Advertisement

Energy Graph Feedback: Attention, Cognition and Behavior Intentions

  • June A. Flora
  • Banny Banerjee
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8519)

Abstract

Behavioral science has long acknowledged that informational and performance feedback is a key to behavior change. The graph features prominently as a feedback modality. Driven by the large scale deployment of energy sensing devices, graphs have become a ubiquitous visualization of household energy consumption. We investigate the influence of three energy graph formats (bar, line and radial) and two cue conditions (color or numeric cues) within four group conditions (cost or kilowatt hour subject matter with single graph or comparison graph feedback) on five outcomes. Ease of understanding, positive attitudes and involvement were higher for bar and line graphs. Novel graph formats – the radial graph, were attended to longer and associated with more learning. There were no overall behavioral change intention effects by condition, although a few individual energy behavior intentions did differ by condition. The importance of multiple outcomes of graph feedback and the relationships among outcomes are discussed.

Keywords

Energy feedback graph perception graph comprehension graph formats graph content 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    IEE Report, Utility Scale Smart Meter Deployments, Plans and Proposals. Institute for Electric Efficiency, The Edison Foundation (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Froehlich, J., Findlater, L., Landay, J.: The design of Eco-Feedback Technology. In: CHI 2010, Atlanta, Georgia, April 10-15 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chiang, T., Natarajan, S., Walker, I.: A Laboratory Test of the Efficacy of Energy Display Interface Design. Energ. Buildings 55, 471–480 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fischer, C.: Feedback on Household electricity consumption: A tool for saving energy? Energy Eff. 1 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shah, P., Hoeffner, J.: Review of Graph Comprehension Research: Implications for Instruction. Ed. Psy. Review 14, 47–69 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cleveland, W.S., McGill, R.: Graphical Perception and Graphical Methods for Analyzing Scientific Data. Science 229(4716), 828–833 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ancker, J.S., Senathirajah, Y., Kukafka, R., Starren, J.B.: Design Features of Graphs in Health Risk Communication: A Systematic Review. J. AM. Med. Inform. Assoc. 13, 608–618 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kosslyn, S.M.: Graph Design for the Eye and Mind. Oxford University Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kosslyn, S.: Understanding charts and graphs. Appl. Cogn. Psychology 3, 185–225 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shah, P., Carpenter, P.A.: Conceptual Limitations in Comprehending Line Graphs. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 124, 43–61 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carpenter, P.A., Shah, P.: A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. J. Exp. Psychol.- Appl. 4(2), 75–100 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friel, S.N., Curcio, F.R., Bright, G.W.: Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. J. Res. Math. Educ. 32(2), 124–158 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zachs, J., Levy, E., Tversky, B., Schiano, D.J.: Bars and Lines: A Study of Graphic Communication. Mem. Cogn. 27, 1073–1079 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stone, E.R., Sieck, W.R., Bull, B.E., Yates, J.F., Parks, S.C., Rush, C.J.: Foreground: Background salience: Explaining the Effects of Graphical Displays on Risk Avoidance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 90(1), 19–36 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dietz, T., Gardner, G.T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P.C., Vanderbergh, M.P.: Household Behaviors can Provide a Behavioral Wedge to Rapidly Reduce US Carbon Emissions. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106(44), 18452–18456 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ford, R., Karlin, B.: Graphical Displays in Eco-Feedback: A Cognitive Approach. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU/HCII 2013, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 8015, pp. 486–495. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burner, G.C.: Standardization and Justification: Do Ad Scales Measure Up? J. Cur. Issues & Res. Advert. 20(1), 1–18 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sundar, S.S., Kim, J.: Interactivity and Persusion: Influencing Attitudes with Information and Involvement. J. of Interactive Advertising 5(2), 5–18 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zaichkowsky, J.L.: Measuring the involvement construct. J. Consum. Res. 12(3), 341–352 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • June A. Flora
    • 1
  • Banny Banerjee
    • 2
  1. 1.Human Sciences & Technologies Advanced Research Institute and Solutions Science Lab in Department of PediatricsStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Mechanical Engineering and ChangelabsStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations