The impact of sustainable consumption psychology on NEV repurchase intention: The moderating effect of gender differences
Vol 9, Issue 12, 2024, Article identifier:
VIEWS - 31 (Abstract) 3 (PDF)
Abstract
This study continues the dialogue around sustainable consumption psychology and its effects on New Energy Vehicle repurchase intentions, depending on moderating gender differences. To achieve this, we employed sustainable consumption theories, social identity theory, and gender schema theory to formulate our conceptual framework, which we corroborated with the data of 527 NEV owners across Chinese cities in varying tiers. The outcomes indicate a substantial direct effect of sustainable consumption psychology on repurchase intention (β = 0.467, p < 0.001) with value perception acting as a mediator. The literature on sustainable consumption psychology identifies two variables, environmental awareness and social responsibility, which have differing outcomes according to the gender of the consumer. For instance, female consumers are motivated more by environmental awareness as compared to male consumers who relate more social responsibility to the buying intention (β = 0.328). Conversely, male consumers are motivated stronger to buy on social responsibility in comparison to female consumers (β = 0.376). Multi-group analysis also depicts significant differences between these relationships in demographic slices, with the greatest impact being the high-income, middle-aged, first-tier city dwellers. This insight not only enhances theoretical perspectives on sustainable buying behavior but also assists manufacturers, marketers, and policymakers in effective promotion of sustainable transport means.
The research adds value to existing literature in sustainable consumption while also providing value on the ground with regard to NEV market creation, particularly on sustainability consumption with respect to gender and other demographic variables.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. 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(9), 703.
2. Voica, M. C. (2015). Green investments—Between necessity, fiscal constraints and profit. Procedia Economics and Finance, 22, 72-79.
3. Popescu, G. H., Andrei, J. V., Nica, E., Mieilă, M., & Panait, M. (2019). Analysis on the impact of investments, energy use and domestic material consumption in changing the Romanian economic paradigm. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 25(1), 59-81.
4. Shi, L., Wu, R., & Lin, B. (2023). Where will go for electric vehicles in China after the government subsidy incentives are abolished? A controversial consumer perspective. Energy, 262, 125423.
5. Wang, N., Pan, H., & Zheng, W. (2017). Assessment of the incentives on electric vehicle promotion in China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 101, 177-189.
6. Yong, J. Y., Ramachandaramurthy, V. K., Tan, K. M., & Mithulananthan, N. (2015). A review on the state-of-the-art technologies of electric vehicle, its impacts and prospects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 49, 365-385.
7. He, X., Zhan, W., & Hu, Y. (2018). Consumer purchase intention of electric vehicles in China: The roles of perception and personality. Journal of Cleaner Production, 204, 1060-1069.
8. Li, Y., Liang, C., Ye, F., & Zhao, X. (2023). Designing government subsidy schemes to promote the electric vehicle industry: A system dynamics model perspective. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 167, 103558.
9. Okada, T., Tamaki, T., & Managi, S. (2019). Effect of environmental awareness on purchase intention and satisfaction pertaining to electric vehicles in Japan. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 67, 503-513.
10. Nie, C., & He, Z. (2017). Product attributes in the domain of marketing: Review, application and prospects. Journal of Hubei University of Economics, 15, 87-92.
11. Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71.
12. Miyazaki, A. D., Grewal, D., & Goodstein, R. C. (2005). The effect of multiple extrinsic cues on quality perceptions: A matter of consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 146-153.
13. Yang, Y., Jing, F., & Che, X. (2017). Research on the influence mechanism of attribute preference of durable consumer goods on consumer dynamic satisfaction—Taking automobile as an example. Enterprise Economics, 36, 35-41.
14. Hill, R. J., Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Contemporary Sociology, 6, 244.
15. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7-24). Nelson-Hall.
16. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
17. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354-364.
18. Han, R., & Tian, Z. (2005). Effects of alternative promotion types on consumers' value perception and purchase intentions. Journal of Management Science, 18, 85-91.
19. Dodds, W. B. (1985). An experimental investigation of the effects of price, brand and store information on the subjective evaluation of products [Doctoral dissertation]. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
20. Fan, L. (2011). Study on the influence of product attributes to purchase inclination in family car [Master's thesis]. Jilin University.
21. Wu, S., Hu, Z., Yao, Q., & Jiao, W. (2014). The effect of functional attributes and brand personality on consumers' purchase decision for family cars. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 16, 76-83.
22. Heffner, R. R., Kurani, K. S., & Turrentine, T. S. (2007). Symbolism in California's early market for hybrid electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 12(6), 396-413.
23. Schuitema, G., Anable, J., Skippon, S., & Kinnear, N. (2013). The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 48, 39-49.
24. Smith, R. A., & Johnson, M. B. (2022). Gender differences in sustainable consumption: A meta-analysis of environmental product adoption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32(4), 567-589.
25. Brown, K. L., Thompson, R. C., & Anderson, P. M. (2023). Socialization processes and environmental decision-making: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 83, 101881.
26. Wilson, J. T., & Davis, S. M. (2023). Understanding gender variations in sustainable consumption: The role of status-seeking and social competition. Sustainability, 15(3), 1234-1256.
27. Ozturk, A. B., Nusair, K., Okumus, F., & Hua, N. (2016). The role of utilitarian and hedonic values on users' continued usage intention in a mobile hotel booking environment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 57, 106-115.
28. Cho, M., Bonn, M. A., Moon, S., & Chang, H. (2020). Home chef meal kits: Product attributes, perceived value and repurchasing intentions the moderating effects of household configuration. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 45, 192-202.
29. Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers' perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 46-59.
30. 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(3), 307-319.
31. Gao, X. (2019). Research on the influence mechanism of consumer perceived quality on online purchase intention. Journal of Commerce and Economics, 6, 73-76.
32. San-Yap, Y., & Ahmad, R. (2011). Consumers' perceived quality, perceived value and perceived risk towards purchase decision on automobile. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 3(1), 47-57.
33. Dewanti, R., Pratiwi, V. I., & Chang, A. (2016). The success of Toto brand in grabbing purchase intention. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 24, 191-202.
34. Kato, T. (2021). Functional value vs emotional value: A comparative study of the values that contribute to a preference for a corporate brand. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 1, 100024.
35. Gadenne, D., Sharma, B., Kerr, D., & Smith, T. (2011). The influence of consumers' environmental beliefs and attitudes on energy saving behaviours. Energy Policy, 39(12), 7684-7694.
36. Skallerud, K., Armbrecht, J., & Tuu, H. (2021). Intentions to consume sustainably produced fish: The moderator effects of involvement and environmental awareness. Sustainability, 13(2), 946.
37. Du, Y. (2020). The influence of automobile product attributes on consumers' purchase intention [Master's thesis]. Shanghai University of Finance and Economics.
38. Liu, R., Ding, Z., Wang, Y., Jiang, X., Jiang, X., Sun, W., Wang, D., Mou, Y., & Liu, M. (2021). The relationship between symbolic meanings and adoption intention of electric vehicles in China: The moderating effects of consumer self-identity and face consciousness. Journal of Cleaner Production, 288, 125116.
39. Chen, J. (2015). Research on the influence of customer perceived value on the purchase intention of new energy vehicles [Master's thesis]. Donghua University.
40. Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Lindén, A. L., & Eriksson, B. (2005). Residential energy behavior: Does generation matter? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(3), 239-253.
41. Zhang, Z., & Zheng, L. (2021). Consumer community cognition, brand loyalty, and behaviour intentions within online publishing communities: An empirical study of Epubit in China. Learned Publishing, 34(1), 116-127.
42. Yin, N. (2018). The influencing outcomes of job engagement: An interpretation from the social exchange theory. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(5), 873-889.
43. Jiang, L., Zhao, M., Lin, H., & Yang, L. (2022). How do consumer innovation characteristics and consumption value shape users' willingness to buy innovative car safety seats? Sustainability, 15(1), 172.
44. Shah, S. K., Zhongjun, T., Sattar, A., & XinHao, Z. (2021). Consumer's intention to purchase 5G: Do environmental awareness, environmental knowledge and health consciousness attitude matter? Technology in Society, 65, 101563.
45. Chen, L., & Wang, H. (2023). Demographic segmentation in sustainable consumption: A methodological framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 50(2), 234-256.
46. Thompson, R., & Anderson, K. (2023). Control variables in sustainable consumption research: Best practices and methodological considerations. Journal of Business Research, 155, 113421.
47. Zhang, Y., Liu, J., & Wang, X. (2022). Urban classification and sustainable consumption patterns in China: A hierarchical approach. Cities, 130, 103844.
48. Wilson, M., & Davis, R. (2023). Stratified sampling approaches in consumer behavior research: Applications and implications. Methodology, 19(2), 78-96.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v9i12.3222
(31 Abstract Views, 3 PDF Downloads)
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Zhaoying Wang, Chuan Huat Ong, Zihe Liu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.