Energy Efficiency

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 1149–1167 | Cite as

Making energy visible: sociopsychological aspects associated with the use of smart meters

  • Susana Guerreiro
  • Susana Batel
  • Maria Luísa Lima
  • Sérgio Moreira
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This study aims to improve the understanding of the sociopsychological and technological aspects that influence the use of smart meters—innovative electricity meters that provide real-time data on consumption and are instrumental in increasing energy efficiency. Few studies have examined the sociopsychological factors that influence their use. We argue that the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), and other specific factors from the social psychology literature, such as perceived procedural justice and risk perception, can help understand what determines the use of smart meters. To empirically examine that, first a quantitative survey was conducted with 515 households with smart meters installed. Results indicate that smart meter use is influenced by subjective norms, perceived utility, health-related risk perception, procedural justice, and time of usage. In a second study, internet blogs discussing smart meters were analyzed. This study corroborated some of the results of the first study and suggested additional factors—such as perceived distributive injustice and loss of control and privacy-related risk perception—that may influence the use of smart meters.

Keywords

Smart meters Energy efficiency Theory of reasoned action Technology acceptance model Risk perception Justice perception 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Energias de Portugal (EDP) for allowing us to use the data analyzed in Study 1 for academic purposes.

Compliance with ethical standards

We hereby confirm that this manuscript complies with the ethical rules applicable to the journal Energy Efficiency. All the relevant funding bodies and conflicts of interest were identified and the research involved human participants, whose participation was always performed with informed consent.

References

  1. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273–291. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, M. (1997). Resistance to new technology: nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bertoldi, P., & Atanasiu, B. (2007). Electricity consumption and efficiency trends in the enlarged european union. DG Joint Research Center, Institute for Environment and Sustainability.Google Scholar
  5. Billig, B. (1985). Prejudice, categorization and particularization: from a perceptual to rhetorical approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Billig, M. (1997). Rhetorical and discursive analysis: How families talk about the royal family. In N. Hayes (Ed.), Doing qualitative analysis in psychology (pp. 39–54). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bonnes, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (2002). Environmental psychology: from spatial–physical environment to sustainable development. In R. G. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 28–54). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castro, P. (2012). Legal innovation for social change: exploring change and resistance to different types of sustainability laws. Political Psychology, 33(1), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castro, P., & Batel, S. (2008). Social representation, change and resistance: on the difficulties of generalizing new norms. Culture & Psychology, 14, 477–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clayton, S. (2000). Models of justice in the environmental debate. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 459–474.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (2003). Justice and identity: changing perspectives on what is fair. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cronick, K. (2002). The discourse of President George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden: a rhetorical analysis and hermeneutic interpretation. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3) p. 282.Google Scholar
  15. Dahlbom, B., Greer, H., Egmond. C. Jonkers, R. (2009). Changing energy behaviour, guidelines for behavioural change programmes. IDAE - Instituto para la Diversificacióny Ahorro de la Energía, Inteligent Energy Europe.Google Scholar
  16. Darby, S. (2006). The effectiveness of feedback on energy consumption: a review for Defra of the literature on metering, billing and direct displays. Oxford: Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  19. Devine-Wright, P., & Howes, Y. (2010). Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: a wind energy case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources.Google Scholar
  21. Directive 2009/72/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC.Google Scholar
  22. Directive 2009/73/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 13 July 2009 concerning the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC.Google Scholar
  23. Faruqui, A., Sergici, S., & Sharif, A. (2010). The impact of informational feedback on energy consumption—a survey of the experimental evidence. Energy, 35(4), 1598–1608. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2009.07.042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Federal Energy Regulator Commission. (2008). Assessment of demand, response and advanced metering. USA: Federal Energy Regulator Commission.Google Scholar
  25. Feinberg, R. (2009). Achieving customer acceptance of the smart grid. The Intelligent Project (Apr. 15): http://theintelligentproject.org/assets/does/061509_achieving-customeracceptance.pdf.
  26. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows: advanced techniques for the beginner. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  28. Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Folger, R. (1987). Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace. Journal of Social Justice, 1(2), 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gamberini, L., Spagnolli, A., et al. (2014). Combining implicit and explicit techniques to reveal social desirability bias in electricity conservation self-reports. Energy Efficiency, 7(6), 923–935.Google Scholar
  31. Giordano, V., Meletiou, A., Covrig, C.F., Mengolini, A. Ardelean, M., Fulli, G., Jiménez, M.S., Filiou, C. (2012). Smart grid projects in Europe: lessons learned and current developments. Joint Research Centre, European Commission.Google Scholar
  32. Gross, C. (2007). Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia. The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy, 35, 2727–2736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hargreaves, T., Nye, M., & Burgess, J. (2010). Making energy visible: a qualitative field study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors. Energy Policy, 38, 6111–6119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heffner, G. (2011). Smart grid—smart customer, policy needs. IEA paper submitted to the energy efficiency working party. Paris: OECD\IEA.Google Scholar
  35. International Energy Agency. (2003). Cool appliances—policy strategies for energy efficient homes. Paris: OECD / IED.Google Scholar
  36. Jensen, L., Mulvad, L., Katan, S. H., & Sundahl, N.V. (2012). Researching motivational factors towards a sustainable electricity consumption. Paper presented at SMART 2012: The First International Conference on Smart Systems, Devices and Technologies (pp. 44–47).Google Scholar
  37. Jones, M., & Alony, I. (2008). Blogs—the new source of data analysis. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 5, 433–446.Google Scholar
  38. Karlin, B. (2012). Public acceptance of smart meters: integrating psychology and practice. Proceedings of ACEEE 2012.Google Scholar
  39. Kerrigan, D., Gamberini, L., Spagnolli, A., & Jacucci, J. (2011). Smart meters: a users’ view. Psychnology, 9, 55–72.Google Scholar
  40. Kleijnen, M., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2004). Consumer adoption of wireless services: discovering the rules, while playing the game. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(2), 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kranz, J., Gallenkamp, J., Picot, A. (2010). Power control to the people? Private consumers’ acceptance of smart meters. Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), June, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  42. Krueger, J., & Clement, R. W. (1994). The truly false consensus effect: an ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 596–610.Google Scholar
  43. Lauri, M. A., & Lauri, J. (2005). Social representations of organ donors and non-donors. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 108–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leach, J. (2000). In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound (pp. 207–226). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Lima, M. L. (2005). Percepção de Riscos Ambientais. In L. Soczka (Ed.), Contextos Humanos e Psicologia Ambiental (pp. 203–245). Lisboa: Edições Calouste Gulbenkian.Google Scholar
  46. Lima, M. L. (2006). Predictors of attitudes towards the construction of a waste incinerator: two case studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2(36), 441–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lima, M. L., Barnett, J., & Vala, J. (2004). Risk perception and technological development at a societal level. Risk Analysis, 25(5), 1229–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lima, M. L., Lopes, D., & Garrido, M. (2009). Relatório final do Estudo de Adesão das Comunidades Locais ao Aproveitamento Hidro-eléctrico do Fridão [final report of the survey to the attitudes of the local communities to the project of Fridão dam]. Lisboa: Centro de Investigação e de Intervenção Social, ISCTE.Google Scholar
  49. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. NY: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Luo, X., Li, H., Zhang, J., & Shim, J. P. (2010). Examining multi-dimensional trust and multi-faceted risk in initial acceptance of emerging technologies: an empirical study of mobile banking services. Decision Support Systems, 49, 222–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Martiskainen, M., & Coburn, J. (2011). The role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in household energy consumption—prospects for the UK. Energy Efficiency, 4(2), 209–221.Google Scholar
  52. Moser, S., Bruppacher, S. E., & Mosler, H.-J. (2011). How people perceive and will cope with risks from the diffusion of ubiquitous information and communication technologies. Risk Analysis, 31(5), 832–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pyrko, J., & Darby, S. (2011). Conditions of energy efficient behaviour—a comparative study between Sweden and the UK. Energy Efficiency, 4, 393–408.Google Scholar
  54. Renn, O. (1998). Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges. Journal of Risk Research, 1(1), 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction. Radical pragmatics, 49, 295–318.Google Scholar
  56. Starlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stern, S. M. (2011). Smart-grid: technology and the psychology of environmental behavior change. Chicago-Kent Law Review., 86, 139.Google Scholar
  59. Stragier, J. (2010). Introducing smart grids in residential contexts: consumers’ perception of smart household appliances. 2010 I.E. Conference on Innovative Technologies for an Efficient and Reliable Electricity Supply (CITRES)Google Scholar
  60. Syme, G., Nancarrow, B., & McCreddin, J. (1999). Defining the components of fairness in the allocation of water to environmental and human uses. Journal of Environmental Management, 57(1), 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1990). Intrinsic versus community-based justice models: when does group membership matter? Journal of Social Issues, 46, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tyler, T. R., & Smith, H. J. (1995). Social justice and social movements. Working paper series. UC Berkeley: Institute for research on Labor and Employment.Google Scholar
  63. van Bavel, R., & Gaskell, G. (2004). Narrative and systemic modes of economic thinking. Culture and Psychology, 10(4), 417–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation and emotion into technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.Google Scholar
  66. Verbong, G. P. J., Beemsterboer, S., & Sengers, F. (2013). Smart grids or smart users? Involving users in developing a low carbon electricity economy. Energy Policy, 52, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wang, C.-C., Lo, S.-K., & Fang, W. (2008). Extending the technology acceptance model to mobile communication innovation: the existence of network externalities. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7, 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zhang, T., & Nuttall, W. J. (2012). An agent-based simulation of smart metering technology adoption. International Journal of Agent Technologies and Systems (IJATS), 4(1), 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susana Guerreiro
    • 1
  • Susana Batel
    • 1
  • Maria Luísa Lima
    • 1
  • Sérgio Moreira
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), CIS-IULLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations