| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Description | The Ambiguous Driving Scenarios Survey (Baby et al., 2024) classifies ambiguous driving scenarios (ADS) in autonomous vehicles (AVs) based on user perceptions. ADS are defined as scenarios in which AVs struggle to interpret the intentions of other road users due to uncertainty or confusion. The study utilized extensive literature reviews and expert interviews to identify over 10,000 driving scenarios, later refined to 6,590 through structured analysis. A user experience (UX) research technique, card sorting, helped further reduce the number to 28 scenarios. Survey questions were constructed based on literature review findings and expert consultations. Data were collected from adult drivers in the Republic of Korea, and confirmatory factor analysis supported a five-factor model. Reliability (internal and split-half), validity (discriminant and convergent), and factor structure were assessed. |
| Author | Baby, Tiju; Ippoliti, Hatice Şahin; Wintersberger, Philipp; Zhang, Yiqi; Yoon, Sol Hee; Lee, Jieun; Lee, Seul Chan |
| Author Identifier | Baby, Tiju: ORCID Wintersberger, Philipp: ORCID |
| Affiliation | Baby, Tiju – Division of Media, Culture, and Design Technology, Hanyang University ERICA Ippoliti, Hatice Şahin – Department of Computing Science, University of Oldenburg Wintersberger, Philipp – Digital Media Department, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria Zhang, Yiqi – Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Pennsylvania State University Yoon, Sol Hee – Department of Safety Engineering, Seoul National University of Science and Technology Lee, Jieun – Department of Safety Engineering, Pukyong National University Lee, Seul Chan – Division of Media, Culture, and Design Technology, Hanyang University ERICA |
| Correspondence Address | Lee, Seul Chan: Hanyang University ERICA, Lion’s Hall 202, 55, Hanyangdaehak-ro, Sangnok-gu, Gyeonggi-do, Ansan-si, Korea, Republic of Email: [email protected] |
| Purpose | The survey aims to classify ambiguous driving scenarios based on users’ perceptions of plausible AV responses. This classification assists policymakers, researchers, and AV manufacturers in designing driving styles, algorithms, and safety guidelines. |
| Construct | Ambiguous Driving Scenarios; Autonomous Vehicles |
| Instrument Type | Inventory/Questionnaire |
| Test Type | Original |
| Test Year | 2024 |
| Format | The survey consists of three sections: (1) Information about AVs and user perceptions (moral, ethical, legal, utility, and safety); (2) General demographic questions; (3) AV ambiguous scenarios, with a pictorial representation of 28 scenarios, descriptions, and five questions assessing user perception importance on AV responses. A five-point Likert scale is used (1 = “Very important” to 5 = “Not at all important”). |
| Administration Method | Electronic |
| Test Items Available | No (To obtain test items, contact the corresponding author or publisher.) |
| Number of Items | 28 scenarios, each with 5 survey questions |
| Factors and Subscales | Factors: Moral Perception, Ethical Perception, Utility Perception, Legal Perception, Safety Perception |
| Reliability | Internal Consistency: Composite Reliability (CR) ranged from 0.800 to 0.851. Split-Half Reliability: Reliability scores exceeded 0.812 for all factors. |
| Validity | Discriminant Validity: The square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) from all constructs exceeded their cross-correlations. Convergent Validity: Factor loadings exceeded 0.6, with AVE above 0.5 (Krishnan & Ramasamy, 2011). |
| Factor Analysis | Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) tested the initial model fit, leading to a refined five-factor model with improved fit indices. A simplified model was developed by addressing high modification indexes and removing five items with psychometric issues (<0.30). The final categories for scenarios are: – Moral (Scenarios: 5, 11, 20, 22) – Ethical (Scenarios: 1, 4, 17, 23) – Legal (Scenarios: 5, 11, 12, 26) – Utility (Scenarios: 4, 7, 13, 17, 26) – Safety (All scenarios except: 1, 4, 5, 7, 13, 20, 22, 23) |
| Test Methodology | Test Validity, Convergent Validity, Discriminant Validity, Test Reliability, Internal Consistency, Split-Half Reliability, Factor Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis |
| Age Group | Adulthood (18+ years), Young Adulthood (18-29 years), Thirties (30-39 years), Middle Age (40-64 years) |
| Population Group | Human; Male; Female |
| Population Details | Location: Republic of Korea Respondents: Autonomous Vehicle Users Age Range: 20 to 49 years |
| Keywords | Automated Driving Systems, Autonomous Vehicle Drivers, Ethical Perception, Legal Perception, Moral Perception, Safety Perception, Utility Perception |
| Index Terms | Drivers, Highway Safety, Human Factors Engineering, Transportation Safety, Human Factors Measures, Human-Computer Interaction Measures, Human-Technology Interaction, Autonomous Vehicles |
| Files | No file available for download. |
| Reference | Baby, T., Ippoliti, H. Ş., Wintersberger, P., Zhang, Y., Yoon, S. H., Lee, J., & Lee, S. C. (2024). Development and classification of autonomous vehicle’s ambiguous driving scenario. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 200, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2024.107501 |
Cite this article
Mohammed looti (2026). Ambiguous Driving Scenarios Survey. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/ambiguous-driving-scenarios-survey/
Mohammed looti. "Ambiguous Driving Scenarios Survey." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 4 Apr. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/ambiguous-driving-scenarios-survey/.
Mohammed looti. "Ambiguous Driving Scenarios Survey." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/ambiguous-driving-scenarios-survey/.
Mohammed looti (2026) 'Ambiguous Driving Scenarios Survey', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/ambiguous-driving-scenarios-survey/.
[1] Mohammed looti, "Ambiguous Driving Scenarios Survey," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, April, 2026.
Mohammed looti. Ambiguous Driving Scenarios Survey. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.