Journal of Cleaner Production 204 (2018) 1060e1069

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Consumer purchase intention of electric vehicles in China: The roles of

perception and personality
Xiuhong He a, Wenjie Zhan b, *, Yingying Hu b
a
School of Management, Wuhan Textile University, Wuhan 430073, China
b
School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Electric vehicles (EVs) have been developed rapidly with the strong support of governments in recent
Received 15 January 2018 years, but the market share of EVs is still small in China and the vast majority of Chinese consumers
Received in revised form hesitate to adopt them. Thus, for the successful development of EVs, this paper proposes a personality-
23 August 2018
perception-intention framework to explore consumers' EV adoption behavior. The research model is
Accepted 24 August 2018
Available online 3 September 2018
empirically tested with data collected from 369 participants in China. Results indicate that the EV pur-
chase intention can be explained 57.1% variance by consumer perception and personality. Two types of
personality, such as personal innovativeness and environmental concern, significantly affect EV purchase
Keywords:
Electric vehicles
intention directly. They are also significantly mediated by two kinds of perceptions (i.e. positive and
Personality negative utilities). The findings give a deeper understanding of EV adoption behavior, and provide rec-
Perception ommendations for policymakers and manufacturers on promoting EVs.
Purchase intention © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction energy-conversation and low-emission, but most of Chinese con-

Electric vehicles (EVs) emerging as an eco-friendly innovation,
are expected to be a sustainable solution for the global challenges of
energy scarcity and environment pollution. Governments across
the world have proposed a variety of policy mechanisms and
invested billions of dollars to support EV development (Du and
Ouyang, 2017). For example, the Chinese government provides
purchase subsidy (Lu et al., 2017) and an exemption from acquisi-
tion tax and the excise tax based on engine displacement and price
(Mock and Yang, 2014) to facilitate and promote consumer adop-
tion of EVs. Moreover, the Chinese government invested 10 billion
RMB in 2009 and announced to invest 100 billion RMB over the
next decade from 2011 toward the advancement of EV technology
and market uptake of EVs.
However, EVs still account for a tiny fraction of the total vehicles
sold in China. For example, sales of total vehicles were 28,878,900
in 2017. The market share of EVs was barely 2.7%, with an increment
of 0.9% over the previous year. Mass adoption of EVs has a long way
to go. There is a paradox: the Chinese government believes that the
EV represents the trend of future development for its advantages of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hxhfc76@hust.edu.cn (X. He), wjzhan@mail.hust.edu.cn
(W. Zhan), yingying_hu@hust.edu.cn (Y. Hu).
sumers are in a state of wait-and-see. To solve this paradox, our
study tries to explore the determinants of consumer EV adoption
behavior.
Extant research on EV adoption has identified that consumer
perceptions and individual characteristics play an important role in
EV acceptance. However, the existing studies examined the impacts
of consumer perception and individual characteristics separately
and did not have a holistic view on the critical factors of EV
adoption integrating two of them. In addition, consumer percep-
tions include the acquisition of benefits and the payment of sacri-
fices, while prior studies on consumer perceptions towards EVs
rarely considered both positive and negative aspects of perceptions.
Furthermore, consumer characteristics involve demographics and
personality. Compared with demographics, personality is a stable
variable to explain consumer behavior (Hirschberg, 1978). While
relevant literature focused mainly on the effect of demographics on
EV adoption, did not investigate completely the effect of consumer
personality.
In view of the current state of the existing research on EV
adoption, our study developed a personality-perception-intention
framework that incorporates consumer perceptions and personal-
ity to comprehensively investigate the antecedents of EV adoption
behavior, and took positive and negative aspects of consumer
perceptions into account based on the valence framework since it is

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.260
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 X. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 204 (2018) 1060e1069
a fundamental decision-making theory and explains consumer
behaviors by considering positive and negative utility of the
behavior. Specifically, this study addresses two research questions:
(1) what is the extent of consumer EV purchase intention attributed
to consumer positive and negative perceptions? (2) how do con-
sumer personality influence their intention to purchase EVs?
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, an
overview of EV adoption and the valence framework is presented.
Then, we present the research model and hypotheses of the study
in Section 3. We describe the research methodology in section 4,
followed by the data analysis in Section 5. Section 6 includes the
interpretation of results, a discussion on the theoretical and prac-
tical implication and limitation. Finally, the conclusion of this study
is present in Section 7.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. EV adoption
Scholars have analyzed several factors for the purpose to find
out drivers and barriers against consumer EV adoption. They can be
categorized into three sets (Bjerkan et al., 2016; Sierzchula et al.,
2014), namely: (1) technological factors that include vehicle
ownership costs, driving range, and charging time. (2) consumer
characteristics that involve demographics and personality. The
former includes a series of personal characteristics such as age,
gender, education and experience. The latter reflects personal inner
feelings and values to events, people, and situations in their lives.
For example, traits such as dogmatism, risk-taking propensity, and
anxiety level are typical personality variables. (3) context factors,
such as government incentives, fuel price and charging
infrastructures.
Most studies are concerned with technological factors and
consumer characteristics that are assumed to determine consumer
EV purchase decision (e.g. Carley et al., 2013; Lieven et al., 2011).
However, the widespread adoption of EVs depends heavily on
consumer perceptions (Rezvani et al., 2015), not on technology
attributes (Egbue and Long, 2012). For example, the limited range is
a well-known technical short board of EVs, but the range anxiety
may disappear if EV drivers feel it is very convenient to charge. A lot
of scholars studied the roles of consumer perceptions in the
intention of consumers to adopt EVs (e.g. Bunce et al., 2014; Glerum
et al., 2013; She et al., 2017). Some of them studied the sum of
positive and negative perceptions with rational behavior frame-
work, e.g. the rational choice theory. Others examine the effects of
either positive perceptions or negative perceptions. This paper
studies both of them from a behavioral decision perspective. They
are named as positive utility and negative utility in this paper. The
positive utility contains perceived monetary benefit, perceived
environment, and perceived symbol. The negative utility is con-
sisted of perceived risk and perceived fee.
In addition, prior studies on the influence of consumer charac-
teristics on EV adoption mainly focused on demographics and
found men, young or middle-aged, educated, with high income,
and from multi-car family were more likely to purchase EVs (e.g.
Graham-Rowe et al., 2012; Plo € tz et al., 2014). However, personality
traits have been widely used to explain various behaviors and have
been shown to be significant factors of technology acceptance. For
example, He and Veronesi (2017) found that two personality fac-
tors, openness to experience and the locus of control, play impor-
tant roles in the adoption of renewable energy technology.
Considering personality may lead to different perceptions or re-
sponses against the similar instances (Ozbek€ et al., 2014), we take
the personal innovativeness and the environmental concern as two
types of personality, and explore their direct and indirect impacts
1061
on EV purchase intention in this paper.
It is concluded that previous studies neglected the importance
of consumer personality on EV adoption, and did not examine the
positive and negative aspects of perceptions simultaneously. To fill
these gaps, we developed a personality-perception-intention
framework to examine how consumer perceptions and personal-
ity influence their EV adoption, and consider positive and negative
aspects of consumer perceptions based on the valence framework.
2.2. The valence framework
The valence framework is a well-grounded consumer decision-
making theory, which is derived primarily from the economics
and psychology literature (Goodwin, 1996). It assumes that con-
sumers perform a behavior with the expectation of a maximum net
valence by considering positive and negative utilities of the
behavior simultaneously. Peter and Tarpey (1975) compared the
valence framework with the other two decision-making models.
The first is the “perceived risk” model, which supposes that con-
sumers decide to act based on the minimization of expected
negative utility of the behavior. The second is the “perceived
benefit” model, which assumes that consumers make a decision
based on the maximization of expected positive utility of the action.
They found that the valence framework is a superior model than
the other two models in explaining consumer behavioral decision
because it involves positive and negative effects associated with the
behavior. Recently, several researchers have applied the valence
framework to explain consumer adoption behavior. For instance,
Kim et al. (2009) investigated consumer online purchase behavior
by drawing on the valence framework. Lu et al. (2011) explored the
motivators and inhibitors of consumer intention to adopt online
banking based on the valence framework.
In the valence framework, the positive utility and the negative
utility associated with consumer adoption decision are generally
measured with perceived benefit and perceived risk respectively.
However, consumer subjective perceptions about the positive
values of their purchase decision include monetary and non-
monetary benefits. Similarly, consumers need to bear the sacri-
fices of both monetary and non-monetary costs (e.g. time and
effort) in the adoption of an innovation. But the valence framework
does not consider the benefits in the specific context and the
monetary costs of the behavior. Therefore, many researchers
captured more positive and negative utilities related to adoption
behavior when they used the valence framework. For example,
Yang et al. (2016) measured the positive utility with relative
advantage and compatibility and used perceived risk and fee as
negative utility dimensions to explain mobile payment adoption.
Based on this, we measured the positive and negative utilities of
consumer perceptions according to the context of EV adoption.
Consumers could save money by using EVs, benefit the environ-
ment, and signal the consumer to be a green person because EVs
are eco-innovations. Thus, we measured the positive utility with
three dimensions (perceived monetary benefit, perceived envi-
ronment, and perceived symbol). At the same time, they may suffer
some loss, e.g. the uncertainty caused by the limited driving range
and the high purchase price of EVs. We measure the negative utility
with two dimensions (perceived risk and perceived fee) in this
paper.
3. Research model and hypotheses
Based on the literature on EV adoption, we developed a
personality-perception-intention framework to study the de-
terminants of consumer intention to purchase EVs. Fig. 1 presents
the research model. We divided consumer perceptions into positive
1062 X. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 204 (2018) 1060e1069

Fig. 1. Research model.

utility and negative utility based on the valence framework. We
propose that perceived monetary benefit, perceived environment,
and perceived symbol are positive utility factors that may positively
influence consumer EV purchase intention, while perceived risk
and perceived fee are negative utility factors that may negatively
influence purchase intention. We further propose two factors of
personality (personal innovativeness and environmental concern)
that may have direct and indirect effects on EV purchase intention.
Several demographic variables such as gender, age, income, and
education are regarded as control variables.
3.1. Consumer perception and EV purchase intention
3.1.1. Positive utility
In this study, perceived monetary benefit refers to consumer
perception of money-saving from using EVs. As EVs are still in in-
fancy stage, the government must provide incentives, such as
subsidy and tax credits to EV consumers for EV development. That
is, consumers can save money with government monetary in-
centives from purchasing EVs. EV maintenance is also less expen-
sive (Barth et al., 2016), and consumers may save money on petrol
because EVs are high fuel efficiency and may be powered by low-
cost electricity. Research found that consumers usually make the
decision to purchase EVs in response to government incentives (e.g.
Gallagher and Muehlegger, 2011; Langbroek et al., 2016). Wold and
Ølness (2016) found that the economic gain from free passes
through toll stations is an important motivation for consumers to
adopt an EV. Thus, we assume that,
Hypothesis 1. Perceived monetary benefit positively influences
consumer EV purchase intention.
The perceived environment is defined as consumer perception
of the positive outcomes of driving EVs for the environment. With
environmental deterioration, consumers now pay more attention
to environmental attributes of products and consider
environmental effects of the behavior. Therefore, environmental
attributes of sustainable innovations are important factors to pro-
mote adoption (Chen et al., 2016). EVs as sustainable innovations
have the potential to reduce CO2 emission and fuel consumption,
which has a significant impact on reducing the contribution of
transportation to global warming. Jansson et al. (2010) suggested
that consumers are more willing to purchase EVs because of the
environmental benefits from the use of EVs. Thus, we assume that,
Hypothesis 2. Perceived environment positively influences con-
sumer EV purchase intention.
Consumption is used to express individual identity, member-
ship, and image. Consumers are motivated to be seen in a positive
image and may shape a positive image by purchasing products
(Belk, 1981; Fennis and Pruyn, 2007). For instance, in addition to
mobility, cars have symbolic meanings of self-expression of in-
dividuals. Consumers purchase a car based on instrumental attri-
butes and symbolic value. Self-image congruency theory posits that
consumers who perceive product image to be consistent with their
self-image are likely to have a positive attitude toward a product,
and subsequently are more likely to purchase the said product.
In our study, perceived symbol refers to consumer perception of
the improvement of their image and status when adopting EVs. EV
owners might be related to “green” image because of pro-
environmental attributes of EVs. Previous research has shown
that consumer perception of the symbolic attributes of EVs is
positively related to their EV adoption decision (e.g. Noppers et al.,
2016; Schuitema et al., 2013). Thus, we assume that,
Hypothesis 3. Perceived symbol positively influences consumer
EV purchase intention.
3.1.2. Negative utility
Perceived risk is defined as consumer perception of the un-
certainties that they may face when they are driving an EV. Because
 X. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 204 (2018) 1060e1069
EV is still in the initial stage, EV technology is immature, especially
battery technology. The limited battery range may not meet con-
sumer expectations, and thus, charging infrastructure for EVs is
necessary. However, the charging infrastructure is seriously inad-
equate, and thus, consumers may exhaust the power of the EV
before reaching their destination. Moreover, the limited battery
technology of EVs may lead to higher traffic risk (e.g. battery-fire
incident) for consumers compared with gasoline cars. A higher
lever of perceived risk would lead to a lower purchase intention
(Garretson and Clow, 1999; Shimp and Bearden, 1982). Previous
studies found that perceived risk has negative effects on consumer
willingness to adopt innovations (Oliver and Rosen, 2010; Meuter
et al., 2005). Thus, we assume that,
Hypothesis 4. Perceived risk negatively influences consumer EV
purchase intention.
Monetary cost is the financial expense that consumers spend on
obtaining or using a product (Liu et al., 2015). Consumers may
compare the price of innovation with that of the alternatives when
deciding to adopt such innovation, and they would form a
perception of the fee of the innovation based on this comparison.
Prior studies indicated that perceived fee is one of major factors for
consumers' resistance to innovations (Egbue et al., 2017; Luarn and
Lin, 2005). In this paper, perceived fee is defined as consumer
perception of the money that consumers need to pay for adopting
EVs, such as actual price of the EVs and the fee of home charging
pile. Previous research suggests that high purchase price of EVs is a
major obstacle to EV mass adoption (Adepetu and Keshav, 2017).
Currently, EV consumers may have to install a home charging pile
because of the sparse charging network, which increases the fee for
the usage of EVs for consumers. Extant studies have shown that
perceived fee negatively affects adoption of innovations (Song,
2014). Thus, we assume that,
Hypothesis 5. Perceived fee negatively influences consumers' EV
purchase intention.
3.2. Personality and EV purchase intention
3.2.1. Personal innovativeness
Personal innovativeness refers to the degree of adoption of in-
novations or new ideas (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). Innovative
individuals have a strong sense of curiosity and like to seek novelty.
Consumers with high level of innovativeness are more willing to try
new things and adopt new ideas. Further, personal innovativeness
positively affects adoption of innovations, such as wireless internet
(Parveen and Sulaiman, 2008), mobile learning (Liu et al., 2010),
and mobile payment (Rakhi and Mala, 2014). Hence, EVs as new
transportation technology may easily attract the attention of
innovative individuals and meet their psychological demand of
curiosity. Jansson (2011) found that EV adopters exhibit a higher
level of innovativeness than non-adopters.
Additionally, innovative individuals are active information
seekers (Kim et al., 2010), sensitive to innovations, and easily
perceive benefits from innovations. Previous studies have shown
that personal innovativeness has positive impact on perceived
economic benefit (Liu et al., 2015). Meanwhile, individuals with
high personal innovativeness are more likely to be risk-seekers
(Lewis et al., 2003; Lu et al., 2008), that is, they have higher toler-
ance for risk than others. Yang et al. (2012) reported that personal
innovativeness negatively affects consumer perceived risk of the
adoption behavior in the study of the adoption of mobile payment
services. Based on the discussion above, consumers with high
innovativeness may perceive that EVs might become a trend to
1063
replace gasoline cars and they will obtain economic benefits from
the usage of EVs, such as government subsidies. On the other hand,
these consumers may weaken the potential risk of adopting EVs,
such as range anxiety resulting from the limited cruising range and
inadequate charging facilities. Thus, we assume that,
Hypothesis 6a. Personal innovativeness positively influences
consumer EV purchase intention.
Hypothesis 6b. Personal innovativeness positively influences
perceived monetary benefit of EV adoption.
Hypothesis 6c. Personal innovativeness negatively influences
perceived risk of EV adoption.
3.2.2. Environmental concern
Environmental concern is an affective feature of consumers that
includes their considerations and worries on the quality of the
environment (Yeung, 2004). Environmental concern involves three
factors, which are egoistic, altruistic and biospheric (concern for the
biosphere) (Schultz, 2000). Hence, consumers with environmental
concern may care about the effects of their behaviors on the
environment, which guides their decision behavior. Numerous
studies have found that environmental concern is positive related
to pro-environmental behavior, such as recycling (Straughan and
Roberts, 1999), garbage reduction (Fujii, 2006), and green pur-
chase behavior (Pagiaslis and Krontalis, 2014). EV adoption
behavior is also a pro-environmental behavior because of less
adverse effects of EVs on the environment. Consumers with a
stronger concern for the environment are more likely to adopt EVs
(Sinnappan and Abd Rahman, 2011).
Additionally, consumers who care about environmental quality
tend to evaluate the effect of the products on the environment.
They prefer to know about environmentally friendly alternatives
and strengthen environmental attributes of these alternatives.
Literature suggests that consumers with higher level of environ-
mental concern are more willing to pay a premium for environ-
mentally friendly products (Bang et al., 2000), that is, they would
weaken the cost of the products. Accordingly, consumers who care
about the environment may be more aware that driving gasoline
cars has significant negative contributions to the environment. By
comparison to gasoline cars, such consumers would easily perceive
the environmental attributes of EVs, and have a lower level of
sensitivity towards EV price (Junquera et al., 2016). Thus, we as-
sume that,
Hypothesis 7a. Environmental concern positively influences
consumer EV purchase intention.
Hypothesis 7b. Environmental concern positively influences
perceived environment of EV adoption.
Hypothesis 7c. Environmental concern negatively influences
perceived fee of EV adoption.
3.3. Demographic control variables
Although our study does not focus on the impact that demo-
graphical variables may have on EV purchase intention, we include
several of these as control variable in our model. The demographic
variables such as gender, age, income, and education have been
examined to have impacts on EV purchase intention (e.g. Hackbarth
and Madlener, 2016; Sang and Bekhet, 2015; Prakash et al., 2014),
and thus there is a good reason for including them as controls in the
model. Among these control variables, gender has received
considerable attentions. Most research has regarded gender as a
1064 X. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 204 (2018) 1060e1069

moderator and investigated its moderation effect on consumer Table 1

perception and behavior in technology adoption studies. Extant Demographic characteristics of the sample.

literature has identified that males are more innovative and more Measure Item Count %
likely to accept a novel technology than females (e.g. Lee et al., Gender Male 193 52.3
2010; Müller-Seitz et al., 2009), while females are more likely to Female 176 47.7
express higher level of environmental concern (Davidson and Age 20 6 1.6
Freudenburg, 1996; Mostafa, 2007), perceive lower benefits 21e30 68 18.4
31e40 148 40.1
(Siegrist, 2000), and perceive greater risks associated with tech-
41e50 124 33.6
nologies than males (Garbarino and Strahilevitz, 2004). Based on 51 23 6.2
this, we will discuss the moderation effect of gender later. Education High school or below 8 2.2
Associate degree 59 16.0
Bachelor's degree 274 74.3
4. Research method
Master's degree or above 28 7.6
Occupation Student 25 6.8
4.1. Measurement development Working 280 75.9
Unemployed 37 10.0
To ensure validity, items used to measure the constructs were Others 27 7.3
Monthly income <3000 55 14.9
adapted mainly from previous studies to the context of this
3000e5000 125 33.9
research. Items for EV purchase intention were adapted from 5000e7000 110 29.8
Barbarossa et al. (2015). Items for perceived monetary benefit were >7000 79 21.4
selected from Ozaki and Sevastyanova (2011) and Barth et al.
(2016). Items for perceived environment were derived from Ozaki
and Sevastyanova (2011). Items for perceived symbol were adapt- reliability and validity of the measurement model, and then
ed from Schuitema et al. (2013) and Noppers et al. (2014). Items for examined the structural model to test research hypotheses.
perceived risk were adapted from Jansson (2011). Items for
perceived fee and personal innovativeness were adapted from Yang
5.1. Measurement model
et al. (2012). Items for environmental concern were adopted from
Fujii (2006).
We performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test reli-
The original items were in English, and thus, we used a back-
ability and validity of the measurement model. Table 2 shows that
translation method to convert the statement into Chinese. Then,
standard loadings of items were above 0.7. All Cronbach's alpha
we distributed the final Chinese version to five professors for re-
values were above 0.7, indicating that the scales were reliable
view. The questionnaire was further modified based on their sug-
(Nunnally and Bernstein, 1978). The average variance extracted
gestions. Finally, we conducted a pilot test to ensure reliability and
(AVE) for each construct was above 0.6, indicating good convergent
validity of the scale. We developed an online version of our survey
validity of the scales (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). The composite re-
and posted its URL on a forum designed for communication among
liabilities (CR) of the constructs were above 0.8, indicating that the
academic researchers. Subjects who know about EVs were invited
scales demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (Nunnally
to finish the questionnaires. Finally, we have collected 45 re-
and Bernstein, 1978).
sponses. Analysis of the data shows that Cronbach's alphas were all
Table 3 shows correlation and square roots of the AVE of each
above 0.7, which imply strong internal consistency of the con-
construct. The square roots of AVE are represented on the diagonal.
structs. Minor amendments were made to the questionnaire ac-
The diagonal elements are all greater than their corresponding
cording to the feedback from the respondents of the pilot study. The
correlation coefficients with the construct. This result indicated
final scale and related references are presented in Appendix A. all
that the scales have good discriminant validity. As the data were
items were measured on seven-point Likert scales, ranging from
self-reported and collected from a single source, we conducted
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).
Harman's one-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) to examine the
likelihood of the common method bias. The results showed that
4.2. Data collection
multiple factors were extracted, and the largest explained variance
of factors was 34.16%. This result indicated that the common
Individuals knowledgeable on EVs were selected as subjects of
method bias was not a problem in our study.
this study. We placed our questionnaire online through Wen-
juanxing (http://www.sojump.com/), which is a professional plat-
form for online questionnaires with more than 2.6 million sample 5.2. Structural model
sources in China. Respondents received a monetary reward of 6
RMB when they successfully completed the questionnaire. The Fig. 2 shows the results of the hypothesis test. The total variance
survey was available online for about four weeks. We obtained 369 of EV purchase intention explained by consumer perception and
valid responses after dropping invalid responses, such as those with personality is 57.1%. All hypotheses were supported, except for
a missing value, have the same answer to all questions, or Hypothesis 2. With regard to perception, two dimensions of posi-
completed in less time. Table 1 shows the demographic charac- tive utility – perceived monetary benefit (b ¼ 0.128, p < 0.01) and
teristic of the sample. About 52.3% of the respondents were male, perceived symbol (b ¼ 0.399, p < 0.001) were found to have strong
and most respondents were aged between 31 and 50 years, and had positive effect on EV purchase intention, thereby supporting H1
bachelor degrees. and H3. Meanwhile, the relationship between perceived environ-
ment and EV purchase intention was not significant (b ¼ 0.048,
5. Data analysis and results p > 0.05), and thus did not support H2. The two dimensions of
negative utility of perception – perceived risk (b ¼ 0.08, p < 0.05)
We used partial least squares (PLS), which is a powerful and and perceived fee (b ¼ 0.098, p < 0.05) had significant negative
widely used method to examine model with latent variables (Chin effects on EV purchase intention, thereby supporting H4 and H5.
et al., 2003), to examine the research model. We firstly tested the With regard to personality, personal innovativeness was found to
 X. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 204 (2018) 1060e1069 1065

Table 2
Scale properties.

Construct Items Standard loadings Cronbach's a CR AVE

Perceived monetary benefit PMB1 0.833 0.710 0.836 0.630

PMB2 0.751
PMB3 0.794
Perceived environment PE1 0.810 0.886 0.917 0.688
PE2 0.880
PE3 0.866
PE4 0.822
PE5 0.764
Perceived symbol PS1 0.779 0.893 0.926 0.757
PS2 0.915
PS3 0.899
PS4 0.880
Perceived risk PR1 0.794 0.834 0.899 0.749
PR2 0.903
PR3 0.895
Perceived fee PF1 0.950 0.903 0.954 0.912
PF2 0.960
Personal innovativeness PI1 0.910 0.895 0.927 0.761
PI2 0.883
PI3 0.872
PI4 0.822
Environmental concern EC1 0.909 0.874 0.923 0.799
EC2 0.893
EC3 0.880
EV purchase intention EVPI1 0.901 0.908 0.942 0.844
EVPI2 0.921
EVPI3 0.935

partially mediated by perceived fee.

Table 3 We also considered other factors (age, gender, income, and ed-
Correlation coefficient matrix and square roots of AVEs.
ucation) as control variables in determining EV purchase intention.
PMB PE PS PR PF PI EC EVPI As shown in Fig. 2, income had a positive effect on EV purchase
PMB 0.793 intention, while age and education did not have any significant
PE 0.548 0.829 effect on it. We examined the effect of gender on each relationship
PS 0.424 0.388 0.870 following the procedure proposed by Chin et al. (2003). We divided
PR 0.146 0.128 0.229 0.865 the full sample into male and female groups, and analyzed the ef-
PF 0.364 0.136 0.135 0.307 0.955
PT 0.438 0.361 0.535 0.210 0.260 0.872
fect of gender by comparing the path coefficients between groups.
EC 0.473 0.507 0.233 0.039 0.171 0.343 0.894 The results are summarized in Table 5. We can observe that the
EVPI 0.511 0.413 0.646 0.281 0.305 0.592 0.354 0.919 path coefficients from personal innovativeness, perceived mone-
Note: Diagonal elements are the square root of AVE. These values should exceed the tary benefit, and perceived symbol to purchase intention of EVs for
inter-construct correlations for adequate discriminant validity. men are significantly larger than those for women, which means
men are more likely than women to purchase EVs because of per-
have positive effects on EV purchase intention (b ¼ 0.222, sonal innovativeness, perceived monetary benefit, and perceived
p < 0.001) and perceived monetary benefit (b ¼ 0.438, p < 0.001), symbol of EV adoption. Besides, the path coefficients from
and have a negative effect on perceived risk (b ¼ 0.21, p < 0.001), perceived risk, perceived fee, and environmental concern to EV
thus supporting H6a, H6b and H6c; Environmental concern was purchase intention are not significant for men but significant for
found to have positive effects on EV purchase intention (b ¼ 0.085, women, which indicates that perceived risk and perceived fee have
p < 0.05) and perceived environment (b ¼ 0.507, p < 0.001), and stronger negative effect on EV purchase intention for women than
have a negative effect on perceived fee (b ¼ 0.171, p < 0.01), thus for men and women were more likely than man to purchase EVs
supporting H7a, H7b and H7c. because of environmental concern.
Following the procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986),
we examined the mediation effects of the research model by three 6. Discussion and implication
steps: (1) independent variable should significant affect dependent
variable; (2) independent variable should significant affect medi- 6.1. Discussion of results
ator; (3) we use both independent variable and the mediator to
predict dependent variable, if the effect of mediator is significant This study explored how consumer perception and personality
and the effect of independent variable is not significant, it can be influence their intention to purchase EVs with a developed
concluded that the effect of independent variable on dependent personality-perception-intention framework. Consumer percep-
variable is fully mediated by the mediator; while if both the effects tion includes positive utility and negative utility based on the
of mediator and independent variable are significant, such effect is valence framework, which proposes that consumers consider
partially mediated by the mediator. As shown in Table 4, both the positive and negative effects of their behavior before making de-
independent variables and mediators have a significant effect on cisions. The key findings are discussed below.
the dependent variable. That is, the relationship between personal First, the results suggest two types of positive utility have pos-
innovativeness and EV purchase intention is partially mediated by itive effects on consumer intention to purchase EVs. Specifically,
perceived monetary benefit and perceived risk; and the relation- perceived monetary benefit was found to positively influence
ship between environmental concern and EV purchase intention is consumer EV purchase intention (H1), which conforms to the
1066 X. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 204 (2018) 1060e1069

Fig. 2. Results of hypothesis testing. Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001, n.s. non-significant.

not believe their individual efforts could make a difference in

Table 4 solving the problem. Thus, although consumers perceive the
The results of mediation effects testing.
environmental attributes of EVs, they may think their EV purchase
IV M DV IV/DV IV/M IV þ M/DV behavior would be meaningless in protecting the environment.
IV M For negative utility, both perceived risk and perceived fee were
found to have a negative effect on consumer intention to purchase
PI PMB EVPI 0.276*** 0.438*** 0.222*** 0.128**
PI PR EVPI 0.276*** 0.210*** 0.222*** 0.080* EVs (H4 and H5). The former is supported by the results of previous
EC PF EVPI 0.106** 0.171** 0.085* 0.098* studies that perceived risk reduces consumer purchase intention
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. (Garretson and Clow, 1999; Shimp and Bearden, 1982); while the
latter is consistent with the finding of Luarn and Lin (2005), which
conclusion of previous studies that financial benefit could motivate indicated that higher perception of fee is associated with lower
consumers to purchase EVs (Langbroek et al., 2016). Consistent adoption intention of innovations. The negative effect of perceived
with the findings of prior research that symbolic attributes are fee on EV purchase intention is also relatively stronger than that of
important for consumers to adopt innovations (Noppers et al., perceived risk. This finding supports the argument that high pur-
2016), this study found that perceived symbol positively in- chase price of EVs is the key barrier to EV widespread diffusion
fluences consumer intention to purchase EVs (H3). Surprisingly, the (Egbue et al., 2017).
effect of perceived environment on consumer EV purchase inten- Second, both two dimensions of personality had a significant
tion was insignificant (H2). This result might be because of the influence on consumer EV purchase intention directly and indi-
magnitude of the environmental problem, such that consumers do rectly. Consistent with the finding of previous research (Jansson,
2011), personal innovativeness could improve consumer intention
to purchase EVs (H6a). Interestingly, personal innovativeness could
Table 5
Moderation effect of gender. indirectly enhance the intention by increasing perceived monetary
benefit or reducing perceived risk (H6b and H6c). This finding
Hypotheses Male (n ¼ 193) Female (n ¼ 176) Statistical comparison
might be because of the notion that individuals with high level of
of paths (t-value)
personal innovativeness could easily envision monetary benefits of
H1:PMB/EVPI 0.124** 0.090(n.s.) 6.381*** the innovation, which tend to weaken risks. Moreover, environ-
H2:PE/EVPI 0.046(n.s.) 0.072(n.s.) e
H3:PS/EVPI 0.414*** 0.350*** 13.638***
mental concern could strengthen consumer EV purchase intention
H4:PR/EVPI 0.051(n.s.) 0.123** 18.084*** directly (H7a), which is consistent with the result of Sinnappan and
H5:PF/EVPI 0.055(n.s.) 0.171*** 26.457*** Abd Rahman (2011). Meanwhile, environmental concern could
H6a:PI/EVPI 0.310*** 0.134* 32.323*** indirectly motivate intention by reducing perceived fee (H7b), this
H6b:PI/PMB 0.422*** 0.459*** 8.57***
result might be because of the willingness of consumers who care
H6c:PI/PR 0.200*** 0.227*** 5.532***
H7a:EC/EVPI 0.066(n.s.) 0.099* 6.867*** for the environment to pay more for eco-innovations, which makes
H7b:EC/PE 0.536*** 0.478*** 9.86*** the cost perception weak.
H7c:EC/PF 0.071(n.s.) 0.319*** 45.248*** Finally, the moderation effects of gender were examined.
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Gender moderates the relationships between personality and
 X. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 204 (2018) 1060e1069
purchase intention, and the moderation effects are different as
associated with various dimensions of personality. The positive
effect of personal innovativeness on purchase intention is greater
for males than for females, which supports the results of previous
studies (Lee et al., 2010; Müller-Seitz et al., 2009) While environ-
mental concern has stronger effect on purchase intention for fe-
males than for males, this result indicates that women are more
concerned about the environment than that of men (Davidson and
Freudenburg, 1996). Additionally, gender has significant modera-
tion effects on the relationship between behavioral beliefs and
purchase intention. Specifically, men are more likely to purchase
EVs because of positive utility as compared with women, while
women are more reluctant to purchase EVs because of negative
utility. This result conforms to the conclusions of previous studies
that men perceive more benefits of technologies (Siegrist, 2000),
whereas women perceive higher levels of risk (Garbarino and
Strahilevitz, 2004).
6.2. Theoretical implications
The study has several interesting theoretical implications. First,
unlike prior research that examined the impacts of consumer
perception and individual characteristics separately, we developed
a personality-perception-intention research framework incorpo-
rating consumer perception and personality to have a holistic view
on the determinants of EV purchase intention. The results show
that consumer perception and personality are important de-
terminants of EV purchase intention. Specifically, personality has
an indirect effect on purchase intention by some perceptions.
Therefore, our study contributes to a profound understanding of
the literature on EV adoption.
Second, other than previous studies that have investigated how
the positive or negative utilities of EV use influence consumer
adoption, we discussed positive and negative utilities of using EVs
based on the valence framework. In the valence framework, the
positive and negative utilities are only measured with perceived
benefit and perceived risk, respectively. However, consumer per-
ceptions include monetary and non-monetary sides, and thus, we
divided the positive aspect into three dimensions (perceived
monetary benefit, perceived environment, and perceived symbol),
and measured the negative aspect using two dimensions
(perceived risk and perceived fee). The results showed an intriguing
finding that all positive utilities, except perceived environment, are
positively related to EV purchase intention, while both two di-
mensions of negative utility are negatively related to EV purchase
intention. This finding contributes to a comprehensive under-
standing of the effects of consumer perception on EV adoption.
Finally, we considered personal innovativeness and environ-
mental concern as two dimensions of personality. Existing litera-
ture that analyzed the effect of consumer characteristics on EV
adoption are concentrated on demographic variables, such as age,
gender, income, and education, but neglect personality, which re-
flects consumer feelings and emotions to events (Hirschberg, 1978).
To fill this gap, we investigated how personal innovativeness and
environmental concern influence consumer intention to purchase
EVs. Personal innovativeness is a widely examined personality
factor in innovation adoption research, and environmental concern
is an important determinant of adopting eco-innovation. We found
that these two personality factors have positive impact on EV
purchase intention. This finding provides insight into the effects of
consumer personality on EV adoption.
6.3. Practical implications
Our study provides important practical implications. First, our
1067
study revealed the positive effects of perceived monetary benefit
and perceived symbol on EV purchase intention, Therefore, mea-
sures to increase consumers' perception on monetary benefit and
symbol of using EVs can be taken. For example, the government
could provide financial incentives (e.g. subsidy, tax exemption), and
the industry could offer rebates and coupons for EV consumer to
improve their perceived monetary benefit. The industry could
propagate the symbolic meaning of using EVs through various
media to enhance EV consumer perceived symbol. The more
monetary benefit and symbol the consumers are aware of, the more
likely they would to purchase EVs.
Second, the significantly negative effects of perceived risk and
perceived fee on EV purchase intention demonstrated that the
government and the industry need to decrease negative perception
of consumers. For instance, the government should invest consid-
erably in the research and development of battery technology and
the expansion of charging infrastructures to mitigate uncertainties
and consumers' anxiety of EV adoption and usage. To reduce con-
sumer perceived fee, the industry should try to reduce the cost of
battery which determines EV purchase price, and provide free
installation of home charging piles for consumers.
Third, our findings indicated that personality plays a vital role in
consumer intention to purchase EVs. Personal innovativeness
positively influenced purchase intention directly and indirectly via
perceived monetary benefit and perceived risk, and thus, the in-
dustry should disseminate new technologies applied in EVs to
attract the attention of innovative consumers. Environmental
concern also has strong effect on EV purchase intention directly and
indirectly through perceived cost. Therefore, the government and
industry should launch publicity campaigns to emphasize the
importance of the environment and the seriousness of the current
environmental problems. This strategy could make consumers care
more about the environment, making them more willing to adopt
EVs.
Finally, moderation effects of gender suggest that the industry
could provide personalization marketing for different groups. For
example, men tend to have higher intention to purchase EVs than
women because of personal innovativeness and the positive utility
of perception. Hence, the industry could convey more information
on the innovativeness and benefits of using EVs to these consumers.
6.4. Limitations and future research
Several limitations should be noted when interpreting the re-
sults of this study. First, we used an online survey platform to
collect data. This method may result in sample bias because con-
sumers who do not use the internet are not included in our sam-
ples. Thus, future studies may generalize our findings to offline
consumers. Second, the dependent variable in our research model
is EV purchase intention, but not actual behavior. Although
behavioral intention is closely related to actual behavior (Hung
et al., 2003; Tan and Teo, 2000), the result of the research with
actual behavior as dependent variable will be more satisfied. Thus,
future studies may investigate EV adoption by taking actual pur-
chase behavior as dependent variable in the research model. Be-
sides, EVs in our study include all EV types, the results may be
different between pure EV and hybrid EV or there may be differ-
ences in results because of the level of EV brand. Thus, future
studies may distinguish EV type and then compare the results.
Finally, our results might be specific to China because the sample
was obtained from China. Given the differences among countries,
the results may change when applying the research model to other
countries. Thus, similar research may be conducted in other
countries.
1068 X. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 204 (2018) 1060e1069
7. Conclusion
We developed a personality-perception-intention framework to
examine the antecedents of consumer intention to purchase EVs by
integrating consumer perception and personality. Based on the
valence framework, we considered the impacts of both positive and
negative utilities of consumer perceptions on purchase behavior.
The former has three dimensions, namely, perceived monetary
benefit, perceived environment, and perceived symbol, while the
latter has two dimensions, namely, perceived risk and perceived
fee. We also investigated the influence of two factors of personality
(personal innovativeness and environmental concern) on con-
sumer intention to purchase EVs. We found that consumer per-
ceptions and personality are important factors for their EV
purchase intention. All positive utility have positive effect on pur-
chase intention, except for perceived environment, while both two
dimension of negative utility have negative effect on purchase
intention. Consumers with higher personal innovativeness and
environmental concern are more likely to purchase EVs.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a grant from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (No. 71320107001; 71701075).
Appendix A. Scale
Construct Items
Perceived PMB1 Driving electric vehicles will help me spend less on
monetary fuel
benefit PMB2 Driving electric vehicles will give me other
government incentives
PMB3 Considering all costs, driving electric vehicles is no
more expensive than driving conventional cars
Perceived PE1 Driving an EV reduces the effects of climate change
environment PE2 Driving an EV reduces the carbon footprint
PE3 Driving an EV preserves the environment
PE4 Driving an EV reduces pollution level
PE5 Driving an EV reduces the consumption of natural
resources
Perceived symbol PS1 Compared to a normal car, electric cars is not suitable
for my lifestyle (Reverse)
PS2 I would feel proud of driving an electric car
PS3 The electric car shows who I am
PS4 The electric car enhances my social status
Perceived risk PR1 I am afraid that the cruising range of EV cannot meet
my expectation
PR2 I am afraid that electric cars often break.
PR3 I am afraid that EVs mean a higher traffic risk for me
Perceived fee PF1 It would cost a lot to use an EV
PF2 There are financial barriers (e.g., having to pay for
charging pile) to my using an EV
Personal PI1 If I heard about a new product, I would look for ways
innovativeness to experiment with it
PI2 I like to experiment with new products.
PI3 Among my peers, I am usually the first to explore new
products
PI4 In general, I am hesitant to try out new products
(Reverse).
Environmental EC1 I think environmental problems are very important
concern EC2 I think environmental problems cannot be ignored
EC3 I think we should care about environmental problems
EV purchase EVPI1 Next time I buy a car, I will consider buying an electric
intention car
EVPI2 I expect to drive an electric car in the near future
EVPI3 I have the intention to drive an electric car in the near
future
Appendix B. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.260.
References
Adepetu, A., Keshav, S., 2017. The relative importance of price and driving range on
electric vehicle adoption: Los Angeles case study. Transportation 44, 353e373.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 16, 74e94.
Bang, H.-K., Ellinger, A.E., Hadjimarcou, J., Traichal, P.A., 2000. Consumer concern,
knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: an application of the
reasoned action theory. Psychol. Mark. 17, 449e468.
Barbarossa, C., Beckmann, S.C., De Pelsmacker, P., Moons, I., Gwozdz, W., 2015.
A self-identity based model of electric car adoption intention: a cross-cultural
comparative study. J. Environ. Psychol. 42, 149e160.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderatoremediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-
ations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1173e1182.
Barth, M., Jugert, P., Fritsche, I., 2016. Still underdetected e social norms and col-
lective efficacy predict the acceptance of electric vehicles in Germany. Transp.
Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 37, 64e77.
Belk, R.W., 1981. Determinants of consumption cue utilization in impression for-
mation: an association derivation and experimental verification. Adv. Consum.
Res. 8, 170e175.
Bjerkan, K.Y., Nørbech, T.E., Nordtømme, M.E., 2016. Incentives for promoting bat-
tery electric vehicle (BEV) adoption in Norway. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Envi-
ron. 43, 169e180.
Bunce, L., Harris, M., Burgess, M., 2014. Charge up then charge out? Drivers' per-
ceptions and experiences of electric vehicles in the UK. Transp. Res. Part Policy
Pract. 59, 278e287.
Carley, S., Krause, R.M., Lane, B.W., Graham, J.D., 2013. Intent to purchase a plug-in
electric vehicle: a survey of early impressions in large US cites. Transp. Res. Part
Transp. Environ. 18, 39e45.
Chen, C., Xu, X., Frey, S., 2016. Who wants solar water heaters and alternative fuel
vehicles? Assessing socialepsychological predictors of adoption intention and
policy support in China. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 15, 1e11.
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., Newsted, P.R., 2003. A partial least squares latent variable
modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte
Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf. Syst.
Res. 14, 189e217.
Davidson, D.J., Freudenburg, W.R., 1996. Gender and environmental risk concerns: a
review and analysis of available research. Environ. Behav. 28, 302e339.
Du, J., Ouyang, D., 2017. Progress of Chinese electric vehicles industrialization in
2015: a review. Appl. Energy 188, 529e546.
Egbue, O., Long, S., 2012. Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: an
analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy Pol. 48, 717e729.
Egbue, O., Long, S., Samaranayake, V.A., 2017. Mass deployment of sustainable
transportation: evaluation of factors that influence electric vehicle adoption.
Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 19, 1927e1939.
Fennis, B.M., Pruyn, A.T.H., 2007. You are what you wear: brand personality in-
fluences on consumer impression formation. J. Bus. Res., Consum. Personal.
Individual Differences 60, 634e639.
Fujii, S., 2006. Environmental concern, attitude toward frugality, and ease of
behavior as determinants of pro-environmental behavior intentions. J. Environ.
Psychol. 26, 262e268.
Gallagher, K.S., Muehlegger, E., 2011. Giving green to get green? Incentives and
consumer adoption of hybrid vehicle technology. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 61,
1e15.
Garbarino, E., Strahilevitz, M., 2004. Gender differences in the perceived risk of
buying online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation. J. Bus. Res.
Mark. Web Behav. Strat. Pract. Publ. Pol. 57, 768e775.
Garretson, J.A., Clow, K.E., 1999. The influence of coupon face value on service
quality expectations, risk perceptions and purchase intentions in the dental
industry. J. Serv. Mark. 13, 59e72.
Glerum, A., Stankovikj, L., Themans, M., Bierlaire, M., 2013. Forecasting the demand
for electric vehicles: accounting for attitudes and perceptions. Transp. Sci. 48,
483e499.
Goodwin, N.R., 1996. Economic Meanings of Trust and Responsibility. Univ. Mich.
Press, Ann Arbor MI.
Graham-Rowe, E., Gardner, B., Abraham, C., Skippon, S., Dittmar, H., Hutchins, R.,
Stannard, J., 2012. Mainstream consumers driving plug-in battery-electric and
plug-in hybrid electric cars: a qualitative analysis of responses and evaluations.
Transp. Res. Part Policy Pract 46, 140e153.
Hackbarth, A., Madlener, R., 2016. Willingness-to-Pay for alternative fuel vehicle
characteristics: a stated choice study for Germany. Transp. Res. Part A 85,
89e111.
He, P., Veronesi, M., 2017. Personality traits and renewable energy technology
adoption: a policy case study from China. Energy Pol. 107, 472e479.
Hirschberg, N., 1978. A Correct Treatment of Traits. Personal. New Look Meta-
theories, pp. 45e68.
Hung, S.-Y., Ku, C.-Y., Chang, C.-M., 2003. Critical factors of WAP services adoption:
 X. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 204 (2018) 1060e1069
an empirical study. In: Electron. Commer. Res. Appl., Containing Special Section:
Five Best Papers Selected from the International Conference on Electronic
Commerce, vol. 2, pp. 42e60.
Jansson, J., 2011. Consumer eco-innovation adoption: assessing attitudinal factors
and perceived product characteristics. Bus. Strategy Environ. 20, 192e210.
Jansson, J., Marell, A., Nordlund, A., 2010. Green consumer behavior: determinants
of curtailment and eco-innovation adoption. J. Consum. Mark. 27, 358e370.

Junquera, B., Moreno, B., Alvarez, R., 2016. Analyzing consumer attitudes towards
electric vehicle purchasing intentions in Spain: technological limitations and
vehicle confidence. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 109, 6e14.
Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M., Lee, I., 2010. An empirical examination of factors influ-
encing the intention to use mobile payment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26,
310e322.
Kim, G., Shin, B., Lee, H.G., 2009. Understanding dynamics between initial trust and
usage intentions of mobile banking. Inf. Syst. J. 19, 283e311.
Langbroek, J.H.M., Franklin, J.P., Susilo, Y.O., 2016. The effect of policy incentives on
electric vehicle adoption. Energy Pol. 94, 94e103.
Lee, H., Jeong Cho, H., Xu, W., Fairhurst, A., 2010. The influence of consumer traits
and demographics on intention to use retail self-service checkouts. Mark. Intell.
Plan. 28, 46e58.
Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V., 2003. Sources of influence on beliefs about
information technology use: an empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Q.
27, 657e678.
Lieven, T., Mühlmeier, S., Henkel, S., Waller, J.F., 2011. Who will buy electric cars? An
empirical study in Germany. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 16, 236e243.
Liu, F., Zhao, X., Chau, P.Y.K., Tang, Q., 2015. Roles of perceived value and individual
differences in the acceptance of mobile coupon applications. Internet Res. 25,
471e495.
Liu, Y., Li, H., Carlsson, C., 2010. Factors driving the adoption of m-learning: an
empirical study. Comput. Educ. 55, 1211e1219.
Lu, C., Liu, H.-C., Tao, J., Rong, K., Hsieh, Y.-C., 2017. A key stakeholder-based financial
subsidy stimulation for Chinese EV industrialization: a system dynamics
simulation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 118, 1e14.
Lu, J., Liu, C., Yu, C.-S., Wang, K., 2008. Determinants of accepting wireless mobile
data services in China. Inf. Manag. 45, 52e64.
Lu, Y., Cao, Y., Wang, B., Yang, S., 2011. A study on factors that affect users' behavioral
intention to transfer usage from the offline to the online channel. In: Comput.
Hum. Behav., Current Research Topics in Cognitive Load TheoryThird Interna-
tional Cognitive Load Theory Conference, vol. 27, pp. 355e364.
Luarn, P., Lin, H.H., 2005. Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to
use mobile banking. Comput. Hum. Behav. 21, 873e891.
Meuter, M.L., Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L., Brown, S.W., 2005. Choosing among alter-
native service delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service
technologies. J. Mark. 69, 61e83.
Mock, P., Yang, Z., 2014. Driving electrification: a global comparison of fiscal
incentive policy for electric vehicles. Int. Counc. Clean Transp. ICCT 15, 1e40.
Mostafa, M.M., 2007. Gender differences in Egyptian consumers' green purchase
behaviour: the effects of environmental knowledge, concern and attitude. Int. J.
Consum. Stud. 31, 220e229.
Müller-Seitz, G., Dautzenberg, K., Creusen, U., Stromereder, C., 2009. Customer
acceptance of RFID technology: evidence from the German electronic retail
sector. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 16, 31e39.
Noppers, E.H., Keizer, K., Bolderdijk, J.W., Steg, L., 2014. The adoption of sustainable
innovations: driven by symbolic and environmental motives. Global Environ.
Change 25, 52e62.
Noppers, E.H., Keizer, K., Milovanovic, M., Steg, L., 2016. The importance of instru-
mental, symbolic, and environmental attributes for the adoption of smart en-
ergy systems. Energy Pol. 98, 12e18.
Nunnally, J., Bernstein, I., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Oliver, J., E. Rosen, D., 2010. Applying the environmental propensity framework: a
segmented approach to hybrid electric vehicle marketing strategies. J. Market.
Theor. Pract. 18, 377e393.
Ozaki, R., Sevastyanova, K., 2011. Going hybrid: an analysis of consumer purchase
motivations. Energy Pol. 39, 2217e2227.
1069
€
Ozbek, V., Alnıaçık, Ü., Koc, F., Akkılıç, M.E., Kaş, E., 2014. The impact of personality
on technology acceptance: a study on smart phone users. Proced. Soc. Behav.
Sci. 150, 541e551.
Pagiaslis, A., Krontalis, A.K., 2014. Green consumption behavior antecedents:
environmental concern, knowledge, and beliefs. Psychol. Mark. 31, 335e348.
Parveen, F., Sulaiman, A., 2008. Technology complexity, personal innovativeness
and intention to use wireless internet using mobile devices in Malaysia. Int. Rev.
Bus. Res. Pap. 4, 1e10.
Peter, J.P., Tarpey, L.X., 1975. A comparative analysis of three consumer decision
strategies. J. Consum. Res. 2, 29e37.
€ tz, P., Schneider, U., Globisch, J., Dütschke, E., 2014. Who will buy electric vehi-
Plo
cles? Identifying early adopters in Germany. Transp. Res. Part Policy Pract. 67,
96e109.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879.
Prakash, N., Kapoor, R., Kapoor, A., Malik, Y., 2014. Gender Preferences for alterna-
tive energy transport with focus on electric vehicle. J. Soc. Sci. 10, 114.
Rakhi, T., Mala, S., 2014. Adoption readiness, personal innovativeness, perceived risk
and usage intention across customer groups for mobile payment services in
India. Internet Res. Electron. Netw. Appl. Policy 24, 369e392.
Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., Bodin, J., 2015. Advances in consumer electric vehicle
adoption research: a review and research agenda. Transp. Res. Part Transp.
Environ. 34, 122e136.
Rogers, E.M., Shoemaker, F.F., 1971. Communication of Innovations. Free Press, New
York.
Sang, Y.-N., Bekhet, H.A., 2015. Modelling electric vehicle usage intentions: an
empirical study in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 92, 75e83.
Schuitema, G., Anable, J., Skippon, S., Kinnear, N., 2013. The role of instrumental,
hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles.
Transp. Res. Part Policy Pract. Psychol. Sustain. Travel Behav. 48, 39e49.
Schultz, P.W., 2000. New environmental theories: empathizing with nature: the
effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. J. Soc. Issues
56, 391e406.
She, Z.-Y., Sun, Qing, Ma, J.-J., Xie, B.-C., 2017. What are the barriers to widespread
adoption of battery electric vehicles? A survey of public perception in Tianjin,
China. Transp. Pol. 56, 29e40.
Shimp, T.A., Bearden, W.O., 1982. Warranty and other extrinsic cue effects on con-
sumers' risk perceptions. J. Consum. Res. 9, 38e46.
Siegrist, M., 2000. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the
acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 20, 195e204.
Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K., van Wee, B., 2014. The influence of financial
incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. En-
ergy Pol. 68, 183e194.
Sinnappan, P., Abd Rahman, A., 2011. Antecedents of green purchasing behavior
among Malaysian consumers. Int. Bus. Manag. 5, 129e139.
Song, J., 2014. Understanding the adoption of mobile innovation in China. Comput.
Hum. Behav. 38, 339e348.
Straughan, R.D., Roberts, J.A., 1999. Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look
at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. J. Consum. Mark. 16,
558e575.
Tan, M., Teo, T.S.H., 2000. Factors influencing the adoption of Internet banking. J. AIS
1, 1e42.
Wold, M.F., Ølness, S., 2016. An Empirical Analysis of Drivers for Electric Vehicle
Adoption : Evidence from Norway 2010-2014.
Yang, S., Lu, Y., Gupta, S., Cao, Y., Zhang, R., 2012. Mobile payment services adoption
across time: an empirical study of the effects of behavioral beliefs, social in-
fluences, and personal traits. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 129e142.
Yang, S., Wang, B., Lu, Y., 2016. Exploring the dual outcomes of mobile social
networking service enjoyment: the roles of social self-efficacy and habit.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 64, 486e496.
Yeung, S.P.-M., 2004. Teaching approaches in geography and students' environ-
mental attitudes. Environmentalist 24, 101e117.