This empirical study explores determinants of consumer resistance towards self-driving cars by considering the level of car autonomy. Based on a literature review, this research distinguishes between the effects of functional and psychological barriers on behavioral intention. Several studies have clarified that technological innovation in particular, need to overcome several barriers as a first step, before (potential) users will even start to favor buying such an innovation. Data was collected by an online-survey in December 2017, resulting in an effective sample of 182 respondents. The sample has an average age of M = 24.46 years with 70% male participants and a total of 95% were in possession of a driver license. To ensure that the respondents are able to differentiate between the characteristics or levels of autonomous driving, two independent samples were surveyed on the basis of different scenarios (low and high autonomy). In addition, a structural equation model (SEM) was used to perform an analysis of measurement and structural models using SmartPLS 3.0 software. The findings show that functional and psychological aspects explain consumer resistance towards self-driving cars. Interestingly, the results of a moderation analysis illustrate that the effects of both psychological barriers (i.e., image and traditions/norms) on behavioral intentions vary between a high and a low level of car autonomy. In detail, for those who evaluated the high autonomy scenario (N=92), significant results can be presented for both psychological barriers. Surprisingly, no significant relationship between risk barrier as functional barrier and behavioral intention can be verified. Conclusively, marketers and OEM’s, respectively, should elaborate specific strategies for the different levels of autonomous driving that will be introduced to the market over the next decades. To support these findings, it would be helpful to test the model with a larger sample and new items to test for a potential usage barrier. Moreover, it would be prudent to test additional scenarios and levels of autonomous driving.

The act of gift-giving is one of the most significant consumption rituals that individuals perform world-wide (Antón, Camarero, and Gil, 2014) and represents a substantial industry and a major source of revenue for retailers (Segev, Shoham, and Ruvio, 2013). In addition to its economic significance, gift giving is instrumental in maintaining social bonds and functions as symbolic communication in relationships (Belk, 1979; Belk and Coon, 1993). Various researchers (e.g., Belk and Coon, 1993; Fischer and Arnold 1990; Lowrey, Otnes, and Ruth 2004; Ruth, Otnes, and Brunel 1999; Sherry and McGrath 1989) explore reasons for giving and receiving gifts. Although these studies offer valuable insights into gift giving, research on luxury brands as gifts is scarce (Reyneke, Berthon, Pitt, and Parent, 2011). Similarly, research on luxury concentrates on consumer perceptions of luxury brands and motivations behind luxury consumption (Dubois and Duquesne, 1993; Zhan and He, 2012; Roux, Tafani, and Vigneron, 2017). There is a lack of research on consumer resistance to luxury brands. This paper attempts to address these gaps from a conceptual perspective. Drawing on gift giving, consumer resistance and luxury brand literature, this study will examine consumer resistance to luxury brands as gifts. Consumer resistance is “the way in which individuals or groups practise a strategy of appropriation in response to structures of domination” (Poster, 1992, p.1). Consumer resistance can be generic (toward all forms of consumption), or specific (toward a brand or product) (Nepomuceno, Rohani, and Grégoire, 2017). Moisio and Askegaard (2002) suggested three factors that trigger resistance: market conditions that are deemed unacceptable; products or brands that do not conform to the consumer’s self-image; and dominant cultural values that are rejected due to their hegemonic nature. Key motives for luxury brand consumption include impressing others or interpersonal aspects (Berry, 1994; Kastanakis and Balabanis, 2014), and personal or hedonic reasons (Dubois, Czellar, and Laurent, 2005; Wiedmann, Hennigs, & Siebels, 2009). The reasons for resistance to consumption are not merely the opposite of motives for consumption. Hence, to gain a comprehensive understanding of consumption, it is essential to examine resistance to consumption as an alternative consumption (Roux, 2007; Close and Zinkhan, 2009). This study will contribute theoretically to work on gift giving, consumer resistance and luxury brands. Managerial implications will be relevant to brand managers and how they can develop strategies to prevent consumer resistance to their brands.