Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part C

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trc

Parents’ perspectives on using autonomous vehicles to enhance

T
children’s mobility
Yi-Ching Leea, , Jessica H. Mirmanb
⁎

a
George Mason University, United States
b
University of Alabama, Birmingham, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Prior research has estimated the impact of an autonomous vehicle (AV) environment on the
Autonomous vehicle mobility of underserved populations such as adult non-drivers. What is currently unknown is the
Children’s mobility impact of AVs on enhancing the mobility of children who are also mobility disadvantaged, as
Parents child passengers are likely part of AV ridership scenarios in the perceivable future. To address
Car seat
this question, our study collected perceived benefits and concerns of AVs from a US convenience
Acceptance
Child safety
sample of parents whose children relied on them for mobility. We found that parents’ intentions
to travel in AV and their technology readiness as well as parent (sex, residence area) and child
(age, restraint system) demographic profiles were important determinants of potential AV ac-
ceptance and impact. In addition, two groups of potential AV users emerged from the data: the
curious and the practical. This study addresses a gap in the literature by assessing parents’
perspectives on using AVs to transport children. The results have great potentials to guide the
design of mobility features, safety evaluations, and implementation policies, as a decline in
public interest in AVs has been recently documented.

1. Introduction

The automotive industry has been actively pursuing the design, test, and manufacture of autonomous vehicles (AVs), with plans to
release new automated features in the next several years (Davidson and Spinoulas, 2015; Greenblatt and Shaheen, 2015; IHS
Automotive, 2014; TechEmergence, 2017). Many of the automotive companies as well as government agencies such as the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) envision that the benefits of AVs include enhanced safety, efficiency, convenience,
mobility, as well as economic and societal impacts. Planners and vehicle manufacturers identify mobility as a major motivation for
automation (Anderson et al., 2014; Gurney, 2013). While conventional vehicles also serve this purpose, AVs can improve mobility for
those who cannot legally or safely drive themselves because of youth, age, disability, or incapacitation (Harper et al., 2016; NHTSA,
2013, 2017; Nunes et al., 2018).
Prior research has estimated the impact of an AV environment (including shared- and connected- AVs) on the mobility of un-
derserved populations, such as adult non-drivers, the elderly without medical conditions, and adults with a travel restrictive medical
condition (Brown et al., 2014; Harper et al., 2016; Wadud et al., 2016). The increase in vehicle miles traveled is estimated to be in the
ranges of 10% to 40%, suggesting a significant benefit of AV in providing independent mobility among those who are unable,
unwilling, or prohibited from driving. These studies, however, focused on adults and senior populations and did not include teenagers
or younger children (age 16 and younger) in their analyses.

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030, United States.
E-mail address: YLEE65@gmu.edu (Y.-C. Lee).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.10.001
Received 7 February 2018; Received in revised form 7 September 2018; Accepted 1 October 2018
Available online 12 October 2018
0968-090X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y.-C. Lee, J.H. Mirman Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

Few studies have examined how AVs might improve children’s independent mobility. Participants from an international adult
sample were asked about the occasions they would like to drive in a fully automated vehicle, and only 11% of participants indicated
transporting children as one of the occasions, far fewer than not using AVs at all (22%) (Kyriakidis et al., 2015). Even though the
public did recognize that AVs could solve the mobility problem of certain populations (e.g., drivers with disabilities), they did not
seem to generalize such benefit to children, a population that also faces mobility challenges (Haboucha et al., 2017; König and
Neumayr, 2017).
How are children different from the elderly and adult non-drivers as potential AV users? As parents are the main gatekeepers to
children’s independent mobility and safety (Hillman, 1993; Mikkelsen and Christensen, 2009), parents may have concerns about
perceived family climate for safety, community cohesion, and road environment factors (O’Connor and Brown, 2013; Schoeppe et al.,
2015) as well as fear of harm from strangers and community (Crawford et al., 2017; Foster et al., 2014). Another fundamental
difference between children and adult AV users is that child safety seat and safety belt laws require children to use restraints or seat
belts when riding in a vehicle. Even though these are mandatory requirements, research suggests that only approximately 2/3 of
children use safety seats or seatbelts (Macy et al., 2012; Pickrell, 2014). Children who only sometimes wear seatbelts have the
tendency to unbuckle their seatbelts during a trip (Kidd and McCartt, 2014). Fatality analysis showed that 33% of children in
passenger vehicles aged 0–12 years who died in 2011 were unrestrained (Sauber-Schatz et al., 2014). Therefore, supervision of
restraint use as well as other supporting features such as video and audio feedback during driving and support infrastructure in the
beginning and end of trips are important considerations when including children as AV users.
Currently in the US, children younger than 14 primarily rely on their parents, older siblings, other adults, and public transpor-
tation systems for mobility needs, as the minimum age to enter the learner stage of graduated driver licensing is typically 14, 15 or
16 years of age (Williams and Ferguson, 2002). AVs can potentially be used to enhance and supplement mobility needs of young
children and teenagers (Harper et al., 2016; Sparrow and Howard, 2017); however, safety features in AVs, supporting infrastructure,
legal regulations, and policies have not been developed or standardized to encourage parents’ acceptance and support children’s
ridership scenarios (Anderson et al., 2014; Power, 2013; Nordhoff et al., 2016). Here, acceptance is defined as a judgment, attitude,
or behaviour reaction about a system and generally measured after exposure (Schade and Schlag, 2003).
To address the lack of research on parenting in the age of AVs, we aimed to better understand US parents’ acceptance of using AVs
to transport their children using an online, self-report questionnaire; this method has been recognized as a reliable tool for psy-
chological research, equivalent to traditional paper-and-pencil data collection method (Weigold et al., 2013). As 93% of American
adults between the ages of 18 and 40 have children or want to have children and 86% of adults aged 45 or older have had children
(Gallup Inc., 2013), using AVs to transport children and including children as passengers in AVs are likely ridership scenarios in the
perceivable future. Even though prior studies commented on enhancing mobility for children as a benefit of AV technology (Fagnant
and Kockelman, 2015; Greenblatt and Shaheen, 2015; Haboucha et al., 2017; Harper et al., 2016; Howard and Dai, 2014; Levinson,
2015; Sparrow and Howard, 2017), to our knowledge, the current study was the first that directly examined potential benefits and
concerns related to using AVs to transport children. Additionally, we aimed to better understand consumer hesitations and moti-
vations and identify early adopters, as a decline in consumer interest in AVs has been observed recently (Abraham et al., 2018; Power,
2017).

2. Method

2.1. Data collection

In order to be eligible for the study participants had to be: adults, parents of at least one child between the ages of 0 and 14, and
have had access to a car (either owned or leased). The chosen age range of the child was to ensure that these parents had to provide
transportation because the children were not allowed to drive independently and were required to use a car seat, a booster seat, or a
seatbelt. The reason for having owned or leased a car as a requirement was to ensure that participants could better imagine the
ridership scenarios in the questionnaire, as they might not have experienced advanced automated features in vehicles yet.
The questionnaire was launched during the month of September 2017 by an on-line market research company, Schlesinger
Associates, who administered the questionnaire to a US convenience sample of their panelists. This company meets the ISO 27,001
information security standards for data collection and management. The market company sent the questionnaire out to their panelists
and individuals who met the study eligibility were asked to complete the entire questionnaire. The study protocol was approved by
George Mason University’s Institutional Review Board.

2.2. Questionnaire development and measures

The questionnaire items were generated from literature review and from a separate qualitative study (n = 60), in the form of
focus groups, with parents of at least one child younger than 18 years old, teenagers between the ages of 14 and 17 (either pre-driver
or driver with a learner’s permit, restricted license, or unrestricted license), and young adults between the ages 19 and 22 who have
an unrestricted license. Generally, the purpose of the qualitative study was to conduct formative research on users’ acceptance and
preferences related to automated features in autonomous vehicles, infotainment and assistance systems in traditional vehicles, and
third-party devices that are commonly used in vehicles (such as smartphones). Participants’ responses were used in the context of the
current questionnaire study to inform item content and phrasing. A total of 76 items were included in the questionnaire (See
Appendix A – Questionnaire).

416
Y.-C. Lee, J.H. Mirman Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

2.2.1. Appraisals and attitudes toward autonomous vehicles in general

Sixteen items were used to evaluate participants’ appraisals about using AVs and participants’ existing knowledge and attitudes
toward AVs. A list of potential benefits (e.g., congestion reduction) and concerns (e.g., higher cost) was compiled using available
scientific literature (see Fagnant and Kockelman, 2015; König and Neumayr, 2017; Kyriakidis et al., 2015). Items on attitudes were
derived from studies about user acceptance and similarities between autonomous vehicles and robots (see Fosch Villaronga and Roig,
2017; Nordhoff et al., 2016; Sparrow and Howard, 2017). For example, items included statements about user acceptance (e.g.,
likelihood to travel in an autonomous vehicle). Participants rated their level of agreement using a 5-level Likert scale (1 = Disagree
and 5 = Agree). No opinion was included as a response option. Participants were also asked to indicate the year they believe most
cars would be driven fully autonomously on the roads in their state of residence.

2.2.2. Appraisals and attitudes related to transporting children in autonomous vehicles

Thirty-one items were used to measure appraisals about using AVs to transport children when the parents were, and were not, in
the vehicle. Items were derived from the focus groups and from literature on parents’ perspective on child restraint systems, spending
time with children, and social morality with AVs (see Bianchi, 2000; Bonnefon et al., 2016; Craig, 2016; Macy et al., 2012; Nock and
Kingston, 1988). Participants rated their level of agreement using a 5-level Likert scale (1 = Disagree and 5 = Agree). No opinion was
included as a response option.

2.2.3. Usage of safety seats and child restraint systems

If parents indicated that they had more than one child, one of their children was randomly selected and parents were asked to
report on the following items about that child: age and sex of the child, days the child rides in a vehicle as a passenger, location of
seating, and type of restraint system, and the people who currently transport this child. Parents with only one child answered these
same questions about that child. These six items were derived from literature on drivers’ and parents’ attitudes toward seatbelt and
child restraint system (see Kidd and McCartt, 2014; Simpson et al., 2002; Weaver et al., 2013).

2.2.4. Technology readiness

Four items from the Technology Readiness Index (TRI) (Parasuraman, 2000; Parasuraman and Colby, 2015) were used to assess
participants’ propensities of technology adoption. We chose one item from each TRI subscale: optimism, innovativeness, discomfort,
and insecurity to be included in the questionnaire. These statements were on a 5-level Likert scale (1 = Disagree and 5 = Agree). No
opinion was included as a response option. The full measure was not used due to the length of the questionnaire.

2.2.5. Personal car use and demographics

Nineteen items were developed to assess parents’ driving history (weekly frequency, monthly mileage, number of major and
minor accidents in the past 3 years), seatbelt use (as a driver and a passenger), age, sex, residence, race and ethnicity, education, and
income.

2.3. Data analytic plan

Descriptive analysis was used to profile the response distributions as well as the child demographics. Mann-Whitney two-sample
test (two-tailed) was used to further examine response distributions between subgroups: participant sexes, sexes of the child, types of
restraint system (car seat vs. seatbelt; booster seat was not used as a comparison because of its low percentage), and residence areas
(urban vs suburban; rural area was not used as a comparison because of its low percentage). Further, correlation and discriminant
analyses were used to profile early AV adopters as well as their characteristics. Given the method of measurement (self-reported
data), the correlations were carefully examined in order to rule out the possibility of common method bias (Bagozzi et al., 1991;
Podsakoff et al., 2003).

3. Results

3.1. Sample description

On average, participants took 9 min 43 s to complete the questionnaire. There were a total of 1001 valid responses that met
eligibility criteria. Sixteen cases were removed due to the possibility of inattentiveness, or not taking the questionnaire seriously (e.g.,
reporting being involved in 12 serious crashes in three years as driver where the vehicle was towed), thus, there were 985 evaluable
cases.
Overall, the sample was sex-balanced, racially diverse (although fewer Black and Hispanic than the national distribution), re-
latively highly educated and high income, and most of them drove daily, wore seatbelts, and had 0 accidents in the past three years
(see Table 1). Of the 985 participants, 46.0% (n = 453) were between the ages of 35–44 years, ranging from 23 years to 76 years; M
(SD) 38.08(7.68) years. Participants came from each state of the US, except Hawaii, with 22.5% from the Northeast region, 21.2%
from the Midwest, 37.4% from the South, and 18.9% from the West. In terms of their primary residence, 35.8% were in urban area,
45.1% in suburban area, and 19.1% in rural area. The majority of participants did not have any serious (77.8%) or minor (64.8%)
accidents in the past three years (Mode and Median = 0). Most participants always wore a seatbelt when they were a driver (93.7%)
and a passenger (89.2%) in the past month.

417
Y.-C. Lee, J.H. Mirman Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

Table 1
Participant socio-demographic characteristics (N = 985).
Socio-demographic characteristics n %

Sex
Female 596 60.5
Male 385 39.1
Prefer not to say 4 0.4

Age
18–24 13 1.3
25–34 330 33.5
35–44 453 46.0
45–54 158 16.0
55–64 29 2.9
65+ 2 0.2

Race and ethnicity

White 815 82.7
Black 81 8.2
Hispanic/Latino/Spanish origin 66 6.7
American Indian/Alaska Native 17 1.7
Asian 45 4.6
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 2 0.2
Some other race or origin 11 1.1

Highest level of education

Less than 9th grade 1 0.1
Some high school 16 1.6
High school graduate 134 13.6
Some college 238 24.2
College (associate or Bachelor’s) degree 366 37.2
Graduate degree 230 23.4

Annual household income

< $25,000 110 11.2
$25,000–$44,999 178 18.1
$45,000–$69,999 194 19.7
$70,000–$109,999 228 23.1
> $110,000 275 27.9

Weekly driving frequency in past month

Never 9 0.9
Once a week 41 4.2
2–4 times a week 150 15.2
Every weekday 132 13.4
Weekend only 19 1.9
Every day (including weekend) 634 64.4

Mileage in past month

0 7 0.7
1–1000 461 46.8
1001–2000 283 28.7
2001–3000 133 13.5
3001–4000 69 7.0
4001 and more 32 3.2

The reported child profile included 50.6% of boys and 49.4% of girls, 45.6% of them rode as a passenger 6–7 days a week (40.6%
for 3–5 days, 13.8% for 1–2 days), and about 2/3 of them sat in the backseat of a passenger car or second/third road of a minivan.
Seatbelt was used in 43.5% of the responses, followed by car seat (36.4%) and booster seat (19.7%), and 4 responses (0.4%) did not
use any of the three above restraint systems. The parent who responded to the questionnaire, as well as the other parent, partner, or
legal guardians (n = 929, 474, 208, 27, respectively) were the most common individuals who transported the children, and the
second most common category was grandparents (n = 223). Only a small number of participants (n = 15) selected carpool as the
mechanism of transportation. These questions about their children and constraint systems were used to establish the frequency and
mechanism of transporting children from the parents’ perspectives.
In terms of technology readiness, the majority of the sample were tech-savvy and liked to try new technologies, but also thought
that people were too dependent on technology to do things for them. Discomfort was rated relatively evenly across the agreement
levels. Table 2 lists the percentages of agreement (1 = Disagree, 5 = Agree) for each of the technology readiness questions.

3.2. Benefits and concerns about AV and transporting children

Participants reviewed statements about perceived benefits and concerns when using AVs to transport children under two

418
Y.-C. Lee, J.H. Mirman Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

Table 2
Agreement on technology readiness (N = 977).
1 (Disagree) 2 3 4 5 (Agree)

n % n % n % n % n %

Optimism 10 1.0 7 0.7 125 12.8 176 18.0 659 67.5

Innovativeness 85 8.7 90 9.2 220 22.5 241 24.7 341 34.9
Discomfort 163 16.8 162 16.7 256 26.4 182 18.8 206 21.3
Insecurity 56 5.7 84 8.6 176 18.1 269 27.6 389 39.9

Note: Items from the Technology Readiness Index. Optimism: New technologies contribute to a better quality of life; Innovativeness: In general, I am
among the first in my circle of friends to acquire new technology when it appears; Discomfort: sometimes, I think that technology systems are not
designed for use by ordinary people; Insecurity: People are too dependent on technology to do things for them.

scenarios: when parents were in the vehicle and when parents were not in the vehicle (Figs. 1 and 2, respectively). Participants who
selected “no opinion” on these statements were removed from the analysis. On average, 3.3% of responses (SD = 1.2%) were re-
moved. Results from the highest ranked benefit and concern were detailed and the results from the rest of benefits and concerns were
summarized.
In the scenario that parents were in the AVs with their children, ‘I could spend quality time with my child such as talking about
our day’ showed the highest agreement among the perceived benefits. Mann-Whitney two-sample test showed that fathers
(Mean = 4.22, Median = 5, SD = 1.10) had a higher level of agreement than mothers (Mean = 3.89, Median = 4, SD = 1.22),
U = 92749.5, p < .01. Participants who indicated car seat as their child’s restraint system had higher agreement (Mean = 4.17,
Median = 5, SD = 1.08) than seatbelt users (Mean = 3.95, Median = 4, SD = 1.23), U = 67184.0, p = .03. Additionally, the re-
sponse distributions were different between primary residence areas, with urban residents (Mean = 4.33, Median = 5, SD = 1.04)

Fig. 1. Potential benefits and concerns ranked according to the mean of participants’ agreement (1 = Disagree, 5 = Agree), when parents were in
the AV with their child.

419
Y.-C. Lee, J.H. Mirman Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

Fig. 2. Potential benefits and concerns ranked according to the mean of participants’ agreement (1 = Disagree, 5 = Agree), when parents were not
in the AV with their child.

having higher agreement than suburban residents (Mean = 3.87, Median = 4, SD = 1.21), U = 58398.5, p < .01. The response
distributions were similar between sexes of the child.
Among the perceived concerns, ‘if there is a crash, I will be financially responsible for it’ showed the highest agreement. The
response distributions were similar between mothers and fathers, sexes of the child, and primary residence areas; however, they were
significantly different between types of restraint system: car seat users (Mean = 4.04, Median = 4, SD = 1.17) showed a higher level
of agreement than seatbelt users (Mean = 3.76, Median = 4, SD = 1.28), U = 58626.0, p < .01.
In the scenario that parents were not in the AVs with their children (e.g., sending the AVs to pick up child and bring the child to
school), ‘this could be carpool arrangement with other families’ showed the highest agreement (Fig. 2). Fathers (Mean = 3.81,
Median = 4, SD = 1.26) had higher agreement than mothers (Mean = 3.02, Median = 3, SD = 1.53), U = 76135.0, p < .01. Urban
residents (Mean = 3.72, Median = 4, SD = 1.38) showed higher agreement than suburban residents (Mean = 3.19, Median = 3,
SD = 1.47), U = 57888.0, p < .01. The response distributions were similar between sexes of the child and types of restraint system.
Among the perceived concerns, ‘I would not know how the autonomous vehicle will protect my child if there are aggressive or
dangerous vehicles nearby’ showed the highest agreement. Mothers (Mean = 4.36, Median = 5, SD = 1.01) had higher agreement
than fathers (Mean = 4.04, Median = 4.5, SD = 1.21), U = 94136.5, p < .01. Suburban residents (Mean = 4.29, Median = 5,
SD = 1.07) had higher agreement than urban residents (Mean = 4.09, Median = 5, SD = 1.17), U = 68206.5, p = .01. The response
distributions were similar between sexes of the child and types of restraint system.
Overall, these findings (parents in or not in the AV with their child) suggest that parents had reasonable concerns about losing
active vehicle control when using AVs to transport their children, including controlling the vehicle from within and when interacting
with other vehicles. Parents were also concerned about the child being alone in the AVs. Fathers, in general, perceived the benefits to
be higher than mothers, although they had different concerns. Mothers and parents who had younger children (using car seats) had
more concerns and rated the benefits lower than their counterparts. However, parents could foresee the benefits of using AVs to

420
Y.-C. Lee, J.H. Mirman Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

Fig. 3. General attitudes, benefits, and concerns about AVs ranked according to the mean of participants’ agreement (1 = Disagree, 5 = Agree).

transport their children by freeing up themselves from manual driving and spending time with their children during transit. The
perceived benefits were relatively lower and the concerns were relatively higher when AVs were used to transport children without
the parents being inside the AVs. Participants whose primary residence was in urban areas tended to rate both the benefits and
concerns higher than suburban residents. The perceived benefits and concerns were similar between sexes of the child.

3.3. Beliefs toward AV

Among the 985 evaluable responses, 81.4% of participants have heard of AVs (or self-driving, automated vehicles). When asked
about the year they believed most cars in their State of residence would be AVs, about half (n = 585) of the participants indicated by
2027 (in 9 years) and about 2/3 (n = 758) indicated by 2030.
Fig. 3 shows the ranked order of perceived benefits and concerns about AVs. Participants who selected “no opinion” on these
statements were removed from the analysis. On average, 3.1% of responses (SD = 1.0%) were removed. Among the perceived
benefits, ‘AVs can provide mobility for those too young to drive or with physical limitations’ showed the highest agreement. Fathers
(Mean = 4.22, Median = 5, SD = 1.02) showed higher agreement than mothers (Mean = 3.80, Median = 4, SD = 1.28),
U = 89688.0, p < .01. Urban residents (Mean = 4.14, Median = 5, SD = 1.13) had higher agreement than suburban residents
(Mean = 3.97, Median = 4, SD = 1.18), U = 67635.5, p = .02. The response distributions were similar between sexes of the child
and types of restraint system.
Among the perceived concerns, ‘Autonomous vehicles will probably be more expensive than the vehicles we have now’ showed
the highest agreement. Mothers (Mean = 4.50, Median = 5, SD = 0.91) had higher level of concerns than fathers (Mean = 4.36,
Median = 5, SD = 0.93), U = 99504.5, p < .01, car seat users (Mean = 4.54, Median = 5, SD = 0.83) had higher level of concerns
than seatbelt users (Mean = 4.37, Median = 5, SD = 0.98), U = 68557.5, p = .02, but urban and suburban residents had similar
level of agreement.
Overall, there was enthusiasm and a positive attitude about the societal and personal benefits for using AVs. The perceived
benefits were more pronounced among fathers and urban residents. Mothers and fathers weighed the concerns differently in terms of

421
Y.-C. Lee, J.H. Mirman Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

Table 3
Spearman correlation matrix.
Questionnaire items Have heard of AV Would like to Perceived Perceived Perceived benefits Perceived concerns
(yes = 1, no = 0) travel in an benefits – parents concerns – – parents not in – parents not in
AV^ in AV^ parents in AV^ AV^ AV^

Technology readiness – Optimism^ −0.161** 0.287** 0.016 −0.025 0.064 −0.091**

Technology readiness – −0.099** 0.416** 0.039 0.026 0.091** −0.080*
Innovativeness^
Technology readiness – Discomfort^ −0.008 0.065* 0.072* −0.051 0.089** −0.155**
Technology readiness – Insecurity^ 0.053 −0.068* 0.019 −0.039 0.042 −0.094**
Weekly frequency of driving^ 0.033 0.034 −0.041 −0.028 −0.036 0.029
Miles drove in past month^ −0.106** 0.231** 0.059 −0.044 0.061 −0.113**
Major accident in past 3 years −0.106** 0.229** 0.094** −0.060 0.167** −0.208**
Minor accident in past 3 years −0.122** 0.254** 0.111** −0.052 0.148** −0.180**
Number of children 0.021 0.040 0.050 0.039 0.028 0.002
Age of child −0.085** −0.005 −0.006 −0.055 0.049 −0.087**
Days child rides in vehicle weekly^ 0.002 −0.043 −0.063 0.036 −0.063 0.081*
Type of restraint system used for −0.057 −0.080* −0.017 −0.009 0.004 0.037
child (car seat = 1, booster
seat = 2, seatbelt = 3)
Parent biological sex (female = 1, −0.043 0.006 0.061 −0.174** −0.008 −0.121**
male = 2)
Parent age 0.004 0.052 0.009 −0.023 0.000 −0.026
Parent age when obtained driver's −0.035 −0.001 0.098** −0.060 0.037 −0.045
license
Parent residence area (urban = 1, 0.019 0.010 −0.103** 0.110** −0.014 0.076*
suburban = 2, rural = 3)
Parent highest level of education^ −0.006 −0.005 0.077* −0.252** −0.040 −0.132**
Parent household income^ −0.031 0.072* 0.099** −0.251** 0.003 −0.157**

Ordinal-scale items^: 1 = lowest or disagree; 5 = highest or agree.

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

cost, giving up independence, and boredom, but were similarly concerned about security and privacy issues. The perceived benefits
and concerns were similar between sexes of the child.

3.4. Characteristics of potential AV users

Composite scores of the perceived benefits and concerns when parents were and were not in the AVs with their children were
calculated by averaging the ratings from each ridership condition. These four scores as well as the dichotomous response to the
question “Have you ever heard of autonomous (also called automated or self-driving) vehicle, such as Google Driverless Car?” and the
rating from the question “I would like to travel in an autonomous vehicle” were correlated with parent and child demographics,
technology readiness, and parent driving history. Table 3 lists the Spearman correlations. “No opinion” responses and missing values
(approximately 5.3%) were handled by pairwise deletion. The correlations were in the range of 0.08–0.4, indicating that common
method variance may not be an issue (Bagozzi et al., 1991).
Further, a discriminant analysis was conducted to classify survey respondents on the basis of the significant correlations in
Table 3. Specifically, it was conducted to determine whether predictors—technology readiness, miles drove in past month, major and
minor accidents in past 3 years, type of restraint system, and parent income level (using dummy coding)—could predict the
agreement of “would like to travel in an AV.” The composite scores of the perceived benefits and concerns toward AVs when parents
were and were not in the AVs were also used as predictors. Missing values, “no opinion” responses, and cases with at least one missing
discriminating variable (14.1% responses in total) were excluded in this analysis.
The overall Wilks’ lambda was significant, Λ= 0.39, χ2 (60, N = 860) = 803.82, p < .001, indicating that the predictors
differentiated among the five agreement levels. Additionally, the residual Wilks’ lambda was significant, Λ = 0.92, χ2 (42, N = 860)
= 73.49, p = .002, indicating that after partialling out the effect of the first discriminant function, the predictors differentiated
among the five agreement levels.
Upon examining the within-groups correlations between the predictors and the discriminant functions, higher scores on the perceived
benefits toward AVs, innovativeness and optimism in technology readiness had the strongest relationship with the first discriminant
function. Higher scores on the perceived benefits when parents were also in the AVs, lower scores on the perceived concerns when
parents were not in the AVs, have had major and minor accidents, lower parent income, and children using car seats had the strongest
relationship with the second discriminant function. On the basis of these findings, the first and second discriminant functions were
labeled “the curious” (inclined to embrace new technology and high positive beliefs toward AVs) and “the practical” (saw the benefits of
using AVs to transport children, children being younger), respectively. The means on the discriminant functions were consistent with this
interpretation: respondents who agreed most on “would like to travel in an AV” (rated 5) had the highest mean score on the first
discriminant function; respondents who agreed less (rated 4 or lower) had the highest mean scores on the second discriminant function.

422
Y.-C. Lee, J.H. Mirman Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

These discriminant functions correctly classified 55.5% of the responses into the five agreement levels for “would like to travel in
an AV.” In order to take into account chance agreement, kappa coefficient was calculated and a value of 0.41 was obtained, indicating
moderately accurate prediction. Finally, the leave-one-out technique was used to assess how well the classification procedure would
predict in a new sample, and the result showed that 52.8% of cross-validated grouped cases were correctly classified.

4. Discussion

Using AVs to transport children is a likely ridership scenario. In order to effectively meet the needs of parent stakeholders, it is
important to understand their perceived benefits and concerns related to AV mobility, safety, and connectivity features. In addition, it
has been identified that parents’ perspectives should also support the design of the research agenda and implementation timelines
among manufacturers and government agencies related to AV (Davidson and Spinoulas, 2015). As the regulations of AVs will likely
be developed by parent and non-parent policy makers and be voted by citizens of different demographics, our findings provide
insights and contexts in visualizing potential AV ridership scenarios and their impact on mobility of a unique and vulnerable group of
stakeholders: child occupants.
We found that parents varied in their AV acceptance and could be grouped into two distinct categories: (1) The curious parents
who would like to try AV and embrace technology innovativeness. These parents rated the perceived benefits relatively high, and
their interests might be fueled by general inclination toward technologies; (2) The practical parents who had practical considerations
(such as children being younger and using car seats and lower income), but saw the benefits of using AVs to transport children. These
parents also had recent accidents. Although hesitant, this group might see AVs as a way to support their family functions by sup-
plementing transportation needs.
While part of these findings confirmed prior research that technologically savvy individuals tend to be early adopters, other
findings were inconsistent with prior research about urban residents and individuals with more education being early adopters
(Haboucha et al., 2017; Lavieri et al., 2017). This discrepancy may come from prior research not including parent-child AV ridership
as a specific context or use case. Future research should examine contexts related to mobility disadvantaged populations as their
needs and preferences may be different from those of the general public. The automotive industry should target the hesitant parents
who have practical considerations and design the AVs to support their unique challenges.
With respect to specific appraisals and attitudes, parents ranked enhancing mobility to be the highest benefit of using AVs, which
is similar to previous findings (König and Neumayr, 2017). This finding adds to the literature that mobility of underserved popu-
lations can be potentially provided or supplemented by AVs (Harper et al., 2016; Sparrow and Howard, 2017). Parents ranked
carpool arrangements to be the highest benefit when parents were not in the AVs with the children (e.g., sending AVs to pick up
children from school). This finding supports prior research on shared autonomous vehicles (SAVs) that certain demographic variables
such as number of children (Haboucha et al., 2017) are important predictors for SAV adoption.
However, our results also illustrated that parents had concerns when their children were part of ridership scenarios. Aside from
general concerns such as cost, security and privacy issues, parents expressed concerns about giving up control of the vehicle, how AVs
will protect their child, and how their child will be monitored during and after transit. These findings are consistent with the
literature on children’s independent mobility and parents’ fear of harm (Crawford et al., 2017; Foster et al., 2014). Additionally,
parents whose children were younger and still rode in child restraint systems had significantly more concerns than parents whose
children were older and used seatbelts. This is likely due to children’s developmental factors, and younger children need further
support and supervision when utilizing AVs. Such support can come from social contexts in neighborhood and school settings
(Schoeppe et al., 2015).
Findings related to sex of parents and residence locations also support the literature, i.e., fathers perceived the benefits to be
higher, but mothers perceived the concerns to be higher (Hohenberger et al., 2016) and urban residents perceived the benefits of AVs
to be higher than suburban residents (Bansal et al., 2016).
Despite several strengths including using an on-line format to study a timely research question and a combination of analyses to
identify early adopters and highlight perceived benefits and concerns in a parent-child AV ridership context, there are a few lim-
itations about this study. Participants’ level of attention while completing the online questionnaire was unknown. Even though
suspicious responses were removed, there could be other inattentive respondents. However, this method was deemed appropriate for
gathering diverse public opinions and could accomplish the study objectives within a short period of time (Weigold et al., 2013).
Another limitation was that AVs were only broadly defined and the questionnaire did not include different levels of automation in
AVs (NHTSA, 2017; SAE, 2016). Some people might be more familiar with level 1 or 2 of automation (driver assistance and partial
automation, respectively, where human driver monitors the driving environment) due to their popularity and not familiar with the
higher levels of automation (conditional, high, and full automation where automated driving system monitors the driving en-
vironment) due to lack of wide-scale deployment and similar personal experience (Merat et al., 2017). Future studies should further
delineate levels of automaton in ridership scenarios. A third limitation was that respondents might project themselves more tech-
savvy than they really were, potentially due to social desirability. Therefore, self-report alone on technology acceptance-related items
might not be sufficient to capture respondents’ true inclination toward technology.
Due to usability concerns, only four questions from the Technology Readiness Index (TRI) were used. Interpretations of the TRI
items should be done carefully. We plan to repeat the study and include either the 16- or 32-question version of the TRI and parent
and non-parent demographic (Hand and Lee, 2018) subgroups as well as individuals with age and mobility restrictions. Since these
groups are highly heterogeneous, characteristics and needs for each group should be examined in order to better understand the
impact of AV technology on mobility.

423
Y.-C. Lee, J.H. Mirman Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Appendix A. – Questionnaire

424
Y.-C. Lee, J.H. Mirman Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

425
Y.-C. Lee, J.H. Mirman Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

426
Y.-C. Lee, J.H. Mirman Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

427
Y.-C. Lee, J.H. Mirman Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

428
Y.-C. Lee, J.H. Mirman Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

429
Y.-C. Lee, J.H. Mirman Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

References

Abraham, H., Reimer, B., Seppelt, B., Fitzgerald, C., Mehler, B., Coughlin, J.F., 2018. Consumer interest in automation: change over one year. Presented at the
Transportation Research Board 97th Annual Meeting Transportation Research Board. Retrieved from < https://trid.trb.org/view/1495407 > .
Anderson, J.M., Nidhi, K., Stanley, K.D., Sorensen, P., Samaras, C., Oluwatola, O.A., 2014. Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers. Rand
Corporation.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., Phillips, L.W., 1991. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Adm. Sci. Q. 36 (3), 421–458. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393203.
Bansal, P., Kockelman, K.M., Singh, A., 2016. Assessing public opinions of and interest in new vehicle technologies: an Austin perspective. Transport. Res. Part C:
Emerg. Technol. 67, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.01.019.
Bianchi, S.M., 2000. Maternal employment and time with children: dramatic change or surprising continuity? Demography 37 (4), 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1353/
dem.2000.0001.
Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A., Rahwan, I., 2016. The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352 (6293), 1573–1576. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2654.
Brown, A., Gonder, J., Repac, B., 2014. An analysis of possible energy impacts of automated vehicles. In: Road Vehicle Automation. Springer, Cham, pp. 137–153
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-05990-7_13.
Craig, L., 2016. Contemporary Motherhood: The Impact of Children on Adult Time. Routledge.
Crawford, S.B., Bennetts, S.K., Hackworth, N.J., Green, J., Graesser, H., Cooklin, A.R., Nicholson, J.M., 2017. Worries, “weirdos”, neighborhoods and knowing people:
a qualitative study with children and parents regarding children’s independent mobility. Health Place 45 (Supplement C), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
healthplace.2017.03.005.
Davidson, P., Spinoulas, A., 2015. Autonomous vehicles: what could this mean for the future of transport. In: Proceedings of the Australian Institute of Traffic Planning
and Management (AITPM) National Conference. Brisbane, Queensland.
Fagnant, D.J., Kockelman, K., 2015. Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transport. Res. Part A: Pol.
Pract. 77, 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003.
Fosch Villaronga, E., Roig, A., 2017. European regulatory framework for person carrier robots. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2017.03.018.
Foster, S., Villanueva, K., Wood, L., Christian, H., Giles-Corti, B., 2014. The impact of parents’ fear of strangers and perceptions of informal social control on children’s
independent mobility. Health Place 26 (Supplement C), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.11.006.
Gallup Inc., 2013. Desire for children still norm in U.S. Retrieved October 23, 2017, from < http://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.aspx > .
Greenblatt, J.B., Shaheen, S., 2015. Automated vehicles, on-demand mobility, and environmental impacts. Curr. Sustain./Renew. Energy Rep. 2 (3), 74–81. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40518-015-0038-5.
Gurney, J.K., 2013. Sue my car not me: products liability and accidents involving autonomous vehicles. Univ. Ill. J. Law, Technol. Pol. 247–278.
Haboucha, C.J., Ishaq, R., Shiftan, Y., 2017. User preferences regarding autonomous vehicles. Transport. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 78 (Supplement C), 37–49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.01.010.
Hand, S.H., Lee, Y.-C., 2018. Who would put their child alone in an autonomous vehicle? Preliminary look at gender differences. In: Proceedings of the 2018
International Annual Meeting of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Harper, C.D., Hendrickson, C.T., Mangones, S., Samaras, C., 2016. Estimating potential increases in travel with autonomous vehicles for the non-driving, elderly and
people with travel-restrictive medical conditions. Transport. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 72, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.09.003.
Hillman, M., 1993. Children, transport and the quality of life. Chapter 3. One false move…an overview of the findings and issues they raise. Publication of: Policy
Studies Institute. Retrieved from < https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=410065 > .
Hohenberger, C., Spörrle, M., Welpe, I.M., 2016. How and why do men and women differ in their willingness to use automated cars? The influence of emotions across

430
Y.-C. Lee, J.H. Mirman Transportation Research Part C 96 (2018) 415–431

different age groups. Transport. Res. Part A: Pol. Pract. 94, 374–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.09.022.
Howard, D., Dai, D., 2014. Public perceptions of self-driving cars: the case of Berkeley, California, vol. 14, no. 4502. Presented at the Transportation Research Board
93rd Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
IHS Automotive, 2014. Emerging technologies: autonomous cars—not if, but when. Retrieved May 29, 2018, from < http://news.ihsmarkit.com/press-release/
automotive/self-driving-cars-moving-industrys-drivers-seat > .
Power, J.D., 2013. 2013 U.S. Automotive Emerging Technologies Study Results. Retrieved May 22, 2018, from < http://www.jdpower.com/cars/articles/jd-power-
studies/2013-us-automotive-emerging-technologies-study-results > .
Power, J.D., 2017. Analyst Briefing: 2017 U.S. Tech Choice Study. Retrieved from < http://www.jdpower.com/resource/us-tech-choice-study > .
Kidd, D.G., McCartt, A.T., 2014. Drivers’ attitudes toward front or rear child passenger belt use and seat belt reminders at these seating positions. Traffic Inj. Prev. 15
(3), 278–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2013.810333.
König, M., Neumayr, L., 2017. Users’ resistance towards radical innovations: the case of the self-driving car. Transport. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 44, 42–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.10.013.
Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., de Winter, J.C.F., 2015. Public opinion on automated driving: results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transport.
Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 32, 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014.
Lavieri, P.S., Garikapati, V.M., Bhat, C.R., Pendyala, R.M., Astroza, S., Dias, F.F., 2017. Modeling individual preferences for ownership and sharing of autonomous
vehicle technologies. Transport. Res. Record: J. Transport. Res. Board 2665, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3141/2665-01.
Levinson, D., 2015. Climbing mount next: the effects of autonomous vehicles on society symposium: autonomous vehicles: the legal and policy road ahead. Minn. J.
Law, Sci. Technol. 16, 787–810.
Macy, M.L., Clark, S.J., Freed, G.L., Butchart, A.T., Singer, D.C., Sasson, C., Davis, M.M., 2012. Carpooling and booster seats: a national survey of parents. Pediatrics
129 (2), 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-0575.
Merat, N., Madigan, R., Nordhoff, S., 2017. Human factors, user requirements, and user acceptance of ride-sharing in automated vehicles. Presented at the
International Transport Forum Roundtable on Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving.
Mikkelsen, M.R., Christensen, P., 2009. Is children’s independent mobility really independent? A study of children’s mobility combining ethnography and GPS/mobile
phone technologies. Mobilities 4 (1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450100802657954.
NHTSA, 2013. Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC Retrieved from:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/Automated_Vehicles_Policy.pdf.
NHTSA, 2017. Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC.
Nock, S.L., Kingston, P.W., 1988. Time with children: the impact of couples’ work-time commitments. Soc. Forces 67 (1), 59–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/67.1.59.
Nordhoff, S., van Arem, B., Happee, R., 2016. Conceptual model to explain, predict, and improve user acceptance of driverless podlike vehicles. Transport. Res. Record:
J. Transport. Res. Board 2602, 60–67. https://doi.org/10.3141/2602-08.
Nunes, A., Reimer, B., Coughlin, J.F., 2018. People must retain control of autonomous vehicles. Nature 556 (7700), 169–171. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-
04158-5.
O’Connor, J., Brown, A., 2013. A qualitative study of “fear” as a regulator of children’s independent physical activity in the suburbs. Health Place 24 (Supplement C),
157–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.09.002.
Parasuraman, A., 2000. Technology readiness index (TRI): a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. J. Serv. Res.: JSR; Thousand Oaks
2 (4), 307–320.
Parasuraman, A., Colby, C.L., 2015. An updated and streamlined Technology Readiness Index: TRI 2.0. J. Serv. Res. 18 (1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094670514539730.
Pickrell, T.M., 2014. Occupant restraint use in 2012: results from the national occupant protection use survey controlled intersection study. Report No. DOT HS 811
872. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Retrieved from < https://trid.trb.org/view/1290395 > .
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
SAE, 2016. Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles – SAE International. SAE International http://
standards.sae.org/j3016_201609/.
Sauber-Schatz, E.K., West, B.A., Bergen, G., 2014. Vital signs: restraint use and motor vehicle occupant death rates among children aged 0–12 years—United States,
2002–2011. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from < https://www.cdc.gov/mmWr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6305a8.htm > .
Schade, J., Schlag, B., 2003. Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies. Transport. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 6 (1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1369-8478(02)00046-3.
Schoeppe, S., Duncan, M.J., Badland, H.M., Alley, S., Williams, S., Rebar, A.L., Vandelanotte, C., 2015. Socio-demographic factors and neighborhood social cohesion
influence adults’ willingness to grant children greater independent mobility: a cross-sectional study. BMC Publ. Health 15, 690. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-
015-2053-2.
Simpson, E.M., Moll, E.K., Kassam-Adams, N., Miller, G.J., Winston, F.K., 2002. Barriers to booster seat use and strategies to increase their use. Pediatrics 110 (4),
729–736. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.110.4.729.
Sparrow, R., Howard, M., 2017. When human beings are like drunk robots: driverless vehicles, ethics, and the future of transport. Transport. Res. Part C: Emerg.
Technol. 80, 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.04.014.
TechEmergence, 2017. The self-driving car timeline – predictions from the top 11 global automakers. Retrieved May 29, 2018, from < https://www.techemergence.
com/self-driving-car-timeline-themselves-top-11-automakers/ > .
Wadud, Z., MacKenzie, D., Leiby, P., 2016. Help or hindrance? The travel, energy and carbon impacts of highly automated vehicles. Transport. Res. Part A: Pol. Pract.
86, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.12.001.
Weaver, N.L., Brixey, S.N., Williams, J., Nansel, T.R., 2013. Promoting correct car seat use in parents of young children: challenges, recommendations, and im-
plications for health communication. Health Promot. Pract. 14 (2), 301–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839912457567.
Weigold, A., Weigold, I.K., Russell, Elizabeth J., 2013. Examination of the equivalence of self-report survey-based paper-and-pencil and internet data collection
methods. Psychol. Methods 18 (1), 53–70.
Williams, A.F., Ferguson, S.A., 2002. Rationale for graduated licensing and the risks it should address. Injury Prevent. 8 (suppl 2), ii9-ii16. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.
8.suppl_2.ii9.

431