Road traffic crashes claim approximately 1.19 million lives annually worldwide, and human error accounts for the vast majority, yet the autonomous vehicle acceptance literature models adoption almost exclusively through technology-centered pull factors such as perceived usefulness and trust. This study examines a moderated mediation model in which perceived community driving-safety concern (PCSC) predicts evaluations of AI versus human driving capability, mediated by Generalized AI Orientation and moderated by personal driving frequency. Weighted structural equation modeling is applied to a nationally representative U.S. probability sample from Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel Wave 152, using Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance Adjusted (WLSMV)-estimated confirmatory factor analysis on ordinal indicators, bias-corrected bootstrap inference, and seven robustness checks including Imai sensitivity analysis, E-value confounding thresholds, and propensity score matching. Results reveal a dual-pathway mechanism constituting an inconsistent mediation: PCSC exerts a small positive direct effect on AI driving evaluation, consistent with a domain-specific push interpretation, while simultaneously suppressing Generalized AI Orientation, which is itself a strong positive predictor of AI driving evaluation. Conditional indirect effects are negative and statistically significant at low, mean, and high levels of driving frequency. These findings establish a risk-spillover mechanism whereby community driving-safety concern promotes domain-specific AI endorsement yet suppresses domain-general AI enthusiasm, yielding a near-zero net total effect.

翻译：暂无翻译