Advertisement

Challenges of Older Drivers’ Adoption of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems and Autonomous Vehicles

  • Dustin SoudersEmail author
  • Neil Charness
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9755)

Abstract

The personal vehicle is increasingly the preferred mode of travel for aging adults. There are greater numbers of older drivers on the roads driving more miles than ever before, and it is important to be aware of declines that might affect them. Existing technology adoption frameworks are reviewed and relevant issues surrounding older adults’ adoption of advanced driver assistance systems and/or autonomous vehicles are discussed. A secondary analysis is performed on recently collected Floridian survey data that over-sampled older adults (age 55+ yr). Exploratory factor scores are calculated based on survey responses and the predictive effects of age, gender, annual household income, ease of new technology use, and providing information relating to the technologies are examined. Results are discussed in terms of how best to increase older adults’ familiarity with and trust of these transportation technologies in order to help ensure their adoption and safe usage.

Keywords

Older adults Technology adoption Advanced driver assistance systems Autonomous vehicles 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded in part by the Florida Department of Transportation, Contract BVD30 977-11 Enhanced mobility for aging populations using automated vehicles http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PL/FDOT-BDV30-977-11-rpt.pdf.

References

  1. 1.
    Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: Decline in crash risk spurs better outlook for older drivers. Status report, vol. 50, no. 2 (2015). http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/50/2/2
  2. 2.
    Sivak, M., Schoettle, B.: Recent changes in the age composition of drivers in 15 countries. Report No. UMTRI-2011-43, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, MI (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Colby, S.L., Ortman, J.M.: Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060. Current Population reports, pp. P25–1143. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jastrzembski, T.S., Charness, N.: The model human processor and the older adult: parameter estimation and validation within a mobile phone task. J. Exp. Psychol.-Appl. 13, 224–248 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marottoli, R.A., Richardson, E.D., Stowe, M.H., Miller, E.G., Brass, L.M., Cooney Jr., L.M., Tinetti, M.E.: Development of a test battery to identify older drivers at risk for self-reported adverse driving events. J. Am. Geriatr. Soi. 46, 562–568 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charlton, J., Koppel, S., O’Hare, M., Andrea, D., Smith, G., Khodr, B., Langford, J., Odell, M., Fildes, B.: Influence of chronic illness on crash involvement of motor vehicle drivers. Report No. 213. Monash University Accident Research Centre, Victoria, Australia (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anstey, K.J., Wood, J., Lord, S., Walker, J.G.: Cognitive, sensory and physical factors enabling driving safety in older adults. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 25(1), 45–65 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dobbs, B.M.: Medical conditions and driving: a review of the scientific literature (1960–2000). Report No. DOT HSW 809 690. US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eby, D., Molnar, L., Kartje, P.: Maintaining Safe Mobility in an Aging Society. Taylor and Francis, London (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boot, W.R., Stothart, C., Charness, N.: Improving the safety of aging road users: a mini-review. Gerontology 60(1), 90–96 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    West, C.G., Gildengorin, G., Haegerstrom-Portnoy, G., Lott, L.A., Schneck, M.E., Brabyn, J.A.: Vision and driving self-restriction in older adults. J. Am. Geriatr. Soi. 51(10), 1348–1355 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Molnar, L.J., Eby, D.W., Zhang, L., Zanier, N., St. Louis, R.M., Kostyniuk, L.P.: Self-regulation of driving by older adults: a synthesis of the literature and framework for future research. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Website (2015). https://www.aaafoundation.org/self-regulation-driving-older-adults-longroad-study-0
  13. 13.
    Hutchinson, T.E., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering: Driving confidence and in-vehicle telematics: a study of technology adoption patterns of the 50+ driving population, 98, [6] (2004). http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/29389
  14. 14.
    Chihuri, S., Mielenz, T.J., DiMaggio, C.J., Betz, M.E., DiGuiseppi, C., Jones, V.C., Li, G.: Driving Cessation and Health Outcomes in Older Adults. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washington, DC (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brown, S., Venkatesh, V.: Model of adoption of technology in households: a baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Q. 29(3), 399–426 (2005). doi: 10.2307/25148690 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I.: In pursuit of youth: what’s wrong with the older market (1999). doi: 10.1108/02634509910285637 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Czaja, S.J., Charness, N., Fisk, A.D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S.N., Rogers, W.A., Sharit, J.: Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychol. Aging 21, 333–352 (2006). doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Demiris, G., Rantz, M., Aud, M., Marek, K., Tyrer, H., Skubic, M., Hussam, A.: Older adults’ attitudes towards and perceptions of “smart home” technologies: a pilot study. Med. Inform. Internet Med. 29(2), 87–94 (2004). doi: 10.1080/14639230410001684387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Melenhorst, A.-S., Rogers, W.A., Caylor, E.C.: The use of communication technologies by older adults: exploring the benefits from the user’s perspective. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting (2001). doi: 10.1177/154193120104500305 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hopkins, C.D., Roster, C.A., Wood, C.M.: Making the transition to retirement: appraisals, post-transition lifestyle, and changes in consumption patterns. J. Consum. Mark. 23(2), 87–99 (2006). doi: 10.1108/07363760610655023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Niemelä-Nyrhinen, J.: Baby boom consumers and technology: shooting down stereotypes. J. Consum. Mark. 24(5), 305–312 (2007). doi: 10.1108/07363760710773120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–339 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis, F.D., Venkatesh, V.: A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 45(1), 19–45 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Inf. Manag. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pavlou, P.A.: Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 7(3), 101–134 (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Carter, L., Bélanger, F.: The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Inf. Syst. J. 15(1), 5–25 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W., Chervany, N.L.: Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Q. 23(2), 183–213 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Adell, E.: Acceptance of driver support systems. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Human Centred Design for Intelligent Transport Systems, Berlin, Germany, pp. 475–486 (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Choi, J.K., Ji, Y.G.: Investigating the importance of trust on adopting an autonomous vehicle. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 31(10), 692–702 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stanton, N.A., Young, M.S.: Driver behaviour with adaptive cruise control. Ergonomics 48, 1294–1313 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rudin-Brown, C., Ian Noy, Y.: Investigation of behavioral adaptation to lane departure warnings. Transp. Res. Rec. 1803, 30–37 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Madigan, R., Louw, T., Dziennus, M., Graindorge, T., Ortega, E., Graindorge, M., Merat, N.: Acceptance of automated road transport systems (ARTS): an adaptation of the UTAUT model. In: Proceedings of 6th Transport Research Arena, Warsaw, Poland (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Alessandrini, A., Campagna, A., Delle Site, P., Filippi, F., Persia, L.: Automated vehicles and the rethinking of mobility and cities. Transp. Res. Procedia 5, 145–160 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Delle Site, P., Filippi, G., Giustiniani, G.: Users’ preferences towards innovative and conventional public transport. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 20, 906–915 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36(1), 157–178 (2012)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ghazizadeh, M., Lee, J.D., Boyle, L.N.: Extending the technology acceptance model to assess automation. Cogn. Technol. Work 14(1), 39–49 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Madhavan, P., Wiegmann, D.A.: Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: an integrative review. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 8(4), 277–301 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee, J.D., See, K.A.: Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum. Factors 46(1), 50 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Muir, B.M.: Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 27(5–6), 527–539 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lee, J.D., Moray, N.: Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35(10), 1243–1270 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lee, J.D., Moray, N.: Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 40(1), 153 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., Wickens, C.D.: Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak. 2(2), 140–160 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kim, J., Moon, J.Y.: Designing towards emotional usability in customer interfaces—trustworthiness of cyber-banking system interfaces. Interact. Comput. 10(1), 1–29 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fogg, B.J., Marshall, J., Laraki, O., Osipovich, A., Varma, C., Fang, N., Paul, J., Rangnekar, A., Shon, J., Swani, P.: What makes web sites credible? A report on a large quantitative study. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors Computing Systems, pp. 295–299 (2001)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Karvonen, K., Parkkinen, J.: Signs of trust: a semiotic study of trust formation in the web. In: Smith, M.J., Salvendy, G., Harris, D., Koubek, R.J. (eds.) First International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction, Erlbaum, Mahwah, vol. 1, pp. 1076–1080 (2001)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Parasuraman, R., Riley, V.: Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum. Factors 39(2), 230–253 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hoff, K.A., Bashir, M.: Trust in automation integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Hum. Factors 57(3), 407–434 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dishaw, M.T., Strong, D.M.: Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Inf. Manag. 36(1), 9–21 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., Angst, C.M.: Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology acceptance research. MIS Q. 30(4), 781–804 (2006)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., Wickens, C.D.: A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A: Syst. Hum. 30(3), 286–297 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Moray, N., Inagaki, T., Itoh, M.: Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. J. Exp. Psychol.-Appl. 6(1), 44 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Inagaki, T., Itoh, M., Nagai, Y.: Support by warning or by action: which is appropriate under mismatches between driver intent and traffic conditions? IEICE Trans. Fundam. Electron. Commun. Comput. Sci. 90(11), 2540 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lee, C., Coughlin, J.F.: PERSPECTIVE: older adults’ adoption of technology: an integrated approach to identifying determinants and barriers. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. (2014). doi: 10.1111/jpim.12176 Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hassan, H., King, M., Watt, K.: The perspectives of older drivers on the impact of feedback on their driving behaviours: a qualitative study. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 28, 25–39 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Demiris, G., Rantz, M., Aud, M., Marek, K., Tyrer, H., Skubic, M., Hussam, A.: Older adults’ attitudes towards and perceptions of “smart home” technologies: a pilot study. Med. Inform. Internet Med. 29(2), 87–94 (2004). doi: 10.1080/14639230410001684387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kang, H.G., Mahoney, D.F., Hoenig, H., Hirth, V.A., Bonato, P., Hajjar, I., Lipsitz, L.A.: In situ monitoring of health in older adults: technologies and issues. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. (2010). doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02959.x Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Leonard-Barton, D.: Implementation characteristics of organizational innovations: limits and opportunities for management strategies. Commun. Res. 15(5), 603–631 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Eby, D.W., Molnar, L.J., Zhang, L., St. Louis, R.M., Zanier, N., Kostyniuk, L.P.: Keeping older adults driving safely: a research synthesis of advanced in-vehicle technologies. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Website (2015). https://www.aaafoundation.org/keeping-older-adults-driving-safely-research-synthesis-advanced-vehicle-technologies-longroad-study
  61. 61.
    Duncan, M., Charness, N., Chapin, T., Horner, M., Stevens, L., Richard, A., Souders, D.J., Crute, J., Riemondy, A., Morgan, D.: Enhanced mobility for aging populations using automated vehicles. Florida Department of Transportation Website (2015). http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PL/FDOT-BDV30-977-11-rpt.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations