1. Beyond Technology: Improving Energy Efficiency through Social- Psychological Approaches Chien-fei Chen, Ph.D. Research Professor & Director of Education and Diversity NSF-DOE Engineering Research Center, CURENT University of Tennessee, Knoxville

2. Focus of Environmental Sociology 1-2

3. Research Methodology Qualitative vs. Quantitative (focus group, interviews) Survey technique asks questions of large numbers of persons to gain information on attitudes and behaviors  Reliability and validity: Test – retest, internal, inter-rater, … Face, convergent & discriminant, predictive…  Advantages of survey approach: Cheap and fast Go beyond behavioral level  Common issues: Sample representativeness Low response rate or careless answers Social desirability Basically a correlational study

4. The Experimental Research Process © 1999 John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Consider and control confounding variables

5. Summary of main research methods in environmental psychology SETTINGMETHODSTRENGTHSWEAKNESSESUSE Environment independent setting Questionnaire studies High external validity Cost- effective method for reaching large populations No manipulation of variables No causal inferences Describing populations or practices Studying relationships among variables Artificial settingLaboratory experiments High internal validity Control of variables Low external validity Artificiality Testing theories or hypotheses Identifying causal relationships Simulation studies Good balance between external/ internal validity Realistic visualisation Requires advanced skills and equipment Often perceived as ‘fictitious’ Study complex human- environment dynamics Visualise and evaluate future developments Real settingCase studiesHigh external validity Rich data Low internal validity Time demanding Limited generalisability Descriptions Explorations Developing hypotheses Field studiesGood balance between external/internal validity Replicable Limited experimental control Difficult data collection Studying current practice Evaluating interventions

6. Social Psychological Factors and Energy BehaviorsContent 4. Interventions (feedback, norms, framing, etc.) 5. Promoting Demand Response 6. Energy efficiency in office buildings 1. Why behaviors matter? 3. Factors influencing public acceptance of energy-efficiency measures & renewables 2. Decision- making models 6

7. U.S. Energy Consumption in 2010 7

8. Traditional Economic & Engineering Models Typical responses to energy crisis: Find new energy resources Develop technologies – engineers’ job Provide financial incentives for people to reduce consumption, to adopt more efficient technologies Assumption of rationality People are instrumental and self-interested, consistent, cost-benefit based. But it is often not true. 8

9. Creating an Energy Revolution “A revolution doesn’t happen when society adopts new tools, it happens when society adopts new behaviors” (Glay Shirky, Digital Guru). “Mitigate future climate change will be made by energy consumers, rather than suppliers… not a straightforward and easily achievable goal” (EIA, 2009). 9

10. Various types of household behaviors 22% reduction in household & personal transportation energy use over a 5-8 year period (Laitner & Ehrhardt-Martinez, 2009) In crisis situations Community-level electricity savings could be 25% in 6 weeks & post-crisis savings of 8-10% (Leighty & Meier, 2010) Feedback programs & devices Save electricity 4-12% (Ehrhardt-Martinez, et al. 2010) Real-time feedback with smart programs + social science insights Save electricity 20-35% Your Behaviors Matter 10 Behavioral Change Potential Savings:

11. Social Psychological Factors and Energy BehaviorsContent 4. Interventions (feedback, norms, framing, etc.) 5. Promoting Demand Response 6. Energy efficiency in office buildings 1. Why behaviors matter? 3. Factors influencing public acceptance of energy-efficiency measures & renewables 2. Decision- making models 11

12. Without DeliberationWith Deliberation In-output model Behaviors controlled by environment Emphasize human agency Mindful or cognitive process Not Empathizing: Internal judgments Cognitive process Interpersonal relationships (Asch, 1951, Sherif, 1935) Empathizing: Attitudes Perceptions Motivations Actors are mindless robots Actors are mindful Assumptions of Human Behaviors 12

13. Theory of Planned Behavior (Icek Ajzen, 1991) 13

14. Norm Activation Model (Schwartz, 1977) Awareness of consequences Ascription of responsibility Personal Norms Pro-social or environmental behaviors 14

15. Social Psychological Factors and Energy BehaviorsContent 4. Interventions (feedback, norms, framing, etc.) 5. Promoting Demand Response 6. Energy efficiency in office buildings 1. Why behaviors matter? 3. Factors influencing public acceptance of energy-efficiency measures & renewables 2. Decision- making models 15

16. Social-psychological Factors Influencing Energy Saving at Workplace Sampled 584 employees from 9 electricity companies in Jiangsu Province, China. Investigated the relationships among social norms, behavioral control, attitudes, energy concern influence energy saving intention and energy behavior at workplace. Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Chen, C.F., & Knight, K. (2014). Energy at work: social psychological factors affecting energy conservation intentions within Chinese electric power companies. Energy Research & Social Science, 4, 23-31. 16

17. Social-Psychological Factors Affecting Electricity Saving Behaviors at Work (China) Energy ConcernAttitudes Behavioral Control Intention to SaveGroup Norms.35***.47***.61***.43***.38***.04 17

18. Social Psychological Factors Affecting Support of Renewable Energy (U.S.) Electricity saving behaviors (-0.22)** Energy conservation attitudes (0.18)* Social rewards (-0.08) Personal norms (0.34) Energy concern (0.24)* Global warming consequences(0.18)* Economic benefits (-0.10) Support of Renewable Energy Familiarity with renewable(0.05) Political orientation (0.20) * * P <0.05; ** p<0.01, green boxes on the left were not significant 18

19. Social Psychological Factors Affecting Intention to Use SWH and AFV (China) * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 19

20. Factors Influencing Acceptance of Smart Meter Sampled 817 U.S. residents across the U.S. Based on the Extended Technology Acceptance Theory. 20

21. Social Psychological Factors and Energy BehaviorsContent 4. Interventions (feedback, norms, framing, etc.) 5. Promoting Demand Response 6. Energy efficiency in office buildings 1. Why behaviors matter? 3. Factors influencing public acceptance of energy-efficiency measures & renewables 2. Decision- making models 21

22. Intervention/Strategies to Change Behaviors Feedback programs (direct vs. indirect) Social norms: descriptive and injunctive norms shape people’s behaviors; developing strategies in a social context Goal setting: define what people are trying to attain and be able to evaluate their progress Message framing: emphasizing a particular aspect of an object/activity while limiting emphasis on other aspects Commitments: help people to sure their actions are consistent with their ideals 22

23. Average Household Electricity Savings of Historical Program by Feedback Type Potential Resource Savings: 20-35% Real-Time Plus Feedback w/Smart Program Plus Smart Application of S.S. Insights 23

24. Social Norms Approach: Opower 24

25. 25

26. Social Psychological Factors and Energy BehaviorsContent 4. Interventions (feedback, norms, framing, etc.) 5. Promoting Demand Response 6. Energy efficiency in office buildings 1. Why behaviors matter? 3. Factors influencing public acceptance of energy-efficiency measures & renewables 2. Decision- making models 26

27. Message Framing and Electricity Saving RQ1: Which type of messages are effective to 1) change attitudes toward electricity saving? 2) to boost perceived efficacy (“whether can I make a difference”) on saving electricity? RQ2: Do individuals with difference on environmental concern react to messages differently? Design: Four (2 x 2) manipulations on benefit message framing of saving electricity 27 Benefit framing: Environmental vs. Financial Temporal framing: Long-term vs. Short-term

28. Condition 1/2: Financial, Long-term/Short-term 28

29. 29 Condition 3/4: Environmental, Long-term/Short-term 29

30. Results of Message Framing 292 US residents Environmental messages, in general, are more effective than the financial benefits in producing positive attitudes toward energy saving. Short-term benefits boost perceived efficacy among people with lower environmental concern. 30

31. Below “Please reuse your towels” Control: HELP SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT. You can show your respect for nature and help save the environment by reusing your towels during your stay Social Norm: JOIN YOUR FELLOW GUESTS IN HELPING TO SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT. Almost 75% of guests who are asked to participate in our new resource savings program do help by using their towels more than once. You can join your fellow guests in this program to help save the environment by reusing your towels during your stay. Recycling Towels in Hotels: Evidence of Descriptive Norms Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius (2008, J of Consumer Research) 31

32. Financial Incentives -> Customer Segmentation Traditional approach to promoting demand response (DR): economic approach – peak & off-peak pricing, dynamic pricing, additional financial incentives, etc. Will desired behavioral change disappear after incentives are removed? To what extent financial incentives help customers accept DR and energy saving programs? Same for everyone? Money is often less of a motivator than other social psychological variables (Stern et al., 1986). 32

33. RQ: Are the requested incentives for different DR behaviors predictable by energy use, demographic variables, and social- psychological variables? Impact: more accurate estimation of adjustable loads as a function of financial incentives Method: Online survey across 48 states, 754 valid responses collected 33 How much monetary rewards do you expect in exchange for… ? Adjusting AC setting by 2-3 o F when at home Adjusting heater by 2-3 o F when at home Adjusting AC setting by > 5 o F or shutting AC down before leaving home Adjusting heater setting by > 5 o F or shutting heater down before leaving home

34. Factors Affecting Requested Incentives Energy Use Info Demographics Social-Psychological Monthly Bill_AveAgeEnergy Concern Stay Home (9-5) GenderBill Consciousness Light Use IncomeFrugality Computer Use EducationNeed for Comfort Thermostat Settings Political OrientationNeed for Convenience Night Adjustments House SqftNeed for Control Household SizeTrust Weather RegionSubjective Norm Perceived Control Block 1Block 2Block 3 34

35. Financial Incentives and HVAC Behaviors 35 Acceptance rates in respondents

36. Financial Incentives and HVAC Behaviors Finding 1: The amount of the incentives requested does not have a linear relationship with some factors  E.g. Small homes -> smaller amount of requested incentives to lower thermostat setting in winter, large homes is not associated with higher requested incentives. Finding 2: Social-psychological variables enhance the predictive power of the model Heater_HomeBlock 1Block 2Block 3 No rewardsχ 2 (7)=9.23 (p=.236) χ 2 (16)=35.01 (p=.004) χ 2 (29)=58.37 (p=.001) Would not doχ 2 (7)=19.53 (p=.007) χ 2 (16)=19.60 (p=.020) χ 2 (29)=64.06 (p<.001) TotalΔF=2.75 (p=.008) ΔF=1.88 (p=.060) ΔF=2.53 (p=.002) 36

37. Factors Affecting Amount of Requested Incentives (Adjust 2-3 oF Heater at Home) Energy Use Info Demographics Social-Psychological AgeEnergy Concern Monthly Bill AveGenderBill Consciousness Stay Home (9-5) IncomeFrugality Lights Use EducationNeed for Comfort Computer Use Political OrientationNeed for Convenience Thermostat Settings House SqftNeed for Control Night Adjustments Household SizeTrust Weather RegionSubjective Norm Perceived Control 37 Block 1Block 2Block 3

38. Analysis of Customer Segmentation (1) Raising AC thermostat setting for 2-3 o F in summer 38 Smaller homes Lower electricity bills More frugal Lower comfort needs Lower needs for convenience Features of the most cooperative group (no incentives) Features of the most cooperative group (no incentives) Won’t put PC in sleep Lower thermostat settings generally Older Higher comfort needs Poorer energy-saving attitudes Lower level of subjective norms Features of the least cooperative group (won’t do it anyway) Features of the least cooperative group (won’t do it anyway)

39. Analysis of Customer Segmentation (2) Accepting automation at home in summer 39 Higher thermostat settings generally Lower electricity bills More Democrats Higher energy concerns More frugal Lower comfort needs Lower needs for convenience Positive energy-saving attitudes Features of the most cooperative group Lower thermostat settings generally Higher income Lower energy concerns Lower money consciousness Lower trust Poorer energy-saving attitudes Features of the least cooperative group

40. 40 How attractive are current DR programs in the market?  Automatic A/C cycling  Automatic A/C shut down  Automatic thermostat adjustment  Voluntary A/C adjustment How specific features of DR programs affect attractiveness?  Frequency, duration, etc.  Level of control  Amount of rewards Predictable by energy use habits, demographics and social- psychological variables?

41. 41

42. Social Psychological Factors and Energy BehaviorsContent 4. Interventions (feedback, norms, framing, etc.) 5. Promoting Demand Response 6. Energy efficiency in office buildings 1. Why behaviors matter? 3. Factors influencing public acceptance of energy-efficiency measures & renewables 2. Decision- making models 42

43. Future Work: Triple Levels of Integration Structural Company culture& policy Leadership Group norms Reward systems Technology Design of building office setting Visibility of behaviors, human interaction & control 43 Individual Personality & Profiles Attitudes (Frugality) Self-efficacy Habits

44. Energy Use in Office Buildings 44 Social dilemmas: a collective action dilemma, where individual interests and collective interests are at odds (Dawes, 1980; Van Lange, et al., 2013). Public goods dilemma: each member must decide whether or not to contribute to a public good (or a resource) from which all may benefit regardless of whether or not they contributed. Diversity of social dilemmas: Cooperation forms (giving or contributing vs. not taking or consuming), time span (short vs. long), or scale (small vs. large) (Van Lange et al., 2013). Social Dilemmas

45. Factors Influencing Payoff Structure in Social Dilemmas Potential Effects Personality (Pro-social vs. Pro-self) Social rewards/punishment Emotion (shame vs. guilt) Making Free-riding Less Appealing Group size Group member’s identity Group cohesion Cooperative culture Reducing Fear of Free-Ridership Trust Communication Self-efficacy Increasing Sense of Responsibility Group identity Other members’ decision to cooperate (may diffuse responsibility) Mechanisms of Increasing Cooperation 45 Building Technology

46. Conclusions Human beings are not always rational. Information programs may be effective in changing attitudes but may not be effective in changing behaviors in specific situations. There is potential in applying social norm and framing approaches. Energy use in public domain relates largely to social matters, not individual ones. Social-technological approaches are needed for persistent behavioral change and reducing free-riding: 46 Making cooperation in public domain easier Changing the payoff structure of social dilemmas (in a more friendly way) Increasing the transparency for the situation