Exploratory study reveals the impact of interaction characteristics on early user adoption intentions for DRT in Wuxi, China, highlighting the importance of platform trust.
Demand-responsive transit (DRT) is increasingly promoted as a means to enhance the resilience and inclusiveness of sustainable urban mobility. However, how users form early-stage adoption intentions toward such interface-mediated services remains insufficiently understood. While prior research has focused on conventional transit or mature mobility-on-demand platforms, the role of fine-grained human–computer interaction (HCI) characteristics in shaping initial adoption intentions toward DRT received limited empirical attention. This study proposes an integrated framework linking five HCI characteristics—interaction responsiveness, real-time interaction, controllability of interactivity, personalization of interactivity, and playfulness—to behavioral intention through the mediating mechanisms of perceived service quality and platform trust. The framework was tested by applying partial least-squares structural equation modeling to cross-sectional survey data (N = 147) collected from existing early users of an early-stage DRT pilot in Wuxi, China. Platform trust emerged as the strongest direct predictor of behavioral intention, while real-time interaction and interaction responsiveness contributed mainly through trust- and service-quality-based pathways. Controllability and personalization showed no statistically significant association with the mediators in this early-stage sample, and playfulness exhibited a significant but modest effect on platform trust. By integrating HCI design, service-quality perceptions, and platform trust into a single nomological framework, this study offers context-sensitive guidance for designing interface-mediated shared mobility services that may support more resilient and sustainable urban transport.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: