DISCUSSIONS

Interestingly a few respondents described they would rather like to use a conventional car or bike to go to the supermarket but would prefer an autonomous car for long distance travelling. That finding corresponds to previous results by Merfeld, Wilhelms, & Henkel (2019).

When it comes to motivational drivers for consumers to use autonomous vehicles, one of the respondents described the following scenario: “Autonomous driving is like public transport but without others and in a clean environment. For it to work properly, all cars must be able to communicate with each other as soon as possible. This means adapting infrastructure, making it more efficient. It also means re-evaluating vehicle designs: bumpers, mirrors, steering wheel can be removed. Chairs can be turned towards each other, creating space to socially connect. Or a bed or a workspace.” Quality of life has been identified as one of the main drivers, since enabling mobility, enhancing convenience and increasing productivity are all contributors to a consumer’s interest to participate with an autonomous vehicle (Haboucha et al., 2017;

Merfeld, Wilhelms, & Henkel, 2019).

As for the motivational barriers, although some preliminary studies have found support for a negative effect of accountability on usage intentions of autonomous vehicles (Haboucha et al., 2017; Merfeld, Wilhelms, &

Henkel, 2019; Merfeld, Wilhelms, Henkel, et al., 2019; Wintersberger et al., 2019), this theory is not supported by this present study. Safety has been identified as a significant barrier even though there are many studies suggesting that autonomous vehicles will enhance safety on the roads (Gkartzonikas &

Gkritza, 2019; Haboucha et al., 2017; Kyriakidis et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2019; Merfeld, Wilhelms, & Henkel, 2019; Merfeld, Wilhelms, Henkel, et al., 2019; Wintersberger et al., 2019).

Private car ownership has been described as an extension of your living room, as something you need. It means that for the next couple of years we will continue to operate inefficiently and without emission-free, fully automated, and shared mobility. They state that this contribution cannot happen with privately owned vehicles since they are often parked and generate two or three times the harm to our environment as well as our liveability. Especially compared with car-shared or ride-shared vehicles.

Vehicle ownership has been linked to individualized and personally optimized mobility. Narayanan et al. (2020) indicate that shared autonomous vehicles will not hit a 100% penetration rate even if it is offered for free. This is contradictory to the study referred to by Haboucha et al. (2017) which claims that consumers prefer ride-sharing autonomous vehicles over private autonomous vehicles. This theory is confirmed by the study of Stoiber et al. (2019) that suggests that 61% of the respondents preferred ride-sharing shared autonomous vehicles over private ones. Particularly since people, through personalization, can feel that an autonomous vehicle is their own (Lee et al., 2019). This study confirms the findings of Zmud et al. (2016) that states that consumers prefer owning an autonomous vehicle over sharing one.

The results of this study enable us to answer the research question: What is the effect of ownership (privately-owned or shared) on consumers’ autonomous vehicle usage intentions? The results of this study show that privately owned autonomous vehicles do have a positive effect on consumers’ usage intentions. Especially when it comes to social responsibility, whose relationship with consumers’ usage intentions is positively influenced by private ownership. Furthermore, gender and the usage or ownership of an electric car by the household influences consumers’ usage intentions.

6.1.2 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study and the previously mentioned studies regarding the usage of autonomous vehicles show policy makers and car manufacturers the most valuable target group: the tech savvy population. This group is most likely to adopt and use autonomous vehicles (Bansal et al., 2016; Fagnant

& Kockelman, 2015; Hohenberger et al., 2016; Noppers et al., 2015; Shin et al., 2015; Tsouros &

Polydoropoulou, 2020; Zmud et al., 2016). Furthermore, the outcomes of this study confirm the finding in previous studies that males are more likely to use an autonomous vehicle over women. It implies that managers can select specific target groups and will have to tailor the message to them. For example, more research into why women are less interested in autonomous vehicles, especially if they play a major role in the purchasing process. Or when they play an important role when it comes to the desire to use all the autonomous functions in the car (and not only park-assist).

Owning or using an electric vehicle by the household, results in higher usage intentions. Interestingly, results from this study reveal that the level of automation a vehicle might have, even if it is level 3 or higher, does not have a significant influence on the usage intentions a consumer might have. It suggests that moving from a vehicle with level 1 to level 4 will not be easier than switching from level 3 to level 5.

Having any experience with automation levels is therefore irrelevant when it comes to usage intentions, and managers do not have to make a distinction in these groups.

As one of the motivational drivers the social responsibility’s effect has a great impact on the usage

intensions. Policy makers and car manufacturers could start promoting this to stimulate consumers’ usage intentions. For starters they could argue that autonomous driving will improve current transportation options, such as fewer accidents and less parking issues. However, still many questions must be answered when it comes to elements such as safety, technological (im)possibilities and costs.

Simultaneously, while social responsibility has a positive effect on a consumer’s usage intention, owning a private autonomous vehicle will only further strengthen that relationship. Policymakers could therefore make a case for stimulating the ownership of a private autonomous vehicle compared to a conventional vehicle. When it comes to quality of life, usage of an autonomous vehicle is certainly stimulated by this.

Policymakers and managers should also highlight how it enhances mobility for those who currently have limited access and will bring convenience to many. Social connections, as previously anticipated, has an impact on consumers’ usage intentions (Merfeld, Wilhelms, & Henkel, 2019). Nevertheless, the effect is not as great as with social responsibilities or quality of life. However, consumers value the time that is freed up for their personal life as well as their business life.

Safety is the key barrier to overcome for consumers to start using autonomous vehicles. Gaining confidence in the technology, being able to trust it fully, that is going to take time. The mixed feelings between for example avoiding accidents with an autonomous vehicle, while others believe it usage could cause accidents (Bansal et al., 2016; Gkartzonikas & Gkritza, 2019). The feeling of not having any control over the vehicle is something policy makers and industry will have to address if they want autonomous

The type of ownership is going to spark debate and further investigating specific target groups is critical to check whether people mean the same thing. Possible barriers to the adoption process of shared mobility for example should be put to bed. An example is efficiency, which urban transit professionals (urban operational efficiency) perceive differently than urban commuters and travellers (personal efficiency) (Grush et al., 2016).

When asked, consumers want to first experience an autonomous vehicle before owning one themselves. To reduce consumers potential anxieties towards safety issues on autonomous vehicles, giving consumers the option to test a vehicle could provide the solution (Roselius, 1971). Questions regarding costs, access, efficiency are to be answered first (Henkel, et al., 2019; Stoiber et al., 2019).