CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Oviedo-Trespalacios O, Briant O, Kaye SA, King M. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019; 135: e105348. |
|
Affiliation |
Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety-Queensland (CARRS-Q), Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation (IHBI), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 2019, Elsevier Publishing) |
|
DOI |
|
PMID |
31790969 |
|
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. Language: en |
|
Keywords |
Cellphone; Distraction; Driver support systems; Ergonomics; Inattention; Smartphone |