**Table 5.**

*Parenting in the Digital Contexts: Are Parents Ready to Use Automated Vehicles to Transport… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92753*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Parenting - Studies by an Ecocultural and Transactional Perspective*

(8, *N* = 552) = 10.83, *p* = 0.21.

**Model 1 (base)**

**Model 2 (heard of AV)**

Included in analysis (n) 1011 902 802 782 552 Nagelkerke R2 0.271 0.279 0.277 0.253 0.290

**Model 3 (AV year <= 2030)**

77.3 76.9 77.1 78.6 78.8

**Model 4 (had a child 0–14)**

**Model 5 (model 2–4's criteria)**

level of willingness decreased as concerns about AV use increased.

Child restraint system 15.74 <0.005

2

variance (Nagelkerke R2

to the data, *χ*

2

and Lemeshow goodness of fit *χ*

Model 1 correctly classified 77.3% of the responses, could explain 27.1% of the

When plotting the probability of being high on willingness across the averaged ratings of concerns (**Figure 2**) using model 5, the negative relationship suggests that among parents who had heard of AVs, believed AVs would become fully integrated in modern roadways by 2030, and had young children (younger than age 15), their

**Predictor B Wald χ<sup>2</sup>** *p* **Odds ratio Concerns** −.80 30.32 < 0.001 0.45 Car feature: **Assurance** −0.96 21.08 <0.001 0.38 Car feature: **Child Safety** 0.45 3.48 0.06 1.56

**Booster seat** 0.19 0.56 0.46 1.21 **Seat belt** 0.73 13.53 <0.001 2.07 **None** 0.11 0.08 0.78 1.12 TRI: **Optimism** 0.49 14.29 <0.001 1.62 TRI: **Innovativeness** 0.32 15.82 <0.001 1.37 TRI: **Insecurity** −0.25 10.64 <0.005 0.78 **Parent Sex** −2.04 7.46 <0.01 0.13 **Parent Sex** by **Concerns** 0.41 4.89 0.03 1.51 Respondent: **Licensed age** 0.06 5.11 0.02 1.06 *Note: Car seat was the reference group for Child restraint system; Male was the reference group for Parent sex.*

Using model 1 as the base, four more models were further developed that included respondents who had heard of AVs (model 2), who thought AVs would be fully integrated by 2030 or sooner (model 3), who indicated being a parent of a child between 0 and 14 years of age (model 4), and who met the above three criteria (model 5) (**Table 5**). The results from models 1, 2, 3, and 4 were very similar: the signs and the significance testing of the regression coefficients remained the same. Model 5 showed that child safety-related car feature, child restraint system, parent sex, and parent sex by concerns were no longer significant. This model also had the highest classification accuracy among the five models and was considered a good fit

), and was considered an adequate fit to the data (Hosmer

(8, *N* = 1011) = 6.43, *p* = 0.59).

**158**

(%)

*Model comparisons.*

**Table 5.**

**Table 4.**

Classification accuracy

*Variables in model 1 logistic regression.*

*Proportion in high willingness across averaged concerns in model 5. Note: Dots depict the predicted willingness given the averaged concerns; the line depicts the model.*

#### **4. Discussion**

The current analysis focused on profiling and modeling parents' willingness to use AVs to transport children unaccompanied. According to model 1 (all survey responses), individuals who rated their willingness higher were those who were pro-technology, more ready to embrace innovative technologies, and males (as opposed to females), and had lower levels of concern about this prospect of AV use. These findings are consistent with the literature on general AV acceptance about the early adopters being males [42], technology-savvy individuals [17], such as drivers who are already using advanced car features, and those who are less concerned about safety risks associated with AVs [18].

The current finding also suggests that parents who were relatively more willing to use AVs in the context of child mobility regarded assurance-related AV features as relatively optional (as opposed to required). These car features were about having mechanisms for on-time pick-up, communication from/to child, having an adult waiting at destination, and two-way audio and video communications. This is largely consistent with the previous machine learning-based analysis on the same data [22]: specific car features about having a designated adult waiting at destination, a camera that lets the child see parent, and a microphone that lets the child hear parent were important variables in differentiating high vs. low willingness.

In terms of restraint system use, parents higher on willingness had relatively older children who used seat belts (as opposed to car seat users). This is consistent with prior finding that parents whose children use car seats have significantly more concerns than parents whose children use seat belts [19]. Children's age as well as the required restraint systems are both important determinants. One explanation is that younger children need more support and supervision during transit as they may not have the physical ability or cognitive understanding for safety practices. Also, parents are likely to be more worried about community and roadway safety when children are younger [43, 44]. These factors likely influence the degree to which parents grant children independent mobility [45].

Females are less ready to embrace AV technology [42, 46]. The significant interaction term of parent sex and ratings of concerns from the current analysis further suggests that mothers and mothers with higher levels of concerns are less willing to put children in AVs alone.

Current finding also shows that individuals who obtained their first license at a relatively older age were more willing to use AVs to transport children unaccompanied. Even though literature has suggested that being older at licensure is related to fewer risky driving behaviors [47] and delayed licensure is associated with lower fatal crash rate [48], it is unclear how this association translates to an AV context.

When including only about half of the data (model 5), that is, parents who had heard of AVs, believed AVs would become fully integrated in modern roadways by 2030, and had young children, similar relationships between willingness and exploratory variables remained, even though child restraint system and parent sex were no longer significant. These individuals are likely to be more concerned about AV use from a family perspective as they believe AVs would become a reality for them soon.

As previously stated, this study and the nature of data collection had led to several limitations [22]. AVs and car features were broadly defined and described in the survey; participants' interpretations of the depicted AV and car features might differ. Also, even though 90.5% of the participants indicated having heard of AVs, the sources of knowledge and the degree of personal experience were unknown [24]. Therefore, this study could not directly quantify the association between AV exposure and willingness to use AV in a specific family perspective. In addition, the cross-sectional design of the study only allowed one-time evaluation of parents' imagined AV use. Their willingness might change with time, knowledge, and personal experience, as a previous study showed that experience with a travel mode may alter one's perception and future use of it [49]. Although our participants' willingness did not differ much from pre- to post-willingness, their perception of AV capability and hypothetical use might have changed and should be assessed in future studies.

#### **5. Conclusion**

This book chapter addresses issues related to parenting in the age of automated vehicles. The analysis shows that parents' concerns, assurance-related car features, parents' technology readiness, child restraint system use (as a proxy for child age), and parent sex are important variables for modeling parents' willingness to use AVs in the context of children's mobility. Future studies should continue to investigate the public's willingness, perceptions, and attitudes about AV use scenarios from multiple perspectives while taking into account personal and family characteristics. Similarly, children's perspectives about the use of AVs for mobility and transportation needs should also be examined. For example, future studies can compare the perceptions and perceived safety between riding a human-driver school bus vs. an automated school bus and being a passenger in an AV alone vs. having parents as passengers together. AV manufactures and regulatory agencies should carefully consider adding and evaluating car features, restraint systems, and support mechanisms that have the potentials to ensure child passenger safety, ease parents' concerns, and ultimately enhance children's mobility.

#### **Acknowledgements**

The author wishes to thank Somer Hand for her efforts in data collection.

**161**

**Author details**

George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

\*Address all correspondence to: ylee65@gmu.edu

provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

Yi-Ching Lee

*Parenting in the Digital Contexts: Are Parents Ready to Use Automated Vehicles to Transport…*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92753*

There is no known conflict of interest to disclose.

**Conflict of interest**

*Parenting in the Digital Contexts: Are Parents Ready to Use Automated Vehicles to Transport… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92753*
