skip to main content
10.1145/3580585.3607177acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesautomotiveuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Best Paper

Development of a Perceived Security Scale for Shared Automated Vehicles (PSSAV) and its Validation in Colombia and Germany

Published:18 September 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Perceived security is crucial for the widespread adoption of shared automated vehicles (SAVs) and shuttle buses. However, there is currently no validated instrument to measure perceived security in this context, and little research has been done to determine the factors that contribute to perceived security. We propose the Perceived Security Scale for Shared Automated Vehicles (PSSAV), a questionnaire that assesses various aspects of perceived security in SAVs. The scale was evaluated using an exploratory, data-driven approach in a pilot study with 60 German participants, and a main study with 114 German and 101 Colombian participants experiencing a positive or negative ride in an automated shuttle bus (between-subjects design) presented as videos in an online study. The results suggest that trust, privacy, and control are key factors that influence security in the context of SAVs. The PSSAV questionnaire is reliable and sensitive to manipulation, indicating its construct validity.

References

  1. Heather Allen, Galo Cárdenas, Leda Paula Pereyra, Lake Sagaris, 2019. Ella se mueve segura. A study on women’s personal safety in public transport in three Latin American cities.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Godfred O Boateng, Torsten B Neilands, Edward A Frongillo, Hugo R Melgar-Quiñonez, and Sera L Young. 2018. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Frontiers in public health 6 (2018), 149.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Michael W Browne. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing structural equation models (1993), 136–162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Raymond Cattell. 2012. The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Gilbert A Churchill Jr. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of marketing research 16, 1 (1979), 64–73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Lee Anna Clark and David Watson. 2016. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. William Clayton, Daniela Paddeu, Graham Parkhurst, and John Parkin. 2020. Autonomous vehicles: who will use them, and will they share?Transportation Planning and Technology 43, 4 (2020), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2020.1747200Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Lee J Cronbach and Paul E Meehl. 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests.Psychological bulletin 52, 4 (1955), 281.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Graham Currie. 2018. Lies, damned lies, AVs, shared mobility, and urban transit futures. Journal of Public Transportation 21, 1 (2018), 3. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.21.1.3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Tawanna R. Dillahunt, Vaishnav Kameswaran, Linfeng Li, and Tanya Rosenblat. 2017. Uncovering the Values and Constraints of Real-Time Ridesharing for Low-Resource Populations. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2757–2769. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025470Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Jason Ditton. 2000. Crime and the City. The British Journal of Criminology 40, 4 (Sept. 2000), 692–709. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/40.4.692 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-pdf/40/4/692/1374135/400692.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Gaëlle Ferrant and Annelise Thim. 2019. Measuring women’s economic empowerment. https://doi.org/10.1787/02e538fc-enGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Andy Field, Jeremy Miles, and Zoë Field. 2012. Discovering statistics using R. Sage publications.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Lars Gerhold. 2020. Sicherheitsempfinden, Sicherheitskommunikation und Sicherheitsmaßnahmen. https://doi.org/10.17169/refubium-27261Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Geert Hofstede. 2001. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Li-tze Hu and Peter M Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal 6, 1 (1999), 1–55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. ITF. 2018. Women’s Safety and Security - A Public Transport Priority. https://www.itf-oecd.org/womens-safety-securityGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Paul Kline. 2013. Handbook of psychological testing. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315812274Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Kenneth S Kurani 2019. User Perceptions of Safety and Security: A Framework for a Transition to Electric-Shared-Automated Vehicles. https://doi.org/10.7922/G2891438Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. M. Kyriakidis, R. Happee, and J.C.F. de Winter. 2015. Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 32 (2015), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Patrícia S. Lavieri and Chandra R. Bhat. 2019. Modeling individuals’ willingness to share trips with strangers in an autonomous vehicle future. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 124 (2019), 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.03.009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Todd Litman. 2017. Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions. Victoria Transport Policy Institute Victoria, Canada. https://trid.trb.org/view/1678741Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Thorsten Luettel, Michael Himmelsbach, and Hans-Joachim Wuensche. 2012. Autonomous Ground Vehicles-Concepts and a Path to the Future.Proc. IEEE 100, Special Centennial Issue (2012), 1831–1839. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2012.2189803Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. David C. May, Nicole E. Rader, and Sarah Goodrum. 2010. A Gendered Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’: Examining Gender Differences in Fear of Crime, Perceived Risk, Avoidance, and Defensive Behaviors. Criminal Justice Review 35, 2 (2010), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016809349166 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016809349166Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. D. Betsy McCoach, Robert K. Gable, and John P. Madura. 2013. Evidence Based on the Internal Structure of the Instrument: Factor Analysis. Springer New York, New York, NY, 109–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7135-6_4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Claudia Janeth Mercado Velandia. 2012. Viabilidad Técnica y Financiera de la Utilización del Bicitaxi como medio de transporte público en el marco del Sistema Integrado de Transporte Público en Bogotá DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Fabiane R. Morgado, Juliana F.F. Meireles, Clara M. Neves, Ana C.S. Amaral, and Maria E.C. Ferreira. 2018. Scale development: Ten main limitations and recommendations to improve future research practices. Psychology: Research and Review, 30 (1), 1-20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ramon Munoz-Raskin. 2010. Walking accessibility to bus rapid transit: Does it affect property values? The case of Bogotá, Colombia. Transport policy 17, 2 (2010), 72–84.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Oscar Newman. 1996. Creating defensible space.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Jum C Nunnally. 1978. An overview of psychological measurement. Clinical diagnosis of mental disorders: A handbook (1978), 97–146.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Doina Olaru, Brett Smith, and John H.E. Taplin. 2011. Residential location and transit-oriented development in a new rail corridor. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 45, 3 (2011), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2010.12.007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Christina Pakusch, Gunnar Stevens, Alexander Boden, and Paul Bossauer. 2018. Unintended Effects of Autonomous Driving: A Study on Mobility Preferences in the Future. Sustainability 10 (July 2018), 2404. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072404Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Caroline Criado Perez. 2019. Invisible Women: Exposing data bias in a world designed for men. Abrams, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. William Revelle and Maintainer William Revelle. 2015. Package ‘psych’. The comprehensive R archive network 337 (2015), 338.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Arto O Salonen and Noora Haavisto. 2019. Towards Autonomous Transportation. Passengers’ Experiences, Perceptions and Feelings in a Driverless Shuttle Bus in Finland. Sustainability 11, 3 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030588Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Angela Sanguinetti, Ken Kurani, and Beth Ferguson. 2019. Is it ok to get in a car with a stranger? risks and benefits of ride-pooling in shared automated vehicles. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1cb6n6r9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Javier Morales Sarriera, Germán Escovar Álvarez, Kelly Blynn, Andrew Alesbury, Timothy Scully, and Jinhua Zhao. 2017. To Share or Not to Share: Investigating the Social Aspects of Dynamic Ridesharing. Transportation Research Record 2605, 1 (2017), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.3141/2605-11 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.3141/2605-11Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Martina Schuß, Carina Manger, Andreas Löcken, and Andreas Riener. 2022. You’ll Never Ride Alone: Insights into Women’s Security Needs in Shared Automated Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (AutomotiveUI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543174.3546848Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Martina Schuß, Philipp Wintersberger, and Andreas Riener. 2021. Let’s Share a Ride into the Future: A Qualitative Study Comparing Hypothetical Implementation Scenarios of Automated Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 156, 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445609Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Martina Schuß, Alice Rollwagen, and Andreas Riener. 2022. Understanding Operator Influence in Automated Urban Shuttle Buses and Recommendations for Future Development. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 6, 12 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/mti6120109Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Robert Sommer. 1969. Personal Space. The behavioral basis of design.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Daniel Sperling. 2018. Three revolutions: Steering automated, shared, and electric vehicles to a better future. Island Press, Washington.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. J. P. Stevens. 2002. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NS; Erlbaum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www. R-project. org/ (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Isabel Thielmann and Benjamin E. Hilbig. 2015. Trust: An Integrative Review from a Person–Situation Perspective. Review of General Psychology 19, 3 (2015), 249–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000046 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000046Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Philipp Wintersberger. 2020. Automated driving: Towards trustworthy and safe human-machine cooperation. arXiv:https://www.scipedia.com/public/Wintersberger_2020aGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Jan C. Zoellick, Adelheid Kuhlmey, Liane Schenk, Daniel Schindel, and Stefan Blüher. 2019. Assessing acceptance of electric automated vehicles after exposure in a realistic traffic environment. PLOS ONE 14, 5 (05 2019), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215969Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Olga Yu. Zotova and Larisa V. Karapetyan. 2018. Psychological security as the foundation of personal psychological wellbeing (analytical review). Psychology in Russia: State of the Art 11, 2 (2018), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2018.0208Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Development of a Perceived Security Scale for Shared Automated Vehicles (PSSAV) and its Validation in Colombia and Germany

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        AutomotiveUI '23: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications
        September 2023
        352 pages
        ISBN:9798400701054
        DOI:10.1145/3580585

        Copyright © 2023 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 18 September 2023

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate248of566submissions,44%

        Upcoming Conference

      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)295
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)41

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format