Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Examines public policy effects on electric vehicle adoption in the U.S., suggesting important implications for consumers.
The adoption of Plug-In Electric Vehicles (PEVs) worldwide has been a key research topic for the past twenty years. Particularly in the United States, we now find ourselves on the other side of the chasm described by Moore’s (2014) adaptation of Rogers’ (2003) technology diffusion curve – at the beginning of the early majority phase. Much of the previous research on PEV adoption was based on data obtained from potential buyers, innovators, and early adopters. This study draws on prior research grounded in the Technology Acceptance Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior to examine PEV adoption in the United States by actual adopters in the early majority. The study incorporates the influence of public policy on PEV adoption, intending to understand how it serves as both a moderator of adoption by the early majority and a direct correlate of it. Secondary data was used to examine the relationship between public policy and PEV adoption in the first part of the study. The research confirmed a positive correlation between public policy (represented by infrastructure deployment and financial incentive strength) and PEV adoption among the early majority. The second part of the dissertation evaluated the relationship between the four components of customer value as defined by Sweeney and Soutar (2021) and PEV adoption. Using survey data from actual adopters, the study yielded mixed results. Only financial incentive positively moderated the relationship between pricing value and PEV adoption. This research provides a fresh perspective on plug-in electric vehicle adoption in the United States by focusing on actual adoption as opposed to intentions to adopt.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anthony J. Smith (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: