## 4 Results
### Constructs and Methodological Approaches
#### 4.3.3 General Attitude, Situation Awareness, and Stress  
Participants' _general attitude_ towards AD is investigated by the majority of the papers by self-reported data (n\({}_{\text{p}}\) = 22), by a self-developed questionnaire (n = 15) or interviews (n = 5). One paper derived insight based on observation (see Table 6). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**Collection Method for Acceptance** & **Parameter** & **n\({}_{\text{p}}\)** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Standardized Questionnaire (18)} & Van der Laan Acceptance Scale & 10 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Unified Theory of Acceptance and & 4 \\  & Use of Technology (UTAUT) & \\ \cline{2-3}  & Technology Acceptance Model & 3 \\ \cline{2-3}  & (TAM) & \\ \cline{2-3}  & Car Technology Acceptance (CTAM) & 2 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Willingness to Ride & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Perceived Behavioral Control (PCB) & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & System Usability Scale & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Personal Innovativeness Scale & 1 \\ \hline Self-Defined Questionnaire (13) & N/D & 13 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Observation (3)} & Automation Enabled/Disabled & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Reaction Time & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & N/D & 1 \\ \hline Driving Performance (1) & Proportion of Manually Driven & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Scenarios & 1 \\ \hline Interviews (1) & Unstructured Interview & 1 \\ \hline Focus Group (1) & N/D & 1 \\ \hline Secondary Task Performance (1) & NDRT engagement & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Acceptance collection methods and parameters. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**Collection Method for Workload (n)** & **Parameter** & **n\({}_{\text{p}}\)** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Standardized Questionnaire (22)} & NASA-TLX & 17 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Driver Activity Load Index (DALI) & 2 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Rating Scale Mental Effort (RSME) & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Scale for Subjectively Experienced & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Effort (SEA) & \\ \cline{2-3}  & Global Mental & Workload & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Measurement & \\ \hline Self-Defined Questionnaire (4) & _N/D_ & 4 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Secondary Task Performance (4)} & NDRT Performance & 2 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Twenty Question Task (TQT) & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Surrogate Reference Task (SURT) & 1 \\ \hline Observation (1) & _N/D_ & 1 \\ \hline Interviews (1) & Semi-Structured Interview & 1 \\ \hline Eye Tracking/Gaze Behavior (1) & Glancing Behavior & 1 \\ \hline Driving Performance (1) & Steering Wheel Angle & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Workload collection methods and parameters. In total, \(n_{p}\) = 3 different parameters were collected across all papers investigating general attitude--40% used a driving simulator, 30% static text, 15% a real vehicle, and 15% a Wizard-of-Oz setup. _Situation Awareness_ in contrast is examined more by behavioral (\(n_{p}\) = 26) than self-reported data (\(n_{p}\) = 14). However, almost the same share of papers apply a self-developed questionnaire (n = 6) as eye-tracking is used (n = 7). Thereby, gaze duration, number, and percentage is collected, as well as glancing and blinking behavior. In addition, TOR performance (n = 2) measures were collected like lateral position, reaction time, acceleration, and time to collision parameters. A popular standardized questionnaire is the situational awareness rating technique (SART), or the situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT) [102]. See Table 7. In total, \(n_{p}\) = 25 different parameters were collected across all papers investigating situation awareness--67% of the studies were conducted used a driving simulator, 28% a real vehicle, and 17% a Wizard-of-Oz setup was used.