IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i16p4333-d256568.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Technology Acceptance for Autonomous Vehicles, Battery Electric Vehicles, and Car Sharing—A Study across Europe, China, and North America

Author

Listed:
  • Julian M. Müller

    (Urstein Süd 1, Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Puch/Salzburg 5412, Austria)

Abstract

The automotive industry today faces three major transitions: the emergence of autonomous driving, electric powertrain replacing the internal combustion engine, and changes in possession of automobiles, e.g., increased usage of car sharing. As all three transitions are fostered by technologies that drive digital transformation of automobiles, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by Davis represents the underlying research model of this paper. Hypotheses are developed and tested for a sample of 1177 participants using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Group differences are investigated for three markets: Europe, North America, and China. The paper confirms the underlying assumptions of the Technology Acceptance Model in the context of automobiles. Further, it illustrates influential societal norms and individual experiences for technology acceptance. In addition, compound effects for technology acceptance are found, e.g., the perceived enjoyment of electric driving affects the acceptance of autonomous driving and car possession behavior. The novel approach to integrate three different technologies within the Technology Acceptance Model requires unifying items to a level which makes them comparable, limiting the results for each individual technology. For practice, automotive manufacturers obtain advice on how to foster technology acceptance. For society, the paper uncovers the role of societal norms for technology acceptance in the context of automobiles. Policy makers can obtain insights on how to successfully increase technology acceptance, e.g., for environmental purposes. Conclusively, the paper applies the Technology Acceptance Model for three developments in the context of automobiles, thereby extending current research using the Technology Acceptance Model.

Suggested Citation

  • Julian M. Müller, 2019. "Comparing Technology Acceptance for Autonomous Vehicles, Battery Electric Vehicles, and Car Sharing—A Study across Europe, China, and North America," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:16:p:4333-:d:256568
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/16/4333/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/16/4333/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hidrue, Michael K. & Parsons, George R. & Kempton, Willett & Gardner, Meryl P., 2011. "Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 686-705, September.
    2. Choi, Yung Kyun & Totten, Jeff W., 2012. "Self-construal's role in mobile TV acceptance: Extension of TAM across cultures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 1525-1533.
    3. Kim, Sang-Hoon & Park, Hyun Jung, 2011. "Effects of social influence on consumers' voluntary adoption of innovations prompted by others," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(11), pages 1190-1194.
    4. Seebauer, Sebastian, 2015. "Why early adopters engage in interpersonal diffusion of technological innovations: An empirical study on electric bicycles and electric scooters," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 146-160.
    5. Wolf, Angelika & Seebauer, Sebastian, 2014. "Technology adoption of electric bicycles: A survey among early adopters," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 196-211.
    6. Habib, Khandker M. Nurul & Morency, Catherine & Islam, Mohammed Tazul & Grasset, Vincent, 2012. "Modelling users’ behaviour of a carsharing program: Application of a joint hazard and zero inflated dynamic ordered probability model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 241-254.
    7. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    8. Smith, Rachel & Deitz, George & Royne, Marla B. & Hansen, John D. & Grünhagen, Marko & Witte, Carl, 2013. "Cross-cultural examination of online shopping behavior: A comparison of Norway, Germany, and the United States," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 328-335.
    9. Meuter, Matthew L. & Ostrom, Amy L. & Bitner, Mary Jo & Roundtree, Robert, 2003. "The influence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(11), pages 899-906, November.
    10. Ha, Sejin & Stoel, Leslie, 2009. "Consumer e-shopping acceptance: Antecedents in a technology acceptance model," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(5), pages 565-571, May.
    11. Pasaoglu, G. & Fiorello, D. & Martino, A. & Zani, L. & Zubaryeva, A. & Thiel, C., 2014. "Travel patterns and the potential use of electric cars – Results from a direct survey in six European countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 51-59.
    12. Plötz, Patrick & Schneider, Uta & Globisch, Joachim & Dütschke, Elisabeth, 2014. "Who will buy electric vehicles? Identifying early adopters in Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 96-109.
    13. Yuping Zeng & Zhikai Huang & Yang Cai & Yonggang Liu & Yue Xiao & Yang Shang, 2018. "A Control Strategy for Driving Mode Switches of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    14. Fontaras, Georgios & Samaras, Zissis, 2010. "On the way to 130 g CO2/km--Estimating the future characteristics of the average European passenger car," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1826-1833, April.
    15. Kihm, Alexander & Trommer, Stefan, 2014. "The new car market for electric vehicles and the potential for fuel substitution," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 147-157.
    16. Marletto, Gerardo, 2014. "Car and the city: Socio-technical transition pathways to 2030," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 164-178.
    17. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    18. Firnkorn, Jörg & Müller, Martin, 2011. "What will be the environmental effects of new free-floating car-sharing systems? The case of car2go in Ulm," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1519-1528, June.
    19. Shaobo Xie & Xiaosong Hu & Kun Lang & Shanwei Qi & Tong Liu, 2018. "Powering Mode-Integrated Energy Management Strategy for a Plug-In Hybrid Electric Truck with an Automatic Mechanical Transmission Based on Pontryagin’s Minimum Principle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-23, October.
    20. Johan Jansson, 2011. "Consumer eco‐innovation adoption: assessing attitudinal factors and perceived product characteristics," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 192-210, March.
    21. Bruner, Gordon II & Kumar, Anand, 2005. "Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld Internet devices," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(5), pages 553-558, May.
    22. Wesseling, J.H. & Faber, J. & Hekkert, M.P., 2014. "How competitive forces sustain electric vehicle development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 154-164.
    23. Diamantopoulos, Adamantios & Riefler, Petra & Roth, Katharina P., 2008. "Advancing formative measurement models," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(12), pages 1203-1218, December.
    24. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    25. Wadud, Zia & MacKenzie, Don & Leiby, Paul, 2016. "Help or hindrance? The travel, energy and carbon impacts of highly automated vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-18.
    26. Porter, Constance Elise & Donthu, Naveen, 2006. "Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(9), pages 999-1007, September.
    27. Nolan, Anne, 2010. "A dynamic analysis of household car ownership," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 446-455, July.
    28. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Hirsh, Richard F., 2009. "Beyond batteries: An examination of the benefits and barriers to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1095-1103, March.
    29. Clay M. Voorhees & Michael K. Brady & Roger Calantone & Edward Ramirez, 2016. "Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 119-134, January.
    30. Wells, Peter & Nieuwenhuis, Paul, 2012. "Transition failure: Understanding continuity in the automotive industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(9), pages 1681-1692.
    31. Bartels, Jos & Reinders, Machiel J., 2011. "Consumer innovativeness and its correlates: A propositional inventory for future research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 601-609, June.
    32. Wiedmann, Klaus-Peter & Hennigs, Nadine & Pankalla, Lars & Kassubek, Martin & Seegebarth, Barbara, 2011. "Adoption barriers and resistance to sustainable solutions in the automotive sector," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(11), pages 1201-1206.
    33. Kent, Jennifer L., 2014. "Driving to save time or saving time to drive? The enduring appeal of the private car," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 103-115.
    34. Reinartz, Werner & Haenlein, Michael & Henseler, Jörg, 2009. "An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 332-344.
    35. Liu, Jian, 2012. "Electric vehicle charging infrastructure assignment and power grid impacts assessment in Beijing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 544-557.
    36. Schuitema, Geertje & Anable, Jillian & Skippon, Stephen & Kinnear, Neale, 2013. "The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 39-49.
    37. Ferreira, Jorge Brantes & da Rocha, Angela & da Silva, Jorge Ferreira, 2014. "Impacts of technology readiness on emotions and cognition in Brazil," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 865-873.
    38. Junquera, Beatriz & Moreno, Blanca & Álvarez, Roberto, 2016. "Analyzing consumer attitudes towards electric vehicle purchasing intentions in Spain: Technological limitations and vehicle confidence," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 6-14.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Huiping Huang & Ganlin Nan, 2023. "Factors Influencing Continuance Intention of Time-Sharing Cars," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-17, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fosso Wamba, Samuel & Bhattacharya, Mithu & Trinchera, Laura & Ngai, Eric W.T., 2017. "Role of intrinsic and extrinsic factors in user social media acceptance within workspace: Assessing unobserved heterogeneity," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 1-13.
    2. Al-Qeisi, Kholoud & Dennis, Charles & Alamanos, Eleftherios & Jayawardhena, Chanaka, 2014. "Website design quality and usage behavior: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 2282-2290.
    3. Kerstin Pezoldt & Jana Schliewe, 2012. "Akzeptanz von Self-Service-Technologien: State of the Art," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 205-253, March.
    4. Roemer, Ellen & Henseler, Jörg, 2022. "The dynamics of electric vehicle acceptance in corporate fleets: Evidence from Germany," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    5. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Axsen, Jonn, 2018. "Functional, symbolic and societal frames for automobility: Implications for sustainability transitions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 730-746.
    6. Garaus, Marion & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth & Wagner, Udo, 2016. "Shoppers' acceptance and perceptions of electronic shelf labels," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3687-3692.
    7. Thurner, Thomas & Fursov, Konstantin & Nefedova, Alena, 2022. "Early adopters of new transportation technologies: Attitudes of Russia’s population towards car sharing, the electric car and autonomous driving," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 403-417.
    8. Laukkanen, Tommi, 2016. "Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar service innovations: The case of the Internet and mobile banking," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2432-2439.
    9. Kathrin Dudenhöffer, 2013. "Why electric vehicles failed," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 95-124, July.
    10. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Abrahamse, Wokje & Zhang, Long & Ren, Jingzheng, 2019. "Pleasure or profit? Surveying the purchasing intentions of potential electric vehicle adopters in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 69-81.
    11. Iaia, Lea & Leonelli, Simona & Masciarelli, Francesca & Christofi, Michael & Cooper, Sir Cary, 2022. "The malevolent side of masstige consumers’ behavior: The role of dark triad and technology propensity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 954-966.
    12. Rajak, Manindra & Shaw, Krishnendu, 2021. "An extension of technology acceptance model for mHealth user adoption," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    13. Adu-Gyamfi, Gibbson & Asamoah, Ama Nyarkoh & Obuobi, Bright & Nketiah, Emmanuel & Zhang, Ming, 2024. "Electric mobility in an oil-producing developing nation: Empirical assessment of electric vehicle adoption," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    14. Hohenberger, Christoph & Spörrle, Matthias & Welpe, Isabell M., 2017. "Not fearless, but self-enhanced: The effects of anxiety on the willingness to use autonomous cars depend on individual levels of self-enhancement," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 40-52.
    15. Eunsung Kim & Eunnyeong Heo, 2019. "Key Drivers behind the Adoption of Electric Vehicle in Korea: An Analysis of the Revealed Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-15, December.
    16. Agrebi, Sinda & Jallais, Joël, 2015. "Explain the intention to use smartphones for mobile shopping," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 16-23.
    17. Nedra, Bahri-Ammari & Hadhri, Walid & Mezrani, Mariem, 2019. "Determinants of customers' intentions to use hedonic networks: The case of Instagram," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 21-32.
    18. Rese, Alexandra & Baier, Daniel & Geyer-Schulz, Andreas & Schreiber, Stefanie, 2017. "How augmented reality apps are accepted by consumers: A comparative analysis using scales and opinions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 306-319.
    19. Kim, Moon-Koo & Oh, Jeesun & Park, Jong-Hyun & Joo, Changlim, 2018. "Perceived value and adoption intention for electric vehicles in Korea: Moderating effects of environmental traits and government supports," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 799-809.
    20. Yu Wang & Shanyong Wang & Jing Wang & Jiuchang Wei & Chenglin Wang, 2020. "An empirical study of consumers’ intention to use ride-sharing services: using an extended technology acceptance model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 397-415, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:16:p:4333-:d:256568. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.