IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i5p1637-d756026.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Customer Perceived Risk Measurement with NLP Method in Electric Vehicles Consumption Market: Empirical Study from China

Author

Listed:
  • Tao Shu

    (Department of Information Management and Information Systems, School of Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu 611130, China)

  • Zhiyi Wang

    (Department of Information Management and Information Systems, School of Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu 611130, China)

  • Ling Lin

    (Department of Information Management and Information Systems, School of Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu 611130, China)

  • Huading Jia

    (Department of Information Management and Information Systems, School of Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu 611130, China)

  • Jixian Zhou

    (Department of Information Management and Information Systems, School of Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu 611130, China)

Abstract

In recent years, as people’s awareness of energy conservation, environmental protection, and sustainable development has increased, discussions related to electric vehicles (EVs) have aroused public debate on social media. At some point, most consumers face the possible risks of EVs—a critical psychological perception that invariably affects sales of EVs in the consumption market. This paper chooses to deconstruct customers’ perceived risk from third-party comment data in social media, which has better coverage and objectivity than questionnaire surveys. In order to analyze a large amount of unstructured text comment data, the natural language processing (NLP) method based on machine learning was applied in this paper. The measurement results show 15 abstracts in five consumer perceived risks to EVs. Among them, the largest number of comments is that of “Technology Maturity” (A13) which reached 25,329, and which belongs to the “Performance Risk” (PR1) dimension, indicating that customers are most concerned about the performance risk of EVs. Then, in the “Social Risk” (PR5) dimension, the abstract “Social Needs” (A51) received only 3224 comments and “Preference and Trust Rank” (A52) reached 22,324 comments; this noticeable gap indicated the changes in how consumers perceived EVs social risks. Moreover, each dimension’s emotion analysis results showed that negative emotions are more than 40%, exceeding neutral or positive emotions. Importantly, customers have the strongest negative emotions about the “Time Risk” (PR4), accounting for 54%. On a finer scale, the top three negative emotions are “Charging Time” (A42), “EV Charging Facilities” (A41), and “Maintenance of Value” (A33). Another interesting result is that “Social Needs” (A51)’s positive emotional comments were larger than negative emotional comments. The paper provides substantial evidence for perceived risk theory research by new data and methods. It can provide a novel tool for multi-dimensional and fine-granular capture customers’ perceived risks and negative emotions. Thus, it has the potential to help government and enterprises to adjust promotional strategies in a timely manner to reduce higher perceived risks and emotions, accelerating the sustainable development of EVs’ consumption market in China.

Suggested Citation

  • Tao Shu & Zhiyi Wang & Ling Lin & Huading Jia & Jixian Zhou, 2022. "Customer Perceived Risk Measurement with NLP Method in Electric Vehicles Consumption Market: Empirical Study from China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-23, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:5:p:1637-:d:756026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/5/1637/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/5/1637/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Egbue, Ona & Long, Suzanna, 2012. "Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: An analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 717-729.
    2. Ye, Fei & Kang, Wanlin & Li, Lixu & Wang, Zhiqiang, 2021. "Why do consumers choose to buy electric vehicles? A paired data analysis of purchase intention configurations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 14-27.
    3. Wang, Yacan & Hazen, Benjamin T., 2016. "Consumer product knowledge and intention to purchase remanufactured products," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(PB), pages 460-469.
    4. Dowling, Grahame R & Staelin, Richard, 1994. "A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-Handling Activity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 119-134, June.
    5. Wenbo Li & Ruyin Long & Hong Chen & Jichao Geng, 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: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(2), pages 945-960, June.
    6. Park, Eunil & Ohm, Jay Y., 2014. "Factors influencing the public intention to use renewable energy technologies in South Korea: Effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 198-211.
    7. Zhang, Xian & Wang, Ke & Hao, Yu & Fan, Jing-Li & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2013. "The impact of government policy on preference for NEVs: The evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 382-393.
    8. White, Lee V. & Sintov, Nicole D., 2017. "You are what you drive: Environmentalist and social innovator symbolism drives electric vehicle adoption intentions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 94-113.
    9. Prithwiraj Choudhury & Dan Wang & Natalie A. Carlson & Tarun Khanna, 2019. "Machine learning approaches to facial and text analysis: Discovering CEO oral communication styles," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(11), pages 1705-1732, November.
    10. Chanwit Kongklaew & Khamphe Phoungthong & Chanwit Prabpayak & Md. Shahariar Chowdhury & Imran Khan & Nuttaya Yuangyai & Chumpol Yuangyai & Kuaanan Techato, 2021. "Barriers to Electric Vehicle Adoption in Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-13, November.
    11. Wang, Shanyong & Li, Jun & Zhao, Dingtao, 2017. "The impact of policy measures on consumer intention to adopt electric vehicles: Evidence from China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 14-26.
    12. Wang, Shanyong & Wang, Jing & Li, Jun & Wang, Jinpeng & Liang, Liang, 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, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 58-69.
    13. Yuan-Yuan Wang & Yuan-Ying Chi & Jin-Hua Xu & Jia-Lin Li, 2021. "Consumer Preferences for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Based on the Text Mining Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-20, July.
    14. Dumortier, Jerome & Siddiki, Saba & Carley, Sanya & Cisney, Joshua & Krause, Rachel M. & Lane, Bradley W. & Rupp, John A. & Graham, John D., 2015. "Effects of providing total cost of ownership information on consumers’ intent to purchase a hybrid or plug-in electric vehicle," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 71-86.
    15. Schuitema, Geertje & Anable, Jillian & Skippon, Stephen & Kinnear, Neale, 2013. "The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 39-49.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yang, Zaoli & Li, Qin & Yan, Yamin & Shang, Wen-Long & Ochieng, Washington, 2022. "Examining influence factors of Chinese electric vehicle market demand based on online reviews under moderating effect of subsidy policy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    2. Lu Wei & Chen Han & Yinhong Yao, 2022. "The Bias Analysis of Oil and Gas Companies’ Credit Ratings Based on Textual Risk Disclosures," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-12, March.
    3. Ling Lin & Tao Shu & Han Yang & Jun Wang & Jixian Zhou & Yuxuan Wang, 2023. "Consumer-Perceived Risks and Sustainable Development of China’s Online Gaming Market: Analysis Based on Social Media Comments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Tao Shu & Zhiyi Wang & Huading Jia & Wenjin Zhao & Jixian Zhou & Tao Peng, 2022. "Consumers’ Opinions towards Public Health Effects of Online Games: An Empirical Study Based on Social Media Comments in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-19, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang, Shanyong & Wang, Jing & Li, Jun & Wang, Jinpeng & Liang, Liang, 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, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 58-69.
    2. Jaiswal, Deepak & Kaushal, Vikrant & Kant, Rishi & Kumar Singh, Pankaj, 2021. "Consumer adoption intention for electric vehicles: Insights and evidence from Indian sustainable transportation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    3. Ruyu Xie & Liren An & Nosheena Yasir, 2022. "How Innovative Characteristics Influence Consumers’ Intention to Purchase Electric Vehicle: A Moderating Role of Lifestyle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-24, April.
    4. Ye, Fei & Kang, Wanlin & Li, Lixu & Wang, Zhiqiang, 2021. "Why do consumers choose to buy electric vehicles? A paired data analysis of purchase intention configurations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 14-27.
    5. Chun Yang & Jui-Che Tu & Qianling Jiang, 2020. "The Influential Factors of Consumers’ Sustainable Consumption: A Case on Electric Vehicles in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-16, April.
    6. Jizi Li & Yuping Zhou & Dengke Yu & Chunling Liu, 2020. "Consumers’ Purchase Intention of New Energy Vehicles: Do Product-Life-Cycle Policy Portfolios Matter?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-23, February.
    7. Eunsung Kim & Eunnyeong Heo, 2019. "Key Drivers behind the Adoption of Electric Vehicle in Korea: An Analysis of the Revealed Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Kim, Moon-Koo & Oh, Jeesun & Park, Jong-Hyun & Joo, Changlim, 2018. "Perceived value and adoption intention for electric vehicles in Korea: Moderating effects of environmental traits and government supports," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 799-809.
    9. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 0. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    10. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 2020. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 2067-2086, October.
    11. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Abrahamse, Wokje & Zhang, Long & Ren, Jingzheng, 2019. "Pleasure or profit? Surveying the purchasing intentions of potential electric vehicle adopters in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 69-81.
    12. Hardman, Scott & Tal, Gil, 2021. "Discontinuance Among California’s Electric Vehicle Buyers: Why are Some Consumers Abandoning Electric Vehicles?," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt11n6f4hs, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    13. Wang, Shanyong & Li, Jun & Zhao, Dingtao, 2017. "The impact of policy measures on consumer intention to adopt electric vehicles: Evidence from China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 14-26.
    14. Jingnan Zhang & Shichun Xu & Zhengxia He & Chengze Li & Xiaona Meng, 2022. "Factors Influencing Adoption Intention for Electric Vehicles under a Subsidy Deduction: From Different City-Level Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-24, May.
    15. Yang, Shu & Cheng, Peng & Li, Jun & Wang, Shanyong, 2019. "Which group should policies target? Effects of incentive policies and product cognitions for electric vehicle adoption among Chinese consumers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    16. Tianpei Tang & Xiwei Wang & Jianbing Wu & Meining Yuan & Yuntao Guo & Xunqian Xu, 2022. "Determinants and the Moderating Effects of Individual Characteristics on Autonomous Vehicle Adoption in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-17, December.
    17. Brückmann, Gracia, 2022. "The effects of policies providing information and trialling on the knowledge about and the intention to adopt new energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    18. Brückmann, Gracia, 2022. "Test-drives & information might not boost actual battery electric vehicle uptake?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 204-218.
    19. Wang, Xiao-Wu & Cao, Yu-Mei & Zhang, Ning, 2021. "The influences of incentive policy perceptions and consumer social attributes on battery electric vehicle purchase intentions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    20. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2018. "Combined Vehicle Type and Fuel Type Choices of Private Households: An Empirical Analysis for Germany," FCN Working Papers 17/2018, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN), revised May 2019.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:5:p:1637-:d:756026. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.