Article

Vision
24(1) 23–34, 2020
A Study on the Adoption of Electric © 2019 MDI
Reprints and permissions:

Vehicles in India: The Mediating Role in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india

DOI: 10.1177/0972262919875548

of Attitude
journals.sagepub.com/home/vis

Anil Khurana1
V. V. Ravi Kumar2
Manish Sidhpuria3

Abstract
Pollution of the environment is currently a global concern. Toxic emission from internal combustion engines is one of the primary air
pollutants. In order to mitigate the effects of fossil fuel emission and address environmental concerns (ECs), electric vehicles (EVs)
are being promoted aggressively all over the world. Various governments are encouraging people to switch to EVs by incentivizing
the transition. Previous studies indicate that the high cost of the electric car, non-availability of charging infrastructure, time and range
anxiety act as impediments to consumer adoption. The Government of India has given a call for ‘only Electric Vehicles’ on Road by
2030. This article is contemporary and examines the different factors that affect a consumer’s adoption of an EV. The respondents of
the study are existing car owners in India. The data were analysed using Structured Equation Modelling (SEM). Attitude (ATT) emerged
as a strong mediator, influencing the adoption of electric cars.

Key Words
Electric Vehicle, Attitude, Economic Benefit, Environmental Concern, Social Influence, Self-image, Behavioural Intention

Introduction PHEV: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) are

The over-a-century-old automobile industry is gearing up
for transformation. The fossil fuel price spike and the
impact of its emission on the environment have called for a
change in individual transportation habits. The sector,
propelled by internal combustion engines, is gravitating
gradually towards electric vehicles (EVs).
Electric motors propel the EVs and the rechargeable
battery or other portable energy storage device maintains
power supply. These vehicles are energy efficient,
generating less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
reduced noise. The different categories of EVs are as
follows:
HEV: Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) are powered
by fuel and electricity and have an engine and
an electric motor. Electricity generated by the
braking system charges the battery.
like HEV except that they have a small engine
and larger batteries. The batteries recharging is
either by the braking system or by plugging
into an external electric charging point.
BEV:  They have no engine and they use electric
motors for propulsion with batteries as the
energy storage device. They depend on external
power points for charging the battery. These
vehicles are also known as plug-in vehicles,
EVs or the battery electric vehicles (BEVs).
The transportation sector contributes about a quarter of
GHG emissions. Automobiles are the primary source of
GHG emission world over with China emitting 25.9 per cent,
the USA 13.87 per cent followed by India 7.45 per cent.
The Eighth Clean Energy Ministerial in 2016, in its
campaign, adopted the slogan ‘The EV30@30’. The member
countries reaffirmed their commitment to EV adoption. The

1 Faculty
of Management, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Lavale, Pune, India.
2 SymbiosisInstitute of Business Management, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Lavale, Pune, India.
3 Department of Business & Industrial Management, Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, Bhartana, Surat, India.

Corresponding author:
Anil Khurana, A 4/702, Ganga Satellite, Wanowadi, Pune, Maharashtra 411040, India.
E-mail: anil.khurana@me.com
24 Vision 24(1)

Figure 1.  Projection of Electric Vehicles (Colour Online)

Source: Adopted from Bloomberg Opinion.

aim was to attain a total market share of 30 per cent for EVs,
with 10 per cent market share for the respective categories,
namely passenger cars, light commercial vehicles, buses and
trucks by 2030 (IEA, 2016).
India’s commitment to containing pollution and reducing
carbon footprint is also increasing. The country prepares
to shift towards EVs by 2030. The government desires the
car manufacturers to migrate to EV production, which will
curtail the oil bill by US$60 billion, cut emissions by 37 per
cent and reduce the dependence on the imports of fuel, thus
acting as a shield from vulnerability against crude prices and
currency fluctuations.
The government is examining the battery swapping
option model to overcome the challenges in EV adoption.
The swapping model was introduced in Israel and China
met with partial success. The challenges are the battery size
and power. These may vary according to manufacturer/
models (e.g., Maruti Alto and Honda City). This compli-
cated situation under this model demands a similar vehicle
design to accommodate the same battery, which is difficult
to achieve. Another alternative could be battery leasing that
could reduce the ownership cost. However, the easy avail-
ability of charging points across different places in a city
remains a significant challenge yet unresolved.
The shift towards EVs in India is imperative in the near
future, though not imminent. Several cities are victims
of unplanned urbanization and high pollution. They suffer
unqualified degradation, with vehicular emission as the
primary source.
Figure 1 indicates the projection for EVs for a few of the
leading nations.
The Government of India has announced that all cars
need to be electric by 2030. Society of Indian Automobile
Manufacturer (SIAM, 2017) followed this with their white
paper stating that EVs would make up 40 per cent of new car
sales by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2047. This milestone date
coincides with 100 years of the country’s independence.
Literature Review
There are many studies done globally to understand
consumer adoption of EVs. Factors studied are the cost
of the EV, driving distance per charge, time to recharge
the battery, availability of charging points and battery
cost. Range anxiety and incentives offered—both financial
and non-financial—are the other attributes researched in
previous studies. Table 1 shows a few of the studies on the
most researched attributes.

Table 1. Most Researched Variables and Attributes

Authors Study Variable Attributes

Bahamonde-Birke and Hanappi (2016), Helveston et al. (2015), Mabit, Cherchi, Jensen, and Driving range Technology
Jordal-Jørgensen (2015), Peters and Dütschke (2014), Rasouli and Timmermans (2016), Valeri
and Danielis (2015), Barth, Jugert, and Fritsche (2016), Beck, Rose, and Greaves (2016),
Adepetu and Keshav, (2015), Plötz, Funke, Jochem and Wietschel (2017)
Axsen, Bailey, and Castro (2015), Rasouli and Timmermans (2016), Moon, Park, Jeong, and Charging time
Lee (2018)
Valeri and Danielis (2015), Bockarjova and Steg (2014), Jensen, Cherchi, and Mabit (2013) Charging station Infrastructure
Chorus, Koetse, and Hoen (2013), Glerum, Stankovikj, Thémans, and Bierlaire (2014), Wang, Financial incentives Policy
Li, and Zhao (2017)
Source: Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation.
Khurana et al. 25
Technology refers to the technical characteristics of a
vehicle. Previous studies indicate range anxiety, that is, the
short distance travelled per full charge of the battery, as
the major hurdle to the adoption of EVs. Infrastructure
attributes focus on the available charging infrastructure.
Research reports the positive influence of this factor.
Adequate charging facilities will save time and search cost,
hence, address the consumers’ range anxiety.
The higher price of EVs could restrain EV adoption.
Some policies related to financial attributes like tax reduc-
tion or rebate are strongly supported by evidence while non-
financial incentives like free parking and toll reduction do
not have enough supporting evidence.
Other barriers for adoption of EVs found were the
non-availability of EVs and lack of EV models. Literature
shows that the lack of knowledge and unqualified car
dealership may discourage EV adoption.
North American and European countries account for
most of the research. The effect of individual-specific
variables on EV adoption requires further research. Studies
have shown that psychological factors have a proven and
stable effect. Studies in India are few, and the focus of this
article is on an electric car, which is nothing but a subset
of the EV.
EVs have shallow adoption in India, and most people
lack the experience of handling EVs. Although the initial
price to buy an EV may be higher; the cost of running and
maintenance is relatively low. This is in comparison to
the internal combustion engine propelled vehicles that
have a higher running cost. Perceived economic benefit
(PEB) impact on adoption is one of the variables. As there
is a growing awareness of EC, this variable is also postu-
lated to be influencing the adoption of EVs. Self-image
(IM) and social influence (SoC.In) can influence high
involvement products’ adoption. Attitude (ATT) is the
mediating variable with behavioural intention (BI) as the
dependent variable.
Perception of Economic Benefits
The high cost of EVs is a deterrent in adoption as compared
with a similar conventional vehicle. Studies suggest that
the incentives offered support the acceptance of an EV.
Lower running and maintenance costs encourage BEV
adoption asserted. Aasness and Odeck (2015). Beresteanu
and Li (2011) analysed the benefits of a hybrid vehicle
in the USA, concluding that income tax incentives led to
an increase in market share of HEV. Wang and González
(2013) compared the energy costs for small electric buses
in their study. The energy cost of other fuel vehicles was
eight times higher than that of EVs. Low energy con-
sumption and power tariff result in lower running cost. The
total cost of ownership hence is lower and compensates for
the premium cost of an EV. Consumers with long driving
ranges stand to gain more than small daily run consumers.
Lower operating costs support the adoption of EVs (Adepetu
& Keshav, 2015; Barth et al., 2016; Lieven, Mühlmeier,
Henkel, & Waller, 2011). Researchers conclude that economic
incentives influence EV adoption. This study postulates the
following hypothesis:
H(i): Perceived economic benefit is a significant pre-
dictor of the consumers’ BI of adopting an EV.
Environmental Concern
Environmental concern is defined as an individual’s aware-
ness of environmental problems and their willingness to
address these problems. Studies report that environmental
benefits do influence consumer adoption intentions. Kahn
(2007) found that people who show concern towards the
environment are more inclined to adopt EVs, supporting
these findings were Pierre, Jemelin, and Louvet (2011).
People who are inclined to environmental protection
and energy conservation exhibit higher intention for
adoption. Pro-environmental consumers are the probable
EV adopters (Schuitema, Anable, Skippon, & Kinnear,
2013). Environmental benefits are essential motivators for
the adoption of EVs as reported (Peters & Dütschke, 2014)
in a consumer survey from Germany. The adoption of EVs
will reduce environmental risk (Bockarjova & Steg, 2014)
and positively influence the EV adoption as found by
Jensen et al. (2013) and Sang and Bekhet (2015). Besides,
environmental protection, acted like a big motivator, (Beck
et al., 2016), that is, a key factor for consumer attraction.
EVs should not only stress energy conservation; instead,
they should also focus on environmental protection, which
may enhance the adoption rate. This study postulates the
following hypothesis:
H(ii): EC is a significant predictor of the consumers’
BI of adopting an EV.
Social Influence
As a concept, it covers peer pressure, subjective norms,
neighbours and cultural influence. Individuals seek family
members’ and friends’ approval of their actions. Families’,
relatives’ or friend’s opinions influence the consumer’s deci-
sions, and consumers seek social approval using products
acceptable to people whose opinions matter (Nysveen, 2005;
Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Thus, people perform a specific
action due to SoC.In (Chen & Tung, 2014). Effect of people’s
behaviour influences an individual’s decisions in their social
network; this influence acts as a vital determinant in EV
promotion as pointed by Axsen, Orlebar, and Skippon
(2013). The impact of the social network is essential to an
individual’s adoption as confirmed by Rasouli and
Timmermans (2016) study. The paper proposes the following
hypothesis:
H(iii) SoC.In is a significant predictor of the consum-
ers’ BI of adopting an EV.
26
Self-image
IM captures the consumer feeling towards the product,
which may be his current or the anticipated perception
of himself (Sirgy, 1982). Consumer’s IM and product
image consistency exhibit a positive ATT towards the
product and this image congruence may lead to consumer’s
adoption. IM is an independent predictor of consumer
behaviour. Other factors may enhance or shape consumer’s
view of themselves (Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1989).
Consumer’s car evaluation considers performance attrib-
utes like efficiency and comfort. Additionally, it evaluates
factors, such as the symbolism of IM and social status.
Individuals compare themselves with others to increase
their self-recognition and IM (Breakwell, 1993). People
attribute high symbolic value to their vehicle as indicated
by Helveston et al. (2015) in their investigations. Such
individuals are inclined to buy an EV, meaning that EV
symbolizes high social status. The hypothesis postulated
by this study is as follows:
H(iv): Self-image (IM) is a significant predictor of the
consumers’ BI of adopting an EV.
Attitude
Assessment of a person, an object or an issue defines ATT
amid various definitions of ATT (Eagly & Chaiken, 2007).
ATT is a consistent response to the particular situation, an
object, or class of objects. ATT explains the evaluation and
judgement of a product or service. Literature defines ATT as
an individual’s assessment of the brand, product or service.
ATT has three distinct components, namely cognitive,
affective and behavioural. The cognitive aspect revolves
around an individual’s beliefs, thoughts and the features
related to the object or an issue. Considering an EV, the
cognitive component of ATT potentially comprises of the
belief that an EV is good or bad for the environment. Wang
et al. (2017) studied HEV consumers in China and found
that EC indirectly influences the adoption intention and
positively relates to the ATT towards HEV. Interpersonal
influence and community expectations play an essential
role in forming consumers’ ATT towards the adoption of
cars with new technologies (Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz,
1995; Stern, 2000). Impact of emotional factors like IM
and identity, willingness to contribute to a cleaner environ-
ment can be a crucial attribute in shaping ATT towards EV
as argued by Moons and De Pelsmacker (2012). ATT is an
antecedent to behaviour (Machleit, Allen, & Madden,
1993; Mitchell & Olson, 1981) and is a useful predictor of
intentions, which are better than demographic and situa-
tional factors of a consumer’s intentions to adopt a BEV
(Plötz et al., 2017). Examining a set of the best worst atti-
tudinal statement Beck et al. (2016) found ATT as the most
important adoption factor and that it has direct influence on
consumer’s intentions.
Vision 24(1)
The above review leads us to postulate the following
hypotheses:
H(v): ATT is a significant predictor of the consum-
ers’ BI of adopting an EV.
H(vi): ATT mediates the relationship between per-
ceived economic benefit and BI of adopting an
EV.
H(vii): ATT mediates the relationship between EC
and BI of adopting an EV.
H(viii): ATT mediates the relationship between SoC.
In and BI of adopting an EV.
H(ix): ARTT mediates the relationship between SoC.
In and BI of adopting an EV.
Behavioural Intention
Behavioural intention (BI) is the measure, or intensity,
of an individual’s intention to perform a specific behaviour
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Psychological factors shape indi-
vidual intentions towards the adoption of cleaner vehicles
studies (Kahn, 2007; Ozaki & Sevastyanova, 2011; Peters,
Gutscher, & Scholz, 2011) revealed this. These factors
cover EC, specific beliefs, social and personal norms and
shape intentions towards the adoption of cleaner cars.
The ownership evaluation and use of an EV (i.e., ATT)
influence the adoption intention. Individuals also consider
how other people would approve or disapprove of their buy
(i.e., subjective norm).
Based on the literature review, this study proposes the
following research model as given in Figure 2.
Research Methodology
In India, EVs are scarce on the road and are not available
readily in the market. Potential adopters/users of EVs may
have never even seen, driven or charged such vehicles.
People have limited familiarity with the characteristics of
these vehicles.
The data collection was done through a structured ques-
tionnaire. The developed instrument contained information
on constructs and their constituents. The designed ques-
tionnaire had two parts. The first part focused on the data
related to demographic characteristics of the respondents:
this covered gender, age, education, household income and
cars in the household. The second part of the questionnaire
measures the model variables. There was one dependent,
four independent and the mediating variable. The pilot
study had 26 items for 6 test variables. The revised list had
22 items based on the pilot test and depending on suita-
bility. There are six constructs; four are independent, one
mediator and one dependent variable. The final instrument
had 19 items measuring the input variables. The items
measured the BI to adopt.
Khurana et al. 27

Figure 2.  Proposed Model for Electric Vehicle Adoption

Source: Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation.
Note: PEB: Perceived economic benefit; EC: environmental concern; IM: self-image; SoC.In: social influence; ATT: attitude; BI: behavioural intention.

Sample Size one question each from EC and ATT and modified one
question from EC. Out of 214 respondents, 24.3 per cent
Structured equation modelling (SEM) lacks a defined were women, and the rest, 75.7 per cent, were men. All
formula to determine the appropriate sample size. Despite respondents were existing car owners and Indian nationals.
this, different authors suggested sample size of 100 or 200
Figures 3 and 4 show the age and educational profile of the
(Boomsma, 1985), 5 or 10 observations per estimated
respondents.
parameter (Bentler & Chou, 1987; Bollen, 1989) and 10
Structural equation model is an advanced technique
cases per variable (Nunnally, 1967) as different thumb rules.
used to study the relationship between several constructs
This article has 214 valid filled responses.
simultaneously. It is a structure of equations and can handle
The selected respondents were existing car owners.
several relationships in a single analysis.
They were residents of the National Capital Region (NCR)
This study employed SEM to investigate the predictive
Delhi, Mumbai and Pune. Out of the 450 respondents
relationship between the four exogenous variables. They
approached, 214 responded. There were no missing data,
are PEB (Perceived economic Benefit), EC, SoC.In and
and the responses were valid.
IM. The endogenous variable was BI with ATT as a medi-
Measurement ating variable. Mediation offers a reliable interpretation
of the causal effect. It describes the effect antecedent
The first part measures the demographic characteristics
has on the dependent variables and the rationale for the
as categorical data. The second part measures the model
variables using a 5-point Likert scale (1 as strongly disagree
and 5 as strongly agree).
SPSS version 21.0 (Software Package for Social
Sciences) and AMOS version 21.0 (Analysis Moment of
Structures) were used for data analysis. There are two
components of structural equation modelling—the meas-
urement model and the structural model. The first stage,
of the two-stage structural equation model, validates the
measurement model. The second stage measures the extent
and direction of the relationship.
Data Analysis and Results
The pilot questionnaire tested 33 respondents for relia-
bility. Cronbach’s alpha varied from 0.63 to 0.874, and
overall, α = 0.889. Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black
(1998) stated that the value greater than 0.6 is reliable. The Figure 3.  Age of the Respondents
revised instrument had 22 test items. The study dropped Source: Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation.
28 Vision 24(1)

Table 2.  Reliability and Validity

Cronbach’s AVE*(Construct
Construct No. of Items Alpha Validity)
PEB 4 0.712 0.388
EC 4 0.824 0.538
SoC.In 4 0.661 0.34
IM 4 0.736 0.435
ATT 3 0.895 0.75
BI 3 0.909 0.78
Source: Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation.
Note: *Average variance extracted.

Figure 4.  Educational Qualification of the Respondents PEB: Perceived economic benefit; EC: environmental
Source: Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation. concern; IM: self-image; SoC.In: social influence; ATT:
attitude; BI: behavioural intention.
Table 3 shows that all the measured indicators have
relationship. This article tests the mediation effect of ATT
loadings above the threshold point of 0.5. All are significant
between exogenous and endogenous variables.
at 0.1 per cent level of significance. The exceptions are ‘I
Construct Development and Measurement think I am more likely to adopt an EV if my friends and
The hypothesized model involves four exogenous variables relatives adopt it’.
and one endogenous variable. PEB, EC, IM and SoC.In are
measured using four items for each variable. Three items Table 3.  Factor Loading
measure endogenous variable BI. Three items measure the Factor
mediation effect of ATT. This study uses a 5-point Likert Measured Indicator   Construct Loading
scale, with 5 as Strongly Agree to 1 as Strongly Disagree, to
PEB 1: I will save on fuel expenses, as ! PEB 0.7***
measure items.
running cost should be lower in case
SEM is a two-step validation process. The first step of an electric vehicle.
validates the measurement model using confirmatory PEB 2: The maintenance cost for an ! PEB 0.6***
factor analysis (CFA) and the next step, the structural electric vehicle will be less.
model validation using SEM. The measurement model can PEB 3: Overall cost of owning an ! PEB 0.577***
access the reliability and validity of the instrument used to electric vehicle will be low due to
measure the underline construct. government incentives (incentives
= lower road tax/less insurance
Construct Reliability and Validity premium/cheaper loan)
Reliability and Validity are quality assessment tools for PEB 4: I am fully familiar with the ! PEB 0.609***
economic benefits offered by the
the instrument measuring the construct of the hypothetical
electric vehicle.
model. Reliability is the ability of the scale to produce EC 1: I want to adopt an electric EC 0.707***
!
consistent results. This study employs Cronbach’s alpha to vehicle because of increased air
examine internal consistency among items of the construct. pollution
Validity is the ability of the scale to produce accurate EC 2: The Electric vehicle can ! EC 0.805***
results. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) confirms the contribute to the environment for
validity of the scales measuring the constructs of the hypo- saving the future generation.
thetical model. As a rule, AVE score of 0.5 or higher EC 3: I am familiar with environmental ! EC 0.62***
suggests adequate convergence and validity. benefits offered by the electric vehicle.
EC 4: I want to conserve the ! EC 0.788***
PEB: Perceived economic benefit; EC: environmental
environment using the electric vehicle
concern; IM: self-image; SoC.In: social influence; ATT: over the conventional vehicle.
attitude; BI: behavioural intention. SoC. In 1: People will react positively ! SoC. In 0.622***
Cronbach’s alpha of all the constructs is above the when they see an electric vehicle on
threshold limit of 0.6 (Hair et al., 1988) as seen in Table 2, the road
thus supporting the reliability. AVE of three constructs is SoC. In 2: I think I am more likely to ! SoC. In 0.466***
below the threshold of 0.5, and thus factor loading reaf- adopt an electric vehicle if my friends
firms the validity. Factor loading is an essential indicator of and relatives adopt it.
construct validity. Factor loading is significant for loading SoC. In 3: People whose opinions are ! SoC. In 0.634***
important to me find electric vehicles
value above 0.5, indicating validity. Table 3 contains good
measured indicators, construct and factor loading. (Table 3 continued)
Khurana et al. 29

(Table 3 continued) Moreover, ‘Eco-friendly people will opt for an electric

Measured Indicator
SoC. In 4: Possessing an electric vehicle
would be a status symbol for me.
IM 1: Driving an electric vehicle fits
my style.
IM 2: Driving an electric vehicle will
reflect my personality.
IM 3: Eco-friendly people will opt an
the electric vehicle.
IM 4: My knowledge about the electric
vehicle will improve my image.
ATT 1: I am favourably inclined to
switch to an electric vehicle.
ATT 2: Driving an electric vehicle will
be a wise decision.
ATT 3: It makes sense to use
an electric vehicle instead of a
conventional vehicle.
BI 1: I would recommend the adoption
of an electric vehicle to others
BI 2: I would speak favourably about
the electric vehicle to others.
BI 3: I would definitely adopt an
electric vehicle.
Source: Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation.
Note: ***Significant at 0.1% level of significance.
Factor vehicle’. The above results support validation and the
  Construct Loading model retains the indicators for its importance to the study.
! SoC. In 0.614*** Factor loading indicates that the items of the construct
converge at a common point for each of the construct.
! IM 0.742*** CFA (see Figure 5) confirms how well indicators repre-
sent the latent constructs. It validates the following measure-
! IM 0.751*** ment model using IBM Amos version 21.
Five fit indices assessed the CFA model fit. The meas-
! IM 0.46***
urement model, under consideration, had indices for χ2/df,
! IM 0.646*** CFI GFI, PNFI and RMSEA within the acceptable fit. Fit
indices for goodness of fit index (GFI) were marginally
! ATT 0.792*** missed. The model fit was adequate. Table 4 shows the
indices for χ2/df, CFI GFI, PNFI and RMSEA.
! ATT 0.914***
Fit indices CMIN/df, CFI, PNFI and RMESA suggest
! ATT 0.888*** adequate fit between sample data and the theoretical model.
The measurement model analysis did not reveal the need
to change the items incorporated in the respective constructs.
! BI 0.898*** Hence, the structural model was analysed. The structural
model’s analysis tested all the nine proposed hypotheses in
! BI 0.913***
the proposed model. The results of the structural model
! BI 0.837*** accept six of the nine hypotheses, that is, H(iv), H(v), H(vi),
H(vii), H(viii) and H(ix) at p < 0.05 significance level. It
rejects one of the nine hypotheses, that is, H(i), as its p-value
was above p < 0.05 significance level. The hypotheses H(ii)

Figure 5.  Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Source: Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation.
Note: PEB: Perceived economic benefit; EC: environmental concern; IM: self-image; SoC.In: social influence; ATT: attitude; BI: behavioural intention.
30 Vision 24(1)

Table 4.  Fit Indices Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Fit Indices Recommended Observed Result

CMIN/df (minimum discrepancy as indexed chi-square) Less than 5 1.796 Acceptable fit
CFI (comparative fit index) More than 0.9 good fit 0.937 Good fit
0.8–0.9 borderline fit
GFI (goodness of fit index) More than 0.9 0.876 Marginally missed
PNFI (parsimonious normal fit) More than 0.5 0.730 Acceptable fit
RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) Less than 0.08 for adequate fit 0.061 Acceptable fit
0.08–0.1 for acceptable fit
Source: Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation.

Table 5.  Hypothesis Results

Hypothesis Number Construct SRW Significance Result

(i) BI ! PEB –0.043 0.511 NS
(ii) BI ! EC 0.18 0.07 PS
(iii) BI ! SoC In 0.131 0.078 PS
(iv) BI ! IM 0.261 *** Significant
(v) BI ! ATT 0.617 *** Significant
(vi) ATT ! PEB 0.271 *** Significant
(vii) ATT ! EC 0.668 *** Significant
(viii) ATT ! SoC In 0.34 *** Significant
(ix) ATT ! IM 0.198 0.002 Significant
Source: Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation.
Note: p < 0.05. NS = Not significant; PS = partially significant; PEB: perceived economic benefit; EC: environmental concern; IM: self-image; SoC.In:
social influence; ATT: attitude; BI: behavioural intention, SRW = standardised regression weight.

and H(iii) are partially supported with p-values of 0.07 and
0.078. Table 5 shows the p-values for different constructs.
Table 5 suggests that perceived economic benefit (PEB)
is an insignificant predictor for BI. However, PEB has a
statistically significant relationship with ATT. EC and SoC.
In are partial predictors of BI but significantly affect
the ATT. IM is a significant predictor of BI to adopt. It
also influences the ATT. These findings reveal that ATT is
a significant predictor of BI.
Assessing the structural model (Figure 6) indicates a
dependent relationship between the latent constructs.
Five fit indices assessed the model, as shown in Table 6.
For the structural model under consideration, the indices
for χ2/df, CFI GFI, PNFI and RMSEA were acceptable,
and the overall model fit was adequate.
The GFI statistic ranges from 0 to 1, with a recommended
threshold of 0.9. Sharma, Mukherjee, Kumar, and Dillon
(2005) suggest ignoring this index, given its sensitivity.
The value of 0.05 is as an excellent fit for RMESA. The
value of 0.05 to 0.08 is considered a good fit and 0.08 to
0.1 as an acceptable fit (MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara,
1996).
It is evident from Table 7 that full mediation exists
between SoC.In, Perceived Economic Benefits, EC and BI.
ATT cannot mediate the relationship between IM and
BI. Hence, the study concludes that Perceived Economic
Benefit, EC, SoC.In can influence BI via ATT, whereas IM
has a direct impact on BI.
Discussion
The study aimed to examine factors that may influence EV
adoption. Past research focused on technical factors,
financial incentives, infrastructure and ECs. The model
proposed in the study had Perceived Economic Benefit,
EC, SoC.In and IM as independent variables. The ATT
was the mediation variable to test BI. The study found that
the PEB is not related to the BI to adopt EVs. Instead,
it has a strong positive effect on ATT. Environment (EC)
and the SoC.In are partial predictors of the BI but signi-
ficantly affect the ATT. EC was a partial predictor for BI.
Thus for broader adoption of EV, all stakeholders need
to work together. Manufacturing firms, government
bodies, dealers and salespersons should promote the
benefits of EV to increase adoption. To do this, they should
show how EVs could mitigate toxic fumes generated by
internal combustion engines present in conventional
vehicles, which may also affect the ATT, which influences
the BI.
IM emerged as a stable predictor of BI. It influences
ATT as well towards the adoption of an EV. Results
revealed ATT as a significant predictor of BI.
Khurana et al. 31

Figure 6.  Structural Equation Model

Source: Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation.
Note: PEB: Perceived economic benefit; EC: environmental concern; IM: self-image; SoC.In: social influence; ATT: attitude; BI: behavioural intention)

Table 6.  Fit Indices (Structural Equation Model)

Fit Indices Recommended Observed Result

CMIN/df (minimum discrepancy as indexed chi-square) Less than 5 2.857 Acceptable fit
CFI (comparative fit index) More than 0.9 good fit 0.848 Borderline fit
0.8–0.9 borderline fit
GFI (goodness of fit index) More than 0.9 0.809 Marginally missed
PNFI (parsimonious normal fit) More than 0.5 0.68 Acceptable fit
RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) Less than 0.08 for good fit 0.093 Acceptable fit
0.08–0.1 for acceptable fit
Source: Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation.

Table 7.  Mediating Effect Table

Direct Effect Indirect Effect Total Effect

Path Beta p-value Beta p-value Beta p-value Result
SoC. In"BI 0.131 0.199 0.21 0.002 0.341 0.001 Full mediation
PEB"BI –0.043 0.575 0.167 0.008 0.124 0.112 Full mediation
EC"BI 0.18 0.124 0.412 0.001 0.592 0.001 Full mediation
IM"BI 0.261 0.004 0.122 0.058 0.383 0.001 No mediation
Source: Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation.
Note: PEB: Perceived economic benefit; EC: environmental concern; IM: self-image; SoC.In: social influence; ATT: attitude; BI: behavioural intention.
32
This study confirmed the findings of Oliver and Lee
(2010) in the USA and Korea. They found that positive
relations exist between IM and intentions to buy a HEV.
Social value influence on intentions to purchase HEVs
was significant among the USA. However, this was not
true among Korean respondents, their study revealed. Our
findings suggest partial significance between SoC.In and
intention to adopt.
Managerial Implications
Several implications emerge for not only marketers and
manufacturers of EV but also the government from this
study.
EV adoption in India is right now in a nascent stage;
people are unfamiliar and hence may be sceptical for
a move towards EV. Preference for EV will evolve as
technology advances, and as familiarity, penetration and
SoC.In improve.
Decisive governmental policy on EV and well-articulated
incentives applicable to early adopters (manufacturer and
consumer) will play a significant role in switching to EVs.
ATT emerged as the main factor, which influenced the
EV adoption. Hence, EV manufacturers and marketers
need to work on transforming ATT in a positive direction
towards EVs. Appropriate incentivization is also essential
since as per the results Perceived economic benefit (PEB)
also affects BI via ATT.
The environment is a concern for all, Central and State
governments, and every human being, regardless of their
stature. Introduction of green licence plates on EVs can
symbolize concern for the environment, and support with
financial incentives such as free or concessional toll, parking
or priority at public places may enhance adoption.
Hence, marketers’ communication in addition to the
above should highlight the expected features like
• Functional information such as range covered per
battery charge, battery life and maximum speed
along with Quality specifications.
However, additionally,
• How the customer can affect the environment posi-
tively by adopting EVs.
• Incentives as applicable for adopting EVs.
These measures may fulfil the objective of bringing the
members of the public closer to EVs. Senior politicians and
members of parliament may switch to travel by EVs, thus
setting examples for the common man. All stakeholders
may launch a campaign on the lines of ‘Swatch Bharat’.
Celebrity endorsement is another means that may influence
the adoption of EVs. Advertising should evoke the
Vision 24(1)
emotional appeal that depicts the EV driver in a positive
light, for example,
• Care for the environment
• Association with a high-status group
• Proud technology adopter
The suggested measures may have a significant influence
on the consumer’s ATT, which has a substantial impact on
the adoption of EVs as per the findings of this study.
Limitations and Suggestions for
Future Research
The limitation of the current study offers enough scope for
future research. This study empirically tested the proposed
conceptual model in India. It is advisable to undertake
similar studies under different conditions and in different
regions.
However, ‘intention’ to adopt may not lead to an actual
buy. Further investigation can suggest whether intention
converts to adoption. As noted by Hassan, Shiu, and Shaw
(2014), the relationship between intent to adopt and buying
behaviour requires detailed modelling, which is more
pronounced for buying environmentally friendly products
that are complex, as stated by the authors. The research
measured four covariates: EC, perceived economic benefit,
IM and SoC.In. Further studies could examine the influ-
ences of other covariates. These may include perceived
consumer effectiveness, information, scepticism, safety,
risk, interest and experience.
In the future, it would be meaningful to test this model
with actual EV owners. With global concerns on environ-
ment increasing every day, this area offers immense scope
for future research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.
References
Aasness, M. A., & Odeck, J. (2015). The increase of electric
vehicle usage in Norway—Incentives and adverse effects.
European Transport Research Review, 7(4), 34–42.
Adepetu, A., & Keshav, S. (2015). The relative importance of
price and driving range on electric vehicle adoption: Los
Angeles case study. Transportation, 44(2), 353–373.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations:
A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research.
Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918.
Khurana et al. 33
Axsen, J., Bailey, J., & Castro, M. A. (2015). Preference and life-
style heterogeneity among potential plug-in electric vehicle
buyers. Energy Economics, 50, 190–201.
Axsen, J., Orlebar, C., & Skippon, S. (2013). Social influence
and consumer preference formation for pro-environmental
technology: The case of a U.K. workplace electric-vehicle
study. Ecological Economics, 95, 96–107.
Bahamonde-Birke, F. J., & Hanappi, T. (2016). The potential
of electromobility in Austria: Evidence from hybrid choice
models under the presence of unreported information.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 83,
30–41.
Barth, M., Jugert, P., & Fritsche, I. (2016). Still underdetected:
Social norms and collective efficacy predict the acceptance of
electric vehicles in Germany. Transportation Research Part
F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 37, 64–77.
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989).
Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal
influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473.
Beck, M. J., Rose, J. M., & Greaves, S. P. (2016). I can’t believe
your attitude: A joint estimation of best worst attitudes and
electric vehicle choice. Transportation, 44(4), 753–772.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural
modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117.
Beresteanu, A., & Li, S. (2011). Gasoline prices, government
support, and the demand for hybrid vehicles in the U.S.
International Economic Review, 52(1), 161–182.
Bockarjova, M., & Steg, L. (2014). Can protection motivation
theory predict pro-environmental behaviour? Explaining
the adoption of electric vehicles in the Netherlands. Global
Environmental Change, 28, 276–288.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Boomsma, A. (1985). Nonconvergence, improper solutions,
and starting values in lisrel maximum likelihood estimation.
Psychometrika, 50(2), 229–242.
Breakwell, G. M. (1993). Social representations and social iden-
tity. Papers on Social Representations, 2(3), 198–217.
Chen, M., & Tung, P. (2014). Developing an extended theory
of planned behavior model to predict consumers’ intention
to visit green hotels. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 36, 221–230.
Chorus, C. G., Koetse, M. J., & Hoen, A. (2013). Consumer
preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: Comparing a util-
ity maximization and a regret minimization model. Energy
Policy, 61, 901–908.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (2007). The advantages of an
inclusive definition of attitude. Social Cognition, 25(5),
582–602.
Glerum, A., Stankovikj, L., Thémans, M., & Bierlaire, M. (2014).
Forecasting the demand for electric vehicles: Accounting for
attitudes and perceptions. Transportation Science, 48(4),
483–499.
Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on
attitude-behavior relationships. Environment and Behavior,
27(5), 699–718.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998).
Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). London: Prentice Hall
International.
Hassan, L. M., Shiu, E., & Shaw, D. (2014). Who says there is
an intention–behaviour gap? Assessing the empirical evi-
dence of an intention–behaviour gap in ethical consumption.
Journal of Business Ethics, 136(2), 219–236.
Helveston, J. P., Liu, Y., Feit, E. M., Fuchs, E., Klampfl, E., &
Michalek, J. J. (2015). Will subsidies drive electric vehicle
adoption? Measuring consumer preferences in the U.S. and
China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
73, 96–112.
IEA. (2016). International Energy Agency. Retrieved from https://
www.iea.org
Jensen, A. F., Cherchi, E., & Mabit, S. L. (2013). On the stability
of preferences and attitudes before and after experiencing an
electric vehicle. Transportation Research Part D: Transport
and Environment, 25, 24–32.
Kahn, M. E. (2007). Do greens drive Hummers or hybrids?
Environmental ideology as a determinant of consumer choice.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
54(2), 129–145.
Lieven, T., Mühlmeier, S., Henkel, S., & Waller, J. F. (2011).
Who will buy electric cars? An empirical study in Germany.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,
16(3), 236–243.
Mabit, S. L., Cherchi, E., Jensen, A. F., & Jordal-Jørgensen,
J. (2015). The effect of attitudes on reference-dependent pref-
erences: Estimation and validation for the case of alternative-
fuel vehicles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 82, 17–28.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996).
Power analysis and determination of sample size for covari-
ance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2),
130–149.
Machleit, K. A., Allen, C. T., & Madden, T. J. (1993). The mature
brand and brand interest: An alternative consequence of ad-
evoked affect. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 72–82.
Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute
beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand atti-
tude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 318–332.
Moon, H., Park, S. Y., Jeong, C., & Lee, J. (2018). Forecasting
electricity demand of electric vehicles by analyzing consum-
ers’ charging patterns. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 62, 64–79.
Moons, I., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2012). Emotions as determi-
nants of electric car usage intention. Journal of Marketing
Management, 28(3–4), 195–237.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Nysveen, H. (2005). Intentions to use mobile services:
Antecedents and cross-service comparisons. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 33(3), 330–346.
Oliver, J. D., & Lee, S. (2010). Hybrid car purchase intentions:
A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
27(2), 96–103.
Ozaki, R., & Sevastyanova, K. (2011). Going hybrid: An analy-
sis of consumer purchase motivations. Energy Policy, 39(5),
2217–2227.
Peters, A., Gutscher, H., & Scholz, R. W. (2011). Psychological
determinants of fuel consumption of purchased new cars.
34
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour, 14(3), 229–239.
Peters, A., & Dütschke, E. (2014). How do consumers per-
ceive electric vehicles? A comparison of German consumer
groups. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 16(3),
359–377.
Pierre, M., Jemelin, C., & Louvet, N. (2011). Driving an elec-
tric vehicle: A sociological analysis on pioneer users. Energy
Efficiency, 4(4), 511–522.
Plötz, P., Funke, S. Á., & Jochem, P. (2017). Empirical fuel con-
sumption and CO2 emissions of plug-in hybrid electric vehi-
cles. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 22(4), 773–784.
Rasouli, S., & Timmermans, H. (2016). Specification of regret-
based models of choice behaviour: Formal analyses and
experimental design based evidence. Transportation, 44(6),
1555–1576.
Sang, Y., & Bekhet, H. A. (2015). Modelling electric vehicle
usage intentions: An empirical study in Malaysia. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 92, 75–83.
Schuitema, G., Anable, J., Skippon, S., & Kinnear, N. (2013).
The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes
in the intention to adopt electric vehicles. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 48, 39–49.
Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., & Dillon, W. R. (2005).
A simulation study to investigate the use of cut-off values for
assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of
Business Research, 58(7), 935–943.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical
review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300.
SIAM. (2017). Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures.
Retrieved from http://www.siam.in
Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coher-
ent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of
Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
Valeri, E., & Danielis, R. (2015). Simulating the market penetra-
tion of cars with alternative fuel power train technologies in
Italy. Transport Policy, 37, 44–56.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension
of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field
studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Vision 24(1)
Wang, S., Li, J., & Zhao, D. (2017). The impact of policy
measures on consumer intention to adopt electric vehicles:
Evidence from China. Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, 105, 14–26.
Wang, X., & González, J. A. (2013). Assessing feasibility of
electric buses in small and medium-sized communities.
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 7(6),
431–448.
About the Authors
Anil Khurana (anil.khurana@me.com) is a Research
Scholar and is pursuing PhD from Symbiosis International
(Deemed University). He has obtained MMS from Pune
University. Besides, he did a course on Senior Management
from IIM Calcutta. In a career spanning over three decades,
he used to work for top tier-one auto-component companies.
He has served in the capacity of Director Operations,
Executive Vice President and CEO. His interest lies in the
automotive sector.
V. V. Ravi Kumar (vvkumar@sibmpune.edu.in) is an
Associate Professor at SIBM, Pune. He has over a decade
of industry experience and has been in academics for the
past 12 years. He has authored many papers in journals
indexed in Scopus/ABDC. Dr Ravi Kumar has also contri-
buted articles to leading business newspapers in India like
The Hindu Business Line, Business Standard and Financial
Express. He has handled MDPs for leading companies.
Manish Sidhpuria (mvsidhpuria@yahoo.com) has a
teaching and industry experience of more than 27 years.
He was associated for about 8 years with the healthcare
sector and after that for over 19 years in teaching post-
graduate management, research and consultancy. He has
published more than 30 research papers in journals of
repute. He has authored a book titled Retail Franchising
published by Tata McGraw-Hill.