The relationship between symbolic motives and the
willingness to pay for a premium price of e-bikes:
Environmental, self and social identities as symbolic motives.
by
ANDREA ROTA
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Marketing
1
2
The relationship between symbolic motives and the
willingness to pay for a premium price of e-bikes:
Environmental, self and social identities as symbolic motives.
ANDREA ROTA S3333892
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Marketing
June 17, 2019
Neptunusstraat 15 9742 JK Groningen a.rota.1@student.rug.nl
3
Abstract
Electric bicycles (e-bikes) are a transport mode that has gained an interest from the mobility point of view in the last years. E-bikes can be considered as sustainable and innovative goods due to the fact that they are a new potential transport mode that provides important environmental benefits. Generally, people acquire sustainable innovative goods not only for instrumental and hedonic motives but also for symbolic motives. Specifically, the present thesis focuses on two main symbolic dimensions, namely, environmental self-identity and environmental social identity, that could influence the willingness to pay for a premium price (WTPPP) for an e-bike among the consumers. Moreover, these two aspects are studied in relation to past-environmental behaviour and visibility of e-bikes use. An online questionnaire conducted among 314 respondents showed that only environmental self- and social identity explained one’s WTPPP for an e-bike: the stronger one’s environmental self-and social identity, the higher one’s WTPPP for an e-bike it is. The findings of this thesis can help marketers to develop marketing actions suggesting that making salient one’s self- or social identity may help to increase the consumers’ WTPPP for an e-bike and therefore to potentially increase the sales.
4
Table of Contents
1.Introduction ... 6
2. Theoretical framework ... 10
2.1 Importance of self-identity in subsequent behaviours ... 10
2.2 Importance of environmental self-identity on WTPPP for an e-bike ... 10
2.3 Importance of social identity in sustainable innovative products... 12
2.4 Relationship between environmental self-identity and environmental social-identity through behaviour visibility ... 14
3. Methodology ... 17
3.1. Design, participants and sampling method ... 17
3.2 Questionnaire ... 17
3.3 Variables... 18
3.3.1 Independent variables ... 18
3.3.2 Dependent variable... 19
3.3.3 Socio demographics variables ... 19
3.4. Plan of analysis ... 21
3.4.1. Factor analysis ... 21
3.4.2 Reliability analysis ... 22
3.4.3 Mean centering and multicollinearity ... 22
3.4.4 Assumptions check ... 22 3.4.5 Mediation analyses ... 23 4. Results ... 24 4.1 Data cleaning ... 24 4.2 Factor analysis ... 24 4.3 Reliability analysis ... 25 4.4 Assumptions check ... 26 4.5 Mediation analyses ... 26 4.6 Hypotheses overview ... 28 5.Discussion ... 29
5.1. Hypotheses explanation in relation to the theoretical framework ... 29
5.2. Theoretical implications ... 30
5.3. Practical implications ... 31
5.4. Limitations and recommendation for future researches ... 31
5
Appendix A. ... 39
Appendix B. ... 45
Appendix C. ... 49
6
1.Introduction
Bicycles are an essential mode of transport, specifically, electric bikes (e-bikes) are playing a critical role (Plazier, Weitkamp & Van der Berg, 2017). Indeed, according to Fishman and Cherry (2016), more than 31 million of e-bikes have been sold in 2012. More recently, sales showed growth in different European countries such as +25% in Italy, +19% in Germany and +9% in the Netherlands (Oortwijn, 2018). The increased popularity could be caused by the importance of this vehicle as a potential substitute for a car in the framework of sustainable transportation. In fact, massive use of cars as a transportation means can cause issues for the environment, the quality of life and accessibility of various destinations (Steg, 2005). E-bikes may help to solve these problems.
E-bikes are currently more expensive than regular bikes because of higher maintenance costs and battery costs. On average, the total cost per year for an e-bike are $120 against $16 for a regular bike (Weinert, Ma & Cherry, 2007). Hence, it is interesting to analyse the reasons why people are willing to pay more for e-bikes, that is to pay a premium price compared to regular bikes. In fact, the willingness to pay for a premium price ( can be abbreviated with WTPPP) can be helpful from a managerial point of view. Managers can adopt successful and profitable marketing strategies in order to increase sales.
7
underline that these three main benefits are valid only when switching from cars to e-bikes and not when switching from regular bikes to e-bikes. Therefore, the research context of present study only focuses on the first type of switching.
E-bikes can be regarded as an innovative product. In fact, according to Rogers (2003), innovation can be defined as an idea or object that is perceived as new by an individual. Specifically, e-bikes can be regarded as a sustainable innovation since one of the main advantages of the usage is to minimise overall costs and fuel consumption compared car usage as well as to decrease the emission of CO2 (Mathiesen, Mathiesen, Lund, Connolly, Wenzel, Østergaard, Möller & Hvelplund, 2015). Previous research has shown that generally, people acquire sustainable innovative products (i.e. electric vehicles) because of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes (Vandecasteele &Geuens, 2010). Instrumental motives refer to the utility that derives from the use of the product: for instance, they give the possibility to cycle faster and with less effort. Hedonic motives refer to the emotional experiences derived from used the product such as enjoyment and pleasure (Voss, Spangemberg & Grohmann, 2003). Symbolic motives refer to the sense of self or social identity derived from the possession of the product; indeed people tend to buy products that can be connected to their self-image (Cialdini et al. 2004). Nopper, Milovanovic, Bolderdijk and Steg (2014), show that symbolic aspects are often more important predictors for the adoption of sustainable innovative products. Symbolic motives were the only significant factor explaining the actual adoption of smart energy systems that facilitate sustainable energy use. However, to my knowledge, these attributes and their relative influence on the adoption of sustainable innovative products have not been studied in the field of e-bikes but only in the field of general electric vehicles and mainly in the electric cars sector (Nopper, Keizer, Milovanovic & Steg 2016; Rezvani, Jansson & Bodin, 2015). Therefore, it is interesting to assess if the validity of these studied is applicable to the e-bikes. Furthermore, symbolic motives have been studied only in relation to the actual adoption but not in relation to the willingness to pay for a premium price for an e-bike. Thereby, it is interesting to examine the importance of symbolic motives for one’s WTPPP. Present thesis is aimed to fill this gaps in the literature.
In conclusion, present study aims to examine how symbolic motives can influence the willingness to pay for a premium price for an electric bike. By examine this, this study will provide potential practical implications on how to enhance these motives to
8 “How important are environmental social and self-identities for consumers’ willingness to pay for a premium price (WTPPP) for an e-bike?”
