Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are poised to become transformative technologies in modern or smart cities. However, consumers’ reluctance to adopt AVs remains a significant barrier.
Objective
This study aims to investigate three questions. First, which innovation characteristics of AVs most influence consumer adoption? Secondly, how do perceived benefits and risks shape adoption decisions, and are risks more influential than benefits? Thirdly, to test the mediating effects of consumer value perceptions, as well as other fatal contingent mechanisms in the above causal relationships.
Methods
A structural survey based on questionnaires was conducted, and a valid sample containing 504 respondents was finally collected. To explore the causal relationships, the regression method was employed to analyze the relationships among key factors affecting AVs diffusion.
Results
Three key findings were indicated. First, ease of use, compatibility, and relative advantage significantly influence AV adoption. Second, perceived usefulness, hedonism, and risk all affect adoption, with perceived risk showing the strongest negative impact. Third, these value perceptions mediate the relationship between innovation characteristics and adoption intention, outlining the cognitive pathway of AV diffusion. Additionally, subjective norms moderate the impact of perceived risk, suggesting a crowd effect in adoption decisions for emerging technologies.
Conclusions
These findings contribute to the advancement of human–machine interaction theory and provide valuable insights for developing policies and strategies to promote AV adoption.
Meyer-WaardenLCloarecJ. “Baby, you can drive my car”: psychological antecedents that drive consumers’ adoption of AI-powered autonomous vehicles. Technovation2022; 109: 102348.
2.
ParekhDPoddarNRajpurkarA, et al.A review on autonomous vehicles: progress, methods and challenges. Electronics2022; 11: 2162.
3.
LimWLeeSSungB, et al.Is Australia ready for autonomous vehicles? examining the factors influencing AV adoption through expert interviews. Australas Market J2023; 32: 308–322.
4.
YuenKFWongYDMaF, et al.The determinants of public acceptance of autonomous vehicles: an innovation diffusion perspective. J Clean Prod2020; 270: 121904.
5.
OlayodeIODuBSeverinoA, et al.Systematic literature review on the applications, impacts, and public perceptions of autonomous vehicles in road transportation system. J Traffic Transport Eng2023; 10: 1037–1060.
6.
GarikapatiDShetiyaSS. Autonomous vehicles: evolution of artificial intelligence and the current industry landscape. Big Data Cogn Comput2024; 8: 42.
7.
ReedSCampbellAMThomasBW. The value of autonomous vehicles for last-mile deliveries in urban environments. Manag Sci2022; 68: 280–299.
8.
ChenLYangLLuanX, et al.Advanced autonomous vehicle acceptance model (AAVAM) for promoting accessible travel. In: 2024 29th international conference on automation and computing (ICAC), 2024, pp. 1–6: IEEE.
9.
GaioACugurulloF. Cyclists and autonomous vehicles at odds: can the transport oppression cycle be broken in the era of artificial intelligence?AI Soc2023; 38: 1223–1237.
10.
ZefrehMMEdriesBEsztergár-KissD, et al.Intention to use private autonomous vehicles in developed and developing countries: what are the differences among the influential factors, mediators, and moderators?Travel Behav Soc2023; 32: 100592.
11.
NaisehMClarkJAkarsuT, et al.Trust, risk perception, and intention to use autonomous vehicles: an interdisciplinary bibliometric review. AI Soc2024; 40: 1091–1111.
12.
RogersEM. Diffusion of innovations: modifications of a model for telecommunications. In: StoetzerM-WMahlerA (eds). Die diffusion von innovationen in der telekommunikation. Springer, 1995, pp. 25–38.
13.
MooreGCBenbasatI. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res1991; 2: 192–222.
14.
YuenKFCaiLQiG, et al.Factors influencing autonomous vehicle adoption: an application of the technology acceptance model and innovation diffusion theory. Technol Anal Strat Manag2021; 33: 505–519.
15.
OhJYoonS-J. Validation of haptic enabling technology acceptance model (HE-TAM): integration of IDT and TAM. Telematics Inf2014; 31: 585–596.
16.
MbathaB. Diffusion of innovations: how adoption of new technology spreads in society. In: OchollaDOnyanchaOBAdesinaAO (eds). Information, knowledge, and technology for teaching and research in Africa: human machine interaction and user interfaces. Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024, pp. 1–18.
17.
TakahashiCKFigueiredoJCBDScornavaccaE. Investigating the diffusion of innovation: a comprehensive study of successive diffusion processes through analysis of search trends, patent records, and academic publications. Technol Forecast Soc Change2024; 198: 122991.
18.
AyanwaleMANdlovuM. Investigating factors of students' behavioral intentions to adopt chatbot technologies in higher education: perspective from expanded diffusion theory of innovation. Comp Human Behav Rep2024; 14: 100396.
19.
FarzinIMamdoohiARCiariF. Autonomous vehicles acceptance: a perceived risk extension of unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and diffusion of innovation, evidence from Tehran, Iran. Int J Hum Comput Interact2022; 39: 2663–2672.
20.
Hasan EmonMM. Insights into technology adoption: a systematic review of framework, variables and items. Inform Manag Comp Sci2023; 6: 55–61.
21.
RyanRMDeciEL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol2000; 25: 54–67.
22.
DavisFDGranićA. Evolution of TAM. In: The technology acceptance model. Springer International Publishing, 2024, pp. 19–57.
23.
VenkateshVThongJYLXuX. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q2012; 36: 157–178.
24.
SeuwouP. Measuring behavioural intention to accept autonomous vehicles: a structural equation model. PhD. London South Bank University, 2020.
25.
HegnerSMBeldadADBrunswickGJ. In automatic we trust: investigating the impact of trust, control, personality characteristics, and extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on the acceptance of autonomous vehicles. Int J Hum Comput Interact2019; 35: 1769–1780.
26.
KieuMSenanayakeG. Perception, experience and resilience to risks: a global analysis. Sci Rep2023; 13: 19356.
27.
HabbalAAliMKAbuzaraidaMA. Artificial intelligence trust, risk and security management (AI TRiSM): frameworks, applications, challenges and future research directions. Expert Syst Appl2024; 240: 122442.
28.
BenleulmiAZRamdaniB. Behavioural intention to use fully autonomous vehicles: instrumental, symbolic, and affective motives. Transport Res F Traffic Psychol Behav2022; 86: 226–237.
29.
ManSSXiongWChangF, et al.Critical factors influencing acceptance of automated vehicles by Hong Kong drivers. IEEE Access2020; 8: 109845–109856.
30.
AlamT. Data privacy and security in autonomous connected vehicles in smart city environment. Big Data Cogn Comput2024; 8: 95.
31.
LinK-YLuH-P. Why people use social networking sites: an empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Comput Hum Behav2011; 27: 1152–1161.
32.
HoJCWuC-GLeeC-S, et al.Factors affecting the behavioral intention to adopt mobile banking: an international comparison. Technol Soc2020; 63: 101360.
33.
RohTSeokJKimY. Unveiling ways to reach organic purchase: green perceived value, perceived knowledge, attitude, subjective norm, and trust. J Retailing Consum Serv2022; 67: 102988.
34.
WatanabeRWatanabeTWakuiK. Acceptance of main power generation sources among Japan’s undergraduate students: the roles of knowledge, experience, trust, and perceived risk and benefit. Sustainability2021; 13: 12416.
35.
FeathermanMJiaSJCaliffCB, et al.The impact of new technologies on consumers beliefs: reducing the perceived risks of electric vehicle adoption. Technol Forecast Soc Change2021; 169: 120847.
TamilmaniKRanaNPWambaSF, et al.The extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2): a systematic literature review and theory evaluation. Int J Inf Manag2021; 57: 102269.
38.
ParkJHongELeHT. Adopting autonomous vehicles: the moderating effects of demographic variables. J Retailing Consum Serv2021; 63: 102687.
39.
XiaoJGouliasKG. Perceived usefulness and intentions to adopt autonomous vehicles. Transport Res Pol Pract2022; 161: 170–185.
40.
KeszeyT. Behavioural intention to use autonomous vehicles: systematic review and empirical extension. Transport Res C Emerg Technol2020; 119: 102732.
41.
HuangT. Psychological factors affecting potential users’ intention to use autonomous vehicles. PLoS One2023; 18: e0282915.
42.
ForoughiBNhanPVIranmaneshM, et al.Determinants of intention to use autonomous vehicles: findings from PLS-SEM and ANFIS. J Retailing Consum Serv2023; 70: 103158.
43.
MayerRCDavisJHSchoormanFD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manag Rev1995; 20: 709–734.
44.
KapserSAbdelrahmanM. Acceptance of autonomous delivery vehicles for last-mile delivery in Germany – extending UTAUT2 with risk perceptions. Transport Res C Emerg Technol2020; 111: 210–225.
45.
ZhangTTaoDQuX, et al.The roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public’s acceptance of automated vehicles. Transp Res Part C2019; 98: 207–220.
46.
WaungMMcAuslanPLakshmananS. Trust and intention to use autonomous vehicles: manufacturer focus and passenger control. Transport Res F Traffic Psychol Behav2021; 80: 328–340.
47.
VenkateshVDavisFD. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decis Sci J1996; 27: 451–481.
48.
MaJWangPLiB, et al.Exploring user adoption of ChatGPT: a technology acceptance model perspective. Int J Hum Comput Interact2024; 41: 1431–1445.
49.
PillaiRSivathanuBMetriB, et al.Students’ adoption of AI-based teacher-bots (T-bots) for learning in higher education. Inf Technol People2023; 37: 328–355.
50.
HeXZhangHGuoJ, et al.Understanding the adoption of autonomous vehicles in China based on TRI and TAM. World Electric Vehicle Journal2025; 16: 23.
51.
StaabVLiebherrM. Perception and acceptance of autonomous vehicles: influencing factors and the relevance of subjective knowledge. Int J Hum Comp Inter2024; 40: 8463–8475.
52.
KeC-HHuey-MinSYuan-ChiY, et al.Effects of user and system characteristics on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the web-based classroom response system. Turkish Online J Educ Techn-TOJET2012; 11(3): 128–143.
53.
HasanAA-TSumonSMIslamMT, et al.Factors influencing online shopping intentions: the mediating role of perceived enjoyment. Tujom2021; 6: 239–253.
54.
FakhruzzamanMNDimitrovaDV. Factors influencing e-government adoption in Indonesia: the importance of perceived risk. Control Syst2020; 12: 125–131.
55.
KeneseiZÁsványiKKökényL, et al.Trust and perceived risk: how different manifestations affect the adoption of autonomous vehicles. Transport Res Pol Pract2022; 164: 379–393.
56.
AbubakariMSZakariaGMusaJ. Perceived compatibility and students’ intention to adopt digital technologies in Islamic education institutions. Cogent Educ2024; 11: 2430869.
57.
Ramos de LunaIMontoro-RíosFMolinilloS, et al.Consumer behaviour and mobile payments in the point of Sale: exploring the determinants of intention to adopt it. Int J Hum Comput Interact2023; 40: 5350–5372.
58.
MansooriSAAl-EmranMShaalanK. Factors affecting autonomous vehicles adoption: a systematic review, proposed framework, and future roadmap. Int J Hum Comp Inter2024; 40: 8397–8418.
59.
SinghNSinhaN. How perceived trust mediates merchant’s intention to use a mobile wallet technology. J Retailing Consum Serv2020; 52: 101894.
60.
MoonsIDe PelsmackerP. An extended decomposed theory of planned behaviour to predict the usage intention of the electric car: a multi-group comparison. Sustainability2015; 7: 6212–6245.
61.
WangES-T. Influences of innovation attributes on value perceptions and usage intentions of mobile payment. J Elec Comm Res2022; 23: 45–48.
62.
ChildersTLRaoAR. The influence of familial and peer-based reference groups on consumer decisions. J Consum Res1992; 19: 198–211.
63.
VilkoJTariqANemilentsevaM, et al.Managing uncertainty in innovation process through AI integration. In: RochaÁMontenegroCPereiraET, et al. (eds). Management, tourism and smart technologies. Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024, pp. 153–161.
64.
XieRAnL. Motivation to interaction media: the impact of automation trust and self-determination theory on intention to use the new interaction technology in autonomous vehicles. Morden Economic Sci2020; 42(05): 113–121.
65.
MombeuilCUhdeH. Relative convenience, relative advantage, perceived security, perceived privacy, and continuous use intention of China€s WeChat pay: a mixed-method two-phase design study. J Retailing Consum Serv2021; 59: 102384.
66.
YuenKFChuaGWangX, et al.Understanding public acceptance of autonomous vehicles using the theory of planned behaviour. Int J Environ Res Publ Health2020; 17: 4419.
67.
WangYMeisterDWangY. Relative advantage and perceived usefulness: the adoption of competing ICTs. DIGIT 2008 Proc2008; 6: 1–21.
68.
YuanMLiZLiX, et al.Proposing a multifaceted model for adopting prefabricated construction technology in the construction industry. Eng Construct Architect Manag2021; 30: 755–786.
69.
MarikyanDPapagiannidisSAlamanosE. Cognitive dissonance in technology adoption: a study of smart home users. Inf Syst Front2023; 25: 1101–1123.
70.
HsiehC-CKuoP-LYangS-C, et al.Assessing blog-user satisfaction using the expectation and disconfirmation approach. Comput Hum Behav2010; 26: 1434–1444.
71.
MustofaRHKuncoroTGAtmonoD, et al.Extending the technology acceptance model: the role of subjective norms, ethics, and trust in AI tool adoption among students. Comput Educ Artif Intell2025; 8: 100379.
72.
BhattiAAkramH. The moderating role of subjective norms between online shopping behaviour and its determinants. Int J Soc Sci Eco Review2020; 2: 1–9.
73.
WanCShenGQChoiS. The moderating effect of subjective norm in predicting intention to use urban green spaces: a study of Hong Kong. Sustain Cities Soc2018; 37: 288–297.
74.
HammadABatainehAQAlshuridehMT, et al.Factors affecting healthcare providers to accept digital marketing: the moderating role of subjective norms. Int J Data Net2022; 6: 1085–1098.
75.
GrantFHoggMA. Self-uncertainty, social identity prominence and group identification. J Exp Soc Psychol2012; 48: 538–542.
76.
HairJFGabrielMPatelV. AMOS covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM): guidelines on its application as a marketing research tool. REMark, Rev Bras Mark2014; 13: 44–55.
77.
HairJFRisherJJSarstedtM, et al.When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev2019; 31: 2–24.
78.
CaiLYuenKFWangX. Explore public acceptance of autonomous buses: an integrated model of UTAUT, TTF and trust. Travel Behaviour and Society2023; 31: 120–130.
79.
CaliffCBSarkerSSarkerS. The bright and dark sides of technostress: a mixed-methods study involving healthcare IT. MIS Q2020; 44: 809–856.
80.
TanHZhaoXYangJ. Exploring the influence of anxiety, pleasure and subjective knowledge on public acceptance of fully autonomous vehicles. Comput Hum Behav2022; 131: 107187.
