Energy Efficiency

, Volume 11, Issue 7, pp 1763–1782 | Cite as

New opportunities for electric car adoption: the case of range myths, new forms of subsidies, and social norms

  • Sebastian BobethEmail author
  • Ellen Matthies
Original Article


Transport sector challenges and electric car adoption in Germany

CO2 emissions from global transport are growing steadily and contribute 23% of energy-related CO2 emissions today (Sims et al. 2014). The transport sector will face major challenges in the future due to climate change mitigation and the international goal of deep decarbonization (Creutzig et al. 2015). Electric cars1 provide an opportunity to increase energy efficiency in road transport, as they can contribute significantly to emission reductions when combined with renewable electricity sources (Hawkins et al. 2013). Furthermore, a shift from combustion engine cars to electric cars would increase independence from fossil fuels and reduce pollution and noise on the local level (Van Wee et al. 2012). To tap the full potential of electric cars, they should not only substitute combustion engine cars, but be thoughtfully incorporated into sustainable concepts for the whole transport sector (Schwedes et al. 2013)....


Electric cars Adoption Discrete choice experiment Environmental psychology Range Political support schemes 



This work was supported by the German Helmholtz Association and the German federal state of Saxony-Anhalt as part of the Helmholtz Alliance ENERGY-TRANS. We thank Christian A. Klöckner (NTNU Trondheim) and Lydia Heilen (OvGU Magdeburg) for their valuable support in the course of the study. We also thank our colleagues from the Kopernikus-project ENavi (funded by the German Federal Ministery of Education and Research, BMBF) for fruitful discussions on this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest for all authors

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Abrahamse, W., & Matthies, E. (2013). Informational strategies to promote pro-environmental behavior. In L. Steg (Ed.), Environmental psychology: an introduction (pp. 223–232). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273–291. Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. Scholar
  4. Bachman, W., & Katzev, R. (1982). The effects of non-contingent free bus tickets and personal commitment on urban bus ridership. Transportation Research Part A, 16(2), 103–108. Scholar
  5. Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W., & Weiber, R. (2011a). Multivariate analysemethoden: eine anwendungsorientierte einführung [Multivariate analysis methods: a practice-oriented introduction] (13th ed.). Berlin: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., & Weiber, R. (2011b). Fortgeschrittene multivariate Analysemethoden: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung [Advanced multivariate analysis methods: a practice-oriented introduction]. Berlin: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. BAFA (2016). Elektromobilität (Umweltbonus): Zwischenbilanz zum Antragstand vom 30. September 2016 [E-mobility grant: interim balance of applications as of September 30, 2016]. Retrieved from
  8. Bamberg, S. (2006). Is a residential relocation a good opportunity to change people’s travel behavior?: results from a theory-driven intervention study. Environment and Behavior, 38(6), 820–840. Scholar
  9. Bamberg, S. (2013). Changing environmentally harmful behaviors: a stage model of self-regulated behavioral change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 151–159. Scholar
  10. Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25. Scholar
  11. Barbarossa, C., Beckmann, S. C., de Pelsmacker, P., Moons, I., & Gwozdz, W. (2015). A self-identity based model of electric car adoption intention: a cross-cultural comparative study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 149–160. Scholar
  12. Barth, M., Jugert, P., & Fritsche, I. (2016). Still underdetected—social norms and collective efficacy predict the acceptance of electric vehicles in Germany. Transportation Research Part F, 37, 64–77. Scholar
  13. Benthin, R., & Gellrich, A. (2017). Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2016: rgebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage [Environmental consciousness in Germany 2017: results of a representative population survey]. Retrieved from
  14. Berkhout, P. H., Muskens, J. C., & Velthuijsen, J. W. (2000). Defining the rebound effect. Energy Policy, 28(6–7), 425–432. Scholar
  15. Bobeth, S., & Matthies, E. (2016). Elektroautos: Top in Norwegen, Flop in Deutschland? Empfehlungen aus Sicht der Umweltpsychologie. Gaia, 25(1), 38–48.  10.14512/gaia.25.1.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bockarjova, M., & Steg, L. (2014). Can protection motivation theory predict pro-environmental behavior?: Explaining the adoption of electric vehicles in the Netherlands. Global Environmental Change, 28, 276–288. Scholar
  17. Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler [Research methods and evaluation for human and social scientists] (4th ed.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Bracher, T., Gies, J., & Thiemann-Linden, J. (2014). Umweltverträglicher Verkehr 2050: Argumente für eine Mobilitätsstrategie für Deutschland [Environmentally-sound Traffic 2050: Arguments for a Mobility Strategy for Germany]. Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt (UBA). Retrieved from
  19. Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur [Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure] (2016). Verkehr und Mobilität in Deutschland [Traffic and mobility in Germany]. Retrieved from
  20. Bundesregierung [Federal Government]. (2011). Regierungsprogramm Elektromobilität [Government program on e-mobility]. Retrieved from
  21. Chua, W. Y., Lee, A., & Sadeque, S. (2010). Why do people buy hybrid cars? Retrieved from
  22. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026. Scholar
  23. CreditPlus Bank. (2016). Bevölkerungsbefragung: Autotrends 2016 [Population survey: car trends 2016]. Retrieved from
  24. Creutzig, F., Jochem, P., Edelenbosch, O. Y., Mattauch, L., van Vuuren, D. P., McCollum, D., & Minx, J. (2015). Transport: a roadblock to climate change mitigation? Science, 350(6263), 911–912. Scholar
  25. Croissant, Y. (2012). Estimation of multinomial logit models in R: the mlogit Packages. Retrieved from
  26. Croissant, Y. (2015). Package “mlogit.” 0.2–2. Retrieved from
  27. DAT. (2015). DAT Report 2015. Retrieved from
  28. DAT. (2016). DAT Report 2016. Retrieved from
  29. Destatis [Federal Statistical Office] (2016). Ausstattung privater Haushalte mit Fahrzeugen in Deutschland [Equipment of households with vehicles in Germany]. Retrieved from
  30. Deutsche Bahn. (2016). BahnCard 100: one payment for one year of travel throughout Germany. Retrieved from
  31. Dimitropoulos, A., Rietveld, P., & van Ommeren, J. N. (2013). Consumer valuation of changes in driving range: a meta-analysis. Transportation Research Part A, 55, 27–45. Scholar
  32. Egbue, O., & Long, S. (2012). Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: an analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy Policy, 48, 717–729. Scholar
  33. (2016). Jahresrückblick 2015: EMobility-Dashboard Deutschland [End-of-year review 2015: e-mobility dashboard Germany]. Retrieved from
  34. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Figenbaum, E., Kolbenstvedt, M., & Elvebakk, B. (2014). Electric vehicles—environmental, economic and practical aspects: As seen by current and potential users. Retrieved from
  36. Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303. Scholar
  37. Franke, T., & Krems, J. F. (2013). What drives range preferences in electric vehicle users? Transport Policy, 30, 56–62. Scholar
  38. Frenzel, I., Jarass, J., Trommer, S., & Lenz, B. (2015). Erstnutzer von Elektrofahrzeugen in Deutschland: Nutzerprofile, Anschaffung, Fahrzeugnutzung [Early users of electric vehicles in Germany: user profiles, purchase, vehicle usage]. Retrieved from
  39. Friedrichsmeier, T., & Matthies, E. (2015). Rebound effects in energy efficiency—an inefficient debate? Gaia, 24(2), 80–84.  10.14512/gaia.24.2.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Galvin, R. (2014). Making the ‘rebound effect’ more useful for performance evaluation of thermal retrofits of existing homes: defining the ‘energy savings deficit’ and the ‘energy performance gap. Energy and Buildings, 69, 515–524. Scholar
  41. Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Gössling, S. (2016). Urban transport justice. Journal of Transport Geography, 54, 1–9. Scholar
  43. Haugneland, P. (2014). Norwegian electric car user experiences 2014. Retrieved from
  44. Haugneland, P., & Kvisle, H. H. (2013). Norwegian electric car user experiences. In 2013 World Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition (EVS27) (pp. 1–11). doi:
  45. Hawkins, T. R., Singh, B., Majeau-Bettez, G., & Strømman, A. H. (2013). Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(1), 53–64. Scholar
  46. Heffner, R. R., Kurani, K. S., & Turrentine, T. S. (2007). Symbolism in California’s early market for hybrid electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D, 12(6), 396–413. Scholar
  47. Hidrue, M. K., Parsons, G. R., Kempton, W., & Gardner, M. P. (2011). Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes. Resource and Energy Economics, 33(3), 686–705. Scholar
  48. Hine, D. W., Kormos, C., & Marks, A. D. G. (2016). Agree to disagree: a practical guide to conducting survey research in environmental psychology. In R. Gifford (Ed.), Research methods for environmental psychology (pp. 71–92). Chichester: Wiley. Scholar
  49. Hoen, A., & Koetse, M. J. (2014). A choice experiment on alternative fuel vehicle preferences of private car owners in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A, 61, 199–215. Scholar
  50. Hoyos, D. (2010). The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 69(8), 1595–1603. Scholar
  51. Infas, & DLR (2010). Mobilität in Deutschland 2008: rgebnisbericht [Mobility in Germany 2008: result report]. Retrieved from
  52. Jensen, A. F., Cherchi, E., & Mabit, S. L. (2013). On the stability of preferences and attitudes before and after experiencing an electric vehicle. Transportation Research Part D, 25, 24–32. Scholar
  53. Kastner, I., & Matthies, E. (2016). Investments in renewable energies by German households: a matter of economics, social influences and ecological concern? Energy Research & Social Science, 17, 1–9. Scholar
  54. Kastner, I., & Stern, P. C. (2015). Examining the decision-making processes behind household energy investments: a review. Energy Research & Social Science, 10, 72–89. Scholar
  55. KBA. (2015). 14.259 Kilometer: Die jährliche Fahrleistung deutscher Pkw [14,259 kilometers: the annual driving performance of German passenger cars]. Retrieved from
  56. KBA. (2016). Jahresbilanz des Fahrzeugbestandes am 1. Januar 2016. [Annual balance of the vehicle fleet as of January 1, 2016]. Retrieved from;jsessionid=F2C1964FA8258C6363703B2A0559BC68.live1041?nn=644526.
  57. Kim, J., Rasouli, S., & Timmermans, H. (2014). Expanding scope of hybrid choice models allowing for mixture of social influences and latent attitudes: application to intended purchase of electric cars. Transportation Research Part A, 69, 71–85. Scholar
  58. Klöckner, C. A. (2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1028–1038. Scholar
  59. Klöckner, C. A. (2014). The dynamics of purchasing an electric vehicle: a prospective longitudinal study of the decision-making process. Transportation Research Part F, 24, 103–116. Scholar
  60. Klöckner, C. A. (2015). The psychology of pro-environmental communication: beyond standard information strategies. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Scholar
  61. Klöckner, C. A., Nayum, A., & Mehmetoglu, M. (2013). Positive and negative spillover effects from electric car purchase to car use. Transportation Research Part D, 21, 32–38. Scholar
  62. Kurani, K. S., Turrentine, T., & Sperling, D. (1994). Demand for electric vehicles in hybrid households: an exploratory analysis. Transport Policy, 1(4), 244–256. Scholar
  63. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In A. W. Kruglanski (Ed.), Social psychology: handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 353–381). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  64. Lieven, T. (2015). Policy measures to promote electric mobility: a global perspective. Transportation Research Part A, 82, 78–93. Scholar
  65. Manville, M., & Shoup, D. (2005). Parking, people, and cities. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 131(4), 233–245. Scholar
  66. Martens, K. (2006). Basing transport policy on principles of social justice. Berkeley Planning Journal, 19(1), 1–17.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  67. Matthies, E., Klöckner, C. A., & Preißner, C. L. (2006). Applying a modified moral decision making model to change habitual car use: how can commitment be effective? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(1), 91–106. Scholar
  68. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Economic theory and mathematical economics. Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  69. McFadden, D. (1979). Quantitative methods for Analysing travel behaviour of individuals. In D. A. Hensher & P. R. Stopher (Eds.), Behavioural travel modelling (pp. 278–318). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  70. McFadden, D., & Train, K. (2000). Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15(5), 447–470.<447::AID-JAE570>3.3.CO;2-T.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. McQuarrie, E. F. (2012). The market research toolbox: a concise guide for beginners (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  72. Morton, C., Anable, J., & Nelson, J. D. (2016). Exploring consumer preferences towards electric vehicles: the influence of consumer innovativeness. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 18, 18–28. Scholar
  73. NAF. (2015). NAF electric car report 2015. Retrieved from
  74. Nayum, A., Klöckner, C. A., & Mehmetoglu, M. (2016). Comparison of socio-psychological characteristics of conventional and battery electric car buyers. Travel Behaviour and Society, 3, 8–20. Scholar
  75. Nilsson, M. (2011). Electric vehicles: the phenomenon of range anxiety. Retrieved from
  76. Noppers, E. H., Keizer, K., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Steg, L. (2014). The adoption of sustainable innovations: driven by symbolic and environmental motives. Global Environmental Change, 25, 52–62. Scholar
  77. Öko-Institut. (2011). Autos unter Strom [Cars powered by electricity]. Retrieved from
  78. Oliveira, G. D., Dias, L. M. C., & Sarabando dos Santos, P. C. (2015). Modelling consumer preferences for electric vehicles in Portugal: an exploratory study. Management of Environmental Quality, 26(6), 929–950. Scholar
  79. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36(4), 859–866. Scholar
  80. Peters, A., & Dütschke, E. (2014). How do consumers perceive electric vehicles?: a comparison of German consumer groups. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 16(3), 359–377. Scholar
  81. Rasouli, S., & Timmermans, H. (2016). Influence of social networks on latent choice of electric cars: a mixed logit specification using experimental design data. Networks and Spatial Economics, 16(1), 99–130. Scholar
  82. Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., & Bodin, J. (2015). Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption research: a review and research agenda. Transportation Research Part D, 34, 122–136. Scholar
  83. Roese, N. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Hindsight bias. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 411–426. Scholar
  84. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  85. Rückert-John, J., Bormann, I., & John, R. (2013). Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2012: Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage [Environmental consciousness in Germany 2012: results of a representative population survey]. Retrieved from
  86. Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners: the paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20(4), 523–528. Scholar
  87. 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, 48, 39–49. Scholar
  88. Schwedes, O., Kettner, S., & Tiedtke, B. (2013). E-mobility in Germany: white hope for a sustainable development or fig leaf for particular interests? Environmental Science & Policy, 30, 72–80. Scholar
  89. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. Scholar
  90. Sims, R., Schaeffer, R., Creutzig, F., Cruz-Núñez, X., Dimitriu, D., Figueroa Meza, M. J., et al. (2014). Transport. In O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Working group III contribution to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 599–670). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Statista. (2016). Altersstruktur von Neuwagenkäufern in Deutschland (Stand: Januar 2016). [Age structure of new car buyers in Germany as of January 2016]. Retrieved from
  92. Streit, T., Chlond, B., Weiß, C., & Vortisch, P. (2015). Deutsches Mobilitätspanel (MOP) – Bericht 2013/2014: Alltagsmobilität und Fahrleistung [German mobility panel—report 2013/2014: Everyday mobility and driving performance]. Retrieved from
  93. Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scholar
  94. Train, K., & Croissant, Y. (2012). Kenneth Train’s exercises using the mlogit package for R. Retrieved from
  95. Van Wee, B. (2014). The unsustainability of car use. In T. Gärling, D. Ettema, & M. Friman (Eds.), Handbook of sustainable travel (pp. 69–83). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  96. Van Wee, B., Maat, K., & de Bont, C. (2012). Improving sustainability in urban areas: discussing the potential for transforming conventional car-based travel into electric mobility. European Planning Studies, 20(1), 95–110. Scholar
  97. Weisberg, H., Krosnick, J. A., & Bowen, B. D. (1996). An introduction to survey research, polling, and data analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Psychology, Institute of PsychologyOtto-von-Guericke-University MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations