A Study of the Social Identity of Electric Vehicle Consumers from a Social Constructivism Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of „A Study of the Social Identity of Electric Vehicle Consumers from a Social Constructivism Perspective” manuscript

The methodology and results of the study have a bunch of strengths. These include a solid theoretical foundation (social constructivism, purchasing decision process, brand image, brand perception), comprehensive data collection, and accurate and comprehensive statistical analysis. The authors list a bunch of limiting factors themselves, such as:

• the lack of a multidimensional interpretation of identity and its impact,
• the potential for socially expected responses to be distorted,
• the limitations of the sample,
• the lack of offline data collection,
• the disregard of the dynamic evolution of brand image.
• the lack of external environmental influences (political and infrastructural).

However, in addition to these, there are a few critical comments or suggestions for modification/additions that can be made.

Research model

Brand Perception is labeled in Figure 1 as having an “intermediary role” between Brand Image and Purchase Intention. The study's hypotheses and findings confirm Brand Perception's mediating role, so the term “mediating role” would be more correct than “intermediary role,” which would also be more in line with the statistical analyses performed (mediation analysis). (The intermediary role refers to much more specific causal relationships.)

Several comments can be made regarding the clarity and comprehensiveness of the model presented in Figure 3. The model highlights the “social identity of electric vehicle consumers” as a moderating factor. Although the text clarifies this later, the model does not visually break down what constitutes this social identity in the research (gender, age, education, income). In the absence of this, it is difficult to visualize how it moderates the relationship between the other constructs.

Figure 3 also lists brand image, brand perception, and purchase intention, but does not explicitly show how these relate to the decision-making process.

In addition, the authors include a number of factors in the model, such as attitude, needs, purchasing situation, and experiences, which are not addressed in the study. This is unjustifiable because other factors that may influence EV purchase intention are admittedly omitted from the model (e.g., subsidies, infrastructure).

Furthermore, there are no clear arrows or visual cues to indicate how social identity influences these relationships. For example, social identity, brand image, brand perception, and purchase situation are presented independently, without any indication of their relationships.

Brand image and brand perception

In the context of the study, it appears that the authors use the term electric vehicle in a broader, somewhat mixed sense, referring to the “EV brand” or “EV brand image” associated with EVs. In other words, the product category and the brand are mixed together.

The study states that it examines “how consumers' social identities influence their willingness to purchase electric vehicles by regulating brand image and perception.”

So the topic is electric vehicles as a product category, but the study focuses on aspects related to brands within that category. At the same time, the statements used to measure brand image and brand perception in the questionnaire are general enough to apply to any EV brand. Does this mean that the authors examined the collective image of EVs as a product category? Did they examine the perceptions and intentions that consumers form about EVs as a category? How can this be extended to the terminology of “brand”? It is essential to address and explain these questions, as the concept cannot be understood without these explanations.

Inclusion of under-18s in the sample

The topic of the survey (the impact of social identity on the intention to purchase EVs) is generally related to adults. The responses of under-18s tend to reflect ideas and desires rather than actual decision-making processes. Their purchasing power and experience in buying vehicles are quite limited, so there is no justification for including them in the survey.

Although only a small number of people under the age of 18 were included, this highlights the limitations of the representativeness of the respondents if this is not taken into account in the analysis. The inclusion of this group also requires explanation. Not to mention that their involvement in the questionnaire survey also raises ethical questions.

Other comments

When setting up the hypotheses, the hypothesis H9 assumes that “Occupation does not play a moderating role in the influence of brand image on purchase intention”, which is not justified. Although the study confirmed this fact, the hypothesis itself completely contradicts the statistical literature, which states that occupation is one of the most important factors that determine a person’s place in a society and their social identity.

Formal issues

The following sentence cannot be interpreted: “The score of purchase intention is 004”. (page 9, line 338)

In the manuscript, tables are also called figures, these need to be improved.

Usually, the Conclusion chapter no longer provides specific data, only literal conclusions drawn from the results are formulated here, possibly practical implications, usability, limitations of the research. Thus, I suggest transferring specific data and its analysis to the Discussion chapter.

The formal requirement after keywords should also be deleted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is good, but some spelling mistakes need to be corrected.

Author Response

Comment 1：Research model

Brand Perception is labeled in Figure 1 as having an “intermediary role” between Brand Image and Purchase Intention. The study's hypotheses and findings confirm Brand Perception's mediating role, so the term “mediating role” would be more correct than “intermediary role,” which would also be more in line with the statistical analyses performed (mediation analysis). (The intermediary role refers to much more specific causal relationships.)

Several comments can be made regarding the clarity and comprehensiveness of the model presented in Figure 3. The model highlights the “social identity of electric vehicle consumers” as a moderating factor. Although the text clarifies this later, the model does not visually break down what constitutes this social identity in the research (gender, age, education, income). In the absence of this, it is difficult to visualize how it moderates the relationship between the other constructs.

Figure 3 also lists brand image, brand perception, and purchase intention, but does not explicitly show how these relate to the decision-making process.

In addition, the authors include a number of factors in the model, such as attitude, needs, purchasing situation, and experiences, which are not addressed in the study. This is unjustifiable because other factors that may influence EV purchase intention are admittedly omitted from the model (e.g., subsidies, infrastructure).

Furthermore, there are no clear arrows or visual cues to indicate how social identity influences these relationships. For example, social identity, brand image, brand perception, and purchase situation are presented independently, without any indication of their relationships.

Response 1：Thank you for pointing that out.We agree with this point.The modified on page 3, line 115, and page 7, line 245.The primary focus of our examination was social identity, as the aforementioned model takes into account cultural factors that influence consumer behavior. However, it does not consider other factors that may influence the willingness to purchase electric vehicles, such as subsidies and infrastructure. This observation is duly noted in the limitations section of the present article. The independent presentation of social identity, brand image, brand awareness, and purchasing behavior reveals no indication of a relationship between them. Figure 1 illustrates the mediating role of brand awareness and the moderating role of social identity.

Comment 2：Brand image and brand perception

In the context of the study, it appears that the authors use the term electric vehicle in a broader, somewhat mixed sense, referring to the “EV brand” or “EV brand image” associated with EVs. In other words, the product category and the brand are mixed together.

The study states that it examines “how consumers' social identities influence their willingness to purchase electric vehicles by regulating brand image and perception.”

So the topic is electric vehicles as a product category, but the study focuses on aspects related to brands within that category. At the same time, the statements used to measure brand image and brand perception in the questionnaire are general enough to apply to any EV brand. Does this mean that the authors examined the collective image of EVs as a product category? Did they examine the perceptions and intentions that consumers form about EVs as a category? How can this be extended to the terminology of “brand”? It is essential to address and explain these questions, as the concept cannot be understood without these explanations.

Response 2：Thank you for pointing that out.We agree with this point.The author's employment of the term "electric vehicle brand image" suggests a certain imprecision in terminology. Given the broad nature of the questionnaire items, it can be concluded that the study is measuring the collective image or perception of the electric vehicle product category. The present study aims to investigate the influence of social identity on consumers' overall perceptions of the electric vehicle category, with the ultimate objective of assessing the resulting overall willingness to purchase electric vehicles (of any brand). The term "brand" can be conceptually extended to the category level. The electric vehicle category itself possesses brand attributes in consumers' minds—a set of shared associations, attributes, and symbolic meanings that function similarly to brand image. This category image plays a critical gatekeeping role in consumers' adoption of electric vehicles. Prior to conducting exhaustive comparisons of particular brands, it is imperative that consumers have a favorable overall perception of electric vehicles. While a clearer distinction between "category image" and "brand image" is beneficial, the core contribution of this research lies in understanding the fundamental drivers of acceptance and purchase intent for the electric vehicle category, which are significantly influenced by consumers' social identities.

Comment 3：Inclusion of under-18s in the sample

The topic of the survey (the impact of social identity on the intention to purchase EVs) is generally related to adults. The responses of under-18s tend to reflect ideas and desires rather than actual decision-making processes. Their purchasing power and experience in buying vehicles are quite limited, so there is no justification for including them in the survey.

Although only a small number of people under the age of 18 were included, this highlights the limitations of the representativeness of the respondents if this is not taken into account in the analysis. The inclusion of this group also requires explanation. Not to mention that their involvement in the questionnaire survey also raises ethical questions.

Response 3：Thank you for pointing that out.We agree with this point.We have now removed the questionnaire items that apply to individuals under the age of 18. The revised version is on page 10, line 350.

Comment 4：Other comments

When setting up the hypotheses, the hypothesis H9 assumes that “Occupation does not play a moderating role in the influence of brand image on purchase intention”, which is not justified. Although the study confirmed this fact, the hypothesis itself completely contradicts the statistical literature, which states that occupation is one of the most important factors that determine a person’s place in a society and their social identity.

