Making energy feedback work

Abstract

Several forms of intervention to promote household energy conservation have been tested over the years, but research has primarily focused on energy consumption feedback (Shippee, 1980). Although a number of earlier researchers reported success in reducing home energy with feedback (e.g. Hayes & Cone, 1981; McClelland & Cook, 1979; Palmer, Lloyd & Lloyd, 1977), others have reported failure (e.g. Seaver & Patterson, 1976). Even when results were positive, they often could not be adequately explained (Seligman & Darley, 1977). Some energy researchers attributed success to combining the motivational effects of goal-setting with feedback (e.g. Becker, 1978; van Houwelingen & van Raaij, 1989), but results remained variable. In 1981, Shippee noted a lack of research to identify those processes that mediate the effectiveness of consumption feedback, but, to date, they have remained largely unidentified. This is most likely due to the fact that energy feedback studies have concentrated on attempts to change particular behaviors or actions such as turning off lights (Winett, 1978), or air conditioning units when the outside temperature is cool (Becker & Seligman, 1978) without investigating the underlying relationship of feedback and action. In other words, experimental designs investigating energy feedback have been, on the whole, hit-or-miss, while feedback intervention study results in general have also remained highly variable (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). In 1998, a study was designed to reexamine the effects of energy feedback in an applied setting (McCalley, 1999) within a cognitive framework based on attention (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). In this manner, behavior response to feedback could be methodically explored in relationship to various potential moderating factors. The washing machine was chosen as the representative application domain due to high household penetration and, thus, high consumer familiarity. Laboratory experiments were designed using a computer simulation based on an existing washing machine (Miele Novotronic W941 Super) with a microprocessor-run control panel. The use of a simulated control panel allowed feedback to be integrated directly into the appliance interface, allowing for optimal feedback presentation in terms of specificity (e.g. specific to a single use of a single appliance and specific amounts of energy and cost) and speed. The first series of experiments tested various combinations and types of feedback, including monetary and energy (kWh) information, without further manipulations in order to establish an estimate of baselines for conservation behavior response. The results in terms of generating conservation behavior were minimal, as expected. The next series of experiments explored feedback in relation to various types of specific goals to save energy (McCalley, 2000) with the rationale, based on Feedback Intervention Theory (FIT) (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), that setting a conservation goal would focus attention on feedback related to the washing task, making it more salient. The primary experiment compared the effect of energy (kWh) feedback on a group of subjects who were asked to set a conservation goal for themselves of between 0 and 20 percent and a control group (McCalley & Midden, 2002). The resulting response to the energy use feedback was found to be highly significant for the group receiving the goal-setting treatment. Results thus confirmed that substantial amounts of energy could be saved if the subject was asked to make a prior commitment by setting a specific energy-saving goal. The outcome was thus in accordance with FIT (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), which attributes successful conservation behavior to goalsetting as a means of focusing attention on the washing task, thereby making the energy feedback more salient, as mentioned previously. However, the experiment was not a direct test of the theory. A further experiment was designed to specifically test the assumptions of FIT by manipulating the levels of attention focus. This design also served a second purpose of allowing a comparison of FIT with another framework that was previously used to develop means to encourage household energy conservation. The comparison framework is based on a social-psychological formulation of the minimal justification principle (see Katzev & Johnson, 1983), called the "foot-in-the-door" technique, that depends, first, on an attitude change precipitated by a small request that is then followed by the "target" or desired action request. © 2006 Springer.