Application of a parsimonious Shared Automated Vehicle Acceptance model using empirical data
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59490/ejtir.2026.26.3.8688Keywords:
shared automated vehicles, field test, model application, surveyAbstract
Shared automated vehicles (SAVs) can only contribute to future mobility systems if travellers are willing to accept and use them. This study examines whether a lean Shared Automated Vehicle Acceptance (SAVA) model, consisting of trust, perceived utility, and social comfort, can capture meaningful variation in users’ intentions in an operational setting. The case study involved a permanently deployed, stewardless SAE Level 4 shuttle service at Terhills, a large tourist site in Belgium. After using the service, 677 respondents were recruited at shuttle stops and completed a brief tablet-based survey covering ride experiences, disruptive events, background characteristics, the three SAVA indicators, and intention to use similar vehicles in everyday life. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that the SAVA indicators explained 75% of the variance in intention. Perceived utility was by far the strongest predictor, while trust made a small positive contribution and social comfort was not independently associated with intention. Negative events, including unexplained braking, prolonged stops, and long waiting times, were associated with lower trust, utility, and intention, whereas smooth and positively evaluated rides were associated with more favourable acceptance. Trip frequency did not add explanatory value. The findings suggest that a parsimonious acceptance framework can be useful for rapid, repeatable monitoring in real-world SAV deployments. However, the results are specific to experienced users in a leisure setting and should not be interpreted as population-level estimates of adoption. Replication across service types, operational environments, and longitudinal deployments is needed.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Aasvik, O., Hagenzieker, M., & Ulleberg, P. (2025). “I trust Norway” – Investigating acceptance of shared autonomous shuttles using open and closed questions in short-form street interviews. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 31, 101414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2025.101414
Aasvik, O., Hagenzieker, M., Ulleberg, P., & Bjørnskau, T. (2024). How Testing Impacts Willingness to Use and Share Autonomous Shuttles with Strangers: The Mediating Effects of Trust and Optimism. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2352220
Aasvik, O., Ulleberg, P., & Hagenzieker, M. (2024). Simplifying acceptance: A general acceptance factor predicting intentions to use shared autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 107, 1125–1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2024.10.025
Aasvik, O., Ulleberg, P., & Hagenzieker, M. (2025). A simple model for complex technology: Introducing and testing a framework to understand acceptance of shared automated vehicles. Royal Society Open Science, 12(12), 251891. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.251891
Asgari, H., & Jin, X. (2019). Incorporating Attitudinal Factors to Examine Adoption of and Willingness to Pay for Autonomous Vehicles. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2673(8), 418–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119839987
Bagozzi, R. (2007). The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00122
Bakioglu, G., Salehin, M. F., Wang, K., Atahan, A. O., & Habib, K. N. (2022). Examination of the role of safety concerns from autonomous vehicle ownership choice: Results of a stated choice experiment in Istanbul, Turkey. Transportation Letters, 14(10), 1172–1183. https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2021.2007679
Bellet, T., & Banet, A. (2023). UTAUT4-AV: An extension of the UTAUT model to study intention to use automated shuttles and the societal acceptance of different types of automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 99, 239–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.10.007
Bjørnskau, T., Aasvik, O., De Ceunynck, T., Fyhri, A., Hagenzieker, M., Johnsson, C., & Laureshyn, A. (2023). “Game over” for autonomous shuttles in mixed traffic? Results from field surveys among pedestrians and cyclists on how they interact with autonomous shuttles in real-life traffic in Norway. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 18, 100781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100781
Blut, M., Chong, A. Y. L., Tsigna, Z., & Venkatesh, V. (2022). Meta-Analysis of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Challenging its Validity and Charting a Research Agenda in the Red Ocean. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(1), 13–95. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00719
Chng, S., Anowar, S., & Cheah, L. (2022). Understanding Shared Autonomous Vehicle Preferences: A Comparison between Shuttles, Buses, Ridesharing and Taxis. Sustainability, 14(20), 13656.
Choi, J. K., & Ji, Y. G. (2015). Investigating the Importance of Trust on Adopting an Autonomous Vehicle. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31(10), 692–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1070549
Clayton, W., Paddeu, D., Parkhurst, G., & Parkin, J. (2020). Autonomous vehicles: Who will use them, and will they share? Transportation Planning and Technology, 43(4), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2020.1747200
Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15192
De Ceunynck, T., & Cools, M. (2023). “Are you feeling safe on-board our autonomous shuttles?”—Results form the user experience survey at Terhills, Belgium. Proceedings of the 35th ICTCT Conference, Catania, Italy.
de Winter, J., & Nordhoff, S. (2022). Acceptance of conditionally automated cars: Just one factor? Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 15(100645). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100645
Dolins, S. (2021). Diagnosing Sharing Anxiety—Examining willingness-to-share factors and stakeholder involvement in on-demand ridehailing and autonomous vehicle contexts. [Licentiate thesis, Chalmers University of Technology]. Chalmers Research. https://research.chalmers.se/publication/526508/file/526508_Fulltext.pdf
Dolins, S., Karlsson, M., & Strömberg, H. (2023). AVs Have a Sharing Problem: Examining User Acceptance of Shared, Autonomous Public Transport in Sweden. 2023 IEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 6102–6107. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC57777.2023.10421886
Elias, J., & Kolodny, L. (2025). Waymo reports 250,000 paid robotaxi rides per week in U.S. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/24/waymo-reports-250000-paid-robotaxi-rides-per-week-in-us.html
Etminani-Ghasrodashti, R., Kermanshachi, S., Rosenberger, J. M., & Foss, A. (2023). Exploring motivating factors and constraints of using and adoption of shared autonomous vehicles (SAVs). Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 18, 100794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100794
Gold, C., Körber, M., Hohenberger, C., Lechner, D., & Bengler, K. (2015). Trust in Automation – Before and After the Experience of Take-over Scenarios in a Highly Automated Vehicle. Procedia Manufacturing, 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2015) and the Affiliated Conferences, AHFE 2015, 3, 3025–3032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.847
Goldbach, C., Sickmann, J., Pitz, T., & Zimasa, T. (2022). Towards autonomous public transportation: Attitudes and intentions of the local population. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 13, 100504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100504
Greifenstein, M. (2024). Factors influencing the user behaviour of shared autonomous vehicles (SAVs): A systematic literature review. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 100, 323–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.10.027
Guo, J., Kang, X., Susilo, Y., Antoniou, C., & Pernestål, A. (2025). Temporal patterns of user acceptance and recommendation of the automated buses. Travel Behaviour and Society, 38, 100909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2024.100909
Hagenzieker, M. P., Boersma, R., Nuñez Velasco, P., Ozturker, M., Zubin, I., & Heikoop, D. (2021). Automated Buses in Europe: An inventory of pilots: Final Version (Final Version ed.). TU Delft. https://research.tudelft.nl/en/publications/automated-buses-in-europe-an-inventory-of-pilots-final-version
Hansen, T., & Sener, I. N. (2023). Strangers On This Road We Are On: A Literature Review of Pooling in On-Demand Mobility Services. Transportation Research Record, 2677(3), 1368–1381. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221123801
Harrison McKnight, D., & Chervany, N. L. (2001). Trust and Distrust Definitions: One Bite at a Time. In R. Falcone, M. Singh, & Y.-H. Tan (Eds.), Trust in Cyber-societies (Vol. 2246, pp. 27–54). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45547-7_3
Hegner, S. M., Beldad, A. D., & Brunswick, G. J. (2019). In Automatic We Trust: Investigating the Impact of Trust, Control, Personality Characteristics, and Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivations on the Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(19), 1769–1780. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1572353
Hult, R., Campos, G. R., Steinmetz, E., Hammarstrand, L., Falcone, P., & Wymeersch, H. (2016). Coordination of Cooperative Autonomous Vehicles: Toward safer and more efficient road transportation. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 33(6), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2016.2602005
Jin, H., & Roy, A. (2024). Waymo arson in San Francisco sparks new debate on self-driving cars. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/san-francisco-waymo-arson-sparks-fresh-debate-self-driving-cars-2024-02-13/
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and Causality. Wiley.
Khastgir, S., Birrell, S., Dhadyalla, G., & Jennings, P. (2018). Calibrating trust through knowledge: Introducing the concept of informed safety for automation in vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 96, 290–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.07.001
Kleppestø, T. H., Eftedal, N. H., & Thomsen, L. (2020). Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1–9.
Körber, M. (2019). Theoretical Considerations and Development of a Questionnaire to Measure Trust in Automation. In S. Bagnara, R. Tartaglia, S. Albolino, T. Alexander, & Y. Fujita (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) (Vol. 823, pp. 13–30). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96074-6_2
Krueger, R., Rashidi, T. H., & Rose, J. M. (2016). Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 69, 343–355.
Lavieri, P. S., Garikapati, V. M., Bhat, C. R., Pendyala, R. M., Astroza, S., & Dias, F. F. (2017). Modeling Individual Preferences for Ownership and Sharing of Autonomous Vehicle Technologies. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2665(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3141/2665-01
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
Moody, J., Middleton, S., & Zhao, J. (2019). Rider-to-rider discriminatory attitudes and ridesharing behavior. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 62, 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.01.003
Nees, M., & Zhang, J. (2020). Acceptance of Highly Automated Vehicles: A Factor Analysis Approach [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9qcjp
Nordhoff, S., Hagenzieker, M. P., Lehtonen, E., Oehl, M., Wilbrink, M., İbrahim Öztürk, Maggi, D., Métayer, N., Merlhiot, G., & Merat, N. (2023). Towards the development of an instrument for the assessment of road user automated vehicle acceptance: A pyramid of user needs of automated vehicles [Preprint]. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25055.02728
Nordhoff, S., Kyriakidis, M., Van Arem, B., & Happee, R. (2019). A multi-level model on automated vehicle acceptance (MAVA): A review-based study. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 20(6), 682–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2019.1621406
Nordhoff, S., Malmsten, V., van Arem, B., Liu, P., & Happee, R. (2021). A structural equation modeling approach for the acceptance of driverless automated shuttles based on constructs from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and the Diffusion of Innovation Theory. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 78, 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.01.001
Othman, K. (2020). Benefits of Vehicle Automation for Public Transportation Operations. Current Trends in Civil & Structural Engineering, 6(5). https://doi.org/10.33552/CTCSE.2020.06.000646
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, 115, 102604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2020.02.026
Paddeu, D., Tsouros, I., Parkhurst, G., Polydoropoulou, A., & Shergold, I. (2021). A study of users’ preferences after a brief exposure in a Shared Autonomous Vehicle (SAV). Transportation Research Procedia, 52, 533–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2021.01.063
Patel, R. K., Etminani-Ghasrodashti, R., Kermanshachi, S., Rosenberger, J. M., & Foss, A. (2023). Exploring willingness to use shared autonomous vehicles. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 12(3), 765–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2022.06.008
Pokorny, P., Bjørnskau, T., & Aasvik, O. (2022). Automated shuttles in a residential area—Video observations of interactions with other traffic participants in Ski—Hebekk (TØI-Report 1917/2022).
Rahman, Md. M., & Thill, J.-C. (2025). What Drives the Use of Pooled Autonomous Vehicles? Some Insights in California Users’ Perspective. Travel Behaviour and Society, 39, 100975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2024.100975
Sanguinetti, A., Kurani, K., & Ferguson, B. (2019). Is it OK to get in a car with a stranger? Risks and benefits of ride-pooling in shared automated vehicles. University of California. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1cb6n6r9
Schwing, M., Reit, V., Selinka, S., Kuhn, M., & Meyer-Waarden, L. (2025). How Consumer Experience Shapes the Adoption of Autonomous Technologies: A Longitudinal Study With Shared Autonomous Vehicles. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, n/a(n/a). https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2471
Smith, B., Olaru, D., & Tang, X. (2019). Attitudes and Perceived Usefulness of Autonomous Shuttles: An On Board Survey. Australasian Transport Research Forum, 10. https://australasiantransportresearchforum.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ATRF2019_resubmission_61.pdf
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Weschke, J., Bahamonde-Birke, F. J., Gade, K., & Kazagli, E. (2021). Asking the Wizard-of-Oz: How experiencing autonomous buses affects preferences towards their use for feeder trips in public transport. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 133, 103454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2021.103454
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251446
Zhang, Z., Tian, R., & Duffy, V. G. (2023). Trust in Automated Vehicle: A Meta-Analysis. In V. G. Duffy, S. J. Landry, J. D. Lee, & N. Stanton (Eds.), Human-Automation Interaction: Transportation (pp. 221–234). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10784-9_13
Zhanhang, Y., & Jingyang, W. (2024). In Wuhan, Robotaxis Put China’s Self-Driving Ambitions to the Test. Sixth Tone. https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1015767
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ole Aasvik, Tim de Ceunynck, Mario Cools
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
