Although interpersonal influence is thought to play in important role in proenvironmental consumption behavior, mechanisms of influence are not well understood. Through literature review, we identify five theoretical perspectives on interpersonal influence: contagion, conformity, dissemination, translation, and reflexivity. We apply these perspectives to car buyer perceptions of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), a technology with attributes that can be perceived as functional, symbolic, private, and societal. The context is a PHEV demonstration project in which 275 interpersonal interactions were elicited from interviews with 40 individuals in 11 different social networks in northern California. Results demonstrate how perspectives shape research findings. Contagion, conformity, and dissemination provide useful concepts regarding perceptions of functional, symbolic and societal PHEV attributes, respectively. However, translation and reflexivity provide language and theoretical depth to describe observed perceptions and motives, while also addressing dynamics in these perceptions and in consumer values. Utilizing these differing perspectives facilitated observation that participants are more amenable to developing new, prosocietal interpretations of PHEVs if they: (i) easily form a basic functional understanding of PHEV technology, (ii) are in a transitional state in their lifestyle practices, and (iii) find supportive prosocietal values within their social network. Results demonstrate the importance of integrating complementary research perspectives to better understand consumer valuation of technologies with environmental benefits.
AxsenJ, 2010, “Interpersonal influence within car buyers' social networks: observing consumer assessment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and the spread of pro-societal values”, dissertation UCD-ITS-RR-10-15, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, CA
2.
AxsenJKuraniK S, 2010, “Interpersonal influence and pro-societal consumption: a review of diffusion, conformity, dissemination, translation and reflexivity”, WP UCD-ITS-WP-05, University of California, Davis, CA
3.
AxsenJKuraniK S, in press, “Interpersonal influence in the early plug-in hybrid market: observing social interactions with an exploratory multi-method approach”Transportation Research, Part D: Transport and Environment16150–159
4.
AxsenJMountainD CJaccardM, 2009, “Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: the case of hybrid-electric vehicles”Resource and Energy Economics31221–238
5.
BanduraA, 2006, “On integrating social cognitive and social diffusion theories”, in Communication of Innovations: A Journey with Ev Rogers Eds SinghalADearingJ (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) pp 111–135
6.
BlautJ M, 1987, “Diffusionism—a uniformitarian critique”Annals of the Association of American Geographers7730–47
7.
BruunHHukkinenA, 2003, “Crossing boundaries: an integrative framework for studying technological change”Social Studies of Science3395–116
8.
BunchD SBradleyMGolobT FKitamuraROcchiuzzoG P, 1993, “Demand for clean-fuel vehicles in California: a discrete-choice stated preference pilot project”Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice27237–253
9.
CalefDGobleR, 2007, “The allure of technology: how France and California promoted electric and hybrid vehicles to reduce urban air pollution”Policy Sciences401–34
10.
CallonM, 1991, “Techno-economic networks and irreversibility”, in A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination Ed. LawJ (Routledge: London) pp 132–161
11.
CanzlerW, 1999, “Changing speed? From the private car to CashCar Sharing”, in SPEED—A Workshop on Space, Time and Mobility Ed. BeckmanJ (The Danish Transport Council, Copenhagen) pp 23–31
12.
CarrascoJ AHoganBWellmanBMillerE J, 2008, “Collecting social network data to study social activity-travel behavior: an egocentric approach”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design35961–980
13.
CentolaDMacyM, 2007, “Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties”American Journal of Sociology113702–734
14.
CialdiniR B, 2003, “Crafting normative messages to protect the environment”Current Directions in Psychological Science12105–109
15.
DegenneAForseM, 1994Introducing Social Networks (Sage, London)
16.
EffersonCLaliveRRichersonP JMcElreathRLubellM, 2008, “Conformists and mavericks: the empirics of frequency-dependent cultural transmission”Evolution and Human Behavior2956–64
17.
EwingGSarigolluE, 2000, “Assessing consumer preferences for clean-fuel vehicles: a discrete choice experiment”Journal of Public Policy and Marketing19106–118
18.
GiddensA, 1991Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA)
19.
GjoenGHardM, 2002, “Cultural politics in action: developing user scripts in relation to the electric vehicle”Science Technology and Human Values27262–281
20.
GranovetterM, 1978, “Threshold models of collective behavior”American Journal of Sociology831420–1443
21.
GreenD P, 1992, “The price elasticity of mass preferences”American Political Science Review86128–148
22.
HannemyrG, 2003, “The Internet as hyperbole: a critical examination of adoption rates”Information Society19111–121
23.
HeffnerR R, 2007, “Semiotics and advanced vehicles: what hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) mean and why it matters to consumers”, Dissertation UCD-ITS-RR-07-30, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, CA
24.
HeffnerR RKuraniK STurrentineT S, 2007, “Symbolism in California's early market for hybrid electric vehicles”Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment12396–413
25.
HessD, 2007, “What is a clean bus? Object conflicts in the greening of urban transit”Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy345–58
26.
HirschmanE C, 1980, “Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity”Journal of Consumer Research7283–295
27.
HirschmanE C, 1981, “Symbolism and technology as sources for the generation of innovations”Advances in Consumer Research9537–541
28.
HoganBCarrascoJ AWellmanB, 2007, “Visualizing personal networks: working with participant-aided sociograms”Field Methods19116–144
29.
KlineRPinchT, 1996, “Users as agents of technological change: the social construction of the automobile in the rural United States”Technology and Culture37763–795
30.
LawJ, 1992, “Notes on the theory of the actor network: ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity”Systems Practice5379–393
31.
LawJHassardJ, 1999Actor Network Theory and After (Blackwell, Oxford)
32.
McCrackenG, 1988The Long Interview (Sage, Newbury Park, CA)
33.
MarsdenP V, 1990, “Network data and measurement”Annual Review of Sociology16435–463
34.
MarwellGOliverP EPrahlR, 1988, “Social networks and collective action: a theory of the critical mass 3”American Journal of Sociology94502–534
35.
MauPEyzaguirreJJaccardMCollins-DoddCTiedemannK, 2008, “The ‘neighbor effect’: simulating dynamics in consumer preferences for new vehicle technologies”Ecological Economics68504–516
36.
OliverPMarwellGTeixeiraR, 1985, “A theory of the critical mass 1. Interdependence, group heterogeneity, and the production of collective action”American Journal of Sociology91522–556
37.
PaezAScottD, 2007, “Social influence on travel behavior: a simulation example of the decision to telecommute”Environment and Planning A39647–665
38.
PentlandB TFeldmanM S, 2007, “Narrative networks: patterns of technology and organization”Organization Science18781–795
39.
PinchT JBijkerW E, 1984, “The social construction of facts and artifacts—or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other”Social Studies of Science14399–441
40.
PotoglouDKanaroglouP S, 2007, “Household demand and willingness to pay for clean vehicles”Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment12264–274
41.
RogersE, 2003Diffusion of Innovations5th edition (Free Press, New York)
42.
SamarasCMeisterlingK, 2008, “Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from plug-in hybrid vehicles: implications for policy”Environmental Science and Technology423170–3176
43.
SmithA, 2005, “The alternative technology movement: an analysis of its framing and negotiation of technology development”Human Ecology Review12106–119
44.
StegL, 2005, “Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use”Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice39147–162
45.
StegLVlekCSlotegraafG, 2001, “Instrumental-reasoned and symbolic–affective motives for using a motor car”Transportation Research Part F4151–169
46.
StrangDSouleS A, 1998, “Diffusion in organizations and social movements: from hybrid corn to poison pills”Annual Review of Sociology24265–290
47.
StrubenJStermanJ, 2008, “Transition challenges for alternative fuel vehicles and transportation systems”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design351070–1097
48.
TurnerV, 1969The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-structure (Aldine, Chicago, IL)
49.
ValenteT, 1995Network Models of the Diffusion of Innovations (Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ)
50.
ValenteT, 2005, “Network models and methods for studying the diffusion of innovations”, in Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis Eds CarringtonPScottJWassermanS (Cambridge University Press, New York) pp 98–116
