Conceptual Model to Explain, Predict, and Improve User Acceptance of Driverless Podlike Vehicles
Abstract
This paper presents a synthesis of existing empirical acceptance studies on automated driving and scientific literature on technology acceptance. The objective of the study was to study user acceptance of SAE Level 4 vehicles or driverless podlike vehicles without a steering wheel and pedals that operated within the constraints of dedicated infrastructure. The review indicates that previous acceptance studies on automated driving are skewed toward car users and thus create a need for targeted acceptance studies, including users of public transport. For obvious reasons, previous studies targeted respondents who had not experienced driverless vehicles. As driverless vehicles are currently being demonstrated in pilot projects, their acceptance by users inside and outside such vehicles can now be investigated. Addressing the multidimensional nature of acceptance, a conceptual model that integrates a holistic and comprehensive set of variables to explain, predict, and improve user acceptance of driverless vehicles was developed. The model linked two dominant models from the technology acceptance management literature, the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and the pleasure–arousal–dominance framework, with a number of external variables that were divided into system-specific, user, and contextual characteristics.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The benefits of automated cars, shuttles, or buses could extend beyond safety to include improvements in congestion, reductions in emissions, and increased access to mobility, particularly for vulnerable populations.
“The benefits of automated cars, shuttles, or buses could extend beyond safety to include improvements in congestion, reductions in emissions, and increased access to mobility, particularly for vulnerable populations.5”
From Advancing Transportation Equity and Safety Through Autonomous Vehicles (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
Cites
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035 · see citing works
Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., & de Winter, J. C. F. (2015) · Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014 · Cited by 1,383 · see citing works
Self-citationInvestigating the Importance of Trust on Adopting an Autonomous Vehicle
Choi, J. K., & Ji, Y. G. (2015) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1070549 · Cited by 1,200 · see citing works
Assessing public opinions of and interest in new vehicle technologies: An Austin perspective
Bansal, P., Kockelman, K. M., & Singh, A. (2016) · Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.trc.2016.01.019 · Cited by 1,025 · see citing works
A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics
Van Der Laan, J. D., Heino, A., & De Waard, D. (1997) · Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/s0968-090x(96)00025-3 · Cited by 873 · see citing works
Intention to use a fully automated car: Attitudes and a priori acceptability
Payre, W., Cestac, J., & Delhomme, P. (2014) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2014.04.009 · Cited by 696 · see citing works
Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies
Schade, J., & Schlag, B. (2003) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/s1369-8478(02)00046-3 · Cited by 498 · see citing works
Skippon, S., & Garwood, M. (2011) · Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.trd.2011.05.005 · Cited by 362 · see citing works
Behavioural adaptation to adaptive cruise control (ACC): implications for preventive strategies
Rudin-Brown, C. M., & Parker, H. A. (2004) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2004.02.001 · Cited by 340 · see citing works
Diels, C., & Bos, J. E. (2015) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.09.009 · Cited by 336 · see citing works
Driving with a congestion assistant; mental workload and acceptance
Brookhuis, K., Driel, C. J. G. V., Hof, T., van Arem, B., & Hoedemaeker, M. (2008) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2008.06.010 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Driving to save time or saving time to drive? The enduring appeal of the private car
Kent, J. (2014) · Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.tra.2014.04.009 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
An International Crowdsourcing Study into People's Statements on Fully Automated Driving
Bazilinskyy, P., Kyriakidis, M., & de Winter, J. (2015) · Procedia Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.540 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Driver acceptance of new technology: theory, measurement and optimisation
Underwood, P. (2015) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2015.1048970 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
CityMobil2: Challenges and Opportunities of Fully Automated Mobility
Alessandrini, A., Cattivera, A., Holguín, C., et al. (2014) · Lecture notes in mobility · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05990-7_15 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Yap, M., Correia, G. H. D. A., & van Arem, B. (2015) · Transportation research procedia · doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2015.09.096 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Public health principles to inform testing and build trust in automated vehicles
Ehsani, J. P., Michael, J., & Igusa, T. (2020) · Injury Prevention · doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2019-043136 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Advancing Transportation Equity and Safety Through Autonomous Vehicles
Ehsani, J. P., Michael, J. P., Igusa, T., Mueller, J., Chang, C.-H., & Yenokyan, G. (2024) · Health Equity · doi:10.1089/heq.2023.0107 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Nordhoff, S., van Arem, B., & Happee, R.
- Affiliations
- Innovationszentrum für Mobilität und Gesellschaftlichen Wandel (Germany) (DE)
- Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime, and Materials Engineering and Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD Delft, Netherlands
- Corresponding author
- Nordhoff, Sina
- Venue
- Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 2602
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 60-67
- ISSN
- 0361-1981 (ISSN-L)
- 2169-4052
- OpenAlex
- W2569739924
- Cited by
- 177
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 6
- FWCI
- 23.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Transportation and Mobility Innovations
- Keywords
- autonomous vehicles, autonomous driving, user acceptance, technology acceptance, conceptual model, UTAUT, public transport users, contextual factors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
