A Study on Factors of Buying Hybrid Electric
Vehicles by Consumers
100
100
100
100
6
6
6
6
A Study on Factors of Buying Hybrid Electric
Vehicles by Consumers
Student: Mong-Hong Shih Advisor: Chyan Yang Feng-Pien Chin
A Thesis
Submitted to Institute of Business and Management College of Management
National Chiao Tung University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of
Business Administration
June 2011
I
A Study on Factors of Buying Hybrid Electric Vehicles by Consumers
Student Mong-Hong Shih Advisors Chyan Yang Feng-Pien Chin
Institute of Business and Management National Chiao Tung University
ABSTRACT
People use energy resources from industrial revolution such as coal mine and petroleum, because of developing quickly, these resources are consumed quickly, but these resources are hidden under the ground for many long years, people now have to build a new energy resources supplying model. Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) becomes popular in
Transportation industry, this research will discuss consumer’s acceptance of HEV.
This research is combined technology acceptance model (TAM) and theory of planned behavior (TPB), analyzes influencing factors of buying HEV by consumers. This research’s questionnaire is filled in by Taiwan consumers. This research makes some suggestions in business
application and academic application.
Keywords hybrid electric vehicle, technology acceptance model, theory of planned behavior
III
2011 6 28
... ABSTRACT... ... ... ... ... ...1 1.1 ...1 1.2 ...6 1.3 ...6 1.4 ...8 ...9 2.1 ...9 2.2 ...11 ...13 3.1 ...13 3.2 ...14 3.3 ...15 3.4 ...16 3.5 ...17 ...20 4.1 ...20 4.2 ...23 4.3 ...25 4.4 ...27
V 5.1 ...32 5.2 ...33 5.3 ...38 ...40 ...46 ...47 ...48 ...51 ...52
...15 ...16 ...20 ...22 Cronbach s ...23 ...24 ...25 ...27 ...28 ...28 ...30 ...31 ...38
VII ...1 / ...2 ...2 ...4 Prius...4 RX450h...5 Insight Hybrid...6 CT200h...7 ...9 ...10 ...11 ...13 ...18 ...19 ...29 ...35 ...37
1.1
2%
1899
PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle,
2
/
Energy Trend
(Hybrid Electrical Vehicle HEV)
Prius( )
98 8 ( ) ( ) FTP75 ( ) ( ) ( ) FTP75 2010 3500 2010 RX450h( ) 2155 2011 920 Insight Hybrid( ) 99.9 CT200h( ) 2011 2010
4
RX450h
CT200h Prius Prius 2009 Prius 20 8 2008 Prius 10% Prius 2010 10 200 2011 1 2 47% 2011 4 100 Prius 60% 2000 97% Insight 2009 2011 Elantra 2010
6 Energy Trend 1.2 1.3 (SEM)
8
1.4
2.1 (Theory of Planned Behavior,TPB)
Ajzen 1991
(Theory of Reasoned Action,TRA, Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980)
(Attitude) (Subjective Norm)
(Behavior Intention) (Behavior)
(Fishbein& Ajzen, 1980)
(Fishbein & Ajzen,1975)
(Perceived Behavior Control, PBC)
10 (Ajzen,1985) Ajzen(1991) (Consumer Behavior) Peter Olson 1987 Chechen Liao (2007) SP Kalafatis (1999)
Ya-Yueh Shih Kwoting Fang(2004)
Lane Potter(2007) Guido(2008) Biddle(2008) (Bamberg& Schmidt, 2003 Kerr et al., 2010)
2.2 (Technology Acceptance Model, TAM)
Davis(1989) (Technology Acceptance Model, TAM)
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980))
Davis (Perceived
Usefulness) (Perceived Ease of Use)
(Davis, 1986)
(Davis, 1989 Moon &Kim, 2001)
(Koufaris, 2003 Hsu&
Lu, 2007) Hiraoka(2009)
(2010)
3.1 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7
14
3.2
(Davis, 1989 Davis, et al., 1989)
H1 H1 H1 H1 H2 H2 H2 H2
(Davis, 1989 Moon &Kim, 2001) (2009) H3 H3 H3 H3 H4 H4 H4 H4
(Davis, 1989 Fishbein& Ajzen, 1975) (2010)
(Ajzen& Fishbein, 1977) H5 H5 H5 H5 Ajzen(1991)
H6 H6 H6 H6 H7 H7 H7 H7 3.3 Likert 1 2 3 4 5 Davis(1989) (2010) Davis(1989) (2010)
Taylor and Todd(1995) Biddle(2008)
Taylor and Todd(1995) Biddle(2008)
Taylor and Todd(1995) Biddle(2008)
Taylor and Todd(1995) Biddle(2008)
16 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. ( / ) 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 3.4
354 308 87.01% Thompson(1998,2000) 10 3.5 (Reliability Analysis) (Kerlinger, 1992) 0.5 ( , 2005) Cronbach s (Validity Analysis)
(Convergent Validity) (Discriminant
Validity)
18 SPSS12.0 Amos17.0 Amos17.0 PEOU PU Attitude PBC SN BI X1 X18 e1 e18
e19 e20 e21
Amos17.0 PEOU X1 e1 1 1 X2 e2 1 X3 e3 1 PU X4 e4 1 1 X5 e5 1 X6 e6 1 PBC X10 e10 1 1 X11 e11 1 X12 e12 1 SN X13 e13 1 1 X14 e14 1 X15 e15 1 Attitude X7 e7 1 1 X8 e8 1 X9 e9 1 BI X16 e16 1 1 X17 e17 1 X18 e18 1 e20 1 e21 1 e19 1
PEOU X1 e1 1 X2 e2 1 PU X4 e3 1 X5 e4 1 Attitude X7 e5 1 X8 e6 1 PBC X10 e7 1 X11 e8 1 SN X13 e9 1 X14 e10 1 BI X16 e11 1 X17 e12 1 X15 e13 1 1 X12 e14 1 1 X9 e15 1 1 X6 e16 1 1 X3 e17 1 1 X18 e18 1 1
20 Cronbach s 4.1 157 51.0% 51.0% 151 49.0% 100.0% 20 ( ) 77 25.0% 25.0% 21-30 190 61.7% 86.7% 31-40 36 11.7% 98.4% 41-50 5 1.6% 100.0% 51-60 0 0.0% 100.0% 61 0 0.0% 100.0% ( ) 2 0.6% 0.6% 22 7.1% 7.8%
( ) ( ) 24 7.8% 15.6% ( ) 161 52.3% 67.9% ( ) 99 32.1% 100.0% 165 53.6% 53.6% 143 46.4% 100.0% 10000 ( ) 152 49.4% 49.4% 10001-20000 87 28.2% 77.6% 20001-30000 36 11.7% 89.3% 30001-40000 15 4.9% 94.2% 40001-50000 12 3.9% 98.1% 50000 6 1.9% 100.0% 60% 25% 11.7% 2% ( ) 52% 32% ( ) 15.6% 53.6% 46.4% 49.4% 28.2% 22.4% 3.76 0.857 0.937 3.66
22 3.38 1.109 1.190 3.52 0.945 0.980 3.68 0.907 1.038 1. 3.808 0.854 2. 3.854 0.874 3. 3.773 0.927 1. 3.747 0.906 2. 3.867 0.876 3. 3.659 0.984 1. 4.003 0.759 2. 3.844 0.907 3. 3.890 0.835 1. 3.403 1.181 2. 3.575 1.100 3. ( / ) 3.494 1.117 1. 3.558 0.952
( ) 2. 3.575 0.954 3. 3.786 0.906 1. 3.792 0.907 2. 3.685 1.037 3. 3.685 1.018 4.2 Cronbach s Cronbach s 0.7 0.803 0.847 (Nunnally, 1967) Cronbach s
CronbachCronbach s CronbachCronbach s s s
0.844 3 0.836 3 0.831 3 0.847 3 0.803 3 0.834 3 0.531 0.755 0.5 0.802 0.847
24 .576 0.835 .559 .754 .706 0.838 .560 .632 .539 0.834 .755 .589 .636 0.847 .662 ( / ) .648 .632 0.802 .562 .531 .534 0.827 .678 .631
4.3
(Factor
Loading) (Average Variance extracted, AVE)
AVE
18 0.729
0.869 0.7 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)
6 0.576 0.649 Fornell and Larcker(1981) 0.5 0.5 0.759 0.629 0.747 0.868 0.840 0.633 0.749 0.795 0.734 0.628 0.869
26 ( ) 0.797 0.649 0.814 ( / ) 0.805 0.795 0.576 0.749 0.729 0.731 0.614 0.823 0.795 6
PEOUPEOUPEOUPEOU PUPUPUPU AttitudeAttitudeAttitudeAttitude PBCPBC PBCPBC SNSNSNSN BIBIBIBI PEOU PEOU PEOU PEOU .793.793.793.793 PU PU PU PU .703 .796.796.796.796 Atti Atti Atti Atti .624 .728 .792.792.792.792 PBC PBC PBC PBC .691 .486 .431 .806.806 .806.806 SN SN SN SN .611 .429 .381 .707 .759.759 .759.759 BI BI BI BI .664 .714 .696 .611 .592 .784.784.784.784 4.4 1.893
Carmines McIver(1981) 2.0 3.0 RMSEA
0.054 Browne Cudeck(1993) 0.08 GFI
0.921 Hair(1998) 0.90 AGFI
Jöreskog Sörbom(1989) 0.85
0.892 NFI 0.926 Bentler Bonett(1980)
0.9 Bollen(1989) IFI 0.80
0.963 CFI 0.963 Bentler(1990)
0.9 Tucker Lewis(1973) TLI 0.9
0.955 PGFI GFI (Mulaik et al., 1989)
PNFI NFI (James, Mulaik, Brett, 1982) 0.5
28 X2/d.f. 1.893 <2.00 RMSEA 0.054 <0.08 GFI 0.921 >0.90 AGFI 0.892 >0.85 NFI 0.926 >0.90 IFI 0.963 >0.80 TLI 0.955 >0.90 CFI 0.963 >0.90 PGFI 0.673 >0.50 PNFI 0.756 >0.50 4.5 p-value
pppp----valuevaluevaluevalue
0.221 0.074 0.010
0.703 0.082 <0.001
0.572 0.067 <0.001
( ) 0.316 0.100 <0.001 0.171 0.057 0.037 0.219 0.074 0.011 p-value<0.05 0.100 0.057 p-value 0.001 0.010 0.037 0.011 .221＊ .703＊ .572＊ .307＊ .316＊ .171＊ .219＊
30 =0.221 p-value 0.01 H1 =0.703 p-value 0.001 H2 =0.572 p-value 0.001 H3 =0.307 p-value 0.001 H4 =0.316 p-value 0.001 H5 =0.171 p-value 0.037 H6 =0.219 p-value 0.011 H7 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 TAM TPB
0.070 0.127 0.216 0.413 0.307 0.181 0.488 0.316 0.316 0.171 0.171 0.219 0.219 0.413 0.488 Amos17.0
32 5.1 0.3 3.7 0.703 0.413 3.6 0.488 Biddle(2008) Lane Potter(2007) Ajzen Madden(1986)
p-value 0.037 p-value 3.40 3.57 3.40 3.70 p-value 0.037 3.78 3.55 3.57 AVE 5.2 (Green
34 Prius ( / )
General Motors/Kim Smith
36
Coulomb Technologies
Coulomb Technologies
50%
38 (Ansoff, 1957) 5.3 21 30 20 25 45 (1999) B X Y B 1964 X 1965 1979 Y 1980 (2002) 86.7% Y
46.4%
40 (2002) (2005) , (2010) , pp272-294 (2009) -(1999) ,
Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M. (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and
review of empirical research, Psychological BulletinVolume 84, Issue 5, September 1977, Pages 888-918
Ajzen, I., Madden, T. J. (1986) Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes,
intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, pp. 453-474.
Ansoff,I. (1957) Strategy for Diversification, Harvard Business Review, 35(5),
pp.113-124
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y. (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Volume 16, Number 1, pp.74-94
Bamberg S., Schmidt, P. (2003) Incentives, Morality, Or Habit? Predicting Students’
Car Use for University Routes With the Models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis, Environment and behavior
Bentler, P. M.(1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological
bulletin, Vol. 107, No, 2, pp. 238-246
Bentler, P. M., Bonett, D. (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis
of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), pp. 588-606.
42
Bollen, K.A. (1989) A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models.
Sociological Method and Research, 17, pp. 303-316
Browne, M. W., Cudeck, R. (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long(Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. pp. 136-162
Carmines E. and J. McIver (1981) Analyzing models with unobserved variables:
Analysis of covariance structures, In G. Bohrnstedt and E. Borgatta (eds.), Social Measurement: Current Issues. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 61–73
Davis, F. D. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., Warshaw, P. R. (1989) User acceptance of computer
technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction
to theory and research: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.18, No.1, pp. 39-50
Guido G., Peluso A. M., Prete M. I., Quarchioni J. (2008) The market for hydrogen
cars: non-expert and expert consumers’ product images and determinant of purchase intention, The world of new economy
Hair, J., R. Anderson, R. Tatham, W. Black (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis,
Hiraoka, C. (2009) Forming the conceptual framework into a research model,
Technology Acceptance of Connected Services in the Automotive Industry 69-77
Hsu, C. L. ,Lu, H.G. (2007) Consumer behavior in online game communities: A
motivational factor perspective, Computers in Human BehaviorVolume 23, Issue 3, May 2007, Pages 1642-1659
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982) Causal analysis: Assumptions,
models,
and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jöreskog, K. G., Sörbom, D. (1989) LISREL 7 user's reference guide. Chicago:
SPSS Publications.
Kalafatis S. P., Pollard M., East R., Tsogas, M. H. (1999) Green marketing and
Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour: a cross-market examination, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 16 Iss: 5, pp.441 – 460
Kerlinger, F. N. (1992) Foundations of behavioral research (3rd edition), Fort Worth:
Harcourt Brace
Kerr, A. , Lennon, A., Watson, B. (2010) The call of the road: factors predicting
students’ car travelling intentions and behaviour, Transportation Volume 37, Number 1, 1-13
Koufaris, K. (2003) Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to
44
Liaoa, C., Chena J.-L. , Yen D. C. (2007) Theory of planning behavior (TPB) and
customer satisfaction in the continued use of e-service: An integrated model,
Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages 2804-2822
Moon, J. W., &Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context.
Information & Management, 38(4), 217-230.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D.
(1989) Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological
Bulletin, 105, pp. 430−445.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967) Psychometric theory: New York: McGraw-Hill
Peter J. P. ,Olson J. C. (1987) Consumer behavior: Marketing strategy perspectives ,
Irwin, Homewood, IL
Shih Y.-Y., Fang, K. (2004) The use of a decomposed theory of planned behavior to
study Internet banking in Taiwan, Internet Research, Vol. 14 Iss: 3, pp.213 – 223
Taylor, S., Todd, P. (1995) Understanding Information Technology Usage: A test of
competing models, Information Systems Research, 6, 2, 144–176
Thompson, B. (1998) The Ten Commandments of Good Structural Equation
Modeling Behavior: A User-Friendly, Introductory Primer on SEM, eric.ed.gov
Thompson, B. (2000) Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. In
L.Grimm & P. Yarnold (eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp.261-284), Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tucker, L. R., Lewis, C. (1973) The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood
factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, pp. 1-10
46
附錄一
附錄一
附錄一
附錄一
汽車耗能標準
汽車耗能標準
汽車耗能標準
汽車耗能標準
小客車耗能標準(轎式、旅行式) 車輛總排氣量等級 車輛總排氣量等級車輛總排氣量等級 車輛總排氣量等級((((立方公分立方公分立方公分)))) 立方公分 耗能標準耗能標準((((公里耗能標準耗能標準 公里公里////公升公里公升公升公升)))) 1200 以下 16.2 1200~1800 13.0 1800~2400 11.4 2400~3000 10.0 3000~3600 9.2 3600~4200 8.5 4200~5400 7.2 5400 以上 6.5 資料來源：全國法規資料庫 小貨車、兩用車和小客車(非轎式、非旅行式)耗能標準 車輛總排氣量等級 車輛總排氣量等級車輛總排氣量等級 車輛總排氣量等級((((立方公分立方公分立方公分)))) 立方公分 耗能標準耗能標準((((公里耗能標準耗能標準 公里公里////公升公里公升公升公升)))) 1200 以下 10.9 1200~1800 9.9 1800~2400 8.9 2400~3000 8.6 3000~3600 7.6 3600~4200 7.0 4200~5400 6.7 5400 以上 6.1 資料來源：全國法規資料庫附錄
附錄
附錄
附錄二
二
二
二
汽車能源效率標示格式圖例
汽車能源效率標示格式圖例
汽車能源效率標示格式圖例
汽車能源效率標示格式圖例
48
附錄
附錄
附錄
附錄三
三
三
三
問卷正式版本
問卷正式版本
問卷正式版本
問卷正式版本
消費者購買油電混合車因素之研究
消費者購買油電混合車因素之研究
消費者購買油電混合車因素之研究
消費者購買油電混合車因素之研究
/ E-mail ben200215@yahoo.com.tw 1. 2. 3.1. 2. 3. 1. □ □ 2. □ □ 3. □ □ 1. □ □ □ □ 2. □ □ □ □ 3. ( / ) □ □ □ □
50 1. □ □ □ □ □ 2. □ □ □ □ □ 3. □ □ □ □ □ 1. □ □ □ □ □ 2. □ □ □ □ □ 3. □ □ □ □ □ 20 ( ) 21-30 31-40 41-50 51 -60 61 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 10000 ( ) 10001-20000 20001-30000 30001-40000 40001-50000 50000
附錄
附錄
附錄
附錄四
四
四
四
結構模型分析
結構模型分析
結構模型分析
結構模型分析結果
結果
結果
結果
PEOU .58 X1 e1 .76 .56 X2 e2 .75 .75 X3 e3 .87 .49 PU .71 X4 e4 .84 .56 X5 e5 .75 .63 X6 e6 .79 PBC .64 X10 e10 .80 .66 X11 e11 .81 .65 X12 e12 .80 SN .63 X13 e13 .79 .56 X14 e14 .75 .53 X15 e15 .73 .55 Attitude .54 X7 e7 .73 .76 X8 e8 .87 .59 X9 e9 .77 .67 BI .53 X16 e16 .73 .68 X17 e17 .82 .63 X18 e18 .79 .70 .32 .17 .22 .31 .69 .71 .61 e20 e21 e19 .57 .2252
