IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v47y2020i1d10.1007_s11116-018-9893-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An empirical study of consumers’ intention to use ride-sharing services: using an extended technology acceptance model

Author

Listed:
  • Yu Wang

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Shanyong Wang

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Jing Wang

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Jiuchang Wei

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Chenglin Wang

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

Abstract

Ride-sharing has received great attention recently and is considered to be a sustainable transportation mode. Understanding the determinants of the consumers’ intention to use ride-sharing services is critical to promote such services. In this research, an extended technology acceptance model is used as a theoretical research framework. This extension was implemented by incorporating three new constructs: personal innovativeness, environmental awareness, and perceived risk. The model was empirically tested using questionnaire survey data collected from 426 participants. The results indicate that personal innovativeness, environmental awareness, and perceived usefulness are positively associated with consumers’ intention to use ride-sharing services, while perceived risk is negatively associated with the intention and perceived usefulness. The analysis shows that, contrary to our expectations, the perceived ease of use has no significant effect on intention to use ride-sharing services. In addition, personal innovativeness is positively related to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use but negatively related to perceived risk. Based on these results, implications for practice and suggestions for further research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu Wang & Shanyong Wang & Jing Wang & Jiuchang Wei & Chenglin Wang, 2020. "An empirical study of consumers’ intention to use ride-sharing services: using an extended technology acceptance model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 397-415, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:47:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11116-018-9893-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-018-9893-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11116-018-9893-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-018-9893-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lu, Chin-Shan & Lai, Kee-hung & Cheng, T.C.E., 2007. "Application of structural equation modeling to evaluate the intention of shippers to use Internet services in liner shipping," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(2), pages 845-867, July.
    2. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    3. Bill Hopwood & Mary Mellor & Geoff O'Brien, 2005. "Sustainable development: mapping different approaches," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 38-52.
    4. Ha, Sejin & Stoel, Leslie, 2009. "Consumer e-shopping acceptance: Antecedents in a technology acceptance model," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(5), pages 565-571, May.
    5. Catherine Morency, 2007. "The ambivalence of ridesharing," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 239-253, March.
    6. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    7. Stiglic, Mitja & Agatz, Niels & Savelsbergh, Martin & Gradisar, Mirko, 2015. "The benefits of meeting points in ride-sharing systems," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 36-53.
    8. Kahn, Matthew E., 2007. "Do greens drive Hummers or hybrids? Environmental ideology as a determinant of consumer choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 129-145, September.
    9. Furuhata, Masabumi & Dessouky, Maged & Ordóñez, Fernando & Brunet, Marc-Etienne & Wang, Xiaoqing & Koenig, Sven, 2013. "Ridesharing: The state-of-the-art and future directions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 28-46.
    10. Timm Teubner & Christoph Flath, 2015. "The Economics of Multi-Hop Ride Sharing," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 57(5), pages 311-324, October.
    11. Agatz, Niels & Erera, Alan & Savelsbergh, Martin & Wang, Xing, 2012. "Optimization for dynamic ride-sharing: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 295-303.
    12. Hai-Jun Huang & Hai Yang & Michael G.H. Bell, 2000. "The models and economics of carpools," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 34(1), pages 55-68.
    13. Gefen, David & Straub, Detmar W., 2004. "Consumer trust in B2C e-Commerce and the importance of social presence: experiments in e-Products and e-Services," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 407-424, December.
    14. Stiglic, M. & Agatz, N.A.H. & Savelsbergh, M.W.P. & Gradisar, M., 2015. "The Benefits of Meeting Points in Ride-sharing Systems," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2015-003-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    15. Park, Chan-Kook & Kim, Hyun-Jae & Kim, Yang-Soo, 2014. "A study of factors enhancing smart grid consumer engagement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 211-218.
    16. Girod, Bastien & Mayer, Sebastian & Nägele, Florian, 2017. "Economic versus belief-based models: Shedding light on the adoption of novel green technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 415-426.
    17. Shang-Yu Chen & Chung-Cheng Lu, 2016. "A Model of Green Acceptance and Intentions to Use Bike-Sharing: YouBike Users in Taiwan," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 1103-1124, December.
    18. Shanyong Wang & Jin Fan & Dingtao Zhao & Shu Yang & Yuanguang Fu, 2016. "Predicting consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles: using an extended version of the theory of planned behavior model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 123-143, January.
    19. Wang, Shanyong & Li, Jun & Zhao, Dingtao, 2017. "The impact of policy measures on consumer intention to adopt electric vehicles: Evidence from China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 14-26.
    20. Shanyong Wang & Jin Fan & Dingtao Zhao & Shu Yang & Yuanguang Fu, 2016. "Predicting consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles: using an extended version of the theory of planned behavior model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 123-143, January.
    21. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    22. Juho Hamari & Mimmi Sjöklint & Antti Ukkonen, 2016. "The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(9), pages 2047-2059, September.
    23. Wang, Rui, 2011. "Shaping carpool policies under rapid motorization: the case of Chinese cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 631-635, August.
    24. Chen, Shih-Chih & Hung, Chung-Wen, 2016. "Elucidating the factors influencing the acceptance of green products: An extension of theory of planned behavior," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 155-163.
    25. Elliot Fishman & Simon Washington & Narelle Haworth, 2013. "Bike Share: A Synthesis of the Literature," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 148-165, March.
    26. Schuitema, Geertje & Anable, Jillian & Skippon, Stephen & Kinnear, Neale, 2013. "The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 39-49.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhang, Wenqing & Liu, Liangliang, 2022. "Exploring non-users' intention to adopt ride-sharing services: Taking into account increased risks due to the COVID-19 pandemic among other factors," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 180-195.
    2. Mashaal A. M. Saif & Nazimah Hussin & Maizaitulaidawati Md Husin & Ayed Alwadain & Ayon Chakraborty, 2022. "Determinants of the Intention to Adopt Digital-Only Banks in Malaysia: The Extension of Environmental Concern," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-32, September.
    3. Meng Li & Guowei Hua & Haijun Huang, 2018. "A Multi-Modal Route Choice Model with Ridesharing and Public Transit," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    4. Hu, Xianfeng & Wang, Shanyong & Zhou, Rongting & Gao, Lan & Zhu, Zujun, 2023. "Policy driven or consumer trait driven? Unpacking the EVs purchase intention of consumers from the policy and consumer trait perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    5. Wang, Jing-Peng & Ban, Xuegang (Jeff) & Huang, Hai-Jun, 2019. "Dynamic ridesharing with variable-ratio charging-compensation scheme for morning commute," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 390-415.
    6. Taneja, Shilpa & Ali, Liaqat, 2021. "Determinants of customers’ intentions towards environmentally sustainable banking: Testing the structural model," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    7. Sun, S. & Szeto, W.Y., 2021. "Multi-class stochastic user equilibrium assignment model with ridesharing: Formulation and policy implications," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 203-227.
    8. Ke, Jintao & Yang, Hai & Zheng, Zhengfei, 2020. "On ride-pooling and traffic congestion," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 213-231.
    9. Han, Liu & Wang, Shanyong & Zhao, Dingtao & Li, Jun, 2017. "The intention to adopt electric vehicles: Driven by functional and non-functional values," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 185-197.
    10. Ke, Jintao & Yang, Hai & Li, Xinwei & Wang, Hai & Ye, Jieping, 2020. "Pricing and equilibrium in on-demand ride-pooling markets," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 411-431.
    11. Jun Li & Jiachao Shen & Bicen Jia, 2021. "Exploring Intention to Use Shared Electric Bicycles by the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-13, April.
    12. Kumar Shalender & Naman Sharma, 2021. "Using extended theory of planned behaviour (TPB) to predict adoption intention of electric vehicles in India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 665-681, January.
    13. Inayatullah Shah & Mohammed El Affendi & Basit Qureshi, 2020. "SRide: An Online System for Multi-Hop Ridesharing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-29, November.
    14. Ye, Fei & Kang, Wanlin & Li, Lixu & Wang, Zhiqiang, 2021. "Why do consumers choose to buy electric vehicles? A paired data analysis of purchase intention configurations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 14-27.
    15. Long, Jiancheng & Tan, Weimin & Szeto, W.Y. & Li, Yao, 2018. "Ride-sharing with travel time uncertainty," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 143-171.
    16. Bo Yang & Shen Ren & Erika Fille Legara & Zengxiang Li & Edward Y. X. Ong & Louis Lin & Christopher Monterola, 2020. "Phase Transition in Taxi Dynamics and Impact of Ridesharing," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 250-273, January.
    17. Adu-Gyamfi, Gibbson & Song, Huaming & Obuobi, Bright & Nketiah, Emmanuel & Wang, Hong & Cudjoe, Dan, 2022. "Who will adopt? Investigating the adoption intention for battery swap technology for electric vehicles," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    18. Xiaolei Wang & Hai Yang & Daoli Zhu, 2018. "Driver-Rider Cost-Sharing Strategies and Equilibria in a Ridesharing Program," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 868-881, August.
    19. Jaiswal, Deepak & Deshmukh, Arun Kumar & Thaichon, Park, 2022. "Who will adopt electric vehicles? Segmenting and exemplifying potential buyer heterogeneity and forthcoming research," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    20. Wang, Xiao-Wu & Cao, Yu-Mei & Zhang, Ning, 2021. "The influences of incentive policy perceptions and consumer social attributes on battery electric vehicle purchase intentions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:47:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11116-018-9893-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.