The transition to battery electric vehicles has shown promising growth in the passenger vehicle market, though this growth has recently slowed. Many observers extrapolate this trend to heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), developing deeply held beliefs that battery technology will inevitably dominate this sector as well. These convictions often lead to resistance when presented with evidence that alternative technologies might be more suitable for heavy transport applications. This report examines the psychological mechanisms underlying these rigid beliefs, exploring how cognitive biases influence technology adoption perspectives and distort interpretation of data regarding future transportation technologies.
Cognitive Dissonance in Technology Transition Beliefs
Cognitive dissonance represents one of the fundamental psychological mechanisms driving intractable beliefs about technology adoption. This phenomenon occurs when individuals experience psychological discomfort due to conflicting thoughts, beliefs, or behaviors. When contemplating transportation technologies, cognitive dissonance manifests when new information challenges established beliefs about the ideal path forward.
Cognitive dissonance theory, introduced by psychologist Leon Festinger in 1957, explains that individuals seek consistency in their cognitions and experience discomfort when contradictions arise between their beliefs and actions or between competing beliefs[12]. In the context of vehicle technology adoption, those who have developed strong convictions about battery dominance may experience discomfort when presented with evidence suggesting limitations of this technology for heavy goods vehicles. To reduce this discomfort, they often employ various strategies, including selectively processing information that confirms their existing beliefs while dismissing contradictory evidence[3].
This psychological mechanism is particularly visible in discussions about sustainable transportation. Research on cognitive dissonance in sustainable mobility contexts reveals how deeply held convictions about “green” technologies create resistance to nuanced perspectives. When individuals have aligned their identity with support for specific clean technologies like battery vehicles, they may experience significant dissonance when confronted with data suggesting these technologies face substantial barriers in certain applications[8]. Rather than revise their fundamental beliefs, they often reinterpret contradictory information to maintain cognitive consistency.
Confirmation Bias and Selective Information Processing
Confirmation bias represents perhaps the most powerful cognitive mechanism behind intractable technology beliefs. This bias manifests as the tendency to favor information that confirms preexisting beliefs while discounting contradictory evidence. In technology adoption contexts, confirmation bias creates significant distortions in how evidence is processed and interpreted.
For technology executives and decision-makers, confirmation bias can profoundly impact strategic planning by causing them to prioritize data that supports their preconceptions while undervaluing contradictory information[11]. In the context of HGV technology, those convinced of battery dominance may disproportionately emphasize successful passenger EV deployment statistics while dismissing unique challenges in heavy transport applications, such as weight penalties, range limitations, or infrastructure constraints.
The search for confirming evidence creates self-reinforcing belief patterns that become increasingly resistant to revision. As individuals curate information environments that reinforce their existing perspectives, they develop stronger convictions in their beliefs, making them less receptive to evidence suggesting alternative technologies might better serve specific transportation niches[11]. This selective information processing creates echo chambers where challenging perspectives are systematically filtered out, further cementing rigid technology adoption beliefs.
Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) and Technology Adoption
Fear of missing out represents another significant psychological factor driving intractable beliefs about transportation technology futures. Research reveals that FOMO influences corporate decision-makers’ ability to make rational technological decisions, creating pressure to adopt trending technologies regardless of their fitness for specific applications[2].
Recent research investigating FOMO in emerging technology contexts found that decision-makers experience this phenomenon at different organizational levels (firm, team, employee), with each level characterized by specific targets and responses. The mere presence of FOMO does not necessarily constitute a bias in decision-making, but it significantly influences the decision process both directly and through inflated outcome expectations[2]. When applied to HGV technology adoption perspectives, FOMO may drive observers to assume battery dominance across all vehicle categories despite potentially significant application-specific limitations.
The pressure to “not miss out” on perceived technological trends creates psychological barriers to objectively assessing different technologies’ suitability for specific use cases. Decision-makers experiencing FOMO may overestimate trendy technologies’ capabilities and underestimate alternative approaches’ potential, leading to dogmatic positions that resist evidence-based evaluation of diverse technology pathways[2].
Psychological Barriers to Technology Differentiation
Research has identified several psychological factors underlying resistance to technology differentiation—the recognition that different applications may require different technological solutions. De Freitas and colleagues categorize these barriers into five main categories: opacity, emotionlessness, rigidity, autonomy, and group membership[1].
In the context of heavy vehicle technology adoption, rigidity stands out as particularly relevant. This barrier manifests as resistance to systems that appear inflexible or unable to adapt to varying needs and contexts. Research shows people are more likely to utilize technology systems when they are perceived as “flexibly adapting to a person’s preferences in a personalized way”[1]. This psychological mechanism may explain why many struggle to accept that different vehicle classes (passenger cars versus HGVs) might require different power solutions based on their distinct operational requirements.
The group membership barrier also significantly influences technology adoption perspectives. This factor relates to how individuals categorize technologies into in-groups and out-groups, often developing loyalty to specific technological approaches that become part of their identity[1]. When battery technology becomes associated with environmental consciousness or technological progressiveness, questioning its universal applicability may feel like betraying group values, creating powerful resistance to nuanced perspectives on application-specific technology selection.
Forecasting Bias and Statistical Interpretation
Forecasting bias represents a significant factor in how individuals interpret and project technology adoption trends. Statistical forecasting techniques inevitably incorporate various biases, and understanding these biases is crucial for assessing predictions about technology adoption[5].
In analyzing HGV technology futures, forecasting bias manifests when analysts extrapolate passenger vehicle adoption patterns to heavy transport without accounting for fundamental differences in operational requirements, use cases, and infrastructure needs. The mean error (ME) approach to analyzing forecasting bias reveals systematic tendencies toward overprediction or underprediction[5]. In technology adoption contexts, passenger vehicle electrification success may lead to systematic overprediction of battery technology suitability for heavy transport applications.
Forecasting bias intersects with other psychological mechanisms, particularly confirmation bias, creating a powerful combination that distorts projections of technology adoption. When individuals have developed strong convictions about particular technology pathways, they may systematically interpret statistical forecasts in ways that confirm their expectations, dismissing contradictory projections as methodologically flawed rather than considering their implications for technology differentiation[5].
Algorithmic Bias in Technology Assessment
Modern technology forecasting increasingly relies on algorithmic analysis of adoption trends, introducing additional psychological complexities through algorithmic bias. Research on autonomous systems highlights how bias can emerge at multiple points in the algorithmic process, particularly through training data bias and algorithmic focus bias[7][14].
Training data bias manifests when algorithms learn from datasets that do not represent the full context of intended application. For example, algorithms trained primarily on passenger vehicle data may produce severely biased predictions when applied to heavy transport contexts[14]. This creates a technological version of psychological bias, where computational systems reinforce human preconceptions about technology adoption pathways.
Algorithmic focus bias occurs when measurement prioritizes certain factors over others, creating systematic distortion in how technologies are evaluated[7]. In vehicle technology assessment, algorithmic focus on metrics like battery cost reduction curves while underweighting factors particularly relevant to HGVs—such as payload capacity impacts, refueling/recharging time, and infrastructure deployment challenges—may systematically bias technology forecasts toward battery dominance regardless of application-specific limitations.
These algorithmic biases often remain invisible to end-users of technology forecasts, who may perceive algorithmic outputs as objective despite embedded biases that systematically favor certain technology pathways[14]. This creates a powerful reinforcement of existing psychological biases, as seemingly objective computational analysis appears to validate preexisting beliefs about universal battery dominance.
Emotional Factors and Technology Advocacy
Emotional factors play a crucial role in shaping technology adoption beliefs, particularly through their influence on trust and technology acceptance. Research on organizational emotions reveals that collective emotional reactions significantly affect innovation adoption, with employees’ cognitive evaluation of technology innovation substantially influencing emotional responses[6].
This emotional dimension helps explain why debates about vehicle technologies often transcend rational assessment of application-specific suitability. When individuals develop emotional attachments to particular technology pathways—perhaps seeing battery technology as representing positive environmental values—questioning that technology’s universal applicability may trigger negative emotional responses that override rational evaluation[6].
Trust represents another crucial emotional factor influencing technology adoption perspectives. Research on autonomous vehicles identifies perceived trust as a direct positive influence on usage intentions[13]. In the context of heavy transport electrification, individuals who have developed trust in battery technology through positive passenger vehicle experiences may overgeneralize this trust to HGV applications, despite significant differences in operational requirements and constraints.
The role of emotions in technology adoption beliefs highlights why purely factual arguments often fail to shift intractable perspectives. Technology adoption beliefs become emotionally laden positions that resist rational revision, particularly when they connect to deeper values like environmental stewardship or technological progressiveness[13][6].
