Autonomous vehicles, perceived risk, and carsharing compatibility: assessing behavioral intention in Italy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7433/s127.2025.03Keywords:
Autonomous vehicle, Technology Acceptance Model, Carsharing, Intention to useAbstract
Frame of the research. Developed to predict an individual inclination toward a certain type of technology, over the years, a Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has been enriched with additional context-specific variables to adopt the model to new technologies, as well as integrating with Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT). This paper relies on both of these to tackle the complex phenomenon of the mass diffusion of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) and to analyze individual behavioral intention toward AVs.
Purpose of the paper. To our knowledge, few studies have focused on the perceived safety risk associated with AVs, despite the importance of this variable in potentially hindering or hampering the adoption of the technology. In addition, previous research shows that AV technologies could fit well into a carsharing business model, leading to what some authors call a fleet-oriented market. The paper analyzes these aspects as antecedents of the intention to adopt AVs in the future.
Methodology. Drawing from an integration of the Technology Acceptance Model with Innovation Diffusion Theory, the proposed research model analyses the effects of Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, Subjective Norm, and Perceived Safety Risk on the intention to use AVs, whilst considering carsharing compatibility as a moderator of the relationships between Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and Perceived Safety Risk over behavioral intention. A survey on an Italian sample is conducted and data analyzed using SEM.
Results. Results, measured over a sample of 361 respondents, suggest that high carsharing compatibility decreases the importance of the Perceived Ease of Use variable for the intention to use AVs, while leading to a deeper consideration of the Perceived Usefulness variable over intention. Overall, carsharing compatibility does matter in fostering the behavioral intention to use AVs in the future.
Research limitations. The high technical complexity of Autonomous Vehicles and the fact that they are not fully available make it difficult for respondents to understand, for example, the different levels of automation involved and the implications these technologies could have on daily life. In addition, the study has some limitations that could be addressed in future research initiatives.
Managerial implications. This study analyses the intention to use AVs by considering carsharing compatibility within a TAM model: it sheds light on how integrating innovation in the mobility sector could foster the most radical innovations to be accepted. Ultimately, managerial implications deal with the sustainability of local transportation systems that can be redesigned in light of the synergies between different technological innovations.
Originality of the paper. Overall, the paper enriches the current debate on the intention to use AVs by offering an integration of TAM with IDT by focusing on the role of carsharing compatibility. In addition, it is based on an Italian sample that, to our knowledge, had not yet been investigated.
References
BANSAL, P., KOCKELMAN, K. M. (2017), “Forecasting Americans’ long-term adoption of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 95, pp. 49-63.
BAPTISTA, P., MELO, S., ROLIM, C. (2014), “Energy, Environmental and Mobility Impacts of Car-sharing Systems. Empirical Results from Lisbon, Portugal”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 111, pp. 28-37.
BAUER, R. (1967), “Consumer behavior as risk taking” In: COX, D. (Ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
BUCKLEY, L., KAYE, S.A., PRADHAN, A.K. (2018), “Psychosocial factors associated with intended use of automated vehicles: a simulated driving study”, Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 115, pp. 202–208.
CHOI, J.K., JI, Y.G. (2015), “Investigating the Importance of trust on adopting an autonomous vehicle”, International Journal Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 31, n. 10, pp. 692–702.
CLEMENTS, L.M, KOCKELMAN, K.M. (2017), “Economic Effects of Automated Vehicles”, Transportation Research Record, vol. 2606, n. 1, pp. 106-114.
DAVIS, F.D. (1989), “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, n. 3, pp. 319-340.
FAGNANT, D.J., KOCKELMAN, K. (2018), “Dynamic ride-sharing and fleet sizing for a system of shared autonomous vehicles in Austin, Texas”, Transportation, vol. 45, n. 1, pp. 143–158.
FEATHERMAN, M. S., PAVLOU, P. A. (2003), “Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 59, n. 4, pp. 451–474.
FISHBEIN, M., AJZEN, I. (1975), “Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research”, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
FORNELL, C., LARCKER, D. F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 18, pp. 39–50.
GHAZIZADEH, M., LEE, J., BOYLE, L. (2012), “Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to assess automation. Cognition”, Technology & Work, vol. 14, pp. 39-49.
GIOVANIS, A.N., BINIORIS, S. POLYCHRONOPOULOS, G. (2012), “An extension of TAM model with IDT and security/privacy risk in the adoption of internet banking services in Greece”, EuroMed Journal of Business, pp. 1450-2194.
HAMBURGER, Y. A., SELA, Y., KAUFMAN, S., WELLINGSTEIN, T., STEIN, N., SIVAN, J. (2022), “Personality and the autonomous vehicle: Overcoming psychological barriers to the driverless car”, Technology in Society, vol. 69, pp. 101971.
HAN. R., OSTERTAG, F., LEHR, A., BUTTGEN, M., BENOIT, S. (2019), “I like it but I don’t use it: impacts of carsharing business models on usage intentions in the sharing economy”, Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 29, pp. 1404-1418.
IACOBUCCI, D. (2009), “Everything you always wanted to know about SEM (structural equations modelling), but were afraid to ask”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, vol. 19, n. 4, pp. 673-680.
KIM, H., CHOI, K.H., KIM, K.J., PARK, E. (2017), “From owing to sharing: understanding the emergence of social sharing services”, Program: electronic library and information systems, vol. 51, n. 2, pp. 102-115.
KOUL, S., EYDGAHI, A. (2018), “Utilizing technology acceptance model (TAM) for driverless car technology adoption”, Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, vol. 13, n. 4, pp. 37–46.
KRUEGER, R., RASHIDI, T. H., ROSE, J. M. (2016), “Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 69, pp. 343-355.
LEE, J., LEE, D., PARK, Y., LEE, S., HA, T. (2019), “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, pp. 411–422.
LIU, P., YANG, R., XU, Z. (2019), “Public acceptance of fully automated driving: effects of social trust and risk/benefit perceptions”, Risk Analysis, vol. 39, pp. 326–341.
MAN, S.S., XIONG, W., CHANG, F., CHAN, A.H.S. (2020), “Critical Factors Influencing Acceptance of Automated Vehicles by Hong Kong Drivers”, IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 109845–109856.
MANFREDA, A, LJUBI, K., GROZNIK, A. (2021), “Autonomous vehicles in the smart city era: An empirical study of adoption factors important for millennials”, International Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 58, pp. 102050.
MIN, S., KAM, K., SO, F, JEONG, M. (2019), “Consumer adoption of the Uber mobile application: Insights from diffusion of innovation theory and technology acceptance model”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, vol. 36, n. 7, pp. 770-783.
MOTAMEDI, S., WANG, P., ZHANG, T., CHAN, C.Y. (2020), “Acceptance of full driving automation: personally owned and shared-use concepts”, Human Factors, vol. 62, n. 2, pp. 288–309.
NASTJUK, I., HERRENKIND, B., MARRONE, M., BENEDIKT, A., M. KOLBE. (2020), “What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investigation of acceptance factors from an end-user's perspective”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 161, pp. 123019.
PADDEU, D., PARKHURST, G., SHERGOLD, I. (2020), “Passenger comfort and trust on first-time use of a shared autonomous shuttle vehicle”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 115, pp. 102604.
PANAGIOTOPOULOS, I., DIMITRAKOPOULOS, G. (2018), “An empirical investigation on consumers’ intentions towards autonomous driving”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 95, pp. 773–784.
PARK, E., KIM, H., OHM, J. Y. (2015), “Understanding driver adoption of car navigation systems using the extended technology acceptance model”, Behaviour & Information Technology, vol. 34, n. 7, pp. 741- 751.
PETERSON, M., TRAVIS, S. (2019), “Consumers’ processing of mindful commercial car sharing”, Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 28, n. 3, pp. 457-465.
RADNER, R., ROTHSCHILD, M. (1975), “On the Allocation of Effort”, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 10, pp. 358-376.
RAHMAN, M. M., LESCH, M. F., HORREY, W. J., STRAWDERMAN, L. (2017), “Assessing the utility of TAM, TPB, and UTAUT for advanced driver assistance systems”, Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 108, pp. 361-373.
ROGERS, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations 4th Edition, the Free Press, New York.
SCHLÜTER, J., WEYER, J. (2019), “Car sharing as a means to raise acceptance of electric vehicles: An empirical study on regime change in automobility”, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 60, pp. 185-201.
SCHOETTLE, B., SIVAK, M. (2014), “A survey of public opinion about connected vehicles in the US, the UK, and Australia”, IEEE Proceedings of the International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo, pp. 687–692.
TAYLOR S., TODD P.A. (1995), “Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models”, Information Systems Research, vol. 6, n. 2, pp. 144–176.
TEECE, D. (2018), “Tesla and the Reshaping of the Auto Industry”, Management and Organization Review, vol. 14, n. 3, pp. 501-512.
VENKATESH, V., BALA, H. (2008), “Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions”, Decision Sciences, vol. 39, n. 2, pp. 273 -315
VENKATESH, V., DAVIS, F. (2000), “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies”, Management Science, vol. 46, pp. 186-204.
WACHENFELD, W., WINNER, H., GERDES, J.C., et al. (2016), “Use Cases for Autonomous Driving”, Autonomous Driving: Technical, Legal and Social Aspects, pp. 519-521..XIAO, J., GOULIAS, K. G. (2022), “Perceived usefulness and intentions to adopt autonomous vehicles”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 161, pp. 170-185
XU, Z., ZHANG, K., MIN, H., WANG, Z., ZHAO, X., LIU, P. (2018), “What drives people to accept automated vehicles? Findings from a field experiment”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 95, pp. 320-334.
YUEN, K.F., WONG, Y.D., MA, F., WANG, X. (2020), “The determinants of public acceptance of autonomous vehicles: an innovation diffusion perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 121904.
YUEN, K.F., CAI, L., QI, G., WANG, X. (2021), “Factors influencing autonomous vehicle adoption: an application of the technology acceptance model and innovation diffusion theory”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, vol. 33, n. 5, pp. 505-519.
ZHANG, T., TAO, D., QU, X., ZHANG, X., LIN, R., ZHANG, W. (2019), “The roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public’s acceptance of automated vehicles”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 98, pp. 207–220.
ZHANG N., GUO X., CHEN G. (2008), “IDT-TAM Integrated Model For IT Adoption”, Tsinghua Science And Technology, vol. 13, n. 3, pp. 306-311.
ZHU, G., CHEN, Y., ZHENG, J. (2020), “Modelling the acceptance of fully autonomous vehicles: A media-based perception and adoption model”, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 73, pp. 80-91.
