# Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior in Autonomous Vehicle-Pedestrian Interaction
## 5 Data Analysis and Results
### Assessment of Structural Model  
As the measurement model is satisfactory, the next step is to measure the structural model in PLS-SEM. Collinearity must be checked before examining structural relationships to ensure that it does not influence the regression findings. VIF values should be <5 (Mason [71]). VIF values for both models of the current study are in the suggested range. As collinearity is not the issue, the next step is to test the hypotheses of the study. A standard bootstrapping approach with 5000 bootstraps subsamples with 965 responses was used to assess the significance of the bath coefficients [63]. Moreover, the f-square is reported, which shows the effect sizes. Values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 represent the small, medium, and large f2 effect sizes, respectively [72]. Originally, H1 proposed that there is association between attitude toward intention and the intention. The results presented in Table 9 and Figure 4 shows that there is a statistically significant association between attitude toward the intention and intention (\(\beta\) = 0.172, SE = 0.037, \(t\)-value = 4.713, \(p\)-value \(<\) 0.000, \(\hat{t}^{2}\) = 0.037, CI LL = 0.106, CI UL = 0.248). Hence, H1 is supported. Initially, H2 proposed that there is association between subjective norms and intention. Results presented in Table 9 and Figure 4 proofs that there is statistically significant association between subjective norms and intention (\(\beta\) = 0.350, SE = 0.040, \(t\)-value = 8.725, \(p\)-value \(<\) 0.000, \(\hat{t}^{2}\) = 0.143, CI LL = 0.274, CI UL = 0.430). Therefore, H2 is supported. Primarily, H3 proposed that there is association between perceived behavioral control and intention. The results presented in Table 9 and Figure 4 elaborates that there is a statistically significant association between perceived behavioral control and intention (\(\beta\) = 0.167, SE = 0.034, \(t\)-value = 4.903, \(p\)-value \(<\) 0.000, \(\hat{t}^{2}\) = 0.031, CI LL = 0.102, CI UL = 0.235). Consequently, H3 is supported. Originally, H4 proposed that there is association between perceived behavioral control and pedestrian behavior. The results presented in Table 9 and Figure 4 exposes that there is a statistically significant association between perceived behavioral control and pedestrian behavior (\(\beta\) = 0.355, SE = 0.029, \(t\)-value = 12.127, \(p\)-value \(<\) 0.000, \(\hat{t}^{2}\) = 0.149, CI LL = 0.298, CI UL = 0.413). Hence, H4 is supported. Initially, H5 proposed that there is association between intention and pedestrian behavior. The results presented in Table 9 and Figure 4 shows that there is a statistically significant association between intention and pedestrian behavior (\(\beta\) = 0.251, SE = 0.032, \(t\)-value = 7.910, \(p\)-value \(<\) 0.000, \(\hat{t}^{2}\) = 0.074, CI LL = 0.188, CI UL = 0.312). Consequently, supporting H5. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **ATI** & **I** & **PB** & **PBC** & **SN** \\ \hline Attitude Toward the Intention & & & & & & \\ Intention & 0.331 & & & & & \\ Pedestrian Behavior & 0.287 & 0.468 & & & & \\ Perceived Behavioral Control & 0.333 & 0.442 & 0.519 & & & \\ Subjective Norms & 0.161 & 0.537 & 0.627 & 0.419 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: ATI = Attitude Toward the Intention, I = Intention, PB = Pedestrian Behavior, PBC = Perceived Behavioral Control, SN = Subjective Norms.  
\end{table} 
Table 8: Evaluation of the Discriminate Validity by Heterotrait–Monotrait Criteria.