IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/metrik/v24y2013i2p95-124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why electric vehicles failed

Author

Listed:
  • Kathrin Dudenhöffer

Abstract

China, Europe, Japan, and the US started with large public programs more than five years ago to make electric passenger cars popular. While China’s government aimed to create a strong Chinese car industry by leapfrogging to electric vehicles, Europe, the US, and Japan tried to compete with China, wanted to decrease the dependency on oil imports and to reduce $$\mathrm{{CO}}_{2}$$ emissions from transportation. Today, we realize that all programs failed and electric vehicles are going to flop. One reason for that is insufficient information to customers. The article analyzes the acceptance of electric vehicles via an experimental design with comprehensive test drives. For the experiment, eleven plug-in electric vehicles were tested by 232 customers. The analysis is based on the Technology Acceptance Model and a literature based extension. A partial least squares approach with reflective and formative indicators was chosen as method. The main result of this study is that acceptance patterns change through increasing experience with the new product. For that, possibilities to test an innovation are absolutely essential. Electric vehicles can become part of the evoked set of new car buyers, if the customer is provided by sufficient individual information. Additionally, it is recommended to support the marketing of plug-in hybrids or range extended electric cars due to psychological concerns about the limited range of pure battery electric vehicles. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Kathrin Dudenhöffer, 2013. "Why electric vehicles failed," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 95-124, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:metrik:v:24:y:2013:i:2:p:95-124
    DOI: 10.1007/s00187-013-0174-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00187-013-0174-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00187-013-0174-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adrián Saldarriaga-Isaza, C. & Vergara, Carlos, 2009. "Who switches to hybrids? A study of a fuel conversion program in Colombia," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 572-579, June.
    2. Hidrue, Michael K. & Parsons, George R. & Kempton, Willett & Gardner, Meryl P., 2011. "Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 686-705, September.
    3. Chéron, Emmanuel & Zins, Michel, 1997. "Electric vehicle purchasing intentions: The concern over battery charge duration," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 235-243, May.
    4. Wander Jager & Marco A. Janssen, 2002. "Stimulating diffusion of green products," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 283-306.
    5. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    6. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    7. Kieran Mathieson, 1991. "Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 173-191, September.
    8. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    9. Barbara H. Wixom & Peter A. Todd, 2005. "A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 85-102, March.
    10. Chandra, Ambarish & Gulati, Sumeet & Kandlikar, Milind, 2010. "Green drivers or free riders? An analysis of tax rebates for hybrid vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 78-93, September.
    11. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    12. Diamantopoulos, Adamantios & Riefler, Petra & Roth, Katharina P., 2008. "Advancing formative measurement models," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(12), pages 1203-1218, December.
    13. Dagsvik, John K. & Wennemo, Tom & Wetterwald, Dag G. & Aaberge, Rolf, 2002. "Potential demand for alternative fuel vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 361-384, May.
    14. Jarvis, Cheryl Burke & MacKenzie, Scott B & Podsakoff, Philip M, 2003. "A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(2), pages 199-218, September.
    15. Caulfield, Brian & Farrell, Séona & McMahon, Brian, 2010. "Examining individuals preferences for hybrid electric and alternatively fuelled vehicles," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 381-387, November.
    16. Midgley, David F & Dowling, Grahame R, 1993. "A Longitudinal Study of Product Form Innovation: The Interaction between Predispositions and Social Messages," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 19(4), pages 611-625, March.
    17. Ferdinand Dudenhöffer & Leoni Bussmann & Kathrin Dudenhöffer, 2012. "Elektromobilität braucht intelligente Förderung," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 92(4), pages 274-279, April.
    18. Marios Koufaris, 2002. "Applying the Technology Acceptance Model and Flow Theory to Online Consumer Behavior," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 205-223, June.
    19. Kurani, Kenneth & Turrentine, Thomas & Sperling, Daniel, 1996. "Testing Electric Vehicle Demand in `Hybrid Households' Using a Reflexive Survey," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt0sb956wq, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    20. Hirschman, Elizabeth C, 1980. "Innovativeness, Novelty Seeking, and Consumer Creativity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 7(3), pages 283-295, December.
    21. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    22. Marko Sarstedt & Jan-Michael Becker & Christian M. Ringle & Manfred Schwaiger, 2011. "Uncovering and Treating Unobserved Heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Which Model Selection Criterion Provides an Appropriate Number of Segments?," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 63(1), pages 34-62, January.
    23. Sattler, Henrik & Völckner, Franziska & Riediger, Claudia & Ringle, Christian M., 2010. "The impact of brand extension success drivers on brand extension price premiums," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 319-328.
    24. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    25. Hoffmann, Stefan & Soyez, Katja, 2010. "A cognitive model to predict domain-specific consumer innovativeness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(7), pages 778-785, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Riffat Ara Zannat Tama & Md Mahmudul Hoque & Ying Liu & Mohammad Jahangir Alam & Mark Yu, 2023. "An Application of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to Examining Farmers’ Behavioral Attitude and Intention towards Conservation Agriculture in Bangladesh," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-22, February.
    2. Andrei OGREZEANU, 2015. "Models Of Technology Adoption: An Integrative Approach," Network Intelligence Studies, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 5, pages 55-67, June.
    3. Gabriela D. Oliveira & Luis C. Dias, 2019. "Influence of Demographics on Consumer Preferences for Alternative Fuel Vehicles: A Review of Choice Modelling Studies and a Study in Portugal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-33, January.
    4. Wen-Lung Shiau & Yogesh K. Dwivedi, 2013. "Citation and co-citation analysis to identify core and emerging knowledge in electronic commerce research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1317-1337, March.
    5. Alexandros Dimitropoulos & Piet Rietveld & Jos N. van Ommeren, 2011. "Consumer Valuation of Driving Range: A Meta-Analysis," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-133/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. Domina, Tanya & Lee, Seung-Eun & MacGillivray, Maureen, 2012. "Understanding factors affecting consumer intention to shop in a virtual world," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 613-620.
    7. Lam, Shun Yin & Chiang, Jeongwen & Parasuraman, A., 2008. "The effects of the dimensions of technology readiness on technology acceptance: An empirical analysis," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 19-39.
    8. Donglin Han & Huiying (Cynthia) Hou & Hao Wu & Joseph H. K. Lai, 2021. "Modelling Tourists’ Acceptance of Hotel Experience-Enhancement Smart Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, April.
    9. Arif Hasan & S. K. Gupta, 2020. "Exploring Tourists’ Behavioural Intentions Towards Use of Select Mobile Wallets for Digital Payments," Paradigm, , vol. 24(2), pages 177-194, December.
    10. Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Banita Lal & Michael D. Williams & Marc Clement, 2017. "Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system: towards a unified view," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 549-568, June.
    11. Yongyou Nie & Enci Wang & Qinxin Guo & Junyi Shen, 2018. "Examining Shanghai Consumer Preferences for Electric Vehicles and Their Attributes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Julian M. Müller, 2019. "Comparing Technology Acceptance for Autonomous Vehicles, Battery Electric Vehicles, and Car Sharing—A Study across Europe, China, and North America," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-17, August.
    13. Cartenì, Armando & Cascetta, Ennio & de Luca, Stefano, 2016. "A random utility model for park & carsharing services and the pure preference for electric vehicles," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 49-59.
    14. Türker, Cansu & Altay, Burak Can & Okumuş, Abdullah, 2022. "Understanding user acceptance of QR code mobile payment systems in Turkey: An extended TAM," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    15. Rajak, Manindra & Shaw, Krishnendu, 2021. "An extension of technology acceptance model for mHealth user adoption," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    16. Mütterlein, Joschka & Kunz, Reinhard E. & Baier, Daniel, 2019. "Effects of lead-usership on the acceptance of media innovations: A mobile augmented reality case," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 113-124.
    17. Hsiao, Chun Hua & Yang, Chyan, 2011. "The intellectual development of the technology acceptance model: A co-citation analysis," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 128-136.
    18. Dickinger, Astrid & Stangl, Brigitte, 2013. "Website performance and behavioral consequences: A formative measurement approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(6), pages 771-777.
    19. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Rietveld, Piet & van Ommeren, Jos N., 2013. "Consumer valuation of changes in driving range: A meta-analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 27-45.
    20. Yajiong Xue & Huigang Liang & Liansheng Wu, 2011. "Punishment, Justice, and Compliance in Mandatory IT Settings," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 400-414, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Acceptance; Electric vehicles; TAM; PLS; SEM; Experimental design; M31; M11; O32; O33; R41;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing
    • M11 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Production Management
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • R41 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Transportation: Demand, Supply, and Congestion; Travel Time; Safety and Accidents; Transportation Noise

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:metrik:v:24:y:2013:i:2:p:95-124. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.