Submitted:
29 May 2025
Posted:
29 May 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Literature
2.1.1 Development Status of China's Electric Vehicle Market
2.1.2. Research on Policy Incentives and Consumer Intention
2.1.3. Research Scope
2.2. Analysis of Critical Factors
2.2.1 Policy Incentives Have a Significant Effect on Purchase Intention of EVs
2.2.2. The Mediating Role of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use
2.2.3. The Moderating Role of Test Driving Experience
2.2.4. Research Framework

2.3. Methodology
2.3.1. Data Collection
| Constructs | Measurement Items | Code | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oil Price Volatility(MOPV) | I have recently noticed frequent fluctuations in oil prices. | MOPV1 | (Hamilton, 2009) |
| I believe oil prices change rapidly and are difficult to predict. | MOPV2 | ||
| Volatility in oil prices makes me pay more attention to the cost advantages of electric vehicles. | MOPV3 | ||
| When oil prices rise, I am more inclined to consider purchasing an electric vehicle. | MOPV4 | ||
| I feel that the instability of oil prices will influence my vehicle purchasing decisions. | MOPV5 | ||
| Percevied Usefulness(PU) | 1. Driving a electric vehicle makes me feel more relaxed. | PU1 | Venkatesh and Davis (2000) |
| 2. I think the experience of driving an EV is better and more comfortable. | PU2 | ||
| 3. I think the environmental benefits of electric vehicles positively impact my quality of life. | PU3 | ||
| 4. I believe the advanced technology features (e.g., automatic parking) in electric vehicles enhance my driving experience. | PU4 | ||
| 5. I think EV has facilities that meet my needs. | PU5 | ||
| Perceived Ease of Use(PE) | 1. I find it easy to learn how to drive an electric vehicle (EV). | PE1 | S. Wang et al. (2018) |
| 2. I find it easy to operate an EV skillfully. | PE2 | ||
| 3. I think it’s easy to charge and maintain my EV. | PE3 | ||
| 4. I believe the intelligent features in an EV are user-friendly and easy to use. | PE4 | ||
| 5. I find it very convenient to perform a remote software update for an EV. | PE5 | ||
| Purchase intention(PI) | 1. I am more willing to prioritize purchasing an electric vehicle (EV) over a traditional fuel vehicle. | PI1 | Han et al. (2017) |
| 2. I plan to buy an electric vehicle in the near future. | PI2 | ||
| 3. I am willing to recommend purchasing an electric vehicle to people around me. | PI3 | ||
| 4. I would choose to buy an electric vehicle if it were safer and more reliable. | PI4 | ||
| 5. I would choose to buy an electric vehicle if it were smarter and more technologically advanced. | PI5 | ||
| Policy incentive(POI) | 1. Electric vehicle purchase tax credit motivates me to buy an electric vehicle | POI1 | S. Wang et al. (2018) |
| 2. It's easier to get an electric vehicle license compared to a traditional gasoline vehicle | POI2 | ||
| 3. Government subsidies for electric vehicle manufacturers have reduced production costs and made more affordable, higher-quality electric vehicles available. | POI3 | ||
| 4. Convenient and affordable charging infrastructure is important | POI4 | ||
| 5. The government directly provides cash subsidies to consumers who buy electric vehicles to reduce the purchase cost. | POI5 | ||
| Test drive experience(TD) | 1. The test drive experience of the electric vehicle is great |
TD1 | Li et al. (2017) |
| 2.Learn more about EVs through test driving experience | TD2 | ||
| 3. The test drive experience made me more satisfied with EVs |
TD3 | ||
| 4.The test drive experience of electric vehicles is exciting. | TD4 | ||
| 5. The test drive experience made me want to learn more about electric vehicles. |
TD5 |
| Respondents’ Characteristics | Item | Count (n =399) | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 186 | 46.5 |
| Female | 214 | 53.5 | |
| Age | below 20 | 48 | 12 |
| 20-30 | 76 | 19 | |
| 31-40 | 220 | 55 | |
| up 40 | 48 | 12 | |
| annual salary | below 100,000 | 84 | 21 |
| 100000-200000 | 202 | 50.5 | |
| 210000-300000 | 90 | 22.5 | |
| up 300000 | 24 | 6 | |
| educational background | below bachelor degree | 80 | 20 |
| bachelor degree | 280 | 70 | |
| up bachelor degree | 40 | 10 |
2.3.2. Measurement
3. Results
3.1. Measurement Model
| Constructs | Items | Loading | Cronbach’s | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOPV1 | 0.679 | ||||
| MOPV2 | 0.827 | ||||
| Oil Price Volatility(MOPV) | MOPV3 | 0.766 | 0.841 | 0.887 | 0.612 |
| MOPV4 | 0.812 | ||||
| MOPV5 | 0.818 | ||||
| Percevied Usefulness (PU) | PU1 | 0.762 | 0.859 | 0.898 | 0.639 |
| PU2 | 0.812 | ||||
| PU3 | 0.797 | ||||
| PU4 | 0.816 | ||||
| PU5 | 0.806 | ||||
| Perceived Ease of Use (PE) | PE1 | 0.725 | 0.841 | 0.887 | 0.612 |
| PE2 | 0.809 | ||||
| PE3 | 0.798 | ||||
| PE4 | 0.816 | ||||
| PE5 | 0.759 | ||||
| Purchase intention(PI) | PI1 | 0.695 | 0.846 | 0.89 | 0.62 |
| PI2 | 0.802 | ||||
| PI3 | 0.806 | ||||
| PI4 | 0.811 | ||||
| PI5 | 0.815 | ||||
| Policy incentive(POI) | POI1 | 0.694 | 0.837 | 0.885 | 0.607 |
| POI2 | 0.789 | ||||
| POI3 | 0.802 | ||||
| POI4 | 0.8 | ||||
| POI5 | 0.805 | ||||
| Test drive experience(TD) | TD1 | 0.668 | 0.891 | 0.898 | 0.64 |
| TD2 | 0.938 | ||||
| TD3 | 0.824 | ||||
| TD4 | 0.809 | ||||
| TD5 | 0.736 |
| MOPV | PE | PI | POI | PU | TD | TD x PU | MOPV x POI | TD x PE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOPV | |||||||||
| PE | 0.336 | ||||||||
| PI | 0.476 | 0.498 | |||||||
| POI | 0.367 | 0.407 | 0.468 | ||||||
| PU | 0.407 | 0.42 | 0.507 | 0.348 | |||||
| TD | 0.113 | 0.16 | 0.067 | 0.085 | 0.168 | ||||
| TD x PU | 0.115 | 0.139 | 0.212 | 0.07 | 0.105 | 0.206 | |||
| MOPV x POI | 0.313 | 0.368 | 0.354 | 0.363 | 0.321 | 0.09 | 0.036 | ||
| TD x PE | 0.13 | 0.073 | 0.227 | 0.098 | 0.135 | 0.124 | 0.218 | 0.047 |
3.2. Structural Model
| VIF | |
| PE -> PI | 1.326 |
| POI -> PE | 1 |
| POI -> PI | 1.192 |
| POI -> PU | 1 |
| PU -> PI | 1.276 |
| TD -> PI | 1.081 |
| TD x PU -> PI | 1.143 |
| TD x PE -> PI | 1.12 |
| MOPV × POI-> PI | 1 |
| f-square | |
| PE -> PI | 0.065 |
| POI -> PE | 0.134 |
| POI -> PI | 0.059 |
| POI -> PU | 0.098 |
| PU -> PI | 0.098 |
| TD -> PI | 0.002 |
| TD x PU -> PI | 0.033 |
| TD x PE -> PI | 0.027 |
| MOPV × POI-> PI | 0.013 |

| Hypothesis | Path coecient | T-Value | p-Value | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1:POI -> PI | 0.210 | 4.623 | 0.000 | support |
| H2:POI -> PU | 0.298 | 5.576 | 0.000 | support |
| H3:POI -> PE | 0.344 | 6.768 | 0.000 | support |
| H4:PU -> PI | 0.281 | 6.314 | 0.000 | support |
| H5:PE -> PI | 0.233 | 5.294 | 0.000 | support |
| H6:TD x PE -> PI | 0.127 | 2.169 | 0.030 | support |
| H7:TD x PU -> PI | 0.142 | 2.444 | 0.015 | support |
| H10: MOPV × POI ➔ PI | -0.078 | 2.376 | 0.018 | Partial Support |
3.3. Mediation Analysis
| Hypothesis | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Total Effect | VAF (%) | explain |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H8:POI -> PU -> PI | 0.210 | 0.084 | 0.374 | 0.225 | Partial Mediation |
| H9:POI -> PE -> PI | 0.210 | 0.080 | 0.374 | 0.214 | Partial Mediation |
3.4. Moderation Analysis


4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| EV | Electric vehicle |
References
- Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual differences, 42(5), 815-824. [CrossRef]
- Bougie, R., & Sekaran, U. (2019). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. John Wiley & Sons.
- Brückmann, G. (2022). Test-drives & information might not boost actual battery electric vehicle uptake? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 160, 204-218. [CrossRef]
- Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford university press.
- Chuan, C. L., & Penyelidikan, J. (2006). Sample size estimation using Krejcie and Morgan and Cohen statistical power analysis: A comparison. Jurnal Penyelidikan IPBL, 7(1), 78-86.
- Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. routledge.
- Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). Technology acceptance model. J Manag Sci, 35(8), 982-1003.
- Dubey, A., & Santoso, S. (2015). Electric vehicle charging on residential distribution systems: Impacts and mitigations. IEEE Access, 3, 1871-1893. [CrossRef]
- Egbue, O., & Long, S. (2012). Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: An analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy Policy, 48, 717-729. [CrossRef]
- Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage publications limited.
- Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
- Hair, J. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Exploratory factor analysis.
- Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook. Springer Nature.
- Hamilton, J. D. (2009). Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08.
- Han, L., Wang, S., Zhao, D., & Li, J. (2017). The intention to adopt electric vehicles: Driven by functional and non-functional values. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 103, 185-197.
- Hardman, S., Chandan, A., Tal, G., & Turrentine, T. (2017). The effectiveness of financial purchase incentives for battery electric vehicles–A review of the evidence. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 80, 1100-1111. [CrossRef]
- Haustein, S., Jensen, A. F., & Cherchi, E. (2021). Battery electric vehicle adoption in Denmark and Sweden: Recent changes, related factors and policy implications. Energy Policy, 149, 112096. [CrossRef]
- Huang, X., Lin, Y., Lim, M. K., Tseng, M.-L., & Zhou, F. (2021). The influence of knowledge management on adoption intention of electric vehicles: perspective on technological knowledge. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 121(7), 1481-1495.
- Khaleel, M., Nassar, Y., El-Khozondar, H. J., Elmnifi, M., Rajab, Z., Yaghoubi, E., & Yaghoubi, E. (2024). Electric vehicles in China, Europe, and the United States: Current trend and market comparison. Int. J. Electr. Eng. and Sustain., 1-20.
- Kim, Y., Kim, H., & Suh, K. (2021). Environmental performance of electric vehicles on regional effective factors using system dynamics. Journal of Cleaner Production, 320, 128892. [CrossRef]
- Lashari, Z. A., Ko, J., & Jang, J. (2021). Consumers’ intention to purchase electric vehicles: Influences of user attitude and perception. Sustainability, 13(12), 6778. [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, E. D. (2022). JD Power survey: More buyers are'very likely'to consider EVs. USA Today, 01B-01B.
- Li, W., Long, R., Chen, H., & Geng, J. (2017). Household factors and adopting intention of battery electric vehicles: a multi-group structural equation model analysis among consumers in Jiangsu Province, China. Natural Hazards, 87, 945-960.
- Li, W., Long, R., Chen, H., Wang, M., Li, Q., Wu, M., & Cheng, X. (2023). Inter-provincial emissions transfer embodied in electric vehicles in China. Transportation research part D: transport and environment, 119, 103756. [CrossRef]
- 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. [CrossRef]
- Liu, M., Wu, J., Zhu, C., & Hu, K. (2022). Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Robo-Taxi Services in China: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model Analysis. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2022(1), 8461212.
- Lv, Z., Qiao, L., Cai, K., & Wang, Q. (2020). Big data analysis technology for electric vehicle networks in smart cities. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 22(3), 1807-1816. [CrossRef]
- Masrom, M. (2007). Technology acceptance model and e-learning. Technology, 21(24), 81.
- Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1978). Psychometric theory mcgraw-hill new york. The role of university in the development of entrepreneurial vocations: a Spanish study, 387-405.
- Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., & Bodin, J. (2015). Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption research: A review and research agenda. Transportation research part D: transport and environment, 34, 122-136. [CrossRef]
- Schmitt, G., Scott, J., Davis, A., & Utz, T. (2016). Patents and progress; intellectual property showing the future of electric vehicles. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 8(3), 635-645.
- Sekaran, U. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. In: John Wiley & Sons.
- Solaymani, S. (2019). CO2 emissions patterns in 7 top carbon emitter economies: The case of transport sector. Energy, 168, 989-1001. [CrossRef]
- Sun, X., Li, Z., Wang, X., & Li, C. (2019). Technology development of electric vehicles: A review. Energies, 13(1), 90. [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
- Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
- Wang, Q., Li, S., & Li, R. (2018). China's dependency on foreign oil will exceed 80% by 2030: Developing a novel NMGM-ARIMA to forecast China's foreign oil dependence from two dimensions. Energy, 163, 151-167. https://doi.org/http://qwrewgerhttyh.
- Wang, S., Li, J., & Zhao, D. (2017). The impact of policy measures on consumer intention to adopt electric vehicles: Evidence from China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 105, 14-26. [CrossRef]
- Wang, S., Wang, J., Li, J., Wang, J., & Liang, L. (2018). Policy implications for promoting the adoption of electric vehicles: do consumer’s knowledge, perceived risk and financial incentive policy matter? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 117, 58-69. [CrossRef]
- White, L. V., Carrel, A. L., Shi, W., & Sintov, N. D. (2022). Why are charging stations associated with electric vehicle adoption? Untangling effects in three United States metropolitan areas. Energy Research & Social Science, 89, 102663. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X., & Bai, X. (2017). Incentive policies from 2006 to 2016 and new energy vehicle adoption in 2010–2020 in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 24-43. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X., Bai, X., & Zhong, H. (2018). Electric vehicle adoption in license plate-controlled big cities: Evidence from Beijing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 202, 191-196. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X., Xie, J., Rao, R., & Liang, Y. (2014). Policy incentives for the adoption of electric vehicles across countries. Sustainability, 6(11), 8056-8078. [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X., Hu, H., Yuan, H., & Chu, X. (2023). How does adoption of electric vehicles reduce carbon emissions? Evidence from China. Heliyon, 9(9).
- Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2010). Business Research Method 8th ed. In: Cengage Learning.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).