Article

Vision
24(1) 23–34, 2020

A Study on the Adoption of Electric © 2019 MDI Reprints and

permissions:
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-
Vehicles in India: The Mediating Role of india
DOI: 10.1177/0972262919875548

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: P lug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) are
like HEV except that they have a small engine
The over-a-century-old automobile industry is
and larger batteries. The batteries recharging
gearing up for transformation. The fossil fuel price
is either by the braking system or by plugging
spike and the impact of its emission on the
into an external electric charging point.
environment have called for a change in individual
BEV: T hey have no engine and they use electric
transportation habits. The sector, propelled by
motors for propulsion with batteries as the
internal combustion engines, is gravitating gradually
energy storage device. They depend on
towards electric vehicles (EVs).
external power points for charging the battery.
Electric motors propel the EVs and the
These vehicles are also known as plug-in
rechargeable battery or other portable energy storage
vehicles, EVs or the battery electric vehicles
device maintains power supply. These vehicles are
(BEVs).
energy efficient, generating less greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and reduced noise. The different
The transportation sector contributes about a quarter of
categories of EVs are as follows:

1
Faculty of Management, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Lavale, Pune, India.
2
Symbiosis Institute 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
GHG emissions. Automobiles are the primary source of
HEV: H ybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) are GHG emission world over with China emitting 25.9 per
powered by fuel and electricity and have cent, the USA 13.87 per cent followed by India 7.45 per
an engine and an electric motor. cent.
Electricity generated by the braking The Eighth Clean Energy Ministerial in 2016, in its
system charges the battery. campaign, adopted the slogan ‘The EV30@30’. The
24 Vision 24(1)

member countries reaffirmed their commitment to EV Literature Review

adoption. The
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 complicated 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 availability of charging points across
different places in a city remains a significant challenge
yet unresolved.
Table 1. Most Researched Variables and Attributes
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.
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.
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 reduction or rebate are strongly supported by
evidence while nonfinancial 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 postulated to be influencing the adoption of
EVs. Self-image (IM) and social influence (SoC.In)

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.
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
predictor of the consumers’ BI of adopting an
EV.
Environmental Concern
Environmental concern is defined as an individual’s
awareness 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
25
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 decisions, 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
consumers’ BI of adopting an EV.
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 attributes 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.
26 Vision 24(1)

Attitude Gutscher, & Scholz, 2011) revealed this. These

factors cover EC, specific beliefs, social and personal
Assessment of a person, an object or an issue defines
norms and shape intentions towards the adoption of
ATT amid various definitions of ATT (Eagly & Chaiken,
cleaner cars. The ownership evaluation and use of an
2007). ATT is a consistent response to the particular
EV (i.e., ATT) influence the adoption intention.
situation, an object, or class of objects. ATT explains the
Individuals also consider how other people would
evaluation and judgement of a product or service.
approve or disapprove of their buy (i.e., subjective
Literature defines ATT as an individual’s assessment of
norm).
the brand, product or service.
Based on the literature review, this study proposes the
ATT has three distinct components, namely cognitive,
following research model as given in Figure 2.
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
Research Methodology
cognitive component of ATT potentially comprises of the
belief that an EV is good or bad for the environment. In India, EVs are scarce on the road and are not
Wang et al. (2017) studied HEV consumers in China and available readily in the market. Potential
found that EC indirectly influences the adoption intention adopters/users of EVs may have never even seen,
and positively relates to the ATT towards HEV. driven or charged such vehicles. People have limited
Interpersonal influence and community expectations play familiarity with the characteristics of these vehicles.
an essential role in forming consumers’ ATT towards the The data collection was done through a structured
adoption of cars with new technologies (Guagnano, Stern, questionnaire. The developed instrument contained
& Dietz, 1995; Stern, 2000). Impact of emotional factors information on constructs and their constituents. The
like IM and identity, willingness to contribute to a cleaner designed questionnaire had two parts. The first part
environment can be a crucial attribute in shaping ATT focused on the data related to demographic
towards EV as argued by Moons and De Pelsmacker characteristics of the respondents: this covered
(2012). ATT is an antecedent to behaviour (Machleit, gender, age, education, household income and cars in
Allen, & Madden, 1993; Mitchell & Olson, 1981) and is a the household. The second part of the questionnaire
useful predictor of intentions, which are better than measures the model variables. There was one
demographic and situational factors of a consumer’s dependent, four independent and the mediating
intentions to adopt a BEV (Plötz et al., 2017). Examining variable. The pilot study had 26 items for 6 test
a set of the best worst attitudinal statement Beck et al. variables. The revised list had 22 items based on the
(2016) found ATT as the most important adoption factor pilot test and depending on suitability. There are six
and that it has direct influence on consumer’s intentions. constructs; four are independent, one mediator and
The above review leads us to postulate the following one dependent variable. The final instrument had 19
hypotheses: items measuring the input variables. The items
measured the BI to adopt.
H(v): A TT is a significant predictor of the consumers’
BI of adopting an EV.
H(vi): A TT mediates the relationship between
perceived economic benefit and BI of
adopting an EV.
H(vii): A TT 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): A RTT 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 individual intentions
towards the adoption of cleaner vehicles studies
(Kahn, 2007; Ozaki & Sevastyanova, 2011; Peters,
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
Structured equation modelling (SEM) lacks a defined
formula to determine the appropriate sample size. Despite
this, different authors suggested sample size of 100 or
200 (Boomsma, 1985), 5 or 10 observations per
estimated parameter (Bentler & Chou, 1987; Bollen,
1989) and 10 cases per variable (Nunnally, 1967) as
different thumb rules. This article has 214 valid filled
responses.
The selected respondents were existing car
owners. They were residents of the National Capital
Region (NCR) Delhi, Mumbai and Pune. Out of the
450 respondents approached, 214 responded. There
were no missing data, and the responses were valid.
Measurement
The first part measures the demographic
characteristics 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 measurement 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
reliability. 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 revised instrument
had 22 test items. The study dropped one question
28
each from EC and ATT and modified one question
from EC. Out of 214 respondents, 24.3 per cent were
women, and the rest, 75.7 per cent, were men. All
respondents were existing car owners and Indian
nationals. Figures 3 and 4 show the age and
educational profile of the respondents.
Structural equation model is an advanced technique
used to study the relationship between several constructs
simultaneously. It is a structure of equations and can
handle several relationships in a single analysis.
This study employed SEM to investigate the predictive
relationship between the four exogenous variables. They
are PEB (Perceived economic Benefit), EC, SoC.In and
IM. The endogenous variable was BI with ATT as a
mediating variable. Mediation offers a reliable
interpretation of the causal effect. It describes the effect
antecedent has on the dependent variables and the
rationale for the
Figure 3. Age of the Respondents
Source: Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation.
Figure 4. Educational Qualification of the Respondents Source:
Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation.
relationship. This article tests the mediation effect of ATT
between exogenous and endogenous variables. Construct
Development and Measurement
Vision 24(1)
The hypothesized model involves four exogenous
variables and one endogenous variable. PEB, EC, IM and
SoC.In are measured using four items for each variable.
Three items measure endogenous variable BI. Three
items measure the mediation effect of ATT. This study
uses a 5-point Likert scale, with 5 as Strongly Agree to 1
as Strongly Disagree, to measure items.
SEM is a two-step validation process. The first step
validates the measurement model using confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) and the next step, the structural
model validation using SEM. The measurement model
can access the reliability and validity of the instrument
used to measure the underline construct. Construct
Reliability and Validity
Reliability and Validity are quality assessment tools for
the instrument measuring the construct of the hypothetical
model. Reliability is the ability of the scale to produce
consistent results. This study employs Cronbach’s alpha
to examine internal consistency among items of the
construct. Validity is the ability of the scale to produce
accurate results. Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
confirms the validity of the scales measuring the
constructs of the hypothetical model. As a rule, AVE
score of 0.5 or higher suggests adequate convergence and
validity.
PEB: Perceived economic benefit; EC: environmental
concern; IM: self-image; SoC.In: social influence; ATT:
attitude; BI: behavioural intention.
Cronbach’s alpha of all the constructs is above the
threshold limit of 0.6 (Hair et al., 1988) as seen in Table
2, thus supporting the reliability. AVE of three constructs
is below the threshold of 0.5, and thus factor loading
reaffirms the validity. Factor loading is an essential
indicator of construct validity. Factor loading is
significant for loading value above 0.5, indicating
validity. Table 3 contains measured indicators, construct
and factor loading.
Table 2. Reliability and Validity
Cronbach’s AVE*(Construc
Alpha t
Construct No. of Items 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.
PEB: Perceived economic benefit; EC:
environmental concern; IM: self-image; SoC.In:
social influence; ATT: attitude; BI: behavioural
intention.
Khurana et al. 29

Table 3 shows that all the measured indicators electric vehicle.

have loadings above the threshold point of 0.5. All EC 1: I want to adopt an electric ! EC 0.707**
are significant at 0.1 per cent level of significance. vehicle because of increased air *
The exceptions are ‘I think I am more likely to adopt pollution
EC 2: The Electric vehicle can ! EC 0.805**
an EV if my friends and relatives adopt it’.
contribute to the environment for *
saving the future generation.
Table 3. Factor Loading
EC 3: I am familiar with environmental ! EC 0.62***
Factor benefits offered by the electric vehicle.
Measured Indicator Construct Loading EC 4: I want to conserve the ! EC 0.788**
0.7*** environment using the electric vehicle over *
PEB 1: I will save on fuel expenses, as ! PEB
the conventional vehicle.
running cost should be lower in case of
SoC. In 1: People will react positively ! SoC. In 0.622**
an electric vehicle.
when they see an electric vehicle on the *
PEB 2: The maintenance cost for an ! PEB 0.6***
electric vehicle will be less. road
PEB 3: Overall cost of owning an PEB 0.577** SoC. In 2: I think I am more likely to ! SoC. In 0.466**
!
electric vehicle will be low due to * adopt an electric vehicle if my friends *
government incentives (incentives = and relatives adopt it.
lower road tax/less insurance SoC. In 3: People whose opinions are ! SoC. In 0.634**
premium/cheaper loan) important to me find electric vehicles good *
PEB 4: I am fully familiar with the ! PEB 0.609**
(Table 3 continued)
economic benefits offered by the *
(Table 3 continued) Moreover, ‘Eco-friendly people will opt for
Factor
Loadin
Measured Indicator Construct g
SoC. In 4: Possessing an electric vehicle ! SoC. In 0.614**
would be a status symbol for me. *
IM 1: Driving an electric vehicle fits ! IM 0.742**
my style. *
IM 2: Driving an electric vehicle will ! IM 0.751**
reflect my personality. *
IM 3: Eco-friendly people will opt an ! IM 0.46***
the electric vehicle.
IM 4: My knowledge about the electric ! IM 0.646**
vehicle will improve my image. *
ATT 1: I am favourably inclined to ! ATT 0.792**
switch to an electric vehicle. *
ATT 2: Driving an electric vehicle will ! ATT 0.914**
be a wise decision. *
ATT 3: It makes sense to use ! ATT 0.888**
an electric vehicle instead of a *
conventional vehicle.
BI 1: I would recommend the adoption ! BI 0.898**
of an electric vehicle to others *
BI 2: I would speak favourably about ! BI 0.913**
the electric vehicle to others. *
BI 3: I would definitely adopt an ! electric BI 0.837**
vehicle. *
an electric vehicle’. The above results support validation
and the model retains the indicators for its importance to
the study. Factor loading indicates that the items of the
construct converge at a common point for each of the
construct.
CFA (see Figure 5) confirms how well indicators repre- sent the latent constructs. It validates the following measure-
ment model using IBM Amos version 21.
30 Vision 24(1)

Five fit indices assessed the CFA model fit. The measurement model, under consideration, had indices for χ2/df, CFI
GFI, PNFI and RMSEA within the acceptable fit. Fit indices for goodness of fit index (GFI) were marginally missed.
The model fit was adequate. Table 4 shows the indices for χ2/df, CFI GFI, PNFI and RMSEA.
Fit indices CMIN/df, CFI, PNFI and RMESA suggest 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. Hence, the structural model was analysed. The structural model’s analysis tested all the nine proposed
hypotheses in the proposed model. The results of the structural model 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
Source: Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation. rejects one of the nine hypotheses, that is, H(i), as its p-value Note:
***Significant at 0.1% level of significance. was above p < 0.05 significance level. The hypotheses H(ii)
Khurana et al. 31

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.
32 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
significantly 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.
 Khurana et al. 33
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.

Figure 6. Structural Equation Model

Source: Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation.
Direct Effect Indirect Effect Total Effect

Beta p-value Beta p-value Beta p-value

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
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

Path Result
34
Source: Author’s own; result of data collection tabulation.
Table 7. Mediating Effect Table
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.
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,
Vision 24(1)
• How the customer can affect the environment
positively 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 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 influences
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
 Khurana et al.
on environment 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.
Axsen, J., Bailey, J., & Castro, M. A. (2015). Preference
and lifestyle 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.
35
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
identity. 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 utility 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
evidence 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.
36
Mabit, S. L., Cherchi, E., Jensen, A. F., & Jordal-Jørgensen, J.
(2015). The effect of attitudes on reference-dependent
preferences: Estimation and validation for the case of
alternativefuel 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
covariance 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 adevoked 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
attitude? 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
consumers’ charging patterns. Transportation Research
Part D:
Transport and Environment, 62, 64–79.
Moons, I., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2012). Emotions as
determinants 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
analysis 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.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour, 14(3), 229–239.
Peters, A., & Dütschke, E. (2014). How do consumers perceive
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 electric
vehicle: A sociological analysis on pioneer users. Energy
Efficiency, 4(4), 511–522.
Plötz, P., Funke, S. Á., & Jochem, P. (2017). Empirical fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions of plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 22(4), 773–784.
Rasouli, S., & Timmermans, H. (2016). Specification of
regretbased 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.
Vision 24(1)
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
coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.
Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
Valeri, E., & Danielis, R. (2015). Simulating the market
penetration 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.
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
 Khurana et al. 37
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.