This study evaluates truck drivers’ attitudes toward an on-board monitoring system (OBMS), using an extended version of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) that accounts for drivers’ trust in OBMS. Crashes that involve trucks incur a high cost to society and driver-related factors contribute to about one third of all large truck fatal crashes in the US. Therefore, safety initiatives that can increase drivers’ awareness of their risky behaviors are highly desirable. In-vehicle feedback systems are designed to serve this purpose; however, their benefits will not be realized unless their information can positively influence safe driving. Acceptance constructs for the proposed model were measured using a survey administered after the monitoring system was introduced to the drivers but before the system was actually installed in their trucks. In line with the TAM, the results demonstrated that perceived usefulness is the most important determinant of intention to use the OBMS. Trust was also a major determinant of intention to use, suggesting that the acceptance model can be usefully augmented by this construct.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdellE. (2010). Acceptance of driver support systems. Paper presented at the European Conference on Human Centred Design for Intelligent Transport Systems, Berlin, Germany.
2.
BajajA.NidumoluS. R. (1998). A feedback model to understand information system usage. Information & Management, 33(4), 213-224.
3.
BöhmM.FuchsS.PflieglR.KölblR. (2009). Driver Behavior and User Acceptance of Cooperative Systems Based on Infrastructure-to-Vehicle Communication. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2129, 136-144.
4.
BoyleL. N.PengY. (2010). On Board Monitoring of 270 Trucks: Data Analysis Case Study. Paper presented at the 2nd International Symposium on Naturalistic Driving, Blacksburg, VT.
5.
CarterL.BélangerF. (2005). The utilization of e government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 5-25.
6.
ChenC. F.ChenP. C. (2011). Applying the TAM to travelers’ usage intentions of GPS devices. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 6217–6221.
7.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
8.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 982-1003.
9.
DavisF. D.VenkateshV. (1996). A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(1), 19-45.
10.
DishawM. T.StrongD. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information & Management, 36(1), 9-21.
11.
DonmezB.BoyleL. N.LeeJ. D. (2009). Designing Feedback to Mitigate Distraction. In ReganM. A.LeeJ. D.Y. K. L (Eds.), Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation (pp. 519-531). Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
14.
GefenD.KarahannaE.StraubD. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS quarterly, 27(1), 51-90.
15.
GhazizadehM.LeeJ.BoyleL. (2012). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to assess automation. Cognition, Technology & Work, 14(1), 39-49. doi: 10.1007/s10111-011-0194-3
16.
InagakiT.ItohM.NagaiY. (2007). Support by warning or by action: Which is appropriate under mismatches between driver intent and traffic conditions?IEICE Transactions on Fundamentals of Electronics, Communications and Computer Sciences, 90(11), 2540.
17.
JianJ. Y.BisantzA. M.DruryC. G. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(1), 53-71.
18.
KarahannaE.AgarwalR.AngstC. M. (2006). Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology acceptance research. MIS quarterly, 30(4), 781-804.
19.
KimS. S.MalhotraN. K. (2005). A longitudinal model of continued IS use: An integrative view of four mechanisms underlying postadoption phenomena. Management science, 51(5), 741-755.
20.
LeeJ. D.McGeheeD. V.BrownT. L.ReyesM. L. (2002). Collision warning timing, driver distraction, and driver response to imminent rear-end collisions in a high-fidelity driving simulator. Human factors, 44(2), 314.
21.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1243-1270.
22.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 40(1), 153.
23.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(1), 50.
24.
LegrisP.InghamJ.ColleretteP. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191-204.
25.
LehmerM.MillerR.RiniN.OrbanJ.McMillanN.StarkG.. . .ChristiaenA. (2007). Volvo Trucks Field Operational Test: Evaluation Of Advanced Safety Systems For Heavy Trucks. U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
26.
MeschtscherjakovA.WilfingerD.ScherndlT.TscheligiM. (2009). Acceptance of future persuasive in-car interfaces towards a more economic driving behaviour. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI 2009), Essen, Germany.
27.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2012). Traffic Safety Facts: 2010 Data-Large Trucks. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depratment of Transportation.
28.
NavarroJ.MarsF.ForzyJ. F.El-JaafariM.HocJ. M. (2010). Objective and subjective evaluation of motor priming and warning systems applied to lateral control assistance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(3), 904-912.
29.
OrbanJ.HaddenJ.StarkG.BrownV. (2006). Evaluation of the Mack Intelligent Vehicle Initiative Field Operational Test: Final Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
30.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2008). Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: Viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2(2), 140-160.
31.
PavlouP. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101-134.
32.
R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.
33.
VenkateshV.DavisF. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
34.
XuC.WangW.ChenJ.WangW.YangC.LiZ. (2010). Analyzing Travelers’ Intention to Accept Travel Information: Structural Equation Modeling. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2156, 93-110.
