Post on 18-Jan-2016
The Electric Vehicle Attitude-Behavior Gap: Targeting the Early Majority
Sanya CarleyAssociate Professor
School of Public and Environmental AffairsIndiana University
Electric Vehicles Today
Nissan LEAFPlug-in Electric Vehicle (PEV)
73 mile all-electric range99 mpg-equivalent
Chevy VoltPlug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV)
35 mile all-electric range93 mpg-equivalent (all-electric driving)
37 mpg (gas-electric driving)
3
U.S. Regulatory Push
• 2008 Obama Campaign Pledge: 1 million plug-in vehicles by 2015
• New Carbon and Mileage Requirements on Automakers (54 miles-per-gallon by 2025) through CAFE
• Manufacturers may count each plug-in vehicle as two vehicles in compliance averaging under CAFE
• California’s Zero Emissions Vehicle Requirement
INDIANA UNIVERSITY
4
Incentives• Up to $7,500 credit for purchase of PEV or PHEV,
depending on the size of the battery– All PEVs qualify for $7,500, but wide variability with
PHEVs• Up to $2,000 credit for recharging stations (expired
2011)• State tax incentives• DOT authorizes HOV lane access for electric vehicles• No highway fuel tax for electric vehicles
INDIANA UNIVERSITY
INDIANA UNIVERSITY 5
President Obama’s 1 million Electric Vehicle Goal
INDIANA UNIVERSITY 6
Conventional Hybrid v. Electric Vehicle Sales
7
Targeting the Early Majority
Source: www.free-power-point-templates.com
INDIANA UNIVERSITY
INDIANA UNIVERSITY 8
Attitude-Behavior Gap
8 major factors of the attitude-behavior gap in electric vehicle adoption intention. These factors were identified through literature review of the attitude-behavior gap, particularly with respect to pro-environmental behavior and vehicle adoption behavior.
Habit Self-efficacy Emotions Knowledge
Attitude Intention Behavior
Experience Institutional Factors
Competing Priorities
Normative Influences
INDIANA UNIVERSITY 9
Survey Administration
• Random sample of individuals from the 32 largest U.S. metro area• 18 years+, driver’s license, and intent to
purchase/lease in next 2 years• 15-minute online survey administered by
Qualtrics in fall, 2013• Survey instrument designed to extract
perceptions of and attitudes toward electric vehicles, as well as vehicle preferences, driving behavior, and other characteristics
10
11
Targeting the Early Majority• Question 1: Considering what you know about cars and the information
provided on the labels above, will your next vehicle purchase or lease be a conventional gasoline, conventional hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or plug-in electric vehicle?
• Question 2: Overall, what are your impressions of the following types of vehicles at this time? – Likert scale: Highly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, highly
unfavorable
• Those that are favorable but NOT interested in buying an electric vehicle compose our population of interest• Comparison group: those favorable and intend to buy one
• n=580 for the PHEV and n=473 for the PEV
INDIANA UNIVERSITY
INDIANA UNIVERSITY 12
Methodological Approach
Pr[y>0|X]=Φ(Xβ1,ε1)
y: binary, equal to ‘1’ when respondent is favorable toward a PEV or PHEV, respectively, but does not choose a PEV or a PHEV for intent to purchaseX: vector of attitude-behavior gap parameter estimates as well as controlsε: normally distributed error term
• Combine variables into important constructs • First calculate Cronbachs alpha coefficients on all related variables
to confirm appropriateness of combining• Perform factor analysis to identify constructs
INDIANA UNIVERSITY 13
Factor Constructs
• Major concerns with EVs• Major benefits of EVs• Minor concerns or benefits
• Economy car buyer• Car lover• Family attributes• Rugged attributes
• Policy incentives
Advantages and drawbacks to PEVS
Vehicle attributes
Policy mechanisms
INDIANA UNIVERSITY 14
Important ABG VariablesABG Factor Related variables
Habit Owns alternative fuel vehicle
Self-efficacy Impact on environment
Emotions Sound benefits, Torque benefits
Experience Word of mouth
Institutional factors Next car replacement, Has garage, Car reliance, Aware of local L2 charging, Range concerns, Charging availability concerns, Resale concerns, Safety concerns,
Competing prioritiesEconomy car buyer, Car lover buyer, Family attributes car buyer, Rugged car buyer, Supportive EV Policies, Maintenance cost benefits, Fuel savings benefits, Recharge time concerns, Outdated tech concerns, Battery failure concerns
Normative influences Environmental image benefits, Impact on environment, Peer concerns
INDIANA UNIVERSITY 15
INDIANA UNIVERSITY 16
PHEV ResultsHabit Self-efficacy Emotions Knowledge
Attitude Intention Behavior
Experience Institutional Factors
Competing Priorities
Normative Influences
Habit Self-efficacy Emotions Knowledge
Attitude Intention Behavior
Experience Institutional Factors
Competing Priorities
Normative Influences
INDIANA UNIVERSITY 17
PHEV ResultsHabit Self-efficacy Emotions Knowledge
Attitude Intention Behavior
Experience Institutional Factors
Competing Priorities
Normative Influences
Interest in PHEVs is strongly motivated by:• Respondents’ high gas expenditure• Availability of policy incentives
INDIANA UNIVERSITY 18
PHEV ResultsHabit Self-efficacy Emotions Knowledge
Attitude Intention Behavior
Experience Institutional Factors
Competing Priorities
Normative Influences
• Particular interest in the environmental impacts• Concern about changes in noise profile of vehicles
INDIANA UNIVERSITY 19
INDIANA UNIVERSITY 20
PEV ResultsHabit Self-efficacy Emotions Knowledge
Attitude Intention Behavior
Experience Institutional Factors
Competing Priorities
Normative Influences
Habit Self-efficacy Emotions Knowledge
Attitude Intention Behavior
Experience Institutional Factors
Competing Priorities
Normative Influences
INDIANA UNIVERSITY 21
PEV ResultsHabit Self-efficacy Emotions Knowledge
Attitude Intention Behavior
Experience Institutional Factors
Competing Priorities
Normative Influences
• Would not replace an existing car, suggesting issues of compatibility with current lifestyle
• Interest eroded by heavy reliance on vehicle
INDIANA UNIVERSITY 22
PEV ResultsHabit Self-efficacy Emotions Knowledge
Attitude Intention Behavior
Experience Institutional Factors
Competing Priorities
Normative Influences
• Interested in new vehicle technology but concerned technology will become outdated
• Interest in the environmental impacts
23
Research Implications• PEV and PHEV appeal to potential consumers differently,
requiring different marketing approaches• Potential market for PHEVs is larger than PEVs• PHEV consumer: more typical profile to average vehicle consumer• PEV consumer: similar to early adopter community– more focused
on technology, and strongly mindful of the benefits and barriers to PEVs
• PHEV marketing: • Convince consumers that they will save $$ on gas expenditures• Steer them toward government incentives
• PEV marketing: • Make it easier for consumers to understand how to incorporate PEVs
into their lifestyles• Highlight the battery technology, and its reliability
INDIANA UNIVERSITY
QUESTIONS?