Response 4：Thank you for pointing that out.We agree with this point.We have made changes to the hypothesis 9, which are reflected on page 8, lines 308 to 309.

Comment 5：

Formal issues

The following sentence cannot be interpreted: “The score of purchase intention is 004”. (page 9, line 338)

In the manuscript, tables are also called figures, these need to be improved.

Usually, the Conclusion chapter no longer provides specific data, only literal conclusions drawn from the results are formulated here, possibly practical implications, usability, limitations of the research. Thus, I suggest transferring specific data and its analysis to the Discussion chapter.

The formal requirement after keywords should also be deleted.

Response 5：Thank you for pointing that out.We agree with this point.Therefore, we have made revisions, revised on page 10, line 355, the table has been modified, and the data issue in the conclusion has been resolved. On page 26, lines 661 to 693, the formal requirements after the keywords have been deleted, and on page 1, lines 15 to 16.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is meaningful to the field of sustainable consumption and electric vehicle marketing. It provides a theoretical foundation for future electric vehicle companies to create products and corporate cultures that meet their target customers.

1. The full questionnaire should be included in this manuscript.

2. From the collected data, we can conclude that the sample skews young, urban, and online. This has limitations and should be discussed in more detail regarding its effect on generalizability.

3. Ensure figures and tables are clearly labeled and consistently formatted. In Figures 19, 21, 23, and 25, there are bars on the right side—please explain or remove them.

Author Response

Comment 1：The full questionnaire should be included in this manuscript.

Response 1：Thank you for pointing that out.We agree with this point.Therefore, we have made revisions, revised on page 9, lines 330 to 331.

Comment 2：From the collected data, we can conclude that the sample skews young, urban, and online. This has limitations and should be discussed in more detail regarding its effect on generalizability.

Response 2：Thank you for pointing that out.We agree with this point.Therefore, we have made revisions, revised on page 27, lines 720 to 724.

Comment 3：Ensure figures and tables are clearly labeled and consistently formatted. In Figures 19, 21, 23, and 25, there are bars on the right side—please explain or remove them.

Response 3：Thank you for pointing that out.We agree with this point.The modified images are Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9, located on page 19, line 554; page 20, line 569; page 21, line 585; and page 22, line 597.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks for the opportunity to review the article. The article aims to understand how social identity influences the purchase decisions of EV consumers, particularly in the context of the Chinese market. The results may be useful for other markets and for brands that want to better align their marketing strategies with consumer social identity.
Below are some substantive comments on the article:

1. The article draws on a social constructivist perspective and cites concepts such as “identity labour” or “identity narrative” (page 3), but does not explain them sufficiently. This issue requires a deeper discussion of how this process works in the context of EVs. The theoretical section could be expanded by detailing how social constructivism applies to consumer behaviour in the case of EVs.
2. The literature review (page 3) cites a few key papers such as Escola & Bettman (2005) or Elliott and Wattanasuwan (1998), but does not integrate them into a coherent narrative that explains why these papers are relevant to the study described in the article. The literature review could be expanded to show how previous research on social identity and consumption (particularly in the context of green products such as EV) shapes the research hypotheses. Reference could be made to research on the impact of environmental values on purchasing decisions.
3. The article looks at social variables (gender, age, education, income, occupation) as moderators, but does not sufficiently justify why these variables were chosen. For example, there is no explanation as to why occupation was included, even though the results show that it has no effect (page 8). Explain why specific social variables were chosen by referring to the literature. You could point to studies that show that gender or income influences purchasing decisions in the automotive sector.
4. The survey methodology (page 9) is based on an online questionnaire collected by “Questionnaire Star”, but does not discuss potential limitations such as sampling bias (e.g. 74.59 % of respondents are male) or sample representativeness. In addition, statistical analysis (e.g. factor analysis, regression) is technically described, but details on model assumptions or potential limitations are missing. A section should be added discussing methodological limitations, e.g. potential biases due to male predominance in the sample or use of online channels.

Author Response

Comment 1：The article draws on a social constructivist perspective and cites concepts such as “identity labour” or “identity narrative” (page 3), but does not explain them sufficiently. This issue requires a deeper discussion of how this process works in the context of EVs. The theoretical section could be expanded by detailing how social constructivism applies to consumer behaviour in the case of EVs.

Response 1：Thank you for pointing that out.We agree with this point.Therefore, we have made revisions, which can be found on page 3, lines 100 to 107.

Comment 2：The literature review (page 3) cites a few key papers such as Escola & Bettman (2005) or Elliott and Wattanasuwan (1998), but does not integrate them into a coherent narrative that explains why these papers are relevant to the study described in the article. The literature review could be expanded to show how previous research on social identity and consumption (particularly in the context of green products such as EV) shapes the research hypotheses. Reference could be made to research on the impact of environmental values on purchasing decisions.

Response 2：Thank you for pointing that out.We agree with this point.Therefore, we have made revisions, which can be found on page 3, lines 100 to 107.

Comment 3：The article looks at social variables (gender, age, education, income, occupation) as moderators, but does not sufficiently justify why these variables were chosen. For example, there is no explanation as to why occupation was included, even though the results show that it has no effect (page 8). Explain why specific social variables were chosen by referring to the literature. You could point to studies that show that gender or income influences purchasing decisions in the automotive sector.

Comment 1: Language and Style: Although the manuscript is thoroughly hatched with ideas, the overall English quality can be enhanced. There are a few clunky phrasings, grammatical inconsistencies, and excessively complicated sentence structures that can potentially hinder clarity for an international audience. A professional academic editor is highly advised to completely rework the language.

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this. We have made changes to the English wording. The revised text is on page 3, lines 100 to 107, line 115, page 4, lines 120 to 143, page 5, lines 168 to 186, page 10, lines 357 to 360, page 10-11, lines 363 to 379, and page 12, lines 402 to 409.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions to Authors

The paper "A Study of the Social Identity of Electric Vehicle Consumers from a Social Constructivism Perspective" is a welcome and timely critique of social identity and its effect on consumer behaviour in the electric vehicle (EV) market. The convergence of theoretical social constructivism and consumer choice process is laudable, providing a comprehensive framework for studying the socio-psychological aspect of EV adoption. The reliance on a large, demographically representative dataset combined with stringent statistical methods (including mediation and moderation analysis) makes the empirical contribution of the paper all the more valuable.

By contrast, there are some areas in which the manuscript can be improved in order to enhance its clarity, rigour, and general scholarly impact:

Language and Style: Although the manuscript is thoroughly hatched with ideas, the overall English quality can be enhanced. There are a few clunky phrasings, grammatical inconsistencies, and excessively complicated sentence structures that can potentially hinder clarity for an international audience. A professional academic editor is highly advised to completely rework the language.

Overall, this is a careful and content-rich study. With minimal editing, it would make an important contribution to the electric vehicle research and consumer behaviour literatures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript can be said to excel greatly in conveying refined, theoretical, and empirical content. The English, nonetheless, could have been improved to better explain with clearer, more precise, and better overall readability. Grammar, sentence structure, and word selection are some issues in the sense that they might cloud intended meaning in certain areas. The authors must ensure they engage the services of an experienced academic editor or a native English writer who understands scholarly writing, such that the language used is at an international peer-reviewed journal level.

Author Response

Comment 1: Language and Style: Although the manuscript is thoroughly hatched with ideas, the overall English quality can be enhanced. There are a few clunky phrasings, grammatical inconsistencies, and excessively complicated sentence structures that can potentially hinder clarity for an international audience. A professional academic editor is highly advised to completely rework the language.

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this. We have made changes to the English wording. The revised text is on page 3, lines 100 to 107, line 115, page 4, lines 120 to 143, page 5, lines 168 to 186, page 10, lines 357 to 360, page 10-11, lines 363 to 379, and page 12, lines 402 to 409.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

    This study explores how consumers' social identity, shaped by factors such as income, age, gender, and education, influences their decision-making when purchasing electric vehicles (EVs). The findings show that consumers' choices are driven by both practical needs and the desire to shape social identity, with preferences for specific vehicle models and technical features playing a role. The study provides valuable insights into the social identity aspirations of EV consumers and offers a theoretical foundation for electric vehicle companies to tailor products and corporate cultures that resonate with their target market, thereby promoting the widespread adoption of EVs. The research in this paper is logically clear, with a well-designed approach, and holds significant practical value.

1. It is recommended that the literature review section be organized under subheadings to enhance clarity.
2. It is suggested to include an overall logic framework diagram at the beginning of section 3, which would help readers better understand the structure of the content.
3. The author should provide a more detailed explanation of the research hypotheses in Section 3.3. This can be supported through data analysis or by referencing existing literature, as the validity of the subsequent test result analysis depends on it.
4. Is the data sample collection random or pre-designed, including factors such as population distribution and age distribution?
5. The background section should highlight the rapid development of electric vehicles, thereby leading to the significant importance of the current study. The related work can refer to “An Energy-Oriented Torque-Vector Control Framework for Distributed Drive Electric Vehicles, IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 4014-4031, Sept. 2023”.

Author Response

Comments 1：It is recommended that the literature review section be organized under subheadings to enhance clarity.

Response:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have organized the literature review section under subheadings. Revised on page 4, line 118 and page 5, line 186 .

Comments 2：It is suggested to include an overall logic framework diagram at the beginning of section 3, which would help readers better understand the structure of the content.

Response:Thank you for pointing this out.Revised on page 6, line 209.

Comments 3：The author should provide a more detailed explanation of the research hypotheses in Section 3.3. This can be supported through data analysis or by referencing existing literature, as the validity of the subsequent test result analysis depends on it.

Response:Thank you for pointing this out.Revised on page 8, lines 286 to 302.

Comments 4：Is the data sample collection random or pre-designed, including factors such as population distribution and age distribution?

Response:Thank you for pointing this out.The sample set of data for the article is randomized.

Comments 5：The background section should highlight the rapid development of electric vehicles, thereby leading to the significant importance of the current study. The related work can refer to “An Energy-Oriented Torque-Vector Control Framework for Distributed Drive Electric Vehicles, IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 4014-4031, Sept. 2023”.

Response:Thank you for pointing this out.We have made changes to the background section that have emphasized the importance of the study. Revised on page 2, lines 37 through 57.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the role of social identity in shaping electric vehicle (EV) consumer behavior, drawing on social constructivism theory and a consumer decision-making model. It investigates how demographic variables (gender, age, income, education, and occupation) moderate the relationship between brand image, brand perception, and purchase intention for EVs. The authors use a questionnaire-based survey conducted in China and apply regression, mediation, and moderation analyses to test their conceptual model and hypotheses. In my view, the manuscript could merit favorable consideration following changes based on the below comments.

1/ The connection between social constructivism theory and the consumer decision-making model could be conceptually developed further. The paper introduces rich theoretical constructs and could benefit further from clearly explaining how they are operationalized in survey items. In other words, more discussion on how "social construction" processes are captured empirically would be helpful. The authors are suggested to more explicitly bridge the theoretical framework to empirical constructs—e.g., how symbolic meaning and social identity are operationalized and measured. Consider including qualitative elements or examples to ground the constructivist approach.

2/ Social identity is reduced to demographic variables (age, gender, education, income). It would have been useful to adequately capture more nuanced or fluid dimensions of identity such as values, affiliations, or cultural beliefs. The moderation analyses based solely on these demographic factors risk oversimplifying identity dynamics, especially in the context of postmodern or digital consumer cultures. The authors are suggested to incorporate additional psychographic or value-based identity variables. If it may not be possible to do so at this stage, the authors are suggested to justify more clearly why the demographic proxies are sufficient to reflect identity within the social constructivist framework OR highlight incorporating psychographic or value-based identity variables as part of future research work.

3/ The sample is skewed toward young, male, online users in China (74.59% male; primarily aged 18–36). This limits generalizability, particularly given the cross-cultural and symbolic focus of the paper. The study does not address rural-urban, regional, or offline populations, nor does it provide comparative analysis to other global EV markets. The authors are encouraged to further acknowledge sample limitations in the main text and propose how future research can address these issues via stratified or comparative sampling.

4/ On pages 1-2, the authors state – “A review of global CO2 emissions by country in 2022 revealed a general upward trend in emissions over the past few decades, with a slowdown in the growth rate observed in recent years. In 2021, total global CO2 emissions reached approximately 36 billion tons, representing an increase of around 5% compared to 2020. [1] In the context of intensifying global climate change and escalating concerns over environmental pollution, the transition from conventional vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs) has emerged as a pivotal strategy to mitigate localised air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions within the transportation sector. [2] The market demand for electric vehicles is a subject that has attracted considerable attention from researchers. China, the world’s largest market for electric vehicles, has made significant progress in the promotion and adoption of electric vehicles in recent years. A new study by S&P Global suggests that the country will account for the majority of sales with a 29.7% share. [3] It is anticipated that sales of electric vehicles (EVs) in China will exceed those of internal combustion engine vehicles for the first time next year, marking a significant historical turning point. This is expected to result in domestic EV sales increasing by approximately 20 percent annually, reaching over 12 million units by 2025. Conversely, sales of conventionally-powered vehicles are predicted to decline by more than 10 percent in the same period, reaching below 11 million units. This represents a decrease of nearly 30 percent from the 14.8 million units sold in 2022. [4] However, despite the growing market share of electric vehicles, their penetration rate remains relatively low, and there is still a considerable distance to be travelled before electric vehicles can be considered a mainstream form of transport.”

The authors are recommended to expand this contextual framing by acknowledging that electric vehicle adoption is being actively pursued by governments not only as a response to climate, energy security, and air pollution concerns, but also as a strategic move to reposition themselves in the global vehicle manufacturing landscape. This is especially relevant for emerging economies such as China, where industrial policy is increasingly aligned with green technology leadership and competitiveness. The authors are recommended to highlight the above discussion, by considering relevant recent literature, including but not limited to:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2024.101516
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04167-y

The added discussion would help contextualize EV adoption not just as an environmental imperative, but also as a geo-industrial strategy, thereby enriching the motivation for the study.

5/ The study relies on a one-time cross-sectional survey, despite the paper’s emphasis on the evolving nature of identity and brand perception. This design could weaken the ability to draw conclusions about causality or dynamic identity-brand interactions over time. The authors are suggested to propose in future work how longitudinal or panel methods could better capture the evolving nature of EV consumer identity.

6/ The study does not consider external contextual factors like government EV subsidies, charging infrastructure, or policy signals, despite their central role in shaping brand perception and purchase behavior. This omission could limit the model’s comprehensiveness and practical relevance. The authors are suggested to acknowledge this limitation and highlight as part of future work as to how the model could be extended to incorporate macro-level policy and infrastructure variables as either controls or moderators.

Author Response

Comments1:The connection between social constructivism theory and the consumer decision-making model could be conceptually developed further. The paper introduces rich theoretical constructs and could benefit further from clearly explaining how they are operationalized in survey items. In other words, more discussion on how "social construction" processes are captured empirically would be helpful. The authors are suggested to more explicitly bridge the theoretical framework to empirical constructs—e.g., how symbolic meaning and social identity are operationalized and measured. Consider including qualitative elements or examples to ground the constructivist approach.

Response1:Thank you for pointing that out.We have further expanded on the connection between social constructivist theory and consumer decision-making models by revising it on page 7, second paragraph , lines 259 through 284

Comments2:Social identity is reduced to demographic variables (age, gender, education, income). It would have been useful to adequately capture more nuanced or fluid dimensions of identity such as values, affiliations, or cultural beliefs. The moderation analyses based solely on these demographic factors risk oversimplifying identity dynamics, especially in the context of postmodern or digital consumer cultures. The authors are suggested to incorporate additional psychographic or value-based identity variables. If it may not be possible to do so at this stage, the authors are suggested to justify more clearly why the demographic proxies are sufficient to reflect identity within the social constructivist framework OR highlight incorporating psychographic or value-based identity variables as part of future research work.

Response2:Thanks for pointing that out.It is not possible to do this at this stage and we have written it into Limitations and Future Work, revised on page 24, lines 743 to 748, and page 25, lines 788 to 798.

Comments3:The sample is skewed toward young, male, online users in China (74.59% male; primarily aged 18–36). This limits generalizability, particularly given the cross-cultural and symbolic focus of the paper. The study does not address rural-urban, regional, or offline populations, nor does it provide comparative analysis to other global EV markets. The authors are encouraged to further acknowledge sample limitations in the main text and propose how future research can address these issues via stratified or comparative sampling.

Response3:Thanks for pointing that out.It is not possible to do this at this stage and we have written it into Limitations and Future Work, Revised on page 24, lines 759 to 769 and page 25, lines 788 to 798.

Comments4:On pages 1-2, the authors state – “A review of global CO2 emissions by country in 2022 revealed a general upward trend in emissions over the past few decades, with a slowdown in the growth rate observed in recent years. In 2021, total global CO2 emissions reached approximately 36 billion tons, representing an increase of around 5% compared to 2020. [1] In the context of intensifying global climate change and escalating concerns over environmental pollution, the transition from conventional vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs) has emerged as a pivotal strategy to mitigate localised air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions within the transportation sector. [2] The market demand for electric vehicles is a subject that has attracted considerable attention from researchers. China, the world’s largest market for electric vehicles, has made significant progress in the promotion and adoption of electric vehicles in recent years. A new study by S&P Global suggests that the country will account for the majority of sales with a 29.7% share. [3] It is anticipated that sales of electric vehicles (EVs) in China will exceed those of internal combustion engine vehicles for the first time next year, marking a significant historical turning point. This is expected to result in domestic EV sales increasing by approximately 20 percent annually, reaching over 12 million units by 2025. Conversely, sales of conventionally-powered vehicles are predicted to decline by more than 10 percent in the same period, reaching below 11 million units. This represents a decrease of nearly 30 percent from the 14.8 million units sold in 2022. [4] However, despite the growing market share of electric vehicles, their penetration rate remains relatively low, and there is still a considerable distance to be travelled before electric vehicles can be considered a mainstream form of transport.”

The authors are recommended to expand this contextual framing by acknowledging that electric vehicle adoption is being actively pursued by governments not only as a response to climate, energy security, and air pollution concerns, but also as a strategic move to reposition themselves in the global vehicle manufacturing landscape. This is especially relevant for emerging economies such as China, where industrial policy is increasingly aligned with green technology leadership and competitiveness. The authors are recommended to highlight the above discussion, by considering relevant recent literature, including but not limited to:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2024.101516
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04167-y

The added discussion would help contextualize EV adoption not just as an environmental imperative, but also as a geo-industrial strategy, thereby enriching the motivation for the study.

Response4:Thank you for pointing that out.We have expanded the contextual framework section to reflect not only the adoption of electric vehicles as an environmental imperative, but also as a geo-industrial strategy. Revised on page 2, second paragraph, lines 37 through 57.

Comments5:The study relies on a one-time cross-sectional survey, despite the paper’s emphasis on the evolving nature of identity and brand perception. This design could weaken the ability to draw conclusions about causality or dynamic identity-brand interactions over time. The authors are suggested to propose in future work how longitudinal or panel methods could better capture the evolving nature of EV consumer identity.

Response5:Thanks for pointing that out.It is not possible to do this at this stage and we have written it into Limitations and Future Work,Revised on page 25, lines 788 to 798.

Comments6:The study does not consider external contextual factors like government EV subsidies, charging infrastructure, or policy signals, despite their central role in shaping brand perception and purchase behavior. This omission could limit the model’s comprehensiveness and practical relevance. The authors are suggested to acknowledge this limitation and highlight as part of future work as to how the model could be extended to incorporate macro-level policy and infrastructure variables as either controls or moderators.

Response6:Thanks for pointing that out.It is not possible to do this at this stage and we have written it into Limitations and Future Work,Amended on pages 25-26, lines 798-805.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the article, the authors attempted to answer the main research question: how the construction of social identity influences consumer decisions regarding the purchase of electric vehicles (EVs) in the context of demographic variables: gender, age, income, and education. The article’s original and significant contribution to the field of consumer behavior research is the application of the social constructivism perspective to the analysis of the electric vehicle purchasing process. The authors address an existing gap regarding the role of social identity as a moderating factor in the process of shaping brand perception and purchase decisions. Compared to the existing literature, the article offers a new perspective by integrating the theory of social constructivism with the consumer decision-making process model. The empirical study tests both the mediating effect of brand perception and the moderating effects of demographic variables. This provides a more comprehensive understanding of how psychological and social factors co-create purchasing decisions.
The research was conducted using an online survey on a sample of 1,031 respondents. A five-point Likert scale was used. Reliability tests, factor analysis, and linear regression were conducted. The bibliography is up-to-date and relevant, covering both classical works and contemporary studies. In my opinion, however, it is insufficient. I believe that the article should be expanded in the discussion section – the research results should be more extensively discussed and compared with other studies. The tables and figures require significant improvement – they are poorly formatted and not very clear.

Author Response

Comment1:The research was conducted using an online survey on a sample of 1,031 respondents. A five-point Likert scale was used. Reliability tests, factor analysis, and linear regression were conducted. The bibliography is up-to-date and relevant, covering both classical works and contemporary studies. In my opinion, however, it is insufficient. I believe that the article should be expanded in the discussion section – the research results should be more extensively discussed and compared with other studies. The tables and figures require significant improvement – they are poorly formatted and not very clear.

Response1:Thanks for pointing that out.We improved the results of the study by adding comparisons with other studies, improving the treatment of tables and pictures, and revising them on page 3, line 117, page 7, line 241, page 11, line 368, page 11, line 375, page 12, line 398, page 13, line 421, line 428, page 14, line 445, page 15, line 464, line 482, page 16 491 line 509, page 17, line 525, line 547，page 18, line 570, page 19, line 585, page 19, line 590, page 20, line 602, page 20, line 607, page 21, line 618, page 21, line 623, page 22, line 633, page 22, line 638,page 23-24, lines 651 through 696.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for submitting this manuscript which covers an interesting and relevant topic.

Unfortunately the manuscript has a number of severe failings which in my view prevent publication:

(1) the editing has been very sploppy - all tables and figures in the second part of the paper have the same heading / caption (figs. 15 to 23). This is plain not acceptable. Although the English is quite acceptable, there are some instances where sentences repeat, e.g. lines 330 to 340 or lines 380 to 388 where language repeats itself (as in other places, too). The 'figures' are often tables and should be declared as such.

(2) although I can halfways follow what you are doing, you have not explained anything about the methodology, you have not added the original questionnaire, and not shown a single equation. You use a lot of jargon, which is probably fine for a psychology journal but not appropriate for WEVJ. It is therefore impossible for the reader to verify what you are stating.

(3) the list of references includes a number of sources that are incompletely described (e.g. #1, #11, or web sources that have no access date (e.g. #3 & 4). You also use 'et al.' for long authros lists, which is also not acceptable.

My overall conclusion is that this paper is not suitable for this journal. It also does not meet minimum standards for transparency and scientific soundness.

Author Response

Comments 1: the editing has been very sploppy - all tables and figures in the second part of the paper have the same heading / caption (figs. 15 to 23). This is plain not acceptable. Although the English is quite acceptable, there are some instances where sentences repeat, e.g. lines 330 to 340 or lines 380 to 388 where language repeats itself (as in other places, too). The 'figures' are often tables and should be declared as such.

Response1:Thanks for pointing that out.We have made changes to the charts and tables with the same names, revised on page 18, line 570, page 19, line 585, page 19, line 590, page 20, line 602, page 20, line 607, page 21, line 618, page 21, line 623, page 22, line 633, page 22, line 638.

Comments 2: although I can halfways follow what you are doing, you have not explained anything about the methodology, you have not added the original questionnaire, and not shown a single equation. You use a lot of jargon, which is probably fine for a psychology journal but not appropriate for WEVJ. It is therefore impossible for the reader to verify what you are stating.

Response2:Thanks for pointing that out.We have added information about the methodology, added scale plots from the original questionnaire, and added the KMO formula. Revised on page 9, lines 329 to 346, page 10, line 346, page 13, line 421.

Comments 3: the list of references includes a number of sources that are incompletely described (e.g. #1, #11, or web sources that have no access date (e.g. #3 & 4). You also use 'et al.' for long authros lists, which is also not acceptable.

Response3:Thanks for pointing that out.We added to the literature that was not fully described, to the use of 'et al.' for long authors, and to web sources that had no date of access, with revisions on page 26, line 813, lines 817 through 822, line 844, line 855, line 861, line 887, line 907, line 911, line 915, line 919, and line 926.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

  The author has addressed my concerns well. However, there are still some areas that need improvement.

1. Clearly define the theoretical novelty of this study: For instance, does it represent the first integration of social constructivism with the Neal et al. (2000) consumer decision-making model? Does it introduce new identity dimensions (e.g., hybrid or intersecting social identities) previously unexamined in the context of electric vehicle (EV) adoption?
2. Introduce a critical comparative lens: Consider contrasting the constructivist approach with more traditional models such as rational choice theory, thereby highlighting its explanatory advantages in capturing socially mediated decision-making.
3. Deepen the theoretical unpacking of the "brand image → brand perception → purchase intention" mechanism, particularly in terms of how social identity mediates or moderates brand perception formation and symbolic meaning-making.

  Furthermore, the rapid development of electric vehicles in the background can refer to our last recommended work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All of my previous round comments have been addressed. The manuscript merits acceptance in my view.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for the revised manuscript.

I still maintain that the paper is too long, still has some deficiencies (the captions to the figures have only marginally improved), and is not easily - if at all - understood by the readers of this specific journal. I would recommend to submit to a journal with marketing and sales psychology background.