How Can We Facilitate the Diffusion of Electric Vehicles in Japan?

Consumer Characteristics and Perceived Innovation Attributes

Taiyu Sato

and Miki Saijo

Graduate School of Innovation Management, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan

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

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

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

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

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

world’s 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

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

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

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 one’s 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

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 individual’s 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

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

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 subscales’ mean 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 groups’ components’ means

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

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

Gender

Female

26.9%

n.s.

Male

73.1%

Number of persons in household

Single

11.5%

6.7%

n.s.

27.9%

28.8%

32.7%

33.7%

27.9%

30.8%

Children in household

Yes

71.2%

n.s.

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

63.5%

59.6%

n.s.

27.9%

28.8%

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

Table 2: Principal components and scale reliability for perceived innovation attributes (N=208).

Perceived innovation attributes

Mean

Component

Communality

Relative advantage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mean

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

Component

Communality

Scientific interest

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

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

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

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

0.87

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

Table 5: Principal components and scale reliability for norm, attitude and innovativeness (N=208).

Consumer characteristics

Mean

Component

Communality

Pro-environmental personal norm

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

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

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

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

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

Table 6: Subscales of consumer characteristic attributes and differences between 2 consumer groups (N=208).

Consumer characteristics

Assertive consumers

Passive consumers

Mean

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

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

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

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

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. 1–3.

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 norm–behavior 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