Understanding Individuals’ Continuance Intention to Use Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: An Integrated Application of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling and Necessary Condition Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
2.1. Technology Acceptance Model
2.2. Perceived Quality
2.3. Perceived Safety
2.4. Satisfaction
2.5. Hypothesis Development
3. Methods
3.1. Participants and Data Collection
3.2. Survey Instrument
3.3. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Assessment of the Measurement Model
4.2. Assessment of the Structural Model
4.3. Necessary Condition Analysis
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Practical Implications
5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- Survey items
- Perceived ease of use
- 1.
- My interaction with the advanced driver assistance systems would be clear and understandable.
- 2.
- Advanced driver assistance systems are easy to use.
- 3.
- It is easy to interact with advanced driver assistance systems.
- Perceived usefulness
- 4.
- Using the advanced driver assistance systems would improve my driving performance.
- 5.
- Using the advanced driver assistance systems enhances effectiveness in my driving.
- 6.
- Using the advanced driver assistance systems is useful in my driving.
- Perceived quality
- 7.
- The advanced driver assistance systems are reliable.
- 8.
- The features of advanced driver assistance systems are effective.
- 9.
- The layout and display of advanced driver assistance systems are clear.
- Perceived safety
- 10.
- Overall, using the advanced driver assistance systems would help my trip safer than cars without them.
- 11.
- The advanced driver assistance systems would act better than me in complex traffic situations.
- 12.
- The advanced driver assistance systems respond adequately to unexpected situations that commonly require rapid responses from drivers.
- Satisfaction
- 13.
- I am a real fan of my favorite club.
- 14.
- I am very committed to my favorite club.
- 15.
- There is nothing that could change my commitment to my favorite club.
- Continuance intention
- 16.
- If the system is available in the market at an affordable price, I intend to purchase the system.
- 17.
- If my car is equipped with a similar system, I predict that I would use the system when driving.
- 18.
- Assuming that the system is available, I intend to use the system regularly when I am driving.
References
- Bellet, T.; Banet, A.; Petiot, M.; Richard, B.; Quick, J. Human-centered AI to support an adaptive management of human-machine transitions with vehicle automation. Information 2021, 12, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Brummelen, J.; O’Brien, M.; Gruyer, D.; Najjaran, H. Autonomous vehicle perception: The technology of today and tomorrow. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2018, 89, 384–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allied Market Research. Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) Market by System Type and Sensor Type: Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2023–2032. Available online: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/adas-market (accessed on 16 October 2024).
- Statista. Projected Penetration Rate of Selected Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) Worldwide in 2027. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/943208/streaming-music-piracy-reasons/ (accessed on 16 October 2024).
- Mickinsey & Company. Autonomous Driving’s Future: Convenient and Connected. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/autonomous-drivings-future-convenient-and-connected (accessed on 19 December 2024).
- Rahman, M.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]
- Parasuraman, R.; Manzey, D.H. Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Hum. Factors 2010, 52, 381–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Biassoni, F.; Ruscio, D.; Ciceri, R. Limitations and automation. The role of information about device-specific features in ADAS acceptability. Saf. Sci. 2016, 85, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brell, T.; Philipsen, R.; Ziefle, M. sCARy! Risk perceptions in autonomous driving: The influence of experience on perceived benefits and barriers. Risk Anal. 2019, 39, 342–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, D.; Lau, N.; Baker, S.A.; Antin, J.F. Examining Senior Drivers’ Attitudes Toward Advanced Driver Assistance Systems After Naturalistic Exposure. Innov. Aging 2020, 4, igaa017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nandavar, S.; Kaye, S.-A.; Senserrick, T.; Oviedo-Trespalacios, O. Exploring the factors influencing acquisition and learning experiences of cars fitted with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS). Transp. Res. F-Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2023, 94, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Zhao, S.; Zhang, W.; Evans, R. Why people adopt smart transportation services: An integrated model of TAM, trust and perceived risk. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2021, 44, 629–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montoro, L.; Useche, S.A.; Alonso, F.; Lijarcio, I.; Bosó-Seguí, P.; Martí-Belda, A. Perceived safety and attributed value as predictors of the intention to use autonomous vehicles: A national study with Spanish drivers. Saf. Sci. 2019, 120, 865–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pradhan, A.K.; Pulver, E.; Zakrajsek, J.; Bao, S.; Molnar, L. Perceived safety benefits, concerns, and utility of advanced driver assistance systems among owners of ADAS-equipped vehicles. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2018, 19, S135–S137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yao, S.; Xie, L.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Gao, M. Influence of perceived safety in the technology acceptance model. Transp. Res. F-Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2023, 99, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Granić, A.; Marangunić, N. The Technology Acceptance Model: 30 Years of TAM; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Chi, T. Understanding Chinese consumer adoption of apparel mobile commerce: An extended TAM approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 44, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, H.; Chi, C.; Chiu, W. Understanding sustained usage of health and fitness apps: Incorporating the technology acceptance model with the investment model. Technol. Soc. 2020, 63, 101429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byun, H.; Chiu, W.; Bae, J.-S. Exploring the adoption of sports brand apps: An application of the modified technology acceptance model. Int. J. Asian Bus. Inf. Manag. 2018, 9, 52–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, T.; Chiu, W. Consumer acceptance of sports wearable technology: The role of technology readiness. Int. J. Sports Mark. Spons. 2019, 20, 109–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasenjäger, M.; Wersing, H. Personalization in advanced driver assistance systems and autonomous vehicles: A review. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Yokohama, Japan, 16–19 October 2017; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Detjen, H.; Faltaous, S.; Pfleging, B.; Geisler, S.; Schneegass, S. How to Increase Automated Vehicles’ Acceptance through In-Vehicle Interaction Design: A Review. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2021, 37, 308–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nastjuk, I.; Herrenkind, B.; Marrone, M.; Brendel, A.B.; Kolbe, L.M. What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investigation of acceptance factors from an end-user’s perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 161, 120319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.-K. The relationship between innovative technology and driver’s resistance and acceptance intention for sustainable use of automobile self-driving system. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, W.R.; He, J. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 2006, 43, 740–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D.; Karahanna, E.; Straub, D.W. Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quart. 2003, 27, 51–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, A.; Kumar, G.S.G. Antecedents of Customer Satisfaction In Internet Banking: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Redefined. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2013, 14, 627–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, T.; Tao, D.; Qu, X.; Zhang, X.; Lin, R.; Zhang, W. The roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public’s acceptance of automated vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2019, 98, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, W.; Badu-Baiden, F.; Cho, H. Consumers’ intention to use online food delivery services: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2024, 48, e13052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scherer, R.; Siddiq, F.; Tondeur, J. The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Comput. Educ. 2019, 128, 13–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rouidi, M.; Elouadi, A.E.; Hamdoune, A.; Choujtani, K.; Chati, A. TAM-UTAUT and the acceptance of remote healthcare technologies by healthcare professionals: A systematic review. Inform. Med. Unlocked 2022, 32, 101008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Ben, S.; Zhang, R. Factors affecting consumers’ mobile payment behavior: A meta-analysis. Electron. Commer. Res. 2019, 19, 575–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wang, L. Assessing the intention to use sports bracelets among Chinese university students: An extension of technology acceptance model with sports motivation. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 846594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, W.; Oh, G.-E.G.; Cho, H. Factors influencing consumers’ adoption of wearable technology: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2021, 20, 933–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farzin, I.; Mamdoohi, A.R.; Ciari, F. Autonomous Vehicles Acceptance: A Perceived Risk Extension of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and Diffusion of Innovation, Evidence from Tehran, Iran. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2023, 39, 2663–2672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, S.; Thong, J.Y.L.; Tam, K.Y. Understanding continued information technology usage behavior: A comparison of three models in the context of mobile internet. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 42, 1819–1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, J.-H.; Sa, H.J. Acceptance of and satisfaction with online educational classes through the technology acceptance model (TAM): The COVID-19 situation in Korea. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2022, 23, 403–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.; Papagiannidis, S.; Alamanos, E. Exploring the emotional antecedents and outcomes of technology acceptance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 90, 153–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Haddad, C.; Abouelela, M.; Brijs, K.; Polders, E.; Brijs, T.; Antoniou, C. Drivers’ acceptance of adaptive warning–monitoring systems. Findings from a car driving simulator study. Transp. Res. F-Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2024, 107, 1071–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fonzone, A.; Fountas, G.; Downey, L. Automated bus services—To whom are they appealing in their early stages? Travel Behav. Soc. 2024, 34, 100647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solin, A.; Curry, A. Perceived quality: In search of a definition. TQM J. 2023, 35, 778–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, C.; Lourenço-Gomes, L.; Pinto, L.M.C. Region of origin and consumers’ quality perception of wine: An assimilation-contrast approach. Wine Econ. Policy 2021, 10, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jhamb, D.; Mittal, A.; Sharma, P. The behavioural consequences of perceived service quality: A study of the Indian telecommunication industry. Bus. Theory Pract. 2020, 21, 360–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassim, N.; Asiah Abdullah, N. The effect of perceived service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty in e-commerce settings. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2010, 22, 351–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, B.; Herbas Torrico, B.; Enkawa, T.; Schvaneveldt, S.J. Affect versus Cognition in the Chain from Perceived Quality to Customer Loyalty: The Roles of Product Beliefs and Experience. J. Retail. 2014, 90, 567–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nylen, A.B.; Reyes, M.L.; Roe, C.A.; McGehee, D.V. Impacts on Driver Perceptions in Initial Exposure to ADAS Technologies. Transp. Res. Rec. 2019, 2673, 354–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bęczkowska, S.; Czerepicki, A.; Grabarek, I.; Kozłowski, M.; Zysk, Z. Autonomous Vehicles as Viewed by Future Users in Poland. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luger-Bazinger, C.; Zankl, C.; Klieber, K.; Hornung-Prähauser, V.; Rehrl, K. Factors Influencing and Contributing to Perceived Safety of Passengers during Driverless Shuttle Rides. Future Transp. 2021, 1, 657–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliver, R.L. Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. J. Consum. Res. 1993, 20, 418–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliver, R.L. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, B.; Zhou, S. Re-examining the role of attitude in information system acceptance: A model from the satisfaction–dissatisfaction perspective. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2016, 10, 444–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, L.; Turner, D.E.; Gehling, R.; Prince, B. User experience, satisfaction, and continual usage intention of IT. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2010, 19, 60–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Partala, T.; Saari, T. Understanding the most influential user experiences in successful and unsuccessful technology adoptions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 53, 381–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, Y.; Ming, J.; Shi, L.; Ke, X.; Sun, H.; Chen, Y. Physician–patient shared decision making, patient satisfaction, and adoption of new health technology in China. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2020, 36, 518–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marinković, V.; Đorđević, A.; Kalinić, Z. The moderating effects of gender on customer satisfaction and continuance intention in mobile commerce: A UTAUT-based perspective. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2020, 32, 306–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.-P.; Huang, H.-N.; Joe, S.-W.; Ma, H.-C. Learning the determinants of satisfaction and usage intention of instant messaging. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2008, 11, 262–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akram, M.S.; Malik, A.; Shareef, M.A.; Awais Shakir Goraya, M. Exploring the interrelationships between technological predictors and behavioral mediators in online tax filing: The moderating role of perceived risk. Gov. Inf. Q. 2019, 36, 237–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wixom, B.H.; Todd, P.A. A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Inf. Syst. Res. 2005, 16, 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khattak, M.W.; Brijs, K.; Tran, T.M.D.; Trinh, T.A.; Vu, A.T.; Brijs, T. Acceptance towards advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS): A validation of the unified model of driver acceptance (UMDA) using structural equation modelling. Transp. Res. F-Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2024, 105, 284–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biassoni, F.; Gnerre, M. Understanding elderly drivers’ perception of advanced driver assistance systems: A systematic review of perceived risks, trust, ease of use, and usefulness. Geriatrics 2024, 9, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gish, J.; Vrkljan, B.; Grenier, A.; Van Miltenburg, B. Driving with advanced vehicle technology: A qualitative investigation of older drivers’ perceptions and motivations for use. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 106, 498–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eichelberger, A.H.; McCartt, A.T. Toyota drivers’ experiences with Dynamic Radar Cruise Control, Pre-Collision System, and Lane-Keeping Assist. J. Saf. Res. 2016, 56, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosurgi, G.; Pellegrino, O.; Ruggeri, A.; Sollazzo, G. The Effects of ADAS on Driving Behavior: A Case Study. Sensors 2023, 23, 1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, G. Chinese Autonomous Driving Firm Desay Allows Greater Bay Area City Huizhou to Steer EV Sector. Available online: https://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/3136836/chinese-autonomous-driving-firm-desay-allows-greater-bay-area (accessed on 20 December 2024).
- Prasetio, E.A.; Nurliyana, C. Evaluating perceived safety of autonomous vehicle: The influence of privacy and cybersecurity to cognitive and emotional safety. IATSS Res. 2023, 47, 160–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.M. SmartPLS 4; SmartPLS GmbH: Bönningstedt, Germany, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Dul, J. Identifying single necessary conditions with NCA and fsQCA. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1516–1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richter, N.F.; Hauff, S.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Kolev, A.E.; Schubring, S. How to Apply Necessary Condition Analysis in PLS-SEM. In Partial Least Squares Path Modeling: Basic Concepts, Methodological Issues and Applications; Latan, H., Hair, J.J.F., Noonan, R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 267–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dul, J. A different causal perspective with Necessary Condition Analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2024, 177, 114618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richter, N.F.; Schubring, S.; Hauff, S.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. When predictors of outcomes are necessary: Guidelines for the combined use of PLS-SEM and NCA. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2020, 120, 2243–2267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geisser, S. The predictive sample reuse method with applications. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1975, 70, 320–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stone, M. Cross-validation and multinomial prediction. Biometrika 1974, 61, 509–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nitzl, C.; Roldan Jose, L.; Cepeda, G. Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016, 116, 1849–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwee-Meier, S.T.; Bützler, J.E.; Schlick, C. Development and validation of a technology acceptance model for safety-enhancing, wearable locating systems. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2016, 35, 394–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.S.; Lee, J.Y.; Han, U.L.; Park, J.H.; Park, C.; Lee, C.W. A study on the influence of safety perception on the visit Intention of haeundae Beach tourists: Focused on the extended goal-directed behavioral model. J. Coast. Res. 2019, 91, 211–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Categories | N | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 487 | 57.8 |
Female | 356 | 42.2 | |
Age | 18–19 | 53 | 6.3 |
20–29 | 322 | 38.2 | |
30–39 | 324 | 38.4 | |
40–49 | 103 | 12.2 | |
50 and above | 41 | 4.9 | |
Education | High school and below | 71 | 8.4 |
Associate degree/Higher diploma | 234 | 27.8 | |
Bachelor’s degree | 405 | 48.0 | |
Graduate school | 133 | 15.8 | |
Brand | Domestic brand | 491 | 58.3 |
Foreign brand | 352 | 41.7 | |
Vehicle price (RMB) | 100,000 and below | 67 | 7.9 |
100,001 to 200,000 | 221 | 26.2 | |
200,000 to 300,000 | 230 | 27.3 | |
300,001 to 400,000 | 183 | 21.7 | |
400,001 and above | 142 | 16.8 |
Measures | Cronbach’s Alpha | Factor Loading | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|
Perceived ease of use | 0.735 | 0.792–0.837 | 0.850 | 0.654 |
Perceived usefulness | 0.732 | 0.766–0.836 | 0.849 | 0.652 |
Perceived quality | 0.709 | 0.778–0.816 | 0.837 | 0.632 |
Perceived safety | 0.752 | 0.811–0.826 | 0.858 | 0.668 |
Satisfaction | 0.765 | 0.813–0.832 | 0.864 | 0.680 |
Continuance intention | 0.753 | 0.810–0.831 | 0.859 | 0.669 |
Constructs | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Perceived ease of use | 0.809 1 | 0.832 | 0.829 | 0.762 | 0.750 | 0.740 |
2. Perceived usefulness | 0.758 | 0.807 1 | 0.797 | 0.735 | 0.727 | 0.759 |
3. Perceived quality | 0.744 | 0.718 | 0.795 1 | 0.802 | 0.763 | 0.800 |
4. Perceived safety | 0.715 | 0.692 | 0.731 | 0.817 1 | 0.757 | 0.763 |
5. Satisfaction | 0.713 | 0.693 | 0.709 | 0.726 | 0.825 1 | 0.787 |
6. Continuance intention | 0.701 | 0.713 | 0.732 | 0.726 | 0.750 | 0.818 1 |
Hypothesis/Path | Standardized Estimate | Standard Deviation | t-Statistic |
---|---|---|---|
H1: Perceived ease of use → Perceived usefulness | 0.785 | 0.017 | 43.506 *** |
H2a: Perceived ease of use → Satisfaction | 0.209 | 0.049 | 4.269 *** |
H2b: Perceived usefulness → Satisfaction | 0.178 | 0.048 | 3.689 *** |
H2c: Perceived quality → Satisfaction | 0.202 | 0.049 | 4.116 *** |
H2d: Perceived safety → Satisfaction | 0.306 | 0.043 | 7.410 *** |
H3a: Perceived ease of use → Continuance intention | 0.066 | 0.055 | 1.213 |
H3b: Perceived usefulness → Continuance intention | 0.178 | 0.047 | 3.835 *** |
H3c: Perceived quality → Continuance intention | 0.207 | 0.051 | 4.038 *** |
H3d: Perceived safety → Continuance intention | 0.189 | 0.042 | 4.536 *** |
H4: Satisfaction → Continuance intention | 0.295 | 0.045 | 6.589 *** |
Path | Standardized Estimate | Standard Deviation | t-Statistic |
---|---|---|---|
Total indirect effects | |||
Perceived ease of use → Continuance intention | 0.237 | 0.036 | 6.522 *** |
Perceived quality → Continuance intention | 0.06 | 0.018 | 3.244 *** |
Perceived safety → Continuance intention | 0.09 | 0.019 | 4.813 *** |
Perceived usefulness → Continuance intention | 0.052 | 0.017 | 3.097 ** |
Specific indirect effects | |||
Perceived ease of use → Perceived usefulness → Satisfaction → Continuance intention | 0.04 | 0.013 | 3.077 ** |
Perceived ease of use → Satisfaction → Continuance intention | 0.062 | 0.016 | 3.942 *** |
Perceived ease of use → Perceived usefulness → Continuance intention | 0.135 | 0.035 | 3.852 *** |
Perceived quality → Satisfaction → Continuance intention | 0.06 | 0.018 | 3.244 ** |
Perceived safety → Satisfaction → Continuance intention | 0.09 | 0.019 | 4.813 *** |
Perceived usefulness → Satisfaction→ Continuance intention | 0.052 | 0.017 | 3.097 ** |
Construct | Satisfaction | Continuance Intention |
---|---|---|
CE-FDH | CE-FDH | |
Perceived ease of use | 0.394 *** | 0.250 *** |
Perceived usefulness | 0.461 *** | 0.429 *** |
Perceived quality | 0.382 *** | 0.250 *** |
Perceived safety | 0.408 ** | 0.400 *** |
Satisfaction | 0.169 *** |
Perceived Ease of Use | Perceived Usefulness | Perceived Quality | Perceived Safety | Satisfaction | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bottleneck for satisfaction | |||||
0% | NN | NN | NN | NN | |
10% | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
20% | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
30% | 2.313 | 2.326 | 2.645 | 2 | |
40% | 2.313 | 2.326 | 2.645 | 2 | |
50% | 2.313 | 2.326 | 2.93 | 2.34 | |
60% | 2.687 | 2.62 | 3 | 2.34 | |
70% | 2.687 | 2.69 | 3 | 2.34 | |
80% | 2.687 | 3 | 3 | 3.324 | |
90% | 3.647 | 3.69 | 3.998 | 3.988 | |
100% | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
Bottleneck for continuance intention | |||||
0% | NN | NN | NN | NN | NN |
10% | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1.351 |
20% | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1.351 |
30% | 2 | 2.326 | 2.645 | 2 | 1.351 |
40% | 2 | 2.326 | 2.645 | 2 | 1.351 |
50% | 2 | 2.326 | 2.645 | 2 | 1.351 |
60% | 2 | 2.636 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
70% | 2 | 2.69 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
80% | 2 | 2.69 | 3.32 | 2 | 2 |
90% | 2 | 3.636 | 3.32 | 2 | 2 |
100% | 2 | 4 | 3.32 | 2 | 2 |
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xiao, H.; Chiu, W.; Shen, S. Understanding Individuals’ Continuance Intention to Use Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: An Integrated Application of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling and Necessary Condition Analysis. Systems 2024, 12, 589. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12120589
Xiao H, Chiu W, Shen S. Understanding Individuals’ Continuance Intention to Use Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: An Integrated Application of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling and Necessary Condition Analysis. Systems. 2024; 12(12):589. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12120589
Chicago/Turabian StyleXiao, Huijun, Weisheng Chiu, and Shenglun Shen. 2024. "Understanding Individuals’ Continuance Intention to Use Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: An Integrated Application of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling and Necessary Condition Analysis" Systems 12, no. 12: 589. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12120589
APA StyleXiao, H., Chiu, W., & Shen, S. (2024). Understanding Individuals’ Continuance Intention to Use Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: An Integrated Application of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling and Necessary Condition Analysis. Systems, 12(12), 589. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12120589