Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

User preferences and willingness to pay for in-vehicle assistance

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Electronic Markets Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As consumers’ demand for interconnectivity and infotainment grows continuously, car manufacturers face the challenge of developing more sophisticated, user appealing and economically viable in-vehicle infotainment assistants while staying within the boundaries of their limited resources. Based on the results extracted from an empirical study with 278 participants from Germany, this contribution supports car manufacturers to tackle this challenge by providing concrete guidance on optimal feature design, pricing, as well as initial market segmentation. Regarding the optimal feature design, we note that delivering continuously available and flawless systems with a speech input interface should be the top priority when developing such vehicular assistance. Further, we suggest that the in-vehicle infotainment assistants should be either reactive (i.e., react only to driver’s instruction) or independently proactive (i.e., exert full control without engaging the driver in decisions), but not semi-automatic (i.e., assistant issues recommendations and then follows the driver’s instructions).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The global in-car entertainment market is expected to grow from $14.4 billion in 2016 to $33.8 billion by 2020 (Stratistics 2017)

  2. A D-optimal design entails only appropriate attribute alternatives and groups them in choice sets (Vermeulen et al. 2008) in such a way that it minimizes the generalized variance of the estimated parameters (Street and Burgess 2007, p. 84).

  3. To ensure valid results, we performed Spearman correlation tests to check for potential multicollinearity between the independent variables of the model, but specifically between the participants’ age and technophobia levels. The results of the Spearman correlation test reveals no statistically significant correlation between technophobia and age, supporting the validity of the finding mentioned above.

  4. During our segmentation and further analyses, we focus on the group of sometimes purchasers following Gensler et al.’ (2012) insight that including extreme response behavior (i.e., always purchasers or never purchasers) in CBC studies harms the validity of WTP estimates.

References

  • Alt, F., Kern, D., Schulte, F., Pfleging, B., Shirazi, A.S., & Schmidt, A. (2010). Enabling micro-entertainment in vehicles based on context information. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. ACM, 117–124.

  • Bruner, G. C. (2009). Marketing Scales Handbook: A compilation of multi-item measures for consumer behavior & advertising research. (Vol. 5). GCBII Productions.

  • Cellario, M. (2001). Human-centered intelligent vehicles: Toward multimodal interface integration. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16, 78–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, C. N., Love, E., & Alford, J. L. (2008). Quantitative early-phase user research methods: Hard data for initial product design. In Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Proceedings of the 41st Annual. IEEE, 37–37.

  • Coppola, R., & Morisio, M. (2016). Connected car: Technologies, issues, future trends. ACM Comput. Surv. CSUR, 49, 46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, B.R., Pantidi, N., Coyle, D., Morrissey, K., Clarke, P., Al-Shehri, S., Earley, D., & Bandeira, N. (2017). What can i help you with?: Infrequent users’ experiences of intelligent personal assistants. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on human-computer interaction with Mobile devices and services. ACM, 43.

  • Eichhorn, M., Pfannenstein, M., Muhra, D., & Steinbach, E. (2010). A SOA-based middleware concept for in-vehicle service discovery and device integration. In Intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). 2010 IEEE. IEEE, 663–669.

  • Gaffar, A., & Kouchak, S. M. (2017). Minimalist design: An optimized solution for intelligent interactive infotainment systems. In Intelligent systems conference (IntelliSys). 2017.IEEE, 553–557.

  • Gensler, S., Hinz, O., Skiera, B., & Theysohn, S. (2012). Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs. European Journal of Operational Research, 219, 368–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., & Wind, Y. (2001). Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces, 31, 56–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 3–19.

  • Howe, K. (2009). Anthropomorphic systems: An approach for categorization. In International conference on internationalization, design and global development 173–179.

  • Hüger, F. (2011). User interface transfer for driver information systems: A survey and an improved approach. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. ACM, 113–120.

  • Jackson, D. N. (1976). Jackson personality inventory JPI: Manual. Research Psychologists Press.

  • Kalish, S., & Nelson, P. (1991). A comparison of ranking, rating and reservation price measurement in conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 2, 327–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, K., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Sample size for multiple regression: Obtaining regression coefficients that are accurate, not simply significant. Psychological Methods, 8, 305–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, R., & Mahajan, V. (1991). A reservation-price model for optimal pricing of multiattribute products in conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 347–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumaraguru, P., & Cranor, L. F. (2005). Privacy indexes: a survey of Westin’s studies. http://repository.cmu.edu/isr/856/. Accessed 12 July 2018

  • Large, D. R., Clark, L., Quandt, A., Burnett, G., & Skrypchuk, L. (2017). Steering the conversation: A linguistic exploration of natural language interactions with a digital assistant during simulated driving. Applied Ergonomics, 63, 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luger, E., & Sellen, A. (2016). Like having a really bad PA: the gulf between user expectation and experience of conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 5286–5297.

  • Macario, G., Torchiano, M., & Violante, M. (2009). An in-vehicle infotainment software architecture based on google android. In Industrial embedded systems, 2009. SIES’09. IEEE international symposium on. IEEE, 257–260.

  • Meuter, M. L., Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Brown, S. W. (2005). Choosing among alternative service delivery modes: An investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies. Journal of Marketing, 69, 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moniri, M. M., Feld, M., & Müller, C. (2012). Personalized in-vehicle information systems: Building an application infrastructure for smart cars in smart spaces. In Intelligent environments (IE). 2012 8th International Conference On. IEEE, 379–382.

  • Müller, C., & Weinberg, G. (2011). Multimodal input in the car, today and tomorrow. IEEE Multimed., 18, 98–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olaverri-Monreal, C., Lehsing, C., Trübswetter, N., Schepp, C. A., & Bengler, K. (2013). In-vehicle displays: Driving information prioritization and visualization. In Intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). 2013 IEEE. IEEE, 660–665.

  • Parada-Loira, F., González-Agulla, E., & Alba-Castro, J. L. (2014). Hand gestures to control infotainment equipment in cars. In Intelligent vehicles symposium proceedings. 2014 IEEE. IEEE, 1–6.

  • Pfeuffer, N., Benlian, A., Gimpel, H., & Hinz, O. (2018). Catchword “anthropomorphic information systems.” bus. Inf. Systems Engineering forthcoming.

  • Ram, P., Markkula, J., Friman, V., & Raz, A. (2018). Security and privacy concerns in connected cars: A systematic mapping study. In 2018 44th Euromicro conference on software engineering and advanced applications (SEAA). IEEE, 124–131.

  • Rhiu, I., Kwon, S., Bahn, S., Yun, M. H., & Yu, W. (2015). Research issues in smart vehicles and elderly drivers: A literature review. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 31, 635–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosario, B., Lyons, K., & Healey, J. (2011). A dynamic content summarization system for opportunistic driver infotainment. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. ACM, 95–98.

  • Schlereth, C., & Skiera, B. (2012). DISE: Dynamic intelligent survey engine. In Quantitative marketing and marketing management. Springer, 225–243.

  • Spiekermann, S., & Pallas, F. (2007). Technologiepaternalismus—Soziale Auswirkungen des Ubiquitous Computing jenseits von Privatsphäre. In Die Informatisierung Des Alltags. Springer, 311–325.

  • Spiekermann, S., & Ziekow, H. (2006). RFID: A systematic analysis of privacy threats and a 7-point plan to adress them. J. Inf. Syst. Secur., 1, 2–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J. E., & Baumgartner , H. (1995). Development and Cross- Cultural Validation of a Short form of CSI as a Measure of Optimum Stimulation Level. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 97–104.

  • Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & Gielens, K. (2003). Consumer and market drivers of the trial probability of new consumer packaged goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 368–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stratistics MRC (2017). In-Car Entertainment - Global Market Outlook (2016–2022) [WWW Document]. URL https://www.strategymrc.com/report/in-car-entertainment-market. Accessed 6 Dec 2018.

  • Strayer, D. L., Cooper, J. M., Turrill, J., Coleman, J. R., & Hopman, R. J. (2017). The smartphone and the driver’s cognitive workload: A comparison of apple, Google, and Microsoft’s intelligent personal assistants. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. Can. Psychol. Expérimentale, 71, 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strayer, D. L., Turrill, J., Coleman, J. R., Ortiz, E. V., & Cooper, J. M. (2014). Measuring cognitive distraction in the automobile II: Assessing in-vehicle voice-based. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 372, 379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Street, D. J., & Burgess, L. (2007). The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Vermeulen, B., Goos, P., & Vandebroek, M. (2008). Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25, 94–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viereckl, R., Ahlemann, D., Koster, A., & Jusch, S. (2015). Connected Car study 2015: Racing ahead with autonomous cars and digital innovation. Strategy&pwc.

  • Wee, D., Kässer, M., Bertoncello, M., Heineke, K., Eckhard, G., Hölz, J., Saupe, F., & Müller, T. (2015). Competing for the connected customer—Perspectives on the opportunities created by car connectivity and automation. McKinsey Co..

  • Wertenbroch, K., & Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 228–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K.J., Peters, J.C., & Breazeal, C.L. (2013). Towards leveraging the driver’s mobile device for an intelligent, sociable in-car robotic assistant. In Intelligent vehicles symposium (IV), 2013 IEEE. IEEE, 369–376.

  • Wulf, L., Garschall, M., Himmelsbach, J., & Tscheligi, M. (2014). Hands free-care free: elderly people taking advantage of speech-only interaction. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational. ACM, 203–206.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems and Information Management, Goethe University Frankfurt, Campus Westend, RuW-Building, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 4, 60323, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    A. Cristina Mihale-Wilson & Oliver Hinz

  2. Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert-Bosch-Campus 1, 71272, Renningen, Germany

    Jan Zibuschka

Authors
  1. A. Cristina Mihale-Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Zibuschka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oliver Hinz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Cristina Mihale-Wilson.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Rainer Alt

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Smart Services: The move to customer-orientation

Appendices

Appendix 1

Survey questionnaire (translated from German)

Additional questions related to participants’ preference for in-vehicle assistance.

1. Please rate following statements:

figure a

2. The assistance system can act proactively on its initiative to assist you while driving. A distinction is made between vehicle-related proactivity (e.g., tank recommendation, garage service with booking), travel-related proactivity (e.g., traffic guidance, recommendation for breaks), and personal proactivity (e.g., music selection, missed call indication). Please rank the areas of proactivity according to your preferences. First click on the function you most like, then on the second, third and so on. You can renew the entry by pressing the reset button at the top right.

figure b

3. Please rank the functions related to vehicle-related proactivity according to your preferences. First click on the function you most like, then on the second, third and so on. You can renew the entry by pressing the reset button at the top right.

figure c

Please rank the functions related to travel-related proactivity according to your preferences. First click on the function you most like, then on the second, third and so on. You can renew the entry by pressing the reset button at the top right.

figure d

Please rank the functions related to personal or entertainment-related proactivity according to your preferences. First click on the function you most like, then on the second, third and so on. You can renew the entry by pressing the reset button at the top right.

figure e

4. The assistance system messages can either be communicated verbally by voice or visually over the vehicle dashboard. In the second case, they would be made aware of the messages on screen by a noise. Which alternative do you prefer?

figure f

5. Voice commands could be either spoken freely or with a fixed number of predetermined commands. However, in comparison to fixed voice commands, commands spoken freely induce a higher number of recognition errors. What percentage of erroneous interpretations would you be willing to accept, if you can use the assistant with a variety of freely spoken voice commands, instead of fixed commands?

figure g

6. The operation of smartphone installed applications (for example navigation, music player, telephone) which are mirrored and operated from the vehicles head unit might present different operating logic or menu guidance across applications. Applications which are embedded in the vehicle’s head unit have a coherent operating logic or menu guidance.

figure h

7. Please indicate how important a coherent operating logic in the entire assistance system is for you.

figure i

7-point Likert-type statements for the participants’ psychographic properties (Bruner, 2009).

8. Privacy awareness (Kumaraguru and Cranor 2005)

  • Consumers have lost control over how companies gather and process their private data.

  • Most companies handle the personal information they collect about consumers in a reasonable and confidential manner.

  • The existing laws and organizational procedures provide adequate protection for the privacy of consumers.

9. Technophobia (Meuter et al. 2005)

  • I feel frightened when I use technology.

  • Technical terms sound like confusing technical language.

  • I avoided technology because I am unfamiliar with it.

  • I hesitate to use most forms of technology out of fear to make mistakes that I cannot correct.

10. Change seeking behavior (Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1995)

  • I like to continue doing the same old things rather than trying new and different things.

  • I like to experience novelty and change in my daily routine.

  • I like a job that offers change, variety, and travel, even if it involves some danger.

  • I am continually seeking new ideas and experiences.

  • I like continually changing activities.

  • When things get boring, I like to find some new and unfamiliar experience.

  • I prefer a routine way of life to an unpredictable one full of change.

11. Innovativeness (Product trial) (Steenkamp and Gielens 2003)

  • When I see a new product on the shelf, I am reluctant to try it out.

  • Generally, I am among the first to buy the new products when they come on the market.

  • When I like a brand, I rarely switch to an application to try something new.

  • I am very cautious to try new and different products.

  • I am usually among the first to try the new brands.

  • I rarely buy brands of which I am unsure how they are going to perform.

  • I like to take my chances by buying new products.

  • I do not like to buy a new product before others do it.

12. Risk appetite (Jackson 1976)

  • I enjoy being daring.

  • I take risks.

  • I am looking for the danger.

  • I know how to handle the rules.

  • I am ready to try everything.

  • I am looking for adventure.

13. Participant’s attitude towards the in-vehicle assistant.

14. Participant’s perceived usefulness of the in-vehicle assistant .

Further information.

15. Gender.

16. Age.

17. Education.

18. Monthly net income.

Appendix 2

Table 6 Main drivers of purchase behavior of always purchasers
Full size table

Appendix 3

Table 7 Utility values for in-vehicle assistant’s attribute levels
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mihale-Wilson, A.C., Zibuschka, J. & Hinz, O. User preferences and willingness to pay for in-vehicle assistance. Electron Markets 29, 37–53 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00330-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00330-5

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation