Asia Marketing Journal

Korean Marketing Association (한국마케팅학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Using Predictive Analytics to Profile Potential Adopters of Autonomous Vehicles

  • Lee, Eun-Ju (Sungkyunkwan University, Business School, Sungkyun Convergence Institute of Intelligence and Informatics) ;
  • Zafarzon, Nordirov (Business School, Sungkyunkwan University) ;
  • Zhang, Jing (Business School, Sungkyunkwan University)
  • Received : 2018.05.20
  • Accepted : 2018.07.20
  • Published : 2018.07.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Technological advances are bringing autonomous vehicles to the ever-evolving transportation system. Anticipating adoption of these technologies by users is essential to vehicle manufacturers for making more precise production and marketing strategies. The research investigates regulatory focus and consumer innovativeness with consumers' adoption of autonomous vehicles (AVs) and to consumers' subsequent willingness to pay for AVs. An online questionnaire was fielded to confirm predictions, and regression analysis was conducted to verify the model's validity. The results show that a promotion focus does not have a significantly positive effect on the automation level at which consumers will adopt AVs, but a prevention focus has a significantly positive effect on conditional AV adoption. Consumer innovativeness, consumers' novelty-seeking have a significantly positive relationship with high and full AV adoption, and consumers' independent decision-making has a significantly positive effect on full AV adoption. The higher the level of automation at which a consumer adopts AVs, the higher the willingness to pay for them. Finally, using a neural network and decision tree analyses, we show methods with which to describe three categories for potential adopters of AVs.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research is supported by Korea National Research Foundation (2015R1D1A1A01057848 and 2018R1A2B6004658) which was awarded on Eun-Ju Lee. Authors made equal contributions to this paper and are listed in alphabetical order.

References

  1. Anderson, J. M., Kalra, N., Stanley, K. D., Sorensen, P., Samaras, C., & Olumatola, O. A. (2014). Autonomous Vehicle Technology. A Guide for Policymakers. RAND Report.
  2. Bansal, P., & Kockelman, K. M. (2017). Forecasting Americans' long-term adoption of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 95, 49-63.
  3. Bansal, P., Kockelman, K. M., & Singh, A. (2016). Assessing public opinions of and interest in new vehicle technologies: An Austin perspective. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 67, 1-14.
  4. Carlson, L., & Grossbart, S. L. (1984). Toward a better understanding of inherent innovativeness. In R. W. Belk, R. Peterson, G. S. Albaurn, M. B. Holbrook, R. A. Kerin, N. K. Molhotras, & P. Wright (Eds.), American Marketing Association Educators' Proceedings (Vol. 50, pp. 88-91). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
  5. Casley, S. V., Jardim, A. S., & Quartulli, A. M. (2013). A study of public acceptance of autonomous cars. Bachelor of Science thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA.
  6. Craig, S. C., & Ginter, J. L. (1975). An empirical test of a scale for innovativeness. In M.J. Schlinger (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 2, pp. 555-562). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
  7. Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117-132.
  8. Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. (2015). Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 167-181.
  9. Fernandes, P., & Nunes, U. (2012). Platooning with IVC-enabled autonomous vehicles: Strategies to mitigate communication delays, improve safety and traffic flow. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 13(1), 91-106.
  10. Goldsmith, R. E., & Hofacker, C. F. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 209-221.
  11. Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 269-288.
  12. Greenblatt, J. B., & Saxena, S. (2015). Autonomous taxis could greatly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions of US light-duty vehicles. Nature Climate Change, 5(9), 860.
  13. Hevelke, A., & Nida-Rumelin, J. (2015). Responsibility for crashes of autonomous vehicles: An ethical analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(3), 619-630.
  14. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.
  15. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46.
  16. Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3-23.
  17. Higgins, E. T., Roney, C., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance: Distinct selfregulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 276-286.
  18. Higgins, E. T. (2002). How self regulation creates distinct values: the case of promotion and prevention decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3), 177-191.
  19. Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 283-295.
  20. Hoogma, R., Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Truffer, B. (2005). Experimenting for Sustainable Transport: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management. Routledge.
  21. Lang, P. J. (1995). The emotion probe: Studies of motivation and attention. American Psychologist, 50, 372-385.
  22. Lin, P. (2016). Why ethics matters for autonomous cars. In Autonomous Driving (pp. 69-85). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  23. Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive and negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854-864.
  24. Manning, K. C., Bearden, W. O., & Madden, T. J. (1995). Consumer innovativeness and the adoption process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 329-345.
  25. Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 229-242.
  26. Mudd, S. (1990). The place of innovativeness in models of the adoption process: An integrative review. Technovation, 10, 119-136.
  27. Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. A. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230-253.
  28. Shah, J., Higgins, E. T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 285-293.
  29. Siegel, E. (2016). Predictive Analytics: The power to predict who will click, buy, lie or die. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  30. Stanton, N. A., & Young, M. S. (1998). Vehicle automation and driving performance. Ergonomics, 41(7), 1014-1028.
  31. Stanton, N. A., Young, M. S., Walker, G. H., Turner, H., & Randle, S. (2001). Automating the driver's control tasks. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5(3), 221-236.
  32. Subramanian, S., & Mittelstaedt, R. A. (1992). Reconceptualizing and measuring consumer innovativeness. In R. P. Leone & V. Kumar (Eds.), American Marketing Association Educators' Proceedings (Vol. 3, pp. 300-307). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
  33. Summerville, A., & Roese, N. J. (2008). Selfreport measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(1), 247-254.
  34. Werth, L., & Forester, J. (2007). How regulatory focus influences consumer behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(1), 33-51.
  35. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., & Ackerman, P. L. (2000). A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision making processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 33-60.