Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Transportation
Available Research
online Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
at www.sciencedirect.com
Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3619–3633
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016
World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016
Increasing the Efficient Usage of Electric Vehicle Range -
Increasing the Efficient Usage of Electric Vehicle Range -
Effects of Driving Experience and Coping Information
Effects of Driving Experience and Coping Information
Nadine Rauh aa*, Madlen Günther aa, Thomas Franke bb, Josef F. Krems aa
a
Nadine Rauh *, Madlen Günther , Thomas Franke , Josef F. Krems
Cognitive & Engineering Psychology, Technische Universität Chemnitz, Wilhelm-Raabe-Str. 43, Chemnitz, D-09120, Germany
ab
Engineering
Cognitive Psychology and
& Engineering CognitiveTechnische
Psychology, Ergonomics, University
Universität of Lübeck,
Chemnitz, Ratzeburger Allee 43,
Wilhelm-Raabe-Str. 160,Chemnitz, D-09120,, Germany
Lübeck, D-23538
b
Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, University of Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, Lübeck, D-23538, Germany

Abstract
Abstract
Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) have become increasingly more relevant in the field of sustainable transport.
Battery electric
Important vehicles
concepts (BEVs)
for the have become
widespread adoptionincreasingly
of BEVs aremore relevant
a good in the field and
user experience of sustainable
an efficienttransport.
usage of BEV
Important
range. Drivers’ range interaction competence can be assumed to have a positive effect on an
concepts for the widespread adoption of BEVs are a good user experience and efficient
both usage
concepts. of BEV
In the
range. Drivers’
present paper werange interaction
examine competence
the subjective facetcan be assumed
of drivers’ rangetointeraction
have a positive effect on
competence in both
termsconcepts. In therange
of subjective
present paperand
competence weunderstanding
examine the subjective facet of drivers’
of range dynamics. range interaction
The objective competence
of the present researchinwasterms of subjective
to improve the range
competence
understandingandofunderstanding
factors that areofrelated
range to
dynamics.
these twoThe objective
variables. of results
The the present
showedresearch was to improve
that practical the
driving experience
understanding
with BEVs seems of factors
to be anthat are related
important to these
factor twocoping
and that variables. The results
information hadshowed
a slightthat practical
additional drivingeffect.
positive experience
with BEVs
Results seems
could to betoan
be used important
develop factor aimed
strategies and that
at coping information
increasing had a slightrange
drivers’ subjective additional positiveunderstanding
competence, effect.
Results
of rangecould be used
dynamics, to hence
and, develop strategies
make aimed
a positive at increasing
contribution drivers’user
to drivers’ subjective range competence, understanding
experience.
of range dynamics, and, hence make a positive contribution to drivers’ user experience.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2017 The Authors.
Peer-review Published by
under responsibility
responsibility of Elsevier
WORLDB.V.CONFERENCE ON
ON TRANSPORT
TRANSPORT RESEARCH
RESEARCH SOCIETY.
SOCIETY.
Peer-review under of WORLD CONFERENCE
Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.
Keywords: sustainability, battery electric vehicles, field study, range stress, control beliefs, technical system knowledge
Keywords: sustainability, battery electric vehicles, field study, range stress, control beliefs, technical system knowledge

* Corresponding author: Nadine Rauh, Cognitive & Engineering Psychology, Technische Universität Chemnitz, D-09107 Chemnitz
Tel.: +49 0371 531
* Corresponding 32216;
author: fax: +49
Nadine 0371
Rauh, 531 832216.
Cognitive & Engineering Psychology, Technische Universität Chemnitz, D-09107 Chemnitz
Tel.: +49
E-mail address:
0371 531 32216; fax: +49 0371 531 832216.
nadine.rauh@psychologie.tu-chemnitz.de
E-mail address: nadine.rauh@psychologie.tu-chemnitz.de

2214-241X © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

2214-241X
Peer-review©under
2017responsibility
The Authors.of Published
WORLDbyCONFERENCE
Elsevier B.V. ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.
Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.

2352-1465 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.
10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.326
2 Rauh, N.; Günther, M.; Franke, T., Krems, J. F. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

3620 Nadine Rauh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3619–3633

1. Introduction

In recent years, sustainable transport has become increasingly more relevant for mitigating environmental
degradation through depletion of resources. It is important that future usage of resources should not be compromised
by its present usage [1]. Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) have a high potential in this regard, particularly when
charged with energy from renewable resources like wind, water or sun. In this case, BEVs can run with zero
emissions during their whole usage phase and, therefore, appear to be a particularly sustainable transport system for
several years to come (e.g., in comparison to combustion engine vehicles).
Nevertheless, the production of BEVs, especially the production of their batteries, costs valuable resources and is
linked to BEVs’ ecological footprint [2, 3, 4]. Research could show that batteries which are no longer suitable to be
used in BEVs can be recycled [5] and, therefore, resource efficiency and sustainability can be improved [6].
Nevertheless, the larger the battery, the more resources are needed to produce it and, therefore, the more expensive
the production will be. Thus, making the batteries considerably larger (e.g., to achieve the range of actual
combustion engine vehicles) will result in a relatively high purchase price. However, to achieve the maximum
sustainability effect of BEVs, it is important that BEVs are affordable for a large amount of potential users.
Furthermore, literature proposes that BEVs are supposed to have a negative influence on the stability of the regional
and local grid (especially during peak hours) because of the necessity to recharge BEVs’ battery regularly [7, 8, 4].
One way to increase BEVs’ cost-effectiveness and reduce their negative influence on the energy grid could be to
produce batteries that are not as large as possible, but rather as large as needed by fitting the capacity of the battery
(i.e., size) to the actual mobility patterns of the drivers.
Several studies could show that the actual range of BEVs (typically around 150 km per full charge depending on
driving style) seems to be sufficient to cover most of the drivers’ daily trips, which altogether are commonly no
longer than 100 km on a typical day [9, 10, 11]. However, literature suggests that car drivers tend to overestimate
their range needs and, therefore, their range preferences reflect rather rarely occurring events than typical mobility
patterns [12]. Thus, BEVs’ limited range is still one of the most important barriers for the widespread adoption [13,
14] and efficient usage of BEVs [15, 16].
Range anxiety (often described as “fear of becoming stranded” [17]) was identified as one important concept in
this regard [18, 19]. In previous research, we suggested that range anxiety is best conceptualized as a domain
specific form of psychological stress (i.e., range stress) which occurs in a present or anticipated critical range
situation (i.e., situation with a small or even negative available range buffer resulting from the relationship of
available driving range and remaining trip distance) [20]. We also found evidence that range stress plays a role in
the daily interaction with BEVs in the form of the drivers’ range worries within continued vehicle usage (i.e.,
everyday range stress) and is related to lower range satisfaction and general BEV acceptance in terms of perceived
usefulness and satisfaction [21].
Thus, it is important to find ways to ensure BEVs’ sustainability and cost-effectiveness (e.g., by reducing
resources and costs needed for producing batteries) on the one hand, and to increase the acceptance and, therefore,
the widespread adoption of BEVs on the other hand. Therefore, it is important to facilitate a positive user experience
while driving a BEV to support drivers to use the current available range of a BEV most efficiently (i.e., increase
usable range), and to reduce range stress (even in situations with a short available range). We postulate that drivers’
ability to efficiently interact with range (i.e., drivers’ range interaction competence) can make a positive contribution
to these goals. Drivers’ range interaction competence can be examined: (1) with driving data like average
consumption, performant or competent range [15] reflecting drivers’ success in interacting with BEVs’ limited
range, and (2) with drivers’ self-reporting reflecting drivers’ beliefs and expectations regarding their own ability to
successfully interact with BEVs’ limited range.
In the present paper we examine the self-reported facet of drivers’ range interaction competence. One important
concept in this regard is the drivers’ subjective range competence (i.e., drivers’ beliefs in their own ability to control
range-influencing factors as well as to predict remaining range under different conditions [15]). This concept was
found to be related to a more efficient usage of range (i.e., higher comfortable range [15]) and lower range stress
[22]. Drivers’ subjective range competence reflects drivers’ feelings of confidence in their own skills. One concept
related to drivers’ subjective range competence is drivers’ understanding of range dynamics (i.e., drivers’ evaluation
of the quality of their own range estimation). Both drivers’ subjective range competence (with its subscales
“control” and “prediction”) as well as drivers’ understanding of range dynamics are important variables for an
optimal user experience when driving a BEV.
 Nadine Rauh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3619–3633 3621
Rauh, N.; Günther, M.; Franke, T., Krems, J. F. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3

Hence, the understanding of which variables have the potential to increase the drivers’ range interaction
competence in terms of subjective range competence and understanding of range dynamics could help to improve
user experience. Further, it could help to develop strategies aimed at increasing the efficient usage of the currently
available BEV range. Domain specific experience and knowledge are two important factors influencing self-efficacy
and confidence regarding one’s own skills [23, 24]. Thus, the three variables which are supposed to be related to
drivers’ subjective range competence and understanding of range dynamics are (1) practical driving experience with
BEVs, (2) specific coping information to increase domain specific knowledge (i.e., information about range and
range-influencing factors) and (3) technical system knowledge.

1.1. Study Objectives

The objective of the present research was to improve the understanding of factors that are related to drivers’
range interaction competence (i.e., drivers’ subjective range competence and understanding of range dynamics). The
hypotheses are the following:
[H1] Practical driving experience with BEVs in km has a positive effect on…
a. …drivers’ subjective range competence (i.e., facet control and prediction).
b. …drivers’ understanding of range dynamics.
[H2] Specific coping information has a positive effect on…
a. …drivers’ subjective range competence (i.e., facet control and prediction).
b. …drivers’ understanding of range dynamics.
[H3] Technical system knowledge is positively correlated with…
a. …drivers’ subjective range competence (i.e., facet control and prediction).
b. …drivers’ understanding of range dynamics.

1.2. Structure of the Paper

The paper is structured as follows: In the method section, the three studies (Study A, B and C) which were used
to examine our hypotheses are presented. First we give an overview about the procedure used in all three studies.
Detailed information for each study regarding the field study setup, the participants, the electric vehicles, as well as
the scales used and measures follows.
In the results section, analyses and results are presented for each of our hypotheses (H1a, H1b; H2a, H2b; H3a,
H3b).
In the discussion section, the results as well as the implications of these results are discussed. We provide a
critical view on the limitations of our research and give suggestions for further research.

2. Method

In the present paper, results from three different field studies (labeled Study A, Study B, and Study C) are
presented. All studies were conducted to examine user experience with a BEV in a critical range situation (i.e., range
situation involving a short or even negative available range buffer). To this end, participants drove a round trip
designed to lead to a critical range situation. Participants received a short briefing on the route (a map of the route
was shown) and on the BEV including technical parameters, relevant displays (digital remaining range display,
navigation system, and speedometer) and an explanation of specific functions like regenerative braking, followed by
a short accompanied training trip. Afterwards, participants started with a charge level that was just sufficient to
complete the whole trip (i.e., available remaining range was slightly higher than trip length). Additionally, the first
section of the roundtrip was designed to lead to a particularly high consumption level, being mostly uphill (driving
uphill is positively correlated with a higher consumption). Hence, participants experienced a situation where the
available remaining range was hardly or not even sufficient to complete the trip. The specific field study setup,
information about the participants, the used BEVs as well as the scales used and measures of the three studies are
3622 Nadine Rauh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3619–3633
4 Rauh, N.; Günther, M.; Franke, T., Krems, J. F. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

described in the following sections. For more details regarding Study A see [20]; regarding Study B see [22, 25] and
regarding Study C see [26].

2.1. Field study setup

2.1.1. Study A – Field study setup

In Study A, a cover story was used to ensure the occurrence of a critical range situation. Participants were told at
the beginning that the BEV was not fully charged because of unexpected technical problems. The state of charge
that all participants started with was on average 50%, corresponding to an average range of 85 km. Furthermore,
participants were told that they were going on a 68 km round trip, resulting in an average available range buffer of
17 km at the beginning of the trip. In reality, participants only drove the first section of the route (27.8 km length,
mostly uphill, participants started at 298 m above sea level and drove up to 505 m above sea level). Participants
were then debriefed and afterwards drove the shortest way back. All participants drove with the same configuration
of the auxiliary energy consumers (same air conditioning system setting, radio off, low beam on). Drivers’ minimum
experienced range buffer (i.e., minimum value from starting point to end of first section) was M = -12.00 km.

2.1.2. Study B – Field study setup

In Study B, participants started with a nearly fully charged BEV (M = 97%) corresponding to an average range of
114 km because of a relatively cold ambient temperature around 0°C. Participants were traveling on a 94 km round
trip, resulting in an available range buffer of 20 km at the beginning of the trip. For one half of the participants, a
cover story was used to ensure the occurrence of a high critical range situation (i.e., lower available range safety
buffer). They were told that they had to drive a route of 110 km length (route was extended by 16 km), resulting in
an average available range buffer of 4 km at the beginning of the trip. The first section of the route was comparable
to the first section in Study A, although slightly longer (36.2 km length, mostly uphill, participants started at 298 m
above sea level and drove up to 600 m above sea level). All participants started with the same configuration of the
auxiliary energy consumers (same air conditioning system setting, low beam on, same driving mode), but were free
to change these configurations themselves. For a better comparability, only the participants who received the cover
story and therefore drove under comparable critical conditions (negative range safety buffer) as the participants from
Study A and Study C were used for the analyses in this paper. Drivers’ minimum experienced range buffer was M =
-9.00 km.

2.1.3. Study C – Field study setup

In Study C, a cover story was also used to ensure the occurrence of a critical range situation. Once again,
participants were told at the beginning that the BEV was not fully charged because of unexpected technical
problems. The state of charge that all participants started with was on average 66%, corresponding to an average
range of 79 km. Furthermore, participants were told that they were traveling on a 73 km round trip, resulting in an
average available range buffer of 6 km at the beginning of the trip. In reality, participants only drove the first section
of the route, which was nearly the same as in Study A (24 km length, mostly uphill, participants started at 298 m
above sea level and drove up to 505 m above sea level). Participants were then debriefed and afterwards drove the
shortest way back. All participants drove with the same configuration of the auxiliary energy consumers (same air
conditioning system setting, low beam on, same driving mode). Drivers’ minimum experienced range buffer was M
= -5.00 km.
 Nadine Rauh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3619–3633 3623
Rauh, N.; Günther, M.; Franke, T., Krems, J. F. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 5

2.2. Participants

2.2.1. Study A - Participants

In Study A, a quasi-experimental field study research design was utilized. There were two groups of participants
differing in their practical driving experience with BEVs. The first group (labeled expBEV) consisted of
experienced BEV drivers, who had on average 7.5 years and 60,500 km of driving experience with a BEV. The
second group (labeled inexpBEV) included inexperienced BEV drivers who did not have any practical driving
experience with BEVs. Twelve experienced and 12 inexperienced drivers participated. All participants were male,
on average 45 years old, possessed their driver’s license for an average of 25 years, and drove an average of 50 km
per day with a conventional car. Despite their driving distance per day with a conventional car (inexperienced
drivers > experienced drivers), there were no significant (p > .05) differences between experienced and
inexperienced drivers on the mentioned variables. Both groups differed significantly (p = .002) in their technical
system knowledge (experienced drivers > inexperienced drivers).

2.2.2. Study B - Participants

In Study B, only the participants who received the cover story were analyzed. Participants were randomly
assigned into two groups differing in the coping information they received. One group received minimal coping
information (e.g., regarding strategies to save energy while driving, such as the influence of velocity, effective use
of regenerative braking; labeled CopeInfo) and the other group received no such coping information (labeled
NoCopeInfo).
The 34 drivers (25 male, 9 female) who were included in the analyses were on average 30 years old, possessed a
driver’s license for an average of 12 years and drove an average of 1030 km per month with a conventional car. For
a better comparability between the participants of the three studies regarding their driving experience with a
conventional car, we calculated the average driven km per day by dividing driven km per month by 30.5 days
(average duration of a month), resulting in an average of 35 km driven per day with a conventional car. There were
no significant (p > .05) differences between the two groups on these variables. None of the participants had practical
driving experience with a BEV and were therefore considered inexperienced BEV drivers. Regarding technical
system knowledge, no significant differences between the groups could be found.

2.2.3. Study C - Participants

In Study C, three groups were examined. The first group consisted of experienced BEV drivers who had on
average 7500 km driving experience with a BEV (labeled expBEV). The other two groups consisted of
inexperienced BEV drivers, who completely lacked practical driving experience with BEVs. They were randomly
assigned to these two groups, differing in the coping information the participants received. One group received
extensive coping information (e.g., regarding strategies to save energy while driving such as influence of velocity,
effective use of regenerative braking, information about range influencing factors; labeled CopeInfo) and the other
group received no such coping information (labeled NoCopeInfo). The 59 drivers (51 male, 8 female) who
completed the experiment were on average 38 years old, possessed a driver’s license for an average of 19 years and
drove an average of 140 km per day with a conventional car. Despite different driving experience with a BEV, there
were no significant (p > .05) differences between the three groups on these variables. Experienced and
inexperienced drivers differed significantly (p < .001) in their technical system knowledge (experienced drivers >
inexperienced drivers).
3624 Nadine Rauh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3619–3633
6 Rauh, N.; Günther, M.; Franke, T., Krems, J. F. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

2.2.4. Comparison between participants and the German population

To get an impression if our samples are comparable to the German population we used the data from the German
representative large-scale mobility study from 2012 [27]. The German population was characterized as 48.5% male,
on average 54 years old and drove on average 23 km per day with any car. 89% of the German population possessed
a driver’s license. For the comparison of our samples with the German population of car drivers, we only used the
segment of the German population which possesses a driver’s license. All of our samples (Study A to C) differ
significantly from the German population of car drivers regarding their mobility behavior and their demographic
variables. Our study participants included more men (p < .001), were younger (p < .001) and had a higher average
mileage driven by car per day (p < .05).
However, our samples can rather be assumed to represent the segment of early adopters for BEVs in Germany
[28]. Early adopters are a special segment of consumers who accept and adopt new technology earlier than the
general population [29]. According to Dütschke, Peters and Schneider [30] early adopters for BEVs are typically
characterized as technology enthusiastic, include much more men (91%) and are mostly between 40 and 50 years
old. Our samples show similar characteristics of sex and age compared to the sample of early adopters [28].

2.3. Electric Vehicle

2.3.1. Study A – Electric vehicle

The BEV used in Study A was a converted MINI Cooper (MINI E) with an average driving range around 170
km, depending on driving style (as stated in the user manual). The BEV had regenerative braking to recover energy
during deceleration. Range information was depicted via a digital remaining range display in km (range estimation
based on charge level and energy consumption over the last 30 km) placed behind the steering wheel. In addition,
there was a portable navigation system showing the route and the remaining km participants had to drive.

2.3.2. Study B – Electric vehicle

The BEV used in Study B was a BMW ActiveE with a maximum available driving range between 130 and
160 km, depending on the driving style (as stated in the user manual). The BEV had regenerative braking to recover
energy during deceleration and an ECO PRO mode that could be selected by pressing a button to automatically
adjust the drive configuration and comfort functions to achieve a higher range. Range information was depicted via
a digital remaining range display in km (range estimation based on charge level and energy consumption over the
last 30 km) placed behind the steering wheel. There was an onboard navigation system, which displayed the route
and the remaining km participants had to drive on the information display located in the middle of the dashboard.

2.3.3. Study C – Electric vehicle

The BEV used in Study C was a BMW i3 with an average driving range up to 160 km, depending on the driving
style (as stated in the user manual). The BEV had regenerative braking to recover energy during deceleration and
different driving modes (comfort mode, ECO PRO mode, ECO PRO+ mode) that could be selected by pressing a
button to automatically adjust the drive configuration and comfort functions. Range information was depicted via a
digital remaining range display in km (range estimation based on charge level and energy consumption over the last
30 km), which was located in the middle of the dashboard. In addition, there was a portable navigation system
showing the route and the remaining km the participants had to drive.

2.4. Scales and Measures

The scales and measures used were nearly the same across all three studies. Some scales were slightly changed
(e.g., new items were constructed). The analyses of these scales included only the items in common across all three
studies. Therefore, the following section is structured by examined variables (and not by the different studies).
 Nadine Rauh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3619–3633 3625
Rauh, N.; Günther, M.; Franke, T., Krems, J. F. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 7

2.4.1. Drivers’ subjective range competence

Drivers’ subjective range competence was assessed with the subjective range competence scale from Franke and
Krems [15]. The scale consists of two subscales: control (labeled subj_range_comp_control) and prediction (labeled
subj_range_comp_predict). The two subscales consist of two items each: for the subscale “control” the items were:
“The range of the BEV is mostly affected by factors over which I have no influence” and “The range that I can reach
with the BEV is mostly dependent on factors that I can control”. For the subscale “prediction” the items were: “I
know how far I can go on a full charge” and “I can precisely estimate the influence of different factors on range”.
Participants answered on a 6-point Likert scale (score values 1–6, high values indicate stronger beliefs in their own
ability to control range and to correctly predict range). We interpreted Cronbach’s alpha according to common
practice (see e.g., [31]) as poor (.5 ≤ α < .6), questionable (.6 ≤ α < .7), acceptable (.7 ≤ α < .8), good (.8 ≤ α < .9), or
excellent (≥ .9). Reliability was almost acceptable for the aggregated sample with all participants of the three studies
included (see Table 1). Consequently, mean scores for each scale were computed. Additionally, reliability for the
subscales “control” and “prediction” were computed. Reliability for control was acceptable whereas for prediction it
was poor to questionable (see Table 1). A mean score was computed for each.

2.4.2. Drivers’ understanding of range dynamics

To assess drivers’ understanding of range dynamics (labeled understand_range_dyn), participants were

confronted with a standardized scenario (see also [32]). The scenario was comparable across all three studies.
Drivers had to imagine that they had driven a route with a BEV at a certain speed and configuration of the auxiliary
energy consumers. Under these conditions, the remaining range display showed a value of 100 km after the trip.
Drivers had to estimate how much remaining range the display would show if they had driven the route (1) without
regenerative braking, (2) at a higher speed, or (3) at a lower speed instead. To assess how confident they were
regarding their range estimation skills, drivers additionally reported a confidence rating for each estimation (ranging
from 0 – not sure at all to 10 – absolutely sure). Cronbach’s alpha for the confidence rating was good across all three
studies (see Table 1). A mean score was computed.

2.4.3. Technical system knowledge

Technical system knowledge was assessed with two items adapted from Franke and Krems [15] (“I am familiar
with the propulsion technology of electric vehicles (e.g., types and functionality of electric engines)”; “I am familiar
with conventional units of electricity (e.g., meaning of watt, ampere, kWh)”). Participants had to answer on a 6-
point Likert scale (score values 1–6, high values indicating substantial technical system knowledge). Reliability was
acceptable across all three studies (see Table 1) and a mean score was computed.

2.4.4. Times of data collection

In Study A, drivers’ subjective range competence and understanding of range dynamics were examined before
the test drive (labeled pre_drive). In Study B and C, drivers’ subjective range competence and understanding of
range dynamics were examined at two times: (1) before the trip (labeled pre_drive) and (2) after the trip (labeled
post_drive. Difference scores (post_drive-pre_drive) were computed for each of the paired variables as indicators of
hypothesized changes within these variables (labeled diff). Drivers’ technical system knowledge was measured
before the test drive in all three studies.
3626 Nadine Rauh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3619–3633
8 Rauh, N.; Günther, M.; Franke, T., Krems, J. F. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Table 1. Scale characteristics and descriptive statistics for drivers’ subjective range competence (and the subscales
“control” and “prediction”), understanding of range dynamics, and technical system knowledge.

Descriptive statistics
Cronbach’s
alpha N M SD Min Max
pre_drive .66 157 3.94 0.87 1.75 6.00
Subjective range
competence (complete)
post_drive .70 133 4.27 0.79 2.00 6.00

pre_drive .88 157 4.17 1.16 1.00 6.00

Subjective range
competence (control)
post_drive .86 133 4.35 1.09 1.50 6.00

pre_drive .50 157 3.73 1.03 1.00 6.00

Subjective range
competence (predict)
post_drive .65 133 4.20 0.86 1.50 6.00

pre_drive .91 157 5.45 2.30 0.00 10.00

Understanding of range
dynamics
post_drive .91 131 6.27 2.02 0.00 10.00
Technical system
pre_drive .86 156 5.00 0.70 2.38 6.00
knowledge
Note. There was a smaller sample size for post_drive because variables were not examined after the test drive in Study A.

3. Results

We only report the data for the drivers’ subjective range competence subscales “control” and “prediction” (and
not of the complete scale) due to space limitations. Because the value for the complete scale can be computed by a
mean score from both subscales, conclusions regarding drivers’ subjective range competence can be directly drawn
from the subscales “control” and “prediction”.
Hypothesis H1 (relationship between practical driving experience with BEVs and drivers’ subjective range
competence subscales “control” and “prediction” as well as drivers’ understanding of range dynamics) was tested by
using permutation tests [33] for comparisons between experienced and inexperienced drivers. The permutation tests
were used because of the small and diverse group sizes. To test H2 (relationship between specific coping
information and drivers’ subjective range competence subscales “control” and “prediction” as well as drivers’
understanding of range dynamics), t-tests were used. As we had directional hypotheses for H2, we computed one-
tailed tests with an alpha of .05.
Hypothesis H3 (correlation between technical system knowledge and drivers’ subjective range competence
subscales “control” and “prediction” as well as drivers’ understanding of range dynamics) was tested by computing
correlations. Because there were differences between the experienced BEV drivers and the inexperienced BEV
drivers regarding technical system knowledge (experienced drivers had significantly more technical system
knowledge), we decided to control for the variable “driving experience with any BEV” in Study A and C by
computing partial correlations. Unfortunately, most of our variables were not normally distributed, which can be
problematic for parametric correlation analyses. Therefore, we also computed Spearman rank correlations
(nonparametric test) and zero-order Pearson correlations (parametric test). We compared both values to indicate
whether the absence of normally distributed data biased our results. If there were no substantial differences between
these two values regarding effect magnitude or significance, our interpretations would focus on the partial
correlation for Study A and C and on the zero-order Pearson correlation for Study B. If there were substantial
differences, the smallest effect magnitude would be discussed to avoid the danger of overestimating the effects. For
deciding whether a difference is substantial, we used the following conventions: (1) the difference in correlation
coefficient > |.1| is substantial and/or (2) the change from p ≥ .05 to p < .05 or reverse is substantial. Study B did not
 Nadine Rauh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3619–3633 3627
Rauh, N.; Günther, M.; Franke, T., Krems, J. F. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 9

include any drivers with experience with BEVs and therefore we could not compute partial correlations with the
control variable “driving experience with any BEV”.
Cohen’s d was calculated as a measure of effect size and then transformed into the correlation coefficient r (only
r is reported in the present paper). Effect sizes were interpreted according to Cohen’s conventions ([34]; i.e., weak
effect is r = .10; moderate effect is r = .30; strong effect is r = .50). We tested for the presence of univariate outliers
according to Grubbs [35], excluding any found from the analyses and reported the respective total sample size.
Differences between the reported sample size in the method section and in the results section not explained by
outliers are due to missing values in the data set.

3.1. Relationship between practical driving experience with BEVs and drivers’ subjective range competence
subscales “control” and “prediction” as well as drivers’ understanding of range dynamics (H1)

To test H1, data from Study A and Study C are reported (see Table 2).
Table 2. Results from Study A and C regarding H1 (relationship between practical driving experience and drivers’ subjective range
competence subscales “control” and “prediction” as well as drivers’ understanding of range dynamics).

Group N M SD Test statistics (Z) p r

expBEV 12 4.63 1.21

Study A -0.10 .577 -.02
subj_range_comp_ inexpBEV 12 4.67 0.83
H1a control
(pre_drive) expBEV 20 4.63 0.81
Study C 1.21 .128 .18
inexpBEV 39 4.29 1.07

expBEV 12 4.67 0.69

Study A 2.66 .003 .54
subj_range_comp_ inexpBEV 12 3.63 0.93
H1b predict
(pre_drive) expBEV 20 4.43 0.75
Study C 4.06 <.001 .57
inexpBEV 39 3.21 1.01

expBEV 12 7.56 1.12

Study A 2.49 .006 .50
understand_range_ inexpBEV 12 5.53 2.19
H1c dyn
(pre_drive) expBEV 20 7.25 1.06
Study C 3.87A <.001 .56
inexpBEV 39 4.74 2.40

Note. A = uses an asymptotic test statistic distribution because the exact distribution was not computable on our computers.

The results of Study A showed that there was no difference between experienced BEV drivers and inexperienced
drivers regarding drivers’ subjective range competence subscale “control”. Experienced drivers had higher values
for the subjective range competence subscale “prediction”, revealing a strong and significant effect. Results also
showed that experienced BEV drivers had higher values for their understanding of range dynamics, revealing a
strong and significant effect. Results of Study C showed the same pattern.
In sum, H1 was partly supported by the data from both studies. Hence, practical driving experience with BEVs
had a positive effect on drivers’ subjective range competence subscale “prediction” and drivers’ understanding of
range dynamics. A relationship between practical driving experience with BEVs and drivers’ subjective range
competence subscale “control” could not be confirmed by the data.
3628 Nadine Rauh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3619–3633
10 Rauh, N.; Günther, M.; Franke, T., Krems, J. F. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

3.2. Relationship between specific coping information and drivers’ subjective range competence and understanding
of range dynamics (H2)

The data regarding H2 from Study B and C are reported in Table 3. For subj_range_comp_predict (diff), one
multivariate outlier was excluded from Study B. For subj_range_comp_control (diff) and understand_range_dyn
(diff), one outlier was excluded from Study C.

Table 3. Results from Study B and C regarding H2 (relationship between specific coping information and drivers’ beliefs in their own
ability to control range, to correctly predict range, and to correctly estimate available range under different conditions).

Group N M SD t (df) p r

CopeInfo 17 0.50 0.71

Study B -0.61 (25.75) .276 .11
subj_range_comp_ NoCopeInfo 17 0.29 1.21
H2a control
(diff) CopeInfo 19 0.13 1.29
Study C -0.49 (36) .313 .08
NoCopeInfo 19 0.32 1.00

CopeInfo 17 0.24 1.13

Study B 1.01 (31) .160 .17
subj_range_comp_ NoCopeInfo 16 0.66 1.26
H2b predict
(diff) CopeInfo 19 0.92 1.34
Study C 0.40 (37) .348 .06
NoCopeInfo 20 0.75 1.36

CopeInfo 17 1.08 1.13

Study B -0.66 (32) .257 .11
understand_range_ NoCopeInfo 17 0.78 1.45
H2c dyn
(diff) CopeInfo 18 3.00 2.30
Study C 2.53 (34) .008 .39
NoCopeInfo 18 1.19 2.00

Note. df with decimal places indicate that Levene’s-test for equal variances was significant and correction was applied. t-tests are one-
tailed. For subj_range_comp_predict (diff), one outlier was excluded from Study B. For subj_range_comp_control (diff) and
understand_range_dyn (diff), one outlier was excluded from Study C.

Results of Study B and C showed that there were no differences between the CopeInfo and NoCopeInfo group
regarding drivers’ subjective range competence subscales “control” and “prediction”. Results also showed that in
Study B there were no differences between the groups regarding drivers’ understanding of range dynamics. A
significant difference between the CopeInfo and NoCopeInfo group could only be found in Study C. The CopeInfo
group had higher values for their understanding of range dynamics, revealing a moderate and significant effect.
In sum, H2 could not be supported by the data from both studies. Having a closer look at the data, it became
apparent that both groups had higher values on average at the second time of measurement on all examined variables
(indicated by positive means of the difference scores). Most of the values were quite high (e.g., for
subj_range_comp_predict and understand_range_dyn; 0.5 and 1.0 indicate a half to one scale point increase on the
variable on a 6-point Likert scale). Hence, there is evidence to suggest that driving in a critical range situation by
itself could lead to an increase on the examined variables. Additional coping information seemed to slightly support
this effect (CopeInfo group showed on average slightly higher difference scores on some of the variables, especially
regarding understanding_range_dyn), but had no substantial additional effect.

3.3. Correlation between technical system knowledge and drivers’ subjective range competence subscales “control”
and “prediction” as well as drivers’ understanding of range dynamics (H3)

The data from all three studies are reported for H3 (see Table 4).
 Rauh, N.; Günther, M.; Franke, T., Krems, J. F. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 11
Nadine Rauh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3619–3633 3629

Table 4. Results from all studies regarding H3 (correlation between technical system knowledge and drivers’ subjective range competence
subscales “control” and “prediction” as well as drivers’ subjective range competence).

subj_range_comp_ subj_range_comp_ understand_range_dyn

control (pre_drive) predict (pre_drive) (pre_drive)

Effect p Effect p Effect p

size size size

Partial correlation -.01 .482 .46 .014 .65 <.001

Study A Zero-order correlation -.04 .420 .52 .005 .69 <.001

Spearman correlation -.08 .347 .33 .060 .45 .013

Zero-order correlation .08 .643 -.07 .676 .62 <.001

Study B
Spearman correlation .01 .966 -.08 .659 .59 <.001

Partial correlation .03 .412 .25 .031 .25 .032

Study C Zero-order correlation .10 .227 .40 .001 .38 .002

Spearman correlation .11 .209 .35 .003 .33 .006

Note. N = 24 for Study A, N = 73 for Study B, N = 58 for Study C; p-values are one-tailed.

Results showed that there was no correlation between technical system knowledge and drivers’ subjective range
competence subscale “control” in all three studies. Regarding drivers’ subjective range competence subscale
“prediction”, a correlation with technical system knowledge was found in Study A and C, revealing weak to
moderate and mostly significant effects. No correlation was found in Study B. Regarding drivers’ understanding of
range dynamics, correlations with technical system knowledge were found in all three studies, revealing weak to
strong and significant effects.
In sum, H3 was partially supported by the data from all three studies. Results indicated that there was a slight
correlation between technical system knowledge and the subjective range competence subscale “prediction” as well
as drivers’ understanding of range dynamics.

4. Discussion

The objective of the present paper was to improve the understanding of factors that have the potential to increase
drivers’ range interaction competence in terms of drivers’ subjective range competence and understanding of range
dynamics. Three variables were examined which were supposed to have a positive influence: (1) practical driving
experience with BEVs, (2) specific coping information (i.e., information about range and range-influencing factors)
and (3) technical system knowledge.
The results showed that practical driving experience with BEVs seems to be an important factor that has positive
effects on subjective range competence (but only for the facet prediction, not for control) and understanding of range
dynamics. A possible explanation for the results regarding the control facet might be that drivers are aware that there
are also some influencing factors on range over which they had little to no influence (e.g., weather conditions,
ambient temperatures, sudden traffic jams, route profile). The drivers already had high values on this facetsubscale
before the test drive (see Table 1) and, therefore, keeping in mind that external circumstances existed over which
they had no control, a strong increase on this facet did not occur.
Further coping information slightly supported the enhancement in drivers’ understanding of range dynamics, but
had no substantial additional effect. One reason for that could be that coping information (information regarding all
3630 Nadine Rauh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3619–3633
12 Rauh, N.; Günther, M.; Franke, T., Krems, J. F. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

relevant range influencing factors combined with appropriate eco-driving strategies) was just presented once
immediately before the test drive. Therefore, a deep information processing might not have been possible due to the
amount of different information and the short time span this information was available to the participants.
Technical system knowledge showed slight correlations with the subjective range competence facet “prediction”
in Study A and C (but not in Study B). One reason for those results might be that due to insurance reasons, only
members of the Technische Universität Chemnitz participated in the study and, therefore, some relevant sample
characteristics might have been different compared to the other two studies (e.g., higher technical comprehension).
Another reason might be that all participants went on the short training trip before they filled out the questionnaires,
including the scales for subjective range competence. Even this short training trip possibly had an influence on
inexperienced BEV drivers’ subjective range competence and, therefore, had an influence on the correlations.
Furthermore, in Study A and C there were experienced drivers in the sample, not the case in Study B. Although we
controlled for the factor of driving experience with BEVs, there might be other variables which are correlated with
BEV driving experience, drivers’ subjective range competence and technical system knowledge that led to the result
pattern that we found in this paper.

4.1. Implications

The results could help to improve user experience and to develop strategies aimed at increasing the efficient
usage of the currently available BEV range. Results implicated that technical system knowledge might be helpful for
enhancing drivers’ range interaction competence. Nevertheless, BEV-specific and more range related variables like
practical driving experience with BEVs are much more relevant. The results suggested that it would be fruitful to
provide potential future BEV drivers with the possibility to drive a BEV (e.g., in a critical range situation) to
increase their range interaction competence in terms of subjective range competence and understanding of range
dynamics. Certainly, confronting potential customers with a critical range situation and therefore pointing directly to
BEVs’ limited range involves the danger of creating a less positive first impression of BEVs. A better solution
would possibly be to provide special trainings for BEV drivers in which they could drive their BEV under expert
guidance, including at least one experience with a critical range situation. The implementation of such trainings
would clearly only help those drivers who would be willing to spend time and money to improve their range
interaction competence.
Another solution would be the implementation of special tutor systems within the BEV. Drivers could learn how
to successfully interact with BEVs’ limited range (e.g., to manage a critical range situation). They could receive
necessary knowledge regarding range and range influencing factors as these variables seem to enhance the positive
effect of experiencing critical range situations (at least regarding drivers’ understanding of range dynamics) and
acquiring and training eco-driving strategies. One advantage of such tutor systems is that drivers could choose by
themselves when, which, and how much information they would like to receive (e.g., one driver would like to learn
everything before the first trip with the BEV, whereas the other driver would just like to be informed about relevant
information when needed). However, it is important to keep in mind that the BEV drivers would have different
levels of BEV-driving experience and prior domain specific knowledge (e.g., regarding range and range influencing
factors) when they would receive their BEV as well as different preferences regarding which information they
would be interested in. The tutor systems which would be implemented in the BEV would have to be able to adapt
the information given based on the knowledge level and the interests of the individual user (e.g., an adaptive menu
structure dependent on prior queries).
Effort should also be placed in investigating driver assistance systems that encourage drivers to use the BEV
regularly and actively interact with their range resources. Such assistance systems could provide relevant
information and appropriate eco-driving tips while driving [36]. One advantage of such an assistance system is that
only relevant information would be presented to the driver and only in a situation in which this information would
be helpful (e.g., when the BEV user would drive on a German Autobahn at 150 km/h and the available range would
be hardly sufficient to reach the destination, then the assistance system could advise to slowing down the speed to
130 km/h). Therefore, drivers would receive relevant information in the right context and have the possibility to
implement the eco-driving tips immediately. Additionally, the same information and advice would be presented
repeatedly in different situations. Hence, deep information processing (learning and understanding) would be
 Nadine Rauh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3619–3633 3631
Rauh, N.; Günther, M.; Franke, T., Krems, J. F. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 13

possible. Indeed, car manufacturers should be aware of the necessity to not distract, confuse, annoy or bore the
drivers. Information from the assistance system should be given in a clear, comprehensible style and should be
clearly visible (e.g., head up displays which project relevant information or tips on the windscreen). Furthermore,
the assistance system should be configurable so that drivers could decide whether they need further assistance (in
which situation or extent).

4.2. Limitations and further research

Several limitations and directions for further research should be kept in mind. There were just a few experienced
BEV drivers within the studies who had more than three months of BEV driving experience. This was due to it
being difficult to find drivers with such a high practical driving experience at that time. Because of the small sample
it is difficult to compare, for instance, the effect of a single drive in a critical range situation or three months of
practical driving experience with a particularly high practical driving experience of more than five or 10 years. In
the near future, it should be easier to find drivers using their BEV for a longer period because of the number of
BEVs increasing steadily. Therefore, further research should be conducted to investigate the influence of practical
driving experience on range interaction competence in more detail.
The present research only focused on the self-reporting of drivers’ range interaction competence (subjective
range competence and understanding of range dynamics). Further research should also investigate the driving data
(e.g., relationship between practical BEV driving experience and given coping information on driving data such as
average consumption or highest accessible driving range).
Furthermore, to examine the effect of given coping information on range interaction competence in more detail,
further research should also focus on driving the BEV in non-critical range situations (to eliminate the effect of
experiencing a critical range situation). The type of information could also play an important role. We provided
users with coping information and eco-driving tips just once immediately before they started the trip. In the present
research we did not find substantial effects of this kind of information on drivers’ range interaction competence.
Further research should examine whether information provided while driving (e.g., through an assistance system)
and adjusted to the actual situation would have an effect on drivers range interaction competence.
In Study C, in which the effect of practical driving experience with BEVs and given coping information could be
directly compared, the sample had quite a high amount of daily driving distances with conventional cars (M = 140
km). It is assumed that such an intensive vehicle usage improves knowledge regarding eco-driving as well as users’
eco-driving competence (i.e., the number and efficient usage of strategies). Many of these strategies could be easily
adapted to BEVs and, therefore, drivers could use their knowledge and eco-driving skills to also deal more
efficiently with the BEVs’ range. Hence, it is possible that these drivers had a higher subjective range competence
and understanding of range dynamics right from the beginning compared to drivers without such a high amount of
driving experience. In this case, the effect of given coping information might be underestimated in the current paper.
In further studies, the influence of given coping information (before the drive vs. while driving) compared to
practical BEV driving experience should also be examined with drivers who do not have such a high amount of
daily driving experience.
Our samples represented drivers who were particularly interested in BEVs (i.e., including potential customers),
who only represented one segment of the general population of car drivers (i.e., early adopters; [28]). Thus, our
samples might have been restricted on relevant variables (e.g., regarding technical system knowledge and technical
comprehension). Our samples differed significantly from the general German population of car-drivers regarding
their mobility behavior (higher average mileage driven by car per day for all study participants) and their
demographic variables (there were more male than female participants in the study). Therefore, the results found in
this paper could only be generalized to this specific segment of the general population of car drivers (e.g., early
adopters, potential consumers). Research should be conducted to examine whether the results are also generalizable
to car drivers with different characteristics than those in our studies (e.g., less technical system knowledge and
technical comprehension or another mobility behavior).
3632 Nadine Rauh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3619–3633
14 Rauh, N.; Günther, M.; Franke, T., Krems, J. F. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Regarding our methodology, one has to keep in mind that our findings were examined within an experimental
setting. This was necessary because the literature suggests that critical range situations are quite rare in everyday
interaction with BEVs [37], yet have a substantial influence on drivers’ range experience and acceptance [21]. We
believe that critical range situations are quite suitable for examining user experience regarding BEVs’ limited range
and therefore to investigate the effect of certain variables (like driving experience or coping information). Indeed,
due to this experimental setup, participants might feel less anxious about negative consequences. In real life, effects
of critical range situations on stress level might be stronger. Nevertheless, we suggest that the effects of driving
experience and coping information on drivers’ range interaction competence should be comparable or at most
underestimated in an experimental setup than in a real life driving situation.

4.3. Conclusion

Nowadays, the percentage of BEVs in the transportation sector is continuously growing (e.g., car sharing
systems, private car users who purchase a BEV). Thus, an increased number of drivers will have their first
experiences with BEVs. To address governmental and economical efforts regarding the widespread adoption of
BEVs, it is necessary to understand users’ interaction with limited range and influencing factors on their range
interaction competence. Therefore, users could be encouraged to maximize the usable BEV range, drive more
confidently, and improve their user experience with BEVs. This could lead to a higher user acceptance, usage
behavior and purchase intention. We determined that practical BEV driving experience is the most promising factor
to improve drivers’ subjective range competence and understanding of range dynamics (i.e., the subjective facet of
drivers range interaction competence).

Acknowledgements

Study A and B were funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and
Nuclear Safety (16SBS014B). Statements in this paper reflect the authors’ views and do not necessarily reflect those
of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety or of other partners
involved in the project. We thank our consortium partners BMW Group (particularly Dr. Michael Hajesch, Dr. A.
Keinath and Dr. R. Vilimek for Study A; particularly Dr. R. Vilimek, Dr. A. Keinath, Dr. J. Ramsbrock for Study B)
and Stadtwerke Leipzig, who made our research possible.
Study C was funded by the German 'Showcase Regions for Electric Mobility' Electromobility Connects (Bavaria-
Saxony). Statements in this paper reflect the authors’ views and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding body.

References

[1] World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common future. 1987. Retrieved from: http://www.un-documents.net/our-
common-future.pdf
[2] McManus MC. Environmental consequences of the use of batteries in low carbon systems: The impact of battery production. Appl Energy
2012;93:288-295.
[3] Yuan X, Li L, Gou H, Dong T. Energy and environmental impact of battery electric vehicle range in China. Appl Energy 2015;157:75-84.
[4] Manzetti S, Mariasiu F. Electric vehicle battery technologies: From present state to future systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 2015;51:1004-1012.
[5] Hendrickson TP, Kavvada O, Shah N, Sathre R, Scown C. Life-cycle implications and supply chain logistics of electric vehicle
battery recycling in California. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015;10:1.
[6] Ahmadil L, Young SB, Fowler M, Fraser RA, Achachlouei MA. A cascaded life cycle: Reuse of electric vehicle lithium-ion battery
packs in energy storage systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2015.
[7] Jochem P, Kaschub T, Fichtner W. How to integrate electric vehicles in the future energy system? In: Hülsmann M, Fornahl D, editors.
Evolutionary Paths Towards the Mobility Patterns of the Future, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 2013, 243-263.
[8] Jochem P, Kaschub T, Paetz, AG, Fichtner W. Integrating Electric Vehicles into the German Electricity Grid – an Interdisciplinary Analysis.
EVS26, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.evs24.org
[9] infas & DLR. Mobilität in Deutschland 2008: Ergebnisbericht. 2010. Retrieved from http://mobilitaet-in-
deutschland.de/02_MiD2008/publikationen.htm
[10] Streit T, Chlond B, Weiß C, Vortisch P. Deutsches Mobilitätspanel (MOP) – Wissenschaftliche Begleitung und Auswertungen Bericht
2013/2014: Alltagsmobilität und Fahrleistung. 2015. Retrieved from http://mobilitaetspanel.ifv.kit.edu/downloads/Bericht_MOP_13_14.pdf
 Nadine Rauh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3619–3633 3633
Rauh, N.; Günther, M.; Franke, T., Krems, J. F. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 15

[11] Bunzeck I, Feenstra CFJ, Paukovic M. Preferences of potential users of electric cars related to charging - A survey in eight EU countries.
2011. Retrieved from http://www.d-incert.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/rapportage_ECN.pdf
[12] Franke T, Krems JF. What drives range preferences in electric vehicle users? Transport Policy, 2013;30:56-62.
[13] Bühler F, Cocron P, Neumann I, Franke T, Krems JF. Is EV experience related to EV acceptance? Results from a German field study.
Transp Res Part F 2014;25:34-49.
[14] Ziegler A. Individual characteristics and stated preferences for alternative energy sources and propulsion technologies in vehicles: A discrete
choice analysis for Germany. Transp Res Part A 2012;46:1372-1385.
[15] Franke T, Krems JF. Interacting with limited mobility resources: Psychological range levels in electric vehicle use. Transp Res Part A
2013;48:109-122.
[16] Carroll S; Walsh C. The Smart Move Trial: Description and Initial Results. London, England: Cenex; 2010.
[17] Nilsson M. Electric vehicle: The phenomenon of RA. 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.elvire.eu/IMG/pdf/The_phenomenon_of_range_anxiety_ELVIRE.pdf
[18] Birrell SA, McGordon A, Jennings PA. Defining the accuracy of real-world range estimations of an electric vehicle. In 2014 IEEE 17th
International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates, Inc; 2014, p. 2590-2595.
[19] Nilsson M. Does range anxiety exist? Experiences from the ELVIRE project. In Stanton N, Landry S, Di Bucchianico G, Vallicelli A,
editors. Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation Part II, AHFE Conference; 2014, p. 307-313.
[20] Rauh N, Franke T, Krems JF. Understanding the impact of electric vehicle driving experience on range anxiety. Hum Factors 2015;57:177-
187.
[21] Franke T, Rauh N, Günther M, Trantow M, Krems JF. Which factors can protect against range stress in everyday usage of battery electric
vehicles? Towards enhancing sustainability of electric mobility systems. Hum Factors 2015;9:740-745.
[22] Franke T, Rauh N, Krems JF. Individual differences in BEV drivers’ range stress during first encounter of a critical range situation. Appl
Ergonomics 2015.
[23] Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 1977;84:191-215.
[24] Tschannen-Moran M, Woolfolk Hoy A. The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching
and Teacher Educ 2007;23:944–956.
[25] Rauh N, Franke T, Krems JF. First-time experience of critical range situations in BEV use and the positive effect of coping information.
Transp Res Part F, submitted for publication.
[26] Günther M, Rauh N, Krems JF. Conducting a study to investigate eco-driving strategies with battery electric vehicles – a multiple method
approach. Submitted for WCTRS 2016.
[27] KIT. Deutsches Mobilitätspanel (MOP) – Wissenschaftliche Begleitung und Auswertung: Ergebnisbericht 2012/2013: Alltagsmobilität und
Fahrleistungen. 2014. Retrieved from http://mobilitaetspanel.ifv.kit.edu/downloads/Bericht_MOP_12_13.pdf
[28] Günther M, Franke T, Krems, JF. Who are the typical BEV users? An exemplary sample description. Unpublished report. Technische
Universität Chemnitz; 2015.
[29] Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 5 th ed. New York: Free Press; 2013.
[30] Dütschke E, Peters A, Schneider U. Adoption of electric mobility – an analysis of likely early adopters in Germany. Paper presented at the
meeting of ICTTP2012, Groningen.
[31] Westland JC. Structural equation models: From paths to networks. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2015.
[32] Franke T, Krems JF. Understanding charging behaviour of electric vehicle users. Transp Res Part F 2013;21:75-89.
[33] Hothorn T, Hornik K, van de Weil M, Zeileis A. Technologies to support green driving [Special issue]. Transp Res Part C 2008;58:629-782.
[34] Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992;11:155-159.
[35] Grubbs FE. Procedures for detecting outlying observations in samples. Technometrics 1969;11:1-21.
[36] Rauh N, Franke T, Krems JF. User experience with electric vehicles while driving in a critical range situation – a qualitative approach. IET
Intelligent Transport Systems 2015;9:734-739.
[37] Franke T, Neumann I, Bühler F, Cocron P, Krems JF. Experiencing range in an electric vehicle – understanding psychological barriers. Appl
Psychol 2012;61:368-391.