(272) Davis1989
(273) Hill & Jones2001Competitive Advantage 2008 Kyoto protocol 2006 Greenpeace Deming Cycle 1 PDCA Plan DoCheckAction 1 Hybrid 19981998 200520052006 20052006Hybrid Electric Vehicle, HEV
(274) Davis1989 1. 2003 2002 2. Hybridcars Hybrid 2008 7 Toyota 85% Prius 56.3% U-CAR 2007 5 Hybrid 2007 5 31 1,047,000 J.D. Power 2006 4 57% Hybrid 3. FordToyota Lexus 1 1 2005 12 Ford Escape SUV Hybrid 2006 3 Toyota Prius Lexus RX400h Lexus RX400h 2006 10 SULEV 2006/4/15 2006/4/22 2007/3/15 2007/5/4 2007 /8 2007/9/12 2007/ 12
(275) 4. 2 2 1998 1998 2005 2005 2005 - - TOYOTA 2006 2006 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS 1970 Dunlap & Van Liere, 1979Roper Organization, 1990 Stern, Dietz & Kalof, 1993Weigel & Weigel, 1978 3 Dunlap & Van Liere1979New Environment Paradigm, NEP
(276) Washington 0.813 0.785 Shetzer et al., 1991200620012004 3 Cohen1973 Caron1989 1997 Davis Fishbein & Ajzen1975Theory of Reasoned Action, TRA 1986 Technology Acceptance Model, TAM Davis 1989, 1993; Davis et al. 1989 Perceived UsefulnessPUPerceived Ease of UsePEOU 2005 2 2 TAM Davis et al.1989 TAM TAM Adams et al., 1992; Chen et al., 2002; Chin & Todd, 1995; Legris et al., 2003; Lin & Lu, 2000; Mathieson & Chin, 2001; Moon & Kim, 2001; Taylor & Todd, 1995; Venkatesh &
(277) Davis, 2000PUPEOU Gefen2000 TAM Davis1989 TAM TAM Davis1989 Dunlap and Van Liere1979 Taylor & Todd1995 Likert 50 TAM 3 3
(278) 3 1. Davis1989 2003 H1 H2 2. Davis1989 TAM H3 H4 3. 2003 H5 4. Dunlap & Van Liere, 1979 H6 5. 2007 2008
(279) H7 H8 (1)(2) (3)(4)(5)(6) 1. Davis et al., 1989 Davis1989 4 2. Davis et al., 1989 Taylor & Todd1995 4 3. Fishbein & Ajen, 1975Behavior Intention, BI Taylor & Todd1995 4 4.
(280) Dunlap & Van Liere1979NEP 4 5. 4 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 1. 2. 3. 1.TOYOTA Prius 2.TOYOTA Prius 3.TOYOTA Prius 4.TOYOTA Prius 1.TOYOTA Prius 2.TOYOTA Prius 3.TOYOTA Prius 4.TOYOTA Prius TOYOTA Prius TOYOTA Prius TOYOTA Prius TOYOTA Prius TOYOTA Prius TOYOTA Prius TOYOTA Prius Dunlap & Van Liere (1979) Davis (1989) Davis (1989) Taylor & Todd (1995) Taylor & Todd (1995)
(281) Cronbach s α 2007 3 17 2007 4 6 660 651 Extremity 12 363 276 5 5 5 373 363 55.76% 278 276 42.40% Total 651 639 98.16% 62% 31-40 38.3%58.3% 21-30 65.6% 363 276 6 6 6 F P 5.341 20.22 0.000** 4.931 4.937 24.819 0.000** 4.502 5.020 9.998 0.002** 4.727
(282) F P 5.573 5.443 1.262 0.262 4.489 4.275 3.790 0.052 6.184 5.838 24.969 0.000** *P0.05 **P0.01 7 Cronbach s α 0.8 -Item-total correlation 1 PU_4 1 ATT_4 28 7 Cronbach s α.905.894.955.919.954.931.919.894.955.936.954.931.913.879.950.911.918.953.923.879.950.921.918.953 validity 2003 2004 convergent discriminant2004 AMOS 7.0 1.
(283) 2000 2003 SPSS 15.0 Factor KMOKaiser-Meyer-Olkin 0.668 0.698 Bartlett Test of Sphericity 3P0.001 KMO 8 9 8 KMO Bartlett Kaiaer-Meter-Olkin 0.668 0.698 Bartlett 1312.794 916.676 3 3 0.000 0.000 OP_1 OP_2 OP_3 9 0.897 0.870 91.801% 90.98% 0.969 0.958 0.888 0.901 2. 2002 Fornell and Larcker1981 composite reliabilitycr average variance extractedavecr Fornell and Larcker1981 0.6 2004AVE Fornell and Larcker1981 0.5 2004 7 CR AVE 10
(284) 10 CR 0.920 0.894 0.943 0.938 0.956 0.936 AVE 0.794 0.680 0.846 0.835 0.878 0.551 CR 0.924 0.880 0.943 0.947 0.922 0.955 AVE 0.801 0.650 0.846 0.853 0.799 0.643 3. Fornell and Larcker1981 AVE AVEGrant, 1989 8 9 AVE AVE 11 12 11 0.891 0.591 0.825 0.587 0.555 0.742 0.164 0.216 0.213 0.920 0.433 0.453 0.601 0.276 0.934 0.219 0.127 0.271 0.238 0.182 0.937 AVE 12 0.895 0.425 0.806 0.618 0.487 0.802 0.345 0.281 0.269 0.920 0.381 0.463 0.523 0.227 0.924 0.354 0.190 0.392 0.392 0.201 0.894 AVE
(285) Anderson and Gerbing1988 Cronbach s α 13 14 13 1.000 0.591** 1.000 0.587** 0.555** 1.000 0.164** 0.216** 0.213** 1.000 0.433** 0.453** 0.601** 0.276** 1.000 0.219** 0.127** 0.271** 0.238** 0.182** 1.000 ** 0.01 14 1.000 0.425** 1.000 0.618** 0.487** 1.000 0.345** 0.281** 0.269** 1.000 0.381** 0.463** 0.523** 0.227** 1.000 0.354** 0.190** 0.392** 0.392** 0.201** 1.000 ** 0.01 1. goodness-of-fit
(286) Bagozzi and Yi1988 absolute fit indicesincremental fit indicesparsimonious fit indices 15 16 15 χ 2 /DF 3 1.944 Hari et al. (1998) GFI 0.9 0.89 Segars and Grover (1993) RMSEA 0.08 0.051 Browne and Cudeck (1993) AGFI 0.8 0.87 Segars and Grover (1993) NFI 0.9 0.93 Hair et al. (1998) CFI 0.9 0.964 Bentler (1988) IFI 0.9 0.964 Bentler and Bonett (1980) PNFI 0.5 0.814 Mulaik (1989) PGFI 0.5 0.725 Mulaik (1989) 16 χ 2 /DF 3 1.696 Hari et al. (1998) GFI 0.9 0.875 Segars and Grover (1993) RMSEA 0.08 0.050 Browne and Cudeck (1993) AGFI 0.8 0.848 Segars and Grover (1993) NFI 0.9 0.921 Hair et al. (1998) CFI 0.9 0.966 Bentler (1988) IFI 0.9 0.966 Bentler and Bonett (1980) PNFI 0.5 0.819 Mulaik (1989) PGFI 0.5 0.724 Mulaik (1989) 2. 0.354 0.106 0.318 0.649 0.521 0.154 0.042 0.145 17 4 SEM
(287) 0.496 0.030 0.277 0.497 0.478 0.227-0.067 0.098 17 5 SEM H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 4
(288) 17 P P H1 0.354 *** 0.496 *** H2 0.106 0.054 0.030 0.696 H3 0.318 *** 0.277 *** H4 0.649 *** 0.497 *** H5 0.521 *** 0.478 *** H6 0.154 *** 0.227 *** H7 0.042 0.328-0.067 0.185 H8 0.145 *** 0.098 0.076 * P0.05 ** P0.01 *** P0.005 5 6 0.354 0.354 0.185 0.106 0.291 7 0.649 0.649 0.230 0.318 0.548 0.354 0.354 8 0.042 0.042 0.022 0.145 0.167 9 0.154 0.154
(289) 0.080 0.080 10 0.521 0.521 6 7
(290) 8 9 10
(291) 2010 2001 57% 2020
(292) 62% 40 92 1999 15 2008 30 1. Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. P. & Todd, P. A. (1992), Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: a replication, MIS Quarterly, 16(2), pp.227-247. 2. Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. (1988), Structural equation models in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, 13, pp.411-423. 3. Bentler, P. M. (1988), Comparitive fit indexes in structural models, Psychological Bulletin, 107, pp.238-246. 4. Bentler, P. M. & Bonett, D. G. (1980), Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures, Psychological Bulletin, 88, pp.588-600. 5. Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. (1988), On the use of structural equation model in experimental framework, Psychology & Marketing, 20, pp.123-138.
(293) 6. Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993), Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long (eds.), Testing structural equation models, Newbury Park, pp.136-162, CA: Sage. 7. Caron, J. A. (1989), Environmental Perspectives of Blacks: Acceptance of the new Environmental Paradigm, Journal of Environmental Education, 20(21). 8. Chen, L., Gillenson, M. L. and Sherrell D. L. (2002), Enticing Online Consumers: An Extended Technology Acceptance Perspective, Information and Management, 39, pp.705-709. 9. Chin, W. C. & Todd, P. A. (1995), On the Use, Usefulness and Ease of Use of Structural Equation Modeling in MIS Research: A Note of Caution, MIS Quarterly, 19(2), pp.237-246. 10. Cohen, M. R. (1973), Environmental Information Versus Environmental Attitudes, Journal of Environmental Education, 5(2), pp.5-8. 11. Davis, F. D. (1989), Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology, MIS Quarterly, 13(3), pp.319-340. 12. Davis, F. D. (1993), User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), pp.475-487. 13. 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), pp.982-1003. 14. Dunlap, R. E. & Van Liere, K.D. (1979), The New Environmental Paradigm: A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Result, Journal of Environmental Education, 9(2), pp.10-19. 15. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, MA: Addison-Weley. 16. Fornell, C. R. & Larcker, F. F. (1981), Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, pp.39-51. 17. Gefen, D. (2000), E-Commerce: The Role of Familiarity and Trust, Omega: The International Journal of Management Science, 28, pp.725-737. 18. Grant, R. A. (1989), Building and Testing a Causal Models of an Information Technology s Impact, Proceeding of the Tenth ICIS, Boston, MA, pp.173. 19. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis (5 th ed), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Practice Hall. 20. Hill, E. W. L. & Jones, G. R. (2001), Strategic Management Theory (5 th ed), Houghton Mifflin Company. 21. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003), Why Do People Use Infrmation TechnologyA Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model, Information and Management, 40, pp.191-204. 22. Lin, J. C-C. & Lu., H. (2000), Towards An Understanding of The Behavioral Intention to Use A Web Site, International Journal of Information Management, 20, pp.197-208. 23. Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., and Chin, W. W. (2001), Extending The TAM: The Influence of Perceived User Resources, The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 32(3), pp.86-112. 24. Moon, J. W. & Kim, Y. G. (2001), Extend The TAM for A World-Wide-Web Context, Information and Management, 38, pp.217-230. 25. Mulaik, S.A., James, L. R., Van Altine, 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. 26. Roper Organization (1990), The Environmental: Public Attitudes and Individual Behavior, New York: Roper Organization.
(294) 27. Segars, A.H. & Grover, V. (1993), Re-examining Ease of Use and Usefulness: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis, MIS Quarterly, 17(4), pp.517-527. 28. Shetzer, L., Stackman, R. W., & Moore, L. F. (1991), Business-Environment Attitudes and the new Environmental Paradigm, Journal of Environmental Education, 22, pp.14-21. 29. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993), Value Orientations, Gender and Environmental Concern, Environment and Behavior, 25, pp.322-348. 30. Taylor, S. & Todd, P. A. (1995), Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models, Information System Research, 6(2), pp.144-176. 31. Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F. D. (2000), A Theoretical Extension of The Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Fiedle Studies, Management System, 46(20), pp.186-204. 32. Weigel, R. & Weigel, L. (1978), Environmental Concern: the Development of a Measure, Environment and Behavior, 10(2), pp.145-176. 33. 2006 34. 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS 35. 2001 36. 2000SPSS 37. 2002 38. 2005 39. 1998-40. 2002 41. 2006 42. 2003 43. 199738pp.37-52 44. 2005124pp.211-233 45. 2006 46. 2005 47. 2004 48. 2004 49. 1998 50. 2003WLANTAM 51. 2004 52. 2005- TOYOTA