Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Decision-Making Strategies for the Choice of Energy-friendly Products

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Consumer Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although energy efficiency of many products has been improving constantly, residential energy consumption is not decreasing as much as desired. Therefore, the goal of the European Union (EU) and many other countries is to promote energy-friendly product choices (i.e., choice of products with low energy consumption). In a purchase situation, consumers are confronted with a wide range of energy-related information that can influence the decision-making process. Understanding how consumers reach a decision based on the information provided and identifying decision-making strategies that are beneficial or destructive in terms of energy friendliness is crucial for the improvement of existing energy-policy measures and, consequently, for the successful achievement of target energy saving goals. This paper provides insights from an exploratory eye-tracking study (N = 59) investigating consumers’ decision-making process. Participants were required to identify the most energy-friendly television (i.e., the television with lowest energy consumption). Cluster analysis revealed three consumer segments with different decision-making strategies: the energy-directed lexicographic, unsystematic lexicographic, and unsystematic exhaustive strategies. The energy-directed lexicographic strategy resulted in 60% optimal choices in terms of energy friendliness, unsystematic lexicographic in 33%, and unsystematic exhaustive in 38%. No decision-making strategy resulted in 100% optimal choices in terms of energy friendliness. Findings emphasize that lexicographic strategies can successfully identify energy-friendly products when the correct information (i.e., actual energy consumption) is used. However, a lexicographic strategy can be very misleading and result in non-optimal choices in terms of energy friendliness when it is based on ambiguous information (i.e., energy efficiency information) that does not enable a conclusive decision. Further, this paper discusses implications for policy-makers and marketers for the promotion of energy-friendly consumer behaviour.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. No. 07–044. Sage University paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allcott, H., & Greenstone, M. (2013). Is there an energy efficiency gap? In F. P. Sioshansi (Ed.), Energy efficiency: Towards the end of demand growth (pp. 133–161). Amsterdam: Academic Press.

  • Ashby, N. J. S., Dickert, S., & Glöckner, A. (2012). Focusing on what you own: Biased information uptake due to ownership. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(3), 254–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, N. J. S., Walasek, L., & Glöckner, A. (2015). The effect of consumer ratings and attentional allocation on product valuations. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(2), 172–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attari, S. Z., DeKay, M. L., Davidson, C. I., & Bruine de Bruin, W. (2010). Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(37), 16054–16059. doi:10.1073/pnas.1001509107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W., & Weiber, R. (2003). Multivariate methods of analysis [Multivariate Analysemethoden]. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1991). Consumer decision making. Handbook of Consumer Behavior, 44(2), 50–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böckenholt, U., & Hynan, L. S. (1994). Caveats on a process-tracing measure and a remedy. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(2), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brounen, D., Kok, N., & Quigley, J. M. (2013). Energy literacy, awareness, and conservation behavior of residential households. Energy Economics, 38, 42–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundesrat (2013a) Energy bill [Energiegesetz].

  • Bundesrat. (2013b). Federal Council communicates the energy-strategy 2050 [Bundesrat verabschiedet Botschaft zur Energiestrategie 2050]. Eidgenössisches Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation (UVEK) Retrieved from http://www.uvek.admin.ch/dokumentation/00474/00492/index.html?lang=de&msg-id=50123 (Accessed: 25 Dec 2013).

  • Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.125.3.367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. F., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Behavioral Economics: Past, present, future. Advances in Behavioral Economics, 3-51.

  • Chase, W. G. (1978). Elementary information processes. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning & cognitive processes: V. Human information (pp. 19–90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Union and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products, (2010).

  • Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, (2012).

  • Duchowski, A. (2007). Eye movement analysis eye tracking methodology (pp. 137–153). London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Energie Agentur Elektrogeräte. (2015). TV market review [TV Marktübersicht]. Retrieved from www.eae-tv.ch

  • European Commission. (2015). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council setting a framework for energy efficiency labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU. online Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/1_EN_ACT_part1_v6.pdf.

  • Eurostat. (2014). Energy, transport and environment indicators. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagerlin, A., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Ubel, P. A., Jankovic, A., Derry, H. A., & Smith, D. M. (2007). Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Medical Decision Making, 27(5), 672–680. doi:10.1177/0272989x07304449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, S., & Glöckner, A. (2012). The dynamics of decision making in risky choice: an eye-tracking analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FIMRT. (2012). Discussion paper on the review of the ecodesign and energy labelling regulations for televisions and on the draft regulation on electronic displays, including computer monitors. online: Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing [Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung] Retrieved from http://www.ebpg.bam.de/de/ebpg_medien/tren5/005_workd_12-08_revision.pdf (accessed: 26 June 2015).

  • Gaspar, R., & Antunes, D. (2011). Energy efficiency and appliance purchases in Europe: Consumer profiles and choice determinants. Energy Policy, 39(11), 7335–7346. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gidlof, K., Wallin, A., Dewhurst, R., & Holmqvist, K. (2013). Using eye tracking to trace a cognitive process: Gaze behaviour during decision making in a natural environment. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 6(1), 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 451–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillingham, K., & Palmer, K. (2014). Bridging the energy efficiency gap: Policy insights from economic theory and empirical evidence. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(1), 18–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glöckner, A., & Herbold, A.-K. (2011). An eye-tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(1), 71–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, J. H., & Kotval, X. P. (1999). Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: Methods and constructs. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24(6), 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2009). Fast and frugal forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 25(4), 760–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinzle, S., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2012). Dynamic adjustment of eco-labeling schemes and consumer choice—the revision of the EU energy label as a missed opportunity? Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(1), 60–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking—A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horstmann, N., Ahlgrimm, A., & Glöckner, A. (2009). How distinct are intuition and deliberation? An eye tracking analysis of instruction-induced decision modes. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(5), 335–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEA. (2003). Cool appliances: Policy strategies for energy-efficient homes. OECD Publishing.

  • IEA. (2009). Gadgets and gigawatts. OECD Publishing.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G., & Richardson, M. (2007). An objective examination of consumer perception of nutrition information based on healthiness ratings and eye movements. Public Health Nutrition, 10(03), 238–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8(4), 441–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory—Analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kastner, I., & Stern, P. C. (2015). Examining the decision-making processes behind household energy investments: A review. Energy Research & Social Science, 10, 72–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, C., Kreuzmair, C., Leins-Hess, R., & Siegrist, M. (2014). Numeric and graphic risk information processing of high and low numerates in the intuitive and deliberative decision modes: An eye-tracker study. Judgment and Decision Making, 9(5), 420–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, C., Markert, F., & Bucher, T. (2015). Nudging product choices: The effect of position change on snack bar choice. Food Quality and Preference, 41, 41–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masson, A. M., Hoyois, P., Cadot, M., Nahama, V., Petit, F., & Ansseau, M. (2004). Girls are more successful than boys at the university. Gender group differences in models integrating motivational and aggressive components correlated with Test-anxiety. Encephale-Revue De Psychiatrie Clinique Biologique Et Therapeutique, 30(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel, A., Attali, S., & Bush, E. (2014). Energy efficiency before and during the implementation of the ecodesign and energy labeling regulations. Retrieved from online: http://www.topten.eu/uploads/File/European_TV_market_2007%E2%80%932013_July14.pdf.

  • Molenbroek, E., Groenenberg, H., Cuijpers, M., Janeiro, L., Smith, M., Surmeli, N., Waide, P., et al. (2013). Background report I: Literature Review. Evaluation of the energy labelling directive and specific apsects of ecodesign directive. Retrieved from http://www.energylabelevaluation.eu/eu/home/welcome.

  • Molenbroek, E., Smith, M., Groenenberg, H., Waide, P., Attali, S., Fischer, Krivošik, J., et al. (2014). Final technical report. Evaluation of the energy labelling directive and specific aspects of the ecodesign directive ENER/C3/2012-523. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Final_technical_report-Evaluation_ELD_ED_June_2014.pdf.

  • Netzer, O., Toubia, O., Bradlow, E. T., Dahan, E., Evgeniou, T., Feinberg, F. M., & Rao, V. R. (2008). Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement. Marketing Letters, 19(3-4), 337–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD/IEA. (2013). Energy Policy Highlights. Retrieved from.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ölander, F., & Thøgersen, J. (2014). Informing versus nudging in environmental policy. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orquin, J. L., & Mueller Loose, S. (2013). Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 144(1), 190–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, S., Kaiser, F. G., & Arnold, O. (2014). The critical challenge of climate change for psychology preventing rebound and promoting more individual irrationality. European Psychologist, 19(2), 96–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pachur, T., Hertwig, R., Gigerenzer, G., & Brandstatter, E. (2013). Testing process predictions of models of risky choice: A quantitative model comparison approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 14(3), 534–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E., Vastfjall, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17(5), 407–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, A., Ball, L., & Phillips, P. (2005). In search of salience: A response-time and eye-movement analysis of bookmark recognition. In S. Fincher, P. Markopoulos, D. Moore, & R. Ruddle (Eds.), People and computers XVIII—design for life (pp. 363–378). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Prognos. (2012). Energy consumption of households 2000–2010 [Der Energieverbrauch der privaten Haushalte 2000–2010]. Retrieved from Basel.

  • Prognos. (2014). Energy consumption of households 2000–2013 [Der Energieverbrauch der privaten Haushalte 2000–2013]. Retrieved from Basel.

  • Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (1991). The social desirability response bias in ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(11), 805–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheibehenne, B., Miesler, L., & Todd, P. M. (2007). Fast and frugal food choices: Uncovering individual decision heuristic. Appetite, 49, 578–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Sohn, M., de Bellis, E., Martin, N., & Hertwig, R. (2013). A lack of appetite for information and computation. Simple heuristics in food choice. Appetite, 71, 242–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1178–1197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, S. W., Wedel, M., & Pieters, F. G. M. (2013). Information acquisition during online decision making: A model-based exploration using eye-tracking data. Management Science, 59(5), 1009–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Leins-Hess, R., & Keller, C. (2015). Which front-of-pack nutrition label is the most efficient one? The results of an eye-tracker study. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 183–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söllner, A., Bröder, A., Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2014). Single-process versus multiple-strategy models of decision making: Evidence from an information intrusion paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 146, 84–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool, B. K., & Blyth, P. L. (2015). Energy and environmental attitudes in the green state of Denmark: Implications for energy democracy, low carbon transitions, and energy literacy. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 304–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stüttgen, P., Boatwright, P., & Monroe, R. T. (2012). A satisficing choice model. Marketing Science, 31(6), 878–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sütterlin, B., & Siegrist, M. (2014). The reliance on symbolically significant behavioral attributes when judging energy consumption behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 259–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge. Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen, J. (2000). Psychological determinants of paying attention to eco-labels in purchase decisions: model development and multinational validation. Journal of Consumer Policy, 23(3), 285–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen, J., & Nielsen, K. S. (2016). A better carbon footprint label. Journal of Cleaner Production, 125, 86–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truelove, H. B., Carrico, A. R., Weber, E. U., Raimi, K. T., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2014). Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 29, 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VZBV. (2015). Market research on energy labeling of household appliances [Marktcheck zum Stand der Energieverbrauchskennzeichnung von Haushaltsgeräten]. Retrieved from http://www.effizienzwende.de/media/news/marktcheck-energielabel-langfassung-vzbv-vz-rheinland-pfalz-maerz-2015.pdf.

  • Waechter, S., Sütterlin, B., & Siegrist, M. (2015a). Desired and undesired effects of energy labels—An eye-tracking study. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0134132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waechter, S., Sütterlin, B., & Siegrist, M. (2015b). The misleading effect of energy efficiency information on perceived energy friendliness of electric goods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 93, 193–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2009). Mindful judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 53–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller, J. A., Dieckmann, N. F., Tusler, M., Mertz, C. K., Burns, W. J., & Peters, E. (2013). Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: A rasch analysis approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(2), 198–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamamoto, Y., Suzuki, A., Fuwa, Y., & Sato, T. (2008). Decision-making in electrical appliance use in the home. Energy Policy, 36(5), 1679–1686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, L., Yu, Y., & Li, J. (2014). China‘s promoting energy-efficient products for the benefit of the people program in 2012: Results and analysis of the consumer impact study. Applied Energy, 133, 22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Consumer Behavior, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Signe Waechter, Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist

Authors
  1. Signe Waechter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernadette Sütterlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Siegrist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Signe Waechter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Waechter, S., Sütterlin, B. & Siegrist, M. Decision-Making Strategies for the Choice of Energy-friendly Products. J Consum Policy 40, 81–103 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-016-9328-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-016-9328-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation