Energy Efficiency

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 495–509 | Cite as

Assessing the importance of car meanings and attitudes in consumer evaluations of electric vehicles

  • Craig Morton
  • Jillian Anable
  • John D Nelson


This paper reports findings from a research study which assesses the importance of attitudinal constructs related to general car attitudes and the meanings attached to car ownership over evaluations of electric vehicles (EVs). The data are assessed using principal component analysis to evaluate the structure of the underlying attitudinal constructs. The identified constructs are then entered into a hierarchical regression analysis which uses either positive or negative evaluations of the instrumental capabilities of EVs as the dependent variable. Results show that attitudinal constructs offer additional predictive power over socioeconomic characteristics and that the symbolic and emotive meanings of car ownership are as, if not more, effective in explaining the assessment of EV instrumental capability as compared to issues of cost and environmental concern. Additionally, the more important an individual considers their car to be in their everyday life, the more negative their evaluations are of EVs whilst individuals who claim to be knowledgeable about cars in general and EVs in particular have a lower propensity for negative EV attitudes. However, positive and negative EV attitudes are related to different attitudinal constructs suggesting that it is possible for someone to hold both negative and positive assessments at the same time.


Electric vehicles Attitude measurement Psychometric modelling 



This research was made possible by a PhD studentship funded by the UK Research Councils (Grant No: NERC NE/G007748/1) as part of the Energy Demand Theme of the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC).


  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Alawi, B. M., & Bradley, T. H. (2013). Review of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicle market modeling studies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 21, 190–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anable, J., & Gatersleben, B. (2005). All work and no play? The role of instrumental and affective factors in work and leisure journeys by different travel modes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39, 163–181.Google Scholar
  4. Axsen, J., Mountain, D. C., & Jaccard, M. (2009). Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: the case of hybrid-electric vehicles. Resource and Energy Economics, 31, 21–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Axsen, J., & Kurani, K. S. (2012). Interpersonal influence within car buyers’ social networks: applying five perspectives to plug-in hybrid vehicle drivers. Environment & Planning A, 44, 1047–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 3, 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beggs, S., Cardell, S., & Hausman, J. (1981). Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. Journal of Econometrics, 17, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ben-Akiva, M., Mcfadden, D., Train, K., Walker, J., Bhat, C., Bierlaire, M., Bolduc, D., Boersch-Supan, A., Brownstone, D., Bunch, D. S., Daly, A., Palma, A. D., Gopinath, D., Karlstrom, A., & Munizaga, M. A. (2002). Hybrid choice models: progress and challenges. Marketing Letters, 13, 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolduc, D., Boucher, N., & Alvarez-Daziano, R. (2008). Hybrid choice modeling of new technologies for car choice in Canada. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2082, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calfee, J. E. (1985). Estimating the demand for electric automobiles using fully disaggregated probabilistic choice analysis. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 19, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caperello, N. D., & Kurani, K. S. (2012). Households’ stories of their encounters with a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. Environment and Behavior, 44, 493–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CCC. (2013). Meeting Carbon Budgets: 2013 Progress Report to Parliament. Accessed 20 Feb 2014.Google Scholar
  13. Cerny, B. A., & Kaiser, H. F. (1977). A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12, 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chandler, J., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Use does not wear ragged the fabric of friendship: thinking of objects as alive makes people less willing to replace them. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 138–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Choo, S., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2004). What type of vehicle do people drive? The role of attitude and lifestyle in influencing vehicle type choice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 38, 201–222.Google Scholar
  16. Contestabile, M., Offer, G., & North, R. (2012) Electric vehicles: a synthesis of the current literature with a focus on economic and environmental viability. Accessed 20th February 2014.
  17. Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dagsvik, J. K., Wennemo, T., Wetterwald, D. G., & Aaberge, R. (2002). Potential demand for alternative fuel vehicles. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 36, 361–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Daziano, R. A., & Bolduc, D. (2011). Incorporating pro-environmental preferences towards green automobile technologies through a Bayesian hybrid choice model. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 9, 74–106.Google Scholar
  20. Daziano, R. A., & Chiew, E. (2012). Electric vehicles rising from the dead: data needs for forecasting consumer response toward sustainable energy sources in personal transportation. Energy Policy, 51, 876–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DCLG. (2010). English indices of deprivation 2010. Accessed 20 Feb 2014.
  22. DfT, (2011). National Travel Survey 2010. Accessed 20tFeb 2014.
  23. Dittmar, H. (1992). The Social Psychology of Material Possessions: To have is to be. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Egbue, O., & Long, S. (2012). Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: an analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy Policy, 48, 717–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eggers, F., & Eggers, F. (2011). Where have all the flowers gone? Forecasting green trends in the automobile industry with a choice-based conjoint adoption model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ewing, G. O., & Sarigöllü, E. (1998). Car fuel-type choice under travel demand management and economic incentives. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 3, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, Third Edition. SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  28. Glerum, A., Stankovikj, L., Thémans, M., & Bierlaire, M. (2013). Forecasting the demand for electric vehicles: accounting for attitudes and perceptions. Transportation Science.Google Scholar
  29. Golob, T. F., Kitamura, R., Bradley, M., & Bunch, D. S. (1993). Predicting the market penetration of electric and clean-fuel vehicles. The Science of the Total Environment, 134, 371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Graham-Rowe, E., Gardner, B., Abraham, C., Skippon, S., Dittmar, H., Hutchins, R., & Stannard, J. (2012). Mainstream consumers driving plug-in battery-electric and plug-in hybrid electric cars: a qualitative analysis of responses and evaluations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46, 140–153.Google Scholar
  31. Britain, G. (2008). Climate Change Act 2008: Elizabeth II (Chapter 27). London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  32. Harris, C. (1967). On factors and factor scores. Psychometrika, 32, 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heffner, R. R., Kurani, K. S., & Turrentine, T. S. (2007). Symbolism in California’s early market for hybrid electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 12, 396–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heutel, G. & Muehlegger, E. (2009). Learning, externalities and hybrid vehicle adoption. Paper presented at the Allied Social Science Associations, January 2-5, 2010.Google Scholar
  35. Hotelling, H. (1933). Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 417–441.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Iyengar, R., den Bulte, C. V., & Valente, T. W. (2011). Opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Science, 30, 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jansson, J., Marell, A., & Nordlund, A. (2011). Exploring consumer adoption of a high involvement eco-innovation using value-belief-norm theory. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Joliffe, I. T., & Morgan, B. (1992). Principal component analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 1, 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaiser, H. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 187–200.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Kurani, K. S., Turrentine, T., & Sperling, D. (1996). Testing electric vehicle demand in ‘hybrid households’ using a reflexive survey. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 1, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lai, A. W. (1991). Consumption situation and product knowledge in the adoption of a new product. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 3, 55–67.Google Scholar
  42. Lane, B., & Potter, S. (2007). The adoption of cleaner vehicles in the UK: exploring the consumer attitude-action gap. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 1085–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lieven, T., Mühlmeier, S., Henkel, S., & Waller, J. F. (2011). Who will buy electric cars? An empirical study in Germany. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16, 236–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 55.Google Scholar
  45. Mannering, F. L., & Train, K. (1985). Recent directions in automobile demand modeling. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 19, 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mau, P., Eyzaguirre, J., Jaccard, M., Collins-Dodd, C., & Tiedemann, K. (2008). The “neighbor effect”: simulating dynamics in consumer preferences for new vehicle technologies. Ecological Economics, 68, 504–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McFadden, D. (1980). Econometric models for probabilistic choice among products. The Journal of Business, 53, 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morton, C. (2013). Accelerating the demand for low emission vehicles: a consumer led perspective. United Kingdom: University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
  49. Musti, S., & Kockelman, K. M. (2011). Evolution of the household vehicle fleet: anticipating fleet composition, PHEV adoption and GHG emissions in Austin, Texas. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45, 707–720.Google Scholar
  50. OLEV. (2013). Driving the future today—a strategy for ULEVs in the UK. Accessed 20 Feb 2014.
  51. ONS. (2009). Scottish Index of multiple deprivation: 2009 general report. Accessed 20 Feb 2014.
  52. Ozaki, R., & Sevastyanova, K. (2011). Going hybrid: an analysis of consumer purchase motivations. Energy Policy, 39, 2217–2227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pearson, K. (1901). LIII. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Philosophical Magazine Series, 6(2), 559–572.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. Peters, A., Popp, M., Mareike, A., & Raphael, R. B. (2011). Electric mobility—a survey of different consumer groups in Germany with regard to adoption. European Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.Google Scholar
  55. Pierre, M., Jemelin, C., & Louvet, N. (2011). Driving an electric vehicle. A sociological analysis on pioneer users. Energy Efficiency, 4, 511–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Potoglou, D., & Kanaroglou, P. S. (2007). Household demand and willingness to pay for clean vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 12, 264–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ricardo, A. E. A. (2013). Overview: GHG Inventory Summary Factsheet. Accessed 20 Feb 2014.
  58. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  59. Sangkapichai, M., & Saphores, J.-D. (2009). Why are Californians interested in hybrid cars? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52, 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8, 350–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schuitema, G., Anable, J., Skippon, S., & Kinnear, N. (2013). The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 48, 39–49.Google Scholar
  62. Shepherd, S., Bonsall, P., & Harrison, G. (2012). Factors affecting future demand for electric vehicles: a model based study. Transport Policy, 20, 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Slotegraaf, G. (2001). Instrumental-reasoned and symbolic-affective motives for using a motor car. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 4, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Steg, L. (2005). Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39, 147–162.Google Scholar
  65. Teisl, M. F., Rubin, J., & Noblet, C. L. (2008). Non-dirty dancing? Interactions between eco-labels and consumers. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 140–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Train, K. E. (1980). The potential market for non-gasoline-powered automobiles. Transportation Research Part A: General, 14, 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  68. Turrentine, T. S., & Kurani, K. S. (2007). Car buyers and fuel economy? Energy Policy, 35, 1213–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Turrentine, T., & Sperling, D. (1992). Theories of new technology purchase decisions: the case of alternative fuel vehicles. Accessed 20 Feb 2014.
  70. van Vliet, O. P. R., Kruithof, T., Turkenburg, W. C., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2010). Techno-economic comparison of series hybrid, plug-in hybrid, fuel cell and regular cars. Journal of Power Sources, 195, 6570–6585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Centre for Transport ResearchUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations