Self-driving vehicles have the potential to drastically reduce accidents caused by human errors, saving significant amounts of money in damages as well as human lives. However, public acceptance of the technology operating on public roads still needs to improve, as most Americans are uncomfortable sharing the road with a self-driving vehicle. The challenge for policymakers is to craft regulations that not only enhance the safety of self-driving technology but also foster public trust and acceptance. This study examines how specific policies—requiring visual cues to indicate when a vehicle is operating in self-driving mode and certification requirements for users—impact public acceptance of self-driving vehicles. To evaluate the impact of the policies, we theorize how policies may influence people's trust and how trust, in turn, may affect acceptance of the technology. Furthermore, we examine how these effects vary across political affiliations, as prior research suggests that Republicans and Democrats differ in their trust in government oversight and technological innovation. Our findings confirm that Republicans are generally less willing to share the road with self-driving vehicles than Democrats, largely due to lower trust in the government to regulate the technology effectively. We find that a visual cue policy increases trust in government but decreases trust in the technology, leading to increased acceptance among Republicans but a neutral or negative effect for Democrats. Conversely, a certification requirement increases trust in government and in other drivers, positively impacting acceptance for both Republicans and Democrats. Finally, additional analysis revealed that a combined policy implementing both measures proves to be the most effective at increasing overall public acceptance by strengthening trust across multiple dimensions. These insights provide valuable guidance for policymakers seeking to improve the integration of self-driving vehicles into public roadways.
AbrahamHSeppeltBMehlerB, et al. (2017) What’s in a name: Vehicle technology branding and consumer expectations for automation. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, September 24–27, 2017, Oldenburg, Germany, 51–58.
4.
AcheampongRACugurulloF (2019) Capturing the behavioural determinants behind the adoption of autonomous vehicles: Conceptual frameworks and measurement models to predict public transport, sharing and ownership trends of self-driving cars. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour62: 349–375.
5.
AgarwalRKarahannaE (2000) Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly24(4): 665–694.
6.
AgarwalRPrasadJ (1998) A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research9(2): 204–215.
7.
AggarwalRKryscynskiDMidhaV, et al. (2015) Early to adopt and early to discontinue: The impact of self-perceived and actual IT knowledge on technology use behaviors of end users. Information Systems Research26(1): 127–144.
8.
ArgoJJMainKJ (2004) Meta-analyses of the effectiveness of warning labels. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing23(2): 193–208.
9.
AydinB (2019) Public acceptance of drones: Knowledge, attitudes, and practice. Technology in Society59: 101180.
10.
BagozziRPYiY (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science16(1): 74–94.
11.
BainbridgeL (1983) Ironies of automation. Automatica19(6): 775–779.
12.
BanduraAFreemanWHLightseyR (1999) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy13: 158–166.
13.
BeckerFAxhausenKW (2017) Literature review on surveys investigating the acceptance of automated vehicles. Transportation44(6): 1293–1306.
14.
BenlianA (2013) Effect mechanisms of perceptual congruence between information systems professionals and users on satisfaction with service. Journal of Management Information Systems29(4): 63–96.
15.
BerenteNGuBReckerJ, et al. (2021) Managing artificial intelligence. MIS Quarterly45(3): 1433–1450.
16.
BertoncelloMWeeD (2015) Ten ways autonomous driving could redefine the automotive world. McKinsey and Company. Available at https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/ten-ways-autonomous-driving-could-redefine-the-automotive-world.
BiondiFNLohaniMHopmanR, et al. (2018) 80 MPH and out-of-the-loop: Effects of real-world semi-automated driving on driver workload and arousal. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting62(1): 1878–1882.
19.
BlincoeLMillerTRZaloshnjaE, et al. (2015) The economic and societal impact of motor vehicle crashes, 2010 (revised).
20.
BoudetHS (2019) Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies. Nature Energy4(6): 446–455.
21.
BrancheauJCWetherbeJC (1987) Key issues in information systems management. MIS Quarterly11(1): 23–45.
22.
BursteinP (2003) The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly56(1): 29–40.
23.
CarstenOMartensMH (2019) How can humans understand their automated cars? HMI principles, problems and solutions. Cognition, Technology & Work21(1): 3–20.
24.
CasnerSMHutchinsEL (2019) What do we tell the drivers? Toward minimum driver training standards for partially automated cars. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making13(2): 55–66.
25.
ChinWW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research295(2): 295–336.
26.
ChuHYangJZLiuS (2021) Not my pandemic: Solution aversion and the polarized public perception of COVID-19. Science Communication43(4): 508–528.
ClothierRAGreerDAGreerDG, et al. (2015) Risk perception and the public acceptance of drones. Risk Analysis35(6): 1167–1183.
29.
Coalition for Future Mobility (n.d) Benefits of self-driving vehicles. Available at: https://coalitionforfuturemobility.com/benefits-of-self-driving-vehicles/ (accessed 1 November 2022).
30.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340.
31.
DearmonJGrierR (2011) Trust and the accumulation of physical and human capital. European Journal of Political Economy27(3): 507–519.
32.
DinesenPTSchaefferMSønderskovKM (2020) Ethnic diversity and social trust: A narrative and meta-analytical review. Annual Review of Political Science23: 441–465.
33.
DixonGHartPSClarkeC, et al. (2020) What drives support for self-driving car technology in the United States?Journal of Risk Research23(3): 275–287.
34.
DrummondCFischhoffB (2017) Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114(36): 9587–9592.
35.
DuHZhuGZhengJ (2021) Why travelers trust and accept self-driving cars: An empirical study. Travel Behaviour and Society22: 1–9.
GauchatG (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review77(2): 167–187.
44.
GefenDKarahannaEStraubDW (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly: 51–90.
45.
GeldmacherWJustVGrabB, et al. (2019) Derivation of a modified technology acceptance model for the application on self-driving cars in a car-sharing-model based on qualitative research. In: Building Engagement for Sustainable Development. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 197–214.
46.
GliksonEWoolleyAW (2020) Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals14(2): 627–660.
47.
GolbabaeiFYigitcanlarTPazA, et al. (2020) Individual predictors of autonomous vehicle public acceptance and intention to use: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity6(4): 106.
48.
HairJFAndersonRETathamRL, et al. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
49.
HairJFRingleCMSarstedtM (2011) PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice19(2): 139–152.
HassolJPerlmanDChajka-CadinL, et al. (2019) Understanding surveys of public sentiment regarding automated vehicles: Summary of results to date and implications of past research on the dynamics of consumer adoption. United States: Department of Transportation, Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office.
52.
HaukNHüffmeierJKrummS (2018) Ready to be a silver surfer? A meta-analysis on the relationship between chronological age and technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior84: 304–319.
Hőgye-NagyÁKovácsGKuruczG (2023) Acceptance of self-driving cars among the university community: Effects of gender, previous experience, technology adoption propensity, and attitudes toward autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour94: 353–361.
57.
HowardDDaiD (2014) Public perceptions of self-driving cars: The case of Berkeley, California. Presented at the Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting, January 12–16, 2014, Washington, DC. Transportation Research Board.
58.
JeffersonJMcDonaldAD (2019) The autonomous vehicle social network: Analyzing tweets after a recent Tesla autopilot crash. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting63(1): 2071–2075.
59.
JiangYHoY-CYanX, et al. (2018) Investor platform choice: Herding, platform attributes, and regulations. Journal of Management Information Systems35(1): 86–116.
60.
JostJTGlaserJSullowayFJ, et al. (2018) Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. The Motivated Mind: 129–204.
61.
KahnemanDTverskyA (2013) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In: MacLean LC, Ziemba WT (eds) Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making: Part I. World Scientific, Singapore, 99–127.
62.
KannanVDBrownTMKunitzSJ, et al. (2019) Political parties and mortality: The role of social status and personal responsibility. Social Science and Medicine223: 1–7.
63.
KaurKRampersadG (2018) Trust in driverless cars: Investigating key factors influencing the adoption of driverless cars. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management48: 87–96.
KingWRMarksPVJrMcCoyS (2002) The most important issues in knowledge management. Communications of the ACM45(9): 93–97.
68.
KleinDBSternC (2004) Democrats and republicans in anthropology and sociology: How do they differ on public policy issues?The American Sociologist35(4): 79–86.
69.
KomiakSYBenbasatI (2006) The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS Quarterly30(4): 941–960.
KoulSEydgahiA (2018) Utilizing technology acceptance model (TAM) for driverless car technology adoption. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation13(4): 37–46.
72.
LambertF (2022) Tesla faces class-action lawsuit over Autopilot’s phantom braking problem. Electrek, New York. Available at https://electrek.co/2022/02/09/tesla-faces-class-action-lawsuit-over-autopilot-phantom-braking-problem/.
73.
LawC (2021) The Dangers of Driverless Cars. The National Law Review,11(249). The National Law Forum, LLC, Chicago, IL. Available at https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dangers-driverless-cars.
74.
LeeCWardCRaueM, et al. (2017) Age differences in acceptance of self-driving cars: A survey of perceptions and attitudes. Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Aging, Design and User Experience: Third International Conference, ITAP 2017, Held as Part of HCI International 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9-14, 2017, Proceedings, Part I 3.
75.
LiuPGuoQRenF, et al. (2019) Willingness to pay for self-driving vehicles: Influences of demographic and psychological factors. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies100: 306–317.
76.
MackEAMillerSRChangC-H, et al. (2021) The politics of new driving technologies: Political ideology and autonomous vehicle adoption. Telematics and Informatics61: 101604.
MalloyTSchwartzD (2023) 2024 Primary Races: Nearly 3 in 10 Trump Supporters and Half of Biden Supporters Signal They Are Open to Other Options, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Voters Support Age Limits On Candidates For President & Congress. Quinnipiac University. https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf (accessed 16 September 2023).
79.
MervisJ (2017) Are we going too fast on driverless cars. Science. Available at https://www.science.org/content/article/are-we-going-too-fast-driverless-cars.
80.
MittalVRoss JrWTBaldasarePM (1998) The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions. Journal of Marketing62(1): 33–47.
81.
Molina-MoralesFXMartínez-FernándezMTTorlòVJ (2011) The dark side of trust: The benefits, costs and optimal levels of trust for innovation performance. Long Range Planning44(2): 118–133.
82.
MooreGCBenbasatI (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research2(3): 192–222.
83.
Morgeson III,FVSharmaPNSharmaU, et al. (2022) Partisan bias and citizen satisfaction, confidence, and trust in the US Federal Government. Public Management Review24(12): 1933–1956.
84.
MorisiDJostJTSinghV (2019) An asymmetrical “president-in-power” effect. American Political Science Review113(2): 614–620.
MoyeB (2023) AAA: Fear of self-driving cars on the rise. AAA NEWSROOM, Heathrow, FL. Available at https://newsroom.aaa.com/2023/03/aaa-fear-of-self-driving-cars-on-the-rise/..
87.
MuellerASReaganIJCicchinoJB (2021) Addressing driver disengagement and proper system use: Human factors recommendations for level 2 driving automation design. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making15(1): 3–27.
88.
National Center for Statistics and Analysis (2022) Early estimate of motor vehicle traffic fatalities in 2021.
NewcombD (2012) You won’t need a driver’s license by 2040. CNN Business, Atlanta, GA. Available at https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/18/tech/innovation/ieee-2040-cars/index.html.
92.
NHTSA (2021) First Amended Standing General Order 2021-01: Incident Reporting for Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Level 2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS).
93.
NHTSA (2022a) Occupant protection for vehicles with automated driving systems. Federal Register87(61): 18560–18600.
94.
NHTSA (2022b) Summary Report: Standing General Order on Crash Reporting for Automated Driving Systems.
95.
NHTSA (2022c) Summary Report: Standing General Order on Crash Reporting for Level 2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems.
PoortingaWPidgeonNF (2004) Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs. Risk Analysis: An International Journal24(6): 1475–1486.
101.
RainieLFunkCAndersonM, et al. (2022) Americans Cautious about the deployment of driverless cars. Accessed September05: 2022.
102.
RaueMD'AmbrosioLAWardC, et al. (2019) The influence of feelings while driving regular cars on the perception and acceptance of self-driving cars. Risk Analysis39(2): 358–374.
103.
ReichheldFF (2003) The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review81(12): 46–55.
104.
Reuters Staff(2021) Honda’s part self-driving Legend a big step for autonomous tech. Reuters, London, UK. Available at https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/hondas-part-self-driving-legend-big-step-autonomous-tech-2021-03-04/.
105.
RogersEM (1995) Diffusion of Innovations (4th edn). New York: The Free Press.
106.
RuffoGH (2019) Déjà Vu? Tesla autopilot almost hits temporary concrete barrier. InsideEVs, Miami, FL. Available at https://insideevs.com/news/381673/autopilot-almost-hits-concrete-barrier/.
107.
SAE International (2021) SAE Levels of Driving Automation Refined for Clarity and International Audience. SAE International. Available at: https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update (accessed 2 July 2025).
108.
SchrankDEiseleBLomaxT, et al. (2015) 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, TX.
ShepardsonD (2021) U.S. push for self-driving cars faces union, lawyers opposition. Reuters, London, UK. Available at https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-push-self-driving-cars-faces-union-lawyers-opposition-2021-06-16/.
111.
SilverLHuangCMoynihanP. (2023)Identifying partisan ‘leaners’ in cross-national surveys. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC. Available at https://www.pewresearch.org/decoded/2023/05/05/identifying-partisan-leaners-in-cross-national-surveys/.
SlothuusRBisgaardM (2021) How political parties shape public opinion in the real world. American Journal of Political Science65(4): 896–911.
114.
SöllnerMBenbasatIGefenD, et al. (2016) Trust. In Bush A and Rai A (eds), MIS Quarterly Research Curations. Available at: http://misq.org/research-curations
115.
SorokaSWlezienC. 2007. The relationship between public opinion and policy. In: Dalton RJ, Klingemann HD (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior.Oxford: Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 799–818.
116.
SternRECuiSDelle MonacheML, et al. (2018) Dissipation of stop-and-go waves via control of autonomous vehicles: Field experiments. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies89: 205–221.
117.
TaylorPFunkCClarkA (2007) Americans and social trust: Who, where and why. A Social Trends Report: 1–10.
118.
TaylorSToddPA (1995) Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research6(2): 144–176.
119.
ThatcherJBWrightRTSunH, et al. (2018) Mindfulness in information technology use: Definitions, distinctions, and a new measure. MIS Quarterly42(3): 831–848.
120.
The Tesla Team (2024) The bigger picture on autopilot safety. Available at: https://www.tesla.com/blog/bigger-picture-autopilot-safety).
121.
VenkateshV (2000) Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research11(4): 342–365.
122.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGB, et al. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478.
123.
WakabayashiD(2018) Self-driving Uber car kills pedestrian in Arizona, where robots roam. The New York Times, March 19. The New York Times Company, New York, NY. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html.
124.
WangJGuptaMRaoR (2015) Insider threats in a financial institution: Analysis of attack-proneness of information systems applications. MIS Quarterly39(1): 91–112.
125.
WangNXueYLiangH, et al. (2018) The dual roles of the government in cloud computing assimilation: An empirical study in China. Information Technology and People32(1): 147–170.
126.
WelchMRRiveraREConwayBP, et al. (2005) Determinants and consequences of social trust. Sociological Inquiry75(4): 453–473.
127.
WhiteJShepardsonD(2021) U.S. exempts self-driving vehicles from some crash standards. Reuters, London, UK. Available at https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-exempts-self-driving-vehicles-some-crash-standards-2021-01-14/.
ZhaiKYuanXZhaoG (2022) The impact of major public health emergencies on trust in government: From SARS to COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology13: 1030125.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
