While many studies have been published on the impact of automation and technology on society,

much less is known about how people subjectively perceive this techno logical change, and the
understanding of the attitudes supporting the adoption of inno vations such as driverless cars
(Dodel & Mesch, 2020). This is an important topic because attitudes may impact the rates of
public acceptance of the development and introduction of autonomous vehicles. Public
acceptance rates may also affect the investment in these cars, and ultimately the growth potential
of economies. The litera ture review is organized around the conceptual frameworks that have
been suggested in the past as relevant to technology adoption. Specifically, we consider the self-
interest hypothesis, people’s attitudes about the usefulness of technology, their ideo logical
orientation and socio-demographic gaps in attitudes toward technology Awareness of connected
features on passenger vehicles

Connected Vehicles (CVs) are acquiring higher market share in the automotive

industry in 21st Century as digitalization paved the way for advanced

technological feature inputs in modern passenger vehicles. Most of the people

are aware that CVs exist. However, lack of awareness can be seen in usage of

these advance features and its operations (Sumantran, Fine and Gonsalvez,

2017). A lack of awareness of advanced technological features in passenger

vehicles has been a major concern due to rapid rate of innovation in automotive

industry, which results in a constant entry of new features. Consumers are

frequently not fully informed about these advancements, resulting in

underutilization. This lack of knowledge not only affects the user experience,

but also poses potential safety hazards. Therefore, consumer perception on

these features is still unknown due to lack of awareness.

Personalized user experience

Personalized services that improve customers' in-car experiences, support

decision-making, customize user experience according to their requirements,

preferences, and history have been made possible by artificial intelligence (AI)

7 (100)
(Davenport et al., 2020). Users may now get a more customized experience

from vehicles. Apart from AI-powered driver assistance technology, driver

state monitoring systems which improves driving based on driver's style and

habits, it can also include entertainment systems that learn and adjust to

individual tastes (Foroughi et al., 2023). Integrated connections for better

interaction with smartphones and smart home concepts, as well as voicerecognition and controls
that understand and react to user orders, are additional

advantages. Ultimately, these AI-powered functions become our travelling

companions. Consumer perception of these personalization features is

generally positive, as users believe that it can provide convenience and

efficiency with such advancements. Many users discover that having AI into

their vehicles not only improves their travelling experience, but also makes it

safer and more efficient (Davenport et al., 2020). AI-powered navigation

systems, for example, can provide real-time traffic updates and suggest

alternate routes, making the driving experience more enjoyable and stress-free.

However, Riegger et al., (2021) argues that barriers such as risk perception,

privacy concerns, exploitation, and lack of confidence will impact as to how

people admit personalization of their personal means of transportation.

Although these services have numerous benefits, their adoption is still

unknown in the rapidly expanding smart car market (Mathai, 2024).

Privacy concerns

Emergence of big data has had an immense impact on the privacy of

Connected Vehicles. When technology progresses, it captures more data,

which raises privacy issues. Telematics, GPS monitoring, and in-car

connectivity services capture vast volumes of data about vehicle usage and

driver behaviour, creating worries about data security and personal privacy

(Cohen and Hopkins, 2019). This constant monitoring, while provides some

benefits in some ways, raises concerns about individual rights, control over

one's data, and whether these details should be shared or sold to third parties

(Davenport et al., 2020). Vehicle users may not know that their lifestyles are

being exposed and their daily driving habits and patterns are monitored and

8 (100)

analysed, leaving a data trail that can be accessed by third parties. Potential

hackers are among the parties involved, in addition to vehicle manufacturers

and technology firms (Martin, 2020). This exposure and vulnerability create

serious ethical and legal issues. Perception these sorts of data collection, how

it's utilized, and who has access to it can affect privacy concerns, which have

yet to be found. Therefore, advanced technological features may not be

universally desirable.

Fear of technology

Fear of technology may influence consumer perception. This anxiety about

innovative advancements can have a significant impact on how products and

services are received in the marketplace (Rogeon., Michaud-Trevinal and

Collin-Lachaud, 2022). It can lead to resistance to new technologies, impeding

the advancement of societies and economies. Such fears, which are often the

result of misunderstandings or a lack of knowledge, can lead to consumers

being resistant to change and sticking with traditional methods instead.

Some consumers are cautious of using advanced technological features of a

product because of the inherent complexity and rapid evolution of these

systems (Mukherjee and Hoyer, 2001). This concern is often created by a lack

of understanding or knowledge of how to employ these capabilities properly.

Furthermore, worries about safety and privacy are regularly raised. Those who

lack confidence in digitally linked systems and autonomous driving features

may find them overwhelming, leading to avoidance. Navigation tools, touchscreen controls, and
voice-activated capabilities, while designed to improve

convenience and safety, can generate stress and anxiety in users who are

inexperienced with such high-tech interfaces (Yu and Cai, 2022). While

modern technological features provide benefits like as personalization and

convenience, worries about privacy, complexity, and fear of technology can

influence consumer perception and acceptance in the vehicle industry, and the

issue remains contentious. Collision warning systems which alert drivers when a dangerous
situation is detected have the potential to reduce rear-end striking crashes by 27%. Furthermore,
CWS with autonomous emergency braking (AEB) could potentially prevent or mitigate a frontal
collision by up to 70% [5].

In response to collision warnings, the driver decelerates, and this can over time diminish the
number of accidents [6,7,8]. On-road and simulator studies have demonstrated the potential of
CWS [9,10]. The authors in [11,12,13] have shown that there was a decrease of the driver’s
response time in simulated imminent collisions with warnings, in comparison with the same
scenario without warnings. The ability to assess and maintain a safe headway (also known as
following distance) can be obtained and improved by using a CWS, according to an on-road
study [14]. The use of an application with CWS and LDW has been found to lead to a decrease
of 45% in insurance claims [3], as well as influence drivers to adopt a defensive driving style
[15].

After an investigation of 1070 crashes, the authors in [16] concluded that the number of
accidents could have been reduced by 6.1% if the vehicles were equipped with LDW technology.
An in-vehicle smart driving aid that provided safety and fuel-efficient driving advice in real-time
was found to have a positive impact, such as increasing the headway to 2.3 s, and a 4.1%
improvement in fuel consumption [17]. The findings of a large-scale European field operational
test (FOT) revealed that the use of adaptive cruise control (ACC) combined with forward
collision warning (FCW) shows positive effects on traffic safety (due to an increased headway,
reduction of harsh braking) and fuel consumption [4]. In order to evaluate the experience of
driving a car equipped with ACC and FCW, 215 subjects participated in a study [18]. Most of
them believed that the safety systems had helped to prevent a crash and showed interest in
having this type of technology on their future vehicle. Moreover, the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) recommends CWS to become standard for all vehicles [19,20].

Approximately 21% of all road fatalities in the EU in 2018 are represented by pedestrians, while
Romania had the highest rate of 35 per million inhabitants [21], making pedestrian detection and
avoidance systems a priority. Research in the field of vision-based automatic pedestrian
detection has become consolidated due to the many innovations that were developed by scholars
and the automotive industry. The wavelet transform [22], fuzzy classification [23], pyramid
binary features [24], probabilistic templates [25], Adaboost, histogram of oriented gradients
(HOG), and local binary pattern (LBP) features [26] are some of the most used algorithms in
detecting, classifying, and tracking pedestrians.

Mobile driver assistance applications can be useful in changing the driver’s behavior by
promoting a defensive driving and reducing driver inattention [27,28]. In-vehicle portable safety
devices do not offer the precision of built-in safety functions; however, they come with the
advantage of low cost, huge adoption potential and ease of use. Also, portable devices offer the
possibility to assess new ADAS functionalities before implementing them as built-in safety
functions in vehicles [29]. According to the same authors, high costs are the main reason for the
low acceptance and adoption of CWS.

AR warnings offer promising means of increasing the driver’s safety, with the potential to reduce
response time and improve road hazard detection [30,31]. In general, visual warnings are used
for informative purposes, while auditory warnings indicate dangerous situations (object collision
or lane departure). Smartphone-based ADASs usually use image processing to detect possible
front collisions or driver inattention [32]. A mobile driver assistance application that has the
capability to simultaneously process video stream from the front and back camera of a
smartphone can give less false alerts, thus reducing the chances of becoming annoying. Visual
warnings are always highlighting potential risky situations, while auditory alerts are only used
when an imminent collision is detected, or when the driver is inattentive to the traffic scene.
Authors in [33] found that hearing a beep alert reduced the frequency of crashes in impending
dangerous situations.

Mobile applications that promote road safety are already commercially available for Android and
iOS platforms. CarSafe [34] and iOnRoad [35] use camera switching to combine information
regarding the traffic scene and the drivers’ behavior. However, the transition of data acquisition
between the main camera and the secondary camera could lead to dangerous situations by
missing video frames in some unpredictable situations, such as a runner crossing the road.

The use of an ADAS to monitor and asses the driver’s behavior in real-time presents great
potential in increasing traffic safety [36,37]. Drivers’ inattention was found to be one of the main
causes of crashes and recently has been associated with the use of a smartphone while driving
[38]. Texting and reading are the main in-car activities that significantly degrade driving
performance [39,40]. A recent study showed that handheld texting tasks can lead to a delayed
response to sudden braking events, which increases the probability of rear end accidents by at
least 2.41 times. Another key finding was that speech-based texting tasks had no impact on the
response time [41]. A feasible solution to reduce cell phone use while driving could be to adapt
safety trainings, as shown in a paper which investigated the behavior of truck drivers [42].
Another research indicated that there is a need to raise awareness, modify attitudes as well as
increase the risk perception associated with the use of cell phone while driving / riding a
motorcycle. Moreover, they suggested that this can be achieved thorough educational tools and
targeted road safety campaigns [43]. One method to promote safe driving behaviors implies
monitoring and rewarding drivers [44]. Reward-based interventions were proven to be effective
in various areas of risk prevention [45]. However, some researchers argue that drivers should
become aware of the benefits offered by ADAS and use them daily without receiving incentives
[46].

As inferred from previous studies, one of the main features that have deep implications on the
acceptance of an ADAS is its user interface (UI). Consequently, we proposed an ADAS with an
UI which is intuitive and flexible, as the user can choose between two types of interfaces (see
Figure 1).

Ijerph 17 07098 g001 550

Figure 1. (a) Screenshot from the advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) application—
default user interface using augmented reality; (b) Screenshot from the ADAS application—
global positioning system (GPS) navigation user interface.

1.2. GPS Navigation Systems for Vehicles

Car navigation systems are widely used as standalone devices or by means of a smartphone. The
aim of navigation systems is to guide the driver with turn-by-turn information to reach a
destination. As such, this technology is mostly used when the route to a certain known
destination is unfamiliar. There are several other advantages that come with recent smartphone
GPS applications, like choosing an optimized route which is based on real-time traffic, speed
limit warnings or finding nearby points of interest (e.g., gas stations, restaurants) [47]. The use of
navigation systems is mainly influenced by the user interface and display quality components.
The psychological factors that have an impact on the driver’s intention to use navigation systems
are attitude and perceived usefulness, according to several studies that extend the TAM
[48,49,50,51].

The impact and usage of navigation systems was also studied in a three-month FOT with 99
drivers. Results showed that there was no increase of critical driving situations because drivers
adopted a safe behavior during system inputs (decreased mean speed, increased headway)
[52,53]. Given the benefits and the specificity of this type of systems, our proposed assistance
system offers the possibility to use a GPS-like UI.

1.3. Technology Acceptance Models of Driver Assistance Systems

Driver assistance systems have the potential to improve drivers’ performance and increase traffic
safety; however, drivers can be reluctant to using them. The use of new technologies is mainly
influenced by their acceptance and can be a sensitive and complicated topic, as it depends on
many psychological and practical factors [54]. Researchers have studied driver acceptance of
new technologies by applying several theories of human behavior and technology acceptance.
First of all, driver acceptance of ADAS can be influenced by the drivers’ reaction when they are
introduced to a new in-vehicle function or device, and their interest in adopting the technology
while driving [55]. Authors in [56,57] analyzed how user experience (UX) can be integrated in
the development of an ADAS, especially regarding the emotional reactions of the drivers using
the system. The following factors were found to play a major role in evaluating products:
usability, emotions (e.g., physiological reactions, behavioral tendencies) and aesthetic aspects. A
novel structural model to assess the willingness to uptake smartphone driver support systems
(SDSS) was presented in [58]. It aimed to examine the BI of young drivers by analyzing four
variables—usability, social influence, perceived accuracy, and attitude. The model is based on
previous well-known models, including TAM [59] and the unified theory of acceptance and use
of technology (UTAUT) [60].

Three theoretical models of technology acceptance were identified to provide the necessary
framework to define, characterize and estimate drivers’ acceptance: TAM, Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB) [61] and the UTAUT.

The TAM questionnaire was chosen to assess the drivers’ acceptance of the smartphone-based
ADAS, as it provides more actionable information and brings more variance in BI [52] than the
other 2 models. The actual usage of ADAS can be predicted with the help of three variables from
the TAM questionnaire: perceived ease of use (PEoU), perceived usefulness (PU) and attitude
toward behavior (ATT). The correlations between the TAM components offer a better
understanding regarding the main features of a product that influences users. Thus, the study of
drivers’ acceptance is crucial and should be addressed in the early stages of development and
implementation. A recent model of drivers’ acceptance based on five components (attitude,
perceived usefulness, endorsement, affordability, and compatibility) was able to predict 85% of
the variability in drivers’ acceptance of driver support systems [62]. More research concerning
the drivers’ acceptance of assistive technologies is essential in the context of our changing
society, where technology is becoming more accessible and ubiquitous.

Reliable warnings generated quicker brake response as the driver is not slowed down by a visual
search of hazardous situations [63]. An important factor that needs to be addressed is how to
create a trustworthy relationship between the driver and the system [64]. False alarms can
diminish drivers’ acceptance of ADAS and have the potential to create annoyance [65]. Other
behavioral effects of annoyance include slower braking responses or even the tendency to ignore
and turn off warnings [66]. If a turn-off switch for FCW crash alerts were available, about 41%
of the subjects stated that they would use it because of the excessive and/or recurring false alerts
[67]. Atpresent, the prediction research for EV purchases is mainly based on a questionnaire

survey. The various influencing factors have been analyzed [10], and a variety of prediction

models havebeenestablished. Descriptive statistics and principal component analysis were

used to investigate the important factors of EV purchase intention in China, which showed

that the intrinsic essence of the products and the cost were the most important, while the

government policy was moderate [11]. The survey and statistical methods were applied

to study the factors influencing the plug-in EV (PEV) purchase intention of adult drivers

in the USA. They found that highly educated consumers were more interested in PEVs,

and interest in PEVs is slightly higher than interest in EVs [12]. Based on an adapted stage

model of self-regulated behavior change, a two-month follow-up survey was conducted

among people interested in buying EVs. It was found that stage transitions were preceded

by increases in goal intentions and implementation intentions in the week prior to the

transition. Intent prediction was different for different people [13]. Following a survey in

China and the US, consumer preferences for conventional vehicles, PEVs, and EVs were

modeled. They found that EVs wereless popular in the US than in China. Despite subsidies

for EVs, US consumers prefer low-range PEVs to EVs. The adoption of EVs in China would

be earlier than in the US [14]. A conceptual framework was developed to examine the in

luence of consumer innovativeness on EV preferences. The results indicated that adopters’

innovativeness and attitudes toward the functional performance of EVs significantly affect

EVpreferences [15]. The structural equation model (SEM) was used to analyze the factors

influencing EV purchase intentions in China. They pointed out that government policies

have a great influence on EV purchase intentions [16]. The SEM was used to compare the

effect of environmental performance, price value, and range confidence on consumers’ EV

purchase intentions. The results showed that EV environmental performance was astronger

predictor of attitude and thus purchase intention than price value and range confidence [17].
The univariate time series model and multivariate time series model were proposed to

predict the sales volume of EVs in China. They focused on short-term (12 months) and

long-term (60 months) predictions, which showed relatively high accuracy [5]. PEV and

World Electr. Veh. J. 2024, 15, 9

3 of 17

EVpurchase intentions in the US were studied, which showed that consumers preferred

PEVto EV, mainly because of the range anxiety of EV [18]. A choice experiment was con

ducted to evaluate whether personal carbon trading (PCT) influences individual decisions

to adopt EVs. The results showed that PCT can effectively promote the adoption of EVs.

Government subsidies played a more important role in EV purchase intention than free

parking and vehicle tax exemption [19]. A model of EV purchase intention was proposed,

taking into account a number of demographic characteristics and attitudinal factors. It was

found that attitudinal factors such as network externalities, government subsidies, vehicle

performance, and demographic characteristics such as gender, age, and marital status have

a significant impact on EV purchase intention [20]. A personality-perception-intention

framework was proposed to study consumers’ EV adoption behavior. It was shown that

consumer perception and personality play an important role in EV purchase intention;

personal innovativeness and environmental concern significantly also have a significant

impact [21]. The correlation analysis and hierarchical multiple regression analyses were

applied to study the socio-psychological effect on EV purchase intention. They found

that low-carbon awareness has a slight moderating effect, while subjective norms and

government policies have stronger effects [22]. An online questionnaire was conducted to

investigate the variations and determinants of EV purchase intentions in three countries.

The results showed that Chinese citizens were more willing to purchase EVs than citizens

of Brazil and Russia, mainly because of social networks and government policies [9]. Using

big data and text mining technologies, Chinese consumers’ preferences for EVs were inves

tigated through their online behaviors, which found that EV prices, car classification, and

powertrain have a great influence on consumers’ EV selection [23]. Based on the structural

equation model (SEM), the purchase intention model and post-satisfaction model of EVs

in Japan were proposed. They found that environmental awareness had a direct effect

on purchase intention and a non-direct effect on post-purchase satisfaction [24]. Based

on the theory of planned behavior (TPB), a questionnaire survey was conducted among

potential consumers of EVs in Beijing. In addition, a structural equation model (SEM) was

proposed to analyze the factors influencing EV purchase intention. The results showed that

attitude, perceived behavioral control, cognitive status, product perception, and monetary

incentive policy were important for consumers to purchase EVs [25]. The determinants

of Chinese citizens’ intentions to purchase EVs were studied in depth through an online

survey. It was found that people with a wide social network and friends who already own

EVs were more likely to purchase an EV. Age and education also had a limited effect [26].

The survey and statistical methods were used to investigate the changes in factors affecting

PEV purchase intention over time. The results showed that the intention to purchase a

PEVincreased over time [27]. SEM was used to study customers’ perceived value of EVs

and found that the concept of “mianzi” has no significant effect on purchase intention,

while the price factor has a direct effect [28]. The data mining method combined with

deep earning technologies was used to study the purchasing reasons for EVs and found

that EVs, demographic characteristics, and national policies were the main reasons [29].
A partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) of purchase intention for

electric two-wheelers was built. It was found that perceived economic benefits were the

most important factor, and women were more inclined to purchase electric two-wheelers

than men in India [30]. The SEM was used to estimate the effect of positive anticipated

emotion (PAE), negative anticipated emotion (NAE), and moral norms with TPB on EV

purchase intention in China. The results showed that PAE has the greatest effect on EV

purchase intention, followed by attitude, NAE, and perceived behavioral control (PBC) [31].

To analyze consumers’ stated preferences, a rank-ordered logit model was constructed to

provide 5-year fuel cost and total cost of ownership information on EV stated preferences.

The results indicated that providing information can increase consumers’ EV purchase

intentions [32].

To summarize, the current research mainly analyzes a variety of EV purchase factors,

including national and regional policies, people’s cognition, EV prices, etc., and establishes

WorldElectr.Veh. J.2024,15,9 4of17

avarietyofEVpurchaseandsalesforecastingmodels.Thecurrentresearchhasmacro

guidingsignificanceforgovernmentpolicyformulationandEVindustrydevelopment.

However,thereislittleresearchoncustomerpersonalfactorsandEVbrandfactors.This

kindofanalysiscanhelpEVcompaniesaccuratelytargetpotentialcustomers,provide

accurateservices,andoptimizesalesplans. Inthisstudy,customerpersonalfactorsandEV

brandfactorsareanalyzed,andtheinfluencefactoranalysismodel,predictivepurchase

model,andsalesplanoptimizationmodelareestablished.
Thereisabroadconsensusontheimportanceoftechnological progress to society (Talke and

Hultink, 2010; Utterback, 1974). Although the positive impact of technological progress

generally appears clear in retrospect (Scheiner et al., 2015), the smooth diffusion of new
technologies, as wellasthepublic’sopenness tothem,cannotbetakenforgrantedintheearly

stages after an innovation’s emergence (Barczak et al., 2009; Gourville, 2006). Prior research

has already invested significant effort into examining the diffusion of innovations

(e.g. Ganglmair-Wooliscroft and Wooliscroft, 2016; Jahanmir and Lages, 2016; Junquera

et al., 2016; Rogers, 1983). One of the key findings of those research efforts is that companies

often underestimate the impact of consumer behavioral responses (Garcia et al., 2007). From

this perspective, innovations can be classified as either receptive or resistant, based on the

Consumer

acceptance of

autonomous

technologies

Received 5 September 2019

Revised 22 January 2020

2 April 2020

Accepted 9 June 2020

European Journal of Innovation

Management

©Emerald Publishing Limited

1460-1060

DOI 10.1108/EJIM-09-2019-0245

EJIM

response of their target audiences. Receptive innovations face little resistance from the

market, mostly because consumers are not required to significantly change their beliefs,
attitudes, traditions or routines to adopt them. Consumer adoption of these innovations is

therefore unproblematic. Resistant innovations, on the other hand, require consumers to

significantly change their behaviors from a satisfying status quo (Ellen et al., 1991; Ram,

1987). Although such innovations may offer considerable advantages compared to existing

solutions, consumers resist adopting them, generally to an extent based on the degree of

required behavioral change and the prevalence of negative attitudes toward those

innovations (Ellen et al., 1991; Heidenreich and Kraemer, 2016; Talke and Heidenreich,

2014). A simple yet important reason for this innovation resistance (Heidenreich et al., 2016;

Joachim et al., 2018; Labrecque et al., 2017) is that most individuals are generally skeptical

about new things and possess a basic aversion to change (Oreg, 2018; Shimoni, 2017). It can

therefore be assumed that the greater the degree of individual change required to adopt an

innovation, the higher consumers’ resistance toward that innovation will be (Gourville, 2006).

One emerging technological field that requires a high degree of change in consumers’

cognitive and behavioral processes is the area of autonomous technologies. Technologies

belonging to this field offer great benefits to consumers and to society, mainly because they

can help overcome limitations in human beings’ qualitative and quantitative cognitive

processing capacities. To better understand what autonomy means in the context of

technological innovations, the general definition used by M€uller (2012) deserves examination:

“Agent X is autonomous from agent Y to the degree that X pursues its goals without input

from Y”(p. 213). Thus, any autonomous technology requires users to significantly relinquish

their (perceived) control over a system. This marks a major change in users’ existing beliefs,

traditions and routines in terms of technology usage because consumers are accustomed to

feeling in full control of the technologies they use. Due to this need for individual cognitive
andbehavioral change, autonomous technological innovations are likely to face considerable

consumer resistance despite their potential benefits (Hengstler et al., 2016; Hirunyawipada;

Paswan, 2006; Oreg et al., 2008; Ram and Sheth, 1989). This resistance may, moreover, be

reinforced by safety concerns (Howard and Dai, 2014) and many unsolved questions

associated with autonomous technologies, including the unclear ethical principles

surrounding the supervision of autonomous decision-making (Allen and Wallach, 2010;

Brundage, 2014; Lin, 2015).

Acurrentandhighly-disputedapplicationofautonomoustechnologieshasbeenchosenas

theobjectofthisstudy:automatedautomobileswithaself-drivingmode.Inourstudy,werely

on the widely accepted definitions of automation levels for on-road vehicles provided by the

Society of Automobile Engineers (SAE). The levels range from a fully manual vehicle (SAE

level 0) with no automation to full autonomy where no driver is needed (SAE level 5). The

highest level is defined as “the full-time performance by an automated driving system of all

aspectsofthedynamicdrivingtaskunderallroadwayandenvironmentalconditionsthatcan

be managed by a human driver” (SAE, 2014). Although the two closely related terms

“autonomous” and “automated” are often used interchangeably in this context, there exist

different notions regarding their meanings. In a strict sense, an autonomous vehicle implies

that a driver would not carry out any driving-related activities (Shladover, 2018). However,

many mainstream customers may not be necessarily aware about the gradations of driving

automation between being fully manual to fully automated (Clements and Kockelman, 2017;

Wadud, 2017) and may be more concerned with the perceived autonomy of a vehicle. Thus,

weargue that a vehicle is autonomous for the user if it carries out all driving functions in an

automated wayeventhoughthedrivermaystillhave adegreeofinteractionwith the system

(e.g. specifying the destination).

Although automated cars that can drive in a self-driving mode have not yet reached the

mainstream market, an increasing number of people are familiar with the general concept of

automated vehicles and have formed opinions about them (Schoettle and Sivak, 2014). Both

negative and positive incidents with such vehicles have been extensively covered by

traditional media channels and have been discussed on social media platforms. On the one

hand, positive headlines about major successes by Google (now: Waymo) or Tesla, for

example, have led to an increase in autonomous-driving enthusiasts. In addition, various

studies have elaborated on the positive effects of autonomous vehicles for society, including

increased safety, more efficient road use, energy savings and general positive economic

effects for many industries (Clements and Kockelman, 2017; Fagnant and Kockelman, 2015;

Greenblatt and Shaheen, 2015; Heinrichs and Cyganski, 2015; MacKenzie et al., 2014). On the

otherhand,negativeincidentssuchasthefatalaccidentthatinvolvedaTeslaModelSelectric

car driving fully autonomously in May 2016 or Uber’s fatal crash in 2018 in Tempe, Arizona,

have raised public concerns about the maturity of the technology– regardless of the

questions about responsibility or objective analyses of the circumstances of such incidents

(Spector and Dugan, 2016). Moreover, other issues such as ethical questions (Lin, 2015),

security and safety issues like hacking and general safety concerns related to equipment or

system failure (e.g. Bansal and Kockelman, 2018; Howard and Dai, 2014; Schoettle and Sivak,

2014) are currently being publicly discussed. These perceptions of uncertainties and risks in

combination with the significant amount of (perceived) changes in mindset and behavior

required to use them successfully may seriously impede consumers’ adoption of autonomous

automobiles (Bazilinskyy et al., 2015; Fagnant and Kockelman, 2015; Howard and Dai, 2014;
Kleijnen et al., 2009; Kyriakidis et al., 2015). Although attitudes toward autonomous cars

evolve quickly, a large multinational study from Schoettle and Sivak (2014) confirms the

public’s generally reserved attitude toward self-driving cars. Their findings show, for

example, that the majority of the participants are very concerned about riding in a vehicle

without humandriverincontrol (Schoettle and Sivak, 2014). However, since attitudes toward

autonomous cars can change quickly, it is worthwhile to have a closer look at the underlying

mechanisms that help to understand consumers’ acceptance behavior.

Against this background, there is a practical and theoretical relevance to examining

antecedents toconsumeradoptioninthecontextofautonomoustechnologies.Sofar,research

lacks investigating technology adoption in this fast-growing field. Therefore, the aim of this

study is to get a better understanding of the factors that influence their adoption. More

specifically, this study further examines consumer perceptions and adoption behavior

toward automated cars with a self-driving mode. In this study, we use the technology

acceptance model (TAM) to investigate the proposed relationships because it is the best

known model to explore technology acceptance (Davis et al., 1989). In addition, existing

research has already used this model in the context of automated cars (e.g. Xu et al., 2018;

Panagiotopoulos; Dimitrakopoulos, 2018). Overall, the mentioned aspects makeso-calledself

driving cars highly suitable as a focus of research regarding the acceptance of autonomous

technologies