Changing attitudes towards e-mobility by actively elaborating fast-charging technology

Since electromobility (e-mobility) is a large field of innovation, it is crucial to examine new developments with potential users in mind. Therefore, we investigated the impact that new fast-charging technologies for electric vehicles (EV) have on ordinary people's assessment about the future prospects of e-mobility—which is an important prerequisite for increased attitudes towards e-mobility in general. First we let participants perform a typical charging process, where they were either introduced to the slower-operating, alternating current (AC) system or the fast-operating direct current (DC) system. In a second experiment we used the same procedure but instead of letting participants actively perform the charging process, they were only given written information about these charging technologies. Results show that participants' future estimation about EVs only rises when they actively charge an EV in the fast DC condition but not in the AC condition. General attitudes towards EVs increase independently of the AC or DC condition. None of these effects could be seen without active hands-on experience (second experiment). These indications imply the value of investing in fast-charging systems to induce more favorable judgments regarding the future prospect of EVs. The importance of letting people actively take part in the way e-mobility works will be discussed regarding the potentially improvement of participants' attitudes towards e-mobility.

[1]  Claus-Christian Carbon,et al.  The aesthetic aha: on the pleasure of having insights into Gestalt. , 2013, Acta psychologica.

[2]  Phil Blythe,et al.  Analysis of electric vehicle driver recharging demand profiles and subsequent impacts on the carbon content of electric vehicle trips , 2013 .

[3]  Claus-Christian Carbon,et al.  The Mere Exposure Effect in the Domain of Haptics , 2012, PloS one.

[4]  Michael Devetsikiotis,et al.  Electric power resource provisioning for large scale public EV charging facilities , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm).

[5]  Andreas Keinath,et al.  User-Centred Design and Evaluation as a Prerequisite for the Success of Disruptive Innovations: An Electric Vehicle Case Study , 2018 .

[6]  Stefanie Kettner,et al.  E-mobility in Germany: White hope for a sustainable development or Fig leaf for particular interests? , 2013 .

[7]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[8]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field : . , 2000 .

[9]  R. Zajonc.  Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[10]  John Ingham,et al.  Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[11]  H. Leder,et al.  The Repeated Evaluation Technique (RET). A method to capture dynamic effects of innovativeness and attractiveness , 2005 .

[12]  C. Carbon,et al.  The Fluency Amplification Model: fluent stimuli show more intense but not evidently more positive evaluations. , 2014, Acta psychologica.

[13]  Prasanta Ghosh,et al.  Optimizing Electric Vehicle Charging: A Customer's Perspective , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology.

[14]  Jacques Mairesse,et al.  Accounting for Innovation and Measuring Innovativeness: An Illustrative Framework and an Application , 2002 .

[15]  Margaret Harris,et al.  Charge up then charge out? Drivers’ perceptions and experiences of electric vehicles in the UK , 2014 .

[16]  I. Neumann,et al.  Experiencing Range in an Electric Vehicle: Understanding Psychological Barriers , 2012 .

[17]  Stella J. Faerber,et al.  Priming semantic concepts affects the dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[18]  Heiko A. von der Gracht,et al.  Heading towards a multimodal city of the future , 2014 .

[19]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[20]  Maximilian Schwalm,et al.  Methods of evaluating electric vehicles from a user's perspective - The MINI E field trial in Berlin , 2011 .

[21]  Elodie Labeye,et al.  Daily use of an electric vehicle: behavioural changes and potential for its support , 2013 .

[22]  Thomas Franke,et al.  ELECTRIC VEHICLES AS A SOLUTION FOR GREEN DRIVING IN THE FUTURE? A FIELD STUDY EXAMINING THE USER ACCEPTANCE OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES , 2010 .

[23]  P. Wells,et al.  Socio-technical inertia: Understanding the barriers to electric vehicles , 2013 .

[24]  Claus-Christian Carbon,et al.  Design evaluation by combination of repeated evaluation technique and measurement of electrodermal activity , 2008, Research in Engineering Design.

[25]  P. Mohseni,et al.  Electric vehicles: Holy grail or fool's gold , 2009, IEEE PES General Meeting.

[26]  Chris Janiszewski.  Preattentive Mere Exposure Effects , 1993 .

[27]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Affective Judgments , 1998 .

[28]  Thomas Döring,et al.  E-mobility: realistic vision or hype - an economic analysis , 2011 .

[29]  Elisabetta Cherchi,et al.  On the stability of preferences and attitudes before and after experiencing an electric vehicle , 2013 .

[30]  A. Kampker,et al.  Costs, quality and scalability: Impact on the value chain of electric engine production , 2012, 2012 2nd International Electric Drives Production Conference (EDPC).

[31]  Adam Szczepanek,et al.  Fast Charging vs. Slow Charging: Pros and cons for the New Age of Electric Vehicles , 2009 .

[32]  David A. King,et al.  Indirect emissions from electric vehicles: emissions from electricity generation , 2010 .

[33]  Thomas S Turrentine,et al.  The UC Davis MINI E Consumer Study , 2011 .