1 s2.0 S1361920921003461 Main

Transportation Research Part D 100 (2021) 103049
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Part D

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd
Relating consumers’ information and willingness to buy electric

vehicles: Does personality matter?
Muhammad Irfan a, b, Munir Ahmad c, *
a
School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
b
Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
c
School of Economics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Being an energy-efficient mode of transportation, electric vehicles (EVs) adoption is a multifac
Big Five trait theory eted mechanism driven by a bunch of factors. However, studies focusing on assessing the influ
Consumers’ information ence of personality traits on consumers’ information about EVs (CINEVs) and willingness to buy
Willingness to buy
(WTB) EVs are scarce. This study investigates the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs by
Electric vehicles
India
accommodating the moderating role of the Big Five personality traits. Results are based on a
sample of 624 respondents in the seven largest Indian cities by employing a comprehensive
questionnaire survey. Structural equation modeling is used to test the formulated hypotheses. The
results highlight that CINEVs is directly related to WTBEVs. We further add to the existing pool of
knowledge by providing empirical evidence that openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and
agreeableness positively moderate the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs, whereas
neuroticism negatively moderates this relationship. The results uncovered an interesting role of
personality traits in propagating EV development.
1. Introduction
Reducing carbon emissions, driven by climate change mitigation motives, continues to be a prime environmental challenge faced
by global economies, especially in the transportation sector (Amin et al., 2020). This sector is responsible for one-fourth of the total
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worldwide (Bonsu, 2020). In 2020, India’s GHG emissions from the transport sector accounted for
7.45% of the total GHG emissions globally (Khurana et al., 2020). Since it has been documented that India has become the third-largest
emitter of GHGs (Irfan et al., 2019a,b), exploiting energy-efficient transportation technologies is seen as a critical component of efforts
to address the prevailing environmental crises (Nimesh et al., 2020). In this regard, electric vehicles (EVs), being an energy-efficient
transportation innovation, may enable the efficient transition to a sustainable low-carbon emission transportation system (Luna et al.,
2020; Hao et al., 2016; Hohenberger et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2017, 2019). EVs have several advantages over conventional
gasoline-fueled vehicles (CGFVs), such as being cheaper to drive (Gopal et al., 2018), environmentally friendly (Sovacool et al., 2019),
and better for energy security (Qian and Yin, 2017).
Despite the advantages mentioned above, potential barriers involving technological, infrastructural, market, and policy and re
forms offer challenges for India’s promotion and adoption of EVs. To overcome these barriers, the Indian government has implemented
favorable measures through a series of policy initiatives to establish technical standards for designing and manufacturing EVs,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: irfansahar@bit.edu.cn (M. Irfan), munirahmad@zju.edu.cn (M. Ahmad).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103049
Available online 29 September 2021

1361-9209/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Irfan and M. Ahmad Transportation Research Part D 100 (2021) 103049
Nomenclature
Acronyms and Abbreviations

AGRE Agreeableness
CGFVs Conventional gasoline-fueled vehicles
CINEVs Consumers’ information about electric vehicles
CONS Conscientiousness
EVs Electric vehicles
EXTR Extraversion
GHG greenhouse gas
NEUR Neuroticism
OPEN Openness
TPB Theory of Planned Behavior
WTB Willingness to buy
Methods
AMOS Analysis of a moment structures
AVE Average variance extracted
BTS Bartlett’s test of sphericity
CFA Confirmatory factor analysis
CR Composite reliability
EFA Exploratory factor analysis
KMO Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
SEM Structural equation modeling
SPSS Statistical package for the social sciences
VIF Variance inflation factor
charging stations, and adequate infrastructure (Irfan et al., 2020c). Among such initiatives, The National Electric Mobility Mission Plan
(NEMMP) accelerates the widespread utilization of EVs for a more environmentally friendly driving experience (Pandey et al., 2020).
Next, the Faster Adoption and Manufacture of EVs (FAME) scheme prioritizes EV adoption by granting a rebate in EV purchase (Tarei
et al., 2021). After that, the government is also offering financial incentives, such as a zero down payment option to promote EV sales.
Additionally, the Indian government is funding up to 60% of the R&D costs for developing low-cost EV technology domestically. It has
been documented that India is likely to achieve a 100% EV transition by 2030 to minimize reliance on fossil fuels and oil imports (Jena,
2020).
A bunch of studies has been conducted to examine consumers’ willingness to buy EVs (WTBEVs). For instance, (Pradeep et al.,
2021) led a study to evaluate consumers’ willingness to accept EVs and found that environmental knowledge, perceived technology,
economic benefits, psychological needs, and performance attributes were the major influencing factors of consumers’ willingness.
Shalender and Sharma (2021) examined and revealed that attitude, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, environmental
concern, and moral norms had a positive association with the adoption intention of consumers. Hao et al. (2016) surveyed seven
Chinese cities to disclose that age, monthly income, marital status, the number of cars a family owns, residence city, sustainability, and
vehicle comfort, significantly determine consumers’ purchasing intentions of environmentally-friendly vehicles. Ferguson et al. (2018)
scrutinized and concluded that Canadian households showed a favorable attitude and were willing to buy EVs. Rahmani and Loureiro
(2019) opined that Spanish drivers’ willingness was affected by cost, information about the technology, and beliefs about the au
tonomy of EVs. Similarly, Carlucci et al. (2018) viewed that consumers seriously considered battery range and vehicle cost during
buying decisions. In brief, the research on WTBEVs can be categorized under the following key areas: (i) specific lifestyle leading to the
acceptance of EVs (Biresselioglu et al., 2018), (ii) the role of cost in shaping consumers’ purchase intentions (Fatima et al., 2021; Li
et al., 2020; Potoglou et al., 2020b; Song and Potoglou, 2020), (iii) accessibility of charging stations and buying subsidies (Huang and
Qian, 2018), (iv) the assessment of impediments to the acceptance of EVs (She et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017a), and (v) the contri
bution of Big Five personality traits in determining consumers’ EV buying behavior (Skippon et al., 2016). The Big Five trait theory
involves five basic dimensions of personality, including openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Qu
et al., 2020).
Despite earlier researchers’ long-standing interest, the relationship between consumers’ information about EVs (CINEVs) and
consumers’ WTBEVs, considering the role of personality traits (framed in this study), has been largely ignored. Against this backdrop,
this study examines the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs by investigating how Big Five personality traits influence the
direction and strength of this relationship. The current work extends the following contributions. Firstly, unlike previous literature, this
study is the first to introduce the term CINEVs, which is defined as “the information acquired and used by consumers while researching
and making a buying decision of EVs. It involves information on innovation, efficiency, adventure, status, cost, carbon emissions,
traveling range, environmentally friendliness nature, energy security, convenience, and driving experience of EVs”. The inclusion of
CINEVs in the decision-making framework has central importance since it is an integral determinant of consumers’ buying decisions.
2
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of the study. Notes: OPEN: Openness, CONS: Conscientiousness, EXTR: Extraversion, AGRE: Agreeableness, NEUR:
Neuroticism.
Secondly, we develop a theoretical framework based on the Big Five trait theory to investigate the role of personality traits in
determining the relationship between CINEVs and consumers’ WTBEVs, which is new to the literature. Such a framework allows us to
analyze how those personality traits affect the strength and direction (i.e., moderating role) of the CINEVs–WTBEVs relationship. The
past studies, such as Skippon et al. (2016), addressed the direct relationship between consumers’ willingness to buy battery EVs and
overlooked the consideration of CINEVs–WTBEVs relationship, moderated by Big Five personality traits. Finally, we offer novel
findings to extract policy implications favorable to shape the consumers’ buying behavior of EVs.
The remainder of the study is systematized as follows: The research methods are explained in Section 2. Study results are presented
in Section 3. A discussion of study findings is included in Section 4. Finally, conclusions, policy recommendations, research limitations,
and commendations for future research are provided in Section 5.
2. Methods
2.1. Theoretical framework
The buying decision of a particular product is a multifaceted and complicated process, which depends on a variety of factors
(Ahmad et al., 2021; Jabeen et al., 2019). Consumers are often concerned about cost, environmental, and societal values while
accepting new technology (Irfan et al., 2021; Tanveer et al., 2021). In EV literature, though the question of “how different factors
influence consumers’ buying decision of EVs” has been asked by former scholars, little research has been conducted on “how per
sonality traits affect consumers’ WTBEVs”? According to personality psychology, personality is the most significant predictor of
consumer behavior (He et al., 2018). In this perspective, the current study investigates “how different personality traits can affect the
way people acquire and comprehend information thereby influencing their WTBEVs”?
Scholars have used various theories to scrutinize the complicated nature of consumers’ buying decisions, i.e., self-efficacy theory
(Parkinson et al., 2017), social cognitive theory (Perera et al., 2019), theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior (Yzer,
2017), green perceived value theory (Jabeen et al., 2021; Potoglou et al., 2020a), and the Big Five trait theory (Wu et al., 2021).
Among these theories, the Big Five trait theory successfully describes and predicts consumers’ behavior and has been used by many
researchers in a variety of consumers’ research situations, such as energy conservation behavior (Shen et al., 2019), green decision
behavior (Busic-Sontic et al., 2017), and EVs buying behavior (Skippon et al., 2016). Owing to its suitability, we have employed the Big
Five trait theory to establish the conceptual framework of the research work
The relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs has been examined by accommodating the moderating role of the Big Five per
sonality traits. CINEVs is described by structural aspects and metacognitive judgments. Structural aspects of CINEVs comprise the
comparative balance of positive and negative information related to EVs, as well as the strength of relationship among them. Apart
from structural aspects, metacognitive judgments of the evaluation are also critical. Metacognitive judgments include the feelings of
certainty and evaluative conflict (Luttrell et al., 2016). Both structural aspects and metacognitive appraisals guide consumers to exhibit
relevant behavior. According to Kowalska-Pyzalska et al. (2021), WTB is consumers’ behavioral intention to buy a product or service.
Wang et al. (2017b) stated that WTB predicts and measures technology diffusion behavior. Along these lines, WTBEVs is described as
consumers’ readiness to accept and buy EVs by considering all the associated attributes (positive and negative) at a certain selling
price. Positive attributes comprise reducing carbon emissions, less frequent maintenance, minimizing the reliance on fossil fuels, and
self-esteem, while negative attributes include high cost, charging time, range anxiety, and the unavailability of charging stations. Fig. 1
depicts the conceptual framework of the study.
3
2.2. Hypotheses development
2.2.1. Openness
According to personality studies, openness reflects people’s proclivity to be innovative, adventurous, and progressive. They have an
instinctive curiosity and are willing to learn new things, which allows them to bring novel insights and perspectives (Stajkovic et al.,
2018). Individuals with a high level of openness possess a positive perspective towards information. They use innovative approaches to
gather a large amount of information from different sources (Brown et al., 2016) and employ the gathered information in a creative and
original way. Individuals with high openness are curious and seek possible solutions to environmental problems (Poškus and
Žukauskienė, 2017). Former research indicated that buyers’ WTBEVs is positively influenced by openness. For instance, Axsen et al.
(2012) investigated consumers’ willingness to accept EVs. The findings revealed that openness plays a critical role in consumers’
decisions to use EVs. Similarly, Skippon et al. (2016) showed that consumers with high openness show more willingness to buy EVs.
Based on these arguments, we formulated the first hypothesis as follows:
Assumption 1. H1: Openness positively moderates the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs..
2.2.2. Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness is a key personality trait that is described as a person’s tendency to be self-disciplined, efficient, and accountable
(Eissa, 2020). People with a high level of conscientiousness are goal-oriented and actively engaged in decision-making. They
consistently pursue the targeted goals without considering the efforts and time (Abbas and Raja, 2019). Individuals with high
conscientiousness are determined and vigilant in their search for knowledge and emphasize obtaining superior information important
to their goals. Only the most up-to-date information that satisfies their requirements would suffice (Zhang et al., 2020). High con
scientious consumers obtain accurate and relevant information, and they are more likely to work hard in order to realize the best
results (Al-Samarraie et al., 2017). Skippon et al. (2016) comprehended that conscientiousness is positively associated with consumers’
WTBEVs, as high conscientiousness about climatic problems convinced respondents to switch their transportation mode from CGFVs to
EVs. Residents who are aware that EVs reduce GHG emissions take radical measures to adjust their existing lifestyle patterns to endorse
a zero-carbon environment (Liu et al., 2020). Considering these arguments, we formulated the following hypothesis:
Assumption 2. H2: Conscientiousness positively moderates the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs.
2.2.3. Extraversion
Extraversion refers to a person’s propensity to be outgoing and energetic. People with high extraversion are sociable, self-confident,
and like adventures (Arpaci et al., 2018). Since they are inherently talkative and gregarious, their ability to gather information is
irrefutable, resulting in regular contact with friends, relatives, colleagues, and neighbors (Guo et al., 2018). Extraverts have a strong
desire for social contacts and seek advice from authorities during decision-making (Hu and Judge, 2017). Extraverts can get a lot of
information from their increasingly expanding social networks and are more confident in their purchasing decisions (Lönnqvist and
Itkonen, 2016). Lin and Wu (2018) conducted a survey in the four largest cities of China, including Beijing, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and
Shanghai. The authors reported that the majority of the respondents had concerns about CGFVs and were eager to buy EVs. Skippon
et al. (2016) examined the influence of extraversion on the vehicle preferences of residents and found that residents prefer to buy EVs
to lessen the prevailing climate crises. These findings led to the formulation of the third hypothesis as follows:
Assumption 3. H4: Extraversion positively moderates the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs.
2.2.4. Agreeableness
The term “agreeableness” is referred to behavioral patterns that indicate prosocial motivation, orientation, and responsiveness
(Baardstu et al., 2017). It is particularly concerned with emotion control in interpersonal contexts (Vize et al., 2020) and is intimately
connected to the psychosocial structure of “belonging” that promotes the establishment of close bonds and ensures social support
(Fleeson and Jayawickreme, 2015). Thus, the agreeableness reflects individual differences in prosocial and communicative tendencies,
ranging from warmth and affiliation to hostility and antagonism (Shiner and Masten, 2008). People with a high level of agreeableness
are courteous. They aspire to uphold conformity even though it compromises their personal interests. Agreeableness is associated with
interpersonal skills and describes someone who tends to be trustworthy, caring, and prevents disputes to maintaining a peaceful at
mosphere (Matz and Gladstone, 2018). Because of excessive concerns for others, they are cooperative, warm, and sympathetic
(Caliskan, 2019). Individuals with a high level of agreeableness are seldom inquisitive and tend to accept information immediately
(Chapman and Goldberg, 2017). Consequently, they may exhibit herd behavior and tend to accept new technology. Hill et al. (2019)
reported that consumers with an agreeableness personality trait believe that EVs can minimize the dependence on fossil fuels and
mitigate climate change. People with a high level of agreeableness differentiate between CGFVs and EVs, and make purchasing de
cisions based on their socio-economic status (Skippon et al., 2016). In the light of former research findings, we formulated the fourth
hypothesis as follows:
Assumption 4. H4: Agreeableness positively moderates the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs.
2.2.5. Neuroticism
Neurotic people often experience negative emotions, i.e., depression, pain, frustration, apprehension, and nervousness (Nagel et al.,
2018). Individuals with a high level of neuroticism are more susceptible to stimuli and appear to overreact in daily circumstances. They
4
Fig. 2. Study area.
become more anxious as a result of these stimuli, leading them to poor task performance and stress vulnerability (O’Loughlin et al.,
2019). Although people with high neuroticism are freethinkers, this does not indicate that they can readily acknowledge everything. A
study conducted by Yang et al. (2020) revealed that highly neurotic individuals display diminished cognitive reappraisal and reduced
ability to regulate emotions. Halder et al. (2010) led a study in India to examine the influence of personality traits on the information-
seeking behavior of individuals. The findings disclosed that neuroticism negatively affected information-seeking behavior. Skippon
et al. (2016) examined the mass-market drivers’ willingness to consider EVs in a randomized controlled trial. Their findings exposed
that users were average in neuroticism as compared to other Big Five personality traits. All these findings contributed to the
formulation of the fifth hypothesis as follows:
Assumption 5. H5: Neuroticism negatively moderates the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs.
2.3. Research design
2.3.1. Study area, selection of respondents, and sample size

An inclusive questionnaire survey was administered in the seven largest cities of India, including Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore,
Ahmadabad, Chennai, Kolkata, and Hyderabad during October, November, and December of 2020. The main reason of choosing these
cities is that the surveyed consumers are from heterogeneous communities. Other motive is that these cities have a high population
growth rate with modern facilities and demonstrate the country’s distinctive characteristics in terms of economic development (Irfan
et al., 2020b). Fig. 2 depicts the location of the study area.
Before beginning the study, the authors tested the questionnaire by performing a pilot survey with a smaller sample size to ensure
accurate and meaningful results (Xue et al., 2014). After that, we approached respondents in person (Reuter and Schaefer, 2017). The
following criteria were considered for the selection of respondents. (i) The respondents should be permanent residents of these cities,
(ii) the age of respondents should not be <18 years. In order to reduce the sampling bias, random sampling was used by selecting every
tenth individual and asking them to participate in the survey (Truong et al., 2020). The demographic features of respondents show that
the questionnaires were conducted from the respondents belonging to heterogeneous backgrounds. Along these lines, the findings
generated stipulate a balanced depiction of the inhabitants with all types of gender, education, age, income, marital status, and
occupation. The detailed questionnaire is given in Appendix A.
5
Table 1
Description of the survey.
Parameters Value
Time frame October, November, December (2020)

Location of the survey Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Ahmadabad, Chennai, Kolkata, and Hyderabad
Size of the sample 800
Valid responses 624
Response rate 78%
The survey process was divided into two phases. During the first phase, questionnaires were handed over to 800 respondents, and
they were given a time of one month to fill their responses. An in-depth explanation of all aspects of questionnaire was provided to
respondents. The questionnaire collected data on consumers’ demography, personality attributes, information about EVs, and
WTBEVs. During the second phase, questionnaires were returned by the respondents after one month. A total of 624 valid responses
collected, representing 78% of the original sample. The subsequent criteria were followed to determine the validity of the response. (i)
Questionnaires should not include any missing data or inaccuracies. (ii) Questionnaires should be single-response only. (iii) Ques
tionnaire are free from outliers. An outlier is an incorrect or erroneous observation that is abnormally far from the other values in a
dataset. It is critical to delete outliers in statistical analysis, as their existence in the data might skew research outcomes. To evade this
issue, we used the following critical procedures to identify any outliers in the dataset. (i) Scrutinized the graphed data’s overall form
for significant characteristics such as symmetry and deviations from assumptions. (ii) Using the box plots graphical approach, scru
tinized the data for dissimilar observations. As a consequence of these procedures, four outliers were identified and eliminated from the
dataset. Using Westland’s sample size calculation formula, it was determined that for the proposed research model, the recommended
minimum sample size should be 425 (Westland, 2010). The size of our study sample (624 responses) is even more than the minimum
recommended value, ensuring that empirical analysis can be performed on the current sample. Table 1 provides the description of the
survey.
2.3.2. Operationalization of variables

We used previously validated scales for all constructs except for CINEVs, as we have introduced the term CINEVs for the first time in
EV literature to investigate the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs using the moderating role of Big Five personality traits.
More specifically, the work of Ferguson et al. (2018) was consulted to determine the scale items for measuring “openness”. The scale
items measuring “conscientiousness” were taken and modified from the study of Skippon and Garwood (2011). Scale items associated
with “extraversion” were acquired and modified from the research of Sun et al. (2018), while scale items related to “agreeableness”
were compiled and modified from the analysis of Skippon et al. (2016). Scale items measuring “neuroticism” were derived and
modified from the study of Zhang et al. (2020). Scale items associated with “WTBEVs” were taken and modified from the work of Wang
et al. (2017b). Finally, scale items related to “CINEVs” were self-developed (by authors). A five-point Likert scale was employed to
assess each item, as 1 specifies “strongly disagree” and 5 specifies “strongly agree” (see Appendix A).
2.3.3. Statistical analysis

The authors processed and analyzed the collected data for compilation, screening, descriptive statistics, and reliability analysis.
SPSS (version 26) software package was used for performing exploratory factor analysis (EFA), whereas AMOS (version 26) was used
for conducting confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), structural equation modeling (SEM), and testing the proposed hypotheses. SEM is a
frequently employed technique due to its flexibility and generality (Irfan et al., 2020c). It comprises several steps, including speci
fication, estimation, evaluation, and modification of the model. The technique is robust for investigating the relationship among
multiple variables and have numerous benefits over common multivariate approaches: (i) a reliable assessment of measurement errors,
(ii) valuation of latent variables by observed variables, and (iii) model checking for the evaluation and implementation of a framework
based on data consistency (Hair and Babin, 2017). The majority of multivariate methods implicitly neglect measurement error.
However, SEM computes variables by taking into consideration the measurement errors (Sardeshmukh and Vandenberg, 2013). Due to
these advantages, SEM produces reliable and valid results (Belaïd, 2017). Consequently, we have employed SEM, as it is the most
successful technique to scrutinize the linkage among all the proposed variables.
3. Results
3.1. Demography of the participants
In our sample, lower-middle age cohort (190, 30.4%) is the the maximum share of the respondents, followed by the middle-age
cohort (143, 22.9%), young age cohort (91, 14.6%), and old age cohort (89, 14.3%), respectively. Males were (350, 56.1%)
compared to females (274, 43.9%) in our sample. Two hundred forty-five respondents (39.3%) are from middle-income class with a
income between Indian rupees (INR) 20,001–30,000/month, followed by the higher-middle income class (183, 29.3%) with an income
between INR 30,001–40,000/month. We also grouped respondents into different education levels. Among them, (212, 34%) possess a
college degree, whereas (159, 25.5%) have a high school education. The majority of the respondents (514, 82.4%) were married, while
(333, 53.4%) of the participants have a government job.
6
Table 2
Goodness-of-fit indices values of the measurement and structural model.
Fit index Description Recommended criterion Values based on structural model
CFI Comparative fit index > 0.9 good fit 0.986

NFI Normed fit index > 0.9 good fit 0.931
IFI Incremental fit index > 0.9 good fit 0.987
TLI Tucker-Lewis index > 0.9 good fit 0.967
GFI Goodness of fit > 0.9 good fit 0.974
RMSEA Root mean squared error of approximation < 0.08 good fit 0.026
X2/df Chi-square < 3 good fit 1.253
SRMR Standardized root mean squared residual < 0.09 good fit 0.031
Fig. 3. Path diagram of structural equation modeling. Continuous lines show significant values while dashed lines show insignificant values. *** p
< 0.00, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05. Source: Authors’ calculation.
3.2. Hypotheses results and structural model
Descriptive statics, correlation, discriminant validity, reliability, multicollinearity, factor analysis, and endogeneity analysis are
reported in Appendix B. After getting valid and reliable measures, the authors assessed the model and the hypothesized linkages. The
R2 value was computed as an essential step to determine the variation in the dependent variable explained by independent variables.
The R2 value was 0.585, which is higher than the minimum recommended value of 0.35 (Cohen, 2013), implying a significant
interpretation. We performed the covariance-based curve estimation and SEM algorithm to inspect the relationships. The analysis
generated a strong f-value, indicating linearity among the relationships. Different fitness tests were also applied to ensure that the data
are perfectly fit for the structural model. The analysis reveal that all fit index values (i.e., CFI = 0.986, NFI = 0.931, IFI = 0.987, TLI =
0.967, GFI = 0.974, RMSEA = 0.026, X2/df = 1.253, and SRMR = 0.031) are according to the recommended criteria, specifying that
the structural model satisfactorily fitted the data (Lucianetti et al., 2018). Table 2 shows the goodness-of-fit indices of the structural
model.
Fig. 3 depicts the path coefficients. We examined the moderating influence of personality traits on CINEVs and WTBEVs employing
path analysis. We computed five interaction terms of personality traits and CINEVs and entered them into the model. A positive and
significant relationship (β = 0.001, p < 0.01) was noticed between CINEVs and WTBEVs after controlling the demographic variables, i.
7
Table 3
Hypotheses’ results.
Hypotheses Structural paths β-value f-value Result R2
H1 OPEN_CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.038*** 204.5*** Accepted 0.585

H2 CONS_ CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.072** 156.4*** Accepted
H3 EXTR_ CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.136*** 119.3*** Accepted
H4 AGRE_ CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.075* 213.9*** Accepted
H5 NEUR_ CINEVs → WTBEVs − 0.011* 118.3*** Accepted
Notes: *** p < 0.00, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Fig. 4a. Graphic depiction of the moderating impact of personality traits on CINEVs and WTBEVs. Openness reinforces the positive relationship
between CINEVs and WTBEVs.
e., age, gender, education, income, marital status, and occupation. The structural path of the interaction term OPEN_CINEVs with
WTBEVs (β = 0.038, p < 0.001) discloses that openness positively moderates the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs.
Therefore, we accepted hypothesis 1. It was realized that the interaction term CONS_CINEVs significantly influences WTBEVs (β =
0.072, p < 0.01), stipulating that conscientiousness positively moderates the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs. Thus, we
accepted hypothesis 2. Similarly, extraversion positively moderates the relationship of CINEVs and WTBEVs, as the structural path of
the interaction term EXTR_CINEVs (β = 0.136, p < 0.001) depicts a positive and significant relationship with WTBEVs. Based on this
finding, we accepted hypothesis 3. The structural path from agreeableness significantly moderates the relationship between CINEVs
and WTBEVs (β = 0.075, p < 0.05). Therefore, we accepted hypothesis 4. Finally, neuroticism negatively moderates the relationship
between CINEVs and WTBEVs, as the structural path of the interaction term NEUR_CINEVs (β = − 0.011, p < 0.05) indicates a
negative relationship with WTBEVs. Accordingly, we accepted hypothesis 5. Table 3 reports the findings of the hypotheses. In addition,
we also examine gender differences in terms of WTBEVs and run the model across male and female samples. One of the major reasons
for examining gender differences is that both men and women possess different personality traits and may react differently in different
situations. Besides, women are increasingly becoming major parts of the Indian labor force. In this context, it is of prime importance to
perform gender difference analyses to scrutinize WTBEVs of both men and women. To this end, we choose this particular demographic
factor and run the model again. The analyses provided some interesting research findings (see Section B.7 in Appendix B).
Fig. 5 reveals that a high level of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness have a severe influence on con
sumers’ information-buying relationship compared to a low level. At a higher level of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and
agreeableness, high CINEVs is related to more WTBEVs. Thus, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness reinforce
the positive relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs. On the other hand, for a high level of neuroticism, high CINEVs is related to
low WTBEVs, whereas, for a low level of neuroticism, high CINEVs is related to more WTBEVs. Consequently, in contrast to other
personality traits, neuroticism reverses the direction of CINEVs–WTBEVs relationship from positive to a negative one.
4. Discussion
The proposed theoretical model allowed us to investigate the role of Big Five personality traits in moderating the relationship
between CINEVs and WTBEVs. Results supported the first hypothesis that openness positively moderates the relationship between
CINEVs and WTBEVs in such a fashion that high CINEVs cause enhanced WTBEVs when the level of openness is high (see Fig. 4a). On
the contrary, the positive moderation loses relevance with decreasing levels of openness and subsequently disappears for people with
less creative minds. It implies that a higher degree of openness induces a stronger positive moderation and vice versa. Being open
enhances the propensity of consumers to acquire and use the information on EVs in an effective manner, facilitating and shaping their
WTBEVs. This openness-driven positive moderation can be spelled out in two ways: first, open consumers being curious and open to
experiencing innovative things have the opportunity to acquire more information than their counterparts, expanding their information
8
Fig. 4b. Graphic depiction of the moderating impact of personality traits on CINEVs and WTBEVs. Conscientiousness reinforces the positive
relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs.
Fig. 4c. Graphic depiction of the moderating impact of personality traits on CINEVs and WTBEVs. Extraversion reinforces the positive relationship
on EVs. Second, being imaginative, creative, and artistic, they can effectively use their extensive information to make an informed
buying decision of EVs. Our finding shows some analogy with Skippon et al. (2016) regarding a positive relationship between openness
and EVs buying decisions. However, unlike our study, Skippon et al. (2016) analyzed the direct impact of openness on consumers’
willingness to consider EVs without considering its moderating effect on CINEVs- WTBEVs linkage, while consideration of CINEVs is
critical since it is an integral building block of any buying decision. Ahmadi (2019) opined that domestic consumers had major
concerns about CGFVs due to high fuel prices, noise, and environmental pollution. Given this scenario, creative and open-minded
consumers may consider EVs among potential solutions to these issues.
Results presented in Fig. 4b specify that conscientiousness positively moderates the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs in
such a way that high CINEVs results in more WTBEVs for a high level of conscientiousness. It implies that since conscientious con
sumers are organized and self-disciplined, this trait helps them compile and organize information on promising aspects of EVs,
accelerating their buying behavior. Moreover, goal-orientedness and good impulse control characteristics enable conscientious con
sumers to complete their tasks, making their buying behavior of EVs consistent. In contrast, their counterparts (consumers lacking
conscientiousness) may not stick to one decision on account of being impulsive and less competent, impeding their buying behavior of
EVs. Aligned with this notion, Misund et al. (2020) uncovered that people with high conscientiousness are aware of climate problems
and make sincere efforts in improving the environment. Thus, knowing the positive effects of EVs and ramifications of CGFVs, con
scientious consumers are likely to convert this information into a purchase decision. The findings of Schuitema et al. (2013) presented
somewhat analogy with this finding since they concluded that public WTBEVs was significantly influenced by conscientiousness.
However, opposed to our work, they considered the direct influence of instrumental attributes such as conscientiousness on con
sumers’ intention to adopt EVs, without regarding the information channel (considered by the current research).
Fig. 4c reveals that extraversion positively moderates the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs. More specifically, when the
level of extraversion is high, high CINEVs result in more WTBEVs. In this way, extraversion reinforces the positive linkage between
CINEVs and WTBEVs. Extravert consumers are active, outgoing, and feel energized by social interactions. These characteristics permit
them to acquire a reasonable amount of information on modern technology, facilitating a more accessible buying behavior. This is
because social interaction increases their information on EVs by being exposed to peers, colleagues, friends, and neighbors.
Furthermore, extravert consumers like being the center of attention; therefore, using environmentally friendly vehicles may reflect
their positive image. This is consistent with the idea supported by Skippon and Garwood (2011) that symbolic attributes improve the
9
Fig. 4d. Graphic depiction of the moderating impact of personality traits on CINEVs and WTBEVs. Agreeableness reinforces the positive relationship
Fig. 4e. Neuroticism weakens the positive relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs.
consumers’ attitude towards buying BEVs. They further argued that individuals with symbolic attributes perceive that EVs are the best
possible alternative to replace CGFVs, leading them to make buying decisions of BEVs. However, their research primarily focused on
perception-based decision-making behavior and overlooked CINEVs aspect. It was revealed that the stronger the perceptions about the
lethal aspects of air pollution, the easier it would be to influence public intentions to accept EVs (Wang et al., 2018). In this way,
previous studies confirmed the direct role of extraversion in shaping public behavior to buy EVs and thus provided somewhat similarity
with our research results.
Results depicted in Fig. 4d indicate that agreeableness positively moderates the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs in such a
fashion that high CINEVs causes more WTBEVs when the level of agreeableness is high. Hence, agreeableness strengthens the positive
relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs. Individuals with high agreeableness are considerate, compassionate, and care about how
others feel about them. Being sensitive to how their actions influence their surrounding environment, agreeable consumers may
demonstrate a strong commitment to reducing the use of CGFVs in the face of their adverse environmental consequences. Alterna
tively, such individuals tend to believe that EVs have several benefits, including (but not limited to) reduced dependence on petroleum
products and climate change mitigation (Hill et al., 2019). With this information, consumers with high agreeableness conveniently
differentiate between EVs and CGFVs and, hence, make informed purchase decisions. This finding is somewhat aligned with Skippon
et al. (2016) since they found that residents showed more WTBEVs after recognizing the perceived benefits of EVs in terms of reduced
air pollution. One possible reason might involve their increasing environmental awareness, which could surmount their trust in EVs.
However, again Skippon et al. (2016) examined the direct linkage of this attribute with WTBEVs.
Our moderation model’s results stipulate that neuroticism negatively moderates the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs (see
Fig. 4e). It means that for a higher level of neuroticism, a high level of CINEVs causes reduced WTBEVs and vice versa. Its underlying
reason can be interpreted in the following way: when exposed to information regarding new events such as buying decisions of EVs, the
neurotic consumers pile up stress and anxiety and feel puzzled. Such a situation makes them reluctant from being open to making
innovative decisions. Thus, for neurotic consumers, more information on EVs makes them more confused while making buying de
cisions, which is likely to negatively contribute to their WTBEVs. It is similar to the argument that people with high neuroticism
exaggerate in ordinary circumstances, which increases their nervousness, resulting in low performance and susceptibility to anxiety
(Qu et al., 2020). Former researchers like Skippon and Garwood (2011) examined the direct impact of neuroticism and revealed that it
10
Fig. 5. Confirmatory factor analysis, representing measurement model. Source: Authors’ calculation.
negatively impacted public willingness to use EVs, specifying that neuroticism was a significant impediment to adopting innovations in
the transportation sector. Similarly, Kurani et al. (2018) noticed that consumers’ willingness was influenced by neuroticism which
restrained them from buying EVs.
11
Table A1
Questionnaire survey.
Constructs Items Response
5 4 3 2 1
Openness (OPEN) OPEN 1: I am eager to have the driving experience of electric vehicles.
OPEN 2: The aesthetic nature of electric vehicles attracts my attention.
OPEN 3: Using an emissions-free vehicle seems exciting.
OPEN 4: I am insightful that electric vehicles can make the dream of a low-carbon
world come true.
OPEN 5: Electric vehicles are a source of experiencing new and useful technology.
Conscientiousness (CONS) CONS 1: If I could afford it, I would buy an electric vehicle immediately.
CONS 2: I need to prioritize my spending plans, if I need to purchase an electric
vehicle.
CONS 3: I can make a decision, if I need to purchase an electric vehicle.
CONS 4: My family relies on me while making major spending decisions.
Extraversion (EXTR) EXTR 1: I often talk to my friends/colleagues/relatives about electric vehicles.
EXTR 2: I can convince my family member to buy an electric vehicle.
EXTR 3: I am saving/have saved money to purchase an electric vehicle.
EXTR 4: I have many friends in my social circles to whom I talk very often.
Agreeableness (AGRE) AGRE 1: I agree to help if my friends/colleagues/relatives are in need.
AGRE 2: I agree to give loans to my needy friends/colleagues/relatives, if I am
prosperous.
AGRE 3: I agree to buy an electric vehicle, if my wife/kids want me to buy
AGRE 4: I generally share my vehicle with my friends/colleagues/relatives in
need.
AGRE 5: I agree to make a purchase decision if I like the product (electric vehicle).
AGRE 6: I always keep my promises and commitments.
Neuroticism (NEUR) NEUR 1: I am worried about the high fuel cost of gasoline-fueled vehicles.
NEUR 2: Selling the old vehicle and buying a new one is a complex decision.
NEUR 3: Selling the old vehicle and buying a new one is time taking and
problematic.
NEUR 4: I am not particularly eager to change my vehicle more often.
NUR 5: If I drive a gasoline-fueled vehicle, it does not matter much for the
environment.
NEUR 6: If my friends/colleagues/relatives buy an electric vehicle, I will also buy
one to protect my prestige.
NEUR 7: Since electric vehicles are new technology vehicles, it is good for a
person’s image to have one.
Consumers’ information about electric CINEVs 1: Electric vehicles are less costly to buy than gasoline-fueled vehicles.
vehicles (CINEVs) CINEVs 2: Electric vehicles are less costly to run than gasoline-fueled vehicles.
CINEVs 3: Electric vehicles have negligible emissions as compared to gasoline-
fueled vehicles.
CINEVs 4: Travelling range of electric vehicles is less than gasoline-fueled vehicles.
CINEVs 5: Electric vehicles are environmentally friendly technology.
CINEVs 6: Electric vehicles save scarce gasoline resources.
CINEVs 7: Electric vehicles are convenient and give a better driving experience.
Willingness to buy electric vehicles (WTBEVs) WTBEVs 1: I am willing to buy an electric vehicle as I can afford it.
WTBEVs 2: I am willing to spend more on an electric vehicle than on gasoline-
fueled vehicles.
WTBEVs 3: I am willing to buy an electric vehicle as its environment-friendliness
inspires me.
WTBEVs 4: I am willing to buy an electric vehicle on a lease if I do not have cash in
hand.
Notes: 5 specifies “strongly agree” and 1 specifies “strongly disagree”
Table B1
Descriptive statistics of the data.
Variables Observations Items Mean Std. Dev Coefficient of variation (CV)
CONS 624 4 3.630 0.590 0.162

NEUR 624 7 2.811 1.509 0.536
CINEVs 624 7 3.324 0.154 0.046
AGRE 624 6 3.919 0.574 0.146
OPEN 624 5 2.603 0.661 0.253
EXTR 624 4 2.906 1.563 0.537
WTBEVs 624 4 2.472 0.367 0.556
Notes: CONS: Conscientiousness, NEUR: Neuroticism, CINEVs: Consumers’ information about EVs, AGRE: Agreeableness, OPEN: Openness, EXTR:
Extraversion, WTBEVs: Willingness to buy EVs.
12
Table B2
Correlation and discriminant validity analysis.
Variables CONS NEUR CINEVs AGRE OPEN EXTR WTBEVs AVE MSV
CONS (0.715) 0.511 0.122

NEUR 0.298 (0.833) 0.694 0.331
CINEVs 0.267 0.445 (0.821) 0.674 0.292
AGRE 0.349 0.368 0.540 (0.802) 0.643 0.292
OPEN 0.304 0.223 0.160 0.352 (0.844) 0.713 0.124
EXTR 0.155 0.503 0.355 0.259 0.227 (0.824) 0.679 0.445
WTBEVs 0.284 0.575 0.494 0.429 0.215 0.667 (0.744) 0.554 0.446
Notes: Values in parentheses signify AVEs’s root square.
Table B3
Factor loadings and reliability findings.
Variables Items Standard loadings Cronbach- α CR
Openness 0.922 0.925

OPEN 1 0.742
OPEN 2 0.802
OPEN 3 0.918
OPEN 4 0.864
OPEN 5 0.879
Conscientiousness 0.807 0.807
CONS 1 0.715
CONS 2 0.724
CONS 3 0.735
CONS 4 0.678
Extraversion 0.901 0.893
EXTR 1 0.861
EXTR 2 0.931
EXTR 3 0.740
EXTR 4 0.699
Agreeableness 0.914 0.915
AGRE 1 0.847
AGRE 2 0.739
AGRE 3 0.664
AGRE 4 0.909
AGRE 5 0.904
AGRE 6 0.654
Neuroticism 0.943 0.940
NEUR 1 0.806
NEUR 2 0.847
NEUR 3 0.957
NEUR 4 0.966
NEUR 5 0.826
NEUR 6 0.669
NEUR 7 0.672
Consumers’ information about EVs 0.911 0.935
CINEVs 1 0.620
CINEVs 2 0.846
CINEVs 3 0.797
CINEVs 4 0.878
CINEVs 5 0.829
CINEVs 6 0.835
CINEVs 7 0.893
Willingness to buy EVs 0.830 0.832
WTBEVs 1 0.683
WTBEVs 2 0.729
WTBEVs 3 0.713
WTBEVs 4 0.604
Notes: Extraction method: Maximum Likelihood, Rotation method: Promax with Kaiser normalization.
5. Conclusions
This study systematically analyzed the moderating impact of personality traits on the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs
using the Big Five trait theory. An inclusive survey was conducted in the seven largest Indian cities, and the data was analyzed using
SEM. The critical conclusions are as follows: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness positively and significantly
moderated the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs. On the contrary, neuroticism negatively moderated this relationship.
13
Table B4
Collinearity diagnostics.
Variables Collineraity statistics
Tolerance VIF
CONS 0.837 1.194

NEUR 0.752 1.330
CINEVs 0.891 1.122
AGRE 0.818 1.222
OPEN 0.797 1.254
EXTR 0.731 1.368
Notes: Dependent variable: WTBEVs
Table B5
Contributing design structure of variables using EFA.
Variables Standard loadings
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
OPEN 1 0.742
OPEN 2 0.802
OPEN 3 0.918
OPEN 4 0.864
OPEN 5 0.879
CONS 1 0.715
CONS 2 0.724
CONS 3 0.735
CONS 4 0.678
EXTR 1 0.861
EXTR 2 0.931
EXTR 3 0.740
EXTR 4 0.699
AGRE 1 0.847
AGRE 2 0.739
AGRE 3 0.664
AGRE 4 0.909
AGRE 5 0.904
AGRE 6 0.654
NEUR 1 0.806
NEUR 2 0.847
NEUR 3 0.957
NEUR 4 0.966
NEUR 5 0.826
NEUR 6 0.669
NEUR 7 0.672
CINEVs 1 0.620
CINEVs 2 0.846
CINEVs 3 0.797
CINEVs 4 0.878
CINEVs 5 0.829
CINEVs 6 0.835
CINEVs 7 0.893
WTBEVs 1 0.683
WTBEVs 2 0.729
WTBEVs 3 0.713
WTBEVs 4 0.604
Table B6
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test.
KMO and Bartlett’s test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.921

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 9,413.87
df 403
Sig. 0.000
Notes: df: Degree of freedom, Sig: Significance.
14
Table B7
Communalities findings.
Variables Communalities
Initial Extraction
CONS 1.000 0.882

NEUR 1.000 0.688
CINEVs 1.000 0.709
AGRE 1.000 0.569
OPEN 1.000 0.699
EXTR 1.000 0.730
WTBEVs 1.000 0.854
Notes: Extraction Method: Maximum likelihood.
Table B8
Eigenvalues and cumulative variance.
Variables Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 12.405 32.646 32.646 11.920 31.369 31.369

2 3.974 10.458 43.104 3.576 9.411 40.781
3 3.487 9.177 52.282 3.243 8.534 49.314
4 2.452 6.454 58.735 2.131 5.607 54.922
5 2.059 5.417 64.153 1.715 4.513 59.435
6 1.948 5.127 69.280 1.628 4.285 63.720
7 1.157 3.044 72.323 0.799 2.103 65.823
Notes: Rotation method: Promax with Kaiser normalization, Cumulative variance: 65.823%.
Fig. 6. Path diagram of model 1 (male sample). Continuous lines show significant values while dashed lines show insignificant values. *** p < 0.00,
** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05. Source: Authors’ calculation.
15
Table B9
Endogeneity test.
Hypotheses Structural paths β -value t-statistics Description
H1 OPEN_CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.041*** 3.064 Not different

H2 CONS_ CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.265** 9.813 Not different
H3 EXTR_ CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.582*** 1.282 Not different
H4 AGRE_ CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.294* 4.376 Not different
H5 NEUR_ CINEVs → WTBEVs − 0.079* − 7.872 Not different
Notes: *** p < 0.00, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Table B10
Alternative mediation model analysis.
Relationship Direct without Mediator Direct with Mediator Indirect effect
OPEN → CINEVS → WTBEVS 0.045 0.091 0.323

CONS → CINEVS → WTBEVS 0.090 0.014 0.510
EXTR → CINEVS → WTBEVS 0.579 0.276 0.446
AGRE → CINEVS → WTBEVS 0.143 0.152 0.429
NEUR → CINEVS → WTBEVS − 0.218 − 0.033 − 0.416
Notes: All values are insignificant, indicating that no mediation exists in the model.
Fig. 7. Path diagram of model 2 (female sample). Continuous lines show significant values while dashed lines show insignificant values. *** p <
0.00, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05. Source: Authors’ calculation.
Based on empirical results, the following policy implications are drawn: firstly, among the positive contributors to CINEVs–WTBEVs
relationship, extraversion made the most substantial contribution. Since the extravert consumers are sociable and like to be the center
of attention, marketers should focus on the aesthetic aspects of EVs, as these consumers would prefer to own products they consider
would be suitable for their societal image. Secondly, agreeableness is the second-largest positive contributor to CINEVs–WTBEVs
relationship. Highly agreeable consumers exhibit herd behavior and readily absorb new technology. Therefore, they are inquisitive
16
Table B11
Hypotheses’ results for model 1 (male sample).

H4 AGRE_ CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.149** 324.1*** Accepted
H5 NEUR_ CINEVs → WTBEVs − 0.005* 229.4*** Accepted
Notes: *** p < 0.00, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Table B12
Hypotheses’ results for model 2 (female sample).

H4 AGRE_ CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.003* 202.8*** Accepted
H5 NEUR_ CINEVs → WTBEVs − 0.103** 107.2*** Accepted
Notes: *** p < 0.00, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Table B13
Models’ comparison.
Hypotheses Structural paths Model 1 (male sample) Model 2 (female sample)
β-value β-value
H1 OPEN_CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.040***a 0.032***

H2 CONS_ CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.084**a 0.055**
H3 EXTR_ CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.143***a 0.038***
H4 AGRE_ CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.149**a 0.003*
H5 NEUR_ CINEVs → WTBEVs − 0.005*b − 0.103**
Notes: *** p < 0.00, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

a
Higher effect size.
b
Lower effect size.
and look for answers to environmental issues. Accordingly, the government should organize campaigns and events to raise awareness
of environmental concerns to disseminate information among these individuals. Thirdly, conscientiousness proved to be the third-
largest positive contributor to CINEVs–WTBEVs relationship. High conscientious individuals are vigilant, goal-oriented, and deter
mined in their search for knowledge. Therefore, EV marketers and manufacturers should devise and launch programs conveying up-to-
date and precise information on climatic adversities to target conscientious consumers switching their mode of transportation from
CGFVs to EVs.
Fourthly, openness remained the least positive contributor to CINEVs–WTBEVs relationship. Since open consumers are creative and
ready to experience innovative things, the EV manufacturers should make the EVs more innovative in terms of design and func
tionality, making them appealing to these consumers. Finally, though neuroticism negatively moderates the relationship between
CINEVs and WTBEVs, appropriate policy measures may improve WTBEVs of neurotic consumers. Since these consumers face anxiety
and stress while exposed to innovative situations, they show reluctance to innovative risk-taking behaviors. In this regard, their
WTBEVs can be upscaled by rationalizing the pre-and post-purchase risks. For this purpose, marketers selling EVs can make consumers’
purchase choices more accessible by offering extra packages like payment installment offers while making a purchase and after-sale
services involving lower repair and maintenance costs. Such strategies would help boost public confidence and support the acceptance
of EVs.
Even though this research has offered several important contributions, it does have some limitations that can be used as a reference
for future studies. Firstly, incorporating other related determinants like legislation, policies, and tax incentives that can inspire EV
purchase motivation may provide additional insights into the existing consumer behavioral research on EVs. Secondly, this research is
based on EVs in general. Subsequent research could opt for various types of EVs to widen the scope of consumers’ WTBEVs. Thirdly,
though this research embodies valuable general facts for India as a whole, the research locality may restrict the generalizability of the
results. For extended generalization, other regions of the country should be considered in upcoming research. Finally, as the pene
tration of EVs is on the rise, the general public only knows about some of the major benefits of their usage, i.e., EVs do not require fuel
and are good for the environment (do not cause carbon emissions). However, they are unaware of the annual financial benefits of
owning EVs (from fuel and maintenance cost savings to societal benefits resulting from zero gasoline consumption, associated carbon
emissions, and net present value) compared to owning CGFVs. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to do a cost-benefit analysis. Though
some researchers have performed such analysis across different geographical locations and over time, the region-or country-specific
17
conditions may vary substantially in terms of buying cost, charging cost, net present value, and cumulative net benefits in the form of
reduced fuel, maintenance & operating bills (monetary benefits), and reduced carbon emissions (environmental benefits) of using EVs.
In view of this scenario, a detailed and comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of EVs in comparison with CGFVs is of great importance.
Therefore, this critical aspect should be considered in future studies to improve the existing pool of knowledge.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Muhammad Irfan: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology. Munir Ahmad:
Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful and insightful
comments that helped us improve this work. The standard disclaimer is applicable.
Appendix A
Table A1
Appendix B
Descriptive statistics, correlation and discriminant validity analysis
The descriptive statistics of the data are shown in Table B.1, including the mean value, standard deviation, and coefficient of
variation. Correlation analysis was used to determine the linkage among variables. Significant correlations were obtained as a result of
correlation analysis. The discriminant validity was determined using the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE). The
findings confirm the discriminant validity because the AVE’s square root is larger as compared to its correlation with other variables
(Ahmad et al., 2020). Another way of finding discriminant validity is to compare the values of AVE with the values of maximum shared
variance (MSV) for each variable. The discriminant validity is achieved if the AVE value for a given variable is higher than the MSV
value for that variable (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Our results also support this fact, as the AVE values for all variables are higher than
MSV values. Following that, convergent validity was examined using item loadings and AVE to determine the level to which the items
are possibly related (Wong, 2013). The results revealed that the AVE values were>0.50 for all constructs, indicating that the latent
variables preserved at least 50% of the variance (See Table B.2).
Reliability analysis
Cronbach- α was used to determine the reliability of items. Cronbach- α values were more than the least acceptable value of 0.70, as
suggested by (Nunnally, 1994), verifying the data is reliable. The composite reliability (CR) was performed to determine the con
sistency of the items in all variables. The results reveal that the CR values are more than the minimum allowable value of 0.70.lues of
CR are higher than the least acceptable value of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2017). The results are compiled in Table B.3.
Multicollinearity
We performed a linear regression test to check the multicollinearity issue in our model. According to Field (2013), a model is said to
be free of multicollinearity issues if Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values are<10 and the values of Tolerance are>0.1. The results
specify that multicollinearity is not a problem in the model, as the VIF and Tolerance values comply with the suggested range and are in
harmony with (Strupeit and Palm, 2016). Table B.4 presents these findings.
Factor analysis
EFA explores variables’ design structure, i.e., variables’ relation and grouping with each other depending upon the inter-variable
correlations (Mahmood et al., 2019). Therefore, we performed EFA to obtain the contributing design structure of variables. The results
are reported in Table B.5. The variables were extracted by applying the maximum likelihood method, which was further rotated with
the Promax Kaiser normalization for extracting more meaningful results. The Eigenvalues helped in determining the number of
variables. At this stage, several tests were performed to examine the suitability that the EFA could be applied to the data (Deng et al.,
18
2013). For instance, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (BTS) were performed to measure the fitness of
the data. The outcomes provided a value of 0.921 for KMO, indicating that we can proceed with factor analysis (Kaiser, 1974). Besides,
BTS generated a significant value of 9,413.87, which fulfills the condition for EFA (see Table B.6). Similarly, communalities results
(reported in Table B.7) indicate that all values are more than the minimum recommended value of 0.4 (Stevens, 2012). For our model,
Promax rotation with the Kaiser normalization method revealed seven significant factors with Eigenvalues higher than 1 and a cu
mulative variance of 65.823% (see Table B.8). These results verify that the data is reliable enough to proceed with further analysis
(Blunch, 2012).
As a next step, CFA was performed for model identification. CFA confirms the structure of the factors extracted in EFA. The first step
in the model identification is to assess the uni-dimensionality of the model. Items having strong loadings (>0.7) on the main variables
need to be retained (Truong et al., 2020). The results indicated that all loadings were >0.7. The measurement model’s validity was also
verified since all items were loaded on their respective constructs (see Fig. 6). Based on these findings, it is obvious that the data is well-
suited for the measurement model.
Endogeneity testing
This test is primarily conducted to ensure the robustness of study results (Irfan et al., 2020a). The results can be threatened due to
endogeneity bias in the data. Besides, the endogeneity may distort the estimate of maximum likelihood, which is a major challenge to
the validity of the results. To tackle these issues, we conducted the Heckman test while investigating endogeneity. The results
generated similar significance as the previous model, suggesting that endogeneity bias does not exist in our findings (see Table B.9).
Alternative mediation model
The alternative mediation model was tested as well because it is possible that personality may have a direct effect on CINEVs, which
can influence WTBEVs. This suggests that CINEVs (mediator) may mediate the relationship between personality traits (predictor) and
WTBEVs (outcome). The alternative mediation model was investigated via path analyses, as recommended by (Baron and Kenny,
1986). The relationship between mediator and predictor, mediator and outcome, and predictor and outcome were tested after con
trolling the predictor. In addition, we used bootstrapping to investigate the model’s indirect effect. The results did not support the
alternative mediation model (see Table B.10).
Hypotheses results based on gender differences
While examining the relationship between CINEVs and WTBEVs, we extend our analysis by comparing hypotheses results between
the biological sexes (male and female) to find out which sex has dominant WTBEVs in terms of the Big Five personality traits. The path
diagram for model 1 (male sample) is shown in Fig. 7, while the path diagram for model 2 (female sample) is shown in Fig. 8.
Table B.11 and Table B.12 depict the hypotheses results with β-value, f-value, and R2-value for models 1 and 2, respectively. It is
evident from the results that all hypotheses (H1–H5) regarding Big Five personality traits are accepted in both models.
Table B.13 compares the results between the two models in terms of effect sizes of relationships. It appears that the relationships
between OPEN_CINEVs → WTBEVs, CONS_ CINEVs → WTBEVs, EXTR_ CINEVs → WTBEVs, and AGRE_ CINEVs → WTBEVs have
considerably larger effect sizes among male respondents than females (0.040 versus 0.032, 0.084 versus 0.055, 0.143 versus 0.038, and
0.149 versus 0.003). This result is aligned with the notion that males are biologically more open, conscientious, and extravert than
their female counterparts (Hohenberger et al., 2016). Therefore, their personality traits impart relatively more substantial influence on
CINEVs–WTBEVs relationship. On the contrary, the effect of NEUR_CINEVs on WTBEVs is substantially lower in male respondents
(-0.005 versus − 0.103) than in female counterparts. It implies that neurotic males are relatively easier to overcome and nullify their
negative emotions while deciding on buying EVs by reflecting positive emotions. However, neurotic females struggle to handle their
negative emotions and anxiety while making innovative decisions (Hohenberger et al., 2016).
References
Abbas, M., Raja, U., 2019. Challenge-hindrance stressors and job outcomes: The moderating role of conscientiousness. J. Bus. Psychol. 34 (2), 189–201. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10869-018-9535-z.
Ahmad, B., Da, L., Asif, M.H., Irfan, M., Ali, S., 2021. Understanding the Antecedents and Consequences of Service-Sales Ambidexterity : A Motivation-Opportunity-
Ability (MOA) Framework. Sustainability 13, 9675. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179675.
Ahmad, M., Iram, K., Jabeen, G., 2020. Perception-based influence factors of intention to adopt COVID-19 epidemic prevention in China. Environ. Res. 190, 109995.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109995.
Ahmadi, P., 2019. Environmental impacts and behavioral drivers of deep decarbonization for transportation through electric vehicles. J. Clean. Prod. 225,
1209–1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.334.
Al-Samarraie, H., Eldenfria, A., Dawoud, H., 2017. The impact of personality traits on users’ information-seeking behavior. Inf. Process. Manag. 53 (1), 237–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2016.08.004.
Amin, A., Altinoz, B., Dogan, E., 2020. Analyzing the determinants of carbon emissions from transportation in European countries: The role of renewable energy and
urbanization. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 22 (8), 1725–1734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01910-2.
Arpaci, I., Balo, M., Kesici, Ş., 2018. The relationship among individual di ff erences in individualism-collectivism, extraversion, and self-presentation. Pers. Individ.
Dif. 121, 89–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.034.
19
Axsen, J., TyreeHageman, J., Lentz, A., 2012. Lifestyle practices and pro-environmental technology. Ecol. Econ. 82, 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2012.07.013.
Baardstu, S., Karevold, E.B., von Soest, T., 2017. Childhood antecedents of Agreeableness: A longitudinal study from preschool to late adolescence. J. Res. Pers. 67,
202–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.10.007.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
Belaïd, F., 2017. Untangling the complexity of the direct and indirect determinants of the residential energy consumption in France: Quantitative analysis using a
structural equation modeling approach. Energy Policy 110, 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.08.027.
Biresselioglu, M.E., Demirbag Kaplan, M., Yilmaz, B.K., 2018. Electric mobility in Europe: A comprehensive review of motivators and barriers in decision making
processes. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 109, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.01.017.
Blunch, N.J., 2012. Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling Using IBM SPSS Statistics and Amos, Second. ed. Sage.
Bonsu, N.O., 2020. Towards a circular and low-carbon economy: Insights from the transitioning to electric vehicles and net zero economy. J. Clean. Prod. 256,
120659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120659.
Brown, G.D.A., Fincher, C.L., Walasek, L., 2016. Personality, parasites, political attitudes, and cooperation: A model of how infection prevalence influences openness
and social group formation. Top. Cogn. Sci. 8 (1), 98–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12175.
Busic-Sontic, A., Czap, N.V., Fuerst, F., 2017. The role of personality traits in green decision-making. J. Econ. Psychol. 62, 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
joep.2017.06.012.
Caliskan, A., 2019. Applying the right relationship marketing strategy through Big Five personality traits 2667. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2019.1589241.
Carlucci, F., Cirà, A., Lanza, G., 2018. Hybrid electric vehicles: Some theoretical considerations on consumption behaviour. Sustain. 10, 1302. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su10041302.
Chapman, B.P., Goldberg, L.R., 2017. Act-frequency signatures of the Big Five. Pers. Individ. Dif. 116, 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.049.
Cohen, J.E., 2013. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic press, New York, p. 490.
Deng, P., Lu, S., Xiao, H., 2013. Evaluation of the relevance measure between ports and regional economy using structural equation modeling. Transp. Policy 27,
123–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.01.008.
Eissa, G., 2020. Individual initiative and burnout as antecedents of employee expediency and the moderating role of conscientiousness. J. Bus. Res. 110, 202–212.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.047.
Fatima, N., Li, Y., Ahmad, M., Jabeen, G., Li, X., 2021. Factors influencing renewable energy generation development : a way to environmental sustainability. Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14256-z.
Ferguson, M., Mohamed, M., Higgins, C.D., Abotalebi, E., Kanaroglou, P., 2018. How open are Canadian households to electric vehicles? A national latent class choice
analysis with willingness-to-pay and metropolitan characterization. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 58, 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2017.12.006.
Field, A., 2013. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
Fleeson, W., Jayawickreme, E., 2015. Whole Trait theory. J. Res. Pers. 56, 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.10.009.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural equation models with unobuervable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 18, 382. https://
doi.org/10.2307/3150980.
Gopal, A.R., Park, W.Y., Witt, M., Phadke, A., 2018. Hybrid- and battery-electric vehicles offer low-cost climate benefits in China. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.
62, 362–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.03.014.
Guo, M., Liu, R., Ding, Y., Hu, B., Zhen, R., Liu, Y., Jiang, R., 2018. How are extraversion, exhibitionism, and gender associated with posting sel fi es on WeChat
friends’ circle in Chinese teenagers? Pers. Individ. Dif. 127, 114–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.042.
Hair, J.F., Babin, B.J., Krey, N., 2017. Covariance-based structural equation modeling in the Journal of advertising: Review and recommendations. J. Advert. 46 (1),
163–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1281777.
Hair Jr., J.F., Matthews, L.M., Matthews, R.L., Sarstedt, M., 2017. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 1,
107. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmda.2017.10008574.
Halder, S., Roy, A., Chakraborty, P.K., 2010. The influence of personality traits on information seeking behaviour of students. Malaysian J. Libr. Inf. Sci. 15, 41–53.
Hao, Y.U., Dong, X.-Y., Deng, Y.-X., Li, L.-X., Ma, Y.E., 2016. What influences personal purchases of new energy vehicles in China? An empirical study based on a
survey of Chinese citizens. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 8 (6), 065904. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4966908.
He, X., Zhan, W., Hu, Y., 2018. Consumer purchase intention of electric vehicles in China: The roles of perception and personality. J. Clean. Prod. 204, 1060–1069.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.260.
Hill, G., Heidrich, O., Creutzig, F., Blythe, P., 2019. The role of electric vehicles in near-term mitigation pathways and achieving the UK’s carbon budget. Appl. Energy
251, 113111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.107.
Hohenberger, C., Spörrle, M., Welpe, I.M., 2016. How and why do men and women differ in their willingness to use automated cars? The influence of emotions across
different age groups. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 94, 374–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.09.022.
Hu, J., Judge, T.A., 2017. Leader-team complementarity: Exploring the interactive effects of leader personality traits and team power distance values on team
processes and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 102 (6), 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000203.
Huang, Y., Qian, L., 2018. Consumer preferences for electric vehicles in lower tier cities of China: Evidences from south Jiangsu region. Transp. Res. Part D Transp.
Environ. 63, 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.06.017.
Irfan, M., Elavarasan, R.M., Hao, Y.u., Feng, M., Sailan, D., 2021. An assessment of consumers’ willingness to utilize solar energy in china: End-users’ perspective.
J. Clean. Prod. 292, 126008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126008.
Irfan, M., Hao, Y., Ikram, M., Wu, H., Akram, R., Rauf, A., 2020a. Assessment of the public acceptance and utilization of renewable energy in Pakistan. Sustain. Prod.
Consum. 27, 312–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.031.
Irfan, M., Zhao, Z.-Y., Ahmad, M., Batool, K., Jan, A., Claire, M., 2019a. Competitive assessment of Indian wind power industry: A five forces model. J. Renew. Sustain.
Energy 11, 063301. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5116237.
Irfan, M., Zhao, Z.-Y., Ahmad, M., Claire, M., 2019b. Critical factors influencing wind power industry: A diamond model based study of India. Energy Rep. 5,
1222–1235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.08.068.
Irfan, M., Zhao, Z.-Y., Ikram, M., Gilal, N.G., Li, H., Rehman, A., 2020b. Assessment of India’s energy dynamics: Prospects of solar energy. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy
12 (5), 053701. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5140236.
Irfan, M., Zhao, Z.-Y., Li, H., Rehman, A., 2020c. The influence of consumers’ intention factors on willingness to pay for renewable energy: a structural equation
modeling approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res 27, 21747–21761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08592-9.
Irfan, M., Zhao, Z.-Y., Rehman, A., Ozturk, I., Li, H., 2021. Consumers’ intention-based influence factors of renewable energy adoption in Pakistan: a structural
equation modeling approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28 (1), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10504-w.
Jabeen, G., Ahmad, M., Zhang, Q., 2021. Factors influencing consumers’ willingness to buy green energy technologies in a green perceived value framework. Energy
Sources, Part B Econ. Planning. Policy 16 (7), 669–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2021.1952494.
Jabeen, G., Yan, Q., Ahmad, M., Fatima, N., Qamar, S., 2019. Consumers’ intention-based influence factors of renewable power generation technology utilization: A
structural equation modeling approach. J. Clean. Prod. 237, 117737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117737.
Jena, R., 2020. An empirical case study on Indian consumers’ sentiment towards electric vehicles: A big data analytics approach. Ind. Mark. Manag. 90, 605–616.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.12.012.
Kaiser, H.F., 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39 (1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575.
Khurana, A., Kumar, V.V.R., Sidhpuria, M., 2020. A study on the adoption of electric vhicles in India: The mediating role of attitude. Vision 24, 23–34. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0972262919875548.
20
Kowalska-Pyzalska, A., Kott, M., Kott, J., 2021. How much polish consumers know about alternative fuel vehicles? Impact of knowledge on the willingness to buy.
Energies 14, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14051438.
Kurani, K.S., Caperello, N., TyreeHageman, J., Davies, J., 2018. Symbolism, signs, and accounts of electric vehicles in California. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 46, 345–355.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.08.009.
Li, L., Wang, Z., Chen, L., Wang, Z., 2020. Consumer preferences for battery electric vehicles: A choice experimental survey in China. Transp. Res. Part D Transp.
Environ. 78, 102185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.11.014.
Lin, B., Wu, W., 2018. Why people want to buy electric vehicle: An empirical study in first-tier cities of China. Energy Policy 112, 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2017.10.026.
Liu, R., Ding, Z., Jiang, X., Sun, J., Jiang, Y., Qiang, W., 2020. How does experience impact the adoption willingness of battery electric vehicles? The role of
psychological factors. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (20), 25230–25247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08834-w.
Lönnqvist, J.E., Itkonen, J.V.A., 2016. Homogeneity of personal values and personality traits in Facebook social networks. J. Res. Pers. 60, 24–35. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jrp.2015.11.001.
Lucianetti, L., Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J., Gunasekaran, A., Latan, H., 2018. Contingency factors and complementary effects of adopting advanced manufacturing tools
and managerial practices: Effects on organizational measurement systems and firms’ performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 200, 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2018.04.005.
Luna, T.F., Uriona-Maldonado, M., Silva, M.E., Vaz, C.R., 2020. The influence of e-carsharing schemes on electric vehicle adoption and carbon emissions: An emerging
economy study. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 79, 102226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102226.
Luttrell, A., Stillman, P.E., Hasinski, A.E., Cunningham, W.A., 2016. Neural dissociations in attitude strength: Distinct regions of cingulate cortex track ambivalence
and certainty. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000141.
Ma, Y., Ke, R.Y., Han, R., Tang, B.J., 2017. The analysis of the battery electric vehicle’s potentiality of environmental effect: A case study of Beijing from 2016 to 2020.
J. Clean. Prod. 145, 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.131.
Ma, Y., Shi, T., Zhang, W., Hao, Y., Huang, J., Lin, Y., 2019. Comprehensive policy evaluation of NEV development in China, Japan, the United States, and Germany
based on the AHP-EW model. J. Clean. Prod. 214, 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.119.
Mahmood, A., Akhtar, M.N., Talat, U., Shuai, C., Hyatt, J.C., 2019. Specific HR practices and employee commitment: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Empl.
Relations 41 (3), 420–435. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-03-2018-0074.
Matz, S.C., Gladstone, J.J., 2018. Nice guys finish last: When and why agreeableness is associated with economic hardship. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 118, 545–561.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000220.
Misund, A., Tiller, R., Canning-Clode, J., Freitas, M., Schmidt, J.O., Javidpour, J., 2020. Can we shop ourselves to a clean sea? An experimental panel approach to
assess the persuasiveness of private labels as a private governance approach to microplastic pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 153, 110927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2020.110927.
Nagel, M., Jansen, P.R., Stringer, S., Watanabe, K., De Leeuw, C.A., Bryois, J., Savage, J.E., Hammerschlag, A.R., Skene, N.G., Muñoz-Manchado, A.B., Agee, M.,
Alipanahi, B., Auton, A., Bell, R.K., Bryc, K., Elson, S.L., Fontanillas, P., Furlotte, N.A., Hinds, D.A., Hromatka, B.S., Huber, K.E., Kleinman, A., Litterman, N.K.,
McIntyre, M.H., Mountain, J.L., Noblin, E.S., Northover, C.A.M., Pitts, S.J., Sathirapongsasuti, J.F., Sazonova, O.V., Shelton, J.F., Shringarpure, S., Tian, C.,
Tung, J.Y., Vacic, V., Wilson, C.H., White, T., Tiemeier, H., Linnarsson, S., Hjerling-Leffler, J., Polderman, T.J.C., Sullivan, P.F., Van Der Sluis, S., Posthuma, D.,
2018. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for neuroticism in 449,484 individuals identifies novel genetic loci and pathways. Nat. Genet. 50,
920–927. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0151-7.
Nimesh, V., Sharma, D., Reddy, V.M., Goswami, A.K., 2020. Implication viability assessment of shift to electric vehicles for present power generation scenario of India.
Energy 195, 116976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.116976.
Nunnally, J.C., 1994. Psychometric theory 3E. Tata McGraw-hill education, New York, NY.
O’Loughlin, R.E., Fryer, J.W., Zuckerman, M., 2019. Mindfulness and stress appraisals mediate the effect of neuroticism on physical health. Pers. Individ. Dif. 142,
122–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.044.
Pandey, A., Manocha, S., Saini, P., 2020. A study on an automobile revolution and future of electric cars in India. Int. J. Manag. 11, 107–113. https://doi.org/
10.34218/IJM.11.3.2020.012.
Parkinson, J., David, P., Rundle-Thiele, S., 2017. Self-efficacy or perceived behavioural control: Which influences consumers’ physical activity and healthful eating
behaviour maintenance? J. Consum. Behav. 16 (5), 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.v16.510.1002/cb.1641.
Perera, C.H., Nayak, R., Long, N.V.T., 2019. The impact of electronic-word-of mouth on e-loyalty and consumers’ e-purchase decision making process: A social media
perspective. Int. J. Trade. Econ. Financ. 10 (4), 85–91.
Poškus, M.S., Žukauskienė, R., 2017. Predicting adolescents’ recycling behavior among different big five personality types. J. Environ. Psychol. 54, 57–64. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.10.003.
Potoglou, D., Whitmarsh, L., Whittle, C., Tsouros, I., Haggar, P., Persson, T., 2020a. To what extent do people value sustainable-resourced materials? A choice
experiment with cars and mobile phones across six countries. J. Clean. Prod. 246, 118957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118957.
Potoglou, D., Whittle, C., Tsouros, I., Whitmarsh, L., 2020b. Consumer intentions for alternative fuelled and autonomous vehicles: A segmentation analysis across six
countries. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 79, 102243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102243.
Pradeep, V.H., Amshala, V.T., Kadali, B.R., 2021. Does perceived technology and knowledge of maintenance influence purchase intention of BEVs. Transport. Res.
Part D: Transport Environ. 93, 102759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102759.
Qian, L., Yin, J., 2017. Linking Chinese cultural values and the adoption of electric vehicles: The mediating role of ethical evaluation. Transp. Res. Part D Transp.
Environ. 56, 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.07.029.
Qu, W., Sun, H., Ge, Y., 2021. The effects of trait anxiety and the big five personality traits on self-driving car acceptance. Transportation (Amst). 48 (5), 2663–2679.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-020-10143-7.
Rahmani, D., Loureiro, M.L., 2019. Assessing drivers’ preferences for hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) in Spain. Res. Transp. Econ. 73, 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
retrec.2018.10.006.
Reuter, K.E., Schaefer, M.S., 2017. Illegal captive lemurs in Madagascar: Comparing the use of online and in-person data collection methods. Am. J. Primatol. 79,
22541. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22541.
Sardeshmukh, S.R., Vandenberg, R.J., 2013. Integrating moderation and mediation: A structural equation modeling approach. Acad. Manag. 2013 Annu. Meet. AOM
2013, 443–448. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2013.92.
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 A Policy Pract. 48, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.10.004.
Shalender, K., Sharma, N., 2021. Using extended theory of planned behaviour (TPB) to predict adoption intention of electric vehicles in India. Environ. Dev. Sustain.
23 (1), 665–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00602-7.
She, Z.Y., Sun, Q., 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. Policy 56, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.03.001.
Shen, M., Lu, Y., Tan, K.Y., 2019. Big five personality traits, demographics and energy conservation behaviour: A preliminary study of their associations in Singapore.
Energy Procedia 158, 3458–3463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.927.
Shiner, R.L., Masten, A.S., 2008. Personality in Childhod: A bridge from early temperament to adult outcomes. Eur. J. Dev. Sci. 2, 158–175. https://doi.org/10.3233/
DEV-2008-21210.
Skippon, S., Garwood, M., 2011. Responses to battery electric vehicles: UK consumer attitudes and attributions of symbolic meaning following direct experience to
reduce psychological distance. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 16 (7), 525–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2011.05.005.
Skippon, S.M., Kinnear, N., Lloyd, L., Stannard, J., 2016. How experience of use influences mass-market drivers’ willingness to consider a battery electric vehicle: A
randomised controlled trial. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 92, 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.06.034.
21
Song, R., Potoglou, D., 2020. Are existing battery electric vehicles adoption studies able to inform policy? A review for policymakers. Sustainability 12, 6494. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su12166494.
Sovacool, B.K., Kester, J., Noel, L., Zarazua de Rubens, G., 2019. Are electric vehicles masculinized? Gender, identity, and environmental values in Nordic transport
practices and vehicle-to-grid (V2G)preferences. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 72, 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.04.013.
Stajkovic, A.D., Bandura, A., Locke, E.A., Lee, D., Sergent, K., 2018. Test of three conceptual models of influence of the big five personality traits and self-efficacy on
academic performance: A meta-analytic path-analysis. Pers. Individ. Dif. 120, 238–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.014.
Stevens, J.P., 2012. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, Fifth. ed. Routledge, Tylor & Francis Group.
Strupeit, L., Palm, A., 2016. Overcoming barriers to renewable energy diffusion: Business models for customer-sited solar photovoltaics in Japan, Germany and the
United States. J. Clean. Prod. 123, 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.120.
Sun, Y., Wang, S., Gao, L., Li, J., 2018. Unearthing the effects of personality traits on consumer’s attitude and intention to buy green products. Nat. Hazards 93 (1),
299–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3301-4.
Tanveer, A., Zeng, S., Irfan, M., 2021. Do Perceived Risk, Perception of Self-Efficacy, and Openness to Technology Matter for Solar PV Adoption ? An Application of
the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. Energies 14, 5008. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14165008.
Tarei, P.K., Chand, P., Gupta, H., 2021. Barriers to the adoption of electric vehicles: Evidence from India. J. Clean. Prod. 291, 125847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2021.125847.
Truong, D., Pan, J.Y., Buaphiban, T., 2020. Low cost carriers in Southeast Asia: How does ticket price change the way passengers make their airline selection? J. Air
Transp. Manag. 86, 101836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101836.
Vize, C.E., Miller, J.D., Lynam, Do.R., 2020. Examining the conceptual and empirical distinctiveness of agreeableness and “Dark” personality items. J. Pers. 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1300/j157v03n02_05.
Wang, F.P., Yu, J.L., Yang, P., Miao, L.X., Ye, B., 2017a. Analysis of the barriers towidespread adoption of electric vehicles in Shenzhen China. Sustainability 9, 522.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040522.
Wang, N., Tang, L., Pan, H., 2018. Analysis of public acceptance of electric vehicles: An empirical study in Shanghai. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 126, 284–291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.011.
Wang, Z., Zhao, C., Yin, J., Zhang, B., 2017b. Purchasing intentions of Chinese citizens on new energy vehicles: How should one respond to current preferential
policy? J. Clean. Prod. 161, 1000–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.154.
Christopher, J., 2010. Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 9 (6), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
elerap.2010.07.003.
Wong, K.K.K.-K., 2013. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Techniques Using SmartPLS. Mark. Bull. 24, 1–32.
Wu, W., Mitchell, P., Zheng, J., Chen, S., 2021. Detecting who stands on the extreme levels of the big-five trait continua. Pers. Individ. Dif. 173, 110610 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110610.
Xue, P., Mak, C.M., Cheung, H.D., 2014. The effects of daylighting and human behavior on luminous comfort in residential buildings: A questionnaire survey. Build.
Environ. 81, 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.06.011.
Yang, J., Mao, Y., Niu, Y., Wei, D., Wang, X., Qiu, J., 2020. Individual differences in neuroticism personality trait in emotion regulation. J. Affect. Disord. 265,
468–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.086.
Yzer, M., 2017. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior. Int. Encycl. Media Eff. 1–7 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0075.
Zhang, T., Tao, D., Qu, X., Zhang, X., Zeng, J., Zhu, Haoyu, Zhu, Han, 2020. Automated vehicle acceptance in China: Social influence and initial trust are key
determinants. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 112, 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2020.01.027.
22

1 s2.0 S1361920921003461 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S1361920921003461 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transportation Research Part D 100 (2021) 103049

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part D

Relating consumers’ information and willingness to buy electric

Available online 29 September 2021

Acronyms and Abbreviations

2.1. Theoretical framework

2.2. Hypotheses development

Fig. 2. Study area.

2.3. Research design

2.3.1. Study area, selection of respondents, and sample size

Time frame October, November, December (2020)

2.3.2. Operationalization of variables

2.3.3. Statistical analysis

3.1. Demography of the participants

CFI Comparative fit index > 0.9 good fit 0.986

3.2. Hypotheses results and structural model

H1 OPEN_CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.038*** 204.5*** Accepted 0.585

Notes: *** p < 0.00, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

Notes: 5 specifies “strongly agree” and 1 specifies “strongly disagree”

CONS 624 4 3.630 0.590 0.162

CONS (0.715) 0.511 0.122

Notes: Values in parentheses signify AVEs’s root square.

Openness 0.922 0.925

CONS 0.837 1.194

Notes: Dependent variable: WTBEVs

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.921

Notes: df: Degree of freedom, Sig: Significance.

CONS 1.000 0.882

Notes: Extraction Method: Maximum likelihood.

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 12.405 32.646 32.646 11.920 31.369 31.369

H1 OPEN_CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.041*** 3.064 Not different

Notes: *** p < 0.00, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

OPEN → CINEVS → WTBEVS 0.045 0.091 0.323

H1 OPEN_CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.040*** 315.6*** Accepted 0.731

Notes: *** p < 0.00, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

H1 OPEN_CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.032*** 193.4*** Accepted 0.679

Notes: *** p < 0.00, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

H1 OPEN_CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.040***a 0.032***

Notes: *** p < 0.00, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Declaration of Competing Interest

Descriptive statistics, correlation and discriminant validity analysis

Alternative mediation model

Hypotheses results based on gender differences

You might also like

H1 OPEN_CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.038* 204.5* Accepted 0.585

Notes: * p < 0.00, p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

Notes: * p < 0.00, p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

H1 OPEN_CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.040* 315.6* Accepted 0.731

Notes: * p < 0.00, p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

H1 OPEN_CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.032* 193.4* Accepted 0.679

Notes: * p < 0.00, p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

H1 OPEN_CINEVs → WTBEVs 0.040a 0.032

Notes: * p < 0.00, p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.