1. The Electric Vehicle Attitude-Behavior Gap: Targeting the Early Majority Sanya Carley Associate Professor School of Public and Environmental Affairs Indiana University

2. Electric Vehicles Today Nissan LEAF Plug-in Electric Vehicle (PEV) 73 mile all-electric range 99 mpg-equivalent Chevy Volt Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) 35 mile all-electric range 93 mpg-equivalent (all-electric driving) 37 mpg (gas-electric driving)

3. U.S. Regulatory Push 2008 Obama Campaign Pledge: 1 million plug-in vehicles by 2015 New Carbon and Mileage Requirements on Automakers (54 miles-per-gallon by 2025) through CAFE Manufacturers may count each plug-in vehicle as two vehicles in compliance averaging under CAFE California’s Zero Emissions Vehicle Requirement 3INDIANA UNIVERSITY

4. Incentives Up to $7,500 credit for purchase of PEV or PHEV, depending on the size of the battery – All PEVs qualify for $7,500, but wide variability with PHEVs Up to $2,000 credit for recharging stations (expired 2011) State tax incentives DOT authorizes HOV lane access for electric vehicles No highway fuel tax for electric vehicles 4INDIANA UNIVERSITY

5. President Obama’s 1 million Electric Vehicle Goal INDIANA UNIVERSITY5

6. Conventional Hybrid v. Electric Vehicle Sales INDIANA UNIVERSITY6

7. Targeting the Early Majority 7 Source: www.free-power-point-templates.comwww.free-power-point-templates.com INDIANA UNIVERSITY

8. Attitude-Behavior Gap INDIANA UNIVERSITY8 8 major factors of the attitude-behavior gap in electric vehicle adoption intention. These factors were identified through literature review of the attitude-behavior gap, particularly with respect to pro-environmental behavior and vehicle adoption behavior. HabitSelf-efficacyEmotionsKnowledge AttitudeIntentionBehavior Experience Institutional Factors Competing Priorities Normative Influences

9. Survey Administration Random sample of individuals from the 32 largest U.S. metro area 18 years+, driver’s license, and intent to purchase/lease in next 2 years 15-minute online survey administered by Qualtrics in fall, 2013 Survey instrument designed to extract perceptions of and attitudes toward electric vehicles, as well as vehicle preferences, driving behavior, and other characteristics INDIANA UNIVERSITY9

10. 10

11. Targeting the Early Majority Question 1: Considering what you know about cars and the information provided on the labels above, will your next vehicle purchase or lease be a conventional gasoline, conventional hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or plug-in electric vehicle? Question 2: Overall, what are your impressions of the following types of vehicles at this time? – Likert scale: Highly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, highly unfavorable Those that are favorable but NOT interested in buying an electric vehicle compose our population of interest Comparison group: those favorable and intend to buy one n=580 for the PHEV and n=473 for the PEV 11INDIANA UNIVERSITY

12. Methodological Approach Pr[y>0|X]=Φ(Xβ 1, ε 1 ) y: binary, equal to ‘1’ when respondent is favorable toward a PEV or PHEV, respectively, but does not choose a PEV or a PHEV for intent to purchase X: vector of attitude-behavior gap parameter estimates as well as controls ε: normally distributed error term Combine variables into important constructs First calculate Cronbachs alpha coefficients on all related variables to confirm appropriateness of combining Perform factor analysis to identify constructs INDIANA UNIVERSITY12

13. Factor Constructs Major concerns with EVs Major benefits of EVs Minor concerns or benefits Economy car buyer Car lover Family attributes Rugged attributes Policy incentives INDIANA UNIVERSITY13 Advantages and drawbacks to PEVS Vehicle attributes Policy mechanisms

14. Important ABG Variables ABG FactorRelated variables HabitOwns alternative fuel vehicle Self-efficacyImpact on environment EmotionsSound benefits, Torque benefits ExperienceWord of mouth Institutional factors Next car replacement, Has garage, Car reliance, Aware of local L2 charging, Range concerns, Charging availability concerns, Resale concerns, Safety concerns, Competing priorities Economy car buyer, Car lover buyer, Family attributes car buyer, Rugged car buyer, Supportive EV Policies, Maintenance cost benefits, Fuel savings benefits, Recharge time concerns, Outdated tech concerns, Battery failure concerns Normative influencesEnvironmental image benefits, Impact on environment, Peer concerns INDIANA UNIVERSITY14

15. INDIANA UNIVERSITY15

16. PHEV Results INDIANA UNIVERSITY16 Habit Self-efficacyEmotionsKnowledge AttitudeIntentionBehavior Experience Institutional Factors Competing Priorities Normative Influences HabitSelf-efficacyEmotionsKnowledge AttitudeIntentionBehavior Experience Institutional Factors Competing Priorities Normative Influences

17. PHEV Results INDIANA UNIVERSITY17 Habit Self-efficacyEmotionsKnowledge AttitudeIntentionBehavior Experience Institutional Factors Competing Priorities Normative Influences Interest in PHEVs is strongly motivated by: Respondents’ high gas expenditure Availability of policy incentives

18. PHEV Results INDIANA UNIVERSITY18 Habit Self-efficacyEmotionsKnowledge AttitudeIntentionBehavior Experience Institutional Factors Competing Priorities Normative Influences Particular interest in the environmental impacts Concern about changes in noise profile of vehicles

19. INDIANA UNIVERSITY19

20. PEV Results INDIANA UNIVERSITY20 HabitSelf-efficacyEmotionsKnowledge AttitudeIntentionBehavior Experience Institutional Factors Competing Priorities Normative Influences HabitSelf-efficacyEmotionsKnowledge AttitudeIntentionBehavior Experience Institutional Factors Competing Priorities Normative Influences

21. PEV Results INDIANA UNIVERSITY21 HabitSelf-efficacyEmotionsKnowledge AttitudeIntentionBehavior Experience Institutional Factors Competing Priorities Normative Influences Would not replace an existing car, suggesting issues of compatibility with current lifestyle Interest eroded by heavy reliance on vehicle

22. PEV Results INDIANA UNIVERSITY22 HabitSelf-efficacyEmotionsKnowledge AttitudeIntentionBehavior Experience Institutional Factors Competing Priorities Normative Influences Interested in new vehicle technology but concerned technology will become outdated Interest in the environmental impacts

23. Research Implications PEV and PHEV appeal to potential consumers differently, requiring different marketing approaches Potential market for PHEVs is larger than PEVs PHEV consumer: more typical profile to average vehicle consumer PEV consumer: similar to early adopter community– more focused on technology, and strongly mindful of the benefits and barriers to PEVs PHEV marketing: Convince consumers that they will save $$ on gas expenditures Steer them toward government incentives PEV marketing: Make it easier for consumers to understand how to incorporate PEVs into their lifestyles Highlight the battery technology, and its reliability 23INDIANA UNIVERSITY

24. QUESTIONS?