This paper explores the perception and acceptance of autonomous vehicles (AVs) and the potential influence of different naming choices on public attitudes. Understanding how people perceive AVs becomes crucial in promoting their acceptance. This study examines three different naming options for AVs as “Autonomous,”“Self-Driving,” and “Driverless” vehicles, to investigate their impact on public perception. Key research questions include whether various names affect attitudes toward AVs, which demographic groups show more favorable or unfavorable responses to different naming choices, and individuals’ reactions concerning interest in riding in AVs, feeling safer with friends, sharing rides with strangers if information about them is provided, and perceived helpfulness of these vehicles for travel needs. This work employs binary probit models and an ordered probit model to tackle the research questions. In addition, a multivariate (quadrivariate) ordered probit model is formulated to address correlations between responses from the same respondents. Results show that the effect of wording indeed exists, mostly under the term “Self-Driving,” which was found to be the one preferred over “Driverless” and “Autonomous,” in that order. Age, gender, ethnicity, ridepooling experience, and walking or biking for work and non-work trips were found to be statistically significant as predictors for usage of AVs. Also, the results of the multivariate model reveal that certain estimates deviate from the individual models’ findings, thus corroborating the assumption that disregarding correlations between responses of the same individuals may lead to the risk of drawing inaccurate conclusions.
ClementsL. M.KockelmanK. M.Economic Effects of Automated Vehicles. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2017. 2606: 106–114.
2.
MorandoM. M.TianQ.TruongL. T.VuH. L.Studying the Safety Impact of Autonomous Vehicles Using Simulation-Based Surrogate Safety Measures. Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 2018, 2018, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6135183
3.
PettigrewS.TalatiZ.NormanR.The Health Benefits of Autonomous Vehicles: Public Awareness and Receptivity in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Vol. 42, No. 5, 2018, pp. 480–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12805\
4.
KacperskiC.KutznerF.VogelT.Consequences of Autonomous Vehicles: Ambivalent Expectations and Their Impact on Acceptance. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 81, 2021, pp. 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.06.004
5.
BoersmaR.PoortvlietP. M.GremmenB.The Elephant in the Room: How a Technology’s Name Affects Its Interpretation. Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2019, pp. 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518812295
6.
BishopG. F.OldendickR. W.TuchfarberA. J.Effects of Question Wording and Format on Political Attitude Consistency. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 1, 1978, p. 81. https://doi.org/10.1086/268431
7.
GreenhillM.LevistonZ.LeonardR.WalkerI.Assessing Climate Change Beliefs: Response Effects of Question Wording and Response Alternatives. Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 23, No. 8, 2014, pp. 947–965. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513480117
8.
WhitleyB. E.Jr.FriezeI. H.Measuring Causal Attributions for Success and Failure: A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Question-Wording Style. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1986, pp. 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0701_3
9.
GefenD.LarsenK. R.Controlling for Lexical Closeness in Survey Research: A Demonstration on the Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 18, No. 10, 2017, p. 1.
10.
LavieriP. S.GarikapatiV. M.BhatC. R.PendyalaR. M.AstrozaS.DiasF. F.Modeling Individual Preferences for Ownership and Sharing of Autonomous Vehicle Technologies. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2017. 2665: 1–10.
11.
PettigrewS.DanaL. M.NormanR.Clusters of Potential Autonomous Vehicles Users According to Propensity to Use Individual Versus Shared Vehicles. Transport Policy, Vol. 76, 2019, pp. 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.01.010
12.
LeeJ.LeeD.ParkY.LeeS.HaT.Autonomous Vehicles Can Be Shared, but a Feeling of Ownership Is Important: Examination of the Influential Factors for Intention to Use Autonomous Vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 107, 2019, pp. 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.08.020
13.
WangS.JiangZ.NolandR. B.MondscheinA. S.Attitudes Towards Privately-Owned and Shared Autonomous Vehicles. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 72, 2020, pp. 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.05.014
14.
Kassens-NoorE.WilsonM.CaiM.DurstN.DecaminadaT.Autonomous vs. Self-Driving Vehicles: The Power of Language to Shape Public Perceptions. Journal of Urban Technology, Vol. 28, No. 3–4, 2021, pp. 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2020.1847983
15.
LiuP.FeiQ.LiuJ.WangJ.Naming Is Framing: The Framing Effect of Technology Name on Public Attitude Toward Automated Vehicles. Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 30, No. 6, 2021, pp. 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520987806
16.
MyrickJ. G.AhernL.ShaoR.ConlinJ.Technology Name and Celebrity Endorsement Effects of Autonomous Vehicle Promotional Messages: Mechanisms and Moderators. Science Communication, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2019, pp. 38–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018819194
17.
FrewerL. J.HowardC.ShepherdR.Understanding Public Attitudes to Technology. Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1998, pp. 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/136698798377141
18.
MoodyJ.BaileyN.ZhaoJ.Public Perceptions of Autonomous Vehicle Safety: An International Comparison. Safety Science, Vol. 121, 2020, pp. 634–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.07.022
19.
HewittC.PolitisI.AmanatidisT.SarkarA.Assessing Public Perception of Self-Driving Cars: The Autonomous Vehicle Acceptance Model. Presented at the IUI ’19: 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Marina del Ray California, 2019.
20.
OthmanK.Public Acceptance and Perception of Autonomous Vehicles: A Comprehensive Review. AI and Ethics, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2021, pp. 355–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00041-8
21.
ThomasE.McCruddenC.WhartonZ.BeheraA.Perception of Autonomous Vehicles by the Modern Society: A Survey. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, Vol. 14, No. 10, 2020, pp. 1228–1239. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2019.0703
22.
BansalP.KockelmanK. M.SinghA.Assessing Public Opinions of and Interest in New Vehicle Technologies: An Austin Perspective. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 67, 2016, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.01.019
23.
BansalP.KockelmanK. M.Are We Ready to Embrace Connected and Self-Driving Vehicles? A Case Study of Texans. Transportation, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2018, pp. 641–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-016-9745-z
24.
HilgarterK.GranigP.Public Perception of Autonomous Vehicles: A Qualitative Study Based on Interviews After Riding an Autonomous Shuttle. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 72, 2020, pp. 226–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.05.012
25.
CheeP. N. E.SusiloY. O.WongY. D.PernestålA.Which Factors Affect Willingness-to-Pay for Automated Vehicle Services? Evidence from Public Road Deployment in Stockholm, Sweden. European Transport Research Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2020, p. 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-020-00404-y
26.
Camps-AragóP.TemmermanL.VanobberghenW.DelaereS.Encouraging the Sustainable Adoption of Autonomous Vehicles for Public Transport in Belgium: Citizen Acceptance, Business Models, and Policy Aspects. Sustainability, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2022, p. 921. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020921
27.
LjubiK.GroznikA.Role Played by Social Factors and Privacy Concerns in Autonomous Vehicle Adoption. Transport Policy, Vol. 132, 2023, pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.12.013
28.
LiuN.NikitasA.ParkinsonS.Exploring Expert Perceptions About the Cyber Security and Privacy of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles: A Thematic Analysis Approach. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 75, 2020, pp. 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.09.019
29.
KeneseiZ.ÁsványiK.KökényL.JászberényiM.MiskolcziM.GyulaváriT.SyahrivarJ.Trust and Perceived Risk: How Different Manifestations Affect the Adoption of Autonomous Vehicles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 164, 2022, pp. 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.08.022
30.
BloomC.TanJ.RamjohnJ.BauerL.Self-Driving Cars and Data Collection: Privacy Perceptions of Networked Autonomous Vehicles. In 13th symposium on usable privacy and security (soups 2017), 2017, pp. 357–375.
31.
ChenY.Khalid KhanS.ShiwakotiN.StasinopoulosP.AghabaykK.Analysis of Australian Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Vehicles by Extending Technology Acceptance Model. Case Studies on Transport Policy, Vol. 14, 2023, p. 101072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2023.101072
32.
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 and Behaviour, Vol. 32, 2015, pp. 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014
33.
SchoettleB.SivakM.A Survey of Public Opinion About Autonomous and Self-Driving Vehicles in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia. University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, 2014.
34.
ShabanpourR.GolshaniN.ShamshiripourA.(Kouros) MohammadianA.Eliciting Preferences for Adoption of Fully Automated Vehicles Using Best-Worst Analysis. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 93, 2018, pp. 463–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.06.014
35.
TennantC.StaresS.HowardS.Public Discomfort at the Prospect of Autonomous Vehicles: Building on Previous Surveys to Measure Attitudes in 11 Countries. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 64, 2019, pp. 98–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.04.017
36.
MouratidisK.Cobeña SerranoV.Autonomous Buses: Intentions to Use, Passenger Experiences, and Suggestions for Improvement. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 76, 2021, pp. 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.12.007
37.
GurumurthyK.Perceptions and Preferences of Autonomous and Shared Autonomous Vehicles: A Focus on Dynamic Ride-Sharing. Doctoral dissertation. 2017.
38.
GurumurthyK. M.KockelmanK. M.Modeling Americans’ Autonomous Vehicle Preferences: A Focus on Dynamic Ride-Sharing, Privacy & Long-Distance Mode Choices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 150, 2020, p. 119792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119792
39.
SchußM.WintersbergerP.RienerA.Let’s Share a Ride into the Future: A Qualitative Study Comparing Hypothetical Implementation Scenarios of Automated Vehicles. Presented at the CHI ’21: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama Japan, 2021.
40.
LavieriP. S.BhatC. R.Modeling Individuals’ Willingness to Share Trips with Strangers in an Autonomous Vehicle Future. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 124, 2019, pp. 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.03.009.
41.
ClaytonW.PaddeuD.ParkhurstG.ParkinJ.Autonomous Vehicles: Who Will Use Them, and Will They Share?Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2020, pp. 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2020.1747200
42.
DolinsS.StrömbergH.WongY. Z.KarlssonM.Sharing Anxiety Is in the Driver’s Seat: Analyzing User Acceptance of Dynamic Ridepooling and Its Implications for Shared Autonomous Mobility. Sustainability, Vol. 13, No. 14, 2021, p. 7828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147828
43.
Aboutorabi KashaniM.AbbasiM.MamdoohiA. R.SierpińskiG.The Role of Attitude, Travel-Related, and Socioeconomic Characteristics in Modal Shift to Shared Autonomous Vehicles with Ride Sharing. World Electric Vehicle Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2023, p. 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj14010023
44.
PolydoropoulouA.TsourosI.ThomopoulosN.PronelloC.ElvarssonA.SigþórssonH.DadashzadehN.StojmenovaK.SodnikJ.NeophytouS.Esztergár-KissD.HamadnehJ.ParkhurstG.EtzioniS.ShiftanY.Di CiommoF.Who Is Willing to Share Their AV? Insights About Gender Differences Among Seven Countries. Sustainability, Vol. 13, No. 9, 2021, p. 4769. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094769
45.
CartenìA.The Acceptability Value of Autonomous Vehicles: A Quantitative Analysis of the Willingness to Pay for Shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs) Mobility Services. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Vol. 8, 2020, p. 100224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100224
46.
KruegerR.RashidiT. H.RoseJ. M.Preferences for Shared Autonomous Vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 69, 2016, pp. 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.06.015
47.
LiuM.WuJ.ZhuC.HuK.A Study on Public Adoption of Robo-Taxis in China. Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 2020, 2020, pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8877499
48.
HabouchaC. J.IshaqR.ShiftanY.User Preferences Regarding Autonomous Vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 78, 2017, pp. 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.01.010
49.
FraedrichE.CyganskiR.WolfI.LenzB.User Perspectives on Autonomous Driving: A Use-Case-Driven Study in Germany. Geographisches Institut, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, 2016, pp. 1–111.
50.
HowardD.DaiD.Public Perceptions of Self-Driving Cars: The Case of Berkeley, California. Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting, Vol. 14, No. No. 4502, 2014, pp. 1–16.
51.
KönigM.NeumayrL.Users’ Resistance Towards Radical Innovations: The Case of the Self-Driving Car. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 44, 2017, pp. 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.10.013
52.
BeggD.What Are The Implications of Driverless Transport. Clear Channel, London, UK, 2014.
53.
GkartzonikasC.GkritzaK.What Have We Learned? A Review of Stated Preference and Choice Studies on Autonomous Vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 98, 2019, pp. 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.12.003
54.
PudāneB.RatajM.MolinE. J. E.MouterN.Van CranenburghS.ChorusC. G.How Will Automated Vehicles Shape Users’ Daily Activities? Insights from Focus Groups with Commuters in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 71, 2019, pp. 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.11.014
55.
LeeY.-C.MirmanJ. H.Parents’ Perspectives on Using Autonomous Vehicles to Enhance Children’s Mobility. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 96, 2018, pp. 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.10.001
56.
GolbabaeiF.YigitcanlarT.PazA.BunkerJ.Individual Predictors of Autonomous Vehicle Public Acceptance and Intention to Use: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2020, p. 106. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040106
57.
HassanH. M.FergusonM. R.VrkljanB.NewboldB.RazaviS.Older Adults and Their Willingness to Use Semi and Fully Autonomous Vehicles: A Structural Equation Analysis. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 95, 2021, p. 103133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103133
58.
FaberK.Van LieropD.How Will Older Adults Use Automated Vehicles? Assessing the Role of AVs in Overcoming Perceived Mobility Barriers. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 133, 2020, pp. 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.01.022
59.
ZandiehR.AcheampongR. A.Mobility and Healthy Ageing in the City: Exploring Opportunities and Challenges of Autonomous Vehicles for Older Adults’ Outdoor Mobility. Cities, Vol. 112, 2021, p. 103135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103135
60.
HwangJ.LiW.StoughL.LeeC.TurnbullK.A Focus Group Study on the Potential of Autonomous Vehicles as a Viable Transportation Option: Perspectives from People with Disabilities and Public Transit Agencies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 70, 2020, pp. 260–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.03.007
61.
CordtsP.CottenS. R.QuT.BushT. R.Mobility Challenges and Perceptions of Autonomous Vehicles for Individuals with Physical Disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2021, p. 101131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2021.101131
62.
HwangJ.LiW.StoughL. M.LeeC.TurnbullK.People with Disabilities’ Perceptions of Autonomous Vehicles as a Viable Transportation Option to Improve Mobility: An Exploratory Study Using Mixed Methods. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 15, No. 12, 2021, pp. 924–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2020.1833115
63.
Etminani-GhasrodashtiR.Ketankumar PatelR.KermanshachiS.Michael RosenbergerJ.WeinreichD.FossA.Integration of Shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs) into Existing Transportation Services: A Focus Group Study. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Vol. 12, 2021, p. 100481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100481
64.
BennettR.VijaygopalR.KottaszR.Attitudes Towards Autonomous Vehicles Among People with Physical Disabilities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 127, 2019, pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.07.002
65.
Kassens-NoorE.CaiM.Kotval-KaramchandaniZ.DecaminadaT.Autonomous Vehicles and Mobility for People with Special Needs. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 150, 2021, pp. 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.06.014
66.
PandyaswargoA. H.SiregarT. H.OnodaH.Exploring Japan’s Older Adults Mobility Challenges and the Potential Role of Autonomous Vehicles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 176, 2023, p. 103818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103818
67.
GishJ.VrkljanB.GrenierA.Van MiltenburgB.Driving with Advanced Vehicle Technology: A Qualitative Investigation of Older Drivers’ Perceptions and Motivations for Use. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 106, 2017, pp. 498–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.06.027
68.
Qualtrics. About Qualtrics, Qualtrics International Inc., Provo, UT, 2023.
69.
Prolific. About Prolific, Prolific Academic Ltd., Oxford, UK, 2023.
70.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Public Use Microdata Samples, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 2021.
71.
PiaoJ.McDonaldM.HounsellN.GraindorgeM.GraindorgeT.MalheneN.Public Views Towards Implementation of Automated Vehicles in Urban Areas. Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 14, 2016, pp. 2168–2177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.232
72.
McKelveyR. D.ZavoinaW.A Statistical Model for the Analysis of Ordinal Level Dependent Variables. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1975, pp. 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1975.9989847
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2022.
75.
R Stats Package. Fitting Generalized Linear Models, R Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2020.
76.
VeallM. R.ZimmermannK. F.Pseudo-R2 Measures for Some Common Limited Dependent Variable Models. Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 10, No, 3, 1996, pp. 241–259.
77.
HagleT. M.MitchellG. E.Goodness-of-Fit Measures for Probit and Logit. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1992, pp. 762–784.
78.
VeallM. R.ZimmermannK. F.Pseudo-R 2’s in the Ordinal Probit Model. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1992, pp. 333–342.
79.
VeallM. R.ZimmermannK. F.Evaluating Pseudo-R 2’s for Binary Probit Models. Quality and Quantity, Vol. 28, 1994, pp. 151–164.
80.
VenablesW.RipleyB.Modern Applied Statistics with S, Springer Science & Business Media, 2002.
81.
HirkR.HornikK.VanaL.Mvord: An R Package for Fitting Multivariate Ordinal Regression Models. Journal of Staistical Software, Vol. 93, No. 4, 2020, pp. 1–41.
82.
OziliP. K.The Acceptable R-Square in Empirical Modelling for Social Science Research. In Social Research Methodology and Publishing Results: A Guide to Non-Native English Speakers (R. L. Tung, ed.), IGI Global, 2023, pp. 134–143.
