IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0313143.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why do people resist AI-based autonomous cars?: Analyzing the impact of the risk perception paradigm and conditional value on public acceptance of autonomous vehicles

Author

Listed:
  • Ie Rei Park
  • Seoyong Kim
  • Jungwook Moon

Abstract

This study examines the factors that lead to the acceptance of AI-based autonomous vehicles. Despite the considerable importance of AI-based autonomous vehicles there has been a lack of analysis based on theoretical models and analysis that considers contextual conditions. The survey was conducted between July 8 and 17, 2019. In order to increase the representativeness of the sample, a quota sampling method was adopted, based on considering gender and region. The sample size of this survey is 2,000 people. According to the response statistics, 26,231 people requested the survey, 3,973 people participated in the survey, and 2,000 people completed the survey. We adopted regression and moderation analysis as main statistical analysis methods. In modeling, we set up the variable from risk perception paradigm as independent variable and the conditional value as moderating variable in explaining the acceptance of AI-based autonomous vehicles. For this work, the analysis was conducted in two stages. Initially, a regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of the risk perception paradigm and conditional value on the acceptance of autonomous vehicles. Secondly, a moderation analysis was conducted to determine whether the perception of self-driving taxis moderates the relationship between the risk perception paradigm and the acceptance of autonomous vehicle. The study revealed that the acceptance of autonomous vehicles is influenced by a number of factors, including knowledge, image, conditional value, and perceived risks. Additionally, the relationship with perceived benefits, image and autonomous vehicle is moderated by conditional value.

Suggested Citation

  • Ie Rei Park & Seoyong Kim & Jungwook Moon, 2025. "Why do people resist AI-based autonomous cars?: Analyzing the impact of the risk perception paradigm and conditional value on public acceptance of autonomous vehicles," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(2), pages 1-22, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0313143
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313143
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313143&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0313143?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. Ahmad Arslan & Cary Cooper & Zaheer Khan & Ismail Golgeci & Imran Ali, 2021. "Artificial intelligence and human workers interaction at team level: a conceptual assessment of the challenges and potential HRM strategies," International Journal of Manpower, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 43(1), pages 75-88, July.
    2. Oene Wiegman & Jan M. Gutteling & Bernard Cadet, 1995. "Perception of Nuclear Energy and Coal in France and the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 513-521, August.
    3. 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)

    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. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Comparative Analysis of Public Attitudes toward Nuclear Power Energy across 27 European Countries by Applying the Multilevel Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    3. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1707-1719, December.
    6. Aubel Martin & Pikturniene Indre & Joye Yannick, 2022. "Risk Perception and Risk Behavior in Response to Service Robot Anthropomorphism in Banking," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 30(2), pages 26-42, June.
    7. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," 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. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    8. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:2:p:130-134 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Henry H. Willis & H. Keith Florig, 2002. "Potential Exposures and Risks from Beryllium‐Containing Products," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 1019-1033, October.
    11. Xiongwei Quan & Gaoshan Zuo & Helin Sun, 2022. "Risk Perception Thresholds and Their Impact on the Behavior of Nearby Residents in Waste to Energy Project Conflict: An Evolutionary Game Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, May.
    12. De Silva, Muthu & Rossi, Federica & Yip, Nick K.T. & Rosli, Ainurul, 2021. "Does affective evaluation matter for the success of university-industry collaborations? A sentiment analysis of university-industry collaborative project reports," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    13. Yawson, Robert M. & Kuzma, Jennifer, 2010. "Evidence review and experts’ opinion on consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology," MPRA Paper 40807, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Yubin Ding & Junling Xu & Sisi Huang & Peipei Li & Cuizhen Lu & Shenghua Xie, 2020. "Risk Perception and Depression in Public Health Crises: Evidence from the COVID-19 Crisis in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-17, August.
    15. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    16. 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.
    17. Bachmann, Kremena & Meyer, Julia & Krauss, Annette, 2024. "Investment motives and performance expectations of impact investors," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    18. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.
    19. Andrew Knight, 2007. "Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1553-1563, December.
    20. Mannberg, Andréa, 2012. "Risk and rationalization—The role of affect and cognitive dissonance for sexual risk taking," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 1325-1337.
    21. Peter M. Wiedemann & Holger Schuetz & Franziska Boerner & Martin Clauberg & Rodney Croft & Rajesh Shukla & Toshiko Kikkawa & Ray Kemp & Jan M. Gutteling & Barney de Villiers & Flavia N. da Silva Medei, 2013. "When Precaution Creates Misunderstandings: The Unintended Effects of Precautionary Information on Perceived Risks, the EMF Case," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1788-1801, October.

    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:pone00:0313143. 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.