How Can We Facilitate the Diffusion of Electric Vehicles in Japan?
Consumer Characteristics and Perceived Innovation Attributes
Taiyu Sato
1
and Miki Saijo
2
1
Graduate School of Innovation Management, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan
2
School of Environment and Society, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan
Keywords: Innovation Facilitation, Electric Vehicles, Consumer Characteristics, Perceived Innovation Attributes.
Abstract: Electric vehicles (EVs) have significant potential to substantially reduce CO
2
emissions from transportation.
Researchers have been working around the world to find ways to diffuse the use of this innovation in markets,
but only a few such studies have been made in Japan. The aim of this study is to pinpoint potential adopters
of EVs and the factors driving or hindering the diffusion of EV use in Japan. An online questionnaire was
used to identify consumer characteristics and perceived innovation attributes of EVs among 208 car owners.
Two groups of car owners divided by intentions to buy EVs were compared. We found that potential adopters
perceive EVs positively and have positive environmental attitudes and are scientifically literate. Our findings
also indicate social environment norms can drive the diffusion of EVs while consumers’ lack of compatibility
with EVs hinders the widespread diffusion of this innovation. Finally we discuss the limitations and
implications of this study.
1 INTRODUCTION
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC, 2014), there is no doubt climate
warning is progressing. The period from 1983 to 2012
was perhaps the warmest 30-year period of the last
1,400 years, and there is a 95% certainty that humans
are the main cause of this. Cumulative emissions of
CO
2
largely determine global mean surface warming
by the 21st century and beyond” (IPCC, 2014). In
Japan, in 2014, transportation was responsible for
16.5% of total CO
2
emmisions, and almost 89.6 % of
this was from cars according to National Institute for
Environmental Studies (NIES, 2016). Thus, the
widespread use of environmentally friendly cars,
which emit less CO
2
than commonly used ICEVs
(Interal Combustion Engine Vehicles), is needed.
Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet (PMJHC],
2014) aim to increase the share of next-generation
automobiles, including HVs (Hybrid Vehicles) and
EVs (Electric Vehicles), to between 50% and 70% by
2030.
EVs have the least well to wheel CO2 emissions
compared to other types of cars according to Japan
Automotive Research Institute (JARI, 2011). In this
study, vehicles which run only on electricity are
called EVs, in contrast to PHVs which are hybrid
vehicles that run on both fossil fuels and electricity.
Although EVs were invented before the
combustion engine (Situ, 2009), and Nissan, one of
Japan’s leading automobile companies, launched the
worlds first 100-percent electric, zero-emission car
designed for the mass market”, the Nissan Leaf
(Nissan, online), in December 2010, as of 2014 there
were only 60,000 EVs in Japan according to Next
Generation Vehicle Promotion Centre (Nev, 2016),
which accounting for only 0.1% of the total number
of registered passenger cars calculated from the data
of Automobile Inspection & Registration Information
Association (AIRIA, 2016).
There still seem to be many barriers to the
dissemination of EVs in Japan. In previous studies,
battery technology and costs were often mentioned as
barriers to the commercialization of EVs (Axsen et
al., 2010). Accordingly, many studies looked at how
to improve power supply systems, battery capacity,
battery chargers, and other infrastructure problems, to
lower the net price and improve the usability of the
vehicle (METI, 2016; Staats et al., 1997; Yilmaz, M.
and Krein, 2013). We believe, however, considering
only the technological issues is not enough to
encourage widespread use of EVs. Consumer
acceptance is key to any technological shift and the
long-term success of a new sustainable transport
system (Ozaki and Sevastyanova, 2011). Egbue and
70
Sato, T. and Saijo, M.
How Can We Facilitate the Diffusion of Electric Vehicles in Japan? - Consumer Characteristics and Perceived Innovation Attributes.
DOI: 10.5220/0006068200700081
In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2016) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 70-81
ISBN: 978-989-758-203-5
Copyright
c
2016 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
Ona (2012) argued that “it is important to view EVs
as part of a socio-technical system in order to break
the divide between the technical and the social.” The
term ‘‘socio-technical’’ encompasses not just
technological and engineering obstacles, but also
cultural, social, political, and economic impediments
(Sovacool and Hirsh, 2009). Even though automobile
manufacturers and policymakers usually separate
technical from social concerns in describing
technological development, social barriers can be
major obstacles impeding the widespread use of EVs
in the mainstream market, even when technological
barriers are overcomed (Egbue and Long, 2012;
Sovacool and Hirsh, 2009). Therefore, attention
needs to be given to what drives consumers to use or
not to use EVs.
Many researchers have investigated the topic of
who buys what kind of car, such as HVs (Klein, 2007;
Oliver and Lee, 2010; Ozaki and Secastyanova, 2011)
and biofuel vehicles (Jansson, 2011, Van de Velde et
al., 2009). Others have investigated early users of
EVs (Egbue and Long, 2012; Hidrue, 2011; Plötz et
al., 2014). However, as can be seen in Rezvani’s
(2015) review of consumer perceptions of electric
vehicles, few studies have examined this issue in
Japanese society. In 2015, Japan was the third largest
automobile market after China and the U.S.,
according to the official sales statistics data of
Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs
d’Automobiles (OICA, 2015). Thus, the aim of this
paper is to investigate who is most likely to adopt EVs
and the factors driving or hindering the diffusion of
EV use in Japan by examining the relationship
between consumer characteristics and percieved
innovation attributes of EVs.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
EVs provide a different driving experience compared
to the typical mainstream vehicle, namely ICEs, in
terms of propulsion technology, recharging infrastru-
cture and recharging practices. In addition to this,
with their remarkable ecological features, EVs meet
the definition of eco-innovation given by Kemp and
Pearson (2007):
Eco-innovation is the production, assimilation or
exploitation of a product, production process,
service or management or business method that is
novel to the organisation (developing or adopting
it) and which results, throughout its life cycle, in
a reduction of environmental risk, pollution and
other negative impacts of resources use (including
energy use) compared to relevant alternatives.
We review previous studies from this perspective, in
terms of general ideas of innovation diffusion,
particularly as regards eco-innovation.
2.1 Diffusion of Innovation Theory
In the area of innovation diffusion, Rogers (2003)
work on a DOI (Diffusion of Innovation) framework
has been attracting attention for decades. Rogers
(2003) claims that even if a new idea is explicitly
advantageous, innovation will still take years to be
widely adopted. Consequently an issue for persons
who would like to spread their ideas is how they can
speed up the adoption of innovation.
In this literature review, we focused on perceived
innovation attributes and consumer innovativeness
relating to the product diffusion process.
2.1.1 Perceived Innovation Attributes
Rogers (1983) proposed five perceived innovation
attributes in the individual’s innovation decision-
making process. Perceived innovation attributes are
an important factor in explaining the rate at which an
innovation is adopted. He claimed that adoption
speed can be explained by the five attributes of
relative advantage (e.g. economy, convenience and
prestige), compatibility (e.g. values, social system
and needs), complexity (difficulty of understanding
and use), trialability (the degree to which an
innovation may be experimented with), and
observability (the degree to which the result of an
innovation is visible to others). Later researchers
added perceived risk as a sixth factor negatively
influencing the rate of adoption (Cox and Rich, 1964).
Ostlunds (1974) argues that predicting the rate of
adoption from perceived innovation attributes is a far
easier statistical task than to predict adoption or non-
adoption on a case-by-case basis. Volliks et al. (2002)
proposed that if the perceived advantage was minor,
a potential adopter often decided to reject an
innovation. If the perceived advantage was high, the
evaluation process usually continued to perceived
compatibility.
Rogers (2003) claims adoption of innovation by
individuals is a process composed of five stages
beginning with knowledge, persuasion, decision, and
implementation and ending with confirmation. The
first two stages are essential in understanding
adoption behaviour since an individual forms a
favorable or unfavorable opinion of an innovation in
these stages. In the knowledge stage people interpret
an innovation through selective perception which
means people interpret the communicated message on
How Can We Facilitate the Diffusion of Electric Vehicles in Japan? - Consumer Characteristics and Perceived Innovation Attributes
71
the basis of their norms and beliefs. In the second
stage, people decide how to interpret the information
on an innovation that is provided. Rogers (2003)
asserts that perceptions of relative advantage and
compatibility are especially important in this stage.
2.2 Consumer Characteristics Relating
to Adopter Categories
Perception is a process of choosing information,
putting it in order, interpreting it, and from there,
forming a meaningful perspective (Kotler et al.,
2014).This attitude formation has been found to be
highly dependent on the personal characteristics of
the potential adopter and on how the attributes of the
innovation are perceived (Jansson, 2011). The effect
of consumer characteristics on attitude formation
toward an innovation is also reported by Rogers
(2003). One intriguing idea is that of
innovativeness, the degree to which an individual
or other unit of adoption is relatively earlier in
adopting new ideas than other members of a system.
Based on this innovativeness, Rogers (2003)
separated consumers into six adopter categories:
Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majorities, Late
Majorities, and Laggards. Consumers in each
category are thought to share general characteristics
unique to their category. Early Adopters are described
as those who adopt new innovation and also become
opinion leaders. Moore (1991) postulates that
Innovators and Early Adaptors are consumers who
buy EVs even if no one around them owns an EV.
Early Majorities are the mainstream market
pragmatists and conservatives who do not try an
innovation until others try. In seeking ways to
encourage wide use of EVs, understanding both Early
Adopters and Early Majorities is important.
According to Rogers (2003) socioeconomic status is
related to innovativeness, such that Early Adopters
have more years of education and higher social status
than Late Majorities. Status is indicated by such
variables as income, lifestyle, and wealth. Relevant to
this, Moore (1991) explains that Early Adopters and
Early Majorities share an appreciation for new
technology, while Late Majorities tend to dislike
using sophisticated technology. Early Adopters are
more likely to try new technology if it addresses
issues in which they have an interest, while Early
Majorities are more conservative and pragmatic than
Early Adopters.
Consumer characteristics influence the adoption
of an innovation as much as perceived innovation
attributes. Below are reviews of consumer character-
ristics and how they have been measured in the
previous studies. The characteristics covered are
innovativeness, scientific literacy, money behaviour
and income level, and environmental attitude.
2.2.1 Innovativeness
While consumer innovativeness is central to
discussions among innovation diffusion researchers,
there is no real consensus on the meaning of the term
(Roehrich, 2004). The concept of innovativeness
proposed by Rogers (2003) 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”. Midgley and Dowling (1978) described it as
“the time taken for an individual to adopt. This
concept of innovativeness may have more relevance to
situational traits than individual traits because an
individual may not adopt an innovation because of
insufficient income or because they live in an isolated
location. This suggest that innovativeness based on
personal trait should be investigated. Midgley and
Dowling (1978) conceptualized innovativeness as the
degree to which individuals make innovation decisions
independently of information conveyed verbally
between individual consumers.
Early Adopters are likely to take the risk of an
innovation without asking for other peoples opinions.
Instead, they try to gather information on their own.
This gathering of data may include vicarious adoption
of unfamiliar product concepts and experiencing of
unfamiliar consumption situations (Hirschman, 1980).
The innovation-decision process is essentially an
information-seeking and information-processing
activity in which the individual is motivated to reduce
uncertainty about the advantages and the disadvantages
of the innovation” (Rogers, 1983). That’s why
individuals with high innovativeness are thought to
have CNS (Consumer Novelty Seeking) characteristics
as well. The CNS measure assesses ones tendency to
seek out new product information, whereas the CIJM
measure evaluates the degree to which an individual
makes new product decisions independently of the
communicated experience of others(Manning et al.,
1995). In this study, we took up CIJM (Consumer
Independent Judgment Making) and CNS as represent-
tative characteristics of consumer innovativeness.
2.2.2 Scientific Literacy
When consumers are exposed to an innovation, they
selectively obtain information on the product, and it
is known that their interests, needs, and pre-existing
attitudes will affect their opinion of the product
(Rogers 1983). When it comes to the adoption of EVs
KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing
72
and their advanced technology, the consumer’s
background scientific knowledge and attitude toward
technology can be affected. In the context of high-
tech product diffusion, Earlier Adopters tend to have
a better attitude toward technology (Moore, 1991).
Previous research on EVs revealed that consumers
with a high level of science education are more likely
to consider buying an EV (Plötz et al., 2014). In the
present study we use scientific literacy instead of the
educational factor as a measure of attitudes toward
technology.
Saijo and Kawamoto (2008) defined scientific
literacy as the “capability of making a social
judgment and taking action on issues involving
science and technology by linking basic knowledge.
Based on this definition, they identified three scales
to measure scientific literacy, the individuals interest
in science and society, and appreciation of science.
(Kawamoto et al., 2013; Saijo and Kawamoto, 2008).
2.2.3 Sociodemographics and Money
Behaviour
As a general description, Rogers (2003) argued that
Early Adopters tend to be of higher social status, have
more income, more education, and prestigious jobs,
than Late Adopters, but are not so different in age.
However, Anable et al. (2011) found that demogra-
phic characteristics are insufficient for predicting and
understanding the various EV adopter groups. In
addition to this, Plötz et al. (2014) found that Early
Adopters in Germany are generally middle-aged men
with technical professions living in rural or suburban
multi-person households. Thus, whether or not
sociodemographics are a good predictor of Early
Adopters is still in question.
In addition to this, Moore (1991) describes the
Early Adopter as the least price-sensitive of any
segment of the technology adoption profile. We can
assume from this that an Early Adopter consumer,
regardless of their income, may not be so cost
sensitive. There are two scales used to assess money
attitudes: Money Attitude Scale (MAS) (Yamauchi
and Templer, 1982) and Money Ethic Scale (MES)
(Tang, 1992; Tang, 1995). MES assesses personal
attitudes toward money from three sides; an affective
component (Good and Evil), a cognitive component
(Achievement, Respect, and Freedom/Power), and a
behavioural component (Budget). Though the MES
was developed and used to evaluate the relationship
between money attitude and job satisfaction, we
decided to apply its versatile questions to the present
study to assess the consumer’s economical
characteristics.
2.3 Environmental Attitudes, Green
Consumer Characteristics
Besides the general discussion of diffusion of
innovation based on the DOI framework which was
first published in 1962 by Rogers (1983), there has
recently been much attention paid to the diffusion of
green products, in other words eco-innovation. In the
period from 1986 to 1989, the rapid diffusion of green
products from small specific niches to the mass
market was observed (Vandermerwe and Oliff, 1990),
and the 1990s would see an increase in environmental
concern (Straughan and Roberts, 1999). In recent
decades, the concept of a consumer voluntarily
engaging (as opposed to being regulated to do so as a
result of government policy) in consumer practices
that are viewed as ‘environmentally friendly’ has
emerged, and such a consumer is now generically
labelled the ‘green consumer’ (Connolly and Prothero,
2008), and protecting the environment has become an
important consideration in human decision-making
(Stern, 2000). “As the new millennium draws near,
key questions remain unanswered. What is the nature
of the ecologically conscious consumer of the future?”
(Straughan and Roberts, 1999).
Values, beliefs and norms (VBN theory) have
been found to be a useful predictor of environmental
behaviour (Jansson, 2010). VBN theory demonstrates
a causal chain of personal values, beliefs and personal
norms for pro-environmental action (Stern et al.,
1999). Stern (2000) postulates four types of causal
variables of environmentally significant behaviour,
i.e., attitudinal causes, contextual forces, personal
capabilities and habit or routine. Among these,
attitudinal causes, including personal norms, are
suggested to be the strongest predictor. The work of
Guagnano et al. (1995) also found that attitudinal
variables explain well behaviour in certain situations.
It is generally assumed that personal norms are
rooted in values and social norms (Thøgersen, 2002),
and that social norms also play a major role in
environmental behaviour. A system of social norms
specifies what is acceptable and what is not in a social
group (Bicchieri, 2005). As human beings are social
animals, it is understandable that people conform and
change their belief and behaviour when pressured to
do so by other groups. Biel and Thøgersen (2007)
report that “social norms are often guiding behaviour
in specific context.” Especially in Japanese society
where happiness and loyalty to the group are
emphasized more than individual needs (Solomon
and Matsui, 2015), the effect of social norms on
environmental behaviour would be strong.
How Can We Facilitate the Diffusion of Electric Vehicles in Japan? - Consumer Characteristics and Perceived Innovation Attributes
73
Environmental attitude is also thought to be a
powerful predictor of ecological behaviour. (Kaiser,
1999). Attitude is different from personal and social
norms because it is a positive or negative evaluation
or feeling which individuals permanently own against
object or thought (Kotler et al., 2014). Attitudes have
been found to be predictive of many types of
environmentally sensitive behaviour. (Jansson, 2011),
and since EVs are representative of eco-innovation,
these theories regarding the green consumer will help
us to identify potential adopters of EVs.
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Questions
In the present study we investigated the perceived
innovation attributes of EVs and the consumer
characteristics of two groups of consumers. These
consumers are identified on the basis of their
intention to buy EVs: assertive consumers who intend
to buy EVs and passive consumers who do not intend
to buy EVs. Three research questions were generated.
RQ.1 How different are perceived innovation
attributes of EVs between the two groups of
consumers?
RQ.2 How different are consumer characteristics
between the two groups of consumers?
RQ.3 What drives or hinders the adoption
of EVs most?
In a previous study, Jansson (2011) examined the
integrated research of Rogers’ (1983) DOI
framework from a marketing percepective and VBN
theory from the perspective of environmental
psychological theory. Using AFVs (alternative fuel
vehicles), which run on bio fuel, as the representative
of eco-innovation, a postal, mail-in survey using a
self-administered questionnaire was conducted in
Sweden in the fall of 2008. PCA (principal
component analysis) was used to analyse the answers
from 642 respondents. With this method Jansson
(2011) found a set of factors driving or hindering eco-
innovation adoption. In the present study, we used the
same method to analyse the responses to the research
questions.
3.2 Data Sampling
Data used for the present study were as follows:
Period: 24 to 25 June 2016
Type of collecting data: Online questionnaire
through a market research company
Target: Car owners aged between 20 and 69
whose opinions were adopted when they bought
their current cars.
Screening: The lowest household income level
was set to be more than 2 million Japanese yen.
Total sample size: N = 208
In this paper, electric vehicles (EVs) are defined as
passenger cars which only use a battery for
propulsion, plug-in hybrid cars (PHVs) are classified
as a type of hybrid car (HV) which can run on both
fossil fuels and electricity, and clean diesel cars (CDs)
are classified as a type of internal combustion engine
car (ICE), which runs on only fossil fuels. Firstly, we
divided the car owners into four groups: ICE owners
who have intentions to buy an EV, ICE owners who
do not have intentions to buy an EV, HV owners who
have intentions to buy an EV, and HV owners who do
not have intentions to buy an EV. However, because
of the limited number of samples, we later decided to
rebuild into two groups defined only by the intention
to buy or not buy an EV.
All 208 samples were used in our analysis because
firstly in this online survey, responses with missing
answers were not allowed to be sent, and secondly
because, after checking whole individual data, no
strange answer patterns or outliers were found.
This time, actual EV owners, who are definitely
early adopters at this stage, were not selected as a
sampling target because of the limited number of EV
owners who registered with the research company.
This study is still on going and we plan to conduct the
survey again with a larger sample size including
actual EV owners.
3.3 Measures
The questionnaire consists of three parts: innovation
perceived attributes, consumer characteristics and
standard sociodemographic measures. It was prima-
rily based on Jansson’s (2011) original questionnaire
and other literature reviews. We translated their
questionnaire into Japanese and also modified some
of the questions to adjust to EVs and Japanese cultural
background. We made repeated translations and had
them reviewed by other Japanese native speakers
until we had confirmation that the translated version
would be easily understood by Japanese people.
As a categorical variable, Assertive/Passive
intentions to buy EVs was used. This variable was
constructed from one screening question with a five-
point Likert scale; “Do you intend to buy an EV?
Those who answered strongly agree and agree were
categorized as assertive consumers”, and those who
KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing
74
answered disagree and strongly disagree were
categorized as “passive consumers”.
The followings are the details of measures. First,
the sociodemographics data were examined. Chi-
square test was used on quantitative data (i.e. ages)
and t-test was used on qualitative data such as gender,
education level, annual household income, etc.
Second, perceived innovation attributes for EVs
were measured using 14 items. Each variable was all
measured on a five-point Likert scale. Then they were
divided into 6 components, using PCA (principal
component analysis) followed by varimax rotation.
The PCA on perceived innovation attributes
explained the 75.4% total variance. Six subscales,
relative advantage, compatibility, complexity,
trialability, observability and risk, were made based
on the six components and named accordingly by
Rogers’ (2003) DOI framework. Cronbach’s alpha
and AVE (average variance extracted) were checked
for each component. Six components showed AVE
values ranging from 0.50 to 0.74, which are
considered to have acceptable validity (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). Meanwhile, the four components,
except for complexity and observability, showed
acceptable reliability with alpha values ranging from
0.71 to 0.86. Cronbach’s alpha for complexity and
observability was less than 0.70, meaning that
reliability and internal consistency are not enough to
be acknowledged as components (Bland, 1997), and
therefore these two attributes were not used in the
analysis. The subscales’ mean difference in the two
consumer groups was tested using t-test.
Third, consumer characteristics were measured
using 26 items. Each variable was measured on a five-
point Likert scale. Then they were divided into 9
components using PCA followed by varimax rotation.
The PCA on consumer characteristics explained a
75.4% total variance. Nine subscales, personal
environment norm, social environment norm, attitude
toward EVs, CIJM, CNS, scientific interest, social
interest, scientific appreciating and money behaviour
were made based on the PCA result.
Pro-environmental personal norm was measured
using 3 questions derived from the works of Janson
(2011), Steg et al. (2005) and Stern et al. (1999).
Social norm was measured using 4 questions and
Attitude toward EVs was measured using 3 questions
partially derived from the works of Janson (2011).
CNS and CIJM were measured using 3 and 4
questions each, and both scales were developed based
on Jansson (2011) and Manning et al. (1995).
Scientific interest, social interest and science appre-
ciating were measured using 3, 3 and 4 questions
from the work of Kawamoto et al. (2013). Money
behaviour was measured using 2 questions from the
work of Tang (1995). The nine components showed
acceptable reliability with alpha values ranging from
0.81 to 0.94. Seven components showed acceptable
AVE values ranging from 0.59 to 0.87, however,
scientific interest and social interest showed values of
0.41 and 0.48, below than 0.50 which is considered to
have no validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Therefore, these two attributes were not used in the
analysis. The subscalesmean difference in the two
consumer groups was tested using t-test.
All analyses were conducted on IBM SPSS
Statistics 23.
4 RESULT
Firstly, before looking into differences in the
extracted components, we analysed the
sociodemographic data of the two consumer groups.
Then the two consumer groupscomponentsmeans
and standard deviations were checked.
4.1 Sociodemographics
Sociodemographics are often considered to be one of
the main factors affecting consumer decision making,
and are often used as a tool to segment consumer
categories. In Table 1, sample descriptions and
sociodemographic variables are explained. Recent
studies suggest, however, that the consumer
characteristics tested below are not a strong enough
factor to segment green consumers (Straughan and
Roberts, 1999). Meanwhile, in the area of EV
consumer studies, some recent studies use
demographics to explain consumer adoption of EVs
(Plötz, 2014) while others deny the importance of
demographics (Anable et al., 2011). To understand
the effect sociodemographics have on the intention of
buying EVs, the Chi-square test is used for numerical
data (i.e. ages) and t-test were used for categorical
data such as gender, number of persons in the
household and annual driving distance. However, as
shown in Table 1, there were no statistically
significant differences between these two consumer
groups in any of the sociodemographic data.
4.2 Perceived Innovation Attributes
In Table 2, mean, standard deviation, communality,
Cronbach’s alpha and AVE values for six
components resulting from PCA on perceived
innovation attributes of EVs are shown to investigate
the difference between how the two consumer groups
How Can We Facilitate the Diffusion of Electric Vehicles in Japan? - Consumer Characteristics and Perceived Innovation Attributes
75
of assertive and passive perceive EVs. We compared
the mean difference of 4 subscales based on PCA.
Table 3 shows mean, standard deviation, difference
and the result of t-test on the subscales of perceived
innovation attributes. There were significant
differences in relative advantage, compatibility and
trialability in the two consumer groups (p < 0.001).
Meanwhile, no significant difference was apparent in
perceived risk (p > 0.05). The biggest difference was
compatibility, followed by trialability and relative
advantage.
4.3 Consumer Characteristics
In Tables 4 and 5, mean, standard deviation,
communality, Cronbach’s alpha and AVE values for
9 components resulting from PCA on consumer
characteristics of EVs are shown. To investigate the
different characteristics of the two assertive and
passive consumer groups, we compared the mean
difference of 7 subscales based on PCA. Table 6
shows mean, standard deviation, difference and the
result of t-test on the subscales of consumer
characteristics. There were significant differences in
pro-environmental social norm, attitude toward EVs,
CNS, CIJM (p < 0.001), scientific appreciating (p <
0.01) and pro-environmental personal norm (p <
0.05). Meanwhile, no significant difference was
apparent in money behaviour (p > 0.05). The biggest
difference was seen in pro-environmental social norm
followed by CNS, CIJM, attitude toward EVs,
science appreciating and personal environment norm.
5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE
RESEARCH
The present study attempted to examine mind-set
factors which will identify the differences of
consumer groups and which will drive or hinder the
widespread diffusion of electric vehicles in Japan by
applying psychological research and a diffusion of
innovation framework. Several important conclu-
sions are derived from the findings in this study. First,
assertive consumers are more likely than passive
consumers to perceive EVs as more advantageous
than other cars using different kinds of propulsions.
Second, assertive consumers felt more compatibility
with EVs than passive consumers. Third, assertive
consumers generally showed a higher level of consu-
mer characteristics marking them as Early Adaptors
of eco-innovation as described in previous studies.
Table 1: Sociodemographic variables (N=208).
Sociodemographic
Assertive
Consumers
Passive
Consumers
p
Gender
Female
26.9%
26.9%
n.s.
Male
73.1%
73.1%
Number of persons in household
Single
11.5%
6.7%
n.s.
2
27.9%
28.8%
3
32.7%
33.7%
>4
27.9%
30.8%
Children in household
Yes
71.2%
71.2%
n.s.
No
28.8%
28.8%
Educational background
(Junior) High school
17.3%
21.2%
n.s.
Vocational college/Junior college
17.3%
26.0%
Bachelor
61.5%
48.1%
Master
3.8%
4.8%
Age of car owner
Mean (SD)
51.3 (10.5)
51.7 (9.1)
n.s.
Annual household income in millions of JPY
2-4
15.4%
16.3%
n.s.
4-6
26.9%
23.1%
6-8
14.4%
24.0%
8-10
20.2%
15.4%
>10
20.2%
21.2%
House type
Solitary
59.6%
64.4%
n.s.
Condominium
40.4%
35.6%
Number of cars in household
1
63.5%
59.6%
n.s.
2
27.9%
28.8%
>3
8.6%
11.6%
Annual driving distance, km
<3,000
13.5%
15.5%
n.s.
3,000-5,000
13.5%
20.2%
5,000-10,000
35.6%
33.7%
10,000-15,000
22.1%
10.6%
>15,000
13.5%
16.3%
Don’t know
1.9%
3.8%
n.s. = not significant (p>0.05)
KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing
76
Table 2: Principal components and scale reliability for perceived innovation attributes (N=208).
Perceived innovation attributes
Mean
SD
Communality
1
2
3
4
5
6
Relative advantage
a
EVs are excellent cars using state-of the-art technology.
3.84
0.858
.824
0.763
To use EVs would decrease my fossil carbon dioxide emissions.
3.92
0.999
.815
0.721
There are more financial advantages for me if I purchase and
use EVs than using ICEs or HVs.
3.33
1.104
.599
0.631
Compatibility
a
As long as my usage of cars, the length of time to recharge EVs
are acceptable.
2.77
1.184
.834
0.819
The range of EVs’ cruising distance is enough for my usage of
cars.
2.84
1.260
.732
0.701
There are rechargers for EVs close to me.
2.57
1.230
.724
0.689
Complexity
a
It is hard to drive EVs.
2.48
1.031
.871
0.812
It is difficult to maintain EVs compared to other cars.
3.42
1.042
.758
0.722
Trialability
a
Before I decide to buy EVs, it is possible to try comfortableness
by riding in someone else’s EV.
2.57
1.230
.834
0.824
Before I decide to buy EVs, it is possible to test drive EVs.
3.01
1.210
.501
.648
0.784
Observability
a
EVs visually stand out.
3.06
1.039
.908
0.897
By riding an EV, I can show that I care about the environment.
2.80
1.152
.542
0.727
Risk
a
To buy an EV means a financial risk for me.
3.56
0.882
.898
0.826
EVs are risky since there are concerns such as a battery
malfunction.
3.61
0.867
.823
0.777
Cronbach’s alpha
0.71
0.82
0.61
0.73
0.64
0.76
AVE
0.57
0.50
0.67
0.58
0.56
0.74
Percentage of variance explained
14.8
17.8
10.7
11.8
9.2
12.2
Assertive consumers N = 104, Passive consumers N = 102.
Scale: a…1, strongly disagree… 5, strongly agree
Principal component analysis; Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization; loading less than 0.50 are not shown.
Total variance explained 76.4%; KMO = 0.813; Bartlett’s test chi-sq. = 1060.622 (df = 171, p = 0.000)
Table 3: Subscales of perceived innovation attributes and differences between 2 consumers groups (N=208).
Perceived innovation attributes
Assertive consumers
Passive consumers
Δ
P
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Relative advantage
3.97
0.68
3.43
0.80
0.54
0.000
Compatibility
3.17
0.97
2.28
0.92
0.89
0.000
Complexity
-
-
-
-
-
-
Trialability
3.22
0.97
2.37
1.02
0.85
0.000
Observability
-
-
-
-
-
-
Risk
3.55
0.74
3.62
0.81
-0.07
n.s.
n.s. = not significant (p>0.05)
Δ = Mean (Assertive consumers) – Mean (Passive consumers)
Table 4: Principal components and scale reliability for scientific literacy and money behaviour (N=208).
Consumer characteristics
Mean
SD
Component
Communality
1
2
3
4
Scientific interest
a
I am knowledgeable of science and technology.
2.92
1.047
.711
0.789
I am good at grasping a commonality among things.
3.22
0.953
.614
0.709
I wish to know more about science and technology.
3.40
1.054
.587
0.742
Social interest
a
I am interested in the issue of welfare.
3.02
0.963
.800
0.810
I am interested in the issue of culture.
3.33
0.963
.605
0.701
I am interested in the issue of local society.
3.16
0.916
.581
0.732
Science appreciating
a
Scientific findings and technological developments enrich human
society
3.60
0.896
.829
0.837
I trust scientists and engineers
3.69
0.807
.821
0.803
I hope scientific thinking prevails more in the society
3.55
0.861
.782
0.800
I am interested in the issue of economy
3.49
0.983
.628
0.678
Money behaviour
a
I use my money very carefully.
3.59
0.864
.897
0.872
I budget my money very well.
3.55
0.986
.880
0.871
Cronbach’s alpha
0.81
0.81
0.87
0.86
AVE
0.41
0.48
059
0.87
Percentage of variance explained
5.2
5.6
10.2
5.5
How Can We Facilitate the Diffusion of Electric Vehicles in Japan? - Consumer Characteristics and Perceived Innovation Attributes
77
Table 5: Principal components and scale reliability for norm, attitude and innovativeness (N=208).
Consumer characteristics
Mean
SD
Component
Communality
5
6
7
8
9
Pro-environmental personal norm
a
I feel a moral obligation to conserve fossil fuels such as gasoline
and kerosene no matter what other people do.
3.75
.961
.875
0.812
People like me should do everything they can do to decrease their
use of fossil fuels such as gasoline.
3.64
.873
.828
0.832
Personally, I feel that I should not travel by car which has bad fuel
efficiency.
3.76
.948
.702
0.694
Pro-environmental social norm
a
People surrounding me think that I should replace my car with a
so-called environmentally friendly car.
2.98
1.094
.881
0.872
People surrounding me think that I should conserve fossil fuels
such as gasoline.
3.10
1.045
.851
0.845
People surrounding me think that I should travel by car as little as
possible.
2.91
1.064
.836
0.872
People surrounding me think that I should drive a car that runs on
a different propulsion from fossil combustion such as EVs and
HVs.
3.00
1.088
.823
0.817
Attitude toward EVs
a
Cars which run on electricity are classified as environmentally
friendly.
3.72
0.933
.875
0.854
Cars which run on only electricity are more environmentally
friendly than HVs which run on both electricity and fossil fuels.
3.58
0.318
.845
0.807
Cars which partially run on electricity are more environmenttally
friendly than cars which run on only fossil fuels.
3.72
0.749
.755
0.707
Consumer independent judgement making
b
When I buy a new product or service, I often ask acquaintances
with experience of the product/service for advice.
2.60
0.749
.887
When I’m interested in buying a new product/service, I usually
trust the opinions of friends who have used the product/services
2.64
0.918
.874
Before buying a product from a new brand/manufacturer, I
usually ask someone with experience of the brand/manufacturer
for advice.
2.69
0.933
.868
Consumer novelty seeking
a
I continuously look for new products and brands/manufacturers.
2.90
1.127
.838
I continuously look for new experiences from new products.
2.94
1.068
.827
I like to visit places where I’m exposed to information about new
products and brands.
3.13
1.047
.796.
I like newspapers and magazines that inform me about new brands.
3.21
1.112
.788
Cronbach’s alpha
0.81
0.94
0.85
0.93
0.92
AVE values
0.65
0.72
0.68
0.77
0.66
Percentage of variance explained
6.5
10.8
7.0
8.0
10.4
Assertive consumers N = 104, Passive consumers N = 102.
Scale: a…1, strongly disagree… 5, strongly agree, b…1, strongly agree… 5, strongly disagree,
Principal component analysis; Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization; loading less than 0.50 are not shown.
Total variance explained 80.6.1%; KMO = 0.871; Bartlett’s test chi-sq. = 4352.661 (df = 406 p = 0.000)
These characteristics include pro-environmental perso-
nal norm, pro-environmental social norm, attitude
toward EVs, CNS and science appreciating. Fourth,
contrary to expectations based on the literature, passive
consumers showed a high level of CIJM. Fifth, there
were no significant differences in money behaviour
and perceived risk. Last, huge gaps were found in
compatibility and pro-environmental social norm
between assertive consumers and passive consumers.
5.1 Discussion
In contrast to consumer novelty seeking (CNS),
consumer independent judgment making (CIJM) was
not high in assertive consumers. If they are Early
Adopters of EVs, this implies different behaviour from
the usual Early Adopter pattern. Rogers (2003)
characterized Early Adopters as opinion leaders,
meaning they can form their own opinions. Early
Majorities, in contrast, are rarely opinion leaders and
are often deliberate in their decision making.
If we consider the assertive consumer to be of the Early
Majority, the discrepancies of CNS and CIJM are
understandable. Since these consumers are quite
deliberate, they like to seek new information to take
into consideration. This view is also supported by the
higher social pro-environmental personal norm of this
type of consumer, meaning they are generally more
affected by the opinion of others. In addition to this,
assertive consumers had a high level of scientific
literacy, which is in line with the Early Adopter and
KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing
78
Table 6: Subscales of consumer characteristic attributes and differences between 2 consumer groups (N=208).
Consumer characteristics
Assertive consumers
Passive consumers
Δ
P
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Green Consumer
Attitudinal Factors
Pro-environmental personal norm
3.83
0.77
3.60
0.79
0.23
0.034
Pro-environmental social norm
3.38
0.85
2.62
0.96
0.76
0.000
Attitude towards EVs
3.91
0.67
3.53
0.80
0.38
0.000
Innovativeness
Consumer independent judgment making
2.42
0.78
2.87
0.96
-0.45
0.000
Consumer novelty seeking
3.37
0.89
2.72
0.95
0.65
0.000
Scientific Literacy
Scientific interest
-
-
-
-
-
-
Social interest
-
-
-
-
-
-
Science appreciating
3.71
0.67
3.44
0.80
0.27
0.009
Money behaviour
Money behaviour
3.65
0.83
3.49
0.90
0.16
n.s
n.s. = not significant (p>0.05)
Δ = Mean (Assertive consumers) – Mean (Passive consumers)
Early Majority types according to Moore’s (1991)
description.
Thus to think of these consumers as Early
Majorities waiting for someone else’s opinions to push
their decision making is reasonable. We conclude that
these consumers are closer in type to the Early Majority
than the Early Adopter. This result suggests the biggest
difference between Early Adopters and Early
Majorities may be CIJM. In addition, this data supports
the suggestion made by Moore (1991) that Early
Majorities are unlikely to make the actual decision to
buy. To know the real characteristics of Early Adopters
we need to investigate actual EV adopters.
5.2 Implications
Findings from our study suggest the necessity of
environmental consciousness promotion by the
government. The biggest difference in consumer
characteristics found in our study between assertive
and passive consumers was pro-environmental social
norm. Consumers who had assertive intentions to buy
EVs felt more pressure from the people surrounding
them. Additionally, since assertive consumers were
found to be less willing to make their own judgments,
as indicated by their low level of CIJM, we suggest that
these consumers would react positively to imposed
pressure to buy EVs. Moreover, according to the
results of the World Wide Views conducted in 2015 by
the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST, 2015),
Japanese people tend to think that the government has
more responsibility to deal with climate change than
citizens, which was opposite of the results in the rest of
the world. Therefore, it would be pointless for
manufactures to appeal directly to these people
regarding the EV’s ecological features. Social pressure
is thought to be important to make passive consumers
buy EVs, and social pressure can come from an
atmosphere of environment consciousness. We suggest
the government should make a major effort to promote
EVs through the media so as to generate peer pressure.
Take the example of “cool-biz, a campaign
launched by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE)
to encourage business people to wear cool and
comfortable clothes to work so that offices could be
kept at the more energy-efficient temperature of
around 28 degrees C (MOE, 2005). Before this
campaign, Japanese office workers were implicitly
obliged to wear formal suits even under the glistening
sun. Sampei and Aoyagi-Usui (2009) found evidence
that the increase in newspaper coverage of global
warming correlated with an increase in public concern
about the issue. In the first four years of the cool-biz
campaign, the rate of setting air conditioner
temperatures higher rose from 32.5% to 61.8% (MOE,
2012). EVs are a high involvement product and the
adoption of cool biz and the adoption of EVs are in
quite different contexts. Still, this provides an example
of how the Japanese people can be persuaded to change
their habits by governmental promotion.
5.3 Limitations and Future Study
Like all studies, our study contains some notable
limitations.
First, the present study is only an exploratory study
of non-EV owners. We investigated perceived
innovation attributes and consumer characteristics of
two different groups of consumers based on their
intentions to buy EVs in the future. However, it is
important to note that our objective was to examine
actual drivers and obstacles to the widespread
dissemination of EVs. Considering that having the
intention to buy an EV and actually buying an EV are
different phases of decision making, there is likely to
be a huge difference between actual adopters and
assertive consumers. In our next study, therefore, we
will also investigate actual EV owners as well.
Second is the cultural gap of understanding refle-
cted in the questionnaire. In this study, all perceived
innovation attributes and consumer characteristic
scales were introduced from previous studies. Because
How Can We Facilitate the Diffusion of Electric Vehicles in Japan? - Consumer Characteristics and Perceived Innovation Attributes
79
of different cultural background, some variables, such
as complexity and observability are not extracted
properly.
Third is the biggest limitation of small sampling
size. We could only gather 208 samples using a third
party agent. To fully explain and adopt the statistical
method, a larger sample size is required.
Fourth, tangible and real estate limits were not well
considered. As we noted above, compatibility is a
major factor in having intentions to buy EVs. EVs
require a recharging station. However, in this study the
relationship between the tangible location of EV
rechargers and consumer residential areas was not
considered.
Still, despite these limitations, this study does give
some idea of the drivers and obstacles to stimulating
intentions to buy EVs. Future studies can explore some
of the issues identified in this study with a larger and
more representative sample of car owners, namely EV
owners. By investigating this group we should be able
to elaborate on the differences between Early Adopters,
Early Majorities and Late Majorities in the case of EVs.
These findings will provide us with the seeds to
knowing what kind of information should be
communicated to consumers in the different adoption
stages of diffusing innovation.
REFERENCES
Anable, J., Skippon, S., Schuitema, G. and Kinnear, N., 2011.
Who will adopt electric vehicles? A segmentation
approach of UK consumers. Proceedings to ECEEE
summer study.
Automobile Inspection & Registration Information
Association (AIRIA) 2016. Number of retained motor
vehicles. available at: https://www.airia.or.jp/publish/
statistics/ub83el00000000wo-att/01.pdf (accessed 13
Jul. 2016). (In Japanese)
Axsen, J., Kurani, K.S. and Burke, A., 2010. Are batteries
ready for plug-in hybrid buyers? Transport Policy, 17(3),
pp.173-182.
Biel, A. and Thøgersen, J., 2007. Activation of social norms
in social dilemmas: A review of the evidence and
reflections on the implications for environmental
behaviour. Journal of economic psychology, 28 (1), pp.
93-112.
Bicchieri, C., 2005. The grammar of society: The nature and
dynamics of social norms, Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge.
Bland, J.M. and Altman, D.G., 1997. Statistics notes:
Cronbach's alpha. The Bmj, 314(7080), p.572.
Connolly, J. and Prothero, A., 2008. Green Consumption
Life-politics, risk and contradictions. Journal of
consumer culture, 8(1), pp.117-145.
Cox, D.F. and Rich, S.U., 1964. Perceived risk and consu-
mer decision-making: The case of telephone shopping.
Journal of marketing research, 1(4), pp.32-39.
Egbue, O. and Long, S., 2012. Barriers to widespread
adoption of electric vehicles: An analysis of consumer
attitudes and perceptions. Energy policy, 48, pp.717-729.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of marketing research,
pp.39-50.
Guagnano, G.A., Stern, P.C. and Dietz, T., 1995. Influences
on attitude-behavior relationships in a natural experiment
with curbside recycling. Environment and behavior,
27(5), pp.699-718.
Hidrue, M.K., Parsons, G.R., Kempton, W. and Gardner,
M.P., 2011. Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and
their attributes. Resource and Energy Economics, 33(3),
pp.686-705.
Hirschman, E.C., 1980. Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and
consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research,
7(3), pp.283-295.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014.
Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, IPCC, Geneva.
Jansson, J., 2011. Consumer eco-innovation adoption:
assessing attitudinal factors and perceived product
characteristics. Business Strategy and the Environment,
20(3), pp.192-210.
Jansson, J., Marell, A. and Nordlund, A., 2010. Green
consumer behavior: determinants of curtailment and eco-
innovation adoption. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
27(4), pp.358-370.
Japan Automotive Research Institute (JARI), 2011. Analysis
on Total Efficiency and GHG emissions, JARI, Ibaraki.
(In Japanese)
Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), 2015.
The Result of World Wide Views on Climate Change and
Energy, JST, Tokyo.
Kaiser, F.G., Wolfing, S. and Fuhrer, U., 1999.
Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, pp.1-19.
Kawamoto, S., Nakayama, M. and Saijo, M., 2013. A survey
of scientific literacy to provide a foundation for designing
science communication in Japan. Public Understanding
of Science, 22(6), pp. 674-690.
Kawamoto, S., Nakayama, M. and Saijo, M., 2013. Using a
scientific literacy cluster to determine participant
attitudes in scientific events in Japan, and potential
applications to improving science communication.
Journal of Science Communication, 12(1), pp.1-12.
Kemp, R. and Pearson, P., 2007. Final report of the MEI
project measuring eco innovation. UM MeritMaastricht.
available at https://www.oecd.org/ env/consumption-
innovation/43960830.pdf (accessed 16 July 2016).
Kotler, P., Armstrong, P. and Onzo, N., 2012. Principles of
Marketing, (14
th
ed) Maruzen. Tokyo. (In Japanese)
Klein, J., 2007. Why people really buy hybrids. The Topline
Strategy Group, US.
Manning, K.C., Bearden, W.O. and Madden, T.J., 1995.
Consumer innovativeness and the adoption process.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), pp.329-345.
KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing
80
Midgley, D.F. and Dowling, G.R., 1978. Innovativeness: The
concept and its measurement. Journal of consumer
research, 4(4), pp.229-242.
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), 2016. The
road map for EVs and PHVs, METI, Tokyo.
Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 2005. Result of “Cool
Biz Campaign, available at https://www.env.go.jp/en/
press/2005/1028a.html (accessed 16 July 2016).
Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 2012. MOE’s effort on
energy conservation and low carbon society, available at:
http://www.meti.go.jp/committee/sougou
energy/shoene_shinene/sho_ene/pdf/009_03_02.pdf
(accessed 19 July 2016) (In Japanese)
Moore, G.A., 1991. Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and
selling high-tech goods to mainstream customers, Harper
Business, New York.
National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), 2016.
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report of JAPAN,
NIES, Japan.
Next Generation Vehicle Promotion Centre (NeV), 2016.
Research of Clean Energy Car Report, NeV, Tokyo.
Nissan, n.d., Leaf, available at: http://www.nissan-glo
bal.com/EN/NISSAN/LEAF/ (accessed 16 July 2016).
Oliver, J.D. and Lee, S.H., 2010. Hybrid car purchase
intentions: a cross-cultural analysis. Journal of consumer
marketing, 27(2), pp.96-103.
Organisation Intenationale des Constructeurs d’Automobiles
(OICA), 2015. World Motor Vehicle Sales by country
and type 2005-2015, available at http://www.oica.net/
category/sales-statistics/ (accessed 16 July 2016)
Ostlund, L.E., 1974. Perceived innovation attributes as
predictors of innovativeness. Journal of consumer
research, 1(2), pp.23-29.
Ozaki, R. and Sevastyanova, K., 2011. Going hybrid: An
analysis of consumer purchase motivations. Energy
Policy, 39(5), pp.2217-2227.
Plötz, P., Schneider, U., Globisch, J. and Dütschke, E., 2014.
Who will buy electric vehicles? Identifying early
adopters in Germany. Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, 67, pp.96-109.
Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet (PMJHC), 2014.
Japan Revitalization Strategy Revised in 2014 -Japan’s
challenge for the future-, PMJHC, Tokyo. (In Japanese)
Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J. and Bodin, J., 2015. Advances in
consumer electric vehicle adoption research: A review
and research agenda. Transportation research part D:
transport and environment, 34, pp.122-136.
Roehrich, G., 2004. Consumer innovativeness: concepts and
measurements. Journal of Business Research, 57(6),
pp.671-677.
Rogers, E. M., 1983. Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.), Free
Press, New York.
Rogers, E. M. and Mitsufuji, T. (2003). Diffusion of
innovations (5th ed.). Shoeisha, Japan. (In Japanese)
Saijo, M. and Kawamoto, S., 2008. Scientific literacy
enabling public engagement: Through analysis of
questionnaire and educational program. Journal of
Science Education in Japan, 32(4), pp.378-391.
Sampei, Y. and Aoyagi-Usui, M., 2009. Mass-media
coverage, its influence on public awareness of climate-
change issues, and implications for Japan’s national
campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Global
Environmental Change, 19(2), pp.203-212.
Situ, L. 2009. Electric vehicle development: The past, present
and future, in Proceedings. 3rd International. Conference.
PESA, Hong Kong, May 2009, pp. 13.
Solomon, M. R. and Matsui, T., 2015. Consumer Behavior,
Maruzen, Tokyo. (In Japanese).
Sovacool, B.K. and Hirsh, R.F., 2009. Beyond batteries: An
examination of the benefits and barriers to plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles (PHEVs) and a vehicle-to-grid (V2G)
transition. Energy Policy, 37(3), pp.1095-1103.
Staats, P.T., Grady, W.M., Arapostathis, A. and Thallam,
R.S., 1997. A statistical method for predicting the net
harmonic currents generated by a concentration of
electric vehicle battery chargers. IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, 12(3), pp.1258-1266.
Steg, L., Dreijerink, L. and Abrahamse, W., 2005. Factors
influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of
VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
25(4), pp.415-425.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T.D., Guagnano, G.A. and Kalof,
L., 1999. A value-belief-norm theory of support for
social movements: The case of environmentalism.
Human Ecology Review, 6(2), pp.81-97.
Stern, P.C., 2000. New environmental theories: toward a
coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.
Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), pp.407-424.
Straughan, R.D. and Roberts, J.A., 1999. Environmental
segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer
behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 16(6), pp.558-575.
Tang, T.L.P., 1992. The meaning of money revisited. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), pp.197-202.
Tang, T.L.P., 1995. The development of a short money ethic
scale: Attitudes toward money and pay satisfaction
revisited. Personality and individual differences, 19(6),
pp.809-816.
Thøgersen, J., 2002. Direct experience and the strength of the
personal normbehavior relationship. Psychology &
Marketing, 19(10), pp.881-893.
Vandermerwe, S. and Oliff, M.D., 1990. Customers drive
corporations. Long Range Planning, 23(6), pp.10-16.
Van de Velde, L., Verbeke, W., Popp, M., Buysse, J. and Van
Huylenbroeck, G., 2009. Perceived importance of fuel
characteristics and its match with consumer beliefs about
biofuels in Belgium. Energy Policy, 37(8), pp.3183-
3193.
Völlink, T., Meertens, R. and Midden, C. J. H., 2002.
Innovating ‘diffusion of innovation’ theory: innovation
characteristics and the intention of utility companies to
adopt energy conservation interventions. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 22(4), pp.333-344.
Yamauchi, K.T. and Templer, D.J., 1982. The development
of a money attitude scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 46(5), pp.522-528.
Yilmaz, M. and Krein, P.T., 2013. Review of battery charger
topologies, charging power levels, and infrastructure for
plug-in electric and hybrid vehicles. IEEE Transactions
on Power Electronics, 28(5), pp.2151-2169.
How Can We Facilitate the Diffusion of Electric Vehicles in Japan? - Consumer Characteristics and Perceived Innovation Attributes
81