Social-Psychological Factors and Energy Behaviors

1. Social-Psychological Factors and Energy Behaviors Chien-fei Chen CURENT course November 6th, 2013 Knoxville, Tennessee

2. Social Psychological Factors and Energy Behaviors Demand response, incentives and behavioral changes Evidence of Energy and Behaviors Intervention (Norms, Goal-setting, Framing, Barriers) Why should you care? Decision-making Models Factors of Influencing Public Acceptance of Smart Meters Factors of Influencing Electricity Savings

3. Why Should You Care? • Decision-making: understand the process of how individuals make decisions in energy domain and how the impact of behaviors on energy use and the environment as a whole. • Awareness: connection between engineering profession to the consequences of its activities on the society • Improvement: engineering technology designs and make broader impact. • Persuasion: explain and discuss the ramifications of developments in engineering and engineering works to the public. Big Picture!

4. Focus of Environmental Sociology

5. Typical Social Science Studies

6. Social Psychological Factors and Energy Behaviors Demand response, incentives and behavioral changes Evidence of Energy and Behaviors Intervention (Norms, Goal-setting, Framing) Why should you care? Decision-making Models Factors of Influencing Public Acceptance of Smart Meters Factors of Influencing Electricity Savings

7. Energy and Behavioral Change • What are the factors of affecting energy use? • How to reduce energy consumption? • How to change people’s behaviors over time?

8. Creating an Energy Revolution “A revolution doesn’t happen when society adopts new tools, it happens when society adopts new behaviors” (GlayShirky, 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. U.S. Energy Consumption in 2010

10. Questions What is your average monthly electricity consumption? What is average American household electricity consumption?

11. A Household Consumption in TN Average: 1228.2 KWh

12. Average Monthly Electricity Consumption per Household in 2009 US. Average 908 KWh Tennessee Average: 1302 KWh Highest in the nation in 2009

13. How Much Can Household Save Energy? • Researchers identifying more than 100 separate conservation and energy efficiency measures (all cost-effective) that could be taken in a short period of time (Laitner and Martinez, 2009); • Based on a Monte Carto probability simulation, an energy savings potential on the order of about 9 Quads (9% of US energy use) compared to current use.

14. Evidences of Energy Behaviors • Behavioral approach could save 123 million metric tons of carbon annually in year 10 from a study of 17 household actions, representing 20% of household direct emissions or 7.4% of U.S. national emissions. • Types of household behaviors (based on cost and frequency of action) could result in a 22% reduction in household and personal transportation energy use over a 5-8 year period (Laitner & Ehrhardt-Martinez, 2009). • In crisis situations, energy saving has resulted in immediate, community-level electricity savings of 25% in 6 weeks and post-crisis savings of 8-10% (Leighty & Meier, 2010). • Feedback programs and devices could save electricity from 4-12% (Ehrhardt-Martinez, et al. 2010).

15. Carbon Emission and Behavioral Change

16. What Does “Behavior” Mean? Source: ACEEE online survey on 123 professionals

17. Social Psychological Factors and Energy Behaviors Demand response, incentives and behavioral changes Evidence of Energy and Behaviors Intervention (Norms, Goal-setting, Framing) Why should you care? Decision-making Models Factors of Influencing Public Acceptance of Smart Meters Factors of Influencing Electricity Savings

18. Traditional Economic and Engineering Models Typical responses to energy crisis: • Find new energy resources • Develop technology – 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.

19. Assumptions of Human Behaviors Actors are mindless robots Actors are mindful

20. Decision-Making Models • Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) • Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) • Norm Activation Model (Schwartz, 1977) • Social Norm Approach (Claidini,1994 and others) • Prospect Theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) • To identify factors or in targeting behavioral change (intervention)

21. Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) • Human agency involves deliberative ability to make choices & regulate behavior • A triadic, dynamic, & reciprocal interaction. Environmental Factors (norms) Personal Factors (cognitive, affective, & biological events) Behavior

22. Theory of Planned Behavior(IcekAjzen, 1991)

23. Norm Activation Model (Schwartz, 1977)

24. Social Psychological Factors and Energy Behaviors Demand response, incentives and behavioral changes Evidence of Energy and Behaviors Intervention (Norms, Goal-setting, Framing) Why should you care? Decision-making Models Factors of Influencing Public Acceptance of Smart Meters Factors of Influencing Electricity Savings

25. Evidence: Social-psychological Factors of Energy Conservation in China • Investigated how social norms, behavioral control, attitudes, energy concern, perceived consequences influence energy saving intention and behavior • Sampled 584 employees from electricity companies in Jiangsu Province, China • Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Norm Activation Model.

26. Factors Predicting Energy Conservation Behaviors

27. Results of Social-Psychological Factors on Electricity Saving Behaviors (241 UTK students) Barriers to save electricity (-0.26) ** Support of renewable (0.30) * Energy concern (0.33) ** Global warming consequences (0.19)* Electricity Saving Behaviors Economic benefits (0.09) Personal norms (0.34)* Social rewards (0.03) Demographics (gender, age, race, political orientation, rent) * P<0.05; ** p<0.01, green boxes on the left were not significant

28. Result of Social Psychological Factors affecting Support of Renewable Energy Electricity saving behaviors (-0.22)** Energy conservation attitudes (0.18)* Energy concern (0.24)* Global warming consequences(0.18)* Support of Renewable Energy Economicbenefits (-0.10) Personal norms (0.34) Social rewards (-0.08) Familiarity with renewable(0.05) Politicalorientation(0.20) * * P<0.05; ** p<0.01, green boxes on the left were not significant

29. Symbolic Values: Social Status and Green Behaviors • People are more likely to choose green products rather than non-green products when status motives were made salient (Griskeviciouset al., 2010) • Especially when the choice were made in the publicand the green product is more expensive.

30. Social Psychological Factors and Energy Behaviors Demand response, incentives and behavioral changes Evidence of Energy and Behaviors Intervention (Norms, Goal-setting, Framing) Why should you care? Decision-making Models Factors of Influencing Public Acceptance of Smart Meters Factors of Influencing Electricity Savings

31. Advanced Meters • Meters that measure and record usage data at hourly intervals or more frequently, and provide usage data to both consumers and energy companies at least once daily. Advanced meters include basic hourly interval meters, meters with one-way communication, and real-time meters with built-in two-way communication capable of recording and transmitting instantaneous data. • To encourage energy conservation, utilities must directly or indirectly provide this information to consumers to contextualize the information, break down barriers and motivate actions.

32. Public Acceptance of Smart Meters • M-turk respondents: 817 • Awareness , Knowledge, Attitudes toward the Installation of Smart Meters, Interests in Having Smart Meters, Intention to use smart meters or in-home display, Satisfaction, Electricity Habit Change, Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness, Perceived Pricing, Privacy, • Health and Environmental Concerns • Willingness of Reducing Electricity Use to Save Environment • Money Consciousness, Trust on Utility Company • Lasting Change, Smart Phone Application • Opinions on Demand Reponses Program: Time of Pricing and Appliance Setting • Demographics

33. Factors of Influencing Acceptance of Smart Meter Useful1 .89 Priv4R Priv5R Priv6R Priv7R Price2 Price3 Useful2 .91 .74 .92 .94 .89 .93 .85 Useful3 .87 Price privacy Usefulness .80 Useful4 .52, p < .001 .88 -.14, p < .001 .84 Useful5 -.093, p = .001 Useful6 .76 Useful8 -.059 HabitE1 Support .61 Money1 -.018 .70 -.007 .51 Money2 Money .56 HabitC1 Money3 .091, p = .01 .83 Money4 .014 .035 .83 HabitCH Money6 .80 .68 .84 Environ1 .021, p = .492 Habit7 .87 Habit6 Environ Trust Environ2 .73 .92 .95 Environ3 .89 .83 .95 Environ4 Trust1 Trust2 Trust3 Trust4

34. Layers of Energy Feedback Technologies

35. Advantages of Feedback Programs • Eliminates the need for prescriptive program (financial incentives) • Maximizes household options • Allows for targeted recommendations • Engages people in an active learning process • Empowers people to become part of the energy solution (Source: Ehrhardt-Martinez from Garrison institute)

36. Meta-Analysis On Feedback Programs (1) • Advanced Metering Initiatives and Residential Feedback Programs (Ehrhardt-Martinez, Laitner, Donnelly, 2010) • Research Questions: • How much electricity have households saved? • How do savings vary by different type? • Are direct or indirect forms of feedback better? • Is feedback more effective when combined with social science insights? • Does feedback work differently in demand response programs? • How persistent are feedback-induced savings over time? • How effective could feedback be in achieving energy savings? • What are the potential national-level savings of feedback-induced energy savings?

37. Design on Meta-analysis of Feedback Programs (2) • An assessment of 61 primary research studies of 57 feedback programs • Include 9 counties • 21 studies from 1974-1994 during “energy Crisis Era” • 36 studies from 1995-2010, during “Climate Era” Source: Garrison Institute

38. Indirect vs. Direct Feedback • Indirect feedback helps people to see larger patterns in energy use • Direct feedback help people to understand the impact of small changes and the implications of specific end uses • Both influence people in different ways • More and more approaches use both types

39. Intervention/Strategies for Changing Behaviors • Non-economic motivation strategies can effectively enhance household energy saving • 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 • Commitments: help people to sure their actions are consistent with their ideals • Feedback programs

40. Social Norms Approach: Opower

42. Goal Framing • Three main goals (Lindenberg, 2008) • Normative Goal • Gain Goal • Hedonic Goal • Behaviors can be framed based on different goals

43. Effectiveness of Feedback Programs Source: Garrison Institute

44. Average Household Electricity Savings of Historical Program by Feedback Type

45. Demand Response vs. Overall Conservation Programs • A meta analysis reports that energy saving of Peak Load Shifting Program is 3%, while energy conservation promotion program is 10%; based on 36 studies implemented between 1995-2010(Martinez, Donnelly and Laitner, 2010).

46. Persistence of Savings • The evidence from 27 of the 58 studies suggests that if the feedback is persistent, the savings are persistent over time (Garrison Institute)

47. Persistence of Energy Savings • Are savings persistent when feedback is removed? • The supportive social environment provided by ecoTeams made the difference

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

49. Social Psychological Factors and Energy Behaviors Demand response, incentives and behavioral changes Evidence of Energy and Behaviors Intervention (Norms, Framing) Why should you care? Decision-making Models Factors of Influencing Public Acceptance of Smart Meters Factors of Influencing Electricity Savings

50. Focus Theory of Normative Conduct • The focus theory posits that norms affect human behavior systematically and significantly but only in situations where the norm is salient (focal) for the individual (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990; Kallgren, Reno & Cialdini, 2000) • Experiments: descriptive (what is typically done) vs. injunctive norms (what is approved) • Littering increased in a littered environment; littering was reduced only when descriptive norms was activated in a clean environment. • Influence of injunctive norms was effective regardless of whether the environment was clean or littered.