Investigates EV adoption factors across user segments, suggesting targeted intervention strategies.
Electric vehicle (EV) adoption remains critically low in Thailand despite government initiatives, with limited understanding of how adoption factors vary across different user segments. This study investigates the determinants of EV adoption intentions across three distinct groups—internal combustion engine (ICE) users, hybrid electric vehicle (HEV/PHEV) users, and current EV users—to develop targeted adoption strategies. Data were collected from 3794 Thai vehicle users through on-site administered questionnaires and analyzed using multi-group structural equation modeling, integrating the Technology Acceptance Model, Theory of Planned Behavior, and environmental psychology constructs. Results reveal significant differences in adoption pathways across groups: ICE users show the strongest sensitivity to perceived ease of use, indicating technology apprehension as the primary barrier; HEV/PHEV users demonstrate transitional characteristics with the highest experience-usefulness relationship, while current EV users exhibit stronger influence from environmental identity and social norms. All 14 hypotheses were supported, though with varying effect magnitudes across groups. Surprisingly, the attitude-intention relationship was consistently weak across all segments, suggesting unmeasured cultural or contextual factors. This study contributes the first empirical evidence of segmented adoption patterns in an emerging market, revealing a progression pathway from technology-focused concerns (ICE) through balanced considerations (HEV/PHEV) to identity-driven adoption (EV). Findings provide actionable insights for policymakers to design segment-specific interventions: technology familiarization for ICE users, transition facilitation for hybrid users, and community-building for EV users.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chonsalasin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: