• No results found

The Influence of the Expected Approval of the Consumer’s Social Network on the Intention to Adopt an Electric Vehicle.

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The Influence of the Expected Approval of the Consumer’s Social Network on the Intention to Adopt an Electric Vehicle."

Copied!
39
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

The Influence of the Expected Approval of the Consumer’s

Social Network on the Intention to Adopt an Electric

Vehicle.

By

Peter Klunder

(2)

The Influence of the Expected Approval of the Consumer’s

Social Network on the Intention to Adopt an Electric

Vehicle.

Master Thesis

By

Peter Klunder

June 30, 2015

Peter Klunder Grotestraat 136

7622 GP, Borne, The Netherlands Tel: +316 22 00 60 41

Email: p.w.klunder@student.rug.nl

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business, Marketing Department Supervisor: dr. J.W. Bolderdijk

(3)

3

Preface

This Master thesis is an analysis of how the intention to adopt an electric vehicle is influenced by the expected approval of the consumer’s social network, and by the different types of advertisement. It has been attempted to provide insights about consumer behaviour and the marketing of a

sustainable product.

For years, I am fascinated by electric vehicles, and in the last two years I became interested in the marketing of these products. Because of this, I worked with a lot of enthusiasm on this thesis. Despite the difficulties regarding writing the thesis, I enjoyed working on it.

This thesis is the final part of the Master Marketing Management at the University of Groningen and the final chapter of my life as a student. I am very satisfied with my choice one year ago to study Marketing Management.

I want to thank dr. J.W. Bolderdijk for his expertise and useful insights on the subjects sustainable consumption and marketing, his willingness to share his knowledge with the entire group, and to provide valuable feedback. I also want to thank dr. J.A. Voerman for reading and assessing my Master thesis. In addition, I want to thank the members of the thesis group for providing feedback and motivation, especially Claire Brouwer and Hanna de Jong. Finally, I want to thank my parents and my girlfriend Leonie Vehof, for their ongoing support.

(4)

4

Abstract

Consumer behaviour does not only depend on our own thoughts and beliefs, we are also influenced by the expected (dis)approval of our social network. The opinion of the social network depends on the image of the product and which is in turn, influenced by how it has been advertised. In the case of Electric Vehicles (EVs), car manufacturers play an important role in creating an certain image. In advertisements, they either mention the financial benefits or the environmental benefits of using an EV. Depending on the way the EV has been advertised, consumers might expect how they will be perceived by their social network (‘greedy’ versus altruistic). In this study, an experiment has been conducted to examine how the different types of advertisement have an influence on the expected approval of the consumer’s social network and in its turn, on the intention to adopt an EV. The results show that the types of advertisement do not significantly differ on the intention to adopt an EV and neither on the expected approval. However, the intention to adopt an EV is influenced by the expected approval of the consumer’s social network. Overall, respondents showed that the intention to adopt an EV is low.

Keywords: marketing, consumer behaviour, sustainable consumption, electric vehicles, influence

(5)

5

Table of contents

1. Introduction ...6

2. Methodology ... 10

2.1 Method and procedure... 10

2.2 Participants ... 11

2.3 Measures ... 11

2.3.1 Manipulation check ... 11

2.3.2 Expected approval ... 11

2.3.3 Intention to adopt the EV ... 12

3. Results ... 13

3.1 Manipulation check ... 13

3.2 Expected approval consumer’s social network ... 13

3.3 Intention to adopt an electric vehicle ... 14

4. Discussion... 15

5. Limitations and further research ... 17

6. Managerial implication ... 18

References ... 20

(6)

6

1. Introduction

After 2042, only coal will be left in the world as a fossil fuel. Fossil fuels like gas and oil will run out within thirty years (Roberts, 2004; Shafiee and Topal, 2009). This will not only be a problem for the industry and households, but also for the way we transport goods and people. Nowadays, oil is still the most important fuel for driving a car. The use of a car is not only stressful for fossil fuels, it is also stressful for the environment by enhancing the greenhouse effect. Due to the exhaust emissions, the world gets warmer every year with all the consequences for the environment (Casper, 2010).

Scientists and car manufacturers have known these facts for decades and are trying to find sustainable methods to drive a car in order to solve these problems.

Electric Vehicle

One sustainable solution to these problems is the use of an electric vehicle (EV) instead of a conventional car with an internal combustion engine (ICE) (Chau and Wong, 2002). This is not a futuristic idea, it has existed for almost two centuries. However, more than a century ago, the EV lost the battle for the dominant design to the ICE cars. In 1997, the EV came back on the market, known as the Toyota Prius (Gärling and Thøgersen, 2001; Toyota, 2008). This was the year that Toyota launched their first (partly) electric car for consumers, which produced fewer exhaust emissions and used less fossil fuel for the same distance than conventional cars did. This was the start of a new way to drive in cars and an attempt to solve the problems caused by the greenhouse effect, as well as the future scarcity of fossil fuels. Since the moment that Toyota launched the Prius, the technology has developed even further. Nowadays, almost every well-known car manufacturer has at least one type of EV in their portfolio, which means that there is enough choice for consumers (ANWB, 2015).

The current literature distinguishes three different types of EVs which are shown in table 1 which can be found in Appendix 1. Despite the fact that the Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) are combined with an ICE, it is still a step forward compared to conventional cars (with only an ICE). In this research those three types of electric vehicles will be named as Electric Vehicle (EV).

No wide adoption

(7)

7

cars), consumers do not have enough faith in the new technology to adopt an EV (Chau and Wong, 2002; Ebgue and Long, 2012; Gärling and Thøgersen, 2001; Lane and Potter, 2007; Rogers, 1995; Schuitema, Anable, Skippon and Kinnear, 2013). Nowadays, in the Netherlands, only 0,58% of all cars on the streets, have at least a partly electric engine. This percentage is increasing but only on a low level, the fact is that consumers still rather buy a car with an ICE than a car with a (partly) electric engine (RVO, 2015).

At this moment, there are not many consumers who want to adopt an EV.According to Noppers, Keizer, Bolderdijk and Steg (2014), if a sustainable innovation, like an EV, wants to be adopted by consumers, it should satisfy three attributes. As described above, the instrumental attributes fall short at the moment, however these shortcomings become better rapidly by the improving technology. Besides, governments of countries are implementing financial policies in order to improve the wide adoption of the EV (Ebgue and Long, 2012; ANWB, 2015). The EV is obviously better for the environment than a conventional car, since they use less fossil fuels and produce less CO2 emissions (Graham-Rowe, Gardner, Abraham, Skippon, Dittmar, Hutchins and Stannard, 2012;

Jacobson and Delucchi, 2011). Status and identity (symbolic attributes) are important factors for the adoption of an EV (Noppers et al., 2014). Social status and identity are always important to people, and a car suits perfectly as an example of showing what your status is and who you are, because it is a product that only can be used in public (Berger and Heath, 2007; Heffner, Kurani and Turrentine, 2005; Hill, 2014). EVs can be seen as a ‘green’ product and buying it can be constructed as altruistic. EVs have some instrumental drawbacks compared to conventional cars and are more expensive, but EVs benefit the environment for everyone (Griskevicius, Tybur and Van den Bergh, 2010). So, buying an EV enables a person to signal their concern about the environment. By showing that the consumer can afford an EV, including the instrumental drawbacks, the consumer can show that he has enough financial resources to overcome those drawbacks and cares about the environment (Noppers et al., 2014; Schuitema et al., 2013). This means that the adoption of an EV, including the instrumental drawbacks, will increase the social status of the consumer (Hardy and Van Vugt, 2006).

Influence of social network

(8)

8

An important aspect of the symbolic attributes is social status, which is reflected by the outcomes of owning and using an EV (Noppers et al., 2014). The social status of the consumer depends on the opinion of their social network1. This means that behaviour of consumers is not only influenced by

their own thoughts and beliefs, but also by the opinion and approval or disapproval of their social network (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004; Hoyer et al., 2013; Lane and Potter, 2007; Leary and Kowalski, 1990). This implies that consumer behaviour (intention to adopt an EV), also depends on the

expected (dis)approval by the social network. What consumers expect how their social network will think of them for buying an EV, depends on the car’s image and that might, in its turn, influence the intention to buy it. In general, advertisement is important to influence the image of a certain product (Keller, 2013).

Studies from Noppers et al. (2014) and Schuitema et al. (2013), do focus on the symbolic attributes of EVs and the consumer’s own perception which influences the adoption of such a car. However, in the case of EVs, how advertisement influences the expected (dis)approval of the consumer’s social network, has been underexposed in the current literature. Therefore, the present study will explore the relationship between the expected (dis)approval of the consumer’s social network and the intention to adopt an EV, depending on the image (created by advertisement) of the car.

