Customer’s Adoption Intentions toward Autonomous Delivery Vehicle Services: Extending DOI Theory with Social Awkwardness and Use Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The high demand and acute timeliness that characterizes instant delivery entail the challenges of high labor costs and an increase in courier traffic accidents. Autonomous delivery vehicles (ADVs) may serve as a key solution, with their attendant reduced labor input and higher efficiency. Customers play a key role in the successful implementation of ADVs on a large scale. However, understanding the factors that affect customers’ intentions to use ADVs is still limited. Compared to autonomous driving, ADV customers are ultimately not the real users, who only are served by ADVs during the last leg of a trip. On account of this, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) may not be well-fitted for explaining the dynamics involved in ADV adoption. Within the context of ADVs, our study identified influencing factors that have not been captured by prior studies. This study incorporates infection risk, use experience, and social awkwardness into the Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory to explore customers’ intentions to use ADVs. Data from 691 survey respondents were collected to validate the research design. The results demonstrate that compatibility, social influence, infection risk, green image, social awkwardness, and use experience all have a significantly positive impact on customers’ intentions to adopt ADV services, while complexity and perceived risk both exhibited a negative impact. But no effect could be found for relative advantage, which may be because of the fact that customers only need ADVs to meet their delivery demand. This study contributes to understanding customers’ adoption intentions toward ADVs, informing policymakers in formulating ADV regulations and standards, and promoting the large-scale application of ADVs in instant delivery services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".