Assessing driver acceptance of technology that reduces mobile phone use while driving

The case of mobile phone applications

Journal article (2020)

Authors

O. Oviedo-Trespalacios Universidad del Norte, Queensland University of Technology
Oliver Briant Queensland University of Technology
Sherrie Anne Kaye Queensland University of Technology
Mark King Queensland University of Technology
Affiliation
External organisation
More Info
expand_more

Published Date

2020

Language

English

Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Affiliation

External organisation

Abstract

The nature of the road environment requires drivers to be vigilant and attentive. Distracted driving is a primary concern, as it threatens the safety of road users. However very little research has been conducted into interventions to combat such an issue. Existing interventions such as police enforcement and legislation appear to have limited effect. The use of mobile phone applications to assist in limiting driver distraction is an alternative intervention that is currently gaining traction. With a great array of potential benefits, such as reducing road toll, these applications can be readily available to all road users. Despite the positive implications, it is vital that drivers accept the use of such a technology for the intervention to be effective. Therefore, understanding driver acceptance is an important step in implanting such applications. To assess this, the present study examines the utility of two versions of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) for understanding the acceptance of technology designed to reduce distraction. Participants were presented with two different applications and responded to questions that indicated their attitudes towards the factors included in the TAM, TPB and UTAUT, alongside their intent to use the technology. A total of 731 participants responded to the survey, and their responses analysed. The results indicated that overall, Davis’ (1985) TAM was slightly better in explaining behavioural intent for both Mobile Phone Application (MPA) 1 and MPA 2, explaining 66.1% and 68.7% of the variance, respectively. Davis’ (1989) TAM and the TPB were close behind, while the UTAUT explained the least variance in behavioural intent of all the models. Overall, the findings of this study provide support for using psychological theories to assess the acceptance of mobile phone applications.