The Relationship between Innovative Technology and Driver’s Resistance and Acceptance Intention for Sustainable Use of Automobile Self-Driving System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
While the work presented is appreciated, some comments may have to be taken into consideration:
- the focus is on drivers, while drivers are only a subset of users of vehicles
- drivers may be subject to other influences that affect innovation resistance and acceptance intention: examples are 'sporty driving; and the acceptance of automatic gearboxes; on the other hand, navigation systems appear to have met much less resistance
- users other than drivers, however, may be a purer audience to test innovation resistance and acceptance intention on
- the risks associated with autonomous driving vehicles is not limited to malfunctions, but includes at least a 'grey' zone of not reacting adequately to whatever traffic situation under whatever condition
- furthermore, the question is whether in particular regarding risks the potential users, drivers as well as other users, have a sufficient understanding of the risks; it may therefore be better to talk about known perceived risks
- the test group of drivers is presented, and it seems to be assumed that this group is representative; but is it representative of drivers or of buyers?
- no correlation is presented between results and specific characteristics of the test group, e.g. with respect to income: car drivers and car buyers may have different requirements and also different expectations
A final comment concerns other examples of the methodology: it is not useful, rather distracting, to repeat those in the conclusions
It is assumed that, although some of the comments could give rise to significant extra work, the paper based on current research could be improved sufficiently by editing en clarifications
Author Response
I would like to thank you for your advice on reviewing this paper and improving the quality of the paper. As you commented, it is necessary to explore more diverse factors influencing innovation resistance and acceptance intention by considering other effects that affect driver's self-driving vehicle and acceptance intention in the research model. In addition, since the drivers surveyed in this study do not represent all drivers or buyers, these limitations were also presented as limitations of this study and suggestions for subsequent studies in Chapter 6 conclusions and suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
The author is addressing a highly relevant topic in the area of mobility innovations. While plenty of research has already been done on the "positive" antecedents of acceptance with regard to autonomous driving the consideration of general resistance with regard to innovation is still sparse. So the lack of research on innovation resistance within the field of autonomous cars is clearly addressed. The paper itself is well structured while the author should improve English grammar and writing style. In some cases, the reader faces inconsistencies which might be cause by language issues. For example: from line 49 it sounds like Ram (1987) is stating the limit of perspective of technology/innovation acceptance models like TAM, TPB, UTAUT. In fact, Rams source is older than the models.
From line 73 the author describes the application of TAM in various fields but does not mention that various TAM studies have been already conducted in the field of autonomous driving.
In chapter 2.1 from Line 96, the author describes the different stages of autonomous driving according SAE and NHTSA. This is relevant but not to the extend the author did it in the paper. My suggestion is to reduce this chapter significantly to an general overview, presenting the levels of autonomous cars.
From line 200 the author describes TAM as basic model for the investigation. Unfortunately (similar to previous comment regarding line 73) there is a complete lack of presentation of the state of research of acceptance models on autonomous driving e.g. Rahmann et al. (2017) Panagiotopoulos/Dimitrakopoulos (2018), Kuhn/Marquardt (2019), Casidy, Claudy, Heidenreich & Camurdan (2021),
From line 264 the conceptual model is presented. Unfortunately, it is not clear why the model is built in exactly this way. There is la lack of references regarding the used constructs and the reasoning for the model built up. Further the author is claiming in line 56 to consider the psychological characteristics of consumers in addition to the characteristics of innovation. I agree with that but in the model, the innovation resistance as general consumer characteristics is placed as mediator after the “classical” innovation characteristics like PeoU or PU. I doubt that a more stable personal characteristic might be influenced in short term by the actual perceiving of innovation characteristics. In contrary I would expect that personal traits like innovation resistance might influence the way consumers perceive an innovation meaning how they perceive PU or PeoU. I would suggest to reconsider the structure of the conceptual model. It is absolutely necessary to clearly explain the built up of the used model.
In addition, regarding the potential antecedents existing research on acceptance of autonomous cars is going far beyond the “classical” TAM constructs. Variables like Anthropomorphism (Waytz et al 2014I are highly discussed.
The results of the study are clearly presented. Still the contribution seems to be a bit week. What theoretical impact does the author derives from the results, what is the managerial impact?
The used literature is dominated by Korean contributions. While there are plenty of valid contributions of Korean researchers, this does not seem to be a representative picture of existing research in the field of innovations acceptance of autonomous cars.
The research topic is highly interesting and the research gap is clearly addressed. Still there are some points for improvement. I hope my comments are useful for reworking the paper.
Author Response
I would like to thank you for your advice on reviewing this paper and improving the quality of the paper.
- As you commented, I modified the description about Ram(1987).
- As you commented, your recommending literatures regarding acceptance models on autonomous driving (e.g. Rahmann et al.(2017), Panagiotopoulos & Dimitrakopoulos (2018), Kuhn & Marquardt (2019), and Casidy et al. (2021)) were presented in chapter 2, section2.2.
- As you commented, I further analyzed the mediating effect in the relationship between the innovation characteristics and acceptance intention of the autonomous driving system by setting the innovation resistance as a mediator.
- As you commented, I added Waytz et al.(2014)’s study on anthropomorphism of autonomous vehicles in Chapter 2(Theoretical Background).
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author reworked on most of my comments and suggestions, especially on the state of research on AD acceptence and related models. Even the result is not completely comprehensive, improvements can be clearly recognized.
Still the paper is a bit lacking in clear contributions to the theory and practice. I suggest to at least add major contributions for as well theorectical as practical impact (what can car manufacturers, suppliers or governments derive from the results).
Author Response
Reflecting your good comments, I supplemented the theoretical contribution of this study to Chapter 6, 'Conclusion and Suggestion', as well as the practical implications for self-driving car manufacturers and suppliers, and also the practical implications and contributions for the government.