There seem to be two types of symbolic motives, self-identity and impression management (also called social identity) play an important role. Self-identity refers to the image that people attribute to themselves (Cook, Kerr & Moore, 2002). A person can hold different self-identities based on the different networks of relationships in which an individual occupies a position and plays a role (Stryker & Burker, 2000). For instance, showing you are willing to pay more for an sustainable innovative product can symbolize an innovative self-identity for people who consider themselves as early adopters (Vandecasteele and Geuens, 2010), can symbolize a sustainable self-identity for people who endorse sustainable values (Axsen & Kurani, 2012) or, can symbolize an environmental self-identity for people who consider themselves environmental-friendly (Steg & de Groot, 2012). According to Jans and Fielding (2018), environmentally self-identity can be based on one’s perception of e-bikes because it can be defined as the degree people consider themselves as environmental-friendly. Environmental self-identity is a relevant variable concerning bikes because generally e-bikes are evaluated as “green” or environmental-friendly products due to their potential function to be a substitute of cars and consequently to reduce the emission of CO2. In fact, e-bikes produce several times less emission of CO2 per kilometre compare to cars (Shao,
Gordon, Xing, Wang, Handy &Sperling, 2012). Hence, the first sub-research question is:
"To what extent will environmental self-identity affect consumers’ WTPPP for an e-bike?"
The other symbolic motive that has been identified in literature is social identity. It refers to the idea that people generally try to control the image of themselves to the others (Jans & Fielding, 2018). Based on this motive, one could be willing to pay more for an e-bike in order to show a precise image of the self to others. Therefore, it is an important variable that might influence the WTPPP. Indeed, people try to conform and to behave in line with others similar to themselves (Cialdini, 2007). For this reason, this variable might play a fundamental role in the WTPPP of sustainable innovative products such as the e-bikes.
9
reference groups will be analysed in the next chapter in order to understand the mechanism that rules how people behave within groups. Thereby, in order to explain how the environmental social-identity is related to WTPPP for an e-bike, the second sub-research question is:
10
2. Theoretical framework
In this chapter, the literature will be discussed. Firstly, the importance of self-identity and social-identity will be explained in order to better understand their relative influence on the WTPPP. Next, a conceptual model will be presented in order to give a graphical representation of the relationships studied in this thesis and the main hypotheses of the present study will be put forward.
2.1 Importance of self-identity in subsequent behaviours
Self-identity is generally defined as a label that a person uses to define himself/herself (Cook et al. 2002). According to the self-verification theory (Stets & Burke, 2000), when an identity is activated the individual tries to act and behave in a manner consistently with that identity. For example, an individual who is willing to pay a premium price for an e-bike can see himself/herself as a green person who cares to the preservation of the environment and therefore he/she will behave in line with the green “sphere”. Moreover, previous research identified that self-identity is also formed within social interactions with others and it is predictive of subsequent behaviours (Gecas 1982; Biddle, Bank, Anderson, Hauge & Valantin, 1985). Specifically, this relationship is valid for behaviours consistent with the self-identity. In fact, a certain label can be attributed by others and if an individual accepts the label given by others, he/she will be intrinsically motivated to pursue a behaviour that is consistent with that label (Lacasse, 2016). Therefore, since environmental self-identity is particularly salient in relation to sustainable innovative products (Jans & Fielding, 2018), it will be discussed in the next paragraph in order to explain its effect on environmental behaviour and its influence on a subsequent willingness to pay a price premium for an e-bike.
self-11
identity is a predictor of pro-environmental behaviour such as the willingness to pay a premium price for an e-bike. Environmental behaviour can be defined as all types of behaviours that alter the environment as little as possible even if they require higher costs (Steg and Vlek, 2009). Indeed, we can consider WTPPP for an e-bike as pro-environmental behaviour because when switching from a car to an e-bike (and not to a regular bike), the consumers choose to incur in higher costs by in order to preserve the environment. People who consider themselves as “green” are prone to behave in line with their environmental self-identity. In fact, endorsing a high environmental identity is related with more attention toward environmental topics and environmental behaviours (Clayton & Mathevet, 2016; Steg & De Groot, 2019). Therefore, the relationship between environmental self-identity and WTPPP for an e-bike (considered as an environmental behaviour) will be analyse to assess its validity. In other words, we want to study if an increase in one’s environmental self-identity will lead to an increase in one’s WTPPP for an e-bike.
In line with the literature above the first hypothesis is:
H1. Environmental self-identity is positively related to the WTPPP for an e-bike.
12
As also supported by Whitmarsh and O’Neill (2010), the relationship between environmental self-identity and past environmental behaviours has been shown for different categories of behaviours such as waste reduction, water and domestic energy conservation and eating (i.e. meat consumption reduction). However, all these behaviours have in common that they are less complex compare to a behaviour related to the e-bikes. According to the study of Van der Werff et al. (2014), the relationship between past behaviour and WTPPP will be mediated by environmental self-identity.
Based on what has been discussed, three hypotheses have been developed:
H2.Past environmental behaviour is positively related to an individual’s environmental self-identity.
H3. Past environmental behaviour is positively related to the WTPPP for an e-bike.
The first 3 hypotheses can be summarized with the following hypothesis, aimed to study the indirect effect between past environmental behaviour and WTPPP through the environmental self-identity:
H1ab. The relationship between past environmental behaviour and WTPPP is mediated by environmental self-identity.
2.3 Importance of social identity in sustainable innovative products
13
e-bike to show and emphasize his/her environmental friendly identity. Additionally, social identity has an important effect on the formation of interpersonal relationship because of the intrinsic need of people to build and maintain social relationship with others (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). In fact, people try to conform and want to be accepted by people who have common values and common ways of thinking. By doing this, consumers implicitly refer to and base their decisions on reference groups.
According to Kemper (1998), a reference group is a group of people which individuals take into account when they have to make evaluations regarding a specific argument. By referring to a reference group, an individual behaves and acts in a manner that is socially approved and positively evaluated by the group’s members. This concept is also supported by the principle of social validation (Cialdini, 2009) according to which, individuals consider the appropriateness of behaviour based on how others behave.
Moreover, to behave in a specific manner can also have the role to show to others that the individual identifies himself/herself as a member of a specific group. Specifically, people consider the groups on which they belong or the groups on which they aspire to belong as a benchmark (Cialdini, 2009). In other words, by making comparisons with others, individuals implicitly develop their social-identity.
14
same environmental values. Indeed, the fact that some consumers could be willing to pay a premium price for an e-bike could be regarded as a social status motive (Griskevicius, Tybur & Van den Bergh, 2010), a way to express and to play a specific role in the social environment.
Thereby, a fourth hypothesis has been developed:
H4. Environmental social-identity is positively related to the WTPPP for an e-bike.
Furthermore, in line with H1, we have already stated that environmental self-identity might be positively related with the WTPPP for an e-bike as well as the environmental social-identity. Therefore, we argue that not only the direct relationships suggested by H1 and H4 could be occur but also an indirect relationship between environmental self-identity and WTPPP through environmental social self-identity. Therefore, the following hypothesis has been developed in order to summarize all the direct and indirect relationships:
H4ab. The relationship between environmental self-identity and WTPPP is mediated by environmental social identity.
2.4 Relationship between environmental self-identity and environmental
social-identity through behaviour visibility
15
WTPPP for an e-bike can be easily signalled to others. For example, we can image the situation where your colleagues are used to see you parking every morning the car at your job. Then, after he/she has bought an e-bike (or decide to use an e-bike sharing service), the colleagues will see you parking your e-bike instead of the car. Moreover, it is important to underlie that the effect of the visibility is positive if an individual holds an environmental self-identity but negative if he/she does not hold an environmental identity (Brick et al. 2017). Thereby, a fifth and subsequent sub-hypotheses have been developed:
H5. Environmental self-identity is positively related to environmental social-identity.
H5.1 Environmental self-identity is positively related to environmental behaviour visibility.
H5.2 Environmental behavioural visibility is positively related to the environmental social-identity.
The last 3 hypotheses can be summarized with the following hypothesis, aimed to study the indirect effect between environmental self-identity and environmental social identity through the environmental behaviour visibility:
H5ab. The relationship between environmental self-identity and environmental social identity is mediated by environmental behavioral visibility.
16 H4 H5.2 H1ab/H4ab H5 H5ab H1 H3 H5.1 H2
Figure 1. Conceptual model including hypotheses.
Symbolic dimensions
Environmental social-identity (IV3/M2)
Environmental behavioural visibility
(IV4/M3)
Environmental self-identity (IV1/M1)
WTPPP
(DV)
17
3. Methodology
The following section describes the methodology used in order to verify the hypotheses explained in the previous chapter.
3.1. Design, participants and sampling method
The goal of this study was to investigate the relationships between the environmental, self-identity and social self-identity on consumers’ willingness to pay for a price premium for an e-bike. The study design employed the usage of a questionnaire that has been created with “Qualtrics”. The sampling technique used is the convenience sampling, a nonprobability sampling technique aimed to obtain a sample of convenient respondents (Malhotra, 2010). Indeed, a convenience sample has the advantage to allows everyone to participate to the survey which means that friends, colleagues and family can be included (Blumberg, Cooper and Schindler, 2014). In order to increase the reachability of respondents, the survey has been shared on different social networks such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and Whatsapp. A total of 314 respondents completed the survey. Furthermore, to increase the accuracy of the survey, an attention check has been used. Ten respondents failed the attention check and therefore were excluded from the sample. The final sample consists of 304 respondents.
3.2 Questionnaire
The questionnaire has been translated and back translated into Italian in order to achieve more respondents, indeed the majority of respondents were Italian. At the end of the survey, some questions have been asked to collect information about demographical features such as age, gender, country, occupation and level of English (in case of the English version). Thanks to the socio demographics variables it was possible to have a detailed understanding of the sample. Furthermore, in order to motivate the respondents to participate in, it will be randomly given a 20€ gift card spendable on Amazon or bol.com.
18
showed to the participants asking them to evaluate their visibility. Then some questions regarding environmental self-identity and environmental social identity and WTPPP have been asked. Finally, some questions have been asked in relation to the intention to adopt an e-bike and in relation to past environmental behaviours. In the end, they have been thanked and they have had the possibility to fill in their mail address in case they wanted to have a chance to win the 20€ gift card.
3.3 Variables
The variables used in this study have been based on previous papers. All the variables and items used can be found in Table 3 below.
3.3.1 Independent variables
Past environmental behaviour is measured using 12 items (i.e. How often do you cycle to
work?) adapted from Thogersen and Olander (2003) using a 5 point Likert scales ranging from always to never. Environmental self-identity is measured using 6 items (i.e. I think that an e-bike does not harm the environment compared to my alternative transport options) adapted from Haws, Winterich and Naylor (2010) using a 5 point Likert scale ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree. Environmental social-identity is measured using 4 items
adapted (i.e. Willing to be paying a premium price for an e-bike would help me to feel accepted by friends) from Sweeney and Soutar (2001) using a 5 point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Environmental behavioural visibility is measured with 2 items (i.e. Please rate how visible it
would be if you would ride this bike) adapted from Brick et al. (2017) using a 7 point Likert scale ranging from not all visible to extremely visible.
19 3.3.2 Dependent variable
In previous researches, several different ways have been used to measure the WTPPP. In the present study there was the necessity to choose a continuous variable as a dependent variable in order to satisfy the condition of continuity of the dependent variable required to run a mediation analysis. Therefore, WTPPP has been measured with 3 items adapted by
Netemeyer, Krishnan, Pullig, Wang et al. (2004). The first two items have been measured with a 5 point Likert scale that ranges from totally agree to totally disagree. The third item has been measured with a scale that ranges from -100% to +100%.
3.3.3 Socio demographics variables
Five socio demographic variables have been included in this study, namely, gender, age, household income, education and nationality.
Regarding the variable gender, respondents have had the possibility to choose between male,
female and other (M=1.51, SD=.514). Regarding the variable age, the respondents had to
type their age (M=30, SD=11.19). The household income (M=3.29, SD=1.47) provided five different range of income to choose as well as the control variable education (M=2.92, SD=.929). Finally, the variable nationality (M=1.29, SD=.691) provided the possibility to choose between three different options: Italian, Dutch and other.
All the variables and items are displayed in table 3.
Table 3. Overview of the variables
Constructs Items Scale Adapted
from
Past environmental behaviour
- In general I behave in a pro-environmental way
- I try to avoid behaving in an environmentally-harmful way - I try to avoid behaving in an environmentally-harmful way
7 point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree(1) to strongly disagree (7) Togersen et al. (2003) -How often did you take the public transports to work?
- How often did you take public transports to shopping? -How often do you take public transport for leisure purposes? -How often do you cycle to work?
-How often do you cycle to shopping? -How often do you cycle for leisure purposes? -How often do you take the car to work? -How often do you take the car to shopping? -How often do you take the car for leisure purposes?
5 point Likert scale ranging from
20 Environmental
self-identity
-I think that an e-bike does not harm the environment compared to my alternative transport options
-I consider the potential environmental impact of my actions when using an e-bike instead of other transport modes. -Whether to use an e-bike as a mode of transport is affected by my concern for our environment
-I would describe myself as environmentally responsible when considering to use an e-bike rather than alternative transport modes
-I am concerned about wasting the resources of our planet when using an e-bike as a main mode of transportation.
-I believe that using an e-bike will result in the most environmentally friendly mode of transport.
7 point Likert scale renging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree(7) Haws et al. (2010) Environmental social-identity
- Willing to be paying a premium price for an e-bike would help me to feel accepted by friends
- Willing to be paying a premium price for an e-bike would improve the way that I am perceived by other people
- Willing to be paying a premium price for an e-bike would make a good impression on other people.
- Willing to be paying a premium price for an e-bike would give me social approval.
5 point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly agree (5) Sweeney et al. (2001) Environmental behavioural visibility
- Please rate how visible it would be if you would ride this bike: that is, how much do you believe others will notice you when riding this bike? (picture of regular bike)
- Please rate how visible it would be if you would ride this bike: that is, how much do you believe others will notice you when riding this bike? (picture of e-bike)
7 point Likert scale ranging from not all visible(1) to
extremely visible (7)
Brick et al. (2017)
Intention to use - If I would buy an e-bike, I intend to use an e-bike rather than alternative transport modes to commute from and to work - If I would buy an e-bike, I intend to use an e-bike rather than alternative transport modes for shopping trips
- If I would buy an e-bike, I intend to use an e-bike rather than alternative transport modes for leisure trips
5 point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly agree (5)
Ajzen
Willingness to pay a premium price
-I am willing to pay a higher price for an e-bike compare to a regular bike.
-I am willing to pay a lot more for an e-bike than a regular bike.
5 point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly agree (5)
Kim (2011)
-Imagine that you are buying an e-bike.
Please indicate to what extent you are willing to pay more or less for an e-bike than a regular bike using the slider below.
For example, filling in -100% means that you are not willing to pay for an e-bike; -50% means that you are willing to pay half price compare to a regular bike; 0 means that you don't want to pay more nor less for an e-bike; +50% means that you are willing to pay 50% more compare to the price of a regular bike; +100% means that you are willing to pay the double price compare to the price of a regular bike.
Slider ranging from -100% to +-100%
Gender -Male
-Female
-Prefer not to say
Age -Type your age
21 Education -Middle-school -High school -Bachelor degree -Master degree -PHd Nationality -Italian -Dutch
-Other (type your nationality)
3.4. Plan of analysis
The data have been analysed using SPSS, a software designed by IBM. The procedure of the analysis is separated as follow: data cleaning, Factor analysis, Reliability analysis, multicollinearity check, assumptions check for the regression analyses and mediation analyses.
3.4.1. Factor analysis
According to Malhotra (2010), factor analysis is a technique suitable for data reduction that tests questionnaire items that have the aim to measure the same construct. The goal of the analysis is to reduce a large amount of data by finding common variance to find underlying constructs in the dataset. First of all, it is important to check if the dataset is appropriate for a factor analysis. According to Malhotra (2010), KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity can give useful information about the suitability of the factor analysis. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy is an index used to examine the appropriateness of factor analysis. High values (between 0.5 and 1.0) indicate factor analysis is appropriate. Values below 0.5 imply that factor analysis may not be appropriate. Regarding Bartlett’s test of sphericity is a test used to examine the hypothesis that the variables are uncorrelated in the population. In order to perform a factor analysis its value should be significant (p<.05).
22
extracted by looking at the initial eigenvalue extracted that have to be greater than 1. Finally, it is also useful to check the scree plot to have a graphical representation of the number of factors extracted.
3.4.2 Reliability analysis
After the factor analysis it is important to test with the Alpha score the internal consistency of the constructs that have been found with the factor analysis (Malhotra, 2010). In other words, with this test it is possible to check if the items, that are the questions presented in the survey are consistent. According to Malhotra (2010), the Cronbach’s alpha should be greater than 0.60 in order to be considered acceptable.
3.4.3 Mean centering and multicollinearity
Multicollinearity is defined as a state of high intercorrelations among independent variables (Malhotra, 2010). According to Cronbach (1987) through mean centering it is possible to reduce multicollinearity problems. Mean centering allowed to make all the values relative to the dependent and independent variables relative to its mean in the dataset and they have been used for the subsequent analyses. However, according to Embachadi and Hess (2007), mean centering do not solve multicollinearity, hence it is useful to check at the VIF (variance inflation factors) score in order to evaluate the presence of multicollinearity. According to Malhotra (2010), values greater than 4 indicate a moderate multicollinearity and values greater than 10 indicate a strong multicollinearity. Thereby, VIF values below 4 indicate an absence of multicollinearity.
3.4.4 Assumptions check
23
independence assumption, the aim is to test that there is no autocorrelation. In other words, the residuals of one observation are not associated with the residuals of other observations. In order to check that, a Durbin-Watson test has been performed. Durbin-Watson values range from 0 to 4, values around 2 means that the residuals are uncorrelated and therefore there is no autocorrelation.
3.4.5 Mediation analyses
After having checked all the assumptions it is possible to run three simple mediation model via PROCESS in which X is modeled to influence Y directly as well as indirectly through a single mediator variable (Hayes, 2012). PROCESS is a modelling tool for SPSS that is suitable for our study. Indeed, this tool generates direct and indirect effects and therefore permit to test the validity of our hypotheses (Hayes, 2012). Specifically, three mediation analyses have been performed based on the conceptual model presented in the previous chapter. First, a mediation analysis between past environmental behaviour(X), environmental
identify(M) and WTPPP(Y). Second, a mediation analysis between environmental self-identity(X), environmental behavioural visibility(M) and environmental social-identity(Y).
Lastly, a mediation analysis between environmental self-identity(X), environmental social
identity(M) and WTPPP(Y). Basically, through a mediation analysis it is possible to study
24
4. Results
This chapter contains the results from the test introduced in the plan of analysis. So, first factor analysis results will be presented, then reliability analysis, then multicollinearity, then assumptions check and finally mediation analyses.
4.1 Data cleaning
Data has been cleaned, indeed 10 respondents have failed the attention check and therefore have been excluded from the sample. Moreover, there were no missing values due to the fact that the respondents were forced to answer each question in order to proceed to the next question in the questionnaire.
4.2 Factor analysis
Because of cross loading factors the three items regarding the variable “intention to use an e-bike” have been deleted, hence the extra variable “intention to use an e-bike” has not been included in further analyses. Moreover, six items of the construct past environmental behaviour and two items of the construct environmental self-identity have been deleted (see Appendix B).
After having solved the cross loading problem, the remain items (available in Table 5) were loading on 5 components. Specifically, this is visible from the scree plot and from the table “total variance explained”, both available in Appendix B. Moreover, KMO value indicates that this factor analysis is appropriate, indeed the value is greater than 0.6. Regarding the Bartlett’s test of sphericity we can assess that analysis is statistically significant with p=0.000 (see Appendix B).
Table 5. Variables used for measurement
Constructs Measurement items Factor
Loadings Eigenvalue/ Variance explained Cronbach’s alpha (α) Environmental self-identity
I would describe myself as environmentally responsible when considering to use an e-bike rather than alternative transport modes.
0.811 1.482/ 8.234%
0.637
I consider the potential environmental impact of my actions when using an e-bike instead of other transport modes.
25 I believe that using an e-bike will result in the most
environmentally friendly mode of transport.
0.549
Past
environmental behaviour
How often do you cycle to work? 0.874 4.616/
25.647%
0.902 How often do you cycle to shopping? 0.867
How often do you take the car to shopping? (reverse) 0.866 How often do you take the car for leisure purposes?
(reverse)
0.808
How often do you take the car to work? (reverse) 0.776 How often do you cycle for leisure purposes? 0.727
Environmental social-identity
Willing to be paying a premium price for an e-bike would improve the way that I am perceived by other people
0.868 3.053/ 16.960%
0.839
Willing to be paying a premium price for an e-bike would make a good impression on other people.
0.806
Willing to be paying a premium price for an e-bike would give me social approval
0.805
Willing to be paying a premium price for an e-bike would help me to feel accepted by friends
0.763
WTPPP
I am willing to pay a higher price for an e-bike compare to a regular bike.
0.854 1.806/ 10.033%
-0.094
I am willing to pay a lot more for an e-bike than a regular bike.
0.805
Imagine that you are buying an e-bike.
Please indicate to what extent you are willing to pay more or less for an e-bike than a regular bike using the slider below.
-0.749
Environmental behavioural visibility
Please rate how visible it would be if you would ride this bike: that is, how much do you believe others will notice you when riding this bike? (picture of e-bike)
0.879 1.381/ 7.672%
0.723
Please rate how visible it would be if you would ride this bike: that is, how much do you believe others will notice you when riding this bike? (picture of e-bike)
0.878
4.3 Reliability analysis
As shown in Table 5, all the variable are internally consistent. Indeed, the Cronbach’s alpha is greater than 0.6. The only exception was the dependent variable (WTPPP), which had a Cronbach’s alpha of -0.094. This value could be due to the fact that the first two items have been evaluated on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, while the third item has been evaluated on a scale that ranges from -100% to +100.
26
4.4 Assumptions check
The assumptions necessary to run a mediation analysis have been largely met (see Appendix D). Firstly, the dependent and the independent variables are related as a linear function. Secondly, the Normal P-P Plot and histogram showed that the plots generally follow a straight line. Thirdly, the Durbin Watson test showed no autocorrelation with a value close to 2. Finally, the scatterplot showed a presence of homoscedasticity. In other words the residual are equal across the regression line. Even if the plots are not perfectly distributed, we can say that the approximately the distribution indicates the presence of homoscedasticity.
4.5 Mediation analyses
Three mediation analyses were done.
4.5.1 Relationship between past environmental behaviour, environmental self-identity and WTPPP
The first mediation analysis aimed to test the relationship between past environmental
behaviour (X), environmental self-identify (M) and WTPPP (Y). Firstly, in line with H1,
results showed that the stronger one’s environmental self-identity the stronger one’s WTPPP for an e-bike as well (R2=.061, F(2,301)=9.85, p=.0001). Secondly, results show that past environmental behaviour did not significantly explain environmental self-identity (R2=.0001, F(1,302)=.041, p=.841). Thereby, hypothesis H2 has been rejected. Thirdly, we have found that past environmental behaviour did not significantly explain WTPPP for a premium price (R2=.098, F(1,302)=2.91, p=.089). Therefore hypothesis and therefore hypothesis H3 has been rejected. Finally, regarding the indirect effect model, we have found that there is no mediation because there was no significant relationship between past environmental behaviour and WTPPP through environmental self-identity. Confidence interval confirms this conclusion: there is zero included between lower level (LLCI) and upper level (ULCI). Thereby, the hypothesis H1ab has been rejected.
4.5.2 Relationship between environmental self-identity, environmental behavioural visibility and social identity.
The second mediation analysis aimed to test the relationship between environmental
self-identity (X), environmental behavioural visibility (M) and environmental social-self-identity (Y).
27
environmental behavioural visibility (R2=.007, F(1,302)=1.999, p=.156). Therefore, the hypothesis 5.1 has been rejected. Secondly, we have found that environmental behavioural visibility did not significantly explain environmental social identity (R2=.861, F(2,301)=14.17, p=.275). Therefore, hypothesis 5.2 has been rejected.
Thirdly, in line with H5, results showed that the stronger one’s environmental self-identity the stronger one’s environmental social-identity as well (R2=.082, F(1,302)=27.13, p=.000). Finally, regarding the indirect effect model, we have found that there is no mediation because there was no significant relationship between environmental self-identity and environmental social identity through behavioural visibility. indeed the value=0 is included between lower level (LLCI) and upper level (ULCI) of the confidence interval. Confidence interval confirms this conclusion: there is zero included between lower level (LLCI) and upper level (ULCI). Therefore, the hypothesis 5ab has been rejected.
4.5.2 Relationship between environmental self-identity, environmental social identity and WTPPP.
The third mediation analysis aimed to test the relationship between environmental
self-identity (X), environmental social self-identity (M) and WTPPP (Y). Firstly, in line with H5 and
28
4.6 Hypotheses overview
Table 7. Hypotheses overview
Hypothesis n. Hypothesis description Result H1 The environmental self-identity is positively related to
the willingness to pay a premium price for an e-bike.
Supported
H2 Past environmental behaviour is positively related to the individual’s environmental self-identity.
Rejected
H3 Past environmental behaviour is positively related to the WTPPP for an e-bike.
Rejected
H1ab The relationship between past environmental behaviour and WTPPP is mediated by environmental self-identity.
Rejected
H4
Environmental social-identity is positively related to the willingness to pay a premium price for an e-bike.
Supported
H4ab
The relationship between environmental self-identity and WTPPP is mediated by environmental social
identity.
Supported
H5
Environmental self-identity is positively related to environmental social-identity.
Supported
H5.1 Environmental self-identity is positively related to environmental behaviour visibility.
Rejected
H5.2 Environmental behavioural visibility is positively related to the environmental social-identity.
Rejected
H5ab The relationship between environmental self-identity and environmental social identity is mediated by
environmental behavioural visibility.
29
5.Discussion
5.1. Hypotheses explanation in relation to the theoretical framework
The main goal of this thesis was to investigate the relationships between two symbolic dimensions, namely, environmental self-identity and environmental social-identity on the willingness to pay a premium price for an e-bike. Moreover, two other variables have been studied in relation to these symbolic dimensions: past environmental behaviour and environmental behavioural visibility. Our findings showed that environmental self-identity is positively related to the WTPPP for an e-bike hereby supporting H1. This result is in line with the self-verification theory (Stets & Burke, 2000) according to which individuals generally try to act consistently with their salient identity. In our case, an environmentally friendly person is likely to pay a premium price probably because the WTPPP could be seen as an environmental behaviour and hence consistent with an environmental self-identity. Furthermore, the insignificance of the hypotheses H2, H3 and H1ab could be due to the fact that when an individual has behaved in an environmental way in the past he could feel to do not act environmentally friendly in a subsequent behaviour. Indeed, the individual could be already satisfied regarding his/her environmental identity and hence could be not incline to behave in an environmentally friendly way in a future behaviour. This “counterbalance” mechanism seems to work in the charity donation area (Leliveld and Risselada, 2017) and hence, due to the fact that both charity donations and WTPPP for a sustainable product such as an e-bike, refer to behaviours aimed to act pro-socially or pro-environmental, we can find in the “counterbalance” effect a potential explanation for the results found.
Regarding the hypothesis H4 and H4ab, both have been supported. This means that environmental social identity plays a dual role. First, as it has been supposed in the fourth hypothesis, environmental social identity is positively related to the willingness to pay. Indeed, in line with the research of Griskevicious et al. (2010) people buy specific goods because of their capacity to signal something to others and specifically to signal their belonging to a specific group of people. This is the case of the e-bikes, with the WTPPP that is considered by people as a social status behaviour that is able to signal to other people that the individual considers himself/ herself a member of “environmental groups”.
30
effect between environmental self-identity and WTPPP passes through the environmental social-identity.
We have found consistent results with existing literature for the fifth hypothesis as well. Indeed, environmental self-identity is positively related with environmental social-identity. Therefore, the higher the environmental self-identity of an individual is, the higher the environmental social-identity will be. Indeed, when a person consider himself/herself as environmental friendly he/she has generally the tendency to show this aspect to others in order to be part of a group which members share the same values and the same ways of thinking.
Finally, we have not found significant results for the hypotheses 5.1, 5.2 and 5ab. Respectively, this means that the environmental self-identity is not significantly related to environmental visibility. Then, environmental behavioural visibility is not significantly related to environmental social-identity. This could be due to the fact that, conversely to our expectations, the fact to use an e-bike is not a completely visible behaviour and particularly could be easily confounded with a regular bike usage. Finally, we have not found the mediation effect of the environmental behavioural visibility and it could be due to the just mentioned motive.
To conclude we can therefore answer to the research question of this thesis:
“How important are environmental social and self-identities for consumers’ willingness to pay for a premium price (WTPPP) for an e-bike?”
We can assess that environmental self-identity and environmental social-identity play an important role in relation to the WTPPP for an e-bike. In fact, both of these two variables have been found to significantly influence the WTPPP. Specifically, the stronger one’s environmental self- and social identity, the stronger one’s WTPPP it is.
5.2. Theoretical implications
31
to a more specific context. Moreover, all the previous researches have focused on the actual adoption of electric vehicles in contrast to the present thesis that focused on the WTPPP. By following this path, it is possible to give different nuances about the environmental motives. Another relevant theoretical implication regards past environmental behaviour. Theories regarding past environmental behaviour could be extended by taking in account studies regarding moral licensing, according to which once an individual behave ethically, subsequently behave more unethically, and vice versa (Leliveld et al, 2017). The moral licensing principles could be applied to past environmental behaviour and therefore potentially improving the existing literature in this area.
5.3. Practical implications
The present thesis provides relevant insights regarding the world of e-bike. First of all, as different other studies did, we have found that symbolic motives play an important role in the adoption of electric vehicles. Specifically, by making salient environmental self-identify of consumers, managers could enhance the possibilities to increase the willingness that they will be willing to pay for an e-bike. Therefore, marketing managers could launch an environmental campaign in which both the self and social environmental identities are stressed in order to increase the sales of their e-bikes. For example a potential marketing campaign could show an individual that, after have used an e-bike could be feel accepted by his’/her’s community members. In this way, one’s environmental social identity can be enhanced subsequently enhancing the WTPPP for an e-bike. This insight is deductible from the fact that the effect of environmental self-identity is indirect and passes through the environmental social-identity. On the contrary, it seems that a marketing campaign that focuses on past environmental behaviours of the consumers in order to enhance the environmental self-identity does not provide significant results. Therefore, we suggest to marketing managers to do not focus on past-environmental behaviours as a mean to increase environmental self-identity and WTPPP for an e-bike in their potential campaigns.
5.4. Limitations and recommendation for future researches
32
to compare an e-bike with a normal bike, probably this research would have had a completely different insight. Specifically, switching from a regular bike to an e-bike would not have represented an environmental behaviour as well as the WTPPP. Hence, the symbolic motives (environmental self- and social identity) probably would not have been significant predictors of the WTPPP.
Therefore, the results of this thesis are mainly applicable in a switching situation from a car to an e-bike. However, we did not proved a scenario in the survey in which we stated that respondents had to imagine that they were going to switch the car with an e-bike. Thereby, future research could replicate this study in order to evaluate if differences occur among the results.
Another limitation regards the composition of the sample, indeed almost 85% of the respondents are Italian. This is due to the fact that a convenience sampling technique has been used. Moreover, respondent have had the possibility to share the survey to their family and friends leading to this high percentage of Italian respondents. The results remain valid but probably cannot be generalized. Indeed, there may be important cultural differences between different countries. We can consider the results of this research mainly applicable to Italy. Indeed, we could argue that respondents from different countries could be for example higher or lower level of environmental self-identity creating a stronger or lower relationship with the WTPPP for an e-bike. Then, by comparing the results with a more heterogeneous sample, future researches could assess if these results could be generalized or if they could differ based on the respondents’ home country.
33
References
Annual Review of Psychology 2004 55:1, 591-621
Axsen, J., & Kurani, K. S. (2013). Developing sustainability-oriented values: Insights from households in a trial of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Global
Environmental Change, 23(1), 70-80.
Biddle, B. J., Bank, B. J., Anderson, D. S., Hauge, R., Keats, D. M., Keats, J. A., ... & Valantin, S. (1985). Social influence, self‐referent identity labels, and behavior.
Sociological Quarterly, 26(2), 159-185.
Blumberg, B., Cooper, D. R. and Schindler, P. S. 2014. Business research methods. Fourth edn. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.
Brick, C., Sherman, D. K., & Kim, H. S. (2017). “Green to be seen” and “brown to keep down”: Visibility moderates the effect of identity on pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 226-238.
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice. New York: William Morrow
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 55, 591-621.
Cialdini, R. B., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (pp. 173-174). New York: Collins.
Cialdini, R.B. and Trost, M.R. (1998). Social influence: social norms, conformity, and compliance. In: Handbook of Social Psychology, 4e, vol. 2 (ed. D. Gilber, S. Fiske and G. Lindzey), 151–192. Boston: McGraw‐Hill.
34
Cronbach, L. J. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: flaws in analyses recently proposed. Psych. Bull. 102(3) 414–417.
Echambadi, R., & Hess, J. D. (2007), “Mean-centering Does Not Alleviate Collinearity Problems In Moderated Multiple Regression Models,”Marketing Science,26(3), 438-445.
EU. Reed Business Information (2014). EU Regulations for E-Bikes, Pedelecs and Speed Pedelecs; BikeEurope: Brussels, Belgium.
Fielding, K.S. and Hornsey, M.J. (2016). A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: insights and opportunities.
Frontiers in Psychology 7: 121.
Fishman, E., & Cherry, C. (2016). E-bikes in the Mainstream: Reviewing a Decade of Research. Transport Reviews, 36(1), 72-91.
Gatersleben B. and Werff E (2018). Environmental psychology: An introduction
(2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell, Chapter 20.
Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual review of sociology, 8(1), 1-33.
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.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Haws, K. L., Winterich, K. P., & Naylor, R. W. (2010). Green consumer
values. Handbook of marketing scales: Multi-items measures for marketing and
consumer behavior. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European review of social
35
Jans, L., & Fielding, K. (2018). Environmental psychology: An introduction (2nd
ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kashima, Y., Paladino, A., & Margetts, E. A. (2014). Environmentalist identity and environmental striving. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 64-75.
Kemper, T. D. (1968). Reference groups, socialization and achievement.
American Sociological Review, 31-45.
Lacasse, K. (2016). Don't be satisfied, identify! Strengthening positive spillover by connecting pro-environmental behaviors to an “environmentalist” label. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 48, 149-158.
Leliveld, M.C. & Risselada, H. (2017) Dynamics in charity donation decisions: Insights from a large longitudinal data set. Science Advances, 3(9), e1700077.
MacArthur, J., & Kobel, N. (2014). Regulations of E-Bikes in North America.
Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing Research: an Applied Orientation. 6th. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Mathiesen, B. V., Lund, H., Connolly, D., Wenzel, H., Østergaard, P. A., Möller, B., ... & Hvelplund, F. K. (2015). Smart Energy Systems for coherent 100%
renewable energy and transport solutions. Applied Energy, 145, 139-154.
Newbold, P., Carlson, W. L., & Thorne, B. 2013. Statistics for business and economics. Boston, MA: Pearson.
36
Noppers, E. H., Keizer, K., Milovanovic, M., & Steg, L. (2016). The importance of instrumental, symbolic, and environmental attributes for the adoption of smart energy systems. Energy Policy, 98, 12-18.
Oortwijn J. (2018). E-Bike Sales Soared in EU’s Main Markets.
https://www.bike-eu.com/sales-trends/nieuws/2018/03/e-bike-sales-soared-in-eus-main-markets-10133378
Plazier, P. A., Weitkamp, G., & van den Berg, A. E. (2017). “Cycling was never so easy!” An analysis of e-bike commuters' motives, travel behaviour and experiences using GPS-tracking and interviews. Journal of transport geography, 65, 25-34.
Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., & Bodin, J. (2015). Advances in consumer electric
vehicle adoption research: A review and research agenda. Transportation research
part D: transport and environment, 34, 122-136.
Rogers, E., (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, fifth ed. The Free Press, New York.
Rose, G. (2012). E-bikes and urban transportation: emerging issues and unresolved questions. Transportation, 39(1), 81-96.
Saunder, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students (6 edn., Always learning; London, England.
Shao, Z., Gordon, E., Xing, Y., Wang, Y., Handy, S., & Sperling, D. (2012). Can electric 2-wheelers play a substantial role in reducing CO2
emissions?. Transportation.
37
Steg, L., & De Groot, J. I. M. (2012). Environmental values. In S. Clayton (Ed.), The handbook of environmental and conservation psychology, 81-92.
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. Journal of environmental psychology, 29(3), 309-317.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism.
Human ecology review, 81-97.
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory.
Social psychology quarterly, 224-237.
Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social psychology quarterly, 284-297.
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of retailing, 77(2), 203-220.
Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2003). Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behaviour. Journal of environmental psychology, 23(3), 225-236.
Vandecasteele, B., & Geuens, M. (2010). Motivated consumer
innovativeness: Concept, measurement, and validation. International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 27(4), 308-318.
Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013). The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 34, 55-63
38
Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434-447.
Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310–320.
Weinert, J., Ma, C., & Cherry, C. (2007). The transition to electric bikes in China: history and key reasons for rapid growth. Transportation, 34(3), 301-318.
Whitmarsh, L., & O'Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse
pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305-314.
39 Appendix A.
Questionnaire
“Dear Sir or Madam, welcome to this study. I am Andrea and I am currently working on my Master Thesis. You are invited to participate in a research study as part of my Master Thesis. Completing the questionnaire will take around ____ minutes. Your answers will be treated anonymously and confidentially, and will only be used for this research. In this study, you will be asked to answer to different statements. Please note that there are no right or wrong answers, so just try to answer the questions as realistically as possible. As a token of my appreciation, you will have the chance of winning a €20 gift card from www.amazon.com or www.bol.com (you can choose the website that you prefer). In order to be eligible to the reward, you will have to submit your email address on the final page of this survey. This email address will be processed apart from your answers to maintain anonymity in your answers. Thank you for participating, I really appreciate your help! Kind regards, Andrea Rota.”
Imagine that you are using this bike:
1. Please rate the following behavior on how socially visible it is: that is, how much it can be observed by other people, with 1 being “not all visibile” and 7 being “extremely visible”
40
2. Please rate the following behavior on how socially visible it is: that is, how much it can be observed by other people, with 1 being “not all visible” and 7 being “extremely visible”
Please imagine that you do not have an e-bike and you are thinking about buying
one. In case you do not cycle and/or you are not able to cycle, please fill in the statements below as though you do cycle and/or you would be able to cycle.
The following statements ask about your opinion about e-bikes and willingness to pay.
Could you please indicate to what extent you believe the following statements will apply to your situation?
3. I think that an e-bike does not harm the environment compared to my alternative transport options, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 5 being “strongly disagree”.
4. Willing to be paying a premium price for an e-bike would help me to feel accepted by friends, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 5 being “strongly disagree”.
5. I consider the potential environmental impact of my actions when using an e-bike instead of other transport modes, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 5 being “strongly disagree”.
6. I am willing to pay a higher price for an e-bike compare to a regular bike, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 5 being “strongly disagree”.
41
8. Whether to use an e-bike as a mode of transport is affected by my concern for our environment, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 7 being “strongly disagree”.
9. I am willing to pay a lot more for an e-bike than a regular bike, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 5 being “strongly disagree”.
10. To see if you are paying attention please select "agree".
11. I would describe myself as environmentally responsible when considering to use an e-bike rather than alternative transport modes, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 7 being “strongly disagree”.
12. Willing to be paying a premium price for an e-bike would make a good impression on other people, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 5 being “strongly disagree”.
13. I am concerned about not wasting the resources of our planet when using an e-bike as a main mode of transportation, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 7 being “strongly disagree”.
14. Willing to be paying a premium price for an e-bike would give me social approval, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 5 being “strongly disagree”.
15. In general I behave in a pro-environmental way, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 7 being “strongly disagree”.
16. I try to avoid behaving in an environmentally-harmful way, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 7 being “strongly disagree”.
17. I am trying to take the environmental consequences of my actions into account, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 7 being “strongly disagree”.
42
19. Imagine that you are buying an e-bike. Please indicate to what extent you are willing to pay more or less for an e-bike than a regular bike using the slider below. For example, filling in -100% means that you are not willing to pay for an e-bike; -50% means that you are willing to pay half price compare to a regular bike; 0 means that you don't want to pay more nor less for an e-bike; +50% means that you are willing to pay 50% more compare to the price of a regular bike; +100% means that you are willing to pay the double price compare to the price of a regular bike.
20. How often do you take public transport to work? With 1 as “always” and 5 as “never”.
21. How often do you take public transport to shopping? With 1 as “always” and 5 as “never”.
22. How often do you take public transport for leisure purposes? With 1 as “always” and 5 as “never”.
23. How often do you cycle to work? With 1 as “always” and 5 as “never”.
24. How often do you cycle to shopping? With 1 as “always” and 5 as “never”.
25. How often do you cycle for leisure purposes? With 1 as “always” and 5 as “never”.
26. How often do you take the car to work? With 1 as “always” and 5 as “never”.
27. How often do you take the car to shopping? With 1 as “always” and 5 as “never”.
43
29. If I would buy an e-bike, I intend to use an e-bike rather than alternative transport modes to commute from and to work, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 5 being “strongly disagree”.
30. If I would buy an e-bike, I intend to use an e-bike rather than alternative transport modes for shopping trips, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 5 being “strongly disagree”.
31. If I would buy an e-bike, I intend to use an e-bike rather than alternative transport modes for leisure trips, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 5 being “strongly disagree”.
32. You almost reached the end of the survey. Just few more demograpich questions and the survey will be over.
33. Gender, with 1 as “male”, 2 as “female” and 3 as”other”.
34. Age, type your age
35. Household income (bruto income)
-Less than €20'000 -€20'000 to €34'999 -€35'000 to €49'999 - Over € 50'000 -Prefer not to say
36. Education
- Middle-school -High-school -Bachelor degree -Master degree -PhD
37. Level of English, with 1 as “basic”, 2 as ”good”, 3 as “advanced” and 4 as”native”
38. Nationality, with 1 as”Italian”, 2 as “Dutch” and 3 as “other”
39. Please type your email address if you want to have the chance to win the price of €20. Thank you
45 Appendix B. Factor analysis
Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
PEB_7 How often cycle to work? ,871
PEB_8 How often cycle to shopping? ,857
peb11_rev ,802
PEB_9 How often cycle for leisure? ,767
PEB12_rev ,764
PEB_10rev ,717
INT_1 I intend to use an e-bike to commute ,497 ,352
INT_2 I intend to use an e-bike for shopping trips ,482 ,477
ENV_SO2 Willing pay pp perceived by other people. ,854
ENV_SO4 Willing pay pp social approval. ,813
ENV_SO3 Willing paying pp good impression others ,806
ENV_SO1 feel accepted by friends. ,739
PEB_1 I behave in a pro-envir ,869
PEB_2 I try to avoid behaving in an environmentally-harmful way
,868
PEB_3 the envir conseq into account. ,866
ENV_SE3 Use e-bike concern for our environ. ,483 ,455
ENV_SE6 believe e-bike most env friendly mode of transp ,697
ENV_SE1 harm the envir
-,315
,665
ENV_SE4 describe myself envir responsible ,320 ,584
ENV_SE2 env impact of my action ,362 ,491 ,384
ENV_SE5 concerned wasting the resources planet ,336
-,453
WTP_1 willing to pay a higher ,854
WTP_2 willing pay a lot more for an e-bike ,797
WTP_3 Imagine that you are buying an e-bike to what extent you are willing to pay %
-,726
PEB_5 How often public transp to shop? ,791
PEB_4 How often public transp to work? ,777
PEB_6 How often public transp for leisure? ,691
VIS_2 Imagine use e-bike ,874
VIS_1 Imagine use norm bike ,870
INT_3 I intend to use an e-bike leisure trips. ,747
