Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The role of psychology and social influences in energy efficiency adoption

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Energy Efficiency Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Current energy efficiency policy and incentive programs tend to target economic motivations, which may misalign with other potentially important motivations arising from situational factors, individual differences, and social context. Thus, in this research, we review areas of work that have focused on psychological and social influences to energy efficiency adoption in commercial buildings. We then conduct an empirical scoping study interviewing 10 commercial building owners/managers (decision makers) and 10 experts/consultants (decision influencers) regarding perceived motives and barriers to energy efficient investments, decision-maker attributes, and the social context of the decision. Potential factors that emerge from the interviews, which are not yet extensively discussed in the energy efficiency literature, include owners/managers’ resistance to change and the influence of investment funding origins on the decision. Our results also suggest potential heterogeneity in energy efficiency decision-making philosophies between the two groups. Interviewed owners/managers prioritize corporate social responsibility (CSR) and prefer internal consulting (e.g., building engineers). Conversely, experts/consultants do not emphasize CSR and are more concerned with external policies. These findings suggest that accounting for the decision maker and the social context in which decisions are made could enhance the design of commercial sector energy efficiency programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. Energy Star is an award assigned to high-performing buildings whose energy consumption is benchmarked on Portfolio Manager; both Energy Star and Portfolio Manager are maintained by the US Environmental Protection Agency (Colaizzi 2015).

  2. There exist 10 separate 2030 Districts, spanning Seattle to Stamford, with building owners committed to 50% reduction in energy use, water consumption, and transportation emissions by 2030 (2030 Districts 2015).

  3. Mechanical Turk is an online forum where “workers” are compensated for assisting in research, such as participating in an experiment or transcriptions. Web link: https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome

  4. NVivo is a qualitative data analysis software by QSR International. Web link: http://www.qsrinternational.com/

  5. Simple payback period is the period of time required to recoup the funds spent on an investment; for an EE investment, this would be the amount of time required to recoup the funds from the annual energy savings.

References

  • 2030 Districts (2015). About the 2030 Districts. Retrieved from: http://www.2030districts.org/about-2030-districts

  • Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9), 1082–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asensio, O., & Delmas, M. (2014). Nonprice incentives and energy conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(6), E510–E515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attari, S., DeKay, M., Davidson, C., & Bruine De Bruin, W. (2010). Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(37), 16054–16059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, R., Raseman, S., & Shih, A. (2012). Evidence from two large field experiments that peer comparison feedback can reduce residential energy usage. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 29(5), 992–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beamish, T., Kunkle, R., Lutzenhiser, L., & Biggart, N. (2000). Why innovation happens: structured actors and emergent outcomes in the commercial buildings sector. Proceedings of the 2000 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Consumer Behavior and Non-Energy Effects, 8.13–8.26. http://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2000/data/papers/SS00_Panel8_Paper02.pdf#page=1. Accessed 2 Oct 2017.

  • Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bin, S. (2012). Greening work styles: an analysis of energy behavior programs in the workplace. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Report Number B121. http://www.aceee.org/research-report/b121

  • Bohi, D., & Zimmerman, M. (1984). An update on econometric studies of energy demand behavior. Annual Review of Energy, 9(1), 105–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolderijk, J., Steg, L., Geller, E., Lehman, P., & Postmes, T. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollinger, B., & Gillingham, K. (2012). Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Marketing Science, 31(6), 900–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., & Read, D. (1994). What do people know about global climate change? Risk Analysis, 14(6), 959–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104.

  • Colaizzi, J. (2015). EPA’s Energy Star battle of the buildings competition saves $50 million, prevents 250,000 metric tons of GHG emissions. New Releases from Headquarters. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/fb8f90f44e4cad4e85257e3b0059d8d8!OpenDocument

  • Cooremans, C. (2011). Make it strategic! Financial investment logic is not enough. Energy Efficiency, 4(4), 473–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooremans, C. (2012). Investment in energy efficiency: do the characteristics of investments matter? Energy Efficiency, 5(4), 497–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, C., and Muthulingam, S. (2007). Adoption of voluntary environmental standards: the role of signaling and intrinsic benefits in the diffusion of the LEED green building standards. Available at Social Science Research Network (SSRN). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1009294

  • Craske, M., Wittchen, U., Stein, M., Andrews, G., & Lebeu, R. (2013). Severity measure for specific phobia—adult. Lake St. Louis: American Psychiatric Association.

  • Dahl, C. (1993). A survey of energy demand elasticities in support of the development of NEMS. Munich Personal RePEc Archive Paper No. 72229. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/72229/8/MPRA_paper_72229.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2017.

  • Downs, J. S., Bruine de Bruin, W., & Fischhoff, B. (2008). Parents’ vaccination comprehension and decisions. Vaccine, 26(12), 1595–1607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, P., Zheng, L., Xie, B., & Mahalingam, A. (2014). Barriers to the adoption of energy-saving technologies in the building sector: a survey study of Jing-jin-tang, China. Energy Policy, 75, 206–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J., Walton, E., & Abrahamson, E. (1989). Important decisions of strategic issues: separating the wheat from the chaff. Journal of Management Studies, 26, 379–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., & Quigley, J. M. (2010). Doing well by doing good? Green office buildings. The American Economic Review, 100(5), 2492–2509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Energy Information Administration (2015). Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/reports/2012/buildstock/index.cfm

  • Farsi, M. (2010). Risk aversion and willingness to pay for energy efficient systems in rental apartments. Energy Policy, 38(6), 3078–3088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, C. (2008). Feedback on household electricity consumption: a tool for saving energy? Energy Efficiency, 1(1), 79–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frickel, S., Gibbon, S., Howard, J., Kempner, J., Ottinger, G., & Hess, D. (2009). Undone science: charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(4), 444–473.

  • Gambatese, J., & Hallowell, M. (2011). Factors that influence the development and diffusion of technical innovations in the construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 29(5), 507–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geller, H., Harrington, P., Rosenfield, A., Tanishima, S., & Unander, F. (2006). Policies for increasing energy efficiency: thirty years of experience in OECD countries. Energy Policy, 34(5), 556–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbraith, N., Azevedo, I., & Jaramillo, P. (2014). Evaluating the benefits of commercial building energy codes and improving federal incentives for code adoption. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(24), 14121–14130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillingham, K., Newell, R.G., Palmer, K. (2009). Energy efficiency economics and policy. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1, 597–619. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.resource.102308.124234.

  • Goitein, B. (1989). Organizational decision-making and energy conservation investments. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(2), 132–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groot, H., Verhoef, E., & Nijkamp, P. (2001). Energy saving by firms: decision-making, barriers and policies. Energy Economics, 23(6), 717–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S., Sparks, D., Hargroves, C., Desha, C., & Newman, P. (2013). The development of a simple multinodal tool to identify performance issues in existing commercial buildings. In Proceedings of the 19 th CIB World Building Congress, Brisbane 2013: Construction and Society. Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre, Brisbane, QLD: Queensland University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauge, Å., Thomsen, J., & Löfström, E. (2013). How to get residents/owners in housing cooperatives to agree on sustainable renovation. Energy Efficiency, 6(2), 315–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, E., & Brown, M. (1990). Closing the efficiency gap: barriers to the efficient use of energy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 3(4), 267–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, R., & Sanstad, A. (1995). Discount rates and energy efficiency. Contemporary Economic Policy, 13(3), 101–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A., & Stavins, R. (1994). The energy-efficiency gap: what does it mean? Energy Policy, 22(10), 804–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, R., Gulbinas, R., Taylor, J., & Culligan, P. (2013). Can social influence drive energy savings? Detecting the impact of social influence on the energy consumption behavior of networked users exposed to normative eco-feedback. Energy and Buildings, 66, 119–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janda, K. (2014). Building communities and social potential: between and beyond organizations and individuals in commercial properties. Energy Policy, 67, 48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok, N., McGraw, M., & Quigley, J. M. (2011). The diffusion of energy efficiency in buildings. The American Economic Review, 101(3), 77–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, P., & Isaacson, M. (2010). Addressing climate change by retrofitting Chicago’s buildings: the whole home energy savers experience. Proceedings of the 2010 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 8.232–8.244. http://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2010/data/papers/2181.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2017.

  • Lutzenhiser, L., Kunkle, R., & Biggart, N. (2001). Market structure and energy efficiency: the case of new commercial buildings. California Institute for Energy Efficiency, 76–98. http://www.uc-ciee.org/downloads/market_struc.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2017.

  • Lutzenhiser, L., Janda, K., Kunkle, R., & Payne, C. (2002). Understanding the response of commercial and institutional organizations to the California energy crisis. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mckenzie-Mohr, D. (2011). Step 3: Developing Strategies. Fostering sustainable behavior: an introduction to community-based social marketing, 3rd Ed. (pp. 41–121). Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.

  • Min, J., Azevedo, I., Michalek, J., & Bruine de Bruin, W. (2013). Labeling energy cost on light bulbs lowers implicit discount rates. Ecological Economics, 97, 42–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. (2002). Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgenstern, P., Raslan, R., & Huebner, G. (2015). Applicability, potential and limitations of staff-centered energy conservation initiatives in English hospitals. Energy Efficiency, 9, 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noll, D., Dawes, C., & Rai, V. (2014). Solar community organizations and active peer effects in the adoption of residential PV. Energy Policy, 67, 330–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology., 88(4), 680–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orne, M. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: with particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasqualetti, M. (2011). Opposing wind energy landscapes: a search for common cause. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101, 907–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peschiera, G., & Taylor, J. (2012). The impact of peer network position on electricity consumption in building occupant networks utilizing energy feedback systems. Energy and Buildings, 49, 584–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peschiera, G., Taylor, J., & Siegel, J. (2010). Response-relapse patterns of building occupant electricity consumption following exposure to personal, contextualized and occupant peer network utilization data. Energy and Buildings, 42(8), 1329–1336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1992). Decisions and implementation. In Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittsburgh Green Workplace Challenge. (2015). 2014–2015 Competition Guidebook Version (06.20.2015). Sustainable Pittsburgh. http://gwcpgh.org/images/GWCGUIDEREV22.pdf

  • Rosenstein, A. (2002). Nurse-physician relationships: impact on nurse satisfaction and retention. The American Journal of Nursing, 102(6), 26–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, M. (1986). Capital budgeting practices of twelve large manufacturers. Financial Management, 15, 15–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruderman, H., Levine, M., & McMahon, J. (1987). The behavior of the market for energy efficiency in residential appliances including heating and cooling equipment. Energy, 8(1), 101–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanstad, A., Hanemann, M., & Auffhammer, M. (2006). End-use energy efficiency in a “post carbon” California economy: policy issues and research frontiers. Berkeley, CA: Calif. Climate Change Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleich, J. (2009). Barriers to energy efficiency: a comparison across the German commercial and services sector. Ecological Economics, 68(7), 2150–2159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, P. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: a field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(1), 25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D., Bruine de Bruin, W., Fischhoff, B., & Lave, L. (2015). Advertising energy saving programs: the potential environmental cost of emphasizing monetary savings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(2), 158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning, 42(6), 1273–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorrell, S., Schleich J., Scott, S., O’Malley, E., Trace, F., Boede, U., Ostertag, K., & Radgen, P. (2000). Reducing barriers to energy efficiency in public and private organisations. Science Policy Research Unit.

  • Sorrell, S., Dimitropoulos, J., & Sommerville, M. (2009). Empirical estimates of the direct rebound effect: a review. Energy Policy, 37(4), 1356–1371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.11.026.

  • Stephenson, J., Barton, B., Carrington, G., Gnoth, D., Lawson, R., & Thorsnes, P. (2010). Energy cultures: a framework for understanding energy behaviours. Energy Policy, 38(10), 6120–6129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. (1992). What psychology knows about energy conservation. Psychology in the public forum. American Psychologist, 47(10), 1224–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P., Dietz, T., & Black, J. (1985). Support for environmental protection: the role of moral norms. Population and Environment, 8(3–4), 204–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P., Janda, K., Brown, M., Steg, L., Vine, E., & Lutzenhiser, L. (2016). Opportunities and insights for reducing fossil fuel consumption by households and organizations. Nature Energy, 1, 16043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swim, J., Geiger, N., & Zawadski, S. (2014). Psychology and energy-use reduction policies. Environment, 1(1), 180–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M., Spurlock, A., & Yang, H-C. (2015). Confronting regulatory cost and quality expectations: an exploration of technical change in minimum efficiency performance standards. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL-1000576. http://www.rff.org/files/document/file/RFF-DP-15-50.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2017.

  • Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, B., & Azevedo, I. (2013). Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for U.S. households with input-output analysis Part 1: theoretical framework. Ecological Economics, 86, 199–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train, K. (1985). Discount rates in consumers’ energy-related decisions: a review of the literature. Energy, 10(12), 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trutnevyte, E., and Strachan, N., (2013). Nearly perfect and poles apart: investment strategies into the UK power system until 2050. Paper for the International Energy Workshop, Paris, France.

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Energy, Better Buildings (2015). Progress Report 2015. http://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/sites/default/files/news/attachments/DOE%20BB%202015%20Progress%20Report%20052015_0.pdf

  • Venmans, F. (2014). Triggers and barriers to energy efficiency measures in the ceramic, cement and lime sectors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 69, 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, J., Lundqvist, P., Blomkvist, P., & Arias, J. (2015). Problem areas related to energy efficiency implementation in Swedish multifamily buildings. Energy Efficiency, 9, 109–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E., & Stern, P. (2011). Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American Psychologist, 66(4), 315–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, C., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2007). Models of decision making and residential energy use. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32(1), 169–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Aurora Sharrard from the Green Building Alliance for her assistance in recruiting interviewees and her helpful advice in research direction. We would also like to thank the Department of Engineering and Public Policy for funding this research. Finally, we would like to thank the interviewee participants in Pittsburgh who took the time to share their thoughts with us.

Funding

This study was funded by the Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University and from the Emerson and Elizabeth Pugh Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 129 Baker Hall, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Nichole Hanus, Gabrielle Wong-Parodi, Mitchell J. Small & Iris Grossmann

  2. Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, 119 Porter Hall, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Mitchell J. Small

  3. Falk School of Sustainability and Environment, Chatham University, Woodland Road, Pittsburgh, PA, 15232, USA

    Iris Grossmann

Authors
  1. Nichole Hanus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabrielle Wong-Parodi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mitchell J. Small
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Iris Grossmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabrielle Wong-Parodi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Online Resource 1

(PDF 190 kb)

Online Resource 2

(PDF 391 kb)

Online Resource 3

(PDF 305 kb)

Online Resource 4

(PDF 201 kb)

Online Resource 5

(PDF 97 kb)

Online Resource 6

(PDF 88 kb)

Online Resource 7

(PDF 83 kb)

Online Resource 8

(PDF 107 kb)

Online Resource 9

(PDF 235 kb)

Online Resource 10

(PDF 112 kb)

Online Resource 11

(PDF 108 kb)

Online Resource 12

(PDF 111 kb)

Online Resource 13

(PDF 109 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hanus, N., Wong-Parodi, G., Small, M.J. et al. The role of psychology and social influences in energy efficiency adoption. Energy Efficiency 11, 371–391 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-017-9568-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-017-9568-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation