Research in Transportation Business & Management 43 (2022) 100764

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Business & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rtbm

Intention to purchase electric vehicles: Evidence from an emerging market

Niray Tunçel
Hacettepe University, Department of Business Administration, 06800 Ankara, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The present study examines the effect of the need for uniqueness on motivated consumer innovativeness and its
Electric vehicles (EVs) impact on attitude toward and intention to purchase electric vehicles among Turkish consumers. The study also
Need for uniqueness analyzes the attitude–intention link related to purchasing electric vehicles. The data are collected from a sample
Consumer innovativeness
consisting of 342 consumers living in several cities of Turkey through an online survey and analyzed with the
Attitude
Intention
Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling. The results confirm a positive relationship between con­
Turkey sumers’ need for uniqueness and motivated innovativeness. Consumers who prefer creative and unpopular
product choices have high functionally, hedonically, socially, and cognitively motivated innovativeness levels.
Moreover, consumers’ similarity avoidance positively influences socially motivated consumer innovativeness,
and motivated consumer innovativeness has a positive impact on attitude toward and intention to purchase
electric vehicles. Consumers with high hedonically motivated innovativeness have a favorable attitude toward
purchasing electric vehicles. Those with high cognitively motivated innovativeness are likely to purchase electric
vehicles. Finally, a positive relationship exists between consumers’ attitudes and intention to purchase electric
vehicles. This study introduces a novel personal antecedent of electric vehicle purchase intention, examining the
impact of all dimensions of motivated consumer innovativeness and focusing on the consumer perspective in an
emerging market.

1. Introduction
In both developed and developing countries, the consumption and
the production activities are mainly based on the model of the linear
economy, which presumes that “there is an unlimited supply of natural
resources and that the environment has an unlimited capacity to absorb
waste and pollution” (Camilleri, 2018, p. 3). In this type of economic
system, businesses collect raw materials from nature and transform
them into products that are then used and disposed of as waste (Dieguez,
2020). In contrast, the circular economy approach includes improving
closed-loop systems that allow efficient use of resources, waste pre­
vention, reuse and recycling of materials, and eco-design development.
Then, it provides net savings to both businesses and consumers and
decreases their impact on the environment (Camilleri, 2018, 2019). For
the sustainability of this economic system, consumers’ involvement is
crucial (Borrello, Caracciolo, Lombardi, Pascucci, & Cembalo, 2017;
Hazen, Mollenkopf, & Wang, 2017). One way for consumers to partici­
pate in this new economic model is to use/consume eco-friendly
products.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated
that January 2020 was recorded as the hottest January globally,
pointing to global warming’s grim reality that directly relates to the
human-generated greenhouse gas emission (Climate Central, 2020). The
World Resource Institute data for global greenhouse gas emissions by
sector shows that 11.9% of greenhouse gas emissions are generated by
road transport, mainly from burning fossil fuel for vehicles. It means that
if we could electrify road transport worldwide and achieve a wholly
decarbonized electricity mix, we could practically reduce global emis­
sions by 11.9% (Ritchie & Roser, 2020). Electric vehicles (EVs), or all-
electric vehicles, are powered by electric motors using electrical en­
ergy stored in rechargeable batteries. Compared to vehicles with inter­
nal combustion engines, EVs are quieter, consume no-petroleum-based
fuel, and have no tailpipe emissions (they do not directly release pol­
lutants into the environment) (US Department of Energy and Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, n.d.). Thus, consumers’
preference for EVs is vital for global transformation and plays a signif­
icant role in protecting the environment and natural sources. In this
context, it is essential to understand the factors affecting consumers’
willingness to adopt EVs to develop appropriate strategies to persuade
them.
The previous research has focused on several antecedents of inten­
tion to purchase EVs. For example, in their study reviewed the factors

E-mail address: niraytuncel@hacettepe.edu.tr.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100764
Received 4 May 2021; Received in revised form 16 November 2021; Accepted 6 December 2021
Available online 13 December 2021
2210-5395/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
N. Tunçel
influencing consumers’ intention to adopt EVs, Li, Long, Chen, and Geng
(2017) unveiled three groups of factors. These are demographic (i.e.,
individual and family factors), situational (i.e., technical features, cost,
environmental attributes, and government policy), and psychological (i.
e., experience, attitudes, emotions, perceived behavioral control, soci­
etal influence, and symbols). Besides, Kumar and Alok (2020) also
grouped the antecedents of EV adoption examined in the relevant
literature as economic, charging infrastructure readiness, government
policies and regulations, vehicle design and performance, and market­
ing, environmental, and consumer perspectives.
Although the current literature provides satisfactory information
from the consumer perspective focusing on the psychological and per­
sonal factors that may influence the intention to purchase EVs, some
issues need further interest from the researchers. First, even if EVs’
market penetration is boosting, especially in developed countries, EVs
are still rare and new products for most countries. The countries with the
highest market share1 of EVs with plug-in hybrids in 2019 are Norway
(55.93%), Iceland (17.79%), Netherlands (15.01%), and Sweden
(11.35%), respectively (Richter, 2020). Except for these countries and
112 others, the rest has a market share lower than 2.5%. Therefore, it
means that the adoption of EVs is in the innovators’ phase (in its very
early stage) in terms of Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 1983), so EVs
are unique eco-innovations for the consumers in those markets. Thus,
EVs’ uniqueness can be a reflector of consumers’ need for uniqueness
(NFU). Since innovativeness as an expression of NFU (Roehrich, 2004),
consumers’ NFU can be a determinant of their innovativeness that may
affect their attitude toward EVs. As the present knowledge only provides
evidence for the influence of NFU on consumers’ attitude and adoption
intention toward autonomous vehicles (Huang, 2020), to examine NFU
as an antecedent of the attitude toward and intention to purchase EVs
will expand the current understanding.
Second, the previous studies also examined whether consumers with
a high level of innovativeness are likely to hold positive attitudes and
intentions for EVs or not. However, these studies are minimal, present
conflicting findings, and provide extremely limited information
regarding the impact of motivated consumer innovativeness (CI). For
instance, a small number of studies (Li, Wang, Li, & Liao, 2021; Moon,
2021; Tu & Yang, 2019) focused on the impact of CI on attitude toward
EVs. Li et al. (2021) and Moon (2021) demonstrated the positive influ­
ence of CI. In contrast, Tu and Yang (2019) found no evidence of such an
influence. In addition, motivated CI was addressed only by Li et al.
(2021). Although it was confirmed that CI positively affects EV purchase
intention (e.g., Chao, Hung, & Sun, 2021; He, Zhan, & Hu, 2018;
Lashari, Ko, & Jang, 2021; Li et al., 2021; Morton, Anable, & Nelson,
2016), as with attitude, only Li et al.’s (2021) study included motivated
CI. However, they considered CI in terms of only two dimensions (i.e.,
hedonist and social). Thus, analyzing all dimensions of motivated CI’s
influence on both attitude toward and intention to purchase EVs will
expand the current understanding of the role of CI in EV adoption.
Lastly, most of the EV studies are based on developed countries,
dominated by the USA and followed by other developed countries such
as Germany and the UK (Kumar & Alok, 2020; Li et al., 2017). The EV
studies are also growing in emerging markets, including China (e.g.,
Chu, Im, Song, & Park, 2019; He et al., 2018; Li, Wang, Chen, & Wang,
2020), India (e.g., Bhalla, Ali, & Nazneen, 2018; Shetty et al., 2020), and
Malaysia (e.g., Adnan, Nordin, Rahman, & Rasli, 2017; Asadi et al.,
2021). However, there is still a lot more to explore regarding EV
adoption in developing countries than their developed counterparts.
Of the developing countries, Turkey has a promising market poten­
tial for EVs. According to the Turkish Statistical Institute’s data, Tur­
key’s EV market is beginning from a shallow base at present (Saygin
1
Including light vehicles, excluding commercial vehicles.
2
Finland, Portugal, China, Switzerland, Denmark, Ireland, Austria, Belgium,
UK, Germany, France.
2
Research in Transportation Business & Management 43 (2022) 100764
et al., 2019); however, the total number of EVs and plug-in hybrids is
rising incrementally. While it was 5367 in 2018, with a 163% increase
rate, it ascended to 14,115 in 2019 (Euronews, 2020). Also, SHURA
Energy Transition Center reported that Turkey’s total EV stock is ex­
pected to reach 2.5 million by 2030, generating 10% of the entire
vehicle stock in that year (Daily Sabah, 2020). Hence, EV adoption in
Turkey is in its very early phase, though with great future potential. In
this context, unveiling the personal factors influencing the intention to
purchase EVs in Turkey would help understand the consumer perspec­
tive in emerging markets, a scarce research area in the current literature.
Based on the above reasoning, the current study examines NFU and
motivated CI as the antecedents of the attitude and intention toward
purchasing EVs for Turkish consumers. Specifically, this study analyzes
the impact of NFU on motivated CI as well as its influence on both
attitude toward and intention to purchase EVs. Besides, the link between
the attitude toward purchasing EVs and the intent to purchase EVs is
investigated.
In this context, the remainder of the paper has the following struc­
ture. The first section presents the conceptual framework and the
anticipated relationships among the variables. Then, the second section
explains the research design and methodology. And then, the study
provides the analysis and findings followed by the discussion and im­
plications. Finally, the study concludes by noting limitations and im­
plications for future research.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Need for uniqueness
In the consumer behavior context, NFU is defined as “the trait of
pursuing differentness relative to others through the acquisition, utili­
zation, and disposition of consumer goods to develop and enhance one’s
self-image and social image” (Tian, Bearden, & Hunter, 2001, p. 52). It
has three dimensions: creative choice counter conformity, unpopular
choice counter conformity, and avoidance of similarity. Creative choice
counter-conformity refers that consumers look for social differentness
from others, but at the same time, they make choices, which are
considered good ones by these others. Unpopular choice counter-confor­
mity indicates the selection or consumption of products and brands
deviating from group norms. Avoidance of similarity refers to the loss of
interest in or the disuse of products and brands that become common.
NFU influences peoples’ beliefs and attitudes toward products and
brands (Snyder & Fromkin, 2012). Lee, Kumar, and Kim (2010) found
that Indian consumers with higher NFU levels are inclined to have more
positive attitudes toward American products. Since American products
are associated with nonconformity to traditional values and limitedly
available in the market compared to domestic products, Indian con­
sumers believe these products enhance their uniqueness. Another study
(Gentina, Shrum, & Lowrey, 2016) demonstrated that NFU positively
relates to the attitude toward luxury brands of French and American
consumers since the scarcity of luxury brands is an avenue for people to
express their uniqueness (Bian & Forsythe, 2012). Moreover, NFU has an
impact on the preferences of consumers. Compared to low NFU con­
sumers, high NFU consumers are more likely to prefer distinctive
product designs (Bloch, 1995) and feel drawn to scarce products (Lynn,
1992; Lynn & Harris, 1997).
Additionally, it is also indicated that consumers can express their
NFU with innovativeness (Roehrich, 2004) as Gatignon and Robertson
(1985) reported that consumers who do not desire conformity are the
ones adopting innovations quickly. This approach was supported by
some empirical studies as well. For instance, it is confirmed that high
NFU consumers are more motivated to adopt innovative goods and
services compared to low NFU ones (Burns & Krampf, 2015; Kauppinen-
Räisänen, Björk, Lönnström, & Jauffret, 2018; Lynn & Harris, 1997;
Snyder, 1992). Therefore, NFU can be considered as a credible ante­
cedent of CI (Roehrich, 2004). Additionally, in line with Tian et al.’s
N. Tunçel
(2001) approach, the current study examines the impact of NFU in terms
of creative choice counter conformity, unpopular choice counter con­
formity, and avoidance of similarity.
2.2. Consumer innovativeness
Innovativeness is “the degree to which an individual or other unit of
adoption is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than the other
members of a system.” (Rogers, 1983, p. 22). This conceptualization of
innovativeness relates to the time difference in the adoption of in­
novations. In addition, as a personality trait, innovativeness is defined as
“the degree to which an individual makes innovative decisions inde­
pendently of the communicated experience of others (Midgley & Dow­
ling, 1978, p. 235). This definition refers to innate innovativeness and
focuses on the inclination to experience or try new things (Goldsmith &
Foxall, 2003). This form of innovativeness exists more or less in all in­
dividuals and is considered a global personality trait (Morton et al.,
2016).
As part of a general category of innate innovativeness, CI is
conceptualized as “the tendency to buy new products in a particular
product category soon after they appear in the market and relatively
earlier than most other consumers in the market segment” (Foxall,
Goldsmith, & Brown, 1998, p. 41). Vandecasteele and Geuens (2010)
considered CI as the sum of four motivational dimensions: functional,
hedonic, social, and cognitive. According to this approach, the func­
tional performance of innovations motivates functional innovativeness.
In contrast, hedonic innovativeness is motivated by affective or sensory
stimulation and gratification. In addition, social innovativeness is driven
by the self-assertive social need for differentiation. Lastly, the need for
mental stimulation motivates cognitive innovativeness. These motiva­
tions are activated by the goals that consumers want to accomplish. For
instance, hedonically motivated consumers buy innovations because
they want to feel excited and experience pleasure. In contrast, func­
tionally motivated consumer purchases innovations to increase their
productivity or work quality. Thus, it is crucial to comprehend con­
sumers’ underlying motivation/s for their preference for a specific
innovative product (i.e., EVs) to understand which value of the product
should be highlighted for which target market.
Motivated CI was confirmed as a significant antecedent of both
attitude and behavioral intention toward innovative products. For
instance, Hwang, Lee, and Kim (2019) demonstrated that functionally,
hedonically, and socially motivated CI positively influences drone food
delivery attitude. However, the intention to use such a service comes
from the functionally motivated CI. Besides, Hwang, Park, and Kim
(2020) demonstrated that functionally, hedonically, and cognitively
motivated CI positively influences the overall perceived image of robotic
restaurants. Similarly, the current study also takes motivated CI (Van­
decasteele & Geuens, 2010) as an antecedent of attitude and intention
toward purchasing an innovative product (i.e., EVs). The following
section presents the justification of the anticipated relationships among
the variables of the study.
2.3. Hypothesis development
Fromkin (1971) suggested a positive link between NFU and CI as,
first, innovativeness is an easy way to satisfy NFU. Second, NFU involves
independent judgment and decision-making required for innovative
purchasing (Adityan, Harikrishnan, Anand, & Saju, 2017; Roehrich,
2004). Even if there is a piece of limited evidence, this approach found
empirical support from previous research. For instance, Gentina and
Kratzer (2020) confirmed that adolescent consumers’ NFU positively
relates to their innovativeness. In addition, NFU was also revealed as a
positive antecedent of consumers’ fashion innovativeness (e.g., Balik­
cioglu, 2018; Dlodlo, 2014; Gentina et al., 2016). Dlodlo (2014)
revealed that all three dimensions of NFU (i.e., creative choice counter
conformity, unpopular choice counter conformity, avoidance of
3
Research in Transportation Business & Management 43 (2022) 100764
similarity) have a significant positive impact on young consumers’
innovativeness. Besides, Gentina et al. (2016) found that French and
American adolescents’ NFU positively relates to their innovativeness,
making them have a favorable attitude toward luxury brands. These
studies confirm that a higher level of NFU leads to a greater level of CI.
Hence, it is expected that NFU will positively influence motivated CI. In
this sense, the first hypothesis of the study is built as:
H1. NFU has a positive impact on motivated CI.
In the consumer behavior context, CI has been examined as a pre­
dictor of consumers’ attitudes toward new products, and previous
studies have analyzed the impact of CI on attitudes toward various types
of goods and services. For instance, it is revealed that CI positively in­
fluences the attitude toward rooftop photovoltaic installation (Sun,
Wang, Huang, & Ho, 2020), robot-serviced restaurants (Cha, 2020),
drone food delivery (Hwang et al., 2019), and subscription-based online
services (Ramkumar & Woo, 2018). Thus, it can be stated that CI is a
crucial personal factor that affects consumers’ attitudes toward inno­
vational products.
EVs are equipped with highly innovative technologies such as
lithium-ion batteries and advanced electronic equipment, which are
brand new components and are not used in standard combustion engine
vehicles. Also, global adoption of EVs is still within the innovator phase
in terms of the Technology Adoption Curve (Open Access Government,
2020) as EVs are accounted for 2.6% of global car sales and 1% of car
stock in 2019 (International Energy Agency, 2020). All of them show
that EVs are innovative products in their very early adoption phase.
Thus, CI can also significantly predict consumers’ attitudes toward
purchasing EVs. Accordingly, previous studies hypothesized that CI is a
positive indicator of attitude toward EVs; however, these studies have
provided conflicting findings. Tu and Yang (2019) found no evidence of
the impact of CI. However, other recent studies (Li et al., 2021; Moon,
2021) demonstrated that CI has a positive influence on attitude toward
EVs. In this study, we expect that CI will be shown to positively affect
consumers’ attitudes toward buying EVs. Hence, the second hypothesis
of this study is as follows:
H2. Motivated CI has a positive impact on the attitude toward purchasing
EVs.
Furthermore, innovativeness has been revealed as an essential
antecedent of new product adoption and intention to use different types
of innovative products (Eryigit, 2020). For instance, CI has a positive
impact on the willingness to use smart home technologies (Nikou,
2019), drone food delivery services (Hwang et al., 2019), robotic res­
taurants (Kim, Choe, & Hwang, 2021), and mobile payment (Handarkho
& Harjoseputro, 2019). The recent research has also revealed CI as a
determinant of intention for and adoption of sustainable consumption,
including green products and eco-innovations (Eryigit, 2020). For
instance, CI positively influences the intent to purchase environmentally
friendly (Alzubaidi, Slade, & Dwivedi, 2021) and fair trade (Konuk,
2019) products, organic foods (Robinson & Leonhardt, 2018), wood
fiber-based clothing (Halderpradip & Laukkanen, 2020), and bio-robotic
refrigerators (Esfahani & Reynolds, 2021). In addition, previous studies
have confirmed the impact of CI on the demand for green transport
innovation. For instance, Flores and Jansson (2021) demonstrated that
CI positively influences the use of shared micro-mobility (e-bikes and e-
scooters). Heidenreich, Spieth, and Petschnig (2017) showed that CI has
a significant positive impact on intention to purchase alternative fuel
vehicles (AFVs). Earlier studies have also examined CI as an antecedent
of intent to buy EVs and proved its positive effect (Chao et al., 2021; He
et al., 2018; Khazaei, 2019; Lashari et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Morton
et al., 2016). Lashari et al. (2021) measured innovativeness as a unidi­
mensional variable and demonstrated that Korean consumers’ personal
innovativeness is positively associated with their intention to purchase
EVs. Chao et al. (2021) focused on two types of CI: innate consumer
innovativeness and domain-specific innovativeness. Their results
N. Tunçel Research in Transportation Business & Management 43 (2022) 100764

supported the positive impact of only domain-specific innovativeness in
regard to the adoption of EVs. Additionally, Li et al. (2021) demon­
strated that Chinese consumers with high levels of hedonist and social
innovativeness are likely to buy EVs. Based on the findings of these
studies, the present study predicts that CI will be shown to positively
influence EV purchase intention. Therefore, the third hypothesis is as
follows:
H3. Motivated CI has a positive impact on the intention to purchase EVs.
The attitude toward purchasing EVs represents whether consumers
perceive or evaluate purchasing EVs positively or negatively. Since in­
dividuals’ attitudes toward a behavior can predict their intention
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), a more positive attitude toward purchasing
EVs may lead to a greater intent to purchase EVs. The attitude-intention
link in the adoption of EVs has been the focus of some previous studies
(e.g., Asadi et al., 2021; Degirmenci & Breitner, 2017; He et al., 2018; Tu
& Yang, 2019; Wu, Liao, Wang, & Chen, 2019; Xu, Zhang, Bao, Zhang, &
Xiang, 2019; Yang, Tu, & Jiang, 2020). For instance, Wu et al. (2019)
confirmed that consumers who think EVs are easy to use and benefit the
environment intend to purchase them. Besides, it is demonstrated that
there is a positive relationship between people’s attitude toward EVs and
their purchase intention as the participants with higher purchase
intention were the ones who credited EVs more favorably (Degirmenci &
Breitner, 2017; Xu et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2020). Additionally, another
study (He et al., 2018) showed that when individuals believe that EVs
provide monetary and symbolic benefit, their willingness to purchase
enhances; however, when individuals perceive EVs as risky and costly,
their likelihood to purchase diminishes. Thus, it can be stated that a
negative/positive attitude toward EVs leads to a negative/positive
intention to buy. Accordingly, the last hypothesis of the study is:
H4. Attitude toward purchasing EVs has a positive impact on the intention
to purchase EVs.
Based on the hypotheses mentioned above, the research model of the
study is depicted in Fig. 1 below:
This conceptual model is based on the Theory of Reasoned Action
(TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) that has been adopted and confirmed by
previous EV studies (e.g., Alzahrani, Hall-Phillips, & Zeng, 2019;
Higueras-Castillo, Molinillo, Coca-Stefaniak, & Liébana-Cabanillas,
2019; Jansson, Nordlund, & Westin, 2017; Nosi, Pucci, Silvestri, &
Aquilani, 2017; Thøgersen & Ebsen, 2019). TRA specifies that in­
dividuals’ beliefs about performing a behavior can vary as a function of
several background factors such as individual (e.g., values, personality,
and general attitudes), social (e.g., religion, culture, and ethnicity), and
information (e.g., knowledge and media). These beliefs then affect the
attitude toward the behavior that is one of the critical predictors of
behavioral intention (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). Based on this, it is ex­
pected that as an individual factor, NFU will determine consumers’
motivations for innovativeness (i.e., motivated CI), which predicts the
attitude and intention toward purchasing EVs.
survey link and participated in the study. However, 67 incomplete in­
dividual responses were removed, and the remaining 342 were included
in the analysis. The online survey helped to reach participants from
different cities in Turkey, such as Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, Adana, Bursa,
and Diyarbakir. Table 1 exhibits the demographics of the participants.
As shown in Tables 1, 55.6% of the participants were women and
41.5% were men. Regarding gender distribution, as of 2020, Turkey’s
population was 49.9% female and 50.1% male (Turkish Statistical
Institute [TURKSTAT], 2020a). The percentage of women participating
in this study was slightly higher than the percentage of women among
Turkey’s overall population, and the proportion of men was lower than
that of men in the overall population. However, as these differences are
minimal (less than 10%), the data can be considered well distributed in
terms of gender. Regarding education level, 16.4% of the participants
had a high school degree, more than half (52.9%) had a bachelor’s de­
gree, and 28.4% had a master’s or Ph.D. degree. Among Turkey’s overall
population, 21.6% had a high school degree, 19.2% had a bachelor’s
degree, and 2.6% had a master’s degree (TURKSTAT, 2020b). Therefore,
the education level of the study sample was higher than that of Turkey’s
overall population. Considering these differences, one-way ANOVA was
applied to determine whether there was statistical evidence indicating
that the means of the education groups were significantly different in
terms of dependent and independent variables. The results indicated
that there was no significant difference among the education groups for
any variables in the study. Thus, the higher education level of the sample
in comparison to the overall Turkish population does not appear to lead
to bias, and the trend of the data is similar in terms of education.
Furthermore, 30.4% of the participants had a low income, 20.5% had
a low-middle-level income, 29.5% had a middle-level income, 6.7% had
a middle-high income, and 9.9% had a high income. In 2020, the min­
imum wage in Turkey was 2500 TL, and more than one-third of the labor
force in Turkey was paid the minimum wage (Trading Economics,
2020), which accords with the minimum income level percentage
(30.4%) in this study. Additionally, according to the Confederation of
Progressive Trade Unions of Turkey, 34.1% of people had an income that
was more than double the minimum wage (5000 TL) in 2020 (Erem,
2020). The same group in this study accounted for 46.1% of the sample.
Thus, the percentage of participants who had an income that was more
than double the minimum wage is 12% higher than that of the overall
Turkish population. However, the results of the one-way ANOVA test
showed that there was no significant difference among the means of the
income groups concerning the independent and dependent variables of
the study. Hence, the income-level difference between the sample and
the overall population does not appear to impact the results.
Finally, as Table 1 shows, 56.4% of the participants were between
the ages of 18 and 30, and the 31–43 age group comprised 22.5% of the
sample. In addition, the 44–56 age group accounted for 13.5% of the
participants, and the 57–69 age group constituted 7.6%. The mean age
was 33.12, and the median age was 28. Regarding the age statistics from
TURKSTAT (2020a), 41.4% of the Turkish population was between 18

3. Research design and method Table 1

Demographics of the participants.
3.1. Data collection and sampling
Gender N % Education N %

The data were collected through an online survey. The questionnaire Female 190 55.6 High school 56 16.4
Male 142 41.5 University 181 52.9
was designed in SurveyMonkey, and a total of 409 people accessed the
Not mentioned 10 2.9 Master’s and PhD 97 28.4
Total 342 100 Not mentioned 8 2.3
Total 342 100
Income Age
0–2499 TL 104 30.4 18–30 193 56.4
2500–4999 TL 70 20.5 31–43 77 22.5
5000–7499 TL 101 29.5 44–56 46 13.5
7500-9999TL 23 6.7 57–69 26 7.6
10,000 TL< 34 9.9 Total 342 100
Not mentioned 10 2.9
Total 342 100
Fig. 1. Research model.

4
N. Tunçel Research in Transportation Business & Management 43 (2022) 100764

and 44, and 25.4% was between 45 and 69. However, the percentages of
these groups in this study were approximately 80.7% and 19.3%,
respectively. Moreover, the median age of the Turkish population was
32.7. Therefore, the percentage of young people in the sample was
higher than that in the overall population. For this reason, a one-way
ANOVA test was conducted to determine whether there was a signifi­
cant difference among the age groups regarding the variables in the
study. The findings confirmed that the mean of each age group was
similar. Hence, age does not appear to create bias in the hypothesis
testing results.
3.2. Measures
The current study used the existing scales to measure the variables in
the research model. For consumers’ NFU, Ruvio, Shoham, and Brenčič’s
(2008) short-form scale (12 items) was adopted. This scale measures
NFU in three dimensions: creative choice, unpopular choice, and
avoidance of similarity. This scale consists of such items as “I often
combine possessions in such a way that I create a personal image that cannot
be duplicated.” for creative choice, “I have often violated the understood
rules of my social group regarding what to buy or own.” for unpopular
choice, and “As a rule, I dislike products or brands that are customarily
bought by everyone.” for the avoidance of similarity. All items in the scale
were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
For CI, the motivated CI scale (20 items) of Vandecasteele and
Geuens (2010) was used. This measurement instrument underlies four
types of motivations of CI: social, functional, hedonic, and cognitive.
Some items of this scale are “I love to use innovations that impress others.”
(social motivation), “If I discover a new product in a more convenient size, I
am very inclined to buy this.” (functional motivation), “Innovations make
my life exciting and stimulating.” (hedonic motivation), and “I often buy
new products that make me think logically” (cognitive motivation). A five-
point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) was
used to rate the scale items.
The scales used in Degirmenci and Breitner’s (2017) study were
adopted for the attitude toward purchasing and intention to purchase
EVs. Respondents’ attitude toward “purchasing an EV” was measured
with a five-point semantic differential scale consisting of four bipolar
adjectives (i.e., bad/good, foolish/wise, unfavorable/favorable, nega­
tive/positive). Using a semantic differential scale helps weigh the re­
spondents’ attitudes toward a specific subject (e.g., buying an EV). The
use of such a scale is frequently preferred for attitude measurement in
consumer research (Russell, 2011). Finally, the purchase intention scale
includes three items, for instance, “Assuming I had the opportunity, I
would intend to buy an electric vehicle.” Participants evaluated their
disagreement/agreement level regarding each item using a five-point
Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
3.3. Analysis and findings
In order to test the measurement and structural models, partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used. It is indi­
cated that PLS-SEM provides a great degree of statistical power
compared to covariance-based SEM (Hair, Risher, Sarstedt, & Ringle,
2019). Therefore, PLS-SEM is likely to determine relationships as sig­
checked, and for the discriminant validity Fornell-Larcker Criterion and
Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) method was adopted. Table 2
presents the values related to the reliability and the convergent validity,
and Table 3 gives the results (i.e., Fornell-Larcker Criterion and
Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio method) for the discriminant validity.
As depicted in Table 2, the values of α, rho_A, and CR that are greater
than 0.7 prove the scales’ reliability. In addition, the AVE values of the
measures specify that the scale items accurately measured the latent
constructs, demonstrating a satisfactory convergent validity.
Moreover, as shown in Table 4, the HTMT method’s result revealed
all the values below 0.90, which meets Hair Jr et al.’s (2017) criteria.
Besides, the Fornell-Larcker Criterion calculation unveiled that the
square root of the AVE value for each construct is higher than LVC
values. Therefore, it is evident that all scales adopted in the study have
appropriate reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity.
Following the assessment of the measurement model, the hypotheses
of the study were tested. However, it was first ensured that the model
was free of common method bias (CMB). Following the full collinearity
assessment approach (Kock, 2015, 2017), the variance inflation factor
(VIF) values were generated for all the latent model variables. The
findings revealed all VIF values below 3.3, verifying that the research
model is free of CMB. Besides, the collinearity among independent
variables was also tested to ensure the accuracy of the estimated co­
efficients. The findings showed that all VIF values are lesser than the
threshold value of 5 (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011), confirming no
collinearity problem among independent variables. After this, as Hair Jr
et al. (2017) suggested, the hypotheses were examined using the boot­
strapping method with 5000 subsamples. The results are presented in
Table 4.
As depicted in Table 4, the first dimension of NFU, creative choice,
has a significant positive impact on socially (В = 0.537, p = .000),
functionally (В = 0.319, p = .000), hedonically (В = 0.398, p = .000),
and cognitively (В = 0.309, p = .000) motivated CI. Thus, creative
choice significantly and positively influences each dimension of moti­
vated CI at p < .01. In addition, the second dimension of NFU, unpopular
choice, has a significant positive impact on socially (В = 0.116, p =
.030), functionally (В = 0.122, p = .074), hedonically (В = 0.137, p =
.019), and cognitively (В = 0.136, p = .033) motivated CI. Except for its
effect on functionally motivated CI, which is significant at p < .1, its
impact on all other dimensions is significant at p < .05. The last
dimension of NFU, avoidance of similarity, has a positive influence (В =
0.105) only on socially motivated CI, which is significant at p < .1 (p =
.079). Thus, H1 is partially supported.
Furthermore, the findings indicate that only hedonically motivated
CI positively (B = 0.132) influences the attitude toward purchasing EVs,
and it is significant at p < .1 (p = .085). When it comes to the impact of
motivated CI on the intention to purchase EVs, it is seen that cognitively
motivated CI is a significant positive antecedent of the intent to buy EVs
(В = 0.156, p = .030). Hence, H2 and H3 are partially supported. Last, it
is unveiled that the attitude toward purchasing EVs positively (В =
0.588) affects the intention to purchase EVs at p < .01. Therefore, H4 is
Table 2
Reliability and convergent validity of the measures.
rho_A CR AVE
α

nificant when present in the population (Hair Jr, Hult, Ringle, & Sar­ NFU
stedt, 2017). This feature makes the method convenient for testing a Creative choice 0.842 0.848 0.894 0.678
Unpopular choice 0.818 0.847 0.878 0.644
model that introduces a novel latent variable (Hair et al., 2019). Avoidance of similarity 0.911 0.914 0.937 0.789
Accordingly, the current study presented NFU and motivated CI as new
Motivated CI
latent antecedents of the attitude and intention toward purchasing EVs.
Socially motivated CI 0.831 0.862 0.882 0.603
Due to these reasons, the PLS-SEM method was used for data analysis. Functionally motivated CI 0.833 0.845 0.882 0.601
First, to test the measurement model, the reliability and the validity Hedonically motivated CI 0.919 0.919 0.939 0.755
of the scales were tested. Cronbach’s Alpha (α), rho_A, and Composite Cognitively motivated CI 0.902 0.910 0.928 0.720
Reliability (CR) values were calculated for reliability. For the conver­ Attitude toward purchasing EVs 0.902 0.906 0.932 0.773
Intention to purchase EVs 0.851 0.881 0.910 0.773
gent validity, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values were

5
N. Tunçel Research in Transportation Business & Management 43 (2022) 100764

Table 3
Discriminant analysis (HTMT and Fornell-Larcker Criterion) results.
Creative Unpopular Avoidance of Socially Functionally Hedonically Cognitively Attitude toward Intention to
choice choice similarity motivated CI motivated CI motivated CI motivated CI purchasing EVs purchase EVs

HTMT
Creative choice
Unpopular
choice 0.512
Avoidance of
similarity 0.567 0.593
Socially
motivated CI 0.750 0.461 0.473
Functionally
motivated CI 0.383 0.249 0.134 0.461
Hedonically
motivated CI 0.494 0.331 0.258 0.574 0.588
Cognitively
motivated CI 0.460 0.348 0.326 0.524 0.599 0.607
Attitude toward
purchasing EVs 0.132 0.065 0.025 0.147 0.190 0.209 0.151
Intention to
purchase EVs 0.062 0.087 0.046 0.115 0.187 0.162 0.232 0.674

Fornell-Larcker Criterion*
Creative choice 0.824
Unpopular
choice 0.436 0.802
Avoidance of
similarity 0.497 0.525 0.888
Socially
motivated CI 0.640 0.407 0.436 0.777
Functionally
motivated CI 0.322 0.209 0.120 0.382 0.775
Hedonically
motivated CI 0.440 0.293 0.237 0.498 0.517 0.869
Cognitively
motivated CI 0.406 0.310 0.300 0.460 0.518 0.554 0.848
Attitude toward
purchasing EVs 0.115 0.013 − 0.010 0.124 0.169 0.194 0.138 0.879
Intention to
purchase EVs 0.035 0.065 0.019 0.094 0.160 0.146 0.204 0.598 0.879
*
The diagonals represent the square root of AVE in Italics, and the non-diagonals represent the latent variable correlations (LVC).

supported.
Moreover, the R2 value of 0.376 represents a close to moderate
predictive accuracy (thresholds: 0.25 [low], 0.5 [moderate], 0.75
[strong]) (Hair Jr et al., 2017). Thus, NFU, motivated CI, and attitude
toward EVs explain 37.6% of the variance in intention to purchase EVs.
Additionally, Stone-Geisser’s Q2 (Stone, 1974) value of 0.279, which is
larger than zero, indicates the model’s predictive relevance for the
intention to purchase EVs (Hair Jr et al., 2017). Lastly, for assessing the
goodness of the model fit, the standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR) was adopted as suggested by Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt
(2015). The value of 0.054, which is lower than the threshold value of
0.080 (Hu & Bentler, 1998), is the indicator of a good model fit.
4. Discussion and implications
This study revealed that Turkish consumers with higher NFU are
more motivated for innovativeness. More specifically, consumers who
tend to make creative and un-popular choices for their product prefer­
ences are inclined to be socially, functionally, hedonically, and cogni­
tively motivated for innovativeness. Then, their innovativeness
motivations lead to a positive attitude and intention toward purchasing
EVs. Consumers with higher hedonically motivated CI are more likely to
have a positive attitude toward purchasing EVs. Consumers with higher
cognitively motivated CI have a higher intention to buy EVs. Lastly, it is
also unveiled that the more Turkish consumers hold a positive attitude
toward purchasing EVs, the more they intend to purchase them.
The results of the study both support and controvert the present
knowledge in the literature. For instance, the link between NFU and CI
supports previous studies’ findings (e.g., Balikcioglu, 2018; Dlodlo,
2014; Gentina et al., 2016; Gentina & Kratzer, 2020), which also
confirmed the positive impact of NFU on CI. From these studies, Dlodlo
(2014) demonstrated the positive effect of NFU’s each dimension on CI
as the current study did. Besides, the influence of CI on the attitude
toward EVs is supported only for the effect of hedonically motivated CI.
Similarly, Li et al. (2021) confirmed that hedonic innovativeness is a
positive antecedent of the attitude toward EVs. However, they also
demonstrated the effect of social innovativeness, which could not be
proved in this study. The impact of CI on consumer attitude also differed
in some previous studies. Tu and Yang (2019) could not support the
impact of CI on the attitude toward EVs. Additionally, for another
innovative product (i.e., drone food delivery), functionally, hedonically,
and socially motivated CI were the positive indicators of the attitude
(Hwang et al., 2019).
When it comes to the influence of CI on the intention to purchase
EVs, only the cognitively motivated CI was revealed to be a significant
positive indicator. However, Li et al. (2021) confirmed that hedonic and
social innovativeness impact EV purchase intention. In addition, for
another innovation (i.e., drone food delivery), only the functionally
motivated CI was the predictor of purchase intention (Hwang et al.,
2019). Further, considering the attitude-intention link, the current study
confirmed that Turkish consumers with a more positive attitude toward
buying EVs are more likely to purchase them. This finding supports the
results of some previous studies (e.g., Asadi et al., 2021; He et al., 2018;
Wu et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2020), which also demonstrated a positive
attitude-intention link in the adoption of EVs.
The current study contributes significantly to the literature in several
aspects. First, it introduces NFU as a novel personal antecedent of EV
purchase intention. Second, even though CI was examined in recent EV

6
N. Tunçel Research in Transportation Business & Management 43 (2022) 100764

Table 4 their NFU with innovativeness, which is also evident for Turkish con­
Hypothesis testing results. sumers. Lastly, considering the motivated CI, it seems that, from its di­
Path Standard T P-Values mensions, hedonically motivated CI leads Turkish consumers to hold a
Coef. Dev. Statistics positive attitude toward buying EVs. Whereas another dimension,
H1: NFU has a positive impact on motivated CI. cognitively motivated CI, increases Turkish consumers’ EV purchase
creative choice - > socially 0.537 0.053 10.207 0.000*** intention. Hence, it can be inferred that Turkish consumers’ positive
motivated CI attitude toward purchasing EVs relates to their affective goals, such as a
Ö feeling of excitement, joy, and satisfaction. Their intention to purchase
creative choice - > 0.319 0.063 5.028 0.000***
functionally motivated CI
EVs relates to their cognitive goals, such as exploration, understanding,
creative choice - > 0.398 0.056 7.137 0.000*** and intellectual creativity (see Vandecasteele & Geuens, 2010).
hedonically motivated CI The current study presents some practical implications as well. First,
creative choice - > cognitively 0.309 0.071 4.369 0.000*** it would not be wrong to state that EV brands can use NFU, motivated CI,
motivated CI
and consumer attitude as psychographic variables for the Turkish mar­
unpopular choice - > socially 0.116 0.053 2.177 0.030**
motivated CI ket segmentation. The potential EV users can be the ones who have an
unpopular choice - > 0.122 0.068 1.788 0.074* NFU, are hedonically and cognitively motivated for innovativeness, and
functionally motivated CI hold a positive attitude toward purchasing EVs. Second, since the
unpopular choice - > 0.137 0.058 2.352 0.019** motivated CI is a predictor of Turkish consumers’ attitude and intention
hedonically motivated CI
unpopular choice - > 0.136 0.064 2.127 0.033**
toward buying EVs, and NFU is a positive indicator of motivated CI, the
cognitively motivated CI appealing messages, which aim to stimulate consumers’ NFU, should be
avoidance of similarity - > 0.105 0.060 1.756 0.079* created. As NFU includes creative choice counter conformity, unpopular
socially motivated CI choice counter conformity, and avoidance of similarity (Tian et al.,
Ö
2001), how owning an EV can meet each NFU dimension should be
avoidance of similarity - > − 0.103 0.067 1.521 0.128
functionally motivated CI emphasized. For instance, consumers who are creative in their product
avoidance of similarity - > − 0.033 0.064 0.524 0.600 choices would be interested in purchasing EVs if they are convinced that
hedonically motivated CI EVs help them provide social differentness and that their preference for
avoidance of similarity - > 0.075 0.076 0.983 0.326 EVs would be considered reasonable. Thus, the communication mes­
cognitively motivated CI
sages focusing on EVs’ unique characteristics, making them different
H2: Motivated CI has a positive impact on the attitude toward purchasing EVs. from other types of vehicles and how these unique characteristics
socially motivated CI - > 0.020 0.062 0.320 0.749
enhance social differentness, can be appropriate to attract this type of
attitude toward EVs
functionally motivated CI - > 0.090 0.070 1.298 0.194
Turkish consumers. Besides, consumers who tend to select or consume
attitude toward EVs products that deviate from the group norms may be motivated to pur­
hedonically motivated CI - > 0.132 0.076 1.721 0.085* chase EVs if they believe that owning EVs is contrary to the traditional
attitude toward EVs norms of the society or the norms of their friends, family, or acquain­
cognitively motivated CI - > 0.009 0.064 0.137 0.891
tances regarding product usage or consumption. Thus, it would help
attitude toward EVs
promote EVs as the products that symbolize the counter conformity to
H3: Motivated CI has a positive impact on the intention to purchase EVs. attract Turkish consumers who wish to be outliers in terms of their
socially motivated CI - > − 0.033 0.049 0.685 0.493
intention to purchase EVs
product preferences.
functionally motivated CI - > 0.016 0.058 0.283 0.777 Third, the findings of the current study suggest that since hedonically
intention to purchase EVs motivated CI leads to a favorable attitude toward purchasing EVs, the EV
hedonically motivated CI - > − 0.046 0.067 0.692 0.489 brands could underline the hedonic values such as how the experience of
intention to purchase EVs
driving an EV gives pleasure and enjoyment to its users and how EVs can
cognitively motivated CI - > 0.156 0.072 2.171 0.030**
intention to purchase EVs make the one’s life more exciting. In this way, EV companies can boost
the hedonically motivated Turkish consumers’ positive attitude toward
H4: Attitude toward purchasing EVs has a positive impact on the intention to
purchase EVs.
purchasing EVs, increasing their intention to buy them. Lastly, this study
attitude toward purchasing 0.588 0.046 12.917 0.000*** unveiled that the cognitively motivated CI leads to EV purchase inten­
EVs - > intention to tion. Since cognitively motivated consumers desire to grow their
purchase EVs cognitive limits and are interested in exploration and intellectual crea­
***p < .001 **p < .05 *p < .1. R2 = 0.376, Q2 = 0.279, SRMR = 0.054. tivity (Vandecasteele & Geuens, 2010), it would be suitable to position
EVs as desirable high-tech gadgets like other technological devices:
studies (e.g., He et al., 2018; Morton et al., 2016; Tu & Yang, 2019), the smartphones, wearable technologies, and tablet computers (see Jones,
relevant literature presents very limited knowledge related to motivated 2018). Hence, promoting EVs as the reflection of a highly innovative
CI. Thus, the current study is the first to consider all dimensions of process aggregating technological knowledge, information, and logical
motivated CI as predictors of consumer attitude and intention toward thinking and understanding like other high-tech devices would help
buying EVs. Third, the subject of EV adoption has been overlooked in attract cognitively motivated consumers in Turkey.
developing countries compared to the developed ones (Kumar & Alok, Furthermore, as personal factors have a significant influence on EV
2020; Li et al., 2017), so this study contributes to filling this gap by adoption, there are other important factors that affect consumers’
focusing on the consumers of an emergent market (i.e., Turkey). motivation to buy EVs, and some of these factors lead to negative atti­
The findings of the study present some theoretical and practical tudes toward the desire to adopt them. For instance, EVs have a high
implications. Theoretically, in line with the current knowledge (e.g., purchase price, restricted driving range, long charging time, and lack or
Degirmenci & Breitner, 2017; Wu et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2020), it limited number of charging stations (Adhikari, Ghimire, Kim, Aryal, &
seems that TRA (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and its extended version of the Khadka, 2020; Chen, de Rubens, Noel, Kester, & Sovacool, 2020;
Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) explain the Turkish con­ Mukherjee & Ryan, 2020). Additionally, consumers with no EV driving
sumers’ intention to purchase EVs. In addition, as theoretically proposed experience have a more negative attitude toward EVs and lower adop­
by Roehrich (2004) and supported by some empirical studies (e.g., tion willingness compared to consumers with EV driving experience (Liu
Balikcioglu, 2018; Gentina & Kratzer, 2020), consumers can express et al., 2020). Therefore, to promote EV purchase intention and create a
positive attitude toward EVs, consumers who have an NFU and are

7
N. Tunçel
motivated to use innovative products should be supported in terms of
other factors.
As Turkey is planning to mass-produce its domestically developed
EV, TOGG, at the end of 2022, the government should grant privileges
for early adopters, such as purchase subsidies, tax exemptions, and
preferential charging and parking (Li et al., 2020). Jain, Bhaskar, and
Jain (2021) confirmed that these types of government support provided
simultaneously decrease the negative effect of perceived risk (e.g.,
limited driving range and longtime charging) on EV adoption intention.
There are currently more than 2000 EV charging units in Turkey
(Turkish Electric and Hybrid Vehicles Association, 2020); therefore, the
government should encourage companies to establish more charging
units to reduce potential buyers’ perceived risk in regard to EVs. Addi­
tionally, because EV driving experience results in a positive attitude
toward EVs and EV purchase intention, as Ye, Kang, Li, and Wang (2021)
suggested, developing EV experience centers and/or holding EV exhi­
bitions can be useful for creating opportunities to develop experience
with EVs. Finally, EV companies and the government should work
together to increase awareness and knowledge regarding EVs for early
EV purchasers seeking innovation and uniqueness.
5. Limitations and recommendations for future research
One of the limitations of this study is its emphasis on purchase
intention rather than purchase behavior. Even though intention is an
essential predictor of behavior, this study cannot make inferences about
Turkish consumers’ actual behaviors. Therefore, future studies can focus
on consumers’ actual behavior rather than their intention. Additionally,
the current study conducted an online survey, thus could not include the
consumers who do not use the Internet. Therefore, future studies may
incorporate offline consumers into their samples and generalize this
study’s findings to them. Besides, although the online survey method
enabled the collection of data from the consumers living in various cities
of Turkey and diversified the data in terms of demographic character­
istics, the findings still may not be generalized to all Turkish consumers
due to the heterogeneity in consumers’ preferences (Huang & Qian,
2018; Kumar & Alok, 2020).
Another limitation is that the current study does not compare the
impacts among different demographic groups, which can be considered
by further studies. Also, of the individual factors, this study took NFU
and motivated CI as the antecedents of attitude and intention toward
EVs. However, there is a need for additional interest from the re­
searchers regarding these newly introduced antecedents of intent to
purchase EVs for verifying their impacts. It is also essential to examine
the NFU and motivated CI as the antecedents of attitude and intention
toward EVs in other countries since different cultural characteristics
may alter their effects.
Further, there are other personal factors that the current literature
provides a piece of minimal information about their impacts on the
behavioral intention for EVs. Hence, future research can investigate the
other individual motivators of innovative product preference in the
context of EVs. For instance, the impact of personality traits (e.g., the Big
Five and trait anxiety) (Qu, Sun, & Ge, 2020), trust (Hegner, Beldad, &
Brunswick, 2019), and perceived risk (Kumar & Alok, 2020) can be the
focus of latter EV research. Lastly, the lack of EV studies in emerging
markets still has enormous potential for researchers.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Adhikari, M., Ghimire, L. P., Kim, Y., Aryal, P., & Khadka, S. B. (2020). Identification and
analysis of barriers against electric vehicle use. Sustainability, 12(12), 1–20. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su12124850
8
Research in Transportation Business & Management 43 (2022) 100764
Adityan, H., Harikrishnan, K., Anand, S. J. J., & Saju, B. (2017). Innovativeness and
uniqueness as motivations for online shopping tendency and the mediating role of
information acquisition. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 13
(1), 30–51. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIR.2017.083264
Adnan, N., Nordin, S. M., Rahman, I., & Rasli, A. M. (2017). A new era of sustainable
transport: An experimental examination on forecasting adoption behavior of EVs
among Malaysian consumer. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 103,
279–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.06.010
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín,
B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes New Jersey (pp.
173–221). New Jersey, ABD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Alzahrani, K., Hall-Phillips, A., & Zeng, A. Z. (2019). Applying the theory of reasoned
action to understanding consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles in
Saudi Arabia. Transportation, 46(1), 199–215.
Alzubaidi, H., Slade, E. L., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). Examining antecedents of consumers’
pro-environmental behaviours: TPB extended with materialism and innovativeness.
Journal of Business Research, 122, 685–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.01.017
Asadi, S., Nilashi, M., Samad, S., Abdullah, R., Mahmoud, M., Alkinani, M. H., &
Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2021). Factors impacting consumers’ intention toward
adoption of electric vehicles in Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1-17. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124474
Balikcioglu, B. (2018). The influence of need for uniqueness and fashion innovativeness
& opinion leadership on buying impulsiveness and impulse purchase behavior. In
R. Yilmaz, M. A. Icbay, & H. Arslan (Eds.), Research and development on social sciences
(pp. 141–147). Poland: E-BWN, Bialystok.
Bhalla, P., Ali, I. S., & Nazneen, A. (2018). A study of consumer perception and purchase
intention of electric vehicles. European Journal of Scientific Research, 149(4),
362–368.
Bian, Q., & Forsythe, S. (2012). Purchase intention for luxury brands: A cross cultural
comparison. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1443–1451. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.010
Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response.
Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299505900302
Borrello, M., Caracciolo, F., Lombardi, A., Pascucci, S., & Cembalo, L. (2017).
Consumers’ perspective on circular economy strategy for reducing food waste.
Sustainability, 9(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010141
Burns, D. J., & Krampf, R. F. (2015). A semiotic perspective on innovative behavior. In
R. King (Ed.), Developments in marketing science: Proceedings of the academy of
marketing science. Berlin, Germany: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
17049-7_7 (pp. 32-35).
Camilleri, M. A. (2018). Closing the loop for resource efficiency, sustainable
consumption and production: A critical review of the circular economy. International
Journal of Sustainable Development, 21(1–4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJSD.2018.100802
Camilleri, M. A. (2019). The circular economy’s closed loop and product service systems
for sustainable development: A review and appraisal. Sustainable Development, 27(3),
530–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1909
Cha, S. S. (2020). Customers’ intention to use robot-serviced restaurants in Korea:
Relationship of coolness and MCI factors. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 32(9), 2947–2968. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-
2020-0046
Chao, C. W., Hung, Y. C., & Sun, L. (2021). Does consumer innovativeness matter in
electrified vehicle? The moderation role of consumer involvement. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08961530.2021.1951919
Chen, C. F., de Rubens, G. Z., Noel, L., Kester, J., & Sovacool, B. K. (2020). Assessing the
socio-demographic, technical, economic and behavioral factors of Nordic electric
vehicle adoption and the influence of vehicle-to-grid preferences. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 121, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109692
Chu, W., Im, M., Song, M. R., & Park, J. (2019). Psychological and behavioral factors
affecting electric vehicle adoption and satisfaction: A comparative study of early
adopters in China and Korea. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 76, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.09.009
Climate Central. (2020). Emissions sources (2020). Available at: https://www.climatece
ntral.org/gallery/graphics/emissions-sources-2020 (Accessed: 16 December 2020).
Daily Sabah. (2020). Number of electric, hybrid cars in Turkey triples in 2019. Available
at: https://www.dailysabah.com/automotive/2020/02/02/number-of-electric-hybri
d-cars-in-turkey-triples-in-2019 (Accessed: 03 February 2021).
Degirmenci, K., & Breitner, M. H. (2017). Consumer purchase intentions for electric
vehicles: Is green more important than price and range? Transportation Research Part
D: Transport and Environment, 51, 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2017.01.001
Dieguez, T. (2020). Operationalization of circular economy: A conceptual model. In
N. Baporikar (Ed.), Handbook of research on entrepreneurship development and
opportunities in circular economy (pp. 38–60). Pensilvanya, ABD: IGI Global.
Dlodlo, N. (2014). Uniqueness-seeking behaviour and innovativeness of young
consumers: Perspectives on south African fashion designer labels. Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences, 5(15), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.
v5n15p191
Erem, O. (2020). Asgari ücret: Türkiye diğer ülkelere kıyasla ne durumda, 2021 için
talepler neler?. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-turkiye
-55238733 (Accessed: 09 November 2021).
N. Tunçel
Eryigit, C. (2020). Consumer innovativeness: A literature review. Marketing and
Management of Innovations, 3, 106–119. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2020.3-08
Esfahani, M. S., & Reynolds, N. (2021). Impact of consumer innovativeness on really new
product adoption. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 39(4), 589–612. https://doi.org/
10.1108/MIP-07-2020-0304
Euronews. (2020). Türkiye’de elektrikli araçlar ne kadar yaygın? Kaç elektrikli otomobil
var, Avrupa’da durum ne?. Available at: https://tr.euronews.com/2020/01/19/t
urkiye-elektrikli-arac-ne-kadar-yaygin-kac-elektrikli-hibrit-otomobil-var-avrupa-da-
durum.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Redding, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Flores, P. J., & Jansson, J. (2021). The role of consumer innovativeness and green
perceptions on green innovation use: The case of shared e-bikes and e-scooters.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1957
Foxall, G. R., Goldsmith, R. E., & Brown, S. (1998). Consumer psychology for marketing.
London, UK: International Thomson Business Pres.
Fromkin, H. L. (1971). A social psychological analysis of the adoption and diffusion of
new products and practices from a uniqueness motivation perspective. In
D. M. Gardner (Ed.), SV-Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference of the Association
for Consumer Research (pp. 464–469). College Park, MD: Association for Consumer
Research.
Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1985). A propositional inventory for new diffusion
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 849–867. https://doi.org/10.1086/
209021
Gentina, E., & Kratzer, J. (2020). An integrative model of the influence of self-esteem on
adolescents’ consumer innovativeness: The mediating role of social network position
and need for uniqueness. Industry and Innovation, 27(10), 1110–1132. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13662716.2020.1743649
Gentina, E., Shrum, L. J., & Lowrey, T. M. (2016). Teen attitudes toward luxury fashion
brands from a social identity perspective: A cross-cultural study of French and US
teenagers. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5785–5792. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.175
Goldsmith, R. E., & Foxall, G. R. (2003). The measurement of innovativeness. In
L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 321–330).
London, UK: Pergamon.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to
report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.
org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, California, ABD:
Sage.
Halderpradip, P., & Laukkanen, T. (2020). Consumer Innovativeness and adoption of
eco-innovations–an Indian study. In 2020 Global Marketing Conference: Bridging Asia
and the World: New Marketing and Management in Digitally Connected World, Seoul,
Republic of Korea, 5–8 November. http://db.koreascholar.com/article.aspx?co
de=400665.
Handarkho, Y. D., & Harjoseputro, Y. (2019). Intention to adopt mobile payment in
physical stores. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 33(2), 285–308.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-06-2019-0179
Hazen, B. T., Mollenkopf, D. A., & Wang, Y. (2017). Remanufacturing for the circular
economy: An examination of consumer switching behavior. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 26(4), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1929
He, X., Zhan, W., & Hu, Y. (2018). Consumer purchase intention of electric vehicles in
China: The roles of perception and personality. Journal of Cleaner Production, 204,
1060–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.260
Hegner, S. M., Beldad, A. D., & Brunswick, G. J. (2019). In automatic we trust:
Investigating the impact of trust, control, personality characteristics, and extrinsic
and intrinsic motivations on the acceptance of autonomous vehicles. International
Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 35(19), 1769–1780. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10447318.2019.1572353
Heidenreich, S., Spieth, P., & Petschnig, M. (2017). Ready, steady, green: Examining the
effectiveness of external policies to enhance the adoption of eco-friendly
innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(3), 343–359. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jpim.12364
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-
014-0403-8
Higueras-Castillo, E., Molinillo, S., Coca-Stefaniak, J. A., & Liébana-Cabanillas, F. (2019).
Perceived value and customer adoption of electric and hybrid vehicles. Sustainability,
11(18), 4956. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184956
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling:
Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3
(4), 424. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
Huang, Y. (2020). Essays on consumer choice for electric vehicles and potential adoption of
autonomous vehicles in China (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Liverpool, UK: The
University of Liverpool.
Huang, Y., & Qian, L. (2018). Consumer preferences for electric vehicles in lower tier
cities of China: Evidences from South Jiangsu region. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 63, 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.06.017
Hwang, J., Lee, J. S., & Kim, H. (2019). Perceived innovativeness of drone food delivery
services and its impacts on attitude and behavioral intentions: The moderating role
of gender and age. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 81, 94–103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.03.002
9
Research in Transportation Business & Management 43 (2022) 100764
Hwang, J., Park, S., & Kim, I. (2020). Understanding motivated consumer innovativeness
in the context of a robotic restaurant: The moderating role of product knowledge.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 44, 272–282. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.06.003
International Energy Agency. (2020). Global EV outlook 2020: Entering the decade of
electric drive?. Avaiable at: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2020.
Jain, N. K., Bhaskar, K., & Jain, S. (2021). What drives adoption intention of electric
vehicles in India? An integrated UTAUT model with environmental concerns,
perceived risk and government support. Research in Transportation Business &
Management, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100730
Jansson, J., Nordlund, A., & Westin, K. (2017). Examining drivers of sustainable
consumption: The influence of norms and opinion leadership on electric vehicle
adoption in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 154, 176–187. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.186
Jones, A. (2018). The electric vehicle and the consumer: From environmentalists to
innovators? Social Business, 8(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1362/
204440818X15208755029528
Kauppinen-Räisänen, H., Björk, P., Lönnström, A., & Jauffret, M. N. (2018). How
consumers’ need for uniqueness, self-monitoring, and social identity affect their
choices when luxury brands visually shout versus whisper. Journal of Business
Research, 84, 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.11.012
Khazaei, H. (2019). The influence of personal innovativeness and Price value on
intention to use of electric vehicles in Malaysia. European Online Journal of Natural
and Social Sciences, 8(3), 483–494.
Kim, J. J., Choe, J. Y. J., & Hwang, J. (2021). Application of consumer innovativeness to
the context of robotic restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 33(1), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2020-0602
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment
approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJEC), 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.
org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
Kock, N. (2017). Common method bias: A full collinearity assessment method for PLS-
SEM. In H. Latan, & R. Noonan (Eds.), Partial least squares path modeling (pp.
245–257). Berlin, Germany, Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Konuk, F. A. (2019). Consumers’ willingness to buy and willingness to pay for fair trade
food: The influence of consciousness for fair consumption, environmental concern,
trust and innovativeness. Food Research International, 120, 141–147. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodres.2019.02.018
Kumar, R. R., & Alok, K. (2020). Adoption of electric vehicle: A literature review and
prospects for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, 1–21. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119911
Lashari, Z. A., Ko, J., & Jang, J. (2021). Consumers’ intention to purchase electric
vehicles: Influences of user attitude and perception. Sustainability, 13(12), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126778
Lee, H. J., Kumar, A., & Kim, Y. K. (2010). Indian consumers’ brand equity toward a US
and local apparel brand. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An
International Journal., 14(3), 469–485. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13612021011061898
Li, L., Wang, Z., Chen, L., & Wang, Z. (2020). Consumer preferences for battery electric
vehicles: A choice experimental survey in China. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 78, Article 102185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2019.11.014
Li, L., Wang, Z., Li, Y., & Liao, A. (2021). Impacts of consumer innovativeness on the
intention to purchase sustainable products. Sustainable Production and Consumption,
27, 774–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.002
Li, W., Long, R., Chen, H., & Geng, J. (2017). A review of factors influencing consumer
intentions to adopt battery electric vehicles. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 78, 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.076
Liu, R., Ding, Z., Jiang, X., Sun, J., Jiang, Y., & Qiang, W. (2020). How does experience
impact the adoption willingness of battery electric vehicles? The role of
psychological factors. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(20),
25230–25247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08834-w
Lynn, M. (1992). The psychology of unavailability: Explaining scarcity and cost effects
on value. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15324834basp1301_2
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). Individual differences in the pursuit of self-uniqueness
through consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(21), 1861–1883.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01629.x
Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its
measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 229–242. https://doi.org/
10.1086/208701
Moon, S. J. (2021). Effect of consumer environmental propensity and innovative
propensity on intention to purchase electric vehicles: Applying an extended theory of
planned behavior. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 1-15. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2021.1961950
Morton, C., Anable, J., & Nelson, J. D. (2016). Exploring consumer preferences towards
electric vehicles: The influence of consumer innovativeness. Research in
Transportation Business & Management, 18, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rtbm.2016.01.007
Mukherjee, S. C., & Ryan, L. (2020). Factors influencing early battery electric vehicle
adoption in Ireland. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 118, 1–12. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109504
Nikou, S. (2019). Factors driving the adoption of smart home technology: An empirical
assessment. Telematics and Informatics, 45, Article 101283. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tele.2019.101283
N. Tunçel
Nosi, C., Pucci, T., Silvestri, C., & Aquilani, B. (2017). Does value co-creation really
matter? An investigation of Italian millennials intention to buy electric cars.
Sustainability, 9(12), 2159. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122159
Open Access Government. (2020). Why 2020 will be a landmark year for electric vehicle
innovation. Available at: https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/why-2020-will
-be-a-landmark-year-for-electric-vehicle-innovation/84951/ (Accessed: 15 February
2021).
Qu, W., Sun, H., & Ge, Y. (2020). The effects of trait anxiety and the big five personality
traits on self-driving car acceptance. Transportation, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11116-020-10143-7
Ramkumar, B., & Woo, H. (2018). Modeling consumers’ intention to use fashion and
beauty subscription-based online services (SOS). Fashion and Textiles, 5, 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-018-0137-1
Richter, F. (2020). Electric mobility: Norway races ahead. Available at: https://www.
statista.com/chart/17344/electric-vehicle-share/ (Accessed: 17 January 2021).
Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2020). Emissions by sector. Avaiable at https://ourworldindata.
org/emissions-by-sector (Accessed: 17 January 2020).
Robinson, C., & Leonhardt, J. M. (2018). Consumer innovativeness and loyalty to non-
GMO foods: The role of cognitive and affective beliefs. Journal of Food Products
Marketing, 24(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2017.1244789
Roehrich, G. (2004). Consumer innovativeness: Concepts and measurements. Journal of
Business Research, 57(6), 671–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00311-
9 C4%B1t-Sistemi-Sonu%C3%A7lar%C4%B1-2020a-37210&dil=1 (Accessed: 09
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (pp. 241–270). New York, ABD: The Free
Press.
Russell, G. J. (2011). Itemized rating scales (Likert, semantic differential, and Stapel). In
W. A. Kamakura (Ed.), Wiley International encyclopedia of marketing volume 2:
Marketing research. Hoboken: Wiley.
Ruvio, A., Shoham, A., & Brenčič, M. M. (2008). Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Short-
form scale development and cross-cultural validation. International Marketing Review,
25(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330810851872
Saygin, D., Tor, O. B., Teimourzadeh, S., Koç, M., Hildermeier, J., & Kolokathis, C.
(2019). Transport sector transformation: Integrating electric vehicles into Turkey’s
distribution grids. Available at https://www.shura.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/201
9/12/Transport-sector-transformation.Integrating-electric-vehicles-into-Turkey%
E2%80%99s-distribution-grids.pdf (Accessed on 24 February 2021).
Shetty, D. K., Shetty, S., Rodrigues, L. R., Naik, N., Maddodi, C. B., Malarout, N., &
Sooriyaperakasam, N. (2020). Barriers to widespread adoption of plug-in electric
vehicles in emerging Asian markets: An analysis of consumer behavioral attitudes
and perceptions. Cogent Engineering, 7(1), 1796198. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23311916.2020.1796198
Snyder, C. R. (1992). Product scarcity by need for uniqueness interaction: A consumer
catch-22 carousel? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/
10.1207/s15324834basp1301_3
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (2012). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference (pp.
145–163). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
10
Research in Transportation Business & Management 43 (2022) 100764
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B: Methodological, 36(2), 111–147.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1974.tb00994.x
Sun, P. C., Wang, H. M., Huang, H. L., & Ho, C. W. (2020). Consumer attitude and
purchase intention toward rooftop photovoltaic installation: The roles of personal
trait, psychological benefit, and government incentives. Energy & Environment, 31(1),
21–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X17754278
Thøgersen, J., & Ebsen, J. V. (2019). Perceptual and motivational reasons for the low
adoption of electric cars in Denmark. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 65, 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.07.017
Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers’ need for uniqueness:
Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50–66.
https://doi.org/10.1086/321947
Trading Economics. (2020). Turkey gross minimum monthly wage. Available at: htt
ps://tradingeconomics.com/turkey/wages (Accessed: 09 November 2021).
Tu, J. C., & Yang, C. (2019). Key factors influencing consumers’ purchase of electric
vehicles. Sustainability, 11(14), 3863. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143863
Turkish Electric and Hybrid Vehicles Association. (2020). Türkiye şarj istasyonu haritası
– bölgeler 2020. Available at: https://www.tehad.org/2020/11/09/turkiye-sarj-ista
syonu-haritasi-bolgeler-2020/ (Accessed: 15 November 2021).
TURKSTAT. (2020a). Adrese dayalı nüfus kayıt sistemi sonuçları, 2020. Available at: htt
ps://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Adrese-Dayal%C4%B1-N%C3%BCfus-Kay%
November 2021).
TURKSTAT. (2020b). Cinsiyete göre bitirilen son öğrenim kurumu, 2010–2020.
Available at: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Istatistiklerle-Kadin-2020
b-37221.
US Department of Energy, & Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Electric
vehicle basics. Available at: https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/electric
-vehicle-basics (Accessed: 13 March 2021).
Vandecasteele, B., & Geuens, M. (2010). Motivated consumer innovativeness: Concept,
measurement, and validation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(4),
308–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.08.004
Wu, J., Liao, H., Wang, J. W., & Chen, T. (2019). The role of environmental concern in
the public acceptance of autonomous electric vehicles: A survey from China.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 60, 37–46. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.09.029
Xu, Y., Zhang, W., Bao, H., Zhang, S., & Xiang, Y. (2019). A SEM–neural network
approach to predict Customers’ intention to purchase battery electric vehicles in
China’s Zhejiang Province. Sustainability, 11(11), 3164. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11113164
Yang, C., Tu, J. C., & Jiang, Q. (2020). The influential factors of consumers’ sustainable
consumption: A case on electric vehicles in China. Sustainability, 12(8), 3496.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083496
Ye, F., Kang, W., Li, L., & Wang, Z. (2021). Why do consumers choose to buy electric
vehicles? A paired data analysis of purchase intention configurations. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 147, 14–27.