## 4 Analysis and Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Topic Number** & **Topic Label** & **Most Common Words** \\ \hline Topic 6 & Dealers’ and Suppliers’ capability to follow procedures and processes of cybersecurity. & Capability, dealers, system, model, suppliers, access, implementation, solution, cyberattack, policy, processes, change, framework, standards, industry, development, collaboration, dependencies, embedded, challenges. \\ Topic 7 & Standards in cybersecurity & Standards, lifecycle, cybersecurity, development, automotive, vehicles, ISO, SAE, safety, standard, risk, future, autonomous, management, architectures, mandate, practice, activities, industry, model. \\ Topic 8 & Increasing connectivity of vehicles, such as V2V, V2I and V2X. & Connectivity, security, vehicles, connected, IoT, environment, Over-The-Air, updates, infrastructure, vehicle2 vehicle, implementation, devices network, architecture, ITS, traffic, autonomous, IIoT, customer, phone. \\ Topic 9 & Vehicle’s capacity to adopt cybersecurity systems & Vehicle, capacity, vehicles, size, communication, segregation, networks, control, encryption, cyberattacks, implementation, lifecycle, ECUs, standards, suppliers, adoption, proposed, secure, system approach. \\ Topic 10 & Lifecycle of vehicle. & Automotive, lifecycle, cybersecurity, systems, design, implementation, engineering, security, safety, testing, risk, analysis, system assessment, methods, aftermarket, iso, regulation, manufacturer, dependencies. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: CAN: Controlled Area Network; ICE: Internal Combustion Engine; ASPICE: Automotive Software Process Improvement and Capability dÉtermination; RACI: Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed; ECUs: Electrical Control Unit; ADAS: Advance Driving Assistance System; ISO: International Organization for Standardization; SAE: Society of Automotive Engineers; ITS: Intelligent Transportation Systems; IIoT—Industrial Internet of Things.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Topic Number** & **Topic Label** & **Average Loading** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** \\ \hline
1 & Diversity and intensity of attacks. & 0.052 & 0.002 & 0.603 \\ \hline
2 & Vehicle Security requirements & 0.032 & 0.002 & 0.880 \\ \hline
3 & Costs of cybersecurity technology. & 0.224 & 0.017 & 0.769 \\ \hline
4 & Collaborations in the supply chain. & 0.077 & 0.002 & 0.958 \\ \hline
5 & Heterogeneity of devices, components and vehicle variants. & 0.093 & 0.002 & 0.944 \\ \hline
6 & Dealers’ and Suppliers’ capability to follow procedures and processes of cybersecurity. & 0.130 & 0.002 & 0.957 \\ \hline
7 & Standards in cybersecurity & 0.041 & 0.002 & 0.976 \\ \hline
8 & Increasing connectivity of vehicles, such as V2V, V2I and V2X. & 0.104 & 0.002 & 0.937 \\ \hline
9 & Vehicle’s capacity to adopt cybersecurity systems & 0.193 & 0.002 & 0.971 \\ \hline
10 & Lifecycle of vehicle. & 0.053 & 0.002 & 0.973 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Summary statistics of the loadings of each of the topics. Table 7 presents the results that enable us to characterize the various factors influencing the maintenance of cybersecurity adoption in the automotive sector. In terms of _PEOU_, which refers to the level of complexity or simplicity of technology affecting its adoption, our findings reveal some factors that impact the complexity and impede the employment of cybersecurity in vehicles. The first factor is the vehicle's capacity to incorporate cybersecurity systems. Studies by [PERSON] et al. and [PERSON] et al. have emphasized that vehicles have limitations in terms of computational power and space to accommodate hardware [3; 60]. The next factor is the heterogeneity of devices requiring protection. As previously mentioned, vehicles possess diverse devices, variants (same vehicle model but with different components), electronic control units (ECUs), sensors, etc. This diversity increases the complexity of adopting cybersecurity measures.