The power of social norms for reducing and shifting electricity use
Introduction
Household energy consumption is scrutinized, in large part, because of the relationship between residential energy use and climate change. After transportation, household energy consumption is the largest contributor to greenhouse gases in the United States (U.S.) for the residential sector (Jones and Kammen, 2011, United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2016), and residential emissions constitute over one-third of overall emissions in the U.S. (Vandenbergh et al., 2010). Accordingly, a large body of social science research seeks to explain household energy use (e.g., Abrahamse et al., 2005; Ehrhardt-Martinez et al., 2010; Stern and Aronson, 1984). Much of this work highlights the importance of cultural factors in shaping patterns of energy consumption (e.g., Lutzenhiser, 1992; Schot et al., 2016; Shove, 2003).
Despite evidence for the importance of cultural factors, American policy makers and utility companies responsible for serving households tend to focus on incentives directed at individuals (Lutzenhiser, 2014, Schelly, 2014). Thus, policies provide rebates for energy efficient appliances and insulation upgrades. Utilities study incentive structures for time of use, trying to identify, for example, incentives that effectively shift use from peak to off-peak times (e.g., Faruqui and Sergici, 2010). The most prominent use of non-financial approaches relies on information about how the individual compares to others in order to motivate the individual to change. (e.g., Allcott, 2011). This is a fairly thin treatment of culture, however. The research reported here uses experimental methods to provide deeper understanding of cultural influences that have implications for management of the electric grid.
There are likely many reasons for the continued utility emphasis on incentives directed at individuals and households (Lutzenhiser, 2014, Shove, 2010). To a large degree, the energy efficiency industry and the electricity delivery system are not structured in ways that facilitate recognition of the complex energy consumption dynamics described by social scientists. In the context of household electricity use, two features of the industry are noteworthy. First, in the U.S., energy is primarily delivered to and metered for households, not neighborhoods or communities. From the perspective of the electricity delivery system, the unitary household is the relevant unit. Second, while electricity use is metered, consumers and utilities have historically only had access to data on aggregate monthly use. Thus, much household energy consumption has been invisible (Shove, 2000, Stern et al., 2016; but see Berker, 2013). This invisibility has a number of implications: People cannot see how their household practices translate into electricity use and therefore cannot implement their energy preferences. Energy use is private, therefore normative pressures cannot operate. And, while norms regarding social practices (e.g., norms of comfort, cleanliness, and convenience) are salient to households, norms regarding energy conservation are considerably less clear. The invisibility of electricity use means that people need not (and indeed cannot) consider social norms that might directly constrain energy consumption decisions (Hechter, 1987, Lapinski and Rimal, 2005, Willer et al., 2009).
New information and communication technologies (ICT) create the potential to address these issues. In particular, new apps can be integrated into existing energy delivery systems. Apps are inherently individualistic in that they are installed on an individual's (or household's) technology (e.g., smart phone, tablet, etc.) and are used by individuals. They thus are compatible with an electricity system designed to serve households. This is particularly true for the electricity delivery system, which is in many places being upgraded with new “smart meters” that can potentially communicate with household energy apps. In addition, although apps are owned and operated by individuals, they facilitate social connection and communication. This capability means that while apps do not allow full-blown manipulations of the many elements of culture that are relevant for energy consumption, they do create the potential for engaging social norms. This is because apps provide mechanisms for increasing the visibility of electricity consumption, not only to members of the household (see Ellegård and Palm, 2011 for illustration of how visibility can lead consumers to reflect on their usage), but also to the larger community. Such visibility is essential for social norms to operate.
If new technologies are compatible with the existing energy delivery system, and can help to overcome the issue of energy invisibility in ways that facilitate the operation of social norms, then it would be possible, in principle, for policy makers and utilities to harness the power of those norms. But, if norms do not encourage people to reduce their emissions, then such efforts would be wasted. The question becomes, what norms regulate household energy consumption?
In the U.S., the answer to this question is not clear. The global warming debate is highly politicized, with prominent conservatives arguing that man-made climate change does not exist and liberals arguing that climate change is occurring and must be addressed (McCright and Dunlap, 2003, McCright and Dunlap, 2011a, McCright and Dunlap, 2011b). These competing arguments are proclaimed by high-level elected officials at the state and national level, and publicized by conservative, mainstream, and liberal media. These dynamics mean that social norms regulating energy consumption and the production of carbon emissions are not obvious. Even though the vast majority of Americans are aware of the climate change issue (Shwom et al., 2015) and are concerned about it (e.g., Leiserowitz et al., 2013), they also have good reason to expect that, whatever their own personal beliefs, many others do not support efforts to reduce emissions. Given the politicized nature of the global warming debate, and the visibility of climate deniers, it is unclear just what norms prevail in the U.S.
We seek to understand whether norms encourage household reduction of carbon emissions. We focus in particular on household electricity use in the U.S. (setting aside other sources of residential emissions such as natural gas, wood, etc.). Below, we describe what we mean by “social norms.” We develop three hypotheses that make predictions about what we would expect to find if U.S. social norms favor reducing carbon emissions. We describe the three online experiments that test our hypotheses and present the results. Following the presentation of our findings, we discuss the broader policy domain in which household energy norms are situated. In particular, we discuss carbon emissions not just in the context of household electricity use, but also in the broader context of the electricity delivery system. We explore possible implications of our findings for this broader policy arena. We conclude by noting some limitations of our research and suggesting directions for future work.
Section snippets
Theory and hypotheses
For purposes of this paper, we define norms as rules or expectations about behavior that are socially enforced (Bendor and Swistak, 2001, Coleman, 1990, Horne, 2009). We want to be clear that when we talk about norms, we are not referring to the descriptive norms that have been the focus of substantial energy research and utility efforts (Allcott, 2011, Nolan et al., 2008, Schultz et al., 2007). Harnessing the power of descriptive norms involves letting people know how they are doing compared
Methods
To test our hypotheses we conducted a series of online experiments. The first two studies are vignette experiments and are purely hypothetical. The third study uses a modified trust game to create a setting in which participants believe that their decisions in the experiment have monetary consequences. Vignette experiments use short stories to manipulate experimental conditions, and then ask participants about their reactions. Vignette studies are useful for evaluating the effects of
Policy context
Utility companies and policy-makers are under increasing pressure to address global warming. Utility company practices have implications for carbon emissions in at least two ways. First, because demand for electricity is higher at some times of day than at others, utilities need to maintain generation plants that can be quickly brought on line to meet peak load. These plants typically rely on fossil fuels. Accordingly, shifting customer demand away from peak use times could reduce the need to
Conclusion and policy implications
New technologies facilitate making consumer behavior visible and thereby harness the power of social norms to affect energy-related behavior. Further these technologies can coordinate consumer decisions with grid management in ways that could impact the composition of the energy generation mix on which utility companies rely. But this can only happen if social norms and individual values support reductions in emissions. To begin to assess this issue, we use three online experiments to measure
Funding sources
This work was supported by grants from the Washington State University Energy Systems Innovation Center (ESIC) #2320-9863 and by the National Science Foundation #1441357.
References (70)
- et al.
Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: a meta-analysis
Glob. Environ. Change
(2013) - et al.
A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation
J. Environ. Psychol.
(2005) Social norms and energy conservation
J. Pub. Econ.
(2011)Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the ‘Tragedy of the commons
Evol. Hum. Behav.
(2004)- et al.
Feeding back about eco-feedback: how do consumers use and respond to energy monitors?
Energy Policy
(2014) - et al.
Visualizing energy consumption activities as a tool for making everyday life more sustainable
Appl. Energy
(2011) - et al.
Charitable giving as a sign of trustworthiness: disentangling the signaling benefits of altruistic acts
Evol. Hum. Behav.
(2013) - et al.
Privacy, technology, and norms: the case of smart meters
Soc. Sc. Res
(2015) - et al.
Response mode effects and moral values
Organ. Behav. Human. Decis. Process.
(2001) Do greens drive hummers or hybrids? Environmental ideology as a determinant of consumer choice
J. Environ. Econ. Manag.
(2007)
A cultural model of household energy consumption
Energy
Through the energy efficiency looking glass
Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
Cool dudes: the denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States
Glob. Environ. Change
Political polarization on support for government spending on environmental protection in the USA, 1974–2012
Soc. Sci. Res.
Sustainable user innovation from a policy perspective: a systematic literature review
J. Clean. Prod.
Beyond the Turk: alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
Implementing renewable energy portfolio standards: the good, the bad, and the ugly in a two state comparison
Energy Policy
Conspicuous conservation: the Prius halo and willingness to pay for environmental bona fides
J. Environ. Econ. Manag.
Energy saving behaviours: development of a practice-based model
Energy Policy
Are we nice(r) to nice(r) people? An experimental analysis
Exp. Econ.
The Grid: The Fraying Wires between Americans and Our Energy Future
The evolution of norms
Am. J. Sociol.
In the morning I just need a long, hot shower: a sociological exploration of energy sensibilities in Norwegian bathrooms.
Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy
The Grammar of Society
Descriptive norms as underappreciated sources of social control
Psychom
Foundations of Social Theory
Household response to dynamic pricing of electricity: a survey of 15 experiments
J. Regul. Econ.
A signaling explanation for charity
Am. Econ. Rev.
Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
Principles of Group Solidarity
The Rewards of Punishment
Metanorms and antisocial punishment
Social. Influ.
Cited by (43)
Neutralization strategies account for the concern-behavior gap in renewable energy usage – Evidence from panel data from Germany
2023, Energy Research and Social ScienceRevisiting farmers markets – Disentangling preferences and conditions of food purchases on countrywide data from Germany
2023, Food Quality and PreferenceSocial influence in the adoption of digital consumer innovations for climate change
2022, Energy PolicyCitation Excerpt :All have the potential to affect behaviours and adoption decisions (Axsen and Kurani, 2012). Previous research on social aspects of diffusion for low carbon innovations do not focus specifically on digital innovations and often consider a narrowly defined case e.g., alternative fuel vehicles (Pettifor et al., 2017), multiple innovations within a single domain e.g., energy (Hackbarth and Lobbe, 2020), or a particular type of social influence e.g., social norms (Horne and Kennedy, 2017). The aim of this paper is to improve understanding of several social influence processes in the adoption of innovations across multiple domains.
Listen to others or yourself? The role of personal norms on the effectiveness of social norm interventions to change pro-environmental behavior
2021, Journal of Environmental PsychologyCitation Excerpt :While research shows that making dynamic social norms salient seems to be relevant to promote pro-environmental behavior, especially when the majority of people do not yet perform the desired behavior (Loschelder et al., 2019; Mortensen et al., 2019; Sparkman & Walton, 2017), it is still likely that, in line with the research using static normative messages, the more people who show a change in their behavior, the more influential the dynamic norm will be to positively influence the behavior. Normative messages have been used for promoting a variety of pro-environmental behaviors, such as re-using towels (Han, Kim, & Lee, 2018), reducing meat consumption (Sparkman & Walton, 2017), paying for carbon offsetting (Huber, Anderson, & Bernauer, 2018), and, energy conservation (Anderson et al., 2017; Horne & Huddart Kennedy, 2017). These studies show that making salient a static majority norm, or a dynamic minority norm, often results in more of the desired behavior, compared to making salient a (static) minority norm or no social norm intervention.