. . . ‘ {SEQ -. . . . 1&1: . - . . .. . 2 .3 . . . .3 . I . IQ v V v ..v..x.l,o.l~uu. n In! ! . Jail“! .WD.; 00... . n. '11 yawn“! .(t‘. ‘41.; . . .. v , a; x3§$fiemm§zfu u!".. a v0 7. I. j I n: V»: V . 50 IN a o 1 . J... .1 . .. ...z,..3w_ .hamfi . . wncH Faumroom —m=uw>wucH memewwvoz oocmsmm mascacam Pasaa>aacs whoe>acmm mewssmcou xmtocm uxmucou paowumtooch on» P mesa?» 20 Hutton and McNeill, 1979). The components of the model include energy-consuming behaviors, energy use, individual benefits, balance modifiers, individual monetary costs and social costs. Energy-consuming behaviors include the large number of ac- tions that people take that consume energy, whether volun- tary or involuntary, whether curtailment or efficiency im— provements. These behaviors result in energy use, that is, the utilization of a specific number of British Thermal Units, gallons of fuel oil, cubic feet of natural gas, kilo— watts of electricity, etc. The link between these two com— ponents is the most direct and the most obviously causal in nature. Individual benefits include the immediate positive consequences of energy use, such as thermal comfort, health, safety, and decreased physical effort. The costs of energy use are divided into individual monetary costs and col— lective social costs. Individual monetary costs reflect the dollar amount necessary to purchase a particular unit of energy or a certain device (e.g., furnace). Social costs reflect the systemic impact of energy use on a broad scale. They include non-monetary costs that are remote from the individual, such as air and water pollution, other types of 'environmental degradation, political considerations, broad economic considerations, and future resource availability. These types of issues are usually discussed in the context of 'social traps," and will be presented later. The final 21 component of the model is balance modifying actions. These actions directly moderate the trade-off between energy use and individual benefits. Perhaps the most frequently dise cussed balance modifiers are energy efficiency improvements, such as insulation, weatherstripping, caulking and solar retrofitting. Overall, this theoretical model is a useful tool in classifying and planning energy studies and in theoretical development. In the interest of parsimony, it is perhaps the most applicable model offered to date. However, the rapid growth of conservation technology and the continually rising prices of energy suggest increasing opportunities for energy-related intervention and consequent changes in the- oretical models. Research Overview A handful of articles reviewing psychological research on energy—related issues have been published (Shippee, 1980; McClelland & Canter, 1981; Cook & Berrenberg, 1981; Winett, 1988; Stern & Gardner, 1981). These reviews have encom— passed research across commerical, residential, institution- al and industrial sectors and have varied in how they organ— ized the studies included in the review. This review will focus on research emphasizing conservation in the residen- tial sector. It will be organized around the following six research approaches: (1) research concerning public opinion and attitudes, (2) social traps, (3) changing attitude/be- '..‘.".‘w(- 7 ‘ 22 havior congruence, (4) applied behavior analysis, (5) inter- ventions providing conservation information, and (6) feed- back. Public opinion. Surveys in this area typically have employed large and representative samples and have sought information concerning attitudes about broad conservation issues. Farhar, Unseld, Vories and Crews (1988) reviewed and analyzed 190 surveys that were conducted between 1973 and 1979. Many of these surveys were from the "fugitive literature" (i.e., work conducted by professional polling organizations or by government agencies). A great deal of confidence can be placed in the generalizations that emerged due to the large number of studies included and the result- ing extensive data base. Regarding residential conservation the following conclusions were posited: (1) most people re— port they are practicing some form of conservation, (2) the practices most frequently engaged in are those that are least inconvenient, least costly, and least effective, (3) many conservers feel penalized and discouraged in their con- servation efforts by declining block rate pricing structures, and (4) lower income groups tend to perform less conservation behaviors than higher income groups, although evidence suggests this is due to their already minimal use of energy and their inability to invest in pro—conservation home improvements. In addition, women and younger people tended to favor conservation policies over men and older 23 people. Other reviews of survey research have echoed these broad conclusions (Olsen, 1978; Curtin, 1976; Lopreato & Meriweather, 1976; Milstein, 1976). However, these results are somewhat suspect because (1) many of the surveys were conducted in the wake of the 1973—74 embargo when concern for energy issues was extraordinarily high, and (2) a "voting“ method of review was used rather than an empirical— ly based meta—analysis. In another study, Hummel, Levitt and Loomis (1978) re— ported that attribution of blame for the energy crisis was an important predictor of behavioral intentions to conserve. Specifically, those who placed blame on the individual con— sumer, rather than the government or utility companies, were more likely to exhibit conservation intentions, but un- fortunately, actual energy use was not measured and there- fore its relationship to energy attitudes was not examined. Researchers at Twin Rivers (Becker, Seligman & Darley, 1979; Becker, Seligman, Fazio, & Darley, 1981; Seligman, Kriss, Darley, Fazio, Becker, & Pryor, 1979) conducted three surveys, two in the summer and one in the winter, which ex— amined the relationship between energy attitudes and actual energy use (rather than behavioral intentions) in an attempt to increase predictive value and validity. Seven factors emerged from a principal components analysis of the 59 items in the instrument: (1) the effects of conservation on household convenienCe, (2) the state of personal finance, 24 (3) optimism with respect to a technological solution, (4) legitimacy of the energy crisis, (5) opinions about re— sultant savings from conservation efforts, (6) the role and impact of individual actions, and (7) concerns about thermal comfort and health. A number of hypotheses were not sup- ported by the data. Attitudes concerning the reality of the energy crisis, optimism about technological solutions, and monetary costs and savings were unrelated to energy use. However, 68% of the variance in summer electricity use was explained by two attitudinal factors. The most impor— tant predictor was concern with thermal comfort and health. People who tolerated a wide range of temperatures used less energy than those who displayed a narrow range of tempera- ture preference. Those with narrow temperature preferences placed more importance on comfort and health issues. This suggests the importance of not emphasizing conservation as sacrifice but rather emphasizing conservation as efficiency (i.e., doing more with less). The second predictive factor was the role of the individual in conservation. If a person felt that waste by the individual consumer was primarily responsible for energy problems, then he/she was more likely to use less energy. This parallels the findings of Hummel, Levitt and Loomis (1978) who found that those who attributed blame for the energy crisis on the consumer were more likely to report conservation intentions. In the winter survey, these two attitudinal factors explained only 18% of the 25 variance in natural gas usage. A possible reason for this seasonal discrepancy is that air conditioning (i.e., summer energy use) is something people can do without, while home heating in the winter is a necessity. Becker, Seligman and Darley (1979) also conducted a survey of residents' knowledge of how to conserve energy. Three conclusions emerged from this survey: (1) most people did not know how much energy they use in their homes or how much they pay for energy, (2) most people have inadequate knowledge about the impact of various energy-using devices on their total consumption, and (3) many people seriously overestimate the costs and underestimate the benefits of installing various energy efficiency devices in their homes. If people misjudge the potential money and energy savings that can accrue from conservation efforts, it is unlikely that conservation actions will be adopted on a broad scale. In sum, this area of research has shown: (1) conser— vation is supported by most people although the conservation actions taken are minor in comparison to what is possible, (2) higher income groups tend to conserve more than lower income groups, (3) concern for thermal comfort and the role of the individual consumer are important attitudinal pre— dictors of energy use, and (4) most people lack adequate knowledge about how to conserve or the benefits that can result from conservation efforts. social traps. This avenue of research has grown from 26 Hardin's (1968) Tragedy of the Commons paradigm and has been conducted primarily in laboratory settings. The Tragedy of the Commons refers to the situation where each individual continues to do something for his advantage that is damaging to the group as a whole. An example is a common field where many shepards bring their cattle to graze. The more cattle that an individual shepard has eating from the common, the more profitable his operation will be. However, if too many cattle partake, then there won't be enough feed to go around. This is damaging to all the shepards as a group. Platt (1973) describes the commons dilemma and a number of other 'social traps" as situations were long—term nega— tive group reinforcement occurs because of an excessive and unwarranted number of short-term positive individual rein- forcements beforehand, such as the shepard's predicament above. Our current energy problem can be viewed as a com- mons dilemma. The more rewards an individual accrues through increased energy use, the more the availability of this limited resource to everyone becomes threatened in the future. Platt describes various I'ways out" of social traps that parallel certain policy—level energy solutions. The "ways out" are the following: (1) convert long-range consequences into more immediate ones (taxation of excessive energy use,‘ education of long-term consequences of present actions), (2) add counter-reinforcers (tax rebates and subsidies for sav— 27 ing energy) and (3) provide short-term positive reinforce— ments for competing behavior (encouragement of the con— struction of bicycle paths, car—poolers do not have to pay tolls). Researchers have tried these and other strategies in common resource laboratory simulations. The procedure usually involves presenting a group of subjects with a hypo- thetical finite resource. Subjects are allowed to take from the resource under specified rules. Group strategies and mechanics that maximize personal gain while not exhausting the resource are examined. For example, Stern (1976) had subjects play different versions of a four—person commons game, modeled on a car pool, in which incentives and education were manipulated. Contrary to the hypothesis, incentives that modeled price increases produced more conservation than those modeled on direct subsidies or a rationing system. These results sup— port the efficacy of Platt's (1973) first way out: convert long-range consequences into more immediate ones. Both Brechner (1977) and Edney and Harper (1978) found that groups that were allowed to communicate with each other were more likely to prolong the life of the resource. In- teraction among the subjects allowed a conservation norm to be developed. Additionally, Shippee (1988) reports that when groups elected a formal leader they were better able to control resource consumption. Stern (1979) and Stern and Kirkpatrick (1977) use the 28 above findings to argue the superiority of collectivistic over individualistic approches to conservation. They sug— gest that effective conservation will occur when relatively small groups are managing their own energy resources. How- ever, the generalizability of these results to field situa— tions must be questioned. Do these commons simulations re— flect real world concerns and behavior? The laboratory con- text of these studies suggests that this avenue of inquiry be extended to field situations. Changing attitude/behavior congruence. Most research— ers have neglected energy attitude change interventions be— cause of the notorious lack of relationship between energy attitudes and energy behaviors. For example, Olsen and Cluett (1979) discovered that attitudes toward the serious- ness of the energy problem and toward the desirability of energy conservation as a goal were not significantly related to consumption of electricity or heating fuels. Futhermore, only two of Seligman, et al's (1979) seven subscales were correlated to actual consumption. The concensus has been that changing energy attitudes will not directly lead to changes in energy behaviors (McClelland & Canter, 1981; Geller, 1981; Winett, 1988). However, Olsen (1981) and Pallak, Cook and Sullivan (1981) suggest that it is naive to think that attitudes alone could effectively predict energy behavior without con— sideration of situational variables. These authors advocate 29 the application of the Fishbein model (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) to the study of energy attitudes and behaviors. The Fishbein model posits two important attitudinal predictors of behavior. These two predictors are: (l) attitudes to— ward a specific action which are the result of the antici— pated consequence of that action, and (2) attLtudes concern- ing what salient others from one's social environment expect from one's behavior. The general premise is that attitude/ behavior congruence is both situational and conditional. Pallak, Cook and Sullivan (1981) designed an experiment that utilized the latter attitudinal predictor of behavior. Specifically, this experiment manipulated consumer commit- ment to taking conservation actions. It was hypothesized that commitment would provide a signal to significant others that they should expect active conservation behaviors from the person who made the commitment. It was expected that public commitment would increase the saliency of pro-conser— vation attitudes while decreasing the saliency of other in- hibiting situational cues, thus increasing the probability of pro—conservation behavior. A three—condition, randomized design was employed. Participants were assigned to either a public commitment group (names of these individuals were printed in the local newspaper), private commitment group (these individuals were asked to specify some conservation goal), or control group. Homeowners in the public commit- ment condition consumed significantly less electricity and 38 natural gas than homeowners in the private commitment and control groups. Further, these effects were still present in a one-year follow-up. The repeated measures analysis of variance showed a significant treatment x month interaction suggesting seasonal variation in commitment effects. Another study by Hass, Bagley and Rogers (1975) man— ipulated the saliency of attitudes to behavior by examining the effects of two types of fear appeals on behavioral in- tentions to conserve. The first appeal manipulated the mag- nitude of the severity of a threatened energy shortage. The second manipulated the probability of the shortage's oc— currence. Increments in the perceived severity of the cri- sis strengthened intentions to conserve significantly, whereas changes in the probability of the crisis did not significantly affect conservation intentions. Future research must examine other ways to increase attitude/ behavior congruence given that attitudes towards conservation are generally favorable (Farhar, Unseld, Vbries & Crews, 1988). Attending to specific situational variables at the point of decision—to—act seems a promising research domain. General attitudes should not be expected to ac- curately predict conservation behavior. The important atti- tudes to consider include specific attitudes towards spe- cific conservation behaviors, attitudes towards the short- term individual consequences of conservation behaviors, and attitudes towards the acceptance or rejection of conserva- 31 tion behavior by significant others in one's social environ- ment. Applied behavior analysis. Researchers working within this framework have employed an operant approach and have manipulated the antecedents or consequences of a variety of energy—related behaviors including car-pooling (Hake & Foxx, 1978), use of public transportation (Everett, Hayward, & Meyers, 1974), turning out lights (Delprato, 1977; Winett, 1978), and residential electricity usage (Winett, Neale, & Grier, 1979). These researchers have employed prompts, financial incentives, and social incentives as intervention techniques. Any attempt to manipulate the antecedent environmental conditions of behavior is a prompt. Typically, prompts take the form of posted messages or instructions that call at- tention to a particular behavior and suggest its implemen- tation. In the environmental prompt literature targeted behaviors have included turning out lights, depositing lit- ter, recycling bottles and cans, and switching off idling cars (Tuso & Geller, 1976). Dependent measures in these , studies have usually been unobtrusive, such as counting pieces of litter left in a park or counting the number of unoccupied rooms in which lights are on. Delprato (1977) found that prompts placed near wall switches were more effective in promoting the turning out of lights than a general memorandum exhorting people to con- 32 serve electricity. Winett (1978) discovered that prompts which were very specific and strategically placed were bet— ter than other kinds of prompts. Prompts that specified who should do what and when ("Faculty and students, turn out lights after 5 p.m.") were more effective than general prompts ("Conserve electricity"). Prompts that were at eye level and near light switches were more effective than those placed elsewhere. The advantages of prompts are that they are inexpensive and easily implemented. However, their effects may be short—term; prompts may lose their saliency as exposure to them increases over time. In short, for prompts to be most effective, they should contain highly specific instructions and be physically and temp0ra11y prox- imate to the desired behavior. Some applied behavior analysts experimentally provided consumers with cash rebates and awards for their conserva— tion efforts in both single-family detached housing (Hayes & Cone, 1977; Kohlenberg, Phillips & Proctor, 1976; Winett, Kagel, Battalio & Winkler, 1978; Winett & Nietzel, 1975) and in attached master-metered housing (Slavin, Wodarski, a Blackburn, 1981; McClelland & Belsten, 1979; Cook, 1988; Newsom & Makranczy, 1978; Walker, 1979). Unfortunately, the dollar amount of the rebates has frequently been higher than the cost of the energy saved. When the amount of the incen- tive was lowered in an attempt to make the procedure cost- effective, minimal amounts of energy were saved (Winett, 33 Kagel, Battalio & Winkler, 1978; Winett & Nietzel, 1975) and in attached master—metered housing (Slavin, Wodarski, & Blackburn, 1981; McClelland a Belsten, 1979; Cook, 1988; Newsom & Makranczy, 1978; Walker, 1979). Unfortunately, the dollar amount of the rebates has frequently been higher than the cost of the energy saved. When the amount of the incen- tive was lowered in an attempt to make the procedure cost- effective, minimal amounts of energy were saved (Winett, Kagel, Battalio, & Walker, 1978). When the design employed other interventions separate from and in combination with cash incentives, no additional savings resulted over that obtained with incentives alone (Palmer, Lloyd & Lloyd, 1977; Hayes & Cone, 1977). Thus, there appears to be no multipli- cative effect from combining incentives with feedback or with information as independent variables. Master—metered settings present special problems in terms of awarding incentives because residents have no di- rect economic motivation to conserve (Craig and McCann, 1981). This is important because master—metered buildings such as apartments and dormitories use about 35% more elec- tricity than individually metered structures (Fowler, 1975). To overcome these problems some psychologists have evaluated the effectiveness of energy conservation contests. Newsom. and Mckranczy (1978) and McClelland and Belsten (1979), in two separate researches, initiated energy contests between two or more college dormitories. After a specified period 34 of time, dorms that conserved more than their competitors would be awarded a cash prize. All dorms involved in the contests significantly reduced consumption over no—treatment controls. Besides turning out lights and other curtailment activities residents reported making physical and policy change such as removing every other light bulb in the hall and organizing dorm patrols to turn off lights in unused rooms. Another advantage of energy conservation contests is their cost-effectiveness. Reward procedures employed within single-family detached housing have typically awarded re- bates for conservation on a continuous basis. In other words, if the homeowner conserved, he or she was sure of receiving a rebate. In master-metered housing, researchers have tended to use variable-ratio schedules of reinforce— ment. The resident may or may not receive a rebate if con— servation occurred. Therefore, less money needs to be ex- pended to operate the overall rebate program. For example, Walker (1978) randomly spot checked apart- ments to see if tenants were meeting a specified energy con- servation checklist that had been distributed and publi- cized. Tenants who met the checklist criteria were awarded a $5 cash prize. Residents in the incentive condition saved significantly more energy than residents in the control con- dition who received only checklists. This was true even though only a small fraction of the incentive residents 35 actually were awarded prizes. A five week follow-up showed maintenance of this effect. Further, the cost of the energy saved was greater than the cost of the rebates. Perhaps the most promising intervention in the rental, master—metered sector is the Residential Utility Billing System (RUBS) (McClelland, 1988). This system involves charging tenants for space heating on the basis of the area of their apartments. The amount each resident pays for en- ergy is a function of the amount of the overall bill for the entire complex and the amount of square feet in the resi— dent's apartment. The landlord-to-tenant bill includes a separate section for rent and for energy. In this way the tenant receives monthly feedback. Savings in the RUBS com- plexes averaged between 8% and 12% over control buildings in the quasi-experimental implementation. Rewards can be social as well as monetary. Seaver and Patterson (1976) used a randomized treatments-by-blocks de— sign to compare feedback and social commendation interven- tions in a field context. One hundred and eight households were randomly assigned to either a feedback only, feedback plus social commendation or control condition. The feedback slip provided to experimental households contained informa— tion about fuel oil consumption for the current heating sea- son and the previous heating season, percent increase or decrease in consumption rate, and resultant dollar savings or loss. The social commendation component of the treatment 36 was operationalized by providing conservers with a decal displayed on the front door with the words "We are saving oil" printed on it. Households were divided into blocks based on the number of gallons of oil per heating degree day they consumed. They were randomly assigned after this matching procedure. The consumption rate for the feedback plus commendation group was significantly lower than that of the feedback-only or control groups. The authors speculated that the decal had little practical value but represented a social recognition of consumers' conservation efforts. During certain times of the day and certain times of the year demand for energy is greater than at other times. To meet this “peak" demand utilities must sometimes build secondary power generating facilities or buy additional power from other companies. This results in increased en— ergy costs for consumers because utilities pass along the cost of building additional power facilities to their cus- tomers. Additionally, these new facilities create increased pollution and other adverse environmental impacts. Kohlenberg, Phillips and Proctor (1976) utilized a reversal design to test the effects of information, mechanical feed- back, and mechanical feedback plus a monetary incentive on consumers' peak electricity consumption. Consumption was monitored on a continuous basis (every 15 minutes). The. order of treatments for the three families in the study was the following: baseline, information, feedback, baseline, 37 incentive plus feedback, and a final baseline. The feedback plus incentive intervention was most effective; peak elec- tricity use was reduced by 58%. The information had no effect, while feedback alone resulted in small reductions in peak use. A good summary for the applied behavior analysis area is to illustrate Geller‘s (1981) distinction between response-contingent and outcome—contingent interventions. Response—contingent interventions apply a particular conse- quence to a particular behavior or response, whereas outcome-contingent interventions do not specifically require a behavior but rather apply consequences contingent upon a particular outcome, such as a reduction in energy consump- tion or the removal of a certain amount of litter. For ex- ample, a response-contingent procedure would award a cash rebate for the specific behavior of lowering thermostats, while an outcome-contingent procedure might award the same rebate for a certain percentage reduction in space heating, regardless of what behaviors were employed to achieve that end. Geller suggests that energy reseachers would do well to employ response-contingent procedures more frequently in that the actions desired are more highly specified. He hypothesizes that the high specificity of response~ contingent procedures makes them more influential in chang— ing behavior. This suggestion parallels the findings of research concerning environmental prompts (Winett, 1978) and other research in more traditional areas (Bandura, 1969). Interventions providing conservation information. Given the lack of knowledge about energy conservation op- portunities and their benefits within the consumer sector (Becker, Seligman & Darley, 1979), one might hypothesize that providing information would significantly influence behavior. However, the existing research demonstrates, in general, that information-only approaches do not work (Heberlein, 1975; Hayes & Cone, 1977; Palmer, Lloyd & Lloyd, 1977; Winett, et al., 1978; Winett & Neitzel, 1975). Perhaps this is due to incomplete operationalizations of information provision. McClelland and Canter (1981) suggest several variables which may influence the effectiveness of informa- tional approaches, First, information should be understand— able and credible. Frequently, information about energy consumption and costs is complex and difficult to understand (e.g., the terminology includes such concepts as heating degree days, BTU, hundred cubic feet per square foot, R-values, etc.). Further, institutions that typically are involved in disseminating information, such as the govern- ment and utilities, lack credibility among the public (Milstein, 1976). Second, information should be personale ized and tailored to the consumer's situation. Such varia- bles as type of heating system, climate, family size, home size, and fuel type contribute to the uniqueness of differ- ent residences and thus influence the accuracy and appropri- 39 ateness of information. Third, McClelland and Canter (1981) warn of the danger of information overload. Many of the government-produced informational packages are very long lists of conservation suggestions. The consumer has no way of isolating those suggestions that are effective and work— able. Crossley (1979) documents th ubiquitousness of infor- mation campaigns around the globe. Most of these campaigns involve the distribution of printed information or other educative efforts through the media. Such strategies as billboards, advertisements in periodicals, bill—stuffers, films, newsletters, leaflets, posters and spots on radio and television have been employed. It is ironic that the strat- egy shown to be least effective by research is the most com- monly used by governments, unions, energy advocacy groups, and utilities. Olsen (1978) indicates that the commonplace utilization of passive information strategies contradicts research showing that action-oriented, interpersonal strat— egies will most likely be successful. The evaluation of information campaigns has been prob- lematic and therefore good evaluations have been sparse in this area (Crossley, 1979). Problems have included lack of control over implementation, difficulty in locating appro— priate control groups, and unusually large target groups. The remainder of this section will briefly review some im- portant evaluation efforts in this area whether personal or 48 impersonal strategies were used or whether cost or instru— mental (how-to) information was provided. Geller, Ferguson and Brasted (1978) found that conser- vation workshops were effective in changing energy-related attitudes over a neighborhood-matched non—random control group, but that the workshops did not change conservation behaviors at home. The workshops lasted for approximately three hours, included lectures, discussions, demonstrations and slide shows, and presented instrumental information about insulation, infiltration, efficient water heater use and behavioral actions. The attitude survey was administer- ed immediately before and immediately after each workshop. At the conclusion of the workshop, attendees were signifi— cantly more predisposed to favor conservation policies and to report behavioral intentions to take conservation ac— tions. However, follow-up home visits revealed that the attendees did not implement the suggestions presented in the workshop. Verbal prompting during the home visits still did not result in conservation action as measured in an addi- tional home visit. Another instrumental information campaign is the De- partment of Energy's Low Cost/No Cost conservation program (Hutton & McNeill, 1988). This program was a broad-based 41 initiative including media exposure, distribution of book- lets explaining low technology/behavioral conservation ac- tions, and free shower head flow restrictors. This program was limited to the New England area. Follow—up telephone interviews were conducted to assess the frequency of the suggested actions among households in the target area as compared to a quasi—control group in New York. The evalua- tion demonstrated that the Low Cost/No Cost Program was a success. Conservation actions were taken by a significant share of New England households and the estimated cost of the energy saved exceeded the government's bill for the pro- gram. Some information campaigns have emphasized cost rather than instrumental information. This type of information usually concerns topics such as the rate of energy use of different appliances or different houses, or the costs of using a device over a long time period. One example of a cost information program is the Residential Conservation Service (RC8). This program mandates utilities to provide their residential customers with home energy audits upon request (U.S. Department of Energy, 1979). The auditor cal- culates the rate of heat loss in the home and suggests cor- rective home improvements. S/he is able to provide the homeowner with information about the pay-back periods of particular structural modifications (e.g., insulation) and is able to describe the current state of the thermal in— 42 tegrity of the home. In effect, the homeowner learns about the rate of energy use of his/her home, about ways to de- crease this rate and about the effectivenss of different corrective strategies. Other programs have provided information about the en- ergy use rates of household appliances. The hope is that devices that perform the same task using less energy will be purchased more frequently. Usually this type of information is provided at the point of sale and implies some inter— action with sales people. Claxton and Anderson (1979) ex— ecuted a 2 x 2 factoral design which varied type of informa- tion (kilowatt hours/month vs. dollar/year) and salesperson behavior ('sales push” of energy information vs. no "sales push"). Process measures were observational ratings of salesperson behavior by confederate shoppers. Unfortunate- ly, the suggested sales aids were used only 47% of the time within the random sample of sales interactions that were rated. Nevertheless, customers who received a push by salespeople were more likely to purchase energy efficient models of refrigerators. Apparently, the Energy Efficiency Ratio (BER) information was successful as long as it was supplemented with additional instrumental information by the salesperson explaining the meaning of these ratios. Worrall (1976) also demonstrated the importance of education to con- sumers' understanding of energy use ratings. Energy effi- ciency ratings plus education influenced consumer preferen~ 43 ces significantly more than ratings without education. In sum, instrumental information campaigns might be successful if the information is credible, understandable, personalized, and delivered in a face-to—face fashion. Cost and efficiency information campaigns will benefit by sup- plementing energy efficiency ratings with instrumental in— formation. Providing information to consumers about their overall residential consumption on a regular basis is anoth— er type of cost information that has received the attention of researchers. This type of intervention, namely feedback, will be the next and final research approach considered. Feedback. The seminal study in this area was performed by Seligman and Darley (1977). A two-condition randomized design was employed. The experimental group received per- centage of baseline feedback displayed in specially—prepared lucite frames attached to the kitchen window. The control group received no treatment. Residents receiving feedback used 18.5% less electricity for air conditioning than con- trol group residents. Other researchers have varied the parameters of feedback in attempts to define the optimal timing of and type of feedback as well as to replicate feed— back effects for different housing conditions and for dif- ferent end uses. Cook and Berrenberg (1981) identify four dimensions on which feedback can differ: (1) medium of com- 44 munication (e.g., writing vs. visual displays), (2) feed— back units (e.g., kilowatt hours per day vs. dollars per day}, (3) comparison baseline (e.g., self vs. others), and (4) frequency (e.g., monthly, weekly, daily). The Seligman and Darley (1977) study and ll replication studies are de- tailed in Table 2. This table is organized around the four dimensions proposed by Cook and Berrenberg (1981) as well as the following study attributes: (1) percentage reduction due to feedback, (2) design, (3) number of subjects, (4) end uses, (5) fuel type, (6) setting, and (7) comparison groups included in the study. An examination of this table reveals a number of ten- tative conclusions regarding feedback interventions. First, feedback should be delivered frequently and regularly. While feedback that was delivered on a weekly basis was in- effective, daily feedback resulted in a 16—35% reduction in consumption (Winett, et al., 1978). Feedback that was de- livered less than daily but more than weekly was also effec- tive (Seligman & Darley, 1977; Becker, 1978; Bittle, valesano & Thaler, 1979—80; Pallak, Cook & Sullivan, 1981). Second, explicit goal setting by consumers can enhance the effectiveness of feedback interventions. Becker (1978) crossed low and high conservation goals with the absence or, presence of feedback. The high goal—feedback condition res- idents saved more energy than the low-goal and control con- 45 f uwzuauum c: a_wsmw mcwuzm__ Ago» xoan m_mcvm .mmocappgam mamapcca -mcos xmtmcm Aomm— -ummw upotu nmum_ .mcvpooo can copmmmtomg gou*uv -mumpv xoou -cou-vma:o name.-p—u3 auFoPLuuo—w mcvumw; momma pop wpapupas wmp maoacaucou Lao: Lon mucoo —ao.caguws a ecu—popuoz pogucoo mayco :owums -Louc* mapco xoonumou guacamo» can cowametoc:_ can macaw; mama: acmggzu Zopwxocnnwmw mcwmzo: oz? can gmessm can no.9 umgoaaum -ugmrp .mmoco maow>mga sot» Amnmpv gmpxcwz -mstoccw use .=: spasm» -_Paaa .mcw acmsptmaxo moan: :xzx a .owpmuumm macaw; gm.; upmcrm zuwowtuompm -cowurccoo t.u m~_ uw~vsoucot womwwm o: spxmmz mpom mo com.gmasoo __as .memx .uuocwz 233a puuvcaoga Ac pocucou mumou quUvgu gmmucapo> -ompm apgucos .co:n_otu:oo omuomhotg Am meucapo> wcvpmmm mo "xococmmw has. mmmucmogm AN Pmcgmuxm mamuzmpp -LouvcoEiwpomv an ant msop> yomnummw m:_ .mmocmvpaaa acme—conxa Axoanuwm» -oga soc» so?» Amkmpv Lmvgu a .gou::z$¢+om mwmaogcxou auwovguompw .mcwuao; woman Pu vo~.soocwg pactmuxmv amp apvau mpmm -qszmcoo =\:¥ AP cocoavcosnupum opuuz .uumcwz maaotu mcwuuwm mash goal mm: tau 2 amino; guanommg cm was xucmmcmtu mcwpmmam wave: xuanummm covaouvcassou xvaum constaasou co—uosomx com.goasou mo Ezpumz sorommmm guanomou zmgocu yo mu:_ucwu can mowumwtmuomgogu .N apnoh kmsogm l Potucoo may _ -oncu mxoca _ -ummw o: so me, , xuoasmmu cud: -a;a_, .mmucm .a. . gases: o.u~al uwmmogo Puou -VPaaa can mew stouumw ~x~ Apaou ga_; xmo: m=__omaa o» umguuuua 2o, can cap; momsozczou »u_uvgaom—m -coFHFucou Lyn cop vo~.sou=og :u.:v ump-mp a mass» m upon mo mmuucwogua sopamFu mu.o=_mamnapv Loxomm Aamguasoo . ._otu=ou -c: was l ns_=o xomamow cmgoauuov acwuzmw_ Aco.uasgow umoo A. _ “codam5t0tc. mu_o; ss_uctaum_m .accuao; imam: -=_ cos; goons -xom: can s_cau m Amkm_v made new xomaumo» -mmso; van mom new woman “cosvgoaxm >u.u.cuum~mv sum “covaqsamcou mo M a .mwppm 622535 533 .232. .8323? 8— 32.828. new 2232; new x28 tum ”SE Zuzana 33:55-:me .2838 «c.9mmma zo. r -3 .8 33¢ . acmugoa Ac :o_uas=m -coo xpxmmz umuoonoga Am v.33 :5 you x_:o xocnvmm» was» =\zx Am mxomacom» meow“ xau new moon acpmao; -nzm «moron mzop>ogq we -mt ”manna; ucmuaam mcwu;m*_ w:__omon A=\zgv cavea53m mcvz :* Lm_pm Asumpv “cowuosgomcy nonstos savovtuomfiw .mwocmv_aaa c mpqvupas uo~-m_ sp—au upon ucou 3mg A. uuuzasgumwv ozou a moan: novgom oc—pomoa soup paves recap: goguupx _ogu=ou new «cos—Loaxo gum: =o_mmugaugv mcwpmmon o» omnouuuu Assn—v aopgoa “xoanuwmw mmmaocczou x».o¢guua—a -covu_vcoo qu ow co~.sou:uc um.o_ a was.» e mpum we unaucoogua aupqm.u ouvoap a cosmw—mm mmsogc mcvuuom maxw pan; on: new 2 cm_mmo aucaomom c» was Nucmauogm ocvpmmom mupza xuonvumu covuouwcassou xvzum comwcaQEou :owuoaomx com.goasou no s:_vmz noncommm xooaummu xucmcm we macmv:_u new mo_um_tmuoctmnu .N o—aoh 47 4‘ ee._emee age we mmeueoe eeegm xeeeeee» acme suppose eemwgee Aeeega eemwgee me. eemvgee eeneeuue e easemcee .seu Fe_eem .eee ecu mpem -geuveessepem A_mm_v -eee .xuee -ce a—pse» we. aces_teexe eeegm gueeeeem x_xea: eem mewseu new to epem ecu eeeu ee>wppem a -eeee omen: echwm seve.suee_e -eepe'ecee...e mm ee~.eeeeoc eem.seesee -Pe -_eee-m—em gemv new: z\zx -umee ee—veel xeeu .xeppee new menu _e>e— gages new umeo covenanmeee m>.ue_:e:u Am ee vexeepa so» was» _emge>es sages new :\:2 epeepge> nevugm.— ecu muuen xeepe o>.uopes:o AN ueeeeeeee eageeuue .meece .eem mmegee nevuessmcee z\zx AcmmF-m~m_V -cv m. u_:= -c: »~_Eeu n—peee .mc. e:_Pemee cap: e. «moose xee: e e? :e—uesem gepegh a eeem xeeeeeem epeevm au_u.tueepe ;::e+eeee eve mmm e_e.u_=s -e. commegeeem mas.» o cpem -cee x_.ee AP eeuuvgz ne~e> .opuu.m gene -eee» eeego ecu Feeer> . -_ecw .xumn -eee» eaega .xeeeeee» peeew>_e -c. mmPe>ep ease: -eem-e_oem ece muexu mcpmee; »_.Eew e=.pemee eeeem Aesop geese; a 35m . 2:93 centage $3: Loves. -e.e ac. vegeeuue e—seceueepeem geese we aceegee AN a spexe> -ueemegees -e: use new PNF aces.geexe so, cw maeomue cem.gee ace mae,> .mse.—~_ meeega m memeecezea xe,e_gueepe -ee*».eeee 5*e -_meee so no.9 ao~.ep >~.ee -Eeu pepuem -ege we zxzx A. couu.sx .opeoz .euecv meeegc aamwuuem mmnw poem on: ecu z :mfimeo aeeeveog eu one cheeamgu ee.pemem muPc: xoeeeoeu :e_ueopeesseu aweum ) conveneseu eepuoeeez eem*geeseu we Sewee: coteemem xeeeeeeu sateen we mac—ec.d eee me_um_geeeecegu .N open» ‘48 II. r A_~stoev unseen rupee. geesege>ea ecume: .xueeeeem so ee>em ecu «geese unappee Am .mueseee umeu apsaees pesto. eeueenege Au -cp .cevums emceeeue one»: :eeep: use.“ ugemcv «wee -:2>A_Ee$ mc—ugmvp :\zg mes—omen steam :e e e94 1 .xeeeeee» epecwm xuwo_tuee_e .mee=e__eea e pemse>et amm xp.ee epem nee acmegeu A, omega egeu ezepe .gespee .egu -cee m»_ee xeeeeeeu “finance“. «53 cepueESmeee Ae>—uueeme -wuwee¢ m? one egg “gasp so: mu: «cop. to=a_».e=ou .ekmpe «ape ms_:e ea. ecos.teaxe xeaaeeeev Aegee_ g.a gag: mouse ease._um use: 2.2 $32.53 stowage—4-53.2.8 be cc noise—EB e33 afimp 32.528 :23: use: 03... 32:28... a 5363; immmegu xme_uuom «may .03; em: ecu z em.meo geeeeeem ea use \xweeeeegm mappemem muse: xeeeeeeu eevueuveesseu weeum =em.eeeeeu eewuueeez eem_geeaeu we aspea: .~ open» cegeemem xeeeeeeu maceem we mmepee.u use muwum_geuuegegu 49 dition residents. Winett, Neale, Williams, Yokely, and Kauder (1978-79) included a goal-setting component in their feedback package and replicated the above results. Third, feedback should be personalized and delivered at the in- dividual level. When groups of households were provided daily feedback, as opposed to delivery at the individual household level, no significant consumption reductions oc— curred (Winett, Neale, Williams, Yokely, & Kauder, 1978-79). Fourth, it is not clear if feedback is differentially effective across varying socioeconomic levels. Some re- searchers have blocked on either energy consumption level or income (the two are highly correlated). Whereas some re- sults suggest that feedback works better with high-consum- ing, high—income residents (Bittle, Valesano & Thaler, 1979—80; Winett, Neale, Williams, Yokely, & Kauder, 1978-79), other results suggest that this is not the case (Becker, 1978; Seligman & Darley, 1977). Fifth, no conclusive research evidence exists which documents what method for delivering feedback is best. Winett, Neale and Grier (1979) compared self-computed feed— back with external, researcher—computed feedback. Residents in the self-monitoring condition were trained to read their own meters and translate these readings into usable feed— back. Although external feedback residents saved more en— ergy (12% compared to 7%), the self-monitoring residents showed significant savings. The attractiveness of self— SB monitored feedback is that it is highly cost—effective. There is no need to employ meter readers or to perform transformations on the raw energy consumption data that is collected. Other researchers have compared external and mechanical methods of feedback delivery. For example, Becker and Seligman (1978) installed a device in experiment- al residents' homes which triggered a visible and conspic— uous blue light when air-conditioning use was inefficient (i.e., it was cool enough outside to turn it off). Although written external feedback was ineffective, the blue light condition homes reduced electricity consumption by over 15%. Continuous, mechanical feedback encompassing space heating and appliance use as well as air conditioning has been dem- onstrated to be effective over a no-treatment, quasi-control group (McClelland & Cook, 1979-80). What is needed is a large scale study involving multiple methods of feedback de- livery as independent variables (e.g., mail, mechanical, external, self-monitoring, etc.). Finally, there exists some evidence that feedback is more effective during peak use periods (Bittle, Valesano, & Thaler, 1979-80; Winett, Neale, Williams, Yokely, & Kauder, 1978-79). This is probably due to the greater number of conservation opportunities that are available to consumers during extremely cold or extremely warm weather. What concepts and theoretical underpinnings might be useful in explaining the effects of feedback? Seligman, 51 Becker and Darley (1981) offer four possible explanations of feedback effects: (1) it provides information to people concerning the most appropriate conservation actions, (2) it acts as a reinforcer, thereby increasing the probability of maintenance of conservation behavior, (3) it acts to moti- vate residents, and (4) it enables residents to gauge their performance against some implicit or explicit goal. Seligman, Becker and Darley (1981) rule out the first three explanations and endorse the last. They argue that resi- dents must already be motivated prior to the feedback inter- vention and that feedback serves as a metric on which to judge progress towards conservation goals. Other researchers have embraced an explanation of feed- back as an educative, information—providing intervention. Gaskell, Ellis, and Pike (1979) report empirical results bearing on this issue. One hundred and sixty London house- holds were randomly assigned to either information only, feedback only, feedback plus information or control condi- tions. Both.e1ectricity and natural gas consumption served as the dependent variables. The feedback plus information households conserved significantly more than the other three conditions. Feedback alone was ineffective. Information aiding residents in translating feedback into an understande able form as well as educating them on how-to conserve (i.e., providing instrumental information) was critical to the success of the feedback. 'These results parallel those of researchers studying purchase decisions of energy effi- cient appliances. Instrumental information enhanced the effects of efficiency feedback (e.g., life cycle costs, BER) (Claxton & Anderson,'1979; Worrell, 1976). Additionally, Stern and his colleagues (Stern, 1976; Stern & Gardner, 1989; Stern & Kirkpatrick, 1977) argue for the importance of coupling instrumental education and feedback from data col- lected during a four-person "Tragedy of the Commons" labora— tory simulation. Hopefully, this review of various approaches to the study of conservation behavior has illustrated the breadth of this research and indicated the important issues con— tained therein. Implications The research reviewed above bears upon the current study in several important ways. First, the existence of substantial variation in consumption even after thorough weatherization suggests the need for interventions targeted for families occupying well—insulated structures (Sonderegger, 1978; Woteki, 1977). Obviously, these inter— ventions need to focus on conservation actions outside the domain of weatherization, such as behavioral change or homeowner—initiated small-scale technological change. The goal of a program of this sort would be to supplement a weatherization program with a follow-up effort targeting non-weatherization actions. 53 Second, low—income populations are most in need of assistance with energy—related problems. Although it ap— pears that low—income homeowners have the least ability to initiate conservation actions (Grier, 1977; McBride, 1979), they would obviously be highly motivated to do so. Whereas many technological changes are beyond the economic reach of low—income families, there exists a broad range of small—scale technological and behavioral steps that are in— expensive or cost nothing, have a low response cost and rep— resent a simple, doable, self—help approach to conservation (Eccli & Eccli, 1977). Third, given the lack of consumer knowledge about con- servation (Becker, Seligman & Darley, 1979), appropriately selected information might influence subsequent action if that information is credible, individualized, and under— standable (McClelland & Canter, 1981; Winett, Neale, Williams, Yokely, & Kauder, 1979). Research suggests that the failure of information approaches may be due to the poor quality of information package contents or lack of select- ivity when deciding what kinds of information might be best for particular groups. Fourth, some research has indicated that instrumental information combined with feedback concerning energy effi— ciency results in more conservation than efficiency informa- tion alone in both appliance purchase and residential con- texts (Ellis, Gaskell & Pike, 1979; Stern, 1976; Claxton & 54 Anderson, 1979; Worral, 1976), although in other studies information provision did not enhance feedback effects (Hayes & Cone, 1977; Winett, Kagel, Bittalio & Winkler, 1978). These results suggest that information detailing the efficiency benefits of weatherization might be profitably coupled with additional instrumental information. At the very least, the issue of the multiplicative effect of in- strumental and efficiency information needs further explora- tion. In terms of the theoretical model of McClelland and Canter (1981) the provision of efficiency information ac- cruing from weatherization is represented by the link be— tween balance modifying actions and energy consuming be— haviors (see Figure l). The general premise is to influence consumption behaviors by providing information about the improved thermal efficiency of the home due to some set of balance modifying actions (i.e., weatherization). The purpose of the present research is to examine the effects of providing instrumental information and efficiency feedback to low—income residents whose homes have been weatherized through the federally-sponsored Home Weatheri- zation Program (HWP). It is expected that the provision of both types of information might enhance the overall con- servation that is achieved, and also serve as a useful behavioral follow—up intervention to a program that is cur- rently only technological in nature. The following research 55 questions are proposed: (1) What are the effects of providing instrumental in- formation and efficiency feedback to low—income homeowners on energy—related attitudes? (2) What are the effects of providing instrumental in— formation and efficiency feedback to low-income homeowners on energy-related behaviors? (3) What are the effects of providing instrumental in— formation and efficiency feedback to low-income homeowners on actual energy consumption? (4) How are the above three dependent variables re- lated? Are energy behaviors, attitudes and consumption re- lated? (5) What factors inhibit and facilitate conservation action by low—income families? CHAPTER 2 METHOD Context of the Research This research was designed as an extension of the Home Weatherization Program (HWP). The HWP provides for low-income families to reduce their home heating costs and increase their home's thermal integrity through publicly funded conservation improvements. Typically, the HWP is administered by a locally-based Community Action Agency. The Community Action Agency receives funds for program hard- ware (e.g., insulation, weatherstripping, etc.) from the Department of Energy and the Community Services Administra- tion. Funds for manpower costs are provided through the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. Although cen- tralized recommendations and regulations bear upon some as- . pects of program implementation, local administrators are permitted flexibility in deciding the kinds of conservation improvements pursued and in designing training programs for 56 57 weatherization work crews. The present research was performed with the collabora- tion of a Community Action Agency located in a small, cen- tral Michigan community. The cachement area of this agency includes a five county area which can be characterized as primarily rural. Participants in the program are inter- viewed and screened by agency staff following submission of an application form. The purpose of this screening is to determine whether the applicant's income is at or below 125% of the poverty level prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget. Thus, household eligibility for the HWP is de— termined by overall family income. Weatherization crew employees participate in both classroom and "hands-on“ training. Each classroom session is followed by an actual demonstration during which each trainee is given the opportunity to apply what was covered in the classroom. At the conclusion of an employee's train- ing, s/he is evaluated using written tests and task perform— ance evaluations. Occasional in-service training is con- ducted as well. Conservation features installed by weather- ization crews include weatherstripping, caulking, minor re- pairs, insulation and storm windows and doors. Work crews are assigned particular homes to upgrade after the applicant screening procedure is completed. In addition, work crews record energy-related information about each home including home improvements installed, the cost of these improvements, 58 ratings of house condition, R-value of insulation, hours worked on the house and a number of other housing demo— graphics. HWP evaluation. The implementation of the present re- search was dependent upon the successful assessment of the energy-savings impact of the HWP. More specifically, per- sonalized information concerning the energy-savings result— ing from weatherization constituted the home efficiency feedback. Therefore, accurate information indicating the energy-savings impact of the conservation features installed in each home was essential. Important aspects of this evaluation will be presented to describe the methodology employed in computing efficiency feedback for each home. In other words, it is important to discuss how the independent variable was operationalized. The major goal of the HWP evaluation was to assess the magnitude of decrease that occurred in both energy consump- tion and space heating costs for participant homes. This information, when disaggregated to the household level, would provide the foundation for develping efficiency feed- back. Table 3 presents the mean labor, material and total costs for each home. On the average, a little over $400 was expended on each home, with approximately 80% of that money_ covering the cost of hardware. Overall, work crews reported that the condition of target homes was fair prior to weath- erization. Using the average item score of five 3-point 59 Table 3 Overall Weatherization Costs COSt per home (Y) % cost per home (Y) labor (CETA hours, administrative costs not $95°67 21-9 included) hardware (insulation, weatherstripping, caulk $34l.47 78.l guns, etc.) Total $437.14 lO0.0 Note: Adapted from Mayer and Johnson (1979) 66 rating scales (1 = tight seal, 3 = leaks, holes and cracks), the mean rating was 2.fl6. The existing R-value in attics was low (X = 6.64). The current housing standard calls for attics to be insulated to an R-value of at least 30. Table 4 presents a breakdown of the costs of various weatheriza~ tion improvements. Three—quarters of funds were spent on conduction-related improvements and the remaining quarter was spent on lessening infiltration. In order to directly assess energy savings, pre- and postweatherization energy consumption information was col- lected. The homes included in the evaluation were randomly selected from the agency's overall caseload. Release forms to obtain the consumption data from utility companies were mailed to the head of the household of each family in the evaluation. Fifty were mailed out; thirty were signed and returned. Consumption data was collected directly from the natural gas, fuel oil or LP gas dealer of these 30 homes for the heating seasons before and after weatherization. A heating season was defined as being from October to March. Conservation improvements were installed during the summer. In order to adjust for differences in temperature between the two heating seasons, corrections were made using heating degree days (HDD). Information on the number of BBB for each heating season was collected from the National Weather Service. One way to compare energy consumption is to examine the 6l Table 4 Hardware Weatherization Costs material cost/per home % cost per home storm windows $89.59 26.2 storm doors* $3.90 l.2 insulation $l66.59 48.8 infiltration $8l.39 23.8 total $34l.47 lO0.0 *This figure is seemingly low due to the small number of storm doors that were installed. 0n the average, .l3 storm doors were installed in each home. 6? thermal requirement. The thermal requirement of a home is the amount of energy consumed per HDD per square foot of living space. Table 5 presents the pre- and post-weather- ization thermal requirements. As can be seen, energy con— sumption decreased significantly following weatherization. The net decrease in BTU/HDD and BTU/HDD/sq. ft. was respec- tively 22.57% and 21.92%. An analysis involving cost fac— tors was performed as well. The average decrease in space heating costs was $121.36/year. Given hardware costs of $341.47 per home, the mean payback period (i.e., amortiza- tion of weatherization costs due to energy cost savings) was 3.56 years. Within fuel type an average of 174.71 ccf of natural gas, 215.26 gallons of fuel oil and 268.8 gallons of LP gas were saved per home. For a more detailed description of this evaluation refer to Mayer and Johnson (1981). The above discussion has briefly presented the method- ology and results of the HWP evaluation. These results were presented in aggregate form. When disaggregated this in- formation provided the basis for the efficiency feedback manipulation. Exactly how this information was delivered to participating households will be presented in the Procedure section. Participants The subjects for the present research were the heads of households of the 36 homes which were involved in the pre- viously desoribed HWP evaluation. It should be noted that 63 Table 5 Pre-Post Weatherization Thermal Requirements POST 7 SD PRE T so BTU/HDD 19,420.78 9732.46 15,149.51 7893.24 16.82 10.43 BTU/HDD/sq. ft. 21.43 11.87 64 these 38 residents were the ones who returned utility re— lease forms from the pool of 58 residents randomly selected from the overall HWP caseload. Because each of these res- idents experienced the HWP screening procedure, their total household income is equal to or less than 125% of the federally-determined poverty level. Thus, the subjects can be characterized as low-income. All participants lived in small towns or in very rural settings located in mid-central Michigan. Household size was relatively small (X = 2.42, sd = 1.89); 47% of the par- ticipants represented one—person households. They ranged in age from 24 to 82 with a mean of 57.33. Seventy-three per- cent of the subjects were female. All owned their own homes; none were renters. This reflects an additional pro- gram eligibility requirement. Prior to weatherization, subjects' homes were clearly in need of conservation improvements. The mean attic R~value was only 6.57 and work crews rated the home as being in less than fair condition. The average area of partici— pant's homes was approximately 1888 square feet. Over 88% were single-family, one-story structures. Ten percent were duplexes and the remaining homes were large, three-or—more family structures. Subjects were randomly assigned to the two experimental conditions. Fifteen households received instrumental in- formation and efficiency feedback (i.e., information com— 65 paring their pre-post weatherization energy consumption). The remaining 15 received only the instrumental information booklet and served as a "treatment—as-usual“ control group. Attrition occurred during data collection. A relative- 1y complete set of outcome measures could be obtained from 22 of the 38 original participants. This resulted in a cell size of ten for the experimental group and twelve for the control group. Table 6 summarizes the reasons for attri— tion. Subjects were paid $3.85 for returning the completed outcome questionnaires in an attempt to minimize attrition. Appendix 1 contains the letter which accompanied this pay- ment as well as the cover letter which was sent with the post-questionnaire. This cover letter informed subjects of the $3.