Cognitive Load and Technology Assessment Complexity
The complexity of properly assessing different technologies’ suitability for diverse applications creates significant cognitive load, triggering simplification mechanisms that favor universal adoption narratives over nuanced, application-specific technology assessment. Research on sustainable mobility highlights how increasing information volume creates cognitive load, potentially compromising decision quality[8].
Cognitive load theory suggests individuals have limited working memory capacity, leading them to develop mental shortcuts (heuristics) that simplify complex decision landscapes. These shortcuts often involve generalizing from familiar examples (passenger vehicles) to less familiar contexts (HGVs) regardless of critical differences between applications[8]. The simplifying heuristic “what works for cars will work for trucks” reduces cognitive load compared to detailed analysis of application-specific requirements.
This cognitive load factor intersects with the travel time budget concept from sustainable mobility research. Studies suggest people maintain relatively constant travel time budgets across different mobility technologies, with faster transportation modes enabling access to more distant opportunities rather than reducing time spent traveling[8]. Applied to technology adoption beliefs, this suggests psychological tendencies to maintain constant mental frameworks across different technology applications, despite potentially significant contextual differences.
Groupthink and Social Reinforcement of Technology Beliefs
Social psychological mechanisms significantly influence technology adoption perspectives, particularly through groupthink phenomena. Research identifies groupthink as a psychological process occurring when highly cohesive groups prioritize consensus over critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints[4].
In technology adoption contexts, groupthink manifests when communities of experts or advocates develop shared convictions about particular technology pathways, creating powerful social pressure against divergent perspectives. This process can lead to oversimplified perspectives that fail to adequately account for application-specific requirements or limitations[4]. When battery dominance becomes the consensus position within influential technology assessment communities, social dynamics create resistance to evidence suggesting alternative technologies might better serve specific applications like heavy goods vehicles.
Groupthink phenomena intersect with other psychological mechanisms, particularly confirmation bias and fear of missing out, creating powerful social reinforcement of existing beliefs. The social cost of challenging group consensus can discourage even experts from presenting evidence suggesting different vehicle classes might require different technological approaches based on their distinct operational requirements and constraints[4].
Conclusion
The psychological mechanisms underlying intractable beliefs about vehicle technology adoption pathways reveal why many observers resist evidence suggesting different vehicle classes might require different technological solutions. Cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, fear of missing out, psychological barriers to technology differentiation, forecasting biases, algorithmic biases, emotional factors, cognitive load, and groupthink collectively create powerful resistance to nuanced, application-specific technology assessment.
Understanding these psychological mechanisms provides a foundation for more balanced technology assessment approaches that recognize legitimate differences between vehicle classes and their operational requirements. By acknowledging these psychological factors, stakeholders can develop more sophisticated perspectives on transportation technology transitions that recognize potential roles for diverse technologies across different applications, rather than assuming universal dominance of any single approach.
The path toward more balanced technology assessment begins with recognition of these psychological mechanisms and intentional efforts to counteract their distorting influence. By cultivating awareness of these biases and creating analytical frameworks that systematically account for application-specific requirements, the transportation sector can develop more nuanced, evidence-based perspectives on technology adoption pathways that better serve diverse operational needs.
Sources
[1] [PDF] Psychological factors underlying attitudes toward AI tools https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/DeFreitas%20-%20Nature%20Human%20Behavior%20-%20Psychological%20Barriers%20to%20AI_b802852e-5cfb-4dca-8e68-d45af0b7d818.pdf
[2] Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) on Emerging Technology: Biased and … https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4736154
[3] Cognitive Dissonance in Marketing: Exploring the Conflicting Ideas … https://kiranvoleti.com/cognitive-dissonance-in-marketing
[4] The psychology behind technology decision making – Tech Monitor https://www.techmonitor.ai/strategy/mapping-psychology-behind-technology-decision-making/
[5] Analysing Forecasting Bias: Significance, methods and samples https://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/showcase/cook_bias
[6] [PDF] Adoption of alternative fuel vehicle fleets – A theoretical framework … https://research.manchester.ac.uk/files/178885057/PDF_combined_paper.pdf
[7] [PDF] Algorithmic Bias in Autonomous Systems – Carnegie Mellon University https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/philosophy/docs/london/IJCAI17-AlgorithmicBias-Distrib.pdf
[8] [PDF] Cognitive Dissonance on Sustainable Mobility https://acta.uni-obuda.hu/Sipos_134.pdf
[9] [PDF] Trust in vehicle technology – Heriot-Watt Research Portal https://researchportal.hw.ac.uk/files/10387416/96_Trust_in_vehicle_technology_author_draft_.pdf
[10] Cognitive bias toward the Internet: The causes of adolescents … https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9376473/
[11] How to Overcome Confirmation Bias in Tech Decision-Making https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-overcome-confirmation-bias-tech-decision-making-proven-drybala-qcqae
[12] s Mind: Cognitive Dissonance Theory in Market Research | deeptrue https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/unmasking-markets-mind-cognitive-dissonance-theory-market-research
[13] Psychological factors affecting potential users’ intention to use … https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36928444/
[14] [PDF] Algorithmic Bias in Autonomous Systems – IJCAI https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2017/0654.pdf
[15] [PDF] Travel and cognitive dissonance – UCL Discovery https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10105405/1/TR%20A%202020%20De%20Vos%20Singleton%20accepted%20version.pdf
[16] Psychology of Decision-Making in Technical Projects | CodeEpsilon https://www.codeepsilon.com/the-psychology-of-decision-making-in-technical-projects-how-cognitive-biases-can-influence-outcomes/
[17] Bias (statistics) – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_(statistics)
[18] The paradox of technology: Negativity bias in consumer adoption of … https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mar.21740
[19] How to Avoid Biases in Technology Decisions – LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/advice/3/how-can-you-identify-avoid-biases-when
[20] The Effect Of Cognitive Dissonance On Consumer Behaviour https://swifterm.com/cognitive-dissonance-on-consumer-behaviour/
[21] Cognitive psychology, influenced by technology, can shape decision … https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/cognitive-psychology-influenced-by-technology-can-shape-decision-making/
[22] Don’t forget about bias! – Open Forecasting https://openforecast.org/2024/05/07/don-t-forget-about-bias/
[23] How Psychological Biases Shape Our Technological Decisions https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-psychological-biases-shape-our-technological-decisions-singh-cxn2f
[24] A Confirmation Bias View on Social Media Induced Polarisation … https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8604707/
[25] Cognitive Dissonance and Purpose-Driven Brands – Siegel+Gale https://www.siegelgale.com/cognitive-dissonance-and-purpose-driven-brands/
[26] Decision-Making in the Digital Age: How Technology Is … – LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/decision-making-digital-age-how-technology-our-choices-hassan-el-hajj
[27] Statistical Bias: 6 Types of Bias in Statistics | Built In https://builtin.com/data-science/types-of-bias-in-statistics
[28] Mental Shortcuts and Their Impact on Driver Performance https://mocktheorytest.com/resources/mental-shortcuts-and-their-impact-on-driver-performance-understanding-cognitive-biases-in-road-safety/
[29] Blog | FOMO is Driving Businesses to Spend More on IT https://blowfish.technology/article/fomo-is-driving-businesses-to-spend-more-on-it
[30] [PDF] EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS ON … https://sciendo.com/pdf/10.2478/ttj-2021-0009
[31] Mitigating cognitive bias in vehicle testing https://www.automotivetestingtechnologyinternational.com/industry-opinion/overcoming-cognitive-bias-in-vehicle-testing.html
[32] [PDF] When Technology Does Not Meet Expectations: A Cognitive … https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/287878388/ID_287779185_1_.pdf
[33] Interactions Between Heavy Trucks and Vulnerable Road Users—A … https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2022.818019/full
[34] Fear Of Missing Out In Tech – Avenga https://www.avenga.com/magazine/fear-of-missing-out-in-tech-it/
[35] Psychological factors influencing technology adoption: a case study … https://rgu-repository.worktribe.com/output/1084984/psychological-factors-influencing-technology-adoption-a-case-study-from-the-oil-and-gas-industry
[36] Trust and Bias in Robots | American Scientist https://www.americanscientist.org/article/trust-and-bias-in-robots
[37] Cognitive Dissonance in Technology Adoption: A Study of Smart … https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7381864/
[38] Interactions Between Heavy Trucks and Vulnerable Road Users—A … https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8934416/
[39] UK businesses say that fear of missing out is driving AI adoption https://www.techradar.com/pro/uk-businesses-say-that-fear-of-missing-out-is-driving-ai-adoption
