Next Article in Journal
Exploring Students’ Acceptance of Construction Information Technology: The Development of a Comprehensive Technology Acceptance Model for the Design of an Education Program at a Japanese University
Previous Article in Journal
Healthcare Sustainability: Educating Clinicians through Telementoring
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Combining SEM, fsQCA and BNs to Explore E-Bike Riders’ Helmet Wearing Intentions under the Impact of Mandatory Policies: An Empirical Study in Zhenjiang

School of Traffic and Automation Engineering, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212013, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(24), 16704; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416704
Submission received: 29 October 2023 / Revised: 23 November 2023 / Accepted: 2 December 2023 / Published: 9 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Transportation)

Abstract

:
China has become the largest country for e-bikes in the past decade, leading to a surge in road-related accidents. Chinese provinces and cities have successfully formulated local regulations, which set fines for not wearing helmets levying on e-bike riders. Without considering psychological resistance which is universal under the premise of compulsory legislation, the legislation and enforcement activities cannot continuously promote electric bikers’ helmet use. This study aims to investigate the predictors that influence e-bike riders’ intention to wear helmets by designing a research methodology that incorporates the theory of planned behavior (TPB), the protection motivation theory (PMT), and the psychological reactance theory (PRT). A multi-method analytical approach, including structural equation modeling (SEM), fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), and a Bayesian Network (BN) with a sample dataset of 846 respondents. SEM and fsQCA explored the intentions to wear helmets from linear and nonlinear perspectives. BN verifies the degree of influence between different configurations resulting from fsQCA, to predict which mental configurations could get the most significant impact on helmet use. A total of 11 configurations lead to high helmet-wearing intention, and 4 lead to low helmet-wearing intention. Policymakers could design safety policies on our research, such as driving licenses and special lectures for e-bike riders.

1. Introduction

Electric bicycles (e-bikes), a popular travel mode in developing countries such as China, have advantages in mobility performance and speed compared with the pedal cycle [1] By the beginning of 2022, the annual sales of e-bikes in China exceeded 41 million [2], and the social possession was close to 350 million [3]. However, inadequate punishment and weak management raised many safety problems in China. In 2020, 8724 and 45,557 people were killed and injured in traffic accidents involving e-bikes, accounting for 13.51% and 17.43% of the total number of road traffic accidents in China [4]. A total of 81.5% of e-bike riders’ deaths are caused by head injuries [5], while wearing helmets could reduce the rate of head injuries by 70% and the fatality rate by 40% [6]. Although e-bike helmets could protect riders, the average proportion of e-bike helmet-wearing rates is less than 20% due to the lack of compulsory legislation and enforcement measures before 2020 in China [7].
The Chinese Traffic Administration Bureau implemented the “One Helmet, One Belt” Security operation to encourage e-bike riders to wear helmets. More than twenty provinces have formulated 50 local regulations requiring e-bike riders to wear helmets. By February 2021, the average proportion of e-bike helmet-wearing rates has risen to 54% in China [7]. Nearly half still resisted wearing helmets. The effect of compulsory legislation and enforcement measures might fade away and devaluate without individual motivation [8]. In other words, compulsory legislation and enforcement measures are insufficient to maintain long-term helmet-wearing behavior without other intervention in personal motivation. Behavioral intention is a vital construct reflecting personal motivation, which could be affected by individual psychology. Therefore, understanding the individual psychological factors affecting helmet-wearing behavior will help policy makers to formulate differentiated theory-based interventions and further promote the helmet-wearing behavior of e-bike riders in China.
Tang et al. used a layered regression model to construct the helmet-wearing intention model of e-bike riders based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and health belief model (HBM), generating fresh insight into helmet research after enacting Chinese helmet legislation [9]. However, e-bike riders could have psychological resistance with many forms of expression in the case of compulsory legislation. Psychological resistance can be divided into explicit or implicit, immediate or delayed, in word or deed. Resistance often hinders the implementation of policies or makes it difficult to carry them out thoroughly. Therefore, we adopted psychological reactance theory (PRT), intending to contribute to traffic safety researches by exploring e-bike riders’ psychological reactance.
Besides, the traditional linear approaches could not explain complicated and dynamic human behavior [10], such as e-bike helmet wearing. We introduced fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), based on configuration analysis, to explore nonlinear relations and unique configurations between human behavior variables [11,12]. This study provided an opportunity to advance our perspective of helmet-related traffic safety issues under configuration analysis. In addition, the fundamental assumption of fsQCA is that each factor configuration is equal [13,14,15]. We could not distinguish the influence degree of each configuration. In practical implications, policymakers might wish to find the most appropriate configuration, which has the most significant impact on the dependent variable, to propose the most efficient policy. Bayesian network (BN) could demonstrate the influence of different configurations on the results by adjusting the values of each variable. Therefore, this research introduced and developed BN to fill a gap in the equal combination of fsQCA ’s research.
In summary, there are three gaps in current research.
(1)
The current study fails to analyze the impact of riders’ psychological resistance on their helmet wearing intention within the context of a mandatory policy.
(2)
Focusing on the linear symmetric relationship among the latent variables, the effect on helmet wearing intention of psychological factor configurations has been neglected.
(3)
In studies about psychological configurations, the various configurations are equal so that it is not difficult to identify the configuration which has the greatest effect on helmet wearing intention.
In order to refine the gaps, the objectives of this research are as follows:
(1)
Combined with TPB, PMT and PRT, this study constructed a framework of e-bike helmet wearing behavioral intentions and provided policy recommendations for the implementation of Chinese legislation.
(2)
This research effectively integrates SEM, fsQCA, and BN., exploring the relation-ships and combination of factors that affect e-bike riders’ helmets wearing intention. The combination extends the application scope of qualitative comparative analysis.
(3)
By further analyzing the results of SEM and fsQCA with BNs, this study found the optimal configuration for high helmet wearing intention.
The rest of this research is organized as follows. Section 2 shows an extensive literature review of the theoretical background and research hypotheses. Section 3 demonstrates the investigative procedure, research methodology, and significant results. Section 4 provides an overall discussion and implications. Finally, we draw the main findings, discuss the limitations of this research, and expound on potential future research in Section 5.

2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses

In the past decade, several researchers have sought to determine helmet usage behavior of two-wheeler riders from a psychological perspective. To get a more comprehensive understanding of the research status, we reviewed the existing research. Table 1 summarizes previous studies on helmet usage behavior of two-wheeler riders.
In theoretical models, current research has explored riders’ helmet wearing intentions based on the theories of HBM, T-LOC, and TPB. However, at the critical period when China’s helmet policy is gradually rolling out, these theories fail to discuss psychological resistance in the mandatory policy context. In mathematical methods, SEM as the dominant mathematical model provides a wealthy of findings. However, helmet wearing behaviour as a complex decision-making process is necessary to provide new interpretations from an asymmetric perspective. Based on Table 1, we will conduct a review from two perspectives: mathematical model and theoretical framework.

2.1. Mathematical Model

Previous research on bicycle helmet wearing intention has focused on SEM to explore the relationship between variant variables, presented in a linear combination. SEM could quantitatively assess the combined effects of each influencing factor on target variables by measuring the correlations of independent variables [23,24]. SEM provides an effective tool to analyze the interaction of various psychological factors that may affect an individual ’s e-bike helmet-wearing intention after the “One Helmet, One Belt “Security operation. Nevertheless, SEM demonstrates the competitive relationship of independent variables rather than showing how independent variables combine to create dependent variables [15,25]. Traditional symmetrical approaches (e.g., SEM) usually focus on the distinctive contribution of a single variable while holding constant all other variables [26]. Traditional symmetrical approaches have difficulties dealing with variables as configurations and examining combinations of variables [25]. Configuration analysis and combinations of variables could help researchers recognize asymmetrical approaches to revisit previous conclusions established using symmetrical approaches [27,28,29]. Therefore, we introduce fsQCA to explore nonlinear relations and unique combinations between e-bike helmet-wearing behavior variables.
FsQCA is an asymmetric approach using Boolean algebra to implement comparison configuration based on set theory and fuzzy logic [26]. It has been widely applied to complex qualitative comparative problems, such as the subjective well-being of residents [30], greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles [31], customer-brand relationships [32], and male-typed leadership schemas [33]. FsQCA attains the inevitable outcome by combining case-oriented qualitative methods with variable-oriented quantitative methods for dealing with large cases, leading to more general analytical reasoning. Therefore, fsQCA is a “midway between exploratory and hypothesis approach [34]. This approach does not apply to hypothesis-testing but requires creating propositions that confirm the qualification in configurations [35].
FsQCA could only get multiple equal configurations to the same outcome. However, policymakers would prefer the most appropriate configuration, which has the most significant impact on the dependent variable, rather than a bunch of equal configurations in practical application. Hence, we introduced BN to explore the configuration most impacted the outcome. BN, a probabilistic directed acyclic graphical model, reveals the causal relationship between variables [36,37]. The directed acyclic graph of the BN consists of nodes and edges. Each node shows a variable of the network structure, following specific distribution, and each edge represents the causal relationship between two variables. BN compactly represents several variables‘ joint density by the conditional independence relation. Significantly, the BN could predict the variability of dependent variables in a unique configuration by adjusting the states of multiple conditions. This experimental work is the forerunner of the combination fsQCA with BN.
The three methods discussed above complement each other. Figure 1 shows the relationship between these methods. The SEM and fsQCA are mutually verified to reduce the error and prove the reliability of this research. The structural equations model provides a structural model for BN. In addition, BN demonstrates the degree of influence between different configurations resulting from fsQCA. Therefore, the three methods could be considered multi-method analytical approaches to study helmet-wearing intention in China.

2.2. Theoretical Framework

Table 1 summarizes studies exploring helmet-wearing behavior for two-wheelers by various theoretical models. Constructing a theoretical framework, an essential step to guarantee the measurement accuracy, could better reflect and explain the interaction between predictor variables in behavioral studies [38]. We propose an integrated theoretical model to investigate e-bike riders’ intention to wear helmets during legislation implementation.
Theory of planned behavior (TPB), derived from the theory of reasoned action (TRA), has been widely used in behaviors of various travel modes, such as advanced driver assistance systems [39], delivery riders’ red-light running behavior [40], and intention to take the new high-speed rail [41]. Besides, as shown in Figure 1, many studies have used TPB to research motorcycle or bicycle helmet issues, demonstrating the solid predictive ability of TPB. However, helmet wearing behaviour is also regulated by mandatory policies, which means that helmet wearing behaviour is closely related to whether or not the riders will be penalized. Interpreting helmet wearing behavioural intentions only in terms of Attitude, Subjective Norm, and Perceived Behavioural Control fails to respond to constraints on freedom and choices made for self-protective. Therefore, TPB might not be enough to explain the intention to wear a helmet during the policy implementation. Fear of head injury in e-bike accidents could be regarded as a health threat, prompting to establish a motivation to protect head safety by the helmet.
Protection motivation theory (PMT) includes a range of variables that initiate cognitive processes and argues that individuals are motivated to take protective measures through threat and response appraisal. Helmet wearing is just a protective action that allows e-bike riders to deal with the risk of head injuries in traffic accidents. PMT has been widely used to explore risky travel behaviors, such as adopting electric vehicles [42], protective behavior in ride-sharing [43], and travel fear after COVID-19 [44]. Therefore, we attempt to apply PMT to explore whether fear of head injuries in e-bike accidents and self-protective consciousness would prompt riders to wear helmets.
Current research has explored riders’ helmet wearing intentions based on the PMT and TPB. Within these two theoretical frameworks, riders are free to choose whether to wear a helmet or not, which ignores the influence of mandatory policies. However, during the Chinese helmet policy implementation, Traffic Administration Bureaus across China attempted to curtail no helmet behavior by launching enforcement campaigns [7]. The restriction on e-bike riding has induced people ’s psychological reactance and increased their desire to travel freely. The psychological resistance theory (PRT) explains why and how residents resist or combat powerful messages in persuasion. In PRT, freedom is considered a way of meeting the basic needs of human self-management, in which residents feel free if they could make their choices allodial [45]. When residents perceive that their freedom is violated by enforcement information, they experience psychological resistance, a negative motivation. The empirical evidence of e-bike riders’ psychological reactance is poorly understood. Understanding this psychological reactance could help transport agencies formulate more scientific control measures. This study, which adopted psychological reactance theory (PRT), aims to contribute to this growing area by exploring e-bike riders’ psychological reactance.
This research constructs a comprehensive theoretical model combined with TPB, PMT, and PRT to explore psychological variables of the e-bike riders’ helmet-wearing intention during helmet legislation implementation. Also, this study considers road users’ perceived legal consequences (e.g., punishment) for violating traffic rules. We extend perceived legal norms beyond the comprehensive theoretical model.

2.3. Research Model and Hypotheses

The theoretical framework we developed is shown in Figure 2.
Theory of planned behavior (TPB) is a generic model most widely used in predicting and describing social behavior [41,46,47]. According to the abovementioned theory, attitude is the degree to which a person has a positive or negative evaluation of the behavior in question. Attitude is an immediate determinant of behavioral intention, and human behavior is based upon behavioral intentions. Besides, a positive attitude will lead to a stronger behavioral intention. In the study, a positive attitude is a fundamental factor in an individual ’s choice to wear a helmet when riding e-bikes. Attitudes towards wearing helmets were positively correlated with intentions for helmet use when riding motorcycles or bicycles [48]. Therefore, we propose hypothesis 1:
H1: 
Attitude has a positive effect on Behavioral Intention.
Self-efficacy (SE) is also an essential variable in PMT referring to an individual’s perceived ability to perform specific conservation behaviors, which has a positive effect on attitudes [49]. By definition, self-efficacy (SE) in PMT has a similar meaning to perceived behavioral control (PBC) in TPB. In 1999, Compeau et al. first combined self-efficacy and perceived behavioral control into one variable [50]. In 2012, Ifinedo formally proposed that perceived behavioral control is a key variable in fusing TPB and PMT, and that self-efficacy can be equated with perceived behavioral control [51]. Zhang et al. considered both the positive effects of PBC on behavioral intentions in TPB and the positive effects of SE on attitudes in PMT when combining PBC and SE [52]. Considering the same meaning of self-efficacy (SE) and perceived behavioral control (PBC), we integrate perceived behavioral control into self-efficacy (SE).
Therefore, based on the above, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H2: 
Self-efficacy has a positive effect on Behavioral Intention.
H3: 
Self-efficacy positively affects attitude.
To provide more powerful reasoning to explain the intention to wear a helmet in riding e-bikes, we added more predictors from the Protect Motivation Theory (PMT). The PMT as a conceptual social cognition model is employed for understanding health behavior, and safety behavior. The theory has been the main subject in recent studies [53], it points out that passengers are stimulated by risk perception. They may protect themselves and others to avoid being injured. Risk perception and its predictors constitute the core part of the PMT, which is carried out based upon two parallel processes: “threat appraisal’ and “coping appraisal’.
In the threat appraisal, evaluate the extent of risk reception to which they: perceived susceptibility and perceived severity. Perceived susceptibility refers to individuals’ perceptions of risk or vulnerability to a health threat. Perceived severity refers to one ’s perception of the seriousness of the possible harms. In helmet usage, perceived susceptibility reflects the subjective perception of the likelihood of being involved in an accident without wearing helmets [54]. Meanwhile, perceived severity means the subjective perception of the seriousness and its potential consequences associated with crashes without wearing helmets [54]. In addition, the susceptibility and severity components, in combination, mobilized the individuals’ behavior. The research has found that perceived susceptibility correlated significantly with perceived severity in bicycle helmet usage [48]. Therefore, our study attempted to use the path for predicting intention to helmet usage in road safety when riding an e-bike.
H4: 
Perceived Susceptibility has a positive relationship with Perceived Severity.
Based on the above-discussed, if the e-bike user perceives that danger may occur around them, or perceived the anticipated seriousness about not using helmets, people may wear a helmet to avoid being injured. According to this subjective psychological mechanism, perceived severity may guide or transfer the individual ’s attitude toward wearing a helmet. As for perceived susceptibility, previous studies found it has significant effects on the intention to wear a helmet in motorcycle or bicycle riding behavior [55,56]. Moreover, the perceived susceptibility also directly influences the intention of e-bikes’ helmet usage.
The users will be emerging the behavioral intention of wearing a helmet for preventing the occurrence of injury, when the users perceive that a crash ahead. More risk perception has a relationship with more intention to wear helmets. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H5: 
Perceived severity has a positive effect on attitude.
H6: 
Perceived susceptibility has a positive effect on Behavioral intention.
Besides the above, in the coping appraisal, individuals assess the efficacy of a preventive response: “response efficacy’ and “self-efficacy”. Response efficacy refers to the perceived effectiveness of the recommended risk preventative behaviors, the likelihood that the action will actually reduce the risk of the health threat [53]. While self-efficacy is the degree of which is belief in one’s own capacity to take action in a certain situation [57]. In brief, response efficacy and self-efficacy evaluations are factors to increase the likelihood of making a response, in which the higher levels of these components produce a stronger probability of making an adaptive response. Thus, besides the variable of self-efficacy having a positive effect on the attitude, the response efficacy also has a significant relationship with the attitude. Both of these components may transfer the individuals’ attitude to perform the health-enhancing behavior. Our study attempted to manipulate these components to predict one ’s attitude toward helmet usage when riding e-bikes. For example, when the individual believes the coping response is effective (i.e., high response efficacy), the degree to which is that they believe wearing a helmet will decrease the risk of crash, he/she will transfer the attitude of opposition into the agreement, increase the intention to adopt the practice (wear a helmet). Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:
H7: 
Response efficacy has a positive effect on attitude.
According to the PMT, when combing the processes between threat appraisal and coping appraisal, a certain interaction was emerging. There is an interaction may be between perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy. In PMT, it is assumed that if self-efficacy is high, the increase in susceptibility will positively affect behavioral intention. In contrast, if the proposed response was ineffective (i.e., low self-efficacy), the increase in susceptibility will reduce the intention to perform the behavior or have no effect on the intention [20,54]. It could be noted that a person with a strong sense of self-efficacy may easily overcome any barriers. In our study, this predicted interaction also is appropriated. When individuals perceive the recommended behavior of wearing a helmet as useful, the response is effective (i.e., higher self-efficacy), and the increase in perceived susceptibility will positively impact the intention to wear a helmet. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
H8: 
Self-efficacy has a positive effect on Perceived susceptibility.
“Why is it that a man sometimes does the opposite of what he is told?”, Miron and Brehm (2006) presented a theory of psychological reactance (PRT) to explain this phenomenon [58]. According to the theory, people are convinced that they have a great deal of freedom to take different attitudes and positions on any issue. “The freedom can pertain to what one does, how one does it, or when does it, “However, if individuals perceive that freedom is eliminated or threatened with elimination, the subjective response of psychological reactance will be aroused” [59]. Psychologic reactance being motivational arousal will be directed toward restoring one’s freedom, whose amount of reactance is based upon the threatened freedom [59]. In addition, PRT proposed that psychologic reactance also be aroused when people are pressured into being restricted by restrictive policies [60]. Proudfoot and Kay (2014) found that the public may react significantly negatively to policies that restrict their behavior [61]. In our study, considering the mandatory helmet usage law, people may generate the freedom threat by must be wearing helmets in riding e-bikes, and then arouse the reactance to wearing helmets. Thus, we propose hypothesis 9:
H9: 
Freedom Threat positively affects Psychological Reactance.
The message could be quite helpful in facilitating individual positive attitudes. As demonstrated by the found, motivational arousal such as reactance may hinder information acceptance or undermine the effectiveness of persuasive messages [62,63]. Psychological reactance may impede individuals from receiving or processing information when the threat to freedom emerges, resulting in negative attitudes, even indirectly determining behavior intention change into an opposite [64,65]. Beyond that, previous studies have shown that psychological reactance could be regarded as a composite index of self-report indices of anger and negative cognitions, such as counterarguments [62]. Working from the notion, the reactance may impact attitude through the above negative emotions. In addition, based upon PRT, an individual may experience reactance when he is pressured into making a choice in a two-sided behavior. Psychological reactance may cause the individual’s attitudes to change into antagonistic. In the study, due to the choice about whether to use helmets, the lack of messages by threats to freedom, and the generation of negative emotions, people may arouse the reactance to wearing helmets when riding e-bikes and change individual attitudes to without wearing helmets. As a result of that, we add this hypothesis:
H10: 
Psychological Reactance positively affects Attitude.
Perceived legal norm refers to one’s degree of perceived legal consequence (e.g., punishment) of law-violating behavior [9]. The norm can be understood as a person ’s attitude towards the required law, that is, people related to the understanding of legal norms on cognitive or affective [66]. The norm may still be applicable and binding in the behavior focused upon. Based on the definition of perceived legal norm, previous studies found that the norm had a short-term effect on people ’s behavior. For instance, Seddig (2016) revealed that legal norms were assumed to be a strong direct predictor related to school bonds over adolescence [67]. The legal norm also has been found to be related to the legal enforcement of youth ’s underage drinking [68]. In addition, Kim et al. (2021) examined that the legal norm does not statistically impact the behavior of texting while driving [69]. Besides the aforementioned studies, the perceived legal norm is also crucial to one ’s attitude toward wearing a helmet, after enacting the mandatory helmet legislation. This norm was found to be negatively correlated with traffic rule violating behavior [9]. In our study, mandatory helmet legislation may transfer some people into wearing behavior. For instance, when someone is punished for not wearing helmets while riding e-bikes, their perceived legal norms may increase, leading to a change in attitudes toward wearing helmets. Thus, we make the following hypothesis:
H11: 
Perceived legal norm positively affects Attitude.

3. Survey and Method

3.1. Data Collection and Sample

As mentioned in the previous section, the present study was conducted in the urban area of Zhenjiang, which is one of the central cities in the Yangtze River Delta region along the east coast of China, covering an area of 3843 km2 and having an estimated population of 1.27 million. This study designed a questionnaire to investigate the impact of mandatory law on helmet usage. To measure latent variables, we developed questionnaire items and pre-tested on several small-scale random shopping malls with about 67 participants. The pre-test occurred on May 28th, was carried out between 8:00 and 17:00. This test determined the location and final structure of the questionnaire. After that, we further improved the interview procedure to minimize the participants’ impact and modified the questionnaire items. Subsequently, the data were collected in June 2021 and carried out in plazas, railway stations, and other crowded places. Before accessing the interview, participants were informed about the anonymous and confidential of their answers. Next, they were instructed to replay all of the items honestly, and the procedure took approximately 15 min. Dozens of well-trained observers were allotted at each location who cooperated to complete this survey. A total of 920 participants took part in the field survey. Of those, 74 samples contained missing values, which were discarded as invalid. The relative response rate was about 91.96%. More details on data analysis methods appear below.
The sociodemographic information is listed in Table 2. The sample consisted of 49.41% (n = 418) males and 50.59% (n = 428) females. The mean age was 32.39 (min = 13, max = 73, SD = 11.71) with 42.20% of the sample (n = 357) being between 20 and 29 years old. Around 18.68% of participants were students, and 44.68% (n = 378) of participants in the survey were single. 40.3% of respondents had not finished a college degree, while 35.7% had completed a bachelor’s degree.

3.2. Measurement Model

The research model consists of nine variables: self-efficacy, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, attitude, response efficacy, psychological reactance, freedom threat, perceived legal norm, and behavioral intention. Reliability and validity indicate the preciseness of study processes and the trustworthiness of research findings (Appendix A).
The scale validity was decided by convergence validity and discriminant validity. Convergence validity is based on two conditions: item loading (λ) must exceed 0.7, and the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct must exceed 0.5. In addition, the criterion of discriminant validity depends on the square root of AVE. As shown in Table 3, the square root of the AVE for each construct must exceed its correlations with other constructs.
The scale reliability was decided by Cronbach ’s Alpha and composite reliability (CR). Cronbach ’s Alpha and CR’s threshold value was 0.7 and 0.6. As shown in Table 4, Cronbach ’s Alpha was between 0.827 and 0.963, and CR was between 0.836 and 0.964. The current study’s measured Cronbach’ ’s Alpha and CR are satisfactory.

3.3. Structure Model and Hypothesis Tests

We constructed a structural equation modeling (SEM) to explore the relationships of variables of the bicycle riders’ helmet wearing intention during helmet legislation implementation. All of the hypotheses are supported at the significance levels of 0.05 and 0.001. We used a fitting index to test and modify the structural model and utilized maximum likelihood estimation to estimate the path coefficients. After repeated modifications, the model passed the fitting test. The structure of the model is shown in Figure 3.
The structural model results showed that the model provided a very good fit to the data. As seen in Table 5, all fitness indexes of the measurement model seemed desirable (χ2/df = 2.171; RMSEA = 0.037; CFI = 0.960; TLI = 0.955; SRMR = 0.047). All factor-loading values of the items were acceptable.

3.4. Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis

To further introduce the methodological characteristics of fsQCA, a configuration refers to a composition of positive, negative, or absent factors or conditions, while a condition is described as if an inevitable outcome cannot be attained without it [15,70,71]. The primary purpose of this approach is to identify which configurations are minimally sufficient or necessary to generate an inevitable outcome and to determine which groups of factors or conditions share a specific set of combinations [72,73,74]. FsQCA has the following three fundamental assumptions. First, fsQCA demonstrates positive and negative causality configurations, revealing an asymmetrical relationship [75,76]. Second, fsQCA identifies multiple equal configurations to the equifinality, demonstrating the same outcome [13,14,15]. Third, fsQCA determines that the effect of conditions on an inevitable outcome is determined by how conditions are coupled instead of the importance of individual conditions themselves, indicating complex causation [77,78].
Based on SEM results, attitude, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived legal norm, response efficiency, psychological reactance, freedom threat, and self- efficiency were considered independent variables (see Figure 4). High and low helmet-wearing intentions could be regarded as dependent variables in the fsQCA model. The implementation of fsQCA is divided into four phases: (1) calibrate and construct truth table; (2) necessary condition analysis; (3) truth table construction; (4) interpretation of the results.
Calibration of variables: Each variable needs to be converted into a set of 0-1 for calibration before fsQCA analysis. Both the independent and dependent variables in this paper are psychological variables. The original data of psychological variables tend to be distributed in specific areas rather than evenly across scales. Therefore, we use Fuzzy and Relative (TFR) to calculate the membership and correct the skewness of data distribution.
Necessary condition analysis: The analysis of necessary conditions determines whether causal conditions could be considered necessary for an outcome to occur [79] According to these recommendations, a condition is necessary when its consistency score is greater than the threshold of 0.9. Through the analysis of necessary conditions, we find no necessary conditions. Table 6 presents the results of the analysis of necessary conditions considering both the presence and the absence (~) of the conditions for two outcome variables, intention to wear helmets (“INT”) and the negation of intention to wear helmets (“~INT”).
Truth table construction: A truth table was constructed based on the calibrated variables. There are k antecedent conditions and 2k rows of data in the truth table. The value of k is 10 in this research. List all possible combinations of helmet wearing intentions via the truth table. Due to the randomness of a single sample, the case frequency threshold was increased to 4. This limitation implies that a combination with at least four samples could participate in the fsQCA analysis. Ultimately, 82% of the overall sample was retained. We screen out the sufficient antecedent condition combinations for helmet wearing intention. Table 7 shows the partial rows of the truth table. The minimum threshold of Raw consistency and PRI for configuration were set to 0.90 and 0.75. Data analysis showed no contradictory combinations, allowing subsequent comparative analyses.
Interpretation of the results: Table 8 offers the core and peripheral conditions to achieve high and low helmet-wearing intention. The overall consistency that leads to high helmet wearing intention is 0.888 (>0.8), and the all coverage is 0.709 (>0.5). Meanwhile, the overall consistency that leads to low helmet-wearing intention is 0.860 (>0.8), and all coverage is 0.512 (>0.5). This study’s condition consistency and coverage were in accordance with the standard requirements. The configurations show that the fuzzy set results in 4 first-order solutions (S1–S4) showing acceptable consistency (>0.80) to reach high helmet-wearing intention and two first-order solutions (S5–S6) to get low helmet wearing intention. Each first-order solution contains 2–4 s-order solutions with the same care conditions.

3.5. Bayesian Network

Bayesian network, a probabilistic directed acyclic graphical model [37], reveals the causal relationship between variables. A directed acyclic graph of a BN consists of nodes and edges. Each node shows a variable of the network structure, following specific distribution, and each edge represents the causal relationship between two variables. BN compactly represents the joint density of several variables by the conditional independence relation among them. The implementation of the BN is divided into four phases: (1) model construction; (2) BN test; (3) truth table construction; and (4) interpretation of the results.
Model construction: Structural learning and conditional probability estimation are the two indispensable steps of the BN [80]. In this study, the basic structure of the BN is the SEM hypothesis (Figure 5). Besides, we classified the number of states as low, medium, and high based on a seven-point Likert scale to determine the number of states [81]:
  • Factor score is considered “low” between 1 to 2;
  • Factor score is considered “medium” between 3 to 5;
  • Factor score is considered “high” between 6 to 7.
Table 9 shows each variable ’s prior probability distribution and state from the original data. For the “Intention (INT),” 11.1% of e-bike riders had “low” intention, 32.4% and 56.5% of them, respectively, had “medium” and “high” intention.
Estimating conditional probabilities depends on datasets and can be implemented by many different algorithms [80,82]. The expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm, a technique for learning latent variables, can automatically handle missing data and generate the conditional probability table (CPT) in the BN [83,84]. Therefore, we choose the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm to estimate conditional probabilities and update the modeling. The updated BN model is shown in Figure 5.
BN test: BN models usually use error rates and confusion matrix to evaluate model performance [36]. In this study, the sample dataset of 846 cases was randomly divided into 80% data (n = 677) to train and 20% (n = 169) data to test switching behavior.
Table 10 shows that the BN can predict 80%, 74.19%, and 91.03% accuracy of the cases with low, medium, and high switching behavior. In addition, BN models also use Spherical payoff (0–1), logarithmic loss (0–infinity), and quadratic loss (0–2) to test model performance [36,85]. In our study, the value of spherical payoff (close to one), logarithmic loss (close to zero), and quadratic loss (close to zero) are 0.877, 0.426, and 0.224, respectively. The above three indicators of this study follow the standard requirements. According to the above indicators, the high accuracy of this BN demonstrates this model can accurately predict e-bike riders to use helmets after the law is enacted.
BN Result different combinations: In the BN model, we could observe the change of the node of dependent variables by adjusting the node of independent variables. The changing size of the target node is the influence degree of different combinations. The results of fsQCA offer the 11 combinations to reach high helmet wearing intention and 4 combinations to reach high helmet wearing intention. When the condition is “presence”, we adjust the nodes in the BN to 100%. When the condition is “absence”, we adjust the nodes in the BN to 0%. Besides, when the condition is blank, we do not change the nodes of the BN. Table 11 shows the influence degree of different combinations to helmet wearing intention. S4b and S4c have the greatest influence on helmet-wearing intention, with the highest probability (92.2%) of high intention.
Sensitivity analysis: To determine the most explanatory variable on helmet wearing switching behavior, the mutual information of sensitivity analysis could determine measures of the relationship between influencing and target nodes, where larger values stand for the more significant influence [86]. According to Table 12, ATT, PSU, and PSE have a more substantial effect on switching behavior.

4. Discussion

This study presents a novel model based on self-protection and psychological resistance, incorporating TPB, PMT, and PRT. The integrated model proved the multi-analytical approach ’s feasibility which integrated SEM, fsQCA, and BN to better understand the mechanism of helmet wearing intention. The SEM result supported all of the hypotheses and proved the integrated model had a mighty explementary power. The FsQCA result gives eleven configurations leading to high helmet wearing intention and four configurations resulting in low helmet wearing intention. The BN result found that S4b and S4c had the most significant influence on helmet-wearing intention. These empirical findings provided a fresh perspective on helmet-wearing intentions’ psychological factors. These empirical findings have various implications for theory and practice, which are discussed in the following.
In Section 4.1, we briefly describe the theoretical implications in terms of both the theoretical framework and the mathematical model.
In Section 4.2, we explain how the specific psychology of riders in a mandatory policy affects their helmet wearing intentions by discussing the performance of two key variables (Psychological Reactance and Freedom Threat) of the PRT in this study.
In Section 4.3, we provide policy recommendations based on this study through a discussion of the relevant variables in PMT and legal norms.
We conclude our discussion with a brief analysis of the differences between Chinese and international helmet policies.

4.1. Theoretical Implications

The theoretical implications are mainly in two aspects. On the one hand, while China’s helmet wearing policy has gradually spread across the country, current research has paid little attention to the specific psychology of cyclists in the context of the mandatory policy. Combining the theoretical frameworks of TPB, PMT, and PRT provides the possibility to understand the helmet wearing intention of Chinese riders in the current stage. On the other hand, the mathematical model of SEM-fsQCA is widely used, however, the variable configurations obtained from current studies are equal. The integration of BNs found the configuration (S4b and S4c) with the highest probability of high helmet wearing intention.
These empirical findings of this research provide a series of theoretical implications to consider. First, this research integrates the theory of planned behavior (TPB), the protection motivation theory (PMT), and the psychological reactance theory (PRT) to build a theoretical framework for e-bike helmet-wearing behavior. The combination of TPB, PMT, and PRT expands the helmet wearing intent in mandatory policy, which is more relevant to the current situation in China. Also, this result demonstrates the conclusion of Veeramootoo et al. (2018) [87], who found that researchers could structure integrated models rather than relying on a single model to comprehend human behaviors better.
Second, we investigate significant predictive factors that influence the helmet wearing decision of e-bike riders in China. Influenced by Chinese helmet legislation enforcement, e-bike riders’ intentions for helmet wearing shows a notable change. Unlike Tang et al. (2021) study, this research demonstrates that psychological resistance and legal norms exist among some Chinese e-bike riders [9]. As far as we know, our research is one of the first explosions to excavate psychological resistance and legal norm among e-bike riders after enacting Chinese helmet legislation.
Finally, we adopted a multi-analytical approach, including SEM, fsQCA, and B.N., and demonstrated the applicability and correlation of these three methods. This research offers a new perspective and theoretical breakthroughs in enhanced analysis methods. SEM is an exquisite method to demonstrate the symmetric relationships among predictive factors. FsQCA provides us with the asymmetric relation between independent variables and dependent variables from a combinatorial perspective. BN offers which configuration could lead to the most significant influence on helmet-wearing intention. In addition, SEM and BN share the same structural model. BN is an essential supplement to the fsQCA results.

4.2. Psychological Resistance

‘Psychological reactance and freedom threat’ represents a motivational state that might arise when freedom is threatened and when individuals feel threats to their freedom. This research’s primary objective is to explore whether e-bike riders’ psychological reactance toward Chinese helmet legislation enforcement influences helmet wearing intention. Firstly, we construct an integrated model based on SEM. Psychological reactance negatively significantly influenced the attitude toward helmet wearing and indirectly affected the intention and is influenced by Freedom Threat in SEM. The SEM result shows that more excellent resistance does not generally cause people to wear helmets like ordinary e-bike riders. Do these findings illustrate that there is no psychological reactance in China? FsQCA result gives a more detailed conclusion.
Secondly, fsQCA results indicate that psychological reactance and freedom threat is the condition of S4d (SE*PSU*~PSE*RE*PR*FT*PLN). A total of 11.2% of the participants hold psychological resistance and freedom threat during the implementation of Chinese legislation. These e-bike riders might have psychological resistance to Chinese helmet legislation enforcement and show resistance to wearing helmets for freedom. In addition, we find these people did not exist PSE. These e-bike riders, who are at risk of the psychological resistance and freedom threat, might not be fully aware the consequences of the collision without helmet are very serious. Therefore, traffic safety education should focus on these people being aware of the protection of wearing helmets on their heads when there is an e-bike accident. What sociodemographic characteristics might this group have?
Thirdly, to determine which e-bike riders with sociodemographic characteristics also have psychological resistance and freedom threat, we conducted fsQCA on e-bike riders of different sociodemographic characteristics according to gender, age, education, and income. This research does not show detailed processes and results for each group since core conditions are more attractive. (More details are available from the authors). In Figure 6, each colored square indicates a variable regarded as a core condition in at least one configuration; otherwise, a blank square represents that the variable never appears as a core condition in any configuration. Regarding psychological resistance and freedom threat, there are many exciting results. Compared with college students and below, undergraduate students are more eager for freedom. Psychological resistance is not uniform across genders, whereas females consider they could not wear helmets properly. Younger (less than 30 years old) e-bike riders hold psychological resistance.
Highly educated, younger males are more likely to resist or desire freedom than the rest. This result provides practical implications for decision-makers. First, traffic police could pay more attention to these riders when they patrol the road. When intercepting highly educated, younger males, traffic police could mainly carry out legal education supplemented by safety education. Second, the government could popularize driving licenses for e-bike riders. The government would make it compulsory for residents to know about the current law on e-bikes during the riding license exam. Third, universities could organize special lectures on the rule of legislation for e-bikes since the younger well-educated group is the leading group of psychological reactance.

4.3. Protection Motivation and Legal Norm

4.3.1. Protection Motivation

Perceived susceptibility and perceived severity reflect the perceived risk of e-bike riding. Perceived susceptibility directly influences intention, and perceived severity indirectly affects the intention by the Attitude in SEM. Perceived susceptibility and perceived severity exist in nine and five configurations leading to high helmet wearing intention. However, two configurations contain no perceived severity. Thus, most people choose to wear a helmet when they understand the expected severity of the consequences of a crash involving an e-bike riding without a helmet. At the same time, some e-bike riders consider that the possibility of a head injury after riding an e-bike without a helmet is not high. Thus, accident videos of e-bikes can be used to demonstrate the seriousness of accidents without helmets in traffic safety education to motivate e-bike riders to wear helmets. Meanwhile, we could not exaggerate the possibility of an accident in traffic safety education.
Response efficiency shows personal confidence in the effectiveness of helmets. Response Efficiency indirectly affects the intention by the Attitude in SEM. Response efficiency exists in seven configurations, leading to high helmet wearing intention. E-bike riders still have doubts about the effectiveness of helmets. Therefore, governments could control helmet wearing rates in two ways. First, traffic safety education could focus on promoting the usefulness of helmets. Second, the quality of helmets on the market is uneven. Jiangsu market supervision and Administration Bureau found that the helmet failure rate was 38.5% in 2020 [88]. To keep e-bike riders safe, the government should strictly control the quality of helmets.
Self-efficiency refers to the subjective probability that one is capable of wearing a helmet. Self-efficiency indirectly affects the intention by the Attitude in SEM. Self-efficiency exists in seven configurations leading to high helmet wearing intention. Thus, traffic safety education and publicity could define wearing a helmet as common sense and provide a series of easy solutions to get a helmet. For example, one could deploy shared helmet access points within urban areas for people who do not wear helmets.

4.3.2. Legal Norm

Perceived legal norms significantly influenced the attitude toward helmet wearing and indirectly affected the intention by SEM. Meanwhile, perceived legal norm exists in 9 configurations leading to high-wearing intention and is the core condition of S4b and S4c, significantly influencing helmet-wearing intention. Thus, we believe that legal norm is an essential factor influencing helmet-wearing intention. This result is similar to the conclusion of García-Ferrer et al. (2006) [89], who considered that legislation relating to traffic accidents could deliberately make traffic participants avoid traffic violations. On the contrary, Tang et al. (2021) and Kim (2018) get disparate results [9,90].
Two main reasons might lead to differences in the Chinese unique e-bike environment. First, the penalty for not wearing helmets is 50 CNY (US$7) in China. A total of 50 RMB could be used to buy an e-bike helmet and is a total warning to e-bike riders who belong to economically disadvantaged subpopulations [9]. Second, at the beginning of Chinese helmet legislation, the local government increased the police force to maintain high helmet wearing rates. E-bike riders started wearing helmets due to traffic police on the street. Therefore, maintaining high helmet wearing rates needs enough police. However, China ranked 127th globally with 143 policies per 100,000 inhabitants, less than an average of 400 policies per 100,000 inhabitants In East Asia [91]. After the Chinese helmet legislation craze, China might not have enough police to maintain high helmet wearing rates. The government needs more cost-effective measures. For example, traffic police cannot check helmet wearing at a fixed place and time.

5. Conclusions

  • Based on the current research, this study combines TPB, PMT, and PRT to construct a comprehensive theoretical framework considering riders’ resistance to mandatory policies. The results of SEM show that all hypotheses are valid.
  • fsQCA results showed that a total of 11 configurations resulted in high helmet wearing intentions. To explore the differences between the 11 configurations, 2 optimal configurations (S4b and S4c) were identified within BNs.
  • Through further analysis of socio-demographic characteristics, this study found that young men with higher education were more likely to resist or desire freedom than others.
  • Limitation: The source of data is limited to one city, Zhenjiang, ignoring urban-rural differences and variations in different policy implementation areas. The raw data are cross-sectional data, but the helmet chapter wearing intention may change with the gradual implementation of the helmet policy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.W.; Methodology, B.W. and C.J.; Formal analysis, C.J.; Writing—original draft, B.W. and C.J.; Writing—review & editing, B.W. and P.J.; Funding acquisition, P.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 71871107).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

If the data is required, please feel free to contact us by e-mail.

Conflicts of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Psychological Variables Measurement Scale (PVMS).
Table A1. Psychological Variables Measurement Scale (PVMS).
Potential VariableDescription of the Question ItemReference
Self-efficacy (SE)SE1: I know how to adjust the elastic band on a helmet to make it comfortable to wear.Brijs et al. [54]
SE2: I could easily buy a helmet if I wanted to.
SE3: I can wear a helmet while riding an e-bike whenever I want.
Perceived
susceptibility (PSU)
PSU1: When riding an e-bike without a helmet, my head is more likely to be injured in a traffic accident.Fallah et al. [20]
Brijs et al. [54]
PSU2: Riding an e-bike without a helmet increases my risk of head injury if I am involved in a traffic accident.
PSU3: When riding an e-bike in a traffic accident, I am more likely to get a head injury if I am not wearing a helmet.
Perceived
susceptibility (PSE)
PSE1: Riding an e-bike without a helmet can lead to serious brain hemorrhage or even life-threatening injuries in a traffic accident.Fallah et al. [20]
Brijs et al. [54]
Ambak et al. [92]
PSE2: When riding an e-bike without a helmet, my head could be injured in a traffic accident so that I would have to spend a lot of money on medical bills.
PSE3: Riding an e-bike without a helmet could leave me disabled due to nerve damage when suffering a traffic accident.
PSE4: Riding an e-bike without a helmet, when getting into a traffic accident, I could die from a serious head injury.
Attitude (ATT)ATT1: Wearing a helmet while riding an e-bike can have many benefits.Ali et al. [93]
Borhan et al. [41]
ATT2: Wearing a helmet while riding an e-bike is a good decision.
ATT3: I think wearing a helmet while riding an e-bike is a good idea.
ATT4: I think it is wise to wear a helmet when riding an e-bike.
Response
efficacy (RE)
RE1: I think wearing a helmet could reduce the risk of head injuries in an e-bike accident.Rogers et al. [94]
RE2: Wearing a helmet while riding an e-bike could protect my safety.
RE3: My individual behavior of wearing a helmet may inspire other e-bike riders to wear helmets as well.
RE4: Wearing a helmet while riding e-bike could reduce the possibility of head injuries in an accident.
Psychological
reactance (PR)
PR1: I don’t like being told by someone else whether I should wear a helmet while riding an e-bike.Quick etc. [95]
PR2: Helmet policies cause me psychological discomfort by making me feel oppressed.
PR3: I will only accept wearing a helmet when I am free to do so according.
PR4: I will only be satisfied with wearing a helmet when I am free.
Freedom
threat (FT)
FT1: The helmet policy limits my free choice.Quick etc. [95]
FT2: The helmet policy hinders my free choice.
FT3: The helmet policy interferes with my free choice.
Perceived
legal norm (PLN)
PLN1: When riding an e-bike without a helmet, I will be fined if I am caught by the traffic police.Tang et al.
[9,96]
PLN2: When riding an e-bike without a helmet, if I am found by a traffic police officer, I will be severely educated.
PLN3: When riding an e-bike without a helmet, if I am caught by the traffic police, I will be stopped and not allowed to leave.
PLN4: I think it is illegal to ride an e-bike without a helmet.
Intention (INT)INT1: After the helmet policy implemented, I intend to wear a helmet on my e-bike.Ross et al. [97]
Brijs et al. [54]
Ambak et al. [92]
INT2: After the helmet policy implemented, I plan to wear a helmet to ride an e-bike.
INT3: After the helmet policy implemented, I want to wear a helmet while riding an electric bicycle.
The psychological latent variables in this study were measured using a 7-point Likert scale measure to understand the psychological status of the individuals (1—”Strongly Disagree” to 7—”Strongly Agree”).

References

  1. Wang, T.; Xie, S.; Ye, X.; Yan, X.; Chen, J.; Li, W. Analyzing E-Bikers’ Risky Riding Behaviors, Safety Attitudes, Risk Perception, and Riding Confidence with the Structural Equation Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jiemian Global 2022 China Two-wheeled Electric Vehicle Industry White Paper. Available online: https://www.jiemian.com/article/7371155.html (accessed on 22 December 2022).
  3. The Paper China’s Electric Bicycle Quantity Production World First, But You Do Not Know Is …. Available online: https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_21083651 (accessed on 22 December 2022).
  4. Zhu, X.Y.; Zhu, Z.M.; Zhu, J.A.; Dai, S. Causes of Electric Bicycle Traffic Accidents and Countermeasures in China. City Traffic 2021, 19, 64–70. [Google Scholar]
  5. Zhu, J.A.; Dai, S.; Zhu, X.Y. Characteristics of Electric Bicycle Traffic Accidents and Countermeasures for Safety Improvement. City Traffic 2018, 16, 15–20. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ghasemzadeh, S.; Babazadeh, T.; Allahverdipour, H.; Sadeghi-Bazargani, H.; Kouzekanani, K. Cognitive-behavioral determinants of using helmet by motorcyclists in a rural community. J. Transp. Health 2017, 6, 548–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China. Safety helmet wearing and seatbelt usage rates have risen dramatically since the launch of Operation Safe Guardian nationwide. 18 March 2021. Available online: https://www.mps.gov.cn/n2254314/n6409334/c7784638/content.html (accessed on 22 December 2022).
  8. Pavlina, R.-F.; Quimby, A.; Zaidel, D. Opinions of Stakeholders about Traffic Law Rnforcement (TLE) Policy and Practice. Police Enforcement Policy and Programmes on European Roads. 2008. Available online: https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/project/police-enforcement-policy-and-programmes-european-roads (accessed on 22 December 2022).
  9. Tang, T.; Guo, Y.; Zhou, X.; Labi, S.; Zhu, S. Understanding electric bike riders’ intention to violate traffic rules and accident proneness in China. Travel Behav. Soc. 2021, 23, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hasan, N.; Bao, Y.; Chiong, R. A multi-method analytical approach to predicting young adults’ intention to invest in mHealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemat. Inform. 2022, 68, 101765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yan, Y.; Chen, H.; Shao, B.; Lei, Y. How IT affordances influence customer engagement in live streaming commerce? A dual-stage analysis of PLS-SEM and fsQCA. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 74, 103390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sukhov, A.; Friman, M.; Olsson, L.E. Unlocking potential: An integrated approach using PLS-SEM, NCA, and fsQCA for informed decision making. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 74, 103424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dahms, S. Foreign-owned subsidiary knowledge sourcing: The role of location and expatriates. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 105, 178–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ortiz de Guinea, A.; Raymond, L. Enabling innovation in the face of uncertainty through IT ambidexterity: A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of industrial service SMEs. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 50, 244–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kopplin, C.S.; Rösch, S.F. Equifinal causes of sustainable clothing purchase behavior: An fsQCA analysis among generation Y. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 63, 102692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kang, L.; Vij, A.; Hubbard, A.; Shaw, D. The unintended impact of helmet use on bicyclists’ risk-taking behaviors. J. Saf. Res. 2021, 79, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Champahom, T.; Jomnonkwao, S.; Satiennam, T.; Suesat, N.; Ratanavaraha, V. Modeling of safety helmet use intention among students in urban and rural Thailand based on the theory of planned behavior and Locus of Control. Soc. Sci. J. 2020, 57, 508–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fyhri, A.; Johansson, O.; Bjørnskau, T. Gender differences in accident risk with e-bikes—Survey data from Norway. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 132, 105248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kumphong, J.; Satiennam, T.; Satiennam, W.; Trinh, T.A. Psychological models for development of motorcycle helmet use among students in Vietnam. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 143, 012057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fallah Zavareh, M.; Mohamadi Hezaveh, A.; Nordfjærn, T. Intention to use bicycle helmet as explained by the Health Belief Model, comparative optimism and risk perception in an Iranian sample. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 54, 248–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rosli, N.; Ambak, K.; Daniel, B.D.; Sanik, M.E. Structural Equation Modelling in Behavioral Intention to Use Safety Helmet Reminder System. MATEC Web Conf. 2016, 47, 03002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Trinh, T.A.; Le, T.P.L. Motorcycle Helmet Usage among Children Passengers: Role of Parents as Promoter. Procedia Eng. 2016, 142, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Golob, T.F. Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2003, 37, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yang, L.; Shen, F.; Zhang, L.; Cai, Y.; Yi, F.; Zhou, C. Quantifying influences of natural and anthropogenic factors on vegetation changes using structural equation modeling: A case study in Jiangsu Province, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fiss, P.C. Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research. AMJ 2011, 54, 393–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ragin, C.C. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-0-226-70273-5. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nagy, G.; Megehee, C.M.; Woodside, A.G.; Laukkanen, T.; Hirvonen, S.; Reijonen, H. Achieving requisite variety in modeling firms’ strategy heterogeneities: Explaining paradoxical firm-market performances. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2017, 65, 100–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Prentice, C. Testing complexity theory in service research. J. Serv. Mark. 2019, 34, 149–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Woodside, A.G.; Megehee, C.M.; Isaksson, L.; Ferguson, G. Consequences of national cultures and motivations on entrepreneurship, innovation, ethical behavior, and quality-of-life. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2020, 35, 40–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cheng, L.; Xu, J. Benefit-sharing and residents’ subjective well-being in rural tourism: An asymmetric approach. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 21, 100631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Llopis-Albert, C.; Palacios-Marqués, D.; Simón-Moya, V. Fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) applied to the adaptation of the automobile industry to meet the emission standards of climate change policies via the deployment of electric vehicles (EVs). Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 169, 120843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Thai, T.D.-H.; Wang, T. Investigating the effect of social endorsement on customer brand relationships by using statistical analysis and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 113, 106499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dwivedi, P.; Joshi, A.; Misangyi, V.F. Gender-inclusive Gatekeeping: How (Mostly Male) Predecessors Influence the Success of Female CEOs. Acad. Manag. J. 2018, 61, 379–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kent, R. Cases as Configurations: Using Combinatorial and Fuzzy Logic to Analyse Marketing Data. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2005, 47, 205–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kumar, S.; Sahoo, S.; Lim, W.M.; Kraus, S.; Bamel, U. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in business and management research: A contemporary overview. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 178, 121599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mohammadfam, I.; Ghasemi, F.; Kalatpour, O.; Moghimbeigi, A. Constructing a Bayesian network model for improving safety behavior of employees at workplaces. Appl. Ergon. 2017, 58, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chan, A.P.C.; Wong, F.K.W.; Hon, C.K.H.; Choi, T.N.Y. Construction of a Bayesian network model for improving the safety performance of electrical and mechanical (E&M) works in repair, maintenance, alteration and addition (RMAA) projects. Saf. Sci. 2020, 131, 104893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lu, W.; McKyer, E.L.J.; Lee, C.; Goodson, P.; Ory, M.G.; Wang, S. Perceived barriers to children’s active commuting to school: A systematic review of empirical, methodological and theoretical evidence. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Rahman, M.; Lesch, M.F.; Horrey, W.J.; Strawderman, L. Assessing the utility of TAM, TPB, and UTAUT for advanced driver assistance systems. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 108, 361–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Shen, X. The application and extension of the theory of planned behavior to an analysis of delivery riders’ red-light running behavior in China. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 10, 105640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Borhan, M.N.; Ibrahim, A.N.H.; Miskeen, M.A.A. Extending the theory of planned behaviour to predict the intention to take the new high-speed rail for intercity travel in Libya: Assessment of the influence of novelty seeking, trust and external influence. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 130, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bockarjova, M.; Steg, L. Can Protection Motivation Theory predict pro-environmental behavior? Explaining the adoption of electric vehicles in the Netherlands. Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 28, 276–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chen, A.; Lu, Y. Protective behavior in ride-sharing through the lens of protection motivation theory and usage situation theory. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 61, 102402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zheng, D.; Luo, Q.; Ritchie, B.W. Afraid to travel after COVID-19? Self-protection, coping and resilience against pandemic ‘travel fear’. Tour. Manag. 2021, 83, 104261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gardner, L.; Leshner, G. The Role of Narrative and Other-Referencing in Attenuating Psychological Reactance to Diabetes Self-Care Messages. Health Commun. 2016, 31, 738–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Borhan, M.N.; Ibrahim, A.N.H.; Miskeen, M.A.A.; Rahmat, R.A.O.K.; Alhodairi, A.M. Predicting car drivers’ intention to use low cost airlines for intercity travel in Libya. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2017, 65, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Borhan, M.N.; Ibrahim, A.N.H.; Aziz, A.; Yazid, M.R.M. The relationship between the demographic, personal, and social factors of Malaysian motorcyclists and risk taking behavior at signalized intersections. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2018, 121, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Lajunen, T.; Räsänen, M. Can social psychological models be used to promote bicycle helmet use among teenagers? A comparison of the Health Belief Model, Theory of Planned Behavior and the Locus of Control. J. Saf. Res. 2004, 35, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Rogers, R.W. A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change1. J. Psychol. 1975, 91, 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Compeau, D.; Higgins, C.A.; Huff, S. Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study. MIS Q. 1999, 23, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ifinedo, P. Understanding information systems security policy compliance: An integration of the theory of planned behavior and the protection motivation theory. Comput. Secur. 2012, 31, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhang, X.; Liu, S.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J. Mobile health service adoption in China: Integration of theory of planned behavior, protection motivation theory and personal health differences. OIR 2019, 44, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Grummon, A.H.; Heaney, C.A.; Dellinger, W.A.; Wilkins, J.R. What influences youth to operate all-terrain vehicles safely? Health Educ. Res. 2014, 29, 533–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Brijs, K.; Brijs, T.; Sann, S.; Trinh, T.A.; Wets, G.; Ruiter, R.A.C. Psychological determinants of motorcycle helmet use among young adults in Cambodia. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2014, 26, 273–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lajunen, T.; Räsänen, M. Why teenagers owning a bicycle helmet do not use their helmets. J. Saf. Res. 2001, 32, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Aghamolaei, T.; Tavafian, S.S.; Madani, A. Prediction of Helmet Use Among Iranian Motorcycle Drivers: An Application of the Health Belief Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2011, 12, 239–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tabernero, C.; Hernández, B. Self-Efficacy and Intrinsic Motivation Guiding Environmental Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2011, 43, 658–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Miron, A.M.; Brehm, J.W. Reactance Theory—40 Years Later. Z. Für Sozialpsychologie 2006, 37, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Steindl, C.; Jonas, E.; Sittenthaler, S.; Traut-Mattausch, E.; Greenberg, J. Understanding Psychological Reactance: New Developments and Findings. Z. Für Psychol. 2015, 223, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Pavey, L.; Churchill, S.; Sparks, P. Proscriptive Injunctions Can Elicit Greater Reactance and Lower Legitimacy Perceptions Than Prescriptive Injunctions. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2021, 48, 676–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Proudfoot, D.; Kay, A.C. Reactance or Rationalization? Predicting Public Responses to Government Policy. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 2014, 1, 256–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Quick, B.L.; Scott, A.M.; Ledbetter, A.M. A Close Examination of Trait Reactance and Issue Involvement as Moderators of Psychological Reactance Theory. J. Health Commun. 2011, 16, 660–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Quick, B.L.; Kam, J.A.; Morgan, S.E.; Montero Liberona, C.A.; Smith, R.A. Prospect Theory, Discrete Emotions, and Freedom Threats: An Extension of Psychological Reactance Theory: Psychological Reactance. J. Commun. 2015, 65, 40–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rains, S.A. The Nature of Psychological Reactance Revisited: A Meta-Analytic Review. Hum. Commun. Res. 2013, 39, 47–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rains, S.A.; Colombo, P.M.; Quick, B.L.; Kriss, L.A. State mask mandates and psychological reactance theory: The role of political partisanship and COVID-19 risk in mask adoption and resistance. Soc. Sci. Med. 2022, 314, 115479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bilsky, W.; Borg, I.; Hermann, D. Utilizing personal values to explain people’s attitudes towards legal norms. Eur. J. Criminol. 2020, 19, 632–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Seddig, D. Crime-Inhibiting, Interactional and Co-Developmental Patterns of School Bonds and the Acceptance of Legal Norms. Crime Delinq. 2016, 62, 1046–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Paschall, M.J.; Grube, J.W.; Thomas, S.; Cannon, C.; Treffers, R. Relationships Between Local Enforcement, Alcohol Availability, Drinking Norms, and Adolescent Alcohol Use in 50 California Cities. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 2012, 73, 657–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Kim, S.; Sung, K.H.; Ji, Y.; Xing, C.; Qu, J.G. Online firestorms in social media: Comparative research between China Weibo and USA Twitter. Public Relat. Rev. 2021, 47, 102010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mehran, J.; Olya, H.G.T. Canal boat tourism: Application of complexity theory. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 101954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Küçükergin, K.G.; Çalışkan, C.; Dedeoglu, B.B.; Birinci, M.C. Analyzing the role of constraints and motivations behind traveling in the prediction of destination choice: Evidence from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 23, 1191–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Timmer, S.; Kaufmann, L. Conflict minerals traceability—A fuzzy set analysis. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2017, 47, 344–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pappas, I.O.; Woodside, A.G. Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in Information Systems and marketing. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 102310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bandara, R.; Fernando, M.; Akter, S. Managing consumer privacy concerns and defensive behaviours in the digital marketplace. Eur. J. Mark. 2021, 55, 219–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gligor, D.M.; Golgeci, I.; Rego, C.; Russo, I.; Bozkurt, S.; Pohlen, T.; Hiatt, B.; Garg, V. Examining the use of fsQCA in B2B marketing research: Benefits, current state and agenda for future research. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2021, 37, 1542–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lee, C.K.H. How guest-host interactions affect consumer experiences in the sharing economy: New evidence from a configurational analysis based on consumer reviews. Decis. Support Syst. 2022, 152, 113634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mikalef, P.; Boura, M.; Lekakos, G.; Krogstie, J. Big data analytics and firm performance: Findings from a mixed-method approach. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 98, 261–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Romero-Castro, N.; Piñeiro-Chousa, J.; Pérez-Pico, A. Dealing with heterogeneity and complexity in the analysis of the willingness to invest in community renewable energy in rural areas. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 173, 121165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Amara, N.; Rhaiem, M.; Halilem, N. Assessing the research efficiency of Canadian scholars in the management field: Evidence from the DEA and fsQCA. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 115, 296–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chen, S.H.; Pollino, C.A. Good practice in Bayesian network modelling. Environ. Model. Softw. 2012, 37, 134–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Carfora, V.; Di Massimo, F.; Rastelli, R.; Catellani, P.; Piastra, M. Dialogue management in conversational agents through psychology of persuasion and machine learning. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2020, 79, 35949–35971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wipulanusat, W.; Panuwatwanich, K.; Stewart, R.A.; Arnold, S.L.; Wang, J. Bayesian network revealing pathways to workplace innovation and career satisfaction in the public service. J. Manag. Anal. 2020, 7, 253–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Dempster, A.P.; Laird, N.M. Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data Via the EM Algorithm. J. R. Stat. Society. Ser. B (Methodol.) 1977, 39, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chu, J.; Yang, Y. Linking Structural Equation Modelling with Bayesian Network and Coastal Phytoplankton Dynamics in Bohai Bay. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 38, 01028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Fuster-Parra, P.; García-Mas, A.; Ponseti, F.J.; Palou, P.; Cruz, J. A Bayesian network to discover relationships between negative features in sport: A case study of teen players. Qual Quant 2014, 48, 1473–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wu, B.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Savan, E.E.; Yan, X. Effectiveness of maritime safety control in different navigation zones using a spatial sequential DEA model: Yangtze River case. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 81, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Veeramootoo, N.; Nunkoo, R.; Dwivedi, Y.K. What determines success of an e-government service? Validation of an integrative model of e-filing continuance usage. Gov. Inf. Q. 2018, 35, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Provincial Market Supervision Bureau on the 2nd batch of 2020 Provincial Product Quality Supervision and Sampling Situation of the Circular. 2020. Available online: http://scjgj.jiangsu.gov.cn/art/2020/12/25/art_78969_9615170.html (accessed on 22 December 2022).
  89. García-Ferrer, A.; de Juan, A.; Poncela, P. Forecasting traffic accidents using disaggregated data. Int. J. Forecast. 2006, 22, 203–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kim, H.-S. The role of legal and moral norms to regulate the behavior of texting while driving. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 52, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. United Nations Congress. In Proceedings of the Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Salvador, Brazil, 12–19 April 2010.
  92. Ambak, K.; Ismail, R.; Abdullah, R.A.; Borhan, M.N. Prediction of Helmet Use among Malaysian Motorcyclist Using Structural Equation Modeling. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2010, 4, 5263–5270. [Google Scholar]
  93. Ali, M.; Saeed, M.M.S.; Ali, M.M.; Haidar, N. Determinants of helmet use behaviour among employed motorcycle riders in Yazd, Iran based on theory of planned behaviour. Injury 2011, 42, 864–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Rogers, R.W.; Cacioppo, J.T.; Petty, R. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. Soc. Psychol. A Source Book 1983, 153–176. [Google Scholar]
  95. Quick, B.L.; Stephenson, M.T. The Reactance Restoration Scale (RRS): A Measure of Direct and Indirect Restoration. Commun. Res. Rep. 2007, 24, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Tang, T.; Guo, Y.; Wang, H. A study of helmet wearing intentions of electric bicycle riders. J. Transp. Eng. Inf. 2022, 20, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ross, L. The Theory of Planned Behavior and Helmet Use Among College Students. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 2011, 35, 581–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Relationship between three methods.
Figure 1. Relationship between three methods.
Sustainability 15 16704 g001
Figure 2. The proposed conceptual model and research hypotheses.
Figure 2. The proposed conceptual model and research hypotheses.
Sustainability 15 16704 g002
Figure 3. Results of structural equation models. Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Figure 3. Results of structural equation models. Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Sustainability 15 16704 g003
Figure 4. Research framework of fsQCA.
Figure 4. Research framework of fsQCA.
Sustainability 15 16704 g004
Figure 5. Updata BN model.
Figure 5. Updata BN model.
Sustainability 15 16704 g005
Figure 6. E-bike riders’ preferences for different attributes. Note: a colored rectangle represents an attribute that appears as a core condition in one or more solutions for each group, whereas a blank space indicates that the attribute never acts as a core condition in any solution.
Figure 6. E-bike riders’ preferences for different attributes. Note: a colored rectangle represents an attribute that appears as a core condition in one or more solutions for each group, whereas a blank space indicates that the attribute never acts as a core condition in any solution.
Sustainability 15 16704 g006
Table 1. Helmet wearing intention in existing research.
Table 1. Helmet wearing intention in existing research.
Authors (Year)NationVehiclesTheoretical ModelMathematical Model
Kang et al. (2021) [16]USABicycle/Maximum likelihood estimation, MLE
Tang et al. (2021) [9]ChinaE-bikeHBM, TPBHierarchical regression analysis
Champahom et al. (2020) [17]ThailandMotorcycleTPB, LOCSEM
Fyhri et al. (2019) [18]NorwayBicycle/SEM
Kumphong et al. (2018) [19]VietnamMotorcycleT-LOC, HBM, TPBSEM
Fallah et al. (2018) [20] IranBicycleHBMSEM
Ghasemzadeh et al. (2017) [4]IranMotorcycleTPBSEM
Rosli et al. (2016) [21] MalaysiaMotorcycle/SEM
Trinh and Le (2016) [22]VietnamMotorcycleTPBCFA, SEM
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of participant characteristics.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of participant characteristics.
Demographic VariablesFrequencyPercentages
GenderMale41849.41%
Female42850.59%
Age≤19627.33%
20–2935742.20%
30–3922026.00%
≥4020724.47%
MarriageYes46855.32%
No37844.68%
EducationPrimary school or below232.72%
Junior middle school11513.59%
Senior high school20323.99%
Associate college17220.33%
Bachelor ’s degree30235.70%
Master degree or above313.66%
Income (RMB)<2000 (below 317$)16119.03%
2000-4000 (317–634$)14116.67%
4001–6000 (634–950$)27932.98%
6001–8000 (940–1268$)15518.32%
>8000 (above 1268$)11013.00%
JobEnterprise manager11713.83%
Professionals718.39%
Service workers25129.67%
Clerks839.81%
Students15818.68%
Others16619.62%
Table 3. Discrimination validity.
Table 3. Discrimination validity.
ConstructINTSEPSUPSEATTREPRFTPLN
INT0.899
SE0.2500.797
PSU0.5160.3440.884
PSE0.3730.2170.6300.858
ATT0.4370.2660.5470.5780.867
RE0.3970.2270.6600.4160.5900.831
PR−0.092−0.037−0.106−0.067−0.186−0.1240.820
FT−0.144−0.069−0.201−0.127−0.205−0.2350.5270.948
PLN0.4940.1650.4790.3020.2770.344−0.160−0.1600.787
Table 4. Reliability and convergent validity test of the constructs.
Table 4. Reliability and convergent validity test of the constructs.
Potential VariableItemFactor Loadings (λ)Cronbach’s αAVECR
Self-efficacy (SE)SE10.6150.8270.6350.836
SE20.845
SE30.902
Perceived susceptibility (PSU)PSU10.8540.9140.7810.914
PSU20.914
PSU30.882
Perceived susceptibility (PSE)PSE10.8710.9150.7370918
PSE20.842
PSE30.902
PSE40.818
Attitude (ATT)ATT10.8010.9220.7520.924
ATT20.895
ATT30.917
ATT40.852
Response efficacy (RE)RE10.7980.8940.6900.899
RE20.768
RE30.900
RE40.851
Psychological reactance (PR)PR10.7210.8890.6720.891
PR20.870
PR30.852
PR40.828
Freedom threat (FT)FT10.9270.9630.8980.964
FT20.963
FT30.953
Perceived legal norm (PLN)PLN10.7760.8580.6170.865
PLN20.818
PLN30.865
PLN40.669
Intention (INT)INT10.9080.9250.8090.927
INT20.946
INT30.841
Table 5. Results of the goodness of fit for the theoretical model.
Table 5. Results of the goodness of fit for the theoretical model.
Indexχ2/dfRMSEACFITLISRMR
Check critical value<3<0.08>0.9>0.9<0.08
Model parameter value2.1710.0370.9600.9550.047
Whether to acceptacceptacceptacceptacceptaccept
Table 6. Analysis of necessary conditions.
Table 6. Analysis of necessary conditions.
OutcomeINT
Intention to Wear a Helmet
~INT
Negated Intention to Wear a Helmet
Conditions TestedConsistencyCoverageConsistencyCoverage
SE
~SE
0.6971
0.4502
0.8020
0.6133
0.5292
0.7148
0.3674
0.5874
PSU
~PSU
0.8241
0.2907
0.8073
0.4988
0.5160
0.6741
0.3051
0.6981
PSE
~PSE
0.7486
0.3814
0.8036
0.5676
0.5185
0.6968
0.3359
0.6258
ATT
~ATT
0.7824
0.3592
0.8341
0.5398
0.4926
0.7420
0.3169
0.6730
RE
~RE
0.7773
0.3535
0.8155
0.5437
0.5083
0.7085
0.3218
0.6575
PR
~PR
0.4894
0.6530
0.6736
0.7447
0.6289
0.6071
0.5224
0.4178
FT
~FT
0.3934
0.7348
0.6505
0.7357
0.5626
0.6498
0.5614
0.3926
PLN
~PLN
0.7744
0.3767
0.8344
0.5578
0.5051
0.7452
0.3284
0.6659
Table 7. Results of truth table (partial).
Table 7. Results of truth table (partial).
SEPSUPSEATTREPRFTPLNNumberINTRaw
Consistency
PRI
110110011010.9544460.907515
111111012410.9520840.919038
11110001910.9513910.890251
01111011410.9496170.880861
10011001410.9486610.851596
11010001510.9483310.867685
10010111400.9054230.691095
10100111500.9040310.627985
01000010400.8461210.472036
10000101700.8425450.533918
Note: For each variable, the value of 0 indicates the low level, and 1 indicates the high level.
Table 8. Configurations that produce high or low helmet wearing intention based on fsQCA.
Table 8. Configurations that produce high or low helmet wearing intention based on fsQCA.
VariableHigh Helmet Intention SolutionsLow Helmet Intention Solutions
S1S2S3S4S5S6
S1aS1bS2aS2bS3aS3bS3cS4aS4bS4cS4dS5aS5bS6aS6b
SE
PSU
PSE
ATT
RE
PR
FT
PLN
Consistency0.930.940.930.940.920.930.930.930.930.940.930.890.920.900.92
Raw
Coverage
0.360.380.360.390.490.510.350.370.440.260.110.450.370.360.44
Overall consistency0.8880260.859813
Overall coverage0.7087820.511593
Note: or indicates the presence of conditions, or indicates the absence of conditions, blank space indicates “do not care” conditions, or means core conditions, or means peripheral conditions.
Table 9. The prior probability of psychological latent variables.
Table 9. The prior probability of psychological latent variables.
StataLatent Variables
ATTPSUSEPSEREPLNPRFTINT
High0.7650.8780.7040.8030.8560.8680.2560.1660.806
Medium0.150.1100.2150.1670.1290.1130.3380.2820.145
Low0.0850.0120.0810.0300.0150.0190.4060.5510.049
Table 10. Confusion matrix of the BN modeling.
Table 10. Confusion matrix of the BN modeling.
Confusion MatrixError RateTotal Error rate
PredictedActual
LowMediumHigh
410Low20%12.15%
0238Medium25.81%
013132High8.97%
Table 11. BN result different combinations.
Table 11. BN result different combinations.
CombinationsInt
HighMediumLow
S1a90.1%8.36%1.54%
S1b89.9%8.34%1.79%
S2a68.3%22.6%9.04%
S2b89.9%8.31%1.76%
S3a90.0%8.27%1.73%
S3b90.0%8.26%1.70%
S3c89.9%8.29%1.80%
S4a89.7%8.24%2.09%
S4b92.2%6.55%1.21%
S4c92.2%6.55%1.21%
S4d75.3%17.3%7.37%
Table 12. Sensitivity analysis of helmet wearing intention.
Table 12. Sensitivity analysis of helmet wearing intention.
VariableMutual InformationPercent
INT0.86668100
ATT0.072958.42
PSU0.044865.18
SE0.039034.50
PSE0.022122.55
RE0.003300.38
PLN0.001660.19
PR0.000280.03
FT0.000050.01
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, B.; Jing, P.; Jiang, C. Combining SEM, fsQCA and BNs to Explore E-Bike Riders’ Helmet Wearing Intentions under the Impact of Mandatory Policies: An Empirical Study in Zhenjiang. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16704. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416704

AMA Style

Wang B, Jing P, Jiang C. Combining SEM, fsQCA and BNs to Explore E-Bike Riders’ Helmet Wearing Intentions under the Impact of Mandatory Policies: An Empirical Study in Zhenjiang. Sustainability. 2023; 15(24):16704. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416704

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Bichen, Peng Jing, and Chengxi Jiang. 2023. "Combining SEM, fsQCA and BNs to Explore E-Bike Riders’ Helmet Wearing Intentions under the Impact of Mandatory Policies: An Empirical Study in Zhenjiang" Sustainability 15, no. 24: 16704. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416704

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop