Yet, without adequate models, hypothesis testing and comparisons of effect estimates between studies become difficult and studies remain descriptive. Theoretical perspectives on attitudes towards AVs thus have not diffused properly into the discourse. While some articles on AV attitudes apply and test these models, many others develop ad hoc models of their own or do not provide models or conceptualisations of their measures at all. The most comprehensive AV attitude models to our knowledge feature outcome variables such as behavioural intentions, usefulness, satisfaction, social acceptability, or willingness to pay and multiple predictors such as socio-demographics, trust, perceived safety, pleasure, and arousal. They borrowed from the literature on general technology acceptance (e.g., TAM or UTAUT ) enriching them with psychological constructs (e.g., locus of control or trust ) and mobility focus. Several authors have modelled (the relationships between) attitudes towards AVs. However, a variety of definitions and operationalisations combined with hypothetical study designs and rather descriptive analyses lead to uncertainty and confusion about people’s attitudes towards AVs. Research has identified several attitudes relevant for the user assessment of AVs. With these alterations, it is unclear how people will react in encounters as co-habitants or as potential users. Fig 1 presents a picture of the AV used in this study. These vehicles are pod-like, equipped with window fronts on all sides and opposing seats, and exhibit no obvious front and rear setting them apart from both passenger cars and public transport vehicles. In this paper, we understand AVs to be shared, electrically powered, and to feature automation above SAE level 4 being able to perform at least “all driving functions under certain conditions”. The development of automated vehicles (AVs) presents a caesura in mobility revolutionising travel particularly for people in old age and with disabilities. We thus argue for broader conceptualisations of key constructs based on interdisciplinary exchange and multi-methodical study designs. Our open item for comments added valuable insights in qualitative aspects of user attitudes towards electric AVs regarding driving style, technical features, and (unsettling) audio-visual feedback. However, factor analyses did not reflect the hypothesised data structure, and validity concerns question the suitability of some constructs for attitude assessment of electric AVs. The vehicles were accepted ( M = 1.22 SD = 0.70 range -2 to 2), trusted ( M = 3.29 SD = 0.81 range 1 to 5), and perceived as safe ( M = 3.29 SD = 1.03 range 1 to 5). 69 six of eight scales normally distributed).
Tests of reliability and normality were satisfying for almost all constructs (Cronbach’s alphas ≥.
As a first contribution, we bridge the gap between missing definitions of key constructs, confusion about their operationalisations, and a rigorous test of their statistical properties and data structure by examining scales on acceptance, trust, perceived safety, intention to use, and-for the first time applied to AVs-the emotions amusement, fear, surprise, and boredom. We present data from a pilot test with participants ( n = 125) after experiencing a ride in an electric AV on a large clinic area in Berlin, Germany.
#Maxqda single user llicense term simulator#
After years of hypothetical surveys and simulator studies, automated vehicles (AVs) are now being tested in realistic traffic environments adding validity to knowledge about their acceptance.