The Electric Vehicle, Vehicle of The
Future?
Social Influences in Sustainability
By Lisa van den Hoek
2
The Electric Vehicle, Vehicle of the
Future?
Social Influences in Sustainability
Author: E.R. van den Hoek St. nr: s2194031
Address: Kamerlingh Onnesstraat 43 Tel. nr. 06-53936041
Email: e.r.van.den.hoek@student.rug.nl Supervisor: Dr. W. Jager
Supervisor: Mr. P. van Eck Second Supervisor: Dr. J. Wiebenga University of Groningen
Department: Faculty of Economics and Business Master: Marketing Management
3
Management Summary
Sustainability is a topic that has received increasing attention the last decades. One of the biggest problems the world is facing is the shortages of oil the coming decades, and a more sustainable source is needed. The most popular car at this moment is the gasoline car, which requires oil; the more sustainable option can be the electric vehicle. But what is needed to make the consumer consider and purchase the electric vehicle? This report researched the different factors that influence the purchase intention of consumers for an electric vehicle.
To find the factors that influence people the most the theory of planned behaviour of Ajzen (1991) was used and the diffusion of innovation (Rogers, 1995). The attitude towards the electric vehicle was measured, the subjective norm and the perceived behavioural control. Also the level of environmental consciousness and level of involvement were measured. Finally the innovativeness of people and the social system were investigated.
In this report 149 participants answered several questions about the factors that people influence to buy or not buy an electric vehicle. Results showed that people did have a positive attitude about the electric vehicle which was strengthened by the level of involvement and the level of environmental concern of the participants. Subjective norm had no influence in this research, but perceived behavioural control did. Innovativeness had no influence, but the social system did play a role in the consideration of the electric vehicle. The main reasons for not buying an electric vehicle were the uncertainty about the range of car, the lack of charging points for the vehicle and the high purchase price.
4
Preface
Before you lies my Master thesis, the result of five months writing and researching. The crown on my Master Marketing Management. When announcing my research topic to family and friends, a lot of people reacted surprised to the topic of the ´Electric Vehicle´, why did I choose such a topic? Well, because I sincerely believe that this innovation is of great importance to our generation and the one after. Cars are an important and well known topic of welfare and people will always be interested in it, but with the oil reserves vanishing in about 50 years from now a good alternative is needed. So how can we make the electric vehicle a success? What factors influence the purchase decisions, what can car manufacturers do and what must marketing managers say to make the electric vehicle a success?
I want to thank several people for helping me during this thesis. First I want to thank my supervisor, Dr. Wander Jager for his help and input during the past five months, second I want to thank my second supervisor, Dr. van Eck for his help with the methodology part. I also want to thank my fellow students, Matthijs and Jos for helping me during the research part. I want to give a special thank you to Ilse, who kept me motivated and helped me where needed. Finally I want to thank Inge for her critical view which helped me improve my thesis.
I hope that over the coming years people become more aware of the problems that the world is facing with respect to the oil shortages and that we will become aware of the fact that we have to do something to save our planet. Welfare is great, but what price are we willing to pay?
Lisa van den Hoek
5
Table of Content
Management Summary ... 3
1. Introduction ... 7
1.1 Research objective ... 10
1.2 Structure of the report ... 10
2. Literature review ... 11
2.1 Sustainability ... 11
2.1.1 Finite Resources ... 11
2.1.2 Sustainable products ... 12
2.2 The Electric Vehicle ... 13
2.3 Theory of planned Behaviour ... 15
2.3.1 Attitude ... 15
2.3.2 Subjective Norm ... 16
2.3.3 Perceived Behavioural Control ... 17
2.4 Level of Involvement ... 17 2.5 Diffusion of innovation ... 18 2.5.1 The Innovation ... 18 2.5.2 Communicated Channels ... 20 2.5.3 Time ... 20 2.5.4 Social System ... 22 2.6 Conceptual Model ... 24 3. Research Design ... 25
3.1 Method for Data Collection ... 25
3.1.1 Target group ... 25
3.1.2 Spreading the questionnaire ... 25
6
4.2 Analysis ... 32
4.2.1. Reliability analysis ... 33
4.2.2 Regression analysis ... 35
4.2.3 Factors influencing choice Electric Vehicle. ... 39
4.3 Outcome of Results ... 40
5. Conclusion and Recommendations ... 41
5.1 Conclusion and discussion ... 41
5.2 Managerial implications ... 43
5.3 Limitations and Further Research ... 44
References ... 45
Appendix ... 51
Appendix A: Questionnaire ... 51
Appendix B: Brands ... 57
7
1. Introduction
In the Netherlands there are more than 10.7 million vehicles, whereof almost 8 million are passenger vehicles (CBS, 2013). The invention of the passenger vehicle as people know it nowadays goes back to 1885 when the first vehicle to ride on gasoline was invented by Carl Benz (Hoyer A. , 2008). What few people know is that four years before the gasoline car, in 1881, the electric vehicle was invented by Perry and Ayrton (Westbrook, 2005). This first vehicle looked like a tricycle driven by batteries and had a maximum speed of 9 mph. In the 1900s the electric vehicles began more to look like the car as we know it now, they were driven by enormous batteries and could be charged at home or at stations. Despite the advantage of charging at home, gasoline became to replace electricity (Wikipedia, 2013). The advantage of riding on gasoline was that they could reach a higher amount of speed and range in contrast to the electric vehicle. At the same time the discovery of an enormous petroleum field in Texas contributed to the popularity of the gasoline vehicle (Ramos, 2000). During the Second World War the electric vehicle became popular again due to high gasoline prices, but when the war was over the gasoline vehicle won popularity and beat the electric vehicle. The main disadvantage of the electric vehicle was its enormous battery that was needed to get him as fast as the gasoline vehicle; the battery was so heavy that it decreased its own speed. All together, the speed problem, the heavy battery and a great access to petroleum let to the choice of manufacturers to prefer the gasoline vehicle over the electric vehicle.
Around the 1980s people became more aware about the environment and the responsibility that we have in this world. In this research it is especially about electric vehicles and therefore only the role of the vehicle will be discussed regarding the environmental impact.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a gas that naturally occurs in our atmosphere, and is essential for life, however when there is too much CO2 it becomes a problem. Too much CO2 emission is named as one of the causers of global warming, which means that the temperature on earth is increasing (Benchmark, 2011). Vehicles have a responsibility in this increase of CO2 emissions (Quentin Grafton, Kompas, & van Long, 2012). When fossil fuels like oil are burned, CO2 emission is produced, so vehicles driven by fossil fuels are producing CO2 emission (Los & Verspagen, 2009).
