Examination of the adoption intention of new energy vehicles from the perspective of functional attributes and media richness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on the theory of media richness, this paper aims to explore the impact of media richness on consumers' adoption intention through their perception of new energy vehicle (NEV) function attributes, and assess the moderation roles of brand familiarity and locus of control. A structural equation model is applied to analyze the data collected from 427 respondents. Empirical results demonstrate that consumers' perception of an electric attribute (i.e., charging efficiency) and two intelligent attributes (i.e., car networking and self-driving) are determinants of their adoption intention of NEVs. The other electric attribute (range) is trivial in consumers' perception. We also find that low, medium, and high-richness media significantly affect consumers' perception of NEVs' functional attributes. Compared to the high-richness, medium-richness correlates significantly with two types of NEV functional attributes. Regarding moderating effects, consumer familiarity with NEV's brand negatively impacts the relationship between media richness and adoption intention. Furthermore, low and medium-richness media effectively stimulate individuals with external control to adopt NEV, while high-richness media adversely influence individuals with internal control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".