Hindawi

Journal of Advanced Transportation

Volume 2022, Article ID 8461212, 11 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8461212

Research Article
Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Robo-Taxi Services in
China: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model Analysis

Mingyu Liu ,1 Jianping Wu ,1 Chunli Zhu ,2 and Kezhen Hu 3

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
2
School of Information and Electronics & Advanced Research Institute of Multidisciplinary Science,
Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
3
China Academy of Information and Communication Technology, Beijing 100191, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Jianping Wu; jianpingwu@tsinghua.edu.cn

Received 13 July 2021; Revised 7 March 2022; Accepted 24 March 2022; Published 9 April 2022

Academic Editor: Yuchuan Du

Copyright © 2022 Mingyu Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

With the development of autonomous driving technologies, robo-taxis (shared autonomous vehicles) are being tested on real
roads. In China, in particular, people in some cities such as Beijing and Shanghai can book a robo-taxi online and experience the
service. To examine the influential factors on user acceptance of robo-taxi services, this study proposes and employs an extended
technology acceptance model (TAM) with four external factors: perceived trust, government support, social influence, and
perceived enjoyment. Data were collected through an online questionnaire in China, and responses from 403 respondents were
analyzed using structural equation modeling. Both typical TAM factors—including perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness,
and attitude—and external factors were found to play significant roles in predicting users’ intention to use robo-taxis. The four
external factors influenced the user acceptance indirectly via typical TAM factors. Improving users’ perceived trust is important
for increasing public adoption. A greater emphasis by manufacturers on safety concerns, wider dissemination of information on
data protection and safety systems, and government support through incentives for manufacturers and users can help improve
public adoption of robo-taxi services.

1. Introduction the cost of purchase, maintenance, repair, and insurance [4].

Recently, autonomous driving technologies have been
studied by many researchers. Autonomous vehicles (AVs)
have become a major challenge for manufacturers. Many
companies and research groups, such as Google, Daimler,
and Deutsche Bahn, have focused on the design and testing
of AVs [1]. However, compared with manually driven ve-
hicles, AVs involve high costs, with up to 50,000 USD per
vehicle, which has become a considerable challenge [2].
Therefore, robo-taxis have been considered an effective
approach to accelerate the industrialization of AVs. This
study considered SAE L5 AVs with sharing services [3],
robo-taxis that can meet travel demand with an autonomous
driving system. Similar to ride-hailing services and taxis,
robo-taxis are intended to provide traffic services to con-
sumers. Sharing services can save money for users, including
Moreover, an agent-based study showed that, in a system of
shared AVs (SAVs), each SAV can replace 11 conventional
vehicles [5]. The robo-taxis can thus alleviate parking
problems in modern cities by reducing private car owner-
ship levels.
China has made significant progress in the development
of robo-taxis. On June 21, 2019, Baidu’s Apollo robo-taxis
obtained 45 licenses for testing in Changsha City, Hunan
Province [6]. In August 2019, testing of Apollo robo-taxis
began on actual roads in Changsha City [7]. On June 27,
2020, Didi, a vehicle-for-hire company providing bike-
sharing and ride-hailing services in China, started to offer
robo-taxi services for testing in a specific area in Shanghai
[8]. Users can book robo-taxi services for free on their
mobile phones. As a measure against the COVID-19 pan-
demic, these robo-taxis have devices that can recognize
2 Journal of Advanced Transportation
whether users have worn a mask before they board the robo-
taxi. During the trip, users can interact with the robo-taxi
system. Moreover, they are accompanied by two people, one
to ensure the users’ safety and the other to make sure the
robo-taxi is driven normally. In recent years, robo-taxis have
undergone various developments, and they will likely be
widely introduced soon. Therefore, before their arrival on
the market, the factors that influence consumers’ acceptance
of robo-taxi services must be explored.
Some studies have investigated public adoption of SAVs
using discrete choice experiments (e.g., [4, 9, 10]). However,
major roadblocks to the widespread adoption of AVs are not
technical but psychological in nature [11]. Therefore, user
acceptance of robo-taxis must be investigated from a psy-
chological perspective. To examine user acceptance of in-
formation technologies from such a perspective, researchers
have proposed many models and frameworks, such as the
theory of planned behavior (TPB) [12], technology accep-
tance model (TAM) [13], unified theory of acceptance and
use of technology (UTAUT [14]), and UTAUT2 [15]. TPB
was developed based on the theory of reasoned action
(TRA), and it can be applied to explain many types of be-
haviors, such as pedestrian behavior. To understand users’
acceptance on technologies specifically, TAM was proposed.
In fact, typical TAM is highly extendable; UTAUT and
UTAUT2 are extended theories based on typical TAM.
Compared with TAM, although UTAUT and UTAUT2
consider more factors, some factors are not suitable to learn
robo-taxi services, such as the factor of habit in UTAUT2,
which requires experience on robo-taxis. Many researchers
have thus investigated users’ adoption of various technol-
ogies based on the TAM framework. For example, Vanduhe
et al. extended TAM with task technology fit, social influence
(SI), and social motivation to investigate the factors that
influence employees’ intention to use gamification for
training [16]. Salloum et al. proposed an extended TAM to
investigate e-learning acceptance with eight external vari-
ables, which were summarized into two constructs: system
characteristics and individual factors [17]. Rahman et al.
developed a model of driver acceptance of driver support
systems by combining TAM with TPB; the model provides
an improved understanding of the formation of driver ac-
ceptance [18].
Social-psychological models have also been used to
examine AVs. Madigan et al. proposed a UTAUT mod-
el—which included the factors of performance expectancy,
effort expectancy, and SI—to investigate people’s acceptance
of automated road transport systems (ARTS) [19]. Re-
spondents in Lausanne (Switzerland) and La Rochelle
(France) had used autonomous vehicles as part of the
CityMobil2 trials. Wu et al. introduced environmental
concerns into TAM, replacing perceived usefulness (PU)
with green PU, to study public adoption of autonomous
electric vehicles (AEVs) and the effects of environmental
factors on AEVs [20]. Xu et al. explored the influence of the
direct experience of an automated vehicle (Level 3) and
explained and predicted public acceptance of AVs through
an extended TAM, which included perceived trust (PT) and
perceived safety [21].
However, limited studies have used a social-psycho-
logical perspective to examine the adoption and acceptance
of robo-taxi services or SAVs, especially in China. Liu et al.
investigated the effects of SI, PU, and perceived ease of use
(PEU) on public adoption of robo-taxis [22]. These factors
were found to be strong predictors of consumers’ behavioral
responses to IU robo-taxis. Yuen et al. combined TPB with
UTAUT2 to analyze the factors influencing the adoption of
SAVs in Vietnam [23]. UTAUT2 factors, including per-
formance expectation, effort expectation, habit, price value,
and hedonic motivation, were mediated by attitudes toward
SAVs, a TPB factor. All TPB and UTAUT2 factors were
effective predictors of the intention to use SAVs.
Government support (GS) is an important factor that
influences people’s acceptance of new technologies. How-
ever, few studies have explored its effects using a social-
psychological model. Khoo and Ong introduced a govern-
ment policy factor into the subjective norm construct, a basic
part of TPB [24]. They demonstrated this factor to be a
strong predictor of users’ intention to use sustainable
transport. However, the factor’s items were designed to
understand the acceptance behavior of sustainable transport,
which was already on the market. Although robo-taxis have
been tested in several countries worldwide, they are not yet a
mature product. Therefore, new items for the GS factor,
specifically related to robo-taxis, should be designed.
This study, therefore, developed robo-taxi-related items
for the GS factor, which can also be used for other products
in development. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this
study is the first to introduce GS into the TAM framework to
investigate the role of government policy on public adop-
tion. The proposed extended TAM includes four external
variables: GS, PT, PE, and SI. Structural equation modeling
(SEM) was conducted to test several hypotheses from the
extended TAM to explain the effect of these factors on public
adoption of robo-taxi services. The results can be good
references for manufacturers, and some policies were also
provided for governments and manufacturers to improve
public adoption of robo-taxi services.
Following this introduction, which presents a literature
review of works relating to robo-taxis and using social-
psychological models, the remainder of this paper is orga-
nized as follows. Section 2 describes the research model and
various proposed hypotheses. Subsequently, the study
methodology—including survey design, data collection,
participants, and statistical analysis methods—is presented.
Thereafter, the results of the reliability and validity and SEM
analyses are reported. Lastly, and before concluding the
paper, the effects of the investigated factors and some related
implications are discussed.
2. Research Model
2.1. Typical TAM. A typical TAM includes PU, PEU, attitude
(ATT), and intention to use (IU). PU can be defined as the
extent to which users believe that a specific technology or
service can enhance overall work performance [13]. PEU can
be defined as the degree to which users believe that
employing a specific technology or service could be free from
Journal of Advanced Transportation
mental and physical effort [13]. ATT can be defined as users’
preference when using specific technologies or systems [25].
IU can be defined as users’ desire to use particular services
and technologies [13]. Previous research has found positive
relationships between PEU and PU, PU and ATT, PEU and
ATT, and ATT and IU, as shown in Figure 1. Therefore, the
following hypotheses are proposed:
H1: PU (of robo-taxis) is positively associated with user
ATT (toward robo-taxis)
H2: PU is positively associated with IU (robo-taxis)
H3: PEU (of robo-taxis) is positively associated with
user ATT
H4: PEU is positively associated with PU
H5: ATT is positively associated with IU
2.2. Perceived Trust. PT indicates the degree to which
consumers generally trust a particular technology system
[26]. Many studies on the public adoption of AVs have
focused on the effect of PT or perceived risk on user ac-
ceptance. Safety factors have been demonstrated as strong
predictors of public adoption [26–28]. In fact, consumers
have always been concerned about the safety of robo-taxis
and AVs. This safety concern includes data safety concerns
and body safety concerns. On the one hand, users may be
concerned about personal data collected illegally by others;
on the other hand, whether robo-taxis can perform better
and safer than normal vehicles requires to be ensured by
users themselves. Therefore, PT can be regarded as an es-
sential factor in investigating user acceptance of robo-taxis.
2.3. Government Support. GS indicates the extent to which
users’ willingness to use is promoted when the government
implements supportive policies or provides incentives for a
particular technology. The Chinese government has sup-
ported new developments in many technologies. For ex-
ample, in 2010, the Central People’s Government of the
People’s Republic of China (CPGPRC) selected five cities,
including Shanghai, Changchun, Shenzhen, Hefei, and
Hangzhou, for a pilot project on electric and hybrid vehicles.
Each plug-in hybrid electric vehicle can cost up to 50,000
yuan, while each pure electric vehicle can cost up to 60,000
yuan [29]. One study showed that government incentives
can significantly promote users’ intention to purchase; when
people knew more about this policy, this effect was found to
be more significant [30]. Besides, some other policies can
also be regarded as government support. For example, if
robo-taxis can use bus lanes or autonomous vehicle lanes,
they will save travel time for users. Therefore, users will be
more likely to accept robo-taxi services. In the present study,
GS is hypothesized to be an external TAM factor that can
influence public adoption of robo-taxi services.
2.4. Social Influence. SI indicates the degree to which an
individual perceives that important people believe he or she
3
Perceived
Usefulness
External Intention to
Attitudes
Variables Use
Perceived
Ease of Use
Figure 1: Typical technology acceptance model.
should use a particular technology [14]. SI plays an im-
portant role in public acceptance of new technologies, such
as AVs [19]. Acceptance of AVs by friends or family
members increased users’ confidence in the technology as
well as their intention to purchase or actual purchase
[26, 31]. SI has also been tested in other psychological
models, such as UTAUT [14] and UTAUT2 [15]. It has been
regarded as a basic factor when exploring users’ acceptance
of new technologies. Therefore, SI was added to TAM as an
external factor to explore its effect on user acceptance of
robo-taxi services.
2.5. Perceived Enjoyment. PE here is similar to hedonic
motivation in UTAUT2; it indicates the perceived degree
of fun or pleasure experienced by users when using a
particular technology [15]. With the development of
economics and technology, traffic tools can meet people’s
travel demands more easily. Furthermore, comfort and
fun during a trip are being increasingly considered by
users. However, PE or hedonic motivation has only been
studied under the UTAUT2 model. Hedonic motivation
has been found to be a strong predictor of user accep-
tance of ARTS [32] and autonomous delivery vehicles
[33]. Besides, hedonic motivation was validated to be a
good predictor in other products, such as ride-hailing
services [34], bike-sharing [35],and social networks for
education [36]. Therefore, PE from robo-taxis can be
hypothesized to be influential in the context of robo-taxi
acceptance.
Based on the typical TAM, these external variables may
affect users’ intention to use robo-taxis indirectly via PU and
PEU. Therefore, PT, GS, SI, and PE were hypothesized to
affect PU and PEU (Figure 2). The proposed hypotheses are
as follows:
H6: PT (in robo-taxis) is negatively associated with PU
H7: PT is negatively associated with PEU
H8: GS is positively associated with PU
H9: GS is positively associated with PEU
H10: SI is positively associated with PU
H11: SI is positively associated with PEU
H12: PE (from robo-taxis) is positively associated with PU
H13: PE is positively associated with PEU
4 Journal of Advanced Transportation
Perceived trust
Government support
Social influence
Perceived enjoyment
Figure 2: Extended technology acceptance model.
3. Methodology
3.1. Survey Design. The data were collected using an online
questionnaire that consisted of three sections. The first
section was related to demographic information, including
age, gender, education, and income, with a total of seven
items. The second section included items for all predictive
factors of the proposed model (Table 1): PT (three items), GS
(three items), SI (three items), PE (two items), PU (three
items), PEU (three items), and ATT (three items). Based on
different categories of Chinese policies for supporting new
technologies, three scenarios were mentioned in the GS
construct: providing incentives for users, providing incen-
tives for manufacturers, and providing traffic policy support
for robo-taxis. A five-point Likert scale was used in this
section, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5 being
“strongly agree.” The third section included items for IU.
This section too employed a five-point Likert scale, with 1
being “extremely unlikely” and 5 being “extremely likely.”
3.2. Data Collection. The survey was conducted using
Wenjuanxing (https://www.wjx.cn/), one of the largest
online survey platforms in China. A link was disseminated
through social networks (e.g., Weibo and Wechat) and the
Wenjuanxing platform itself. Respondents from different
age groups, education levels, and income groups were in-
cluded in the sample. Data were collected from February
2020 to March 2020. The initial questionnaire was designed
in English by using English references. Several translators
were asked to independently translate the questionnaire into
Chinese and then translate it back into English with random
answers. Respondents were provided with a brief intro-
duction on robo-taxi services to ensure proper under-
standing of such services. To ensure the effective
administration of the questionnaire, the following measures
Perceived usefulness Attitudes
Perceived ease of use Intention to Use
were taken. Respondents with the same IP address or
username could only answer the questionnaire once. The
response time for each item should be less than 5 minutes.
Some attention-check questions randomly appeared while
answering the questionnaire, for example, “This is a quality
control question. Please select all the options, including the
word ‘frog’.” Furthermore, all items in the second section
appeared in a random order. However, the output was
ordered normally. To encourage more participation in the
survey, bonuses were provided for valid answers.
3.3. Participants. A total of 914 questionnaires (540 com-
pleted) were received, with 403 valid questionnaires. The
demographic information of the respondents is shown in
Table 2. Of the valid respondents, 53.3% were women, while
46.7% were men. Furthermore, more than 90% of the re-
spondents were between 18 and 44 years of age, indicating
that this study is more useful for understanding young
people’s adoption of robo-taxis in China. Most participants
were well-educated, with a bachelor’s degree or above
(85.6%). Moreover, more than half of the respondents
(64.5%) had a personal annual income of between 40,000
and 200,000 yuan. Notably, 18.4% had no income and were
likely to be students. Most respondents had driving licenses
(73.4%), and more than half had their own vehicles (65%).
Lastly, 58.1% chose to drive by themselves during a trip.
3.4. Statistical Analysis. Statistical analyses were performed
using SPSS version 23 and AMOS version 22. First, Cron-
bach’s alpha was calculated using SPSS to determine the
reliability of the factor structure. A reliability coefficient of
0.7 or more is generally considered acceptable [38].
Moreover, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), based on
the maximum likelihood estimation method, was used to
Journal of Advanced Transportation 5

Table 1: Instrument measurement items and their sources.

Factor Item Literature source
PT1: I generally have concerns about using robo-taxis
Modified from
Perceived trust (PT) PT2: robo-taxis are somewhat frightening to me
[26]
PT3: I have concerns about system security and data privacy of robo-taxis
GS1: I am more likely to use robo-taxis if the government provides incentives for users
GS2: I am more likely to use robo-taxis if the government provides policy support, such as
Government support
permission to use them on bus lanes Self-developed
(GS)
GS3: I am more likely to use robo-taxis if the government provides incentives for
manufacturers
SI1: I would be proud if people saw me using a robo-taxi
Modified from
Social influence (SI) SI2: people whose opinions I value would like to use robo-taxis
[19, 26]
SI3: I would be more likely to use robo-taxis if my friends and family members used them
Perceived enjoyment PE1: using robo-taxis would be very fun
Modified from [15]
(PE) PE2: using robo-taxis would be very entertaining and relaxing
PU1: I think robo-taxis would be useful in meeting my transportation needs
Perceived usefulness Modified from
PU2: I think using robo-taxis would make me feel safer (than using normal vehicles)
(PU) [26]
PU3: I think the use of robo-taxis would decrease accidents
PEU1: I think it would be easy to learn to operate robo-taxis
Perceived ease of use Modified from
PEU2: my interactions with robo-taxis would be clear and easy to understand
(PEU) [20]
PEU3: I think it would be easy for me to use robo-taxis to go anywhere I wanted
ATT1: I think using robo-taxis would be a good idea
Modified from
Attitude (ATT) ATT2: I think using robo-taxis would be a wise idea
[37]
ATT3: I like the idea of robo-taxis
IU1: assuming robo-taxis come into use, I intend to use them Modified from
Intention to use (IU)
IU2: assuming robo-taxis come into use, I intend to recommend them to others [20]

Table 2: Demographic information of the respondents.

Variables Category Frequency (%)
Male 188 (46.7%)
Gender
Female 215 (53.3%)
18–24 125 (31.0%)
25–34 185 (45.9%)
Age
35–44 67 (16.6%)
Over 45 26 (6.5%)
Master’s degree or above 49 (12.2%)
Education Bachelor’s degree 296 (73.4%)
High school or below 58 (14.4%)
None 74 (18.4%)
Less than 40,000 54 (13.4%)
Annual income (yuan) 40,000–100,000 142 (35.2%)
100,000–200,000 118 (29.3%)
More than 200,000 15 (3.7%)
Yes 296 (73.4%)
Driving license ownership
No 107 (26.6%)
Yes 262 (65.0%)
Private vehicle(s) ownership
No 141 (35.0%)
Yes 234 (58.1%)
Drive by yourself
No 169 (41.9%)

assess the suitability of the whole scale. Items with factor
loadings lower than 0.4 were removed (e.g., [39]). Subse-
quently, convergent and discriminant validity were calcu-
lated to evaluate the construct validity of the measurement
instrument. Convergent validity (using average variance
extracted, AVE) denotes whether items in the same con-
struct have internal consistency [40], while discriminant
validity refers to the degree to which a given construct differs
from another construct [41]. Generally, an AVE of more
than 0.50 is acceptable [42]. Regarding discriminant validity,
the square root of AVE for all constructs should be larger
than the correlation coefficients of all constructs [43].
Furthermore, to obtain a good model fit, a single index
cannot provide a reliable measure across situations; multiple
indices should be reported [42, 44]. Therefore, the following
indices are reported here: normed chi-square, normed fit
index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis
index (TLI), incremental fit index (IFI), root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR). Acceptable values for a good
6 Journal of Advanced Transportation

Table 3: Results of the measurement model fit, reliability, and convergent validity.
Constructs Items Means Standard deviation Factor loadings Composite reliability AVE
PT1 3.04 0.98 0.73 0.78 0.54
Perceived trust (α � 0.78) PT2 2.55 0.95 0.71
PT3 3.36 1.05 0.77
GS1 4.05 0.74 0.78 0.78 0.54
Government support (α � 0.79) GS2 3.97 0.76 0.69
GS3 3.96 0.70 0.74
SI1 3.44 0.79 0.65 0.72 0.46
Social influence (α � 0.72) SI2 3.70 0.80 0.74
SI3 3.96 0.74 0.64
PE1 3.87 0.80 0.70 0.69 0.53
Perceived enjoyment (α � 0.68)
PE2 3.63 0.86 0.75
PU1 3.63 0.74 0.74 0.71 0.46
Perceived usefulness (α � 0.74) PU2 3.28 0.86 0.66
PU3 3.30 0.86 0.62
PEU1 3.90 0.83 0.73 0.73 0.48
Perceived ease of use (α � 0.74) PEU2 3.73 0.73 0.67
PEU3 3.68 0.81 0.67
ATT1 3.84 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.57
Attitude (α � 0.80) ATT2 3.68 0.79 0.76
ATT3 3.96 0.78 0.71
IU1 3.86 0.77 0.81 0.74 0.59
Intention to use (α � 0.73)
IU2 3.68 0.91 0.72

Table 4: Results of correlation matrix.

PT GS SI PE PU PEU ATT IU
PT 0.735
GS −0.344 0.735
SI −0.416 0.583 0.678
PE −0.432 0.497 0.574 0.728
PU −0.582 0.504 0.590 0.567 0.678
PEU −0.391 0.594 0.549 0.582 0.548 0.693
ATT −0.520 0.594 0.614 0.664 0.663 0.637 0.755
IU −0.511 0.574 0.639 0.604 0.612 0.582 0.674 0.768
PT, perceived trust; GS, government support; SI, social influence; PE, perceived enjoyment; PU, perceived usefulness; PEU, perceived ease of use; ATT,
attitude; IU, intention to use.

model fit are as follows: χ 2/df < 3, NFI >0.90, CFI >0.90, TLI
>0.90, IFI >0.90, RMSEA <0.08, and SRMR <0.10
[37, 44, 45].
4. Results
4.1. Reliability and Validity Analysis. The reliability and
validity of the research instrument were calculated before
performing SEM. Table 3 presents the fitness of the mea-
surement model and the reliability and validity of each
construct. Most constructs had acceptable reliability, with
Cronbach’s alphas of more than 0.70, except for PE
(α � 0.68). However, Cronbach’s alpha of PE can also be
considered acceptable because it was only slightly lower than
0.70. Therefore, all the constructs used in this study can be
regarded as reliable.
CFA was used to assess the convergent and discriminant
validity of the measurement model. As shown in Table 3, all
constructs have composite reliability higher than 0.6 [42].
The AVE of PT, GS, PE, ATT, and IU was higher than 0.50,
while that of SI, PEU, and PU were lower than 0.50. Some
studies have shown that an AVE higher than 0.45 can also be
acceptable [46, 47]. Therefore, all constructs had acceptable
convergent validity.
For discriminant validity, the square root of AVE was
used to correlate the latent constructs. Table 4 shows that the
square root of the AVE for all constructs was higher than the
pairwise correlations. Therefore, all constructs also had
acceptable discriminant validity.
In addition, a CFA was conducted for PT, GS, SI, and PE;
the standardized solution is shown in Figure 3. The model fit
indices were acceptable, with χ 2/df � 2.365, χ2 � 89.883,
df � 38, CFI � 0.966, IFI � 0.966, TLI � 0.951, NFI � 0.943,
SRMR � 0.047, and RMSEA � 0.058.
4.2. Structural Equation Modeling. SEM was used to test the
proposed hypotheses. The results indicated a good model fit:
χ 2/df � 2.164, χ 2 � 411.201, df � 190, CFI � 0.946, IFI � 0.947,
TLI � 0.935, NFI � 0.905, SRMR � 0.044, and RMSEA �
0.054. The hypothesis testing coefficients are shown in Table 5
and Figure 4.
Journal of Advanced Transportation 7

.52

e3 PT1
53 .72
.72
e2 PT2 Perceived trust
58 .76

e1 PT3

-.44
.63

e6 GS1
49 .80
.70
e5 GS2 Government support
51 .71 -.55

e4 GS3

.78 -.60
.43

e9 SI1
55 .65
.74
e8 SI2 Social influence
41 .64 .66

e7 SI3

.81

.47

e11 PE1 .68

58 Perceived enjoyment
.76
e10 PE2

Figure 3: Standardized solution of confirmatory factor analysis.

Table 5: Results of hypotheses testing.

Hypotheses Hypothesized effect Significance and significance level Direct effect
∗∗∗
H01 PU ⟶ ATT 0.592
∗∗
H02 PU ⟶ IU 0.494
∗∗∗
H03 PEU ⟶ ATT 0.405
H04 PEU ⟶ PU (Not supported) —
∗∗
H05 ATT ⟶ IU 0.452
∗∗∗
H06 PT ⟶ PU −0.377
H07 PT ⟶ PEU (Not supported) —
H08 GS ⟶ PU (Not supported) —
∗∗∗
H09 GS ⟶ PEU 0.426
∗
H10 SI ⟶ PU 0.317
H11 SI ⟶ PEU (Not supported) —
∗
H12 PE ⟶ PU 0.351
∗∗∗
H13 PE ⟶ PEU 0.586
∗
p ≤ 0.05, ∗∗ p ≤ 0.01, ∗∗∗ p ≤ 0.001; PU, perceived usefulness; PEU, perceived ease of use; ATT, attitude; IU, intention to use; PT, perceived trust; GS,
government support; SI, social influence; PE, perceived enjoyment.
8 Journal of Advanced Transportation

e12 e13 e14 e22 e23 e24

e3 PT1 .73
.71
e2 PT2 .77 Perceived trust PU1 PU2 PU3 ATT1 ATT2 ATT3

e1 PT3 .76
-.38 .66 .80 .71
.74 .62
e27

- .43 .59
Perceived usefulness Attitudes e25

.17
e6 GS1 .78
.69
e5 GS2 .74 Government support
.01 .49
e4 GS3
.32
-.55 - .09 .45

-.59 .78
.43
.41
.67 .35
e9 SI1 .65
.74
e8 SI2 .64 Social influence
-.03
e7 SI3
Perceived ease of use Intention to use e26

.73 .67
.67 .81 .72
.81 e28
.59

PEU1 PEU2 PEU3 IU1 IU2

e11 PE1 .70

.75 Perceived enjoyment
e10 PE2
e17 e16 e15 e21 e20

Figure 4: Standardized solution for the structural model.

First, the typical TAM hypotheses were tested. PU was
found to significantly affect ATT (β � 0.592, p < 0.001) and
IU (β � 0.494, p < 0.01), supporting H1 and H2. PEU had a
significant effect on ATT (β � 0.405, p < 0.001), supporting
H3. However, no significant relationship was found between
PEU and PU; thus, H4 was rejected. Furthermore, ATT had
a positive effect on IU (β � 0.452, p < 0.01), supporting H5.
Second, the hypotheses related to the four external
variables were tested. PT had a significant negative effect on
PU (β � −0.377, p < 0.001). However, no significant rela-
tionship was found between PT and PEU. Therefore, H6 was
supported but H7 was rejected. Furthermore, GS had a
positive effect on PEU (β � 0.426, p < 0.001), but it did not
have a significant effect on PU. Therefore, H8 was rejected
but H9 was supported. Regarding SI, it had a significant
positive effect on PU (β � 0.317, p < 0.05). However, it did
not have a significant effect on PEU. Therefore, H10 was
supported but H11 was rejected. Lastly, PE had a significant
positive effect on both PU (β � 0.351, p < 0.05) and PEU
(β � 0.586, p < 0.001), supporting H12 and H13. When we
deleted the unsupported hypothesis, the standardized so-
lution for the revised model is shown in Figure 5. All the
paths were significant enough (p < 0.05).
5. Discussion
In line with previous research on typical TAM, this study
found significant positive relationships between PU and
ATT, PU and IU, PEU and ATT, and ATT and IU. However,
PEU did not significantly affect PU, which contradicts
typical TAM results. Nevertheless, some studies have shown
that the effect of PEU on PU is not strong [48].
Furthermore, the four external variables PT, GS, SI,
and PE affected PEU or PU, indirectly influencing ATT
and IU. PT indirectly influenced user acceptance via PU,
indicating that improving users’ PT in robo-taxis is
important for public adoption. In fact, safety has always
been an important aspect of AV design [26]. However,
people may not know much about data protection and
safety measures and may thus have neutral attitudes [27].
Therefore, on the one hand, manufacturers should con-
tinue to make efforts to improve the safety of such
technologies. On the other hand, whether robo-taxis are
as safe or safer than manually driven vehicles should be
confirmed. One possible approach to disseminate safety
information is that, in the early stage, people could be
allowed to use robo-taxis for free or even with some
incentives to help them recognize that robo-taxis are safe.
Moreover, to reduce losses when accidents do occur, some
related insurance can also be provided to users.
In addition, GS indirectly influenced IU through PEU. In
China, GS can increase people’s confidence in new tech-
nologies and their intention to purchase [30]. Therefore, GS
could likely play an important role in increasing public
acceptance of robo-taxi services. Governments can provide
incentives for users, manufacturers, and service providers to
reduce related costs, thereby encouraging more people to
accept robo-taxi services. Traffic rules prioritizing robo-taxis
can also be implemented. For example, robo-taxis can be
permitted to use bus lanes to reduce travel time and improve
travel quality.
Regarding SI, it positively and indirectly influenced user
acceptance through PU. As SI represents the influence of
friends and family members on users [19, 26], this result
indicates that the adoption of robo-taxis by friends and
family members can promote user acceptance of such ser-
vices. A motivation mechanism to encourage existing users
to invite new users can thus be set to promote greater user
acceptance. For example, existing users who invite new users
can receive incentives or coupons. Due to the influence of
other people, new users will be more willing to accept robo-
taxis.
Journal of Advanced Transportation 9

e12 e13 e14 e22 e23 e24

e3 PT1 .73
.71
e2 PT2 .77 Perceived trust PU1 PU2 PU3 ATT1 ATT2 ATT3
e1 PT3 .76
-.38 .74 .66 .62 .80 .71
e27

-.44 .57
Perceived usefulness Attitudes e25

e6 GS1 .78
.69
e5 GS2 .73 Government support
.46
e4 GS3
.47
-.55 .48
-.58 .80
.42
.43
.68 .26
e9 SI1 .64
.74
e8 SI2 .64 Social influence

e7 SI3
Perceived ease of use Intention to use e26

.73 .66
.67 .81 .72
.81 e28
.55
PEU1 PEU2 PEU3 IU1 IU2

e11 PE1 .70

.75 Perceived enjoyment
e10 PE2
e17 e16 e15 e21 e20

Figure 5: Standardized solution for the revised structural model.

Lastly, PE had an indirect effect on user acceptance of
robo-taxis via both PEU and PU, indicating that when
people enjoy the convenience and comfort of traffic tools,
their demand for such services increased. Therefore, a
comfortable and fun design should be adopted to develop
robo-taxi services. For example, providing movies and food
as an additional service can improve the user experience.
6. Conclusion
As robo-taxis are gradually entering the market in China,
this study proposed an extended TAM model to explore the
factors that influence user acceptance of robo-taxi services.
The analysis validated typical TAM, with PU and ATT
having a direct effect on IU, and PEU and PU having an
indirect effect on IU via ATT. Moreover, PT, GS, SI, and PE
have indirect effects on IU via PEU and PU. All these factors
were found to be effective predictors of IU.
Based on these findings, the following suggestions can be
made to improve public adoption of robo-taxis. First, as
safety is a major concern, manufacturers and service pro-
viders should improve the safety of robo-taxi services.
Moreover, information on the safety performance of such
services should be disseminated to the public through ad-
vertisements and other forms of communication to increase
their PT. Second, GS can effectively improve robo-taxi
adoption. Providing incentives for users and manufacturers
can help users to save money and increase their confidence
in robo-taxi services. Prioritizing robo-taxis on roads, such
as through permission to use them on bus lanes, can help
passengers save time. Third, incentives and coupons can be
provided to existing users who invite new users to further
promote user adoption through SI. Lastly, robo-taxis can
provide entertainment services, such as movies, food, and
games, to make passengers’ experience more enjoyable.
This study, however, has some limitations, which should
be noted here. Data were collected through an online survey,
which can lead to nonresponse bias, among other things. Of
the respondents, 93.5% were in the 18–44 year age group and
85.6% had a bachelor’s degree or above, thus reducing the
generalizability of the results. However, although some
companies have tested robo-taxis on actual roads, they will
take more time to successfully introduce robo-taxi services
into the market. Young and well-educated people are po-
tential groups to first accept such services. Therefore, the
findings of this study are still useful for designers of robo-
taxis. Future research can survey people who have used
robo-taxi services to conduct a more in-depth investigation
of how to improve user adoption of robo-taxis.
Data Availability
The data generated during the current study are owned by
the Future Transport Research Center, Tsinghua University,
and are not publicly available. The data can be obtained from
the corresponding author upon request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest
regarding the publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by
the NSFC Zhejiang Joint Fund for the Integration of In-
dustrialization and Informatization (U1709212), and “Re-
search on frontiers of intelligent transport system” funded
by the China Association for Science and Technology
(2018DX2QY04).
10
References
[1] K. Merfeld, M.-P. Wilhelms, S. Henkel, and K. Kreutzer,
“Carsharing with shared autonomous vehicles: uncovering
drivers, barriers and future developments - a four-stage
Delphi study,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
vol. 144, pp. 66–81, 2019.
[2] A. Stocker and S. Shaheen, “Shared automated vehicles: re-
view of business models,” International Transport Forum
Discussion Paper, 2017.
[3] P. Planing and M. Dursun, “Acceptance OF shared autono-
mous vehicles-a correspondence analysis OF new car buyer
attitudes,” International Journal of Sales, Retailing & Mar-
keting, vol. 7, no. 2, 2018.
[4] R. Krueger, T. H. Rashidi, and J. M. Rose, “Preferences for
shared autonomous vehicles,” Transportation Research Part C:
Emerging Technologies, vol. 69, pp. 343–355, 2016.
[5] D. J. Fagnant and K. M. Kockelman, “The travel and envi-
ronmental implications of shared autonomous vehicles, using
agent-based model scenarios,” Transportation Research Part
C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 40, pp. 1–13, 2014.
[6] http://www.sohu.com/a/322970509_782058.
[7] http://auto.sina.com.cn/zz/sh/2019-09-26/detail-
iicezueu8620718.shtml.
[8] https://www.sohu.com/a/404927011_120058293.
[9] J. Webb, C. Wilson, and T. Kularatne, “Will people accept
shared autonomous electric vehicles? A survey before and
after receipt of the costs and benefits,” Economic Analysis and
Policy, vol. 61, pp. 118–135, 2019.
[10] T. Stoiber, I. Schubert, R. Hoerler, and P. Burger, “Will
consumers prefer shared and pooled-use autonomous vehi-
cles? A stated choice experiment with Swiss households,”
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,
vol. 71, pp. 265–282, 2019.
[11] A. Shariff, J.-F. Bonnefon, and I. Rahwan, “Psychological
roadblocks to the adoption of self-driving vehicles,” Nature
Human Behaviour, vol. 1, no. 10, pp. 694–696, 2017.
[12] I. Ajzen, “The theory of planned behavior,” Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, no. 2,
pp. 179–211, 1991.
[13] F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and
user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Quarterly,
vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–340, 1989.
[14] V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis,
“User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified
view,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425–478, 2003.
[15] V. Venkatesh, J. Y. Thong, and X. Xu, “Consumer acceptance
and use of information technology: extending the unified
theory of acceptance and use of technology,” MIS Quarterly,
vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 157–178, 2012.
[16] V. Z. Vanduhe, M. Nat, and H. F. Hasan, “Continuance
intentions to use gamification for training in higher educa-
tion: integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM),
social motivation, and task technology fit (TTF),” IEEE Access,
vol. 8, pp. 21473–21484, 2020.
[17] S. A. Salloum, A. Qasim Mohammad Alhamad, M. Al-Emran,
A. Abdel Monem, and K. Shaalan, “Exploring students’ ac-
ceptance of E-learning through the development of a com-
prehensive technology acceptance model,” IEEE Access, vol. 7,
pp. 128445–128462, 2019.
[18] M. M. Rahman, L. Strawderman, M. F. Lesch, W. J. Horrey,
K. Babski-Reeves, and T. Garrison, “Modelling driver ac-
ceptance of driver support systems,” Accident Analysis &
Prevention, vol. 121, pp. 134–147, 2018.
Journal of Advanced Transportation
[19] R. Madigan, T. Louw, M. Dziennus et al., “Acceptance of
automated road transport systems (ARTS): an adaptation of
the UTAUT model,” Transportation Research Procedia,
vol. 14, pp. 2217–2226, 2016.
[20] J. Wu, H. Liao, J.-W. Wang, and T. Chen, “The role of en-
vironmental concern in the public acceptance of autonomous
electric vehicles: a survey from China,” Transportation Re-
search Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 60,
pp. 37–46, 2019.
[21] Z. Xu, K. Zhang, H. Min, Z. Wang, X. Zhao, and P. Liu, “What
drives people to accept automated vehicles? Findings from a
field experiment,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, vol. 95, pp. 320–334, 2018.
[22] M. Liu, J. Wu, C. Zhu, and K. Hu, “A study on public adoption
of robo-taxis in China,” Journal of Advanced Transportation,
vol. 2020, Article ID 8877499, 8 pages, 2020.
[23] K. F. Yuen, D. T. K. Huyen, X. Wang, and G. Qi, “Factors
influencing the adoption of shared autonomous vehicles,”
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, vol. 17, no. 13, p. 4868, 2020.
[24] H. L. Khoo and G. P. Ong, “Understanding sustainable
transport acceptance behavior: a case study of Klang valley,
Malaysia,” International Journal of Sustainable Trans-
portation, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 227–239, 2015.
[25] F. D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology:
system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral im-
pacts,” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol. 38,
no. 3, pp. 475–487, 1993.
[26] I. Panagiotopoulos and G. Dimitrakopoulos, “An empirical
investigation on consumers’ intentions towards autonomous
driving,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Tech-
nologies, vol. 95, pp. 773–784, 2018.
[27] P. Liu, R. Yang, and Z. Xu, “Public acceptance of fully au-
tomated driving: effects of social trust and risk/benefit per-
ceptions,” Risk Analysis, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 326–341, 2019.
[28] H.-K. Chen and D.-W. Yan, “Interrelationships between
influential factors and behavioral intention with regard to
autonomous vehicles,” International journal of sustainable
transportation, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 511–527, 2019.
[29] http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2010-06/04/content_1620735.htm.
[30] X. Sun and S. Xu, “The impact of government subsides on
consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles,” vol. 39,
Journal of Dalian University, (In Chinese), pp. 9–16, 2018.
[31] P. Bansal, K. M. Kockelman, and A. Singh, “Assessing public
opinions of and interest in new vehicle technologies: an
Austin perspective,” Transportation Research Part C:
Emerging Technologies, vol. 67, pp. 1–14, 2016.
[32] R. Madigan, T. Louw, M. Wilbrink, A. Schieben, and
N. Merat, “What influences the decision to use automated
public transport? Using UTAUT to understand public ac-
ceptance of automated road transport systems,” Trans-
portation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,
vol. 50, pp. 55–64, 2017.
[33] S. Kapser and M. Abdelrahman, “Acceptance of autonomous
delivery vehicles for last-mile delivery in Germany - extending
UTAUT2 with risk perceptions,” Transportation Research
Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 111, pp. 210–225, 2020.
[34] Y. Chen and W. Salmanian, User Acceptance in the Sharing
Economy: An Explanatory Study of Transportation Network
Companies in China Based on UTAUT2, 2017.
[35] P. K. Chopdar, M. D. Lytras, and A. Visvizi, “Exploring factors
influencing bicycle-sharing adoption in India: a UTAUT 2
based mixed-method approach,” International Journal of
Emerging Markets, 2022.
Journal of Advanced Transportation 11

[36] A. a. Abu Gharrah and A. Aljaafreh, “Why students use social

networks for education: extension of UTAUT2,” Journal of
Technology and Science Education, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 53–66,
2021.
[37] P. Cheng, Z. OuYang, and Y. Liu, “Understanding bike
sharing use over time by employing extended technology
continuance theory,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice, vol. 124, pp. 433–443, 2019.
[38] M. Tavakol and R. Dennick, “Making sense of Cronbach’s
alpha,” International Journal of Medical Education, vol. 2,
pp. 53–55, 2011.
[39] R. C. McIlroy, V. H. Nam, B. W. Bunyasi et al., “Exploring the
relationships between pedestrian behaviours and traffic safety
attitudes in six countries,” Transportation Research Part F:
Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 68, pp. 257–271, 2020.
[40] R. P. Bagozzi, Y. Yi, and L. W. Phillips, “Assessing construct
validity in organizational research,” Administrative Science
Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 421–458, 1991.
[41] J. Hulland, “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic
management research: a review of four recent studies,”
Strategic Management Journal, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 195–204,
1999.
[42] J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson,
Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey, 7th Edition, 2009.
[43] C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, “Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error,”
Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–50, 1981.
[44] R. B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation
Modeling, Guilford publications, New York, US, 2015.
[45] R. A. Acheampong and F. Cugurullo, “Capturing the
behavioural determinants behind the adoption of autono-
mous vehicles: conceptual frameworks and measurement
models to predict public transport, sharing and ownership
trends of self-driving cars,” Transportation Research Part F:
Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 62, pp. 349–375, 2019.
[46] K. Matzler, B. Renzl, J. Müller, S. Herting, and
T. A. Mooradian, “Personality traits and knowledge sharing,”
Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 301–313,
2008.
[47] J. McNeish, M. Foster, A. Francescucci, and B. West, “The
surprising foil to online education: why students won’t give up
paper textbooks,” Journal for Advancement of Marketing
Education, vol. 20, no. 3, 2012.
[48] S.-Y. Chen, “Green helpfulness or fun? Influences of green
perceived value on the green loyalty of users and non-users of
public bikes,” Transport Policy, vol. 47, pp. 149–159, 2016.