de Guia, Annalyn H. & Quilloy, Reianne & Van Nguyen, Hung & Gummert, Martin & Sander, Bjoern Ole, 2020. "When climate change is not psychologically distant – Factors influencing the acceptance of sustainable farming practices in the Mekong river Delta of Vietnam," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    7. Zhou, Li & Turvey, Calum & Hu, Wuyang & Ying, Ruiyao, 2015. "Fear and Trust: How Risk Perceptions of Avian Influenza Affect the Demand for Chicken," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202077, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Helena Hansson & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2014. "Decision Making for Animal Health and Welfare: Integrating Risk‐Benefit Analysis with Prospect Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1149-1159, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    11. Chikaraishi, Makoto & Khan, Diana & Yasuda, Banri & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2020. "Risk perception and social acceptability of autonomous vehicles: A case study in Hiroshima, Japan," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 105-115.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Dominic H. P. Balog-Way & Darrick Evensen & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2020. "Pharmaceutical Benefit–Risk Perception and Age Differences in the USA and Germany," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 43(11), pages 1141-1156, November.
    15. 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.
    16. Nien‐Tsu Nancy Chen, 2015. "Predicting Vaccination Intention and Benefit and Risk Perceptions: The Incorporation of Affect, Trust, and Television Influence in a Dual‐Mode Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1268-1280, July.
    17. Hao-Teng Cheng & Ko-Wan Tsou, 2018. "Mitigation Policy Acceptance Model: An Analysis of Individual Decision Making Process toward Residential Seismic Strengthening," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-12, August.
    18. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    19. Vicki S. Freimuth & Amelia Jamison & Gregory Hancock & Donald Musa & Karen Hilyard & Sandra Crouse Quinn, 2017. "The Role of Risk Perception in Flu Vaccine Behavior among African‐American and White Adults in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2150-2163, November.
    20. Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John & Fynnwin Prager, 2012. "Flu, Risks, and Videotape: Escalating Fear and Avoidance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 729-743, April.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10508-:d:895611. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.