8 there is a high concentration of smog or air pollution this is bad for people’s health. Air pollution can cause lung and heart diseases (Brunekreef & Holgate, 2002).
Gasoline vehicles were pointed out as one of the causes of CO2 and air pollution, therefore there had to come a solution. One of the most controversial actions was the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate in 1990 by the state California (Collantes & Sperling, 2008) which was very progressive and never seen before. The purpose of the mandate was to eliminate smog within the state of California. The California government created an agency to address this problem: the California Air Resources Board (CARB). This board’s responsibility was to find ways to improve the air quality in California. The mandate included the obligation that vehicle manufacturers would create vehicles that were environmentally friendly and produced no pollutant emission; they suggested that by 2003, 10 % of the vehicles should be ultra-low emission vehicles.
In practice this mandate was not that easy for vehicle manufacturers. They argued that there was not yet a battery strong enough for such a vehicle, the costs were way too high for the production as well for the consumer (Collantes & Sperling, 2008). The vehicle manufactures were forced to create electric vehicles by the mandate however they were not very keen on this idea, only General Motors was willing to produce in a few years. Besides the technical issues and the costs the vehicle manufacturers also doubted if there was enough demand from the consumer for this vehicle, which also made it more complicated. All together there were too many issues and stakeholders not supporting the idea, also the oil companies (who have a very strong lobby in the USA) were not supporting the idea of electric vehicles, to make this mandate a success.
9 €72.600 for a Tesla (Tesla, 2013)). In the past few years also other car manufacturers came with an electric vehicle like Opel and Renault.
In the previous part it became clear that the hybrid vehicle was a success on the market before the electric vehicle. The hybrid vehicle differs from in the electric in the way that a hybrid switches from electricity to gasoline when reaching a certain speed and the electric vehicle does not use gasoline at all (ZERauto, 2013). Because the electric vehicle does not use gasoline there is no CO2 emission, leading to cleaner air and less damage to the environment. However there are differences in effectiveness because it depends on the manner in which the electricity is generated. If electricity is generated by solar, wind or water energy it is considered very environmentally friendly, but in the case of using electricity generated by coals or even by nuclear plant it is not considered better for the environment (Jacobson & Delucchi, 2011). Also with the electric vehicle there is no use of fossil fuels like gasoline, which is becoming scarce in the world (Höök, Li, Johansson, & Snowden, 2011).
10 1.1 Research objective
The central question in this research will be the following: ‘Which factors influence the consumer the most in their consideration to purchase an electric vehicle? ‘. The main purpose of this study is to get a better insight on which factors influence the consumer the most when they intent to purchase an electric vehicle. With the outcomes of this research a strategy can be made how to approach the consumer while buying a vehicle. What does a vehicle manufacturer has to take into account when they bring such a vehicle on the market in accordance to the marketing strategy. A special focus will be on the social influences when buying an electric vehicle.
1.2 Structure of the report
11
2. Literature review
2.1 Sustainability
The Brundtland Commission of the UN stated in 1987 that: ‘Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (UN, UN Documents: Gathering a Body of Global Agreements, 1987). In 1994 the United Nations started the Convention on Climate Change, whose mission is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations to the level that it would not be jeopardising the climate system (UN, Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2005). The idea of this framework was to let as many governments as possible agree on decreasing greenhouse gas concentrations in their country and thereby decrease emission all over the world. In 1997 the Kyoto protocol (a protocol linked to the framework Convention on Climate Change) was adopted, which commits its participants to reduce emissions. The goal of this protocol was to reduce emission over the whole world in comparison to 1990 between 2008 - 2012 with 5.2%. This is now already extended till 2020. In 2005 this protocol was entered to force and at this moment 192 parties have signed the protocol (UN, Status of Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, 2013). For the Netherlands this means that emissions have to decrease with 6%, and at this moment the Netherlands are not succeeding in this as stated by NU.nl on the 9th of October: ‘The Netherlands lag behind on the European sustainable path.’ (NU.nl, 2013).
2.1.1 Finite Resources
As the word already says, some resources are finite, or one can say non-renewable, what means that once they are gone, they do not renew themselves. It takes finite resources often millions of years to create themselves. Finite resources are often referred to as fossil fuels; examples of fossil fuels are coal, natural gas and petroleum (Schou, 2000). About 80% of all energy derived in the world is coming
from fossil fuels, with oil as biggest contributor (Höök, Li, Johansson, & Snowden, 2011). Besides the fossil fuels; biomass, nuclear power and hydroelectric dams count for 19%, and only 0.8% is derived from wind, water,
12 solar and other alternatives (Höök & Tang, 2013). Many people are concerned of these numbers because the combustion of fossil fuels is the biggest contributor to CO2 emission, and there will come a time that fossil fuels will be depleted, so an alternative is needed (Höök, Li, Johansson, & Snowden, 2011). Figure 1 shows that the use of fossil energy has exploded over the last 100 years and that it is unlikely that this will decrease the coming decades.
According to Shafiee & Topal (2009) oil and gas will no longer be available in 40 years from now and coal will only last for 107 years. Therefore it is needed to search for renewable resources, increase the percentage of energy that is coming from those resources, and lower the percentage of fossil fuels (Quentin Grafton, Kompas, & van Long, 2012). This will be better for the environment and more sustainable so the generations after us still have enough resources to answer the demand for energy.
2.1.2 Sustainable products
In a lot of branches sustainable products are already promoted and adopted by consumers, for example in the food and clothing industry (Goworek, Fisher, Cooper, Woodward, & Hiller, 2012). In the clothing industry it is becoming more common to sell and buy goods that are made in a sustainable way. There are also clothing brands that only sell social responsible clothes like Kuyichi (Kuyichi, 2013), in the food industry there is a so called ‘Fair Trade’ brand who only sell food that is produced by farmers in Africa, Asia and Latin-America in a sustainable manner (FairTrade, 2013). Even closer to the Electric vehicle, is sustainable energy for at home instead of grey energy, this energy comes from sustainable resources like wind and solar, grey energy is coming from fossil fuels. In 2011 1.5 million household used sustainable energy in the Netherlands (Milieu, 2011). In the Global Online Environment & Sustainability Survey van Nielsen (2011) 69% of the participants said they were concerned about the environment. So what is the reason for people to buy green products? Different outcomes are found on this subject, one view is that people buy green products for their status; they want to show others that they care about the environment (Griskevicius, Tybur, & van den Bergh, 2010). Another view is that it is just the level of environmental concern that makes people want to do what is good (Bamberg, 2003). Some research already pointed out that people are willing to pay some more if a product is made ‘green’ or part of the product (Hetterich, Bonnemeier, Pritzke, & Georgiadis, 2012).
13 alternatives (Janssen & Jager, 2002). A good example is Windows, the operating system of Microsoft, who have dominated the market for years with no other good alternative, still 90% of all the computer user have Windows (Netmarketshare, 2013), which makes it difficult to switch. So even if people want to switch to a more sustainable product, they can experience difficulties, like is there even an option to change for a more sustainable option. It is not always clear if there is a more sustainable option and if people see them, will they choose for that option? With regard to vehicles one can say there is a lock in going on. Almost everything is focused on the gasoline car, like the petrol stations that are largely represented among highways and cities. These petrol stations have already learned from the past and are therefore quite experienced with petrol (Bento, 2010) this in contrast to electric charging. To create more points for charging the electric car, investments are needed and infrastructure needs to be adapted with regard to electric cables.
2.2 The Electric Vehicle
Recalling chapter one, the first electric vehicle was already made in 1881. Since that moment the electric car evolved enormously, looking at figure 2 we can see a replica of the first electric vehicle and figure 3 shows the Opel Ampera, which is currently on the market.
Figure 3: First Electic Vehicle
The electric car has a few advantages over the gasoline car, certainly when talking about sustainability. In the previous part finite resources were discussed, with the electric vehicle no fossil fuels are needed because the energy for the vehicle can for instance be generated by solar power or windmills, which is far more sustainable. Another advantage of the electric vehicle is no CO2 emission, which leads to less damage to the environment. Maybe not so obvious but the electric car is a lot quieter than the gasoline car, this means less
14 noise pollution. The electric car is being promoted by the government in the Netherlands, when one buys an electric vehicle one does not have to pay taxes on the purchase amount (in Dutch this is called BPM). Besides this, the electric vehicle does not need gasoline or diesel, only electricity, which is cheaper than refuelling. According to the ANWB electricity can be up to 50% cheaper than gasoline (ANWB, Wat kost elektrisch rijden?, 2013).
There are also some downsides to electric driving, like the purchase price, which is higher than the purchase price of a gasoline car, in table 1 a comparison between different cars can be seen, based on their suitable component in terms of space and size of the car. What makes the electric car so expensive is mostly the battery, which is the most expensive part of the car, but according to a research of McKinsey it is likely that the price for a battery will decrease the coming years, and they also predict fuel prices to increase, what leads to even more competition and an advantage for the electric car (Hensley, Newman, & Rogers, 2012).
Electric Vehicle Price Gasoline Vehicle Price
Nissan Leaf €23.890,- Nissan Note €13.490,-
Renault Fluence €26.490,- Renault Clio
Hatchback
€13.490,-
Citroen C-Zero €29.393,- Citroen C3 €13.390,-
Chevrolet Volt €43.695,- Chevrolet Cruze €22.295,-
Opel Ampera €48.295,- Opel Insignia €27.995,-
Table 1: Comparison between Electric and Gasoline vehicle (sources: Nissan, 2013; Renault, 2013; Citroen, 2013; Chevrolet, 2013; Opel, 2013)
15 2.3 Theory of planned Behaviour
When predicting behaviour of people, and thereby their purchase intention, one of the most influential theories is the theory of planned behaviour from Ajzen (1991) whereby three factors will be reviewed: attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control.
2.3.1 Attitude
Attitude is referred to: ‘the degree to which a person has a favourable or unfavourable
evaluation or appraisal of the behaviour in question’ (Ajzen, 1991:188). To this belongs the believe of behavioural belief. Attitude is based on cognitions and emotions (Hoyer & Macinnis, 2009), cognitions mean we base our attitude on received information or on our memory, emotions are based on how it feels like. When a person sees or hears about new things, he automatically forms a belief of this product, this can be positive, negative or neutral, this believe will then change into an attitude. But to form an attitude or first belief, information is needed, without information a person will probably have a neutral attitude. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) stated that a person’s attitude towards something is based on five to nine beliefs about something, so by forming an attitude people have different believes about it.
A person’s attitude is depending on the information they get and how much effort a person is willing to put in (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). Someone can be active searching for information, this is called the central route to processing, and this means that people base their attitude on a carful and effortful analysis. When someone is not active searching but do form an attitude he is following the peripheral route, whereby the person puts limited effort in searching. Attitude can be influenced by certain actions, to change cognitively based attitudes, marketing can be used by providing strong arguments and credibility. Also emotions can be affected but are more difficult to change because they are more resistant to change then cognitive based attitudes. Concluding, attitude is an important factor for predicting behaviour of people. There the first hypothesis will be:
H1: A positive attitude towards the electric vehicle will lead to a positive purchase intention.
16 consciousness, so when someone is more concerned about the environment, the chance of a positive attitude towards the electric vehicle is predicted. Therefore we state:
H2: People’s attitude of the electric vehicle will be positively influenced by the level of sustainable consciousness.
2.3.2 Subjective Norm
Subjective Norm ‘refers to the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behaviour’ (Ajzen, 1991:188). To this subjective norm belongs a salient believe, normative beliefs. This means that people’s behaviour is influenced by others, their family, friends or colleagues for example. People will try to conform to a certain norm that is accepted by the group they belong to (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). It is important for humans to belong to a group where they feel safe, so they will face some amount of social pressure to act how people expect us to act in that group. By doing what the other group members are doing they have a feeling of belonging and being accepted by the group. Cialdini et al (1991) stated that if consumers see that 70% of all other consumers buy a certain brand they think of it as a social norm which refers to how people must behave. Another example of this is the ‘towel reuse experiment’ of Goldstein, Cialdini and Griskevicius (2008), in which they tried to let people reuse their towels in a hotel instead of letting them cleaned after using. Guest in a hotel got different cards in their room, with ‘save the environment’ or ‘join your fellow guest with saving the environment’, when people thought that other people were doing it as well, far more people agreed to reuse their towel again.
According to Hoyer & Macinnis (2009) there are different sources that influence someone’s decision, namely: general sources such as mass media (marketing and nonmarketing), and special influences such as opinion leaders and reference groups. The opinion leader role is for somebody who has a certain level of expertise or knowledge and therefore is trustworthy about a certain product category, like Lionel Messi talking about which soccer shoes to wear. The last source is the reference group who are people with who the individual can compare themselves for guidance. The influence of social groups is stated as very important, when more people do something it is likely that other will follow. Therefore we state:
H3: Positive social influence about the electric vehicle by referent groups or
17
2.3.3 Perceived Behavioural Control
Perceived Behavioural Control is referred to: ‘the perceived ease or difficulty of
performing the behaviour and it is assumed to reflect past experience as well as anticipated impediments and obstacles.’ (Ajzen, 1991:188) To this belongs the believe of control. In the first model, the theory of reasoned action, this variable was not included, Ajzen (1991) later added this variable as an extension because the more favourable the subjective norm and attitude were the greater the perceived behavioural control, which leads to a stronger intention to actually perform the behaviour. One of the aspects that is important for this variable is the chance of succeeding, does the person believe he can succeed in his search. Will the person be able to get the information he or she needs about the product, and in this case about the electric vehicle.
The more resources and opportunities they have, the higher the perceived control (Ajzen, 1991). So if it is difficult to obtain the information the person needs, they feel less control and therefore uncertain about a choice. Certainly with a product like the electric vehicle, which is a relatively new product for consumers, people need perceived behavioural control to accept and buy the product. With new products a lot of information is needed for the consumer to make them feel certain about their choice (Punj & Staelin, 1983). If the person does not feel like he can get enough information about the electric vehicle the chance is far less that he will buy one.
Perceived behavioural control influences the purchase intention, if there are not enough resources and information someone will not likely buy something new. Therefore the following hypothesis was stated:
H4: High perceived behaviour control will contribute positively to the purchase intention of an electric vehicle.
2.4 Level of Involvement
18 moving consumer goods, like shampoo. High involvement products, are products that require high effort and active searching, examples are televisions, houses or cars. The degree of novelty and perceived risk are also important factors in product involvement, when the level of novelty is high and thus risk is perceived high, high involvement is needed to adopt the product (Baker & Hart, 2007). For the electric vehicle it means that it is a high involvement product and people will active search for information and check with their peers before making a decision (Barber & Venkatraman, 1986).
Product involvement is assumed to have a positive influence on the attitude because they are willing to put more effort in searching and therefore create a wider attitude. Therefore we state:
H5: The level of product involvement will be positively related to the attitude of people and purchase intention towards electric vehicles.
2.5 Diffusion of innovation
In the previous sections it was mentioned that the electric vehicle is a new and innovative product, which is not yet accepted by all consumers. The fact that the electric vehicle is not accepted (yet) by the general public means that consumers have to pass through different stages and needs more information than an already accepted product. The adoption process of a new product is more intensive. To highlight the effects concerning an innovation the theory of Rogers will be used: Diffusion of innovation.
The diffusion of innovation involves four main elements: (1) the innovation,
(2) which is communicated through certain channels over (3) time among the members of a (4) social system (Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 1995). When a new product is launched on the market he will go through different stages to be accepted by the general public. The electric vehicle can still be considered an innovation and therefore the different elements will be discussed.
2.5.1 The Innovation
19 or micro level and a discontinuity on marketing or technological level. Macro level is new to the world, industry or the market and micro level is new to the firm or its customers. A marketing discontinuity is a new marketplace or marketing skill, a technological discontinuity is a new technology or science. A radical innovation is a discontinuity at marketing and technology level and on macro and micro level, like the steam engine or the World Wide Web, therefore radical innovations are rare. An incremental innovation takes only place on micro level and on a technological or marketing base. Most innovations fall in between these two: the really new innovation (Garcia & Calantone, 2002). The electric vehicle can be considered a really new innovation, there is a discontinuity at technological level but the car itself is not new to the world.
An innovation has different characteristics to help explain the different rates of adoptions to a person, there are five characteristics defined by Rogers (1995):
Relative advantage: degree to which an innovation is perceived better by individuals than the older idea. Most important is the perceived advantage for the consumer to rapid its adoption.
Consumers can perceive the electric vehicle as a better alternative for the environment with respect to the gasoline car.
Compatibility: degree to which an innovation is perceived consistent with past experiences and norms. It has to be consistent with the norms and beliefs of the consumers.
The electric vehicle looks like a normal car and can do the same things (transport) therefore it can be considered consistent with the norms and beliefs of a car.
Complexity: degree to which it is difficult or easy to understand the innovation.
It is possible that the consumer is uncertain about the vehicle and the differences with the normal car.
Trialability: degree to which a consumer can try the innovation on a limited scale. If people can try it first, they will be less uncertain about adoption of the innovation.
20 Observability: degree to which results are visible to others, how easier this is, the easier the adoption of the innovation.
Research have to state the results of more electric vehicles on the road with respect to the environment and if it is contributing.
The better al these characteristics are perceived the easier the adoption of the innovation for consumers.
The electric vehicle can still be called an innovation because it is not yet accepted by everyone, so the stage in the adoption process is important, how further the adoption process is, the more people will use the product. Therefore the following hypothesis will be tested:
H6: The rate of adoption will have a positive influence on the purchase intention of the electric vehicle.
2.5.2 Communicated Channels
Communication channels can be defined as the way of sharing information from one person to another. This can be through mass communication, interpersonal channels and via the internet, but the most effective way of convincing people is through personal contact, whereby individuals are more influenced by near peers. Rogers (1995) types two ways of human communicating, communication between individuals who are more similar in terms of beliefs, status and education which is referred to as homophily, and the opposite, wherein people do not share the same attributes, which is called heterophily. People tend to accept more from homophilous conversations than heterophilous communication, this is a difficulty in accepting an innovation because mostly communication tends to be heterophily.
2.5.3 Time
21
Relative time
Figure 4: Innovation-Decision Process
In figure 4 the process about information seeking and processing is shown. The innovativeness means how fast a person is willing to accept an innovation in comparison to others, they can be divided in five categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. In figure 5 the categories can be seen and how they are distributed.
Figure 5: Adopter Categories (Source: Rogers, 1995)
Over time more people will accept the innovation, in the beginning only the innovators will adopt the innovation, they are active searchers and are more resistant to uncertainty than people in the other categories. People in the same ‘class’ have a great deal in common, like their socioeconomic status and the use of different media channels, for example the laggards learn more from peers than mass media channels (Rogers, 1995). This also corresponds with the theory of planned behaviour in which it was stated that people want to be accepted in the group they belong to and they look at reference groups (Ajzen, 1991).
In the class of the innovators and early adopters are mostly the opinion leaders, people who are willing to try new things and inspire other people to adopt the product as well. The
22 early majority and late majority can be seen as the general public who follows the opinion leader and the opinion of friends and family. In the last stage, the laggards, are the people who accept an innovation last after all their friends and family already adopted the product.
The last variable is rate of adoption, this is the relative speed of adoption of the innovation, this model has an S-curve as can been seen in figure 3. The rate of adoption is mostly measured by the time that is necessary to accept an innovation. For the electric vehicle it can be considered still in the innovator phase or maybe early adopters, which means that opinion leaders are necessary.
2.5.4 Social System
The social system is a set of mutual units who want to achieve a common goal by solving a joint problem. In a system, structure is needed, it gives stability and regularity to predict actions of individuals, one of the aspects of a social structure is norms, the behaviour that is accepted by members of the social system (see also the previous part about subjective norm).
A very important aspect of social systems are the opinion leaders, these opinion leaders can be typed as having a combination of innovative behaviour and market knowledge (van Eck, Jager, & Leeflang, 2011). Opinion leaders possess more expertise and knowledge about a certain product than the other members of this group; opinion leaders are people who can be trusted by the audience (Sarathy & Patro, 2013). That someone is an opinion leader about a certain product does not mean that he is also a leader in another group; it can be that a person only has knowledge about a certain product group. Several studies (van Eck, Jager & Leeflang, 2011; Sarathy & Patro, 2013) say that opinion leadership and innovativeness are highly related to each other, so opinion leaders are often people who adopt innovations as one of the first. Van Eck et al (2011) state that when there are opinion leaders active in a social network the adoption of an innovation goes faster than when there are no opinion leaders in a network.
By adopting or rejecting an innovation several kinds of social influences have to be taken in consideration. Rogers (1995) distinguishes three types of innovation decision on the social level:
1. Optional innovation-decision: independent individual decision to adopt or reject an innovation
23 2. Collective innovation-decision: choice of adopting or rejecting is made collectively by
whole of the social system
a. It can turn out that everyone in the society rejects the electric vehicle as a whole, for example if they do not see any advantages or do not believe in the environmentally friendly concept.
3. Authority innovation-decision: the choice is made for the whole systems by few or someone who has a lot of power, status or technological knowledge.
a. In this case the government for example, would reject the electric vehicle and make sure it is not sold.
For the electric vehicle to get accepted other people will have to accept the vehicle and opinion leaders should be clear. Therefore the following hypothesis is stated:
H7a: The acceptance of others will have a positive influence on the purchase intention of the electric vehicle.
The government is stimulating the purchase of electric vehicles and will keep doing this the coming years, therefore this social system can have a positive influence and he following hypothesis will be tested:
24 2.6 Conceptual Model
The conceptual model of this research is displayed in figure 6.
Sustainable Consciousness Attitude H1 + H2 Level of Involvement H5 Subjective Norm H3 H4 Purchase intention
Perceived Behavioural Electric Vehicle
Control H6 Rate of adoption H7 Social system
25
3. Research Design
3.1 Method for Data Collection
The questions asked in chapter 2 were answered on basis of a questionnaire; the research was conclusive, with quantitative data. The questionnaire was spread online and stored online after which it was processed into SPSS, the data collection program that was used to conduct the analysis.
3.1.1 Target group
The survey was conducted among three groups: owners of an electric vehicle, owners of a nonelectric vehicle (gasoline, diesel) and non-car owners. This was done to get better insights in what motivates the consumer who already has an electric vehicle, what the consideration of the nonelectric driver was and what the non-car owner would choose. Respondents must at least be 18 years old, this is the minimum age of getting a drivers licence in the Netherlands. Because the target group is Dutch, the online questionnaire was conducted in Dutch. In appendix A the questionnaire can be found.
3.1.2 Spreading the questionnaire
Before spreading the questionnaire among the target group it was tested to see if the questionnaire was clear and understandable for the respondents. This questionnaire was tested by several students and employed people.
The car owners (electric and gasoline) were found via the network of the researcher and forums about vehicles. Besides personal messages the questionnaire was conducted on social media (Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn) and spread by email. Furthermore the snowball sampling method was used to attract more respondents.
3.1.3 The Questionnaire
26 conducted from the article ‘Consumer innovativeness and the Adoption Process’ (Manning, Bearden, & Madden, 1995) and adjusted for this research. The questionnaire continued with the level of involvement about cars, these were conducted from the scale ‘components of involvement’ from Lastovicka & Gardner, (1979). Social influence was measured by using the scale of Flynn, Goldsmith, & Eastman (1996) about opinion leadership and opinion seeking. The participants also had to fill in their attitude towards the electric vehicle on the basis of eight words special conducted for the electric vehicle. After this question participants were asked about their perceived behavioural control, the questions were conducted by Berden, Hardesty, & Rose (2001) and picked from the section ‘Information Acquisition’. In the last questions about the electric vehicle participants could full in their main reasons for buying or not buying an electric vehicle and the one main reason when they would buy and electric vehicle. After the questions about the electric vehicle respondents were asked about their environmental consciousness, this was done by asking them questions from the New Ecological Paradigm Scale (Dunlap, van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000).
3.2 Variables
3.2.1 Dependent Variables
In this research there are five dependent variables:
Attitude: a positive attitude will have a positive influence. Subjective Norm: positive pressure from other people will have a positive effect on the IV. Perceived Behavioural Control: if people have the idea that they can find the right information that is needed for a purchase, then this will have a positive effect on the IV. Rate of Adoption: the more people adopt the innovation (electric vehicle) the more the IV will be positively influenced. Social System: acceptance of other people will have a positive influence on the IV and government regulations will have an influence on the IV. From all these variables it will become clear which factor influences people the most in their purchase intention for an electric vehicle.
3.2.2 Independent Variable
Purchase Intention of the electric vehicle is in this research the independent variable. The influences of the different DV’s will be tested on this IV. At the end of the research one can see which DV´s influences the purchase intention and which factors are the most strong. Which DV drives purchase intention the most?
3.2.3 Moderator
27 Sustainable consciousness: people who are more conscious about sustainability are expected to have a more positive attitude about the electric vehicle, because they are more interested in the environment. The second moderator is Level of Involvement: the more people are involved with the product the more likely it is to have a positive attitude towards the electric vehicle.
3.2.4 Questions
The following questions were asked to test the hypotheses.
Variable # Question Question
Attitude 19 What do you think of the electric car?
Attractive - not attractive Innovative - not innovative Duration - cheap Clean - dirty Positive - negative Good - Bad Beautiful - ugly Comfort – uncomfortable
Subjective Norm 14 14.1 It is important that other approve the
products I buy.
14.2 If other people can see what I use, I buy something that others buy.
14.3 If I buy something, I often buy the product which I know it leaves a good impression on others.
14.4 The view from my friends is very important to me.
Perceived Behavioural Control
20 20.1 I have a lot of knowledge about the electric car.
20.2 I know where I can find about purchasing electric car information.
20.3 I am convinced that I possess the abilities to find important information about the electric car
20.4 I think I cannot I need for purchasing an electric car. Find all the information
28 car is more likely that I have a purchase.
20.6 The electric car is as safe as a petrol or diesel car.
20.7 I think that an electric car is more expensive in purchase price than a petrol or diesel car.
20.8 If an electric car and a regular car were equally expensive, I would choose for the electric.
20.9 The electric car is about 10 years commonplace
Rate of Adoption 15 15.1 Before I purchase a new brand, I first ask a
friend about his experiences with this brand. (R) 15.2 When I decide whether I want to buy a new service, I do not rely on the experiences of friends or family for advice.
15.3 It is rare that I ask a friend to his or her experience with a new product before I purchase.
15.4 I am looking for some information about new products and brands
29
Social System 18 & 21 18.1 If I want to buy a car, I ask other people for
advice
18.2 I like to ask others before I buy a car for advice
18.3 I feel more confident when I first heard the opinions of others before I buy a car.
I 18.4Als choose a car, people's opinions are not important to me.
18.5 If I choose a car, I pay attention to how environmentally friendly the car.
18.6 My friends will buy an electric car is a good buy.
21.1 I think the government encourages us to buy an electric car.
21.2 by government measures (such as no BPM, no road tax and no excise duty on electricity), I think the electric car appealing.
21.3 I think there are enough charging points for electric cars.
21.4 An electric car requires more effort than a regular car.
Involvement 16 16.1 I have a strong interest in cars.
16.2 A car is important to me.
16.3 For me it does not matter what kind of car I have.
Environmentally Consciousness
25 25.1 We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support. 25.2 Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.
25.3 When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.
25.4 Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the Earth unliveable.
25.5 Humans are seriously abusing the environment.
30 we just learn how to develop them.
25.7 Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.
25.8 The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations.
25.9 Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature.
25.10The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated. 25.11 The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.
25.12 Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.
25.13 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
25.14 Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it. 25.15 If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.
Table 2: Questions asked
31
4. Results
4.1 Demographics of Sample
The sample consisted of 149 respondents, which all filled in the questionnaire completely. In the sample the youngest person was 19 and the oldest 69, the respondents came from everywhere in the Netherlands but most people lived in Groningen, Overijssel or Gelderland. In table 2 an overview is given of the demographics of the respondents.
Age distribution 18-20 years
21-30 years 31-40 years 41-50 years 51-60 years 61-70 years 4% 61.7% 10.1% 9.4% 9.4% 5.4% Average age 31.9 Gender Female Male 37% 63%
Education Level Elementary
VMBO HAVO VWO MBO HBO WO 0% 5% 6% 2% 8% 46% 33% Income Level 0 – € 10.000 €10.001 - €20.000 €20.001 - €30.000 €30.001 - €40.000 €40.001 - €50.000 €50.001 - €60.000 > €60.001 Don’t want to tell
36% 10% 14% 11% 4% 5% 9% 11% Occupation Student Employed Entrepreneur
No payed job, searching No payed job, not searching Retirement No answer 40% 43% 7% 4% 2% 2% 2%
Where do you live? Noord-Holland
32
How many kilometres is your most common ride? 1 - 10 KM 11 - 20 KM 21 - 30 KM 31 - 40 KM 41 - 50 KM 50 KM or more Limburg Flevoland Somewhere else 0.0% 0.7% 3.4% Do you have a car? Yes, I own a car
Yes, a lease car I share a car
No, but I do drive (family etc) No car and I don’t drive
46% 14% 2% 33% 5% What kind of car do you drive? Gasoline/Diesel
Hybrid Electric No car 92% 2% 1% 5% Table 3: Demographics
The respondents were also asked about their driving habits. As can be seen in figure 7 most people ride more than 50 kilometres on their common ride, and from the people who often drive the same trip the mean was 86 kilometres. In figure 8 can be seen that the use of the car is mostly 25 times or more, which is almost every day.
Figure 8: Monthly use
To the question if people knew the electric vehicle, 84.6% said to know the electric vehicle and 13.4% even drove in an electric vehicle before. When looking at the different types of electric vehicles, the Opel Ampera was the most well-known car, 61.1% of the respondents said they knew this car. Also the Tesla (41.6%) and Nissan (41.6%) were known. 22% of the people said not to know any electric vehicle brand. In the appendix there can be found an overview of the different brands.
4.2 Analysis
First to see if the questions asked were reliable a Cronbach’s Alpha test was conducted on all questions. The questionnaire was set up with help from literature but there were also some adjustments made for this specific research, therefore it is necessary to test the reliability of the questions asked. To be reliable the Cronbach’s Alpha has to be above 0.6.
How often do you use the car a month? 1 - 5 times 6 - 10 times 11 - 15 times 16 - 20 times 21 - 25 times 25 or more
33
4.2.1. Reliability analysis
Question 14:Social influences
I think it is important that other people approve the product that I buy
0.781 on all 4 items If other people can see what I use, I buy a product
others also buy
If I buy a product, I buy a product of which I know it will leave a good impression
The opinion of my friends is important for me.
In this question all items were reliable. Question 16:Involvement
I have a strong interest for cars
0.699 on all 4 items A car is important to me
I don’t mind which kind of car I have (R)
In this question all items were reliable.
Question 18: Social System
If I would buy I car, I would ask other people for advise
0.734 on all 6 items I like to ask for advice from others before I would
buy a car
I feel more secure when I have first heard the opinion of others
If I would buy a car, the opinion of others is not important to me (R)
If I choose for a car, I look how environmentally friendly he is.
My friends would think I did a good job when I buy an electric car
In this question all items were reliable. Question 19: Attitude
Attractive – Not attractive
0.675 on all 8 items Innovative – Not innovative
Expensive – Cheap Clean - Dirty Positive – Negative Beautiful – Ugly Good – Bad Comfortable – Uncomfortable
34 Question 23: Positive
Environmentally friendly
0.738 on all 6 items High gasoline price
Charging in front of house More quiet car
Innovative product
Advantages the government gives
In this question all items were reliable. Question 24: Negative
High purchase price
0.642 on all 6 items Insecure about range
Time and space of charging Models don’t appeal to me I wait till more people drive one The technology is not far enough
In this question all items were reliable. Question 25: Environmental Consciousness We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support
0.662 on all items Humans have the right to modify the natural
environment to suit their needs (R)
When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.
Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the Earth unliveable
Humans are seriously abusing the environment The Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them
Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist
The balance of the nature is strong enough to cope with the impact of modern (R)
Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature
Ecological Crisis is greatly exaggerated (R) The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources
Humans were meant to rule (R)
The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset
Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it.
35 There were also some questions that were not reliable; these were the questions about the rate of adoption (question 15), perceived behavioural control (question 20) and the government (question 21). To test the hypotheses there was conducted a factor analysis for question 20 about perceived behavioural control and the questions of 15 and 21 were all tested separately.
The other questions were combined in one variable and tested on purchase intention. Purchase intention is in this research defined by four different variables: lower purchase price, more charging points, further range and higher gasoline price. This were the options people could choose when they considered the electric vehicle. People who did not have any intention to buy an electric vehicle are not included in these questions. Outliers were excluded from the questions.
4.2.2 Regression analysis
In this analysis the codes were reversed for the readers’ convenience, so the higher the mean score the more positive the outcome is. First a linear regression was conducted on the variable ‘purchase intention’ which consists of four different variables. After this the variables of purchase intention were tested separately to gain a more specific view of the results.
Attitude
Overall the attitude of people towards the electric vehicle was positive (mean: 3.73). When conducting a linear regression on attitude on the purchase intention the ANOVA table shows a significant effect (F=4.892, p-value <0.05).
When testing attitude on the four different variables it becomes clear that for the question lower purchase price and more charging points there is a significant difference (p-value = 0.00 and p-value < 0.05) but for range and gasoline price were non-significant. As can be seen in table 3 the relation is strengthened when attitude is positive towards the electric vehicle (B = 0.200) for a lower purchase price and by more charging points the relationship is also strengthened (B=0.120).
By lower purchase price the R² is 0.084 what means that this model explains 8.4% for this variable and 3.1% for more charging points.
36
Variable P value B R²
Lower purchase price 0.00* 0.200 0.084
More charging points 0.031* 0.120 0.031
Further range 0.677 -0.035 0.001
Higher gasoline price 0.493 -0.026 0.003
Table 4: Attitude
* 0.05 significant level
When looking at environmental consciousness as a moderator on attitude, the variable purchase intention in the ANOVA table is significant (F=7.958, p-value <0.01). When taking a closer look, as can be seen in table 4, environmental consciousness is significant for purchase price (p-value < 0.01) and more charging points (p-value = 0.01). Both variables have a slightly positive effect, purchase price (B=0.045) and charging points (B=0.040). The R² is respectively 0.055 and 0.045 which means 5.5 % and 4.5% is explained.
Also H2: ‘People’s attitude of the electric vehicle will be positively influenced by the level of sustainable consciousness’ is partially supported.
Variable P value B R² Lower purchase price 0.004* 0.045 0.055 More charging points 0.01* 0.040 0.045 Further range 0.563 -0.013 0.002
Higher gasoline price 0.055 -0.020 0.025
Table 5: Attitude*Environment
* 0.05 significant level
37 Therefore H5: ‘The level of product involvement will be positively related to the attitude of people and purchase intention towards electric vehicles’ is partially supported.
Variable P value B R² Lower purchase price 0.080 0.015 0.021 More charging points 0.039* 0.017 0.029 Further range 0.619 -0.006 0.002
Higher gasoline price 0.769 -0.002 0.001
Table 6: Attitude*Involvement
* 0.05 significant level
Subjective Norm
Overall people said that the opinion of other people influence them not that much (mean 2.68). This also resulted in the ANOVA table, both variables combined purchased intention (F=0.014, p-value > 0.05) as well the separate questions were non-significant. Therefore we can say H3: ‘Positive social influence about the electric vehicle by referent groups or individuals positively influences consumer's intention to purchase the electric vehicle’ is not supported.
Perceived Behavioural Control
38 Variable P value B R² Lower purchase price 0.118 -0.129 0.017 More charging points 0.207 -0.112 0.040 Further range 0.024* 0.199 0.007
Higher gasoline price 0.640 0.039 -0.005
Table 7: PBC Question 8 & 9
*= 0.05 significant level Rate of Adoption
The outcome of the ANOVA test was for the variable of purchase intention was non-significant (F=1.877, p-value > 0.05). Therefore all the questions were separate tested on purchase intention. Hereby the result was also non-significant.
We can say that H6: ‘The rate of adoption will have a positive influence on the purchase intention of the electric vehicle’ is not supported.
Social System
The ANOVA showed that the variable purchase intention is significant for social system (F=4.967, p-value < 0.05). When measuring these four variables separate acceptance of others is only significant for charging points (p < 0.001) for the other variables there was no evidence. The relation for more charging points is positive (0.277) and there is 7.6% explained. So we can say that H7a: ‘The acceptance of others will have a positive influence on the purchase intention of the electric vehicle ‘is only partially supported.
Variable P value B R² Lower purchase price 0.149 0.119 0.014 More charging points 0.001* 0.277 0.076 Further range 0.254 0.094 0.009
Higher gasoline price 0.080 0.144 0.017
39
* 0.05 significant level
The influence of the government had no significant effect (F=1.345, p-value > 0.05). Therefore we can say H7b: ‘The government regulations for the Electric Vehicle will have a positive influence on the purchase intention of the electric vehicle’ is not supported.
4.2.3 Factors influencing choice Electric Vehicle.
Respondents also answered the question why they would buy an electric vehicle and why not (questions 22 and 23) and could rate this on a scale from 1 to 5. The question why they would buy an electric vehicle had to scale this on several options; environmentally friendly, electricity cheaper than gasoline, charging close to home, more quite than regular car, innovative product and advantages the government gives. The most important factors were ‘cheaper than gasoline’ with a mean of 4.10 and ‘advantages the government gives’ with a mean of 4.11. Least important was ‘innovative product’ with a mean of 2.95.
To the questions why would you not buy an electric vehicle respondents could respond on; high purchase price, insecure about range, time and place of charging, models do not appeal to me, I wait till more people drive one and the technology is not far enough. The most important ones were ‘insecure about the range’ with a mean of 4.25 and ‘time and place for charging’ with a mean of 4.22. The least important was ‘I wait till more people drive one’ with a mean of 2.55.
After this the questions was asked what has to change for people in order to buy an electric vehicle. In figure 9 can be seen what the answers were to this question. The main reason was that the range of the car has to be extended.
Figure 9: Main reason to buy an electric vehicle
I would buy an electric vehicle if:
Lower purchase price More charging points Further range
If gasoline price goes up Never
40 4.3 Outcome of Results
In table 11 the results of the research are showed for all the hypotheses. This table shows that three hypotheses were not supported at all and the others only partially.
Hypothesis # Hypothesis Result
H1 A positive attitude towards the electric vehicle will lead to a positive purchase intention.
Partially supported H2 People’s attitude of the electric vehicle will be
positively influenced by the level of sustainable consciousness.
Partially supported
H3 Positive social influence about the electric vehicle by referent groups or
Individuals, positively influences consumer's intention to purchase the electric vehicle.
Not supported
H4 High perceived behaviour control will contribute positively to the purchase intention of an electric vehicle.
Partially supported
H5 The level of product involvement will be positively related to the attitude of people and purchase intention towards electric vehicles.
Partially supported
H6 The rate of adoption will have a positive influence on the purchase intention of the electric vehicle.
Not supported H7a The acceptance of others will have a positive
influence on the purchase intention of the electric vehicle.
Partially supported
H7b The government regulations for the Electric Vehicle will have a positive influence on the purchase intention of the electric vehicle.
Not supported
41
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusion and discussion
In this study the influences of different factors were tested on the purchase intention of the electric vehicle. To find these factors the theory of planned behaviour was used and the theory of the diffusion of innovations. The main research question of this paper was: ‘Which factors influence the consumer the most in their consideration to purchase an electric vehicle?’ when evaluating all questions asked, there can be concluded that several factors play a big role in the acceptance and consideration of the electric vehicle. The findings of this research will now be discussed.
The first finding was that a positive attitude did have a positive influence on the purchase intention as expected. When attitude towards the electric vehicle was positive, it was more likely that people would buy an electric vehicle. In general the attitude of people was positive towards the electric vehicle and only 3.4% of the people said they would never buy an electric vehicle, so there is potential for the electric vehicle to become a success.
Second finding was that people’s environmental concern strengthened the relation between attitude and purchase intention, so people who are more concerned about the environment are more likely to purchase an electric vehicle than people who are less concerned about the environment. This fits with the theory of Hetterich et al (2012) who found that customers are only willing to pay a little bit more for a more sustainable alternative. The level of involvement, also had a positive effect on the attitude and purchase intention, so when people are more involved in cars it is more likely that they would consider the electric vehicle.
42 before. But when people are tested for performing certain behaviour the outcome is different. It could be possible that at this moment people do not consider the electric vehicle to their consideration set, because they do not know enough about the electric vehicle and neither do they have friends or family who drive an electric vehicle. In this way they are not affected by social pressure because this does not (yet) exists for the electric vehicle.
Perceived behavioural control only had a small influence on one of the variables about the electric vehicle. In this variable the question was asked if the participant thought if the electric vehicle is going to be a common good, most people answered this question with totally agree or agree (60%). A reason why the other hypotheses were not proven can be that the participants did not thought of the electric vehicle before or that they had no interest in it so far. The mean of people’s interests in cars was 2.82 which is almost neutral. When not considering the electric vehicle the motivation to search for information about this product is low.
The degree of innovativeness of the participants had no influence on the purchase intention. One reason could be that people find it difficult to say that there are innovative persons. Goldsmith & Hofacker (1991) also stated that it is diffcult to measure innovativeness among people. When a person is considered innovative, and when does one think that he or she is innovative? It can also be that people do not consider themselves innovative with respect to cars. Another option is that there is that the participants still miss an opinion leader about the electric vehicle, who is very important for adoption process (van Eck, Jager, & Leeflang, 2011). An opinion leader helps people when they need to make a decision and the person do not know enough about the product of interest. Opinion leaders are seen by others as people who have a lot of knowledge about a certain product category. By a relatively new product as the electric vehicle it is likely that people will look for opinion leaders, but that they cannot find them yet in their surroundings.
43 normal car, because only 0.2% of the vehicles in the Netherlands are at this point electric vehicles (AgentschapNL, 2013). When more people have an electric vehicle it is more likely to be considered than when only a few people drive an electric vehicle.
The influence of the government was not considered to have an impact when deciding to buy an electric vehicle. A reason can be that people do not know what the exact advantages were for the vehicle, or that it was unclear for the participants. Certainly when they never sought for information about the electric vehicle.
Main reasons for people not to buy an electric vehicle yet were the range of the electric vehicle and the high purchase price of an electric vehicle. The average ride participants took was around 86 kilometres, which is a lot higher than the national average of 21 kilometres (AgentschapNL, Cijfers elektrisch vervoer, 2013). However putting in perspective that an electric vehicle has a range up to 200 kilometres this seems quite remarkable. A logical explanation for this is, that people do not know what the range of an electric vehicle is and that they are therefore uncertain, and when people are uncertain the chance of buying decreases (Shiu, Walsh, Hassan, & Shaw, 2011).
Another reason withholding people from buying an electric vehicle was the availability of charging points. People were insecure about the fact that there is not everywhere a charging point in contrast to petrol stations, who are everywhere.
5.2 Managerial implications
First a positive attitude had the most impact, so in order to make the electric vehicle a success, car manufacturers and marketing directors should focus on a positive attitude. They should focus on giving people more information about the electric vehicle, because a lot is still not precisely known about the EV which leads to uncertainty, and uncertainty weakens the purchase intention (Ajzen, 1991).
