Sequential exploratory study reveals a four-dimensional value structure in electric vehicle owners, suggesting critical factors for sustained post-adoption usage.
Purpose This study aims to develop the electric vehicle consumption value (EVCV) scale to capture the multidimensional value perceived by electric vehicle (EV) owners in the post-adoption stage. Addressing the limited understanding of how value is structured beyond initial adoption, the study advances consumption value theory by operationalising EV-specific value dimensions. Design/methodology/approach Using a sequential exploratory design, scale items were first generated through two focus group discussions (90–120 min each) involving EV users, practitioners and academics, resulting in 12 preliminary items. An exploratory factor analysis was then conducted with 231 EV owners in Indonesia to establish the underlying factor structure. Findings The results reveal a stable four-factor solution Performance Efficiency, Technological Convenience, Operational Simplicity, and Eco-Symbolic Value explaining 81.9% of the total variance. Sampling adequacy is supported by a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value of 0.730 and a significant Bartlett’s test, indicating factorability of the correlation matrix. The findings demonstrate strong initial construct validity and reliability of the proposed scale. Originality/value This study contributes to the literature by extending consumption value theory into the EV post-adoption context and introducing a context-specific measurement of value that integrates functional, technological, operational and symbolic dimensions. By shifting the focus from adoption drivers to value formation, the EVCV scale provides a more comprehensive basis for understanding sustained EV usage. Practically, the scale offers insights for designing value-based marketing strategies and more targeted EV policy interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bahari et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: