An investigation of perceived risk dimensions in acceptability of shared autonomous vehicles, a mediation-moderation analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integration of shared and autonomous mobility has led to the emergence of shared autonomous vehicles with ride-sharing services (SAVWRS), which have the potential to significantly reduce private car usage and promote sustainable transportation. Despite numerous studies on this topic, there is still no research examining the impact of all dimensions of perceived risk theory on usage intention. Therefore, we aim to investigate these relationships and gain deeper insights by examining the mediating effect of trust and the moderating effect of generation (Millennials vs. Baby Boomers) to address potential disparities across generations. To gather insights, we design an online survey that was completed by a random sample of 723 individuals in 2021. The estimation results of the structural equation model reveal that all perceived risk dimensions (social, performance, time, physical, security, and financial risks, in descending order) are negatively related to consumers' intention. Additionally, trust fully mediates the relationships between performance, physical, financial, and security risks and usage intention, whereas it partially mediates the relationships between social and time risks and the intention to use. Furthermore, moderation analysis revealed that Millennials are less concerned about most dimensions of perceived risk theory, except for social and time risks. In conclusion, our study contributes to a deeper understanding of the complex relationships between perceived risk dimensions, trust, and usage intention in SAVWRS. Our findings suggest that policymakers and industry stakeholders should consider strategies to address these concerns to promote widespread acceptance of SAVWRS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".