Advances in Psychology
Vol. 13  No. 08 ( 2023 ), Article ID: 71149 , 14 pages
10.12677/AP.2023.138434

消费价值观对新能源汽车购买意愿的影响研究

叶琳琅,严良

中国地质大学(武汉)经济管理学院,湖北 武汉

收稿日期:2023年6月4日;录用日期:2023年8月17日;发布日期:2023年8月24日

摘要

在补贴政策下滑之际,探究影响新能源汽车购买意愿的内在稳定因素尤为重要。以往学者主要采用计划行为理论,并因为没有考虑特定的因素而受到质疑。为此,本研究运用计划行为理论和价值–态度–行为模型,考察导致人们做出特定行为的原始驱动力(价值观)对新能源汽车购买意向的影响。通过构建结构方程模型进行假设检验,研究发现:绿色消费价值观和创新价值观会正向影响购买态度,且绿色消费价值观对态度的影响程度更大;同时态度对意愿也会有显著影响;此外,绿色消费价值观和创新价值观均会直接影响新能源汽车购买意愿,且创新价值观的直接影响更大。基于以上结论,本研究为后补贴时代新能源汽车市场化发展提供了方向,丰富了价值观对新能源汽车购买意愿的影响研究。

关键词

新能源汽车,TPB理论,VAB理论,SEM

Research on the Influence of Consumer Values on the Purchase Intention of New Energy Vehicles

Linlang Ye, Liang Yan

School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan Hubei

Received: Jun. 4th, 2023; accepted: Aug. 17th, 2023; published: Aug. 24th, 2023

ABSTRACT

At a time of declining subsidy policies, it is particularly important to explore the intrinsic stability factors that influence the willingness to purchase new energy vehicles. Previous scholars have mainly used the theory of planned behavior and have been questioned for not considering specific factors. For this reason, this study uses the theory of planned behavior and the value-attitude-behavior model to examine the influence of the original drivers (values) that lead people to engage in specific behaviors on the purchase intention of new energy vehicles. By constructing a structural equation model for hypothesis testing, the study found that: green consumption values and innovation values positively influence purchase attitudes, and green consumption values have a greater degree of influence on attitudes; also attitudes have a significant influence on intentions; furthermore, both green consumption values and innovation values directly influence new energy vehicle purchase intentions, and innovation values have a greater direct influence. Based on the above findings, this study provides a direction for the market development of new energy vehicles in the post-subsidy era, and enriches the research on the influence of values on the purchase intention of new energy vehicles.

Keywords:New Energy Vehicles, TPB Theory, VAB Theory, SEM

Copyright © 2023 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. 引言

近年来,中国的环境污染和能源安全问题日益突出(Wang et al., 2017c)。在全球范围内,废气排放占城市空气污染物的60%以上,交通排放预计占全球温室气体排放量的50% (Langbroek et al., 2016)。且传统汽车消耗的化石燃料是一种迅速枯竭的资源,其消耗会产生严重的环境问题,如火灾和洪水、强飓风和强降雨(Al-Amin et al., 2016; Degirmenci & Breitner, 2017),甚至产生健康危害(Dusmanescu et al., 2016)。因此,国家积极倡导“绿色交通”和“可持续交通”模式,大力推广使用新能源汽车(Arar, 2010; Smith, 2010; Wang et al., 2016),这对汽车制造业转型升级和交通运输业可持续发展方面发挥着重要作用(Zhang & Bai, 2017)。

目前新能源汽车销量的高增长主要得益于补贴支持(Shi et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2017b),如提供更好的基础设施,给予购车和研发补贴(Bergek et al., 2014; Wang & Dong, 2016),这会提高消费者购买意愿和促进企业创新(何正霞等, 2022)。近几年新能源汽车销量有了很大突破,2022年新能源汽车市场占有率达到25.6%,但补贴政策的下滑对消费者购车热情会产生负面影响(Kong et al., 2020; Song et al., 2020),新能源汽车的销量是否会稳定增长仍然拭目以待。

通过梳理个人购买新能源汽车意愿影响的相关要素,主要包括两方面,一方面是个人特征因素,包括认知(Gallagher & Muehlegger, 2011)、态度(Min & Park, 2011)、感知效用(Zhang, 2011)等,另一方面是外部环境因素(Sierzchula et al., 2014)。在现有研究的基础上,本文主要考虑研究自身心理水平对新能源汽车购买意愿的影响,而以往研究采用的计划行为理论(TPB)受到了批评,质疑它对行为意愿是否有足够的解释力(Sierzchula et al., 2014)。Ajzen (1991)提出,在特定情况下使用TPB理论时,需要考虑特定的因素(Ajzen, 1991)。为此,本文尝试引入价值观这一变量,它反映个体内部较为持久和稳定的信念,使人们总是倾向于某种特定的行为方式或最终状态(Rokeach, 1973),被认为是消费者未来购买决策的重要驱动因素(Hur et al., 2013),在消费者的环境决策中发挥着重要作用(Tamar et al., 2021)。且以往研究缺乏对消费者价值观对购买新能源汽车意愿的深入研究,所以本文更明确地引入了价值观这一变量。

现有关于价值观的研究主要集中在对态度的影响上,也有学者提出,价值观是指导个体采取一致行为的信念,比较抽象,而态度比较具体(Bull & Mittelmark, 2008),价值观是通过逐渐具体化的目标与个体行为意向相联系的(陈莹,郑涌,2010)。那么,本文推测,价值观可能通过具体化的态度影响意愿。除此之外,由于在某些情况下,当产品或服务与个人价值观一致时,消费者可能会依赖启发式动机(Tversky & Kahneman, 1982),本文想研究价值观是否直接影响新能源汽车的购买意向。为此,本文试图引入原始驱动力–价值观(Homer & Kahle, 1988)。探讨它是否会影响购买新能源汽车的意愿及其具体作用机制。

基于以上论述,本研究整合了价值–态度–行为和TPB模型,在计划行为理论的框架中加入了心理变量——价值观,探讨了态度的中介效应,并进一步研究了价值观对消费者购买新能源汽车意愿的影响,以期丰富计划行为理论在绿色消费领域的应用,为有效促进绿色消费市场的发展提供参考。

2. 文献回顾与研究假设

2.1. 关于新能源汽车购买意愿的研究

新能源汽车是采用非常规车用燃料作为动力来源的汽车,与传统汽车相比具有明显的优势,例如较低的污染物排放、节省不可再生能源和环境友好性(Hofmann et al., 2016)。目前,学者们对新能源汽车购买意向的研究已经相对成熟,主要采用技术接受模型(TAM) (Wang et al., 2021),规范激活理论(NAM) (Jansson et al., 2017)和计划行为理论(TPB) (Adnan et al., 2018)等来探讨其影响因素,主要包括对新能源汽车的认知(Browne et al., 2012)、环保意识(Fan et al., 2020; Vassileva & Campillo, 2017),社会影响(Fan et al., 2020),周围人的态度(Zhao et al., 2022),购买成本(Dong et al., 2020; Vassileva & Campillo, 2017),购买者的个人特征(王宁等,2015),政策激励(Qin & Xiong, 2022; Wang et al., 2017c; Zhao et al., 2021)和产品属性(Su et al., 2020)等,另外影响其扩散的关键障碍主要包括成本障碍(Biresselioglu et al., 2018; Browne et al., 2012; Crabtree, 2016; Kumar & Alok; She et al., 2017; Vassileva & Campillo, 2017),基础设施障碍(Biresselioglu et al., 2018; Browne et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2017a),车辆性能(Browne et al., 2012; Crabtree, 2016; She et al., 2017),里程焦虑(Browne et al., 2012; Lim et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2017c)等。

可见在影响新能源汽车购买意向的因素中,对价值观的关注还不够。考虑到目前国家正在推广新能源汽车,但很多消费者还处于观望阶段,且随着补贴政策的下降,探讨稳定的价值观显得尤为重要。现有研究主要集中在新能源汽车的绿色环保属性上(丁沛等,2022;孟金,2023),但消费者考虑较多的还应包括新能源汽车本身的创新方面,保守的消费者通常不会优先考虑创新产品。因此,本文同时探讨了绿色消费价值观和创新价值观对这种新型清洁能源汽车购买意向的影响,并探讨了态度这一中间要素的影响。

2.2. 理论基础

计划行为理论是Ajzen在1985年提出并验证的(Ajzen, 1985),该理论在绿色营销领域得到了广泛验证。但有研究表明它不是解释绿色消费行为的合适模型,因为它没有全面考虑到其他重要个体因素(如价值观)的重要作用(Joshi & Rahman, 2016)。现阶段价值观的影响越来越引起重视,Dhir等基于拓展的VT理论探究了价值观对电子垃圾回收意愿的影响(Dhir et al., 2021)。Gupta等基于BRT理论证实了价值观对移动购物意愿的影响(Gupta & Arora, 2017)。本文也认为,新能源汽车作为绿色创新产品,价值观可能会影响消费者的购买决策。为此本文引入社会心理学文献中的价值观–态度–行为(VAB)经典模型,通过态度讨论价值观与行为之间的关系(Jan et al., 2019)。该理论很好地解释了价值观和态度对行为意愿的影响机制,从个人认知层面考虑,价值观通过态度间接影响行为(Tudoran et al., 2009)。学者们也在众多环境中使用了VAB模型,例如,Kang等人(Kang et al., 2015)应用VAB模型发现环保态度和消费行为受个体价值观的制约。此外,学者们还利用VAB理论研究了绿色酒店(Rahman & Reynolds, 2019),有机食品(Zinoubi, 2021),环保行为(Tamar et al., 2021)等。

为此,本研究弥补TPB理论的不足,结合计划行为理论和价值–态度–行为层次理论来考察价值观、态度和新能源汽车购买意愿之间的关系。

3. 研究假设

3.1. 价值观和态度、购买意愿

价值观是人们对周围的客观事物(包括人、事、物)的意义和重要性的总体评价(Tewari et al., 2022)。它反映了个体内心较为持久和稳定的信念,使人们偏好于特定的行为方式或最终状态(Rokeach, 1973)。消费者行为文献也认可价值观在塑造个人的态度以及决策方面的重要性(Dreezens et al., 2005; Rokeach, 1973)。新能源汽车是绿色创新产品,在补贴政策减少的情况下,价值观对购买意向的影响更是不容忽视。鉴于新能源汽车的特点,它可以减少化石燃料的消耗,从而减少空气污染。此外,新能源汽车的技术仍处于快速发展阶段,具有创新产品的特点。因此,它对追求环保主义和创新追求的消费者具有很强的吸引力,本文主要讨论绿色消费价值观和创新价值观。

在之前的研究中,Min等用实证分析法研究了影响氢燃料汽车接受度的因素,发现技术和政府支持对氢燃料汽车的接受度没有明显影响,但个人价值观等因素有积极影响(Min & Park, 2011)。Tversky等也认为,价值观可能会对态度产生直接影响,当产品或服务与个人价值观一致时,消费者可能会依赖启发式动机(Tversky & Kahneman, 1982)。绿色消费价值观被定义为个人确保不因其消费行为造成环境恶化,通过购买和消费行为表达其环境主张的倾向(Haws et al., 2014),具有强烈绿色消费价值观的个人对环保产品持积极态度(Haws et al., 2014; Yan et al., 2021)。创新价值观的定义源于创新扩散理论,反映了消费者对新兴产品的追求,即使冒着失败的经济损失也要努力购买。新能源汽车作为一种典型的新兴产品,近年来技术发展迅速,具有创新价值观的消费者更愿意购买。绿色产品的消费大多是由消费者的创新能力驱动(劳可夫,2013)。

由于新能源汽车是环保的新兴产品,持有绿色消费价值观和创新价值观的消费者更可能产生积极的态度和购买意向。因此,我们认为价值观可能直接影响个体的态度和购买意向。基于以上讨论,我们假设:

H1:价值观正向影响消费者对新能源汽车的态度。

H1a:绿色消费价值观正向影响消费者对新能源汽车的态度。

H1b:创新价值观正向影响对新能源汽车的态度。

H2:价值观正向影响购买新能源汽车的意愿。

H2a:绿色消费价值观正向影响购买新能源汽车的意愿。

H2b:创新价值观正向影响购买新能源汽车的意愿。

3.2. 态度和购买意向

态度被定义为“一种通过以某种程度的赞成或不利来评价特定实体来表达的心理倾向”(Eagly & Chaiken, 1993)。根据理性行为理论和技术接受模型等,态度是意愿的有力预测因素。在预测新能源汽车购买意愿的背景下,态度是指对购买新能源汽车的正面或者负面评价。在消费者行为的研究中,Fishbein等主张消费者对某产品或服务越持积极态度就越倾向于购买(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1977)。例如,Du等发现对新能源汽车的态度对购买意愿产生了积极的影响(Du et al., 2018)。当个人有更积极的态度时,他们更有可能做出某种行为(Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005)。基于上述讨论,我们假设:

H3:消费者对新能源汽车的态度显著影响其购买意愿。

3.3. 态度的中介作用

在绿色营销领域中有学者探讨了态度的中介作用,比如张懿玮等通过实证分析发现绿色消费态度在绿色教育对绿色消费意愿影响中发挥了中介作用(张懿玮,徐爱萍,2022)。也有学者提出,价值观对行为的影响也具有间接性,且态度在个人价值观与行为意愿之间具有中介或缓冲作用(Kahle, 1980)。例如,有学者提出对友好环境的追求使得消费者更关注绿色消费带来的好处,这反过来将增强消费者的积极态度,从而增强其绿色购买倾向(盛光华等,2016)。因此,本文认为态度对个人价值观与新能源汽车购买意愿之间具有中介作用。基于以上陈述,提出以下假设:

H4:价值观通过态度正向影响其购买新能源汽车的意愿。

H4a:消费者的绿色消费价值观通过态度对新能源汽车购买意愿产生正向影响。

H4b:消费者的创新性价值观通过态度对新能源汽车购买意愿产生正向影响。

在讨论的假设基础上,提出了一个理论框架(见图1)。

注:H4a表明,态度在绿色消费价值对新能源汽车购买意愿的影响中起中介作用;H4b表明,态度在创新价值观对新能源汽车购买意愿的影响中起中介作用。

Figure 1. Theoretical framework

图1. 理论框架

4. 方法

4.1. 样本量和组成

Table 1. Respondents’ demographic information

表1. 受访者的人口统计资料

本文共调查了237名受访者,剔除24份无效问卷,剩下213份有效数据。一般SEM要求模型的观察变量与样本比例在1:10到1:15之间,样本量在200到400比较合适(Hair Jr. et al., 1998),可见本文的样本量是适中的。

本文最终样本的人口统计学数据如表1所示,在所有被调查者中,男性略多于女性,收入较高,大多比较年轻,知识水平也较高。这也符合男性购车兴趣较高的现实,年轻人的汽车市场也更大,这将加速新能源汽车的市场化进程。同时问卷样本涵盖了中国20多个省份,因此具有一定的代表性。

4.2. 测量

该研究所用测量量表均来自国内外成熟量表,为了保证量表在中国语境下的一致性和准确性,本研究遵循“翻译–回译”的原则,经过专家的反馈和多次调整,最终形成了本研究的量表。

Table 2. Measurement indicators for each variable

表2. 各变量的测量指标

通过测试每个参与者在不久的将来购买新能源汽车的意愿,我们采用了(Dodds et al., 1991)量表来衡量消费者对新能源汽车的购买意愿(PI),包含4个项目。消费者对新能源汽车的态度(AT)被概念化为对新能源汽车采用的总体主观评估,参考了(Cheung & To, 2019; do Paco et al., 2019)文献量表,用3个项目来衡量。绿色消费价值观(GV)参考(do Paco et al., 2019; Haws et al., 2014)量表,创新价值观(IV)参考 (Roehrich, 2004)的量表,均为3个项目。这些项目都用七分李克特量表测量(1 = 非常不同意,7 = 非常同意),要求参与者评估他们对各陈述的同意程度,本研究中使用的测量项目见表1

5. 数据分析

在本文中,我们使用AMOS 25.0进行结构方程模型建模(SEM)分析来衡量结构模型的质量和拟合度。对于测量质量,我们遵循Chiu和Wang的建议,测试了可靠性,收敛效度和判别效度(Chiu & Wang, 2008)。

5.1. 信效度分析

通过SPSS 26.0计算克朗巴赫a系数来测量每个构面的项目之间的可靠性。Cronbach的α值范围从0.23到0.874,均大于阈值0.7 (Nunnally, 1978)。使用AMOS25.0进行效度检验,因子载荷(标准化载荷) (0.639~0.851)高于所有构面的推荐水平0.6 (Chin et al., 1997)。复合可靠性(C.R)范围为0.723至0.876,符合建议的0.6的标准(Bagozzi & Yi, 1988)。每个构面的AVE除绿色消费价值观略小于0.5,但仍属于可接受范围,其他都符合0.5标准(Fornell & Larcker, 1981)。表3提供了收敛有效性的详细信息。

Table 3. Reliability test

表3.信效度检验

5.2. 区别效度的验证

区别效度分析可以验证不同的两个构面相关在统计上是否有差异。表4为各构面平均变异数萃取量(AVE)平方根与各构造的相关系数的对比,可以看出每个构面的AVE的平方根高于其相关性值,这确保了区别效度的有效性(Chin et al., 1997)。

Table 4. Differential validity test

表4. 区别效度检验

注:对角线上的数值显示每个构面的AVE的平方根。

5.3. 共同方法偏差的检验

采用Harman单因素检验方法,利用SPSS对所有测量项目题目项进行因子分析,观察提取的第一个公因子的比例为44.256%,小于Podsakoff和Organ (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986)提出的50%,因此本文不存在严重的共同方法偏差。

5.4. 结构模型及假设检验

5.4.1. 模型拟合

通过测量模型证明了信度和有效性,利用结构模型评估理论框架拟合指数的优度。SEM的输出表明,所提出的理论框架代表了良好的数据拟合,结果如表5所示,均方根误差近似(RMSEA)的观测值为0.033,证明了<0.08的标准(Browne & Cudeck, 1993)。其他适合指数(如GFI、TLI、CFI、IFI)高于0.9的建议标准(Bagozzi & Yi, 1988)。

Table 5. Test results of model fit

表5. 模型拟合度的检验结果

5.4.2. 假设检验

Figure 2. Structural model (standardized estimation)

图2. 结构模型(标准化估计)

本文利用Amos 25.0构建结构方程模型进行假设检验,主要包括直接效应和中介效应检验。结构方程模型如图2所示。

1、直接效应检验

首先对全体样本的主效应进行检验,所有路径均显著,结果如表6所示。在影响购买态度的路径中,环保价值观、创新价值观对购买态度和购买意愿都有显著正向影响。标准化系数计算态度与购买意愿之间的路径(β = 0.447; t = 4.942, p < 0.001),绿色消费价值观与态度之间的路径(β = 0.471; t = 4.444, p < 0.001),创新价值观与态度之间的路径(β = 0.259; t = 2.903, p < 0.01),绿色消费价值观对意愿之间的路径(β = 0.224; t = 2.560, p < 0.05),创新价值观与意愿之间的路径(β = 0.321; t = 4.367, p < 0001)。可见假设H1~H5均成立。

Table 6. Main effects path test

表6. 主效应路径检验

注:*p  <  0.05,**p  <  0.01,***p  <  0.001。

2、中介效应检验

中介效应检验方法主要有因果法、Sobel法和Bootstrap法三种,其中Bootstrap法被视为中介效应检验的首选方法(Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007)。本研究设置重复次数k = 1000,置信区间CI% = 95%,如果95%的置信区间不包括0,则中介效应存在。中介效应检验结果如表7所示,结果说明态度在“绿色消费价值观–购买意愿”和“创新价值观–购买意愿”路径中均发挥了中介作用,假设H6~H7成立。

Table 7. Intermediary effect path test

表7. 中介效应路径检验

6. 讨论

6.1. 研究结果

本研究以计划行为理论和价值观–态度–行为理论为基础提出了7个研究假设,探讨了价值观对新能源汽车购买意向的影响机制,采用结构方程模型对实证数据进行假设检验,实证结果如下:

首先,绿色消费价值观和创新价值观直接正向影响新能源汽车的态度和购买意向。具有绿色消费价值观的个体更注重人与自然的和谐与可持续发展,会对绿色环保行为或消费行为作出积极的回应。具有创新价值观的个体也更愿意尝试新产品以满足自己的需求。其次,对新能源汽车的态度正向影响购买意向,这也与之前的研究结果一致。然后,态度部分地中介了绿色消费价值观和创新价值观对新能源汽车购买意向的影响。在严峻的气候变化形势和国家提倡节能低碳的背景下,消费者的绿色消费观念越来越强,对购买新能源汽车的期望值也越来越大,而且新能源汽车与传统汽车相比具有一定的创新性,因此购买决策到最终行为会经历一个复杂的心理过程,而态度在其中起到了重要作用。

6.2. 管理启示

当前的研究结果可以为新能源汽车制造厂商和政府提供一定的见解,以增强新能源汽车购买意愿。同样在新能源汽车领域,作为任何人生活中指导原则的价值观在购买决策过程中也发挥关键作用(Schwartz, 1992)。基于本文研究的结果,首先,营销人员需要关注消费者态度,因为它对绿色购买意愿起着重要作用。消费者对新能源汽车的态度可以通过提高绿色消费价值观和创新价值观的意识来加强,从而在人们心目中树立良好的产品形象。其次,建议厂家大力倡导新能源汽车的绿色理念,国家加大对环保的宣传,鼓励大家共同参与绿色建设。特别是经历了疫情时期,大家对健康的关注日渐提升,对新能源汽车环保属性的宣传可以激发消费者的绿色消费价值观。然后,鼓励新能源汽车厂家加大产品研发不断创新,目前消费者对购买新能源汽车的顾虑大于传统汽车,且补贴政策的下滑会减少部分潜在消费者对新能源汽车的吸引力,只有不断地研发才能提升竞争实力。这不仅对创新性价值观的消费者有一定的鼓励作用,也是所有消费者的殷切希望,产品不断创新改进,才能加速实现市场化,实现长期稳定性发展。

6.3. 局限与未来展望

首先,本研究对因变量的测量主要使用的是消费者对购买新能源汽车的意愿,而不是实际购买行为。未来研究可以考虑利用现场实验测量消费者的购买行为,这将更具有现实意义。其次,本文探讨了绿色消费价值观和创新价值观与购买意向之间的关系。由于多种价值观之间不是互相排斥的,个体可以同时拥有多种不同的价值观(Stern & Dietz, 1994),未来研究可尝试探索其他价值观对新能源汽车购买意愿的重要影响及其作用机制。

文章引用

叶琳琅,严 良. 消费价值观对新能源汽车购买意愿的影响研究
Research on the Influence of Consumer Values on the Purchase Intention of New En-ergy Vehicles[J]. 心理学进展, 2023, 13(08): 3465-3478. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2023.138434

参考文献

  1. 1. 陈莹, 郑涌(2010). 价值观与行为的一致性争议. 心理科学进展, (10), 1612-1619.

  2. 2. 丁沛, 马铁驹, 马也(2022). 基于在线评论的新能源汽车销量影响因素研究. 系统科学与数学, 42(10), 2647-2664.

  3. 3. 何正霞, 曹长帅, 王建明(2022). 政策激励对新能源汽车技术创新的影响研究. 科学决策, (5), 71-85.

  4. 4. 劳可夫(2013). 消费者创新性对绿色消费行为的影响机制研究. 南开管理评论, 16(4), 106-113, 132.

  5. 5. 孟金(2023). 新能源汽车的节能减排效应分析. 环境工程, 41(4), 299.

  6. 6. 盛光华, 庞英, 张志远(2016). 生态红线约束下环境关心对绿色消费意图的传导机制研究. 软科学, 30(4), 85-88, 92.

  7. 7. 王宁, 晏润林, 刘亚斐(2015). 电动汽车潜在消费者特征识别和市场接受度研究. 复印报刊资料: 市场营销, (1), 36-48.

  8. 8. 张懿玮,徐爱萍(2022). 绿色教育与绿色消费意愿: 绿色素养和绿色消费态度的链式中介作用. 教育与经济, 38(5), 11-20, 57.

  9. 9. Adnan, N., Nordin, S. M., Amini, M. H., & Langove, N. (2018). What Make Consumer Sign up to PHEVs? Predicting Malaysian Consumer Behavior in Adoption of PHEVs. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 113, 259-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.04.007

  10. 10. Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Be-havior. In J. Kuhl, & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action Control. SSSP Springer Series in Social Psychology (pp. 11-39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2

  11. 11. Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

  12. 12. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

  13. 13. Al-Amin, A. Q., Ambrose, A. F., Masud, M. M., & Azam, M. N. (2016). People Purchase Intention towards Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles: An Experiential Enquiry in Malaysia. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41, 2117-2127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.11.146

  14. 14. Arar, J. I. (2010). New Directions: The Electric Car and Carbon Emissions in the US. Atmospheric Environment, 44, 733-734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.09.042

  15. 15. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327

  16. 16. Bergek, A., Berggren, C., & Grp, K. R. (2014). The Impact of Environmen-tal Policy Instruments on Innovation: A Review of Energy and Automotive Industry Studies. Ecological Economics, 106, 112-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.016

  17. 17. Biresselioglu, M. E., Kaplan, M. D., & Yilmaz, B. K. (2018). Electric Mobility in Europe: A Comprehensive Review of Motivators and Barriers in Decision Making Processes. Trans-portation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 109, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.01.017

  18. 18. Browne, D., O’Mahony, M., & Caulfield, B. (2012). How Should Bar-riers to Alternative Fuels and Vehicles Be Classified and Potential Policies to Promote Innovative Technologies Be Evaluated? Journal of Cleaner Production, 35, 140-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.019

  19. 19. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative Ways of As-sessing Model Fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 154, 132-162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005

  20. 20. Bull, T., & Mittelmark, M. B. (2008). Subjective Well-Being among Employed Lone Mothers in Europe: The Effects of Level of Work/Family Conflict and Self-Enhancement versus Self-Transcendence Value Orientation. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 10, 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623730.2008.9721766

  21. 21. Cheung, M. F. Y., & To, W. M. (2019). An Extended Model of Value-Attitude-Behavior to Explain Chinese Consumers’ Green Purchase Behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50, 145-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.04.006

  22. 22. Chin, W. W., Gopal, A., & Salisbury, W. D. (1997). Advancing the Theory of Adaptive Structuration: The Development of a Scale to Measure Faithfulness of Appropriation. Information Systems Research, 8, 342-367. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.8.4.342

  23. 23. Chiu, C.-M., & Wang, E. T. G. (2008). Understanding Web-Based Learn-ing Continuance Intention: The Role of Subjective Task Value. Information & Management, 45, 194-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.02.003

  24. 24. Crabtree, G. (2016). Storage at the Threshold: Li-Ion Batteries and be-yond. In 2016 Fall Meeting of the APS Prairie Section.

  25. 25. Degirmenci, K., & Breitner, M. H. (2017). Consumer Purchase Intentions for Electric Vehicles: Is Green More Important than Price and Range? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 51, 250-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.01.001

  26. 26. Dhir, A., Malodia, S., Awan, U., Sakashita, M., & Kaur, P. (2021). Ex-tended Valence Theory Perspective on Consumers’ E-Waste Recycling Intentions in Japan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 312, Article ID: 127443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127443

  27. 27. do Paco, A., Shiel, C., & Alves, H. (2019). A New Model for Testing Green Consumer Behaviour. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207, 998-1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.105

  28. 28. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 307-319. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379102800305

  29. 29. Dong, X. Y., Zhang, B., Wang, B., & Wang, Z. H. (2020). Urban Households’ Purchase Intentions for Pure Electric Vehicles under Subsidy Contexts in China: Do Cost Factors Matter? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 135, 183-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.03.012

  30. 30. Dreezens, E., Martijn, C., Tenbult, P., Kok, G., & de Vries, N. K. (2005). Food and Values: An Examination of Values Underlying Attitudes toward Genetically Modified- and Organically Grown Food Products. Appetite, 44, 115-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.07.003

  31. 31. Du, H. B., Liu, D. Y., Sovacool, B. K., Wang, Y. R., Ma, S. F., & Li, R. Y. M. (2018). Who Buys New Energy Vehicles in China? Assessing Social-Psychological Predictors of Purchasing Awareness, Intention, and Policy. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58, 56-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.05.008

  32. 32. Dusmanescu, D., Andrei, J., Popescu, G. H., Nica, E., & Panait, M. (2016). Heuristic Methodology for Estimating the Liquid Biofuel Potential of a Region. Energies, 9, Article No. 703. https://doi.org/10.3390/en9090703

  33. 33. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

  34. 34. Fan, J. L., Wang, Q., Yang, L., Zhang, H., & Zhang, X. (2020). Determinant Changes of Consumer Preference for NEVs in China: A Comparison between 2012 and 2017. International Journal of Hy-drogen Energy, 45, 23557-23575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.06.002

  35. 35. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 41, 842-844.

  36. 36. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Market-ing Research, 24, 337-346.

  37. 37. Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required Sample Size to Detect the Mediated Effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x

  38. 38. Gallagher, K. S., & Muehlegger, E. (2011). Giving Green to Get Green? Incentives and Consumer Adoption of Hybrid Vehicle Technology. Journal of Environmental Economics & Management, 61, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.05.004

  39. 39. Ghali-Zinoubi, Z. (2021). Effects of Organic Food Perceived Values on Consumers’ Attitude and Behavior in Developing Country: Moderating Role of Price Sensitivity. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 58, 779-788.

  40. 40. Gupta, A., & Arora, N. (2017). Understanding Determinants and Barriers of Mo-bile Shopping Adoption Using Behavioral Reasoning Theory. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 36, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.12.012

  41. 41. Hair Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.

  42. 42. Haws, K. L., Winterich, K. P., & Naylor, R. W. (2014). Seeing the World through GREEN-Tinted Glasses: Green Consumption Values and Responses to Environmentally Friendly Products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24, 336-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.11.002

  43. 43. Hofmann, J., Guan, D., Chalvatzis, K., & Huo, H. (2016). Assessment of Electrical Vehicles as a Successful Driver for Reducing CO2 Emissions in China. Applied Energy, 184, 995-1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.042

  44. 44. Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A Structural Equation Test of the Value-Attitude-Behavior Hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 638-646. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.638

  45. 45. Hur, W. M., Kim, Y., & Park, K. (2013). Assessing the Effects of Perceived Value and Satisfaction on Customer Loyalty: A ‘Green’ Perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Envi-ronmental Management, 20, 146-156. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1280

  46. 46. Jan, I. U., Ji, S., & Yeo, C. (2019). Values and Green Product Purchase Behav-ior: The Moderating Effects of the Role of Government and Media Exposure. Sustainability, 11, Article No. 6642. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236642

  47. 47. Jansson, J., Nordlund, A., & Westin, K. (2017). Examining Drivers of Sus-tainable Consumption: The Influence of Norms and Opinion Leadership on Electric Vehicle Adoption in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 154, 176-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.186

  48. 48. Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z. (2016). Predictors of Young Consumer’s Green Purchase Behaviour. Management of Environmental Quality, 27, 452-472. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-05-2015-0091

  49. 49. Kahle, L. R. (1980). Stimulus Condition Self-Selection by Males in the Interaction of Locus of Control and Skill-Chance Situations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 38, 50-56. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.1.50

  50. 50. Kang, J., Jun, J., & Arendt, S. W. (2015). Understanding Customers’ Healthy Food Choices at Casual Dining Restaurants: Using the Value-Attitude-Behavior Model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 48, 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.04.005

  51. 51. Kong, D., Xia, Q., Xue, Y., & Zhao, X. (2020). Effects of Multi Poli-cies on Electric Vehicle Diffusion under Subsidy Policy Abolishment in China: A Multi-Actor Perspective. Applied Energy, 266, Article ID: 114887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114887

  52. 52. Kumar, R. R., & Alok, K. (2020). Adoption of Electric Vehicle: A Literature Review and Prospects for Sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, Article ID: 119911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119911

  53. 53. Langbroek, J. H. M., Franklin, J. P., & Susilo, Y. O. (2016). The Effect of Policy Incentives on Electric Vehicle Adoption. Energy Policy, 94, 94-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.050

  54. 54. Lim, M. K., Mak, H. Y., & Rong, Y. (2015). Toward Mass Adoption of Electric Vehicles: Impact of the Range and Resale Anxieties. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 17, 101-119. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2014.0504

  55. 55. Min, J. K., & Park, H. (2011). Impact of Experience on Gov-ernment Policy toward Acceptance of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles in Korea. Energy Policy, 39, 3465-3475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.045

  56. 56. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. American Educational Research Journal, 5, 83.

  57. 57. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. M. (1986). Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Prob-lems and Prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408

  58. 58. Qin, S. F., & Xiong, Y. Q. (2022). Innovation Strategies of Chinese New Energy Vehicle Enterprises under the Influence of Non-Financial Policies: Effects, Mechanisms and Implications. Energy Policy, 164, Article ID: 112946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112946

  59. 59. Rahman, I., & Reynolds, D. (2019). The Influence of Values and At-titudes on Green Consumer Behavior: A Conceptual Model of Green Hotel Patronage. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 20, 47-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2017.1359729

  60. 60. Roehrich, G. (2004). Consumer Innovativeness: Concepts and Measurements. Journal of Business Research, 57, 671-677. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00311-9

  61. 61. Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. American Journal of Sociology, 89.

  62. 62. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Ad-vances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6

  63. 63. She, Z.-Y., Sun, Q., Ma, J.-J., & Xie, B.-C. (2017). What Are the Barriers to Widespread Adoption of Battery Electric Vehicles? A Survey of Public Perception in Tianjin, China. Transport Policy, 56, 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.03.001

  64. 64. Shi, L., Wu, R. X., & Lin, B. Q. (2023). Where Will Go for Electric Vehicles in China after the Government Subsidy Incentives Are Abolished? A Controversial Consumer Perspective. Energy, 262, Article ID: 125423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.125423

  65. 65. Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K., Wee, B. V., & France, N. (2014). The Influence of Financial Incentives and Other Socio-Economic Factors on Electric Vehicle Adoption. Energy Pol-icy, 68, 183-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.043

  66. 66. Smith, W. J. (2010). Can EV (Electric Vehicles) Address Ireland’s CO2 Emissions from Transport? Energy, 35, 4514-4521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.07.029

  67. 67. Sniehotta, F. F., Presseau, J., & Araujo-Soares, V. (2014). Time to Retire the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Health Psychology Review, 8, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2013.869710

  68. 68. Song, Y., Li, G., Wang, Q., Meng, X., & Wang, H. (2020). Sce-nario Analysis on Subsidy Policies for the Uptake of Electric Vehicles Industry in China. Resources Conservation and Re-cycling, 161, Article ID: 104927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104927

  69. 69. Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The Value Basis of Environ-mental Concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x

  70. 70. Su, D. J., Gu, Y. D., Du, Q. X., Zhou, W. L., & Huang, Y. C. (2020). Factors Affecting User Satisfaction with New Energy Vehicles: A Field Survey in Shanghai and Nanjing. Jour-nal of Environmental Management, 270, Article ID: 110857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110857

  71. 71. Tamar, M., Wirawan, H., Arfah, T., & Putri, R. P. S. (2021). Pre-dicting Pro-Environmental Behaviours: The Role of Environmental Values, Attitudes and Knowledge. Management of Envi-ronmental Quality, 32, 328-343. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2019-0264

  72. 72. Tewari, A., Mathur, S., Srivastava, S., & Gangwar, D. (2022). Ex-amining the Role of Receptivity to Green Communication, Altruism and Openness to Change on Young Consumers’ Inten-tion to Purchase Green Apparel: A Multi-Analytical Approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 66, Article ID: 102938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102938

  73. 73. Tudoran, A., Olsen, S. O., & Dopico, D. C. (2009). The Effect of Health Benefit Information on Consumers Health Value, Attitudes and Intentions. Appetite, 52, 568-579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2009.01.009

  74. 74. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185, 38-55. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

  75. 75. Vassileva, L., & Campillo, J. (2017). Adoption Barriers for Elec-tric Vehicles: Experiences from Early Adopters in Sweden. Energy, 120, 632-641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.119

  76. 76. Wang, F., Yu, J., Yang, P., Miao, L., & Ye, B. (2017a). Analysis of Barriers to Wide Spread Adoption of Electric Vehicles in Shenzhen China. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201702.0089.v1

  77. 77. Wang, N., Pan, H. Z., & Zheng, W. H. (2017b). Assessment of the Incentives on Electric Vehicle Promotion in China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 101, 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.04.037

  78. 78. Wang, R., Zhao, X. Y., Wang, W. J., & Jiang, L. (2021). What Factors Affect the Public Acceptance of New Energy Vehicles in Underdeveloped Regions? A Case Study of Gansu Province, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 318, Article ID: 128432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128432

  79. 79. Wang, S. Y., Fan, J., Zhao, D. T., Yang, S., & Fu, Y. G. (2016). Predicting Consumers’ Intention to Adopt Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Using an Extended Version of the Theory of Planned Behavior Model. Transportation, 43, 123-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9567-9

  80. 80. Wang, Z. H., & Dong, X. Y. (2016). Determinants and Policy Impli-cations of Residents’ New Energy Vehicle Purchases: He Evidence from China. Natural Hazards, 82, 155-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2185-4

  81. 81. Wang, Z. H., Zhao, C. Y., Yin, J. H., & Zhang, B. (2017c). Purchas-ing Intentions of Chinese Citizens on New Energy Vehicles: How Should One Respond to Current Preferential Policy? Journal of Cleaner Production, 161, 1000-1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.154

  82. 82. Yan, L., Keh, H. T., & Wang, X. Y. (2021). Powering Sustainable Consumption: The Roles of Green Consumption Values and Power Distance Belief. Journal of Business Ethics, 169, 499-516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04295-5

  83. 83. Zhang, H., Zhang, X., & He, N. (2011). Rotor Dynamic Analysis of Small Vehicle Gasoline Turbocharger in Semi-Floating bearings. Transactions of Beijing Institute of Technology, 20, 502-508.

  84. 84. Zhang, X., & Bai, X. (2017). Incentive Policies from 2006 to 2016 and New Energy Vehicle Adoption in 2010-2020 in China. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 24-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.211

  85. 85. Zhao, D., Ji, S.-F., Wang, H.-P., & Jiang, L.-W. (2021). How Do Government Subsidies Promote New Energy Vehicle Diffusion in the Complex Network Context? A Three-Stage Evolu-tionary Game Model. Energy, 230, Article ID: 120899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120899

  86. 86. Zhao, H. B., Bai, R. B., Liu, R., & Wang, H. (2022). Exploring Purchase Intentions of New Energy Vehicles: Do “Mianzi” and Green Peer Influence Matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 951132. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.951132

期刊菜单