As per Arndt & Engeln, 2008, driver’s acceptance in the case of a support system is difficult to find a definition for acceptance which is standard enough to fit all purposes and disciplines. According to Regan, Mitsopoulos, Haworth, & Young (2002),
“While everyone seems to know what acceptability is, and all agree that acceptability is important, there is no consistency across studies as to what ‘acceptability’ is and how to measure it”.
Acceptance research is with a major problem in this field as it derives from the mixture of attitude and behavior aspects as per Anstadt, 1994. According to Franken (2007), the decision of accepting a system can be defined depending on attitudinal acceptance due to the experience and emotions in association with the system.
The acceptance defined as per Kollmann (1999) is beyond its formation of affective and cognitive attitude and an act of intention. Usually, the acceptance is manifested in the specific acquisition or product usage. Furthermore, the context of the Driver Assistance System as per Arndt (2004), asserted the connection of the affective and cognitive assessment with an actual adoption and system used to define the acceptance of the Driver Assistance System. As per Adell, 2009, acceptance of Driver Assistance System is defined as:
“The degree to which an individual intends to use a system and, when available, to incorporate the system in his/her driving.”