The Tesla effect: Increasing Republican support for electric vehicle adoption through engagement with a value-aligned product

Download data and study materials from OSF

Principal investigator:

Jacob Rode

Chapman University

Email: jrode@chapman.edu

Homepage: https://www.chapman.edu/our-faculty/jacob-rode

Sample size: 2458

Field period: 08/25/2022-04/04/2023

Political conservatives are more amenable to some proenvironmental attitudes than others. Here we consider the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) as a domain with potential for increased bipartisan agreement. We hypothesized that Republicans would undergo a proenvironmental shift through engagement with EVs that are perceived as aligned with their values. In two preliminary studies, we found that when Republicans engaged with an EV that aligned with their values, namely the electric Ford F-150 Lightning (Study 1) or the Tesla Model 3 (Study 1 and Study 2), this increased their support for EV adoption and transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the current study, we attempted to replicate and extend this work using the national probability sample provided by TESS. Similar to the previous studies, we found that Republicans perceived the Tesla Model 3 as the EV most aligned with their values. However, across dependent variables, effects were attenuated compared to the preliminary studies, though the pattern of results was similar. Does learning about and evaluating value-aligned electric vehicles (EVs) increase Republicans’ support for EVs and related proenvironmental policies?
More specifically, we hypothesized that evaluations of the Tesla Model 3 (relative to Hyundai Kona Electric, gas-powered Ford-F-150 XLT, and null control) would increase Republicans’ support for EVs and related proenvironmental policies.
We made the same prediction for the Ford F-150 lighting, provided that it is seen as more value-aligned by participants.
We predicted that these effects, if observed, would be specific to the dependent variables related to EVs and environmental policy and not the items about climate change concern and support for a carbon tax.

Participants were shown three pictures and attributes of a vehicle and then reported their opinions about that vehicle. Those in the control condition responded to the outcome variables first (pure control).

Participants were randomly assigned to one of five conditions:
1. Control (DVs first then product info and evaluation)
2. Evaluation of the Ford F-150 Lightning
3. Evaluation of the Ford F-150 XLT (gas-powered)
4. Evaluation of the Tesla Model 3

Support for EVs and environmental policy, three separate DVs:

“How much do you oppose or support the following?” From 1 (Strongly oppose) to 5 (Strongly support)
1. An increased use of electric vehicles in the U.S.
2. Tougher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and trucks
3. Transitioning the United States’ economy away from fossil fuels

Behavioral intention to learn more about electric vehicles, one DV:

“Do you want to learn some surprising facts about electric vehicles and how the U.S. can benefit from adopting them?” Yes/No

Measuring link-clicking, one DV:

For participants who selected “Yes” to the previous question, we provided them with three links about the benefits of electric vehicles. These links, however, were presented at the end of the study, creating confounds between the null-control condition and the active product-review conditions. For this reason, whether participants clicked on the links (Yes/No) was used as an exploratory measure.

Attitudes towards climate change and climate policy, two separate DVs:

“Please rate your agreement or disagreement with the following statements” From 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)
1. I am concerned about climate change
2. I support a carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions

Value-alignment, combined into one index:

We measured how much participants’ see their values reflected in the specific vehicle they viewed. All items were measured from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) and averaged together to form a single variable.
1. “This product reflects my values”
2. “This is a product for people like me”
3. “Buying this product would reflect who I am”
4. “This product would have a good look for me”
5. “A lot of people will think highly of this product”
6. “My friends would like this product”

We preregistered the study and recruited 2,458 Republicans with a final sample of 1,827 after exclusions. For all analyses, we used sampling weights so that the weighted sample matched the demographics of U.S. Republicans.

Replicating the pattern in preliminary studies, participants viewed the gas-powered F-150 as the most aligned with their values, followed by the Model 3, Lightning, and Kona Electric, respectively. The Model 3 was rated as statistically significantly more value-aligned (b = 0.31, p < .001, d = 0.26) and the Lightning as marginally significantly more value-aligned than the Kona Electric (b = 0.19, p < .10, d = 0.14). As in the preliminary studies, Republicans saw the Model 3 and Lightning as value-aligned EVs.

Across dependent variables, effects were attenuated compared to the preliminary studies. Participants who reviewed the Model 3 had marginally significantly more support for EV adoption than those in the control condition (b = 0.22, p < .10, d = 0.14) and significantly more support than those in the gas-powered F-150 condition (pTukey = .004, d = 0.26). There were no other significant pairwise differences. Additionally, there were no significant differences between conditions in support for transitioning away from fossil fuels or support for tougher fuel efficiency. Lastly, there was only one significant difference in participants’ interest in receiving additional information about EVs: participants in the Kona Electric condition were significantly less likely to request information than were those in the control condition, b = -0.49, Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.61, p = .03. There were no significant differences between the control condition and the Model 3 condition (b = -0.30, OR = 0.74, p = .19), Lightning condition (b = -0.38, OR = 0.69, p = .11), or F-150 condition (b = -0.46, OR = 0.63, p = .06), nor any other significant pairwise differences.

To increase statistical power, we also preregistered a contrast between the value-aligned EVs (Model 3 and Lightning) and the other conditions (Control, Kona Electric, and F-150). This contrast was significant for support for increased EV adoption: those who evaluated a value-aligned EV had significantly more support for EV adoption than participants in other conditions, t(1822) = 2.72, p = .01, d = 0.13. The contrast was not significant for support for transitioning away from fossil fuels, t(1819) = 1.15, p = .25, d = .06, support for tougher fuel efficiency, t(1819) = 0.40, p = .69, d = .02, or requesting to see facts about EVs, b = -0.02, p = .88, OR = 0.98.