Advertisement

Advertisement has a great influence on the perception (image) of a certain product (Keller, 2013). This perception is, in its turn, important regarding the status and identity that owning and using that product brings with it. This means that advertising creates a certain perception to all people who see the advertisement, and this perception influences the status and identity for all consumers who own and use that product (Pickett-Baker and Ozaki, 2008). So the question is, how should car

manufacturers advertise EVs in order to give them the right image, so that these cars will be bought by consumers?

Nowadays, car manufactures make use of different kinds of advertisement to promote the EV. As described previously, advertisement is very important for the image creation of the EV (Pickett-Baker and Ozaki, 2008; Keller, 2013). But, car manufacturers do not agree on which method is more

successful to increase the adoption of EVs. On the one hand, they try to emphasize the financial benefits for the consumer, for example “only 4 percent additional tax if you lease the Nissan Leaf” (Nissan, 2015). For consumers, this might provide the impression that they have made a great deal,

(9)

9

“assuming that consumers are primarily motivated by economic self-interest (Bolderdijk, Steg, Geller, Lehman and Postmes, 2012, p.121)”. However, according to the same authors, “consumers want to maintain a ‘positive self-concept’ and may prefer to see themselves as ‘green’ (positive) rather than ‘greedy’ (negative) (Bolderdijk et al., p.121)”. So, if the advertisement of EVs emphasizes the financial benefits, it might lead to consumers thinking that their social network will disapprove the future decision to adopt an EV because of their ‘greediness’.

On the other hand, manufacturers try to give the consumer the feeling that they save the

environment by buying an EV (“doing the right thing”). For example, in the advertisement of Volvo V60 PHEV, they give thirty-three reasons to buy this car. All these reasons are non-financial, and the main reason is: “do it for your great-grandchildren” (Volvocars, 2015), which implies that using an EV is better for the environment than conventional cars. Buying an EV for the reason of saving the environment can be constructed as altruistic, because the consumer sacrifices his own resources (e.g. time, money) for the public welfare. (Griskevicius, et al., 2010; Hardy and Van Vugt, 2006). This means that the consumer is not selfish and maintains a positive self-concept since the consumer is paying the price premium for a good cause (Graham-Rowe et al., 2013). Thus, buying a ‘green’ product can be perceived as altruistic behaviour and might, for this reason, lead to expected positive reactions from the consumer’s social network and it increases their social status (Griskevicius et al., 2010; Hardy and Van Vugt, 2006). Therefore, if the advertisement emphasizes the environmental benefits of an EV, the consumer might expect that his social network approves the decision to buy an EV, because the consumer will be perceived as altruistic instead of ‘greedy’ (Leary and Kowalski, 1990; Bolderdijk et al., 2012).

Based on previous sections, it can be stated that the type of advertisement (financial benefits or environmental benefits), has an effect on the expected (dis)approval of the consumer’s social network, and in its turn, on the intention to adopt an EV. However, this has never been tested in the current literature and will be tested in this research. This reasoning has been depicted in the

conceptual model (figure 1). Based on the reasoning in previous sections, the following hypothesis can be derived:

(10)

10

Figure 1: conceptual model.

The rest of the paper will have the following structure. In the next chapter, the methodology will be described, followed by the result section. Then, the results will be discussed and finally there will be some limitations of this research (including further directions for research) and a managerial implication.

2. Methodology

2.1 Method and procedure

In order to test the hypothesis, an experiment was conducted where every participant was randomly assigned to one of the two advertisements (between-subjects design). According to Aronson, Wilson and Brewer (1998), within an experiment, only the independent variable should be manipulated. For this reason, participants saw an advertisement with rather financial benefits or environmental benefits of the EV. The two types of advertisements which were used, are displayed in Appendix 2 and 3. Respondents should either get the feeling that the EV was financially attractive and that buying one should give them a personal benefit. Or, that the EV is good for the environment and that buying one should give a feeling of doing the good thing for the community.

To collect data, an internet-based survey was developed and used in this research. In order to ensure reliability of the results, a Dutch version of the experiment is constructed so as to make full use of the researcher's social network, the English version can be found in Appendix 4. For this survey, the program Qualtrics was used. By clicking on a certain link the participants could start the survey, which took approximately five minutes to fill in. The link was sent to the potential participants by e-mail, Whatsapp and shared on social media, the responses were completely anonymous. The survey was open for seven days to fill in. Afterwards, the analysis of the data would be done by the program SPSS.

Intention to adopt an Electric Vehicle

(11)

11

2.2 Participants

In total, there were 222 Dutch speaking participants who started the survey. Due to incompleteness, 24 respondents were rejected. As a result, 198 completed the survey and were used for further analysis.

There were 103 male participants (52%) who completed the survey and the average birth year of all the participants is 1980 (SD = 14.4). The oldest participant was born in 1946 and the youngest in 1997. However, most of the participant were born between 1987 and 1992, this means that the sample consisted of relatively young participants (Appendix 5). The average income was in the range of €1,501 and €2,000 and 64.6% of the participants is high educated (higher professional education and university educated). In the survey the participants were asked if they have a driver’s licence, only 12 out of the 198 did not possess one.

2.3 Measures

2.3.1 Manipulation check

To measure if type of advertisement, which should show mere the environmental benefits, would work better in terms of intention to adopt an EV than the advertisement with financial benefits, an experiment was conducted. To measure if the manipulation was successful, the statement: “the car

from the advertisement is financially attractive” had to be answered on a 7-point Likert scale, from

(1) totally disagree to (7) totally agree.

2.3.2 Expected approval

To test whether participants think if their intention to adopt an EV would be approved by their social network, the evaluation items of Monin, Sawyer and Marquez (2008) were used. Participants rated how they think that others think of them if they would buy an EV. This construct consist of 15, 7-point bipolar scales, where 1 is negative, and 7 is positive: stupid-intelligent, weak-strong, insecure–

confident, passive–active, immoral-moral, cruel–kind, greedy-generous, immature–mature, awful– nice, dishonest– honest, unpleasant–pleasant, dependent–independent, low esteem– high self-esteem, cold–warm and unfair–fair.

(12)

12

score (1 to 3) means expected disapproval (negative), 4 means neutral, and a high score (5 to 7) means expected approval (positive).

2.3.3 Intention to adopt the EV

The construct for intention to adopt an EV, consists of two statements and one question. The statements are: “I am interested in electric vehicles” (M = 3.43, SD = 1.568) and “I will never buy the

car from the advertisement” (M = 3.36, SD = 1.31). Both statements were rated on a 6-point scale,

from (1) totally disagree to (6) totally agree. These statements are important to ask, because if a participant has no interest in an EV, there is no intention to adopt such a car. The last question from this construct is: ”What is the probability that your next car will be electric?” (M = 3.96, SD = 2.372). This question could be rated on a 11-point scale, from 0% to 100% (Noppers et al., 2014). The given answers to the last statement had to be reverse-coded in order to compare them with the other statement and question of the construct (M = 4.64, SD = 1.631). This means that a higher score is a stronger intention to buy an EV.

The construct for the intention to adopt, consists of two statement (with a 6-point scale) and one question (with a 11-point scale). In order to make them comparable, Z-scores were computed and a new variable was made (Z-intention) with a Cronbach’s α of .682.

On average, the overall intention to adopt an EV is low. The scores to question: “What is the

probability that your next car will be electric?”, shows that the average score for both conditions is

close to 4 (about 30%). The means and standard deviations per statement, divided per condition, are displayed in table 1.

Table 1: means and standard deviations of the construct: intention to adopt an EV.

Question/statement Scale Financial benefits Environmental benefits

M SD M SD I am interested in electric vehicles. 1 = totally disagree 6 = totally agree 3.45 1.533 3.41 1.612

I will never buy the car from the advertisement*

1 = totally disagree 6 = totally agree

4.63 1.690 4.64 1.576

What is the probability that your next car will be electric?

11-point scale 0% to 100%

3.79 2.128 4.14 2.602

(13)

13

3. Results

3.1 Manipulation check

To measure if the manipulation had the desired effect, an Independent Samples T-test was

conducted to compare the different scores of the different groups on the statement: “the car from

the advertisement is financially attractive”. The participants who saw the advertisement with

financial benefits (N = 101), should give a higher score (on a 7-point Likert scale) than participants who saw the advertisement with environmental benefits (N = 97).

As expected, participants who saw the financial advertisement gave on average a higher score, EV is financially attractive (M = 4.38, SD = 1.561) than participants who saw the environmental

advertisement, EV is financially not attractive (M = 3.49, SD = 1 .684). These results are significant; t (196) = 3.821, p < .001. Since there is a significant difference, it is allowed to proceed with the analysis. The SPSS output can be found in Appendix 6.

This analysis could be used to separate the respondents who failed the manipulation check.

However, it is generally known that an EV is more expensive to purchase than the ICE version of the same car is. For this reason, respondent who saw the advertisement with the financial benefits, could give a low score. On the other hand, respondents could have known that consumers have to pay less additional taxes and no road taxes for an EV and runs cheaper than ICE vehicles do. For this reason, respondents (who saw the environmental advertisement) could think that the EV is financial attractive. Respondents could have answered the question with this prior knowledge, therefore all respondents remained included for further research.

3.2 Expected approval consumer’s social network

The measurement of the expected approval from the participant’s social network was defined by the construct of Monin et al. (2008). To measure if there is a significant difference, between the scores for expected approval fromm participants who saw the advertisement with financial benefits and scores from participants who saw the advertisement with environmental benefits, an Independent Samples T-test was conducted.

(14)

14

instead of the financial benefits; t (196) = -.178, p = .859. The SPSS output can be found in Appendix 7.

3.3 Intention to adopt an electric vehicle

To measure the main effect of the conceptual model: if the type of advertisement has significant different effect on the intention to adopt an EV (Z-scores on intention to adopt an EV), an Independent Samples T-test was conducted. This test showed that respondents who saw the environmental advertisement, have a stronger intention to adopt an EV (M = .0222, SD = .79045)2

than respondents who saw the financial advertisement (M = -.0213, SD = .77675) 3. However, this

difference was not significant; t (196) = -.391, p = .696. The SPSS output can be found in Appendix 8.

3.4 Mediation analysis

In order to examine the relationship between the type of advertisement and the intention to adopt an EV, mediated by the expected approval of the consumer’s social network, a mediation analysis was conducted. The PROCESS procedure of Hayes was used to repeat the analysis at once (Hayes, 2013). The results show that the type of advertisement does not (significantly) predict the expected approval of the consumer’s social network (a-path), b = .0215, t(198)= .1779, p = .8590. The R2 value

is .0002, this means that only 0.02% of the variance in the expected approval of the consumers social network has been explained by the type of advertisement.

Further analysis of the mediation also showed that the type of advertisement does not (significantly) predict the intention to adopt an EV (direct effect), b = .0377, t(198) = .3533, p = .7243. However, respondents have a stronger intention to adopt an EV when they expect that their social network would approve their decision. In other words, the expected approval of the consumer’s social network (significantly) predicts the intention to adopt an EV (b-path), b = .2751, t(198) = 4.3637, p < .001. The R2 value is .0897, this means that the model explains 8.97% of the variance of the intention

to adopt an EV.

The total effect of the type of advertisement on the intention to adopt an EV, when the mediator is not present, is not significant as well (total effect), b = .0436, t(198) = .3912, p = .6961. The R2 value is

.0008, this means that the model only explains .08% of the variance of the intention to adopt an EV.

(15)

15 b-path coefficient: .2751 p-value: < .001 direct effect coefficient: .0377 p-value: .7243 total effect coefficient: .0436 p-value: .6961

The SPSS output of the mediation analysis, can be found in Appendix 9 and the model has been depicted in figure 4.

In sum, there is no significant direct effect between the independent variable (type of advertisement) and the dependent variable (intention to adopt an EV). There is neither a significant effect between the independent variable and the mediator (expected approval of the consumer’s social network). Besides, there is no significant total effect as well. As a result, the conclusion can be drawn that there is no mediation.

Figure 4: depiction of the mediation analysis.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine how the intention to adopt an EV is influenced by the expected approval of the consumer’s social network, and by the different types of advertisement. More specifically, the hypothesis that has been tested was: “An advertisement that emphasizes the

environmental benefits of an EV, rather than financial benefits, has a positive influence on the expected approval of the consumer’s social network and in turn, positively influences the consumer’s intention to adopt an EV”.

a-path coefficient: .0215 p-value: .8590 Advertisement that emphasizes environmental benefits Intention to adopt an Electric Vehicle Expected approval of consumer’s social network

Advertisement that emphasizes environmental

benefits

(16)

16

To examine the hypothesis, the mediation analysis was performed (Hayes, 2013). The results from this analysis revealed that the type of advertisement does not predict both the intention to adopt an EV (direct effect) and the expected approval of consumer’s social network (a-path). However, the results did show that consumers have a stronger intention to adopt an EV when they expect that their social network would approve this decision (b-path). In conformity with the studies from Cialdini and Goldstein (2004), Hoyer et al. (2013), Lane and Potter (2007) and Leary and Kowalski (1990), this study contributes that expected (dis)approval of the consumer’s social network is important for the intention to adopt an EV.

Due to the studies of Bolderdijk, et al. (2012), Griskevicius et al. (2010) and Hardy and Van Vugt (2006), it was expected that if respondents saw the advertisement with environmental benefits of the EV, they would expect that their decision to adopt an EV would be more approved by their social network than if respondents saw the advertisement with financial benefits (a-path). However, the results from the present study revealed that there is not a significant difference between these types of advertisements and the expected approval of the consumer’s social network. Regardless how the EV was advertised, respondents do expect that a decision to adopt an EV would be approved by their social network.

Since the advertisements do not have a different effect, it means that the expected approval of the consumer’s social network should be influenced by other factors, for instance, what the consumer’s social network looks like. Characteristics of the social network (e.g. average age, income and education) could be important to the question if the decision to adopt an EV would be approved or disapproved.

The results also showed that the different types of advertisement did not significantly differ in the intention of respondents to adopt an EV (direct effect). However, respondents who saw the

advertisement with environmental benefits have on average a stronger intention to adapt an EV than respondents who saw the advertisement with financial benefits, which is in line with the studies from Griskevicius et al. (2010) and Hardy and Van Vugt (2006). Nevertheless, regardless the different conditions, the results show that the intention to adopt an EV is still low.

(17)

17

still low. This conforms with the percentage EVs in the Netherlands, which is only 0.58% of all vehicles (RVO, 2015).

Second, studies from Cialdini and Goldstein (2004), Hoyer et al. (2013), Lane and Potter (2007) and Leary and Kowalski (1990) and others already found that the expected approval of consumer’s social network is important for consumer behaviour. The contribution of this study is that it provides evidence that the expected (dis)approval is also applicable for EVs.

5. Limitations and further research

In this section, several limitations and the direction for further research will be discussed. At first, it is notable that the respondents who filled in the survey were born between 1987 and 1992 (N = 92), this means that the sample of respondents were relatively young. This could have a potential effect on the responses, and in case of another research, it would be wise to have respondents who are more divided in terms of age to get more generalizable results.

Second, in the experiment, the Volvo V60 PHEV was used. However, there were respondents (who indicated afterwards) that they disliked the brand Volvo and respond therefore negative to the statements and question about the intention to adopt the car. A solution can be to use pictures of different cars (from different brands) to set as an example. Furthermore, respondents who have prior knowledge about EVs – before responding on the survey – know that these cars are more expensive to purchase than conventional cars which could have an effect on the outcomes.

Third, in this study, the assumption was that if a consumer would buy an EV when the advertisement showed merely the financial benefits, that they would be perceived as ‘greedy’ (Bolderdijk et al., 2012). On the other hand, if the advertisement showed merely environmental benefits, that the consumer would be perceived as altruistic (Bolderdijk, et al., 2012; Graham-Rowe, et al., 2012; Griskevicius et al., 2010; Hardy and Van Vugt, 2006). However, according to Minson and Monin (2012), if a consumer owns an EV only with the reason for the purpose of saving the environment, he could be seen as a “moral do-gooder”4. People from the social network might feel bad about

themselves because they do not drive an EV, but a conventional car instead. For this reason, the consumer might think that their social network would give negative reactions about the EV,

4 “Moral do-gooders” are persons who are morally motivated and other people might see these persons as

(18)

18

otherwise they feel bad about themselves. The consumer might be morally judged and influenced by potential social risks5 (Minson and Monin, 2012). This might lead to a decreased intention to adopt

an EV, because the consumer would think that his social network would disapprove the decision. On the other hand, if a consumer buys an EV with the purpose of financial benefits, he might be seen by the social network as someone who made a great deal. For this reason the intention to adopt could increase. With regard to the adoption of EVs, this reasoning has not been examined yet and could be used in further research.

The final limitation is that this study was mainly focused on the personal use of an EV, but there is a difference between consumers who use cars for their personal use and lease drivers. Personal users have to pay the premium price for an EV, while lease drivers benefit from tax policies (Graham-Rowe et al., 2012). Respondents who have this prior knowledge about EVs could think beyond the given advertisement, which might have a potential effect on the outcomes.

Regarding the findings of the expected approval of consumer’s social network on the intention to adopt an EV, further research could be conducted to examine regarding the symbolic attributes of an EV more in depth. According to Schuitema et al. (2013), the instrumental and environmental

attributes seems clear. What are the factors that influence the expected approval? Are the characteristics of the social network important for the (dis)approval? Which other factors can influence the intention to adopt an EV in a positive way? What perceptual image should EVs have for consumers to widespread the adoption? And might a celebrity endorser help to change the image of EVs? These questions are important for further research regarding the symbolic attributes of EVs. The suggestion would be to do a qualitative research, for example an one on one interview, with consumers who actually bought an EV in order to find out about this attribute, but also to find out why the intention to adopt EVs is low.

6. Managerial implication

The different types of advertisement did not significantly differ in terms of the intention to adopt an EV and the expected approval of consumer’s social network, but the results from this study could be used by marketing managers of car manufacturers. Despite the fact that it has not been examined in this study, the advice to practitioners would be not to exclude one of the types of benefits in

5 The potential harm to one’s social standing that may arise from buying an offering (Hoyer, Maclnnis and

(19)

19

advertisements, but to use them both in order to increase the sales. This is in conformity with the findings from the study by Graham-Rowe et al. (2012), that there are two important aspects for consumers who want to adopt an EV: cost minimization and the environmental beliefs. Make consumers aware of the fact that EVs provide both.

The outcomes showed that consumers are influenced by the expected (dis)approval when it comes to the intention to adopt an EV, can be useful as well. As mentioned before by Cialdini and Goldstein (2004), Hoyer et al. (2013), Lane and Potter (2007) and Leary and Kowalski (1990) and others, most consumers are influenced by how they think that other people will perceive them. For a car, which is a product that will be used in public, it is important that it increases the consumer’s social status. The role of the car manufacturers is important in this manner, because most consumers have the

(20)

20

References

ANWB (2015). “Waarom elektrisch,” (accessed March 19, 2015). ANWB (2015). “Welke auto’s zijn er” (accessed June 24, 2015).

Aronson, E., T.D. Wilson & M. B. Brewer (1998). “Experimentation in Social Psychology”. The Handbook of Social Psychology 1: 99-142.

Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others: Identity signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 121-134.

Bolderdijk, J.W., Steg, L., Geller, E.S., Lehman, P.K. & Postmes, T. (2012). Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nature Climate Change, 3(1), 413-416.

Casper, J.K. (2010). Greenhouse Gases: Worldwide Impacts. (First ed.). New York: Facts On File. Chau, K.T. & Wong, Y.S. (2002). Overview of power management in hybrid electric vehicles. Energy

Conversion and Management, 43, 1953-1968.

Cialdini, R.B. & Goldstein, N.J. (2004). Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annual review of

psychology, 55, 591-621.

Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika, 16 (3), 297-334.

Egbue, O. & Long, S. (2012). Barriers to Widespread Adoption of Electric Vehicles: An Analysis of Consumer Attitudes and Perceptions. Global Environmental Change, 25, 52-62.

Gärling, A. & Thøgersen, J. (2001). Marketing of electric vehicles. Business strategy and the

Environment, 10, 53-65.

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.

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(3), 392. Hardy, C. & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: the competitive altruism hypothesis.

Personality and social psychology bulletin, 32, 1402-1413.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A

regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

(21)

21

Hill, P. (2014). The Differences that Electric Vehicle Diffusions make: An Investigation of Observers’ Adoption Attitude and Status Inferences.

Hoyer, W.D., Maclnnis, D.J. & Pieters, R. (2013). Consumer behavior. (6th ed.). South Western:

Cengage Learning.

Jacobson, M. & Delucchi, M. (2011). Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials.

Energy Policy, 39:3, 1154-1169.

Keller, K.L. (2013). Strategic Brand Managment - Building, Measuring, and Manageing Brand

quity. (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Lane, B. & Potter, S. (2007). The Adoption of Cleaner Vehicles in the UK: Exploring the Consumer Attitude-Action Gap. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155, 1085-1092. Leary, M.R. & Kowalski, R.M. (1990). Impression Management: A Literature Review and

Two-Component Model. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (1), 34-47.

Minson, J. & Monin, B. (2012). Do-gooder Derogation: Disparaging Morally Motivated Minorities to Defuse Anticipated Reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 200-207. Monin, B., Sawyer, P.J. & Marquez, M.J. (2008). The Rejection of Moral Rebels: Resenting Those Who

Do the Right Thing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (1), 76-93. Nissan (2015). Front site (accessed June 24, 2015).

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. Pickett-Baker, J. & Ozaki, R. (2008). Pro-environmental products: marketing influence on consumer

purchase decision. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25, 281-293.

Roberts, P. (2004). The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World. (1 ed.) Staffordshire: Bloombury.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. (4th ed.) New York: Simon and Schuster Inc.

RVO (2015). “Cijfers elektrisch vervoer,” (accessed March 2, 2015).

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.

Shafiee, S. & Topal, E. (2009). When Will Fossil Fuel Reserves Be Diminished? Energy Policy, 37, 181- 189.

(22)

22

Appendix

Appendix 1

Table 1: different types of EVs

Type of car Engine Examples

Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV)

Internal combustion engine combined with an additional electric engine. This car needs less fossil fuels than conventional cars do.

Toyota Prius

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV)

Internal combustion engine combined with an additional electric engine. The batteries of the electric engine can be charged by plugging into a power point. Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV, Volvo V60 PHEV, AUDI A3 Sportback e-tron Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)

Only an electric engine, charged by plugging into a power point.

Nissan Leaf, Tesla, BMW I3

(23)

23

(24)

24

Appendix 3: Depiction of the advertisement with environmental benefits

(25)

25

(26)
(27)

27

(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)

34

(35)

35

(36)

36

(37)

37

(38)

38

Appendix 9: SPSS output of the mediation analysis

Model = 4

Y = Z-score intention to adopt an EV

X = Dummy Financial 0 or Environmental 1 (DFE) M = Evaluation Sample size 198 ************************************************************************** Outcome: Evaluation (M) Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,0127 ,0002 ,7217 ,0317 1,0000 196,0000 ,8590 Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 4,6878 ,0845 55,4551 ,0000 4,5211 4,8545 DFE(X) ,0215 ,1208 ,1779 ,8590 -,2167 ,2597 ************************************************************************** Outcome: Z-score intention to adopt an EV (Y)

Model Summary

R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p

,2995 ,0897 ,5621 9,6046 2,0000 195,0000 ,0001

Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant -1,3108 ,3048 -4,3010 ,0000 -1,9119 -,7098 Evaluation(M) ,2751 ,0630 4,3637 ,0000 ,1508 ,3994 DFE (X) ,0377 ,1066 ,3533 ,7243 -,1726 ,2479 ************************** TOTAL EFFECT MODEL **************************** Outcome: Z-score intention to adopt and EV (Y)

Model Summary

R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,0279 ,0008 ,6139 ,1530 1,0000 196,0000 ,6961 Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant -,0213 ,0780 -,2738 ,7845 -,1751 ,1324 DFE (X) ,0436 ,1114 ,3912 ,6961 -,1761 ,2632 ***************** TOTAL, DIRECT, AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ******************** Total effect of X on Y

Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI ,0436 ,1114 ,3912 ,6961 -,1761 ,2632 Direct effect of X on Y

Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI ,0377 ,1066 ,3533 ,7243 -,1726 ,2479 Indirect effect of X on Y

(39)

39

Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Evaluati ,0076 ,0454 -,0888 ,0890 Completely standardized indirect effect of X on Y Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Evaluati ,0038 ,0227 -,0445 ,0445 Ratio of indirect to total effect of X on Y

Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Evaluati ,1357 14,2742 -2,1696 8,4597 Ratio of indirect to direct effect of X on Y

Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Evaluati ,1570 469,6199 -,9929 47,8277 R-squared mediation effect size (R-sq_med)

Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Evaluati ,0002 ,0034 -,0052 ,0092 Preacher and Kelley (2011) Kappa-squared

Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI Evaluati ,0039 ,0144 ,0000 ,0106

******************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS ************************* Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected bootstrap confidence

intervals: 1000

WARNING: Bootstrap CI endpoints below not trustworthy. Decrease confidence or increase bootstraps

,0000

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Het  moge  duidelijk  zijn  dat  de  OESO  en  de  EU,  tezamen  met  nationale  overheden,  bezig  zijn   met  een  strijd  tegen  het  schadelijke  fiscale

The most important result of this research is that the number of hairdressers outside Groningen they have contact with is the key characteristic of opinion leader

Five constructs: (1) Facebook Intensity, (2) Electronic word-of-mouth, (3) Perceived valence of information, (4) User-generated content sensitivity and (5) Perceived

In this study we expected the mediators product involvement and number of connections to be mediating the effect of consumer innovativeness on the level of ingoing

In this research, the two central questions are “To which degree do people attending an event make use of Twitter?” and “What is the effect of the customer use of Twitter

Therefore, using PTMC membranes and PTMC-BCP composite membranes resulted in similar bone remodeling to using collagen membranes or e-PTFE membranes and the used barrier membranes

The study produces four findings: (1) the presence of online reviews has a positive effect on consumers’ purchase intention, (2) product perception does not mediate this

The goal is to determine to what extent this effectiveness of in-store display advertising differs over different perceived economic periods and their subsequent consumer