Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study demonstrates how green innovation and smart-cockpit features drive new energy vehicle purchase intentions in young consumers, highlighting diminishing marginal returns...
As China’s new energy vehicle (NEV) market shifts from basic electrification toward competition over integrated technological capability and in-cabin user experience, understanding how consumers evaluate green technology and smart-cockpit configurations has become increasingly important. This study examines how perceived green technological innovation (PGTI) and smart-cockpit scenario-based configuration (SCSC) shape young Chinese consumers’ NEV purchase intentions. Drawing on the Theory of Consumption Values and signaling theory, the study combines hierarchical regression with fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Data were collected in multiple Chinese cities through Wenjuanxing and on-site surveys at authorized NEV dealerships and brand experience centers. Of the 500 questionnaires collected from consumers aged 18–35, 420 valid responses were retained, yielding a valid response rate of 84.0%. The regression results show that perceived value is the strongest positive correlate of purchase intention, while SCSC, technology trust, PGTI, and charging convenience also have significant positive associations. The negative PGTI × SCSC interaction indicates diminishing marginal returns rather than simple additive synergy. The fsQCA results identify eight alternative configurations leading to high purchase intention, including integrated flagship, technology-assurance, and smart-cabin-oriented pathways. The study contributes by distinguishing average net effects from equifinal configurational mechanisms and by showing that smart-cockpit value depends on its combination with technology, charging, price, and trust conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ju et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: