Psychologicalinfluencesonpublicacceptanceofthe...
1
Six barrier categories significantly predicted PHEV interest, F-test of explained/unexplained variance (6,58) = 7.64, significance (p) = < .001, percent of variance explained (R 2 ) = .38. Psychological Barrier Categories Predic2ve of PHEV Interest B p sr 2 Investments -.90 < .001 .14 Cognitive Limitations -.47 .04 .04 Limited behavior .15 .04 .04 Measures Survey PHEV perception scale. Quantitative and qualitative questions assessing perceptions of, and willingness to adopt, the PHEV (e.g., most appealing and least appealing aspects), preferences (e.g., charging), and financial considerations. Psychological barriers scale. Gifford’s (2011) 92-item scale, adapted to assess willingness to switch to a PHEV, represented 22 barriers grouped into six categories (i.e., investments, cognitive limitations, limited behaviour, ideology, social comparison, and mistrust) (scale reliability, α = .97). For example, “Government incentive programs that I know about for making this change are inadequate.” An omnibus 22-item scale (α = . 85) was later created based on pilot study data. Financial scale. Assessed financial aspects, such as purchase price premium respondents were willing to pay and expected time to recover this premium via fuel savings. Demographic scale. Assessed age, gender, etc. Procedure Participants were referred to a website to read the PHEV guide and complete the online survey. Data Analyses Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS © . Means and correlations were evaluated, and a multiple regression analysis was conducted. Qualitative data were analyzed using an abbreviated from of ‘grounded theory’ analysis coding procedures to identify thematic categories (see Strauss and Corbin, 1998), through QSR International’s NVivo © 9 software. Themes were then analyzed for their frequency. Good inter-rater reliability was found between the two independent raters (mean K = .79). Introduc2on Method Background Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles offer the potential to considerably mitigate transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions without the curtailment of personal car use (e.g., Jaramillo & Samaras, 2007). Ultimately, however, it is customers who will determine the degree to which these environmental benefits are actualized through the rate and extent of PHEV adoption. Thus, estimating the uptake of these vehicles necessitates an understanding of probable consumer responses. Typical models of adoption forecasts assume that drivers are rational agents, acting as a result of utility-based concerns, such as cost (Lieven et al., 2011), yet psychological factors, such as the symbolic meaning of the vehicle or the desire to gain enjoyment through driving (e.g., Steg, 2005) also influence consumers’ decisions. As such, an understanding of this psychological perspective needs to be included to more accurately gauge PHEV uptake. Research has begun to explore consumer responses to PHEVs (e.g., Graham-Rowe et al., 2011), as well as the psychological obstacles of GHG-mitigating behaviour (Gifford, 2011). Goals This research sought to examine public perceptions and preferences related to PHEVs, and to identify key psychological factors that inhibit or support consumer acceptance of this technology, using a combined quantitative and qualitative approach. Psychological influences on public acceptance of the plugin hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) Chris2ne Kormos, Robert Gifford, and Curran Crawford PhD Fellowship Key Qualita2ve Findings Most-appealing aspects mentioned by proportion of respondents (%) Discussion Method Par2cipants A community sample (N = 17 for the pilot study and N = 49 for the main study) was recruited from the greater Victoria area using unaddressed admail, for a merged sample of 66 participants (56.7% male, M age = 47.75 yrs, SD = 14.66, M pre-tax household income = C$74,137.10, SD = C $56,771.19). Materials PHEV Guide (adapted: Axsen & Kurani, 2008) The guide contained information about the technical and financial aspects of PHEVs, key advantages and disadvantages, photos and diagrams, as well as an instructional video. Findings suggest that cost is not the sole prohibitive factor to the adoption of PHEV technology. Indeed, perceived psychological barriers predicted, and explained substantial variance (38%) in, PHEV interest. The “investments” barrier category was the most predictive of interest (explaining 14% of variance). This category includes four barriers: sunk cost, habits, conflicting goals, values, and aspirations, and lack of place attachment, which concern past or present financial, behavioural, or time-related investments made by individuals that may impede change, as well as the multiple, sometimes opposing, demands placed on individuals. The “limited cognition” and “limited behaviour” categories each explained 4% of variance in interest. These psychological obstacles may be those best- addressed in vehicle messaging. The prospect of reduced carbon emissions was the most commonly mentioned appealing aspect of PHEVs, followed by anticipated reduced operating and maintenance costs and flexibility (i.e., battery plus gas engine). In terms of the least appealing aspects, vehicle purchase price emerged as the key prohibitive factor, which is consistent with research showing that consumers are fairly inaccurate in evaluating fuel savings from improved vehicle fuel efficiency. The second most common unappealing aspect was battery-related concerns (e.g., life expectancy, replacement cost, maintenance, and performance), followed – ironically – by concern about the environmental impact of the vehicles (e.g., battery disposal, sustainability of lithium supply, and emissions from electricity generation). The surprising degree of overlap between the perceived appealing and unappealing vehicle features suggests some confusion on behalf of consumers and highlights the need for consumer education, most notably in terms of the environmental and financial (e.g., expected fuel savings) life cycle analyses, along with a comparison with conventional vehicles. Publications During Tenure of Fellowship: Gifford, R., Kormos, C., & McIntyre, A. (2011). Behavioral dimensions of climate change: Drivers, responses, barriers, and interventions. WIREs Climate Change, 2, 801-827. Kormos, C., & Gifford, R. The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. (Submitted to the Journal of Environmental Psychology). Hine, D., Kormos, C., & Marks, M. (2012). Agree to disagree: A practical guide to conducting survey research in Environmental Psychology. In R. Gifford (Ed.), Research Methods in Environmental Psychology. Wiley. (Submitted to the Editor.) Kormos, C., Gifford, R., & Crawford, C. Psychological influences on the acceptance of new energy technologies: An investigation of the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. (In preparation.) Research Presented at: Canadian Psychological Association Convention, July 2011, Toronto, and the International Congress of Applied Psychology, July 2010, Melbourne. References Axsen, J., & Kurani, K. (2008). The early U.S. market for PHEVs: Anticipating consumer awareness, recharge potential, design priorities and energy impacts. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290-302. Graham-Rowe, E., Gardner, B., Abraham, C., Skippon, S., Dittmar, H., Hutchins, R., & Stannard, J. (2011). Mainstream consumers driving plug-in battery-electric and plug-in hybrid electric cars: A qualitative analysis of responses and evaluations. Transportation Research Part A, 46, 140-153. Jaramillo, P., & Samaras, C. (2007). Comparing life cycle GHG emissions from coal-to-liquids and plug-in hybrids. CEIC Working Paper 07-04 (June). Lieven, T., Mühlmeier, S., Henkel, S., Waller, J.F. (2011). Who will buy electric cars? An empirical study in Germany. Transportation Research Part D, 16, 236–243. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2 nd Ed. Sage, London. Steg, L. (2005). Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transportation Research Part A, 39, 147–162. Acknowledgements: The authors gratefully acknowledge the research assistance of Tawnya Perdia, and conceptual contributions from those at the Institute for Integrated Energy Systems. Questions? Comments? Please contact ckormos@uvic.ca Least-appealing aspects mentioned by proportion of respondents (%) Key Quan2ta2ve Findings PHEV Interest 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Social comment Aesthetic appeal Reduced noise pollution Convenience Appeal of new technology Increased fuel efficiency Reduced dependence on petroleum Flexibility (battery and gas engine) Reduced operating and maintenance costs Reduced carbon emissions 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Unproven technology Limited electric range Climate-related performance Electricity production Inconvenience of charging Insufficient infrastructure Environmental impact Vehicle type Battery-related concerns Purchase price
Transcript of Psychologicalinfluencesonpublicacceptanceofthe...
Six barrier categories significantly predicted PHEV interest, F-test of explained/unexplained variance (6,58) = 7.64, significance (p) = < .001, percent of variance explained (R2) = .38.
Psychological Barrier Categories
Predic2ve of PHEV Interest B p sr2
Investments -.90 < .001 .14 Cognitive Limitations -.47 .04 .04 Limited behavior .15 .04 .04
Measures
Survey PHEV perception scale. Quantitative and qualitative questions assessing perceptions of, and willingness to adopt, the PHEV (e.g., most appealing and least appealing aspects), preferences (e.g., charging), and financial considerations. Psychological barriers scale. Gifford’s (2011) 92-item scale, adapted to assess willingness to switch to a PHEV, represented 22 barriers grouped into six categories (i.e., investments, cognitive limitations, limited behaviour, ideology, social comparison, and mistrust) (scale reliability, α = .97). For example, “Government incentive programs that I know about for making this change are inadequate.” An omnibus 22-item scale (α = .85) was later created based on pilot study data. Financial scale. Assessed financial aspects, such as purchase price premium respondents were willing to pay and expected time to recover this premium via fuel savings. Demographic scale. Assessed age, gender, etc.
Procedure Participants were referred to a website to read the PHEV guide and complete the online survey.
Data Analyses Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS©. Means and correlations were evaluated, and a multiple regression analysis was conducted. Qualitative data were analyzed using an abbreviated from of ‘grounded theory’ analysis coding procedures to identify thematic categories (see Strauss and Corbin, 1998), through QSR International’s NVivo© 9 software. Themes were then analyzed for their frequency. Good inter-rater reliability was found between the two independent raters (mean K = .79).
Introduc2on Method Background Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles offer the potential to considerably mitigate transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions without the curtailment of personal car use (e.g., Jaramillo & Samaras, 2007). Ultimately, however, it is customers who will determine the degree to which these environmental benefits are actualized through the rate and extent of PHEV adoption. Thus, estimating the uptake of these vehicles necessitates an understanding of probable consumer responses.
Typical models of adoption forecasts assume that drivers are rational agents, acting as a result of utility-based concerns, such as cost (Lieven et al., 2011), yet psychological factors, such as the symbolic meaning of the vehicle or the desire to gain enjoyment through driving (e.g., Steg, 2005) also influence consumers’ decisions. As such, an understanding of this psychological perspective needs to be included to more accurately gauge PHEV uptake. Research has begun to explore consumer responses to PHEVs (e.g., Graham-Rowe et al., 2011), as well as the psychological obstacles of GHG-mitigating behaviour (Gifford, 2011).
Goals This research sought to examine public perceptions and preferences related to PHEVs, and to identify key psychological factors that inhibit or support consumer acceptance of this technology, using a combined quantitative and qualitative approach.
Psychological influences on public acceptance of the plug-‐in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)
Chris2ne Kormos, Robert Gifford, and Curran Crawford PhD Fellowship
Key Qualita2ve Findings Most-appealing aspects mentioned by
proportion of respondents (%)
Discussion
Method Par2cipants A community sample (N = 17 for the pilot study and N = 49 for the main study) was recruited from the greater Victoria area using unaddressed admail, for a merged sample of 66 participants (56.7% male, M age = 47.75 yrs, SD = 14.66, M pre-tax household income = C$74,137.10, SD = C$56,771.19).
Materials
PHEV Guide (adapted: Axsen & Kurani, 2008) The guide contained information about the technical and financial aspects of PHEVs, key advantages and disadvantages, photos and diagrams, as well as an instructional video.
Findings suggest that cost is not the sole prohibitive factor to the adoption of PHEV technology. Indeed, perceived psychological barriers predicted, and explained substantial variance (38%) in, PHEV interest. The “investments” barrier category was the most predictive of interest (explaining 14% of variance). This category includes four barriers: sunk cost, habits, conflicting goals, values, and aspirations, and lack of place attachment, which concern past or present financial, behavioural, or time-related investments made by individuals that may impede change, as well as the multiple, sometimes opposing, demands placed on individuals. The “limited cognition” and “limited behaviour” categories each explained 4% of variance in interest. These psychological obstacles may be those best-addressed in vehicle messaging.
The prospect of reduced carbon emissions was the most commonly mentioned appealing aspect of PHEVs, followed by anticipated reduced operating and maintenance costs and flexibility (i.e., battery plus gas engine). In terms of the least appealing aspects, vehicle purchase price emerged as the key prohibitive factor, which is consistent with research showing that consumers are fairly inaccurate in evaluating fuel savings from improved vehicle fuel efficiency. The second most common unappealing aspect was battery-related concerns (e.g., life expectancy, replacement cost, maintenance, and performance), followed – ironically – by concern about the environmental impact of the vehicles (e.g., battery disposal, sustainability of lithium supply, and emissions from electricity generation).
The surprising degree of overlap between the perceived appealing and unappealing vehicle features suggests some confusion on behalf of consumers and highlights the need for consumer education, most notably in terms of the environmental and financial (e.g., expected fuel savings) life cycle analyses, along with a comparison with conventional vehicles.
Publications During Tenure of Fellowship: Gifford, R., Kormos, C., & McIntyre, A. (2011). Behavioral
dimensions of climate change: Drivers, responses, barriers, and interventions. WIREs Climate Change, 2, 801-827.
Kormos, C., & Gifford, R. The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. (Submitted to the Journal of Environmental Psychology).
Hine, D., Kormos, C., & Marks, M. (2012). Agree to disagree: A practical guide to conducting survey research in Environmental Psychology. In R. Gifford (Ed.), Research Methods in Environmental Psychology. Wiley. (Submitted to the Editor.)
Kormos, C., Gifford, R., & Crawford, C. Psychological influences on the acceptance of new energy technologies: An investigation of the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. (In preparation.)
Research Presented at: Canadian Psychological Association Convention, July 2011, Toronto, and the International Congress of Applied Psychology, July 2010, Melbourne.
References Axsen, J., & Kurani, K. (2008). The early U.S. market for PHEVs:
Anticipating consumer awareness, recharge potential, design priorities and energy impacts. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis.
Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290-302.
Graham-Rowe, E., Gardner, B., Abraham, C., Skippon, S., Dittmar, H., Hutchins, R., & Stannard, J. (2011). Mainstream consumers driving plug-in battery-electric and plug-in hybrid electric cars: A qualitative analysis of responses and evaluations. Transportation Research Part A, 46, 140-153.
Jaramillo, P., & Samaras, C. (2007). Comparing life cycle GHG emissions from coal-to-liquids and plug-in hybrids. CEIC Working Paper 07-04 (June).
Lieven, T., Mühlmeier, S., Henkel, S., Waller, J.F. (2011). Who will buy electric cars? An empirical study in Germany. Transportation Research Part D, 16, 236–243.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd Ed. Sage, London.
Steg, L. (2005). Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transportation Research Part A, 39, 147–162.
Acknowledgements: The authors gratefully acknowledge the research assistance of Tawnya Perdia, and conceptual contributions from those at the Institute for Integrated Energy Systems.
Questions? Comments? Please contact [email protected]
Least-appealing aspects mentioned by proportion of respondents (%)
Key Quan2ta2ve Findings
PHEV
Interest
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Social comment Aesthetic appeal
Reduced noise pollution Convenience
Appeal of new technology Increased fuel efficiency
Reduced dependence on petroleum Flexibility (battery and gas engine)
Reduced operating and maintenance costs Reduced carbon emissions
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Unproven technology Limited electric range
Climate-related performance Electricity production
Inconvenience of charging Insufficient infrastructure
Environmental impact Vehicle type
Battery-related concerns Purchase price
