With the continuous development of automatic driving technology and advancements in related experimental research, the probability of traffic accidents caused by human factors has been greatly reduced. However, people are still cautious about the safety of automated driving technology. The purpose of this study was to investigate users’ perceived safety indicators and the psychological factors of their perceived safety judgment of self-driving buses. In this study, a structural model of the factors that influence self-driving buses, including behavioral intention of technology acceptance, trust theory, perceived risk, and perceived safety, was developed based on the technology acceptance model (TAM). Subsequently, a relevant survey of 215 respondents was conducted and analyzed using the partial least squares method. The results indicated that trust, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use were important factors for judging the perceived safety of self-driving buses. The structural model developed in this study can quantify and analyze user data to filter out the factors that influence the perceived safety of self-driving buses, which is conducive to improving people’s trust and acceptance of self-driving buses.
KyriakidisM.HappeeR.De WinterJ. C. F.Public Opinion on Automated Driving: Results of an International Questionnaire among 5000 Respondents. Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology & Behaviour, Vol. 32, 2015, pp. 127–140.
4.
KoopmanP.WagnerM.Autonomous Vehicle Safety: An Interdisciplinary Challenge. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2017, pp. 90–96.
5.
PanagiotopoulosI.DimitrakopoulosG.An Empirical Investigation on Consumers’ Intentions towards Autonomous Driving. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 95, 2018, pp. 773–784.
6.
LiuP.YangR.XuZ.How Safe Is Safe Enough for Self-Driving Vehicles?Risk Analysis, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2019, pp. 315–325.
7.
MaY.LiS.QinS.QuiY.Factors Affecting Trust in the Autonomous Vehicle: A Survey of Primary School Students and Parent Perceptions. Proc., IEEE 19th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom), IEEE, New York, Guangzhou, China, 2020, pp. 2020–2027.
8.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R.User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, Vol. 35, No. 8, 1989, pp. 982–1003.
9.
DavisF. D.VenkateshV.A Critical Assessment of Potential Measurement Biases in the Technology Acceptance Model: Three Experiments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 45, No. 1, 1996, pp. 19–45.
10.
VenkateshV.DavisF. D.A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2000, pp. 186–204.
11.
SheridanT. B.Considerations in Modeling the Human Supervisory Controller. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1975, pp. 223–228.
12.
SheridanT. B.HennessyR. T.Research and Modeling of Supervisory Control Behavior. Report of a Workshop. Technical report. Committee on Human Factors; National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1984.
13.
CarterL.BélangerF.The Utilization of E-Government Services: Citizen Trust, Innovation and Acceptance Factors. Information Systems Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2005, pp. 5–25.
14.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D.Situation Awareness, Mental Workload, and Trust in Automation: Viable, Empirically Supported Cognitive Engineering Constructs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2008, pp. 140–160.
15.
GhazizadehM.PengY.LeeJ. D.BoyleL. N.Augmenting the Technology Acceptance Model with Trust: Commercial Drivers’ Attitudes towards Monitoring and Feedback. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2012, pp. 2286–2290.
16.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D.An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1995, pp. 709–734.
17.
ThatcherJ. B.McKnightD. H.BakerE. W.ArsalR. E.RobertsN. H.The Role of Trust in Postadoption IT Exploration: An Empirical Examination of Knowledge Management Systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2010, pp. 56–70.
18.
LippertS. K.An Exploratory Study Into the Relevance of Trust in the Context of Information Systems Technology. The George Washington University, Washington, DC, 2001.
19.
HasanZ.KrischkowskyA.TscheligiM.Modelling User-Centered-Trust (UCT) in Software Systems: Interplay of Trust, Affect and Acceptance Model. Proc., International Conference on Trust and Trustworthy Computing, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 92–109.
20.
BauerR. A.Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking. Proc., 43rd National Conference of the American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, USA, June 15–17, 1960.
21.
WarrM.StaffordM.Fear of Victimization: A Look at the Proximate Causes. Social Forces, Vol. 61, No. 4, 1983, pp. 1033–1043.
22.
RodinJ.Control by Any Other Name: Definitions, Concepts, and Processes. In Self-Directedness: Cause and Effects throughout the Life Course (RodinJ.SchoolerC.SchaieK. W., eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, 1990, pp. 1–17.
23.
JacksonJ.Revisiting Risk Sensitivity in the Fear of Crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 48, No. 4, 2011, pp. 513–537.
24.
Acuña-RiveraM.BrownJ.UzzellD.Risk Perception as a Mediator in Perceptions of Neighborhood Disorder and Safety about Victimization. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 40, 2014, pp. 64–75.
25.
RandomT.Risk Perception and Safety on Offshore Petroleum Platforms—Part I: Perception of Risk. Safety Science, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1992, pp. 39–52.
26.
OdufuwaB.BadioraA. I.OlaleyeD. O.AkinlotanP. A.AdebaraT. M.Perceived Personal Safety Inbuilt Environment Facilities: A Nigerian Case Study of Urban Recreation Sites. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Vol. 25, 2019, pp. 24–35.
27.
DelboscA.CurrieG.Modelling the Causes and Impacts of Personal Safety Perceptions on Public Transport Ridership. Transport Policy, Vol. 24, 2012, pp. 302–309.
28.
NgueutsaR.KouabenanD. R.Accident History, Risk Perception and Traffic Safe Behavior. Ergonomics, Vol. 60, No. 9, 2017, pp. 1273–1282.
29.
NeesM. A.Safer than the Average Human Driver (Who Is Less Safe than Me)? Examining a Popular Safety Benchmark for Self-Driving Cars. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 69, 2019, pp. 61–68.
30.
MoodyJ.BaileyN.ZhaoJ.Public Perceptions of Autonomous Vehicle Safety: An International Comparison. Safety Science, Vol. 121, 2020, pp. 634–650.
31.
SchepersJ.WetzelsM.A Meta-Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model: Investigating Subjective Norm and Moderation Effects. Information & Management, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2007, pp. 90–103.
32.
PavlouP. A.Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2003, pp. 101–134.
33.
SjöbergL.Neglecting the Risks: The Irrationality of Health Behavior and the Quest for La Dolce Vita. European Psychologist, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2003, pp. 266.
34.
ChinW. W.MarcolinB. L.NewstedP. R.A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study. Information Systems Research, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2003, pp. 189–217.
35.
BarclayD.HigginsC.ThompsonR.The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Causal Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use as an Illustration. Technology Studies, Vol. 2, 1995, pp. 285–309.
36.
ChinW. W.The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, Vol. 295, No. 2, 1998, pp. 295–336.
37.
GefenD.StraubD.BoudreauM. C.Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2000, p. 7.
38.
FornellC.LarckerD. F.Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1981, pp. 39–50.
39.
FalkR. F.MillerN. B.A Primer for Soft Modeling. University of Akron Press, OH, 1992.
40.
Campón-CerroA. M.AlvesH. M. B.Hernández-MogollónJ. M.Attachment as a Factor in Generating Satisfaction with, and Loyalty to, Rural Tourism Destinations. Tourism & Management Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2015, pp. 70–76.
41.
GefenD.KarahannaE.StraubD. W.Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model. MIS Quarterly, 2003: 51–90.
42.
LeeJ.MorayN.Trust, Control Strategies and Allocation of Function in Human-Machine Systems. Ergonomics, Vol. 35, No. 10, 1992, pp. 1243–1270.
43.
ChoiJ. K.JiY. G.Investigating the Importance of Trust on Adopting an Autonomous Vehicle. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 31, No. 10, 2015, pp. 692–702.
44.
FernbachP. M.LightN.ScottS. E.InbarY.RozinP.Extreme Opponents of Genetically Modified Foods Know the Least but Think They Know the Most. Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2019, pp. 251–256.
45.
MielbyH.SandøeP.LassenJ.The Role of Scientific Knowledge in Shaping Public Attitudes to GM Technologies. Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2013, pp. 155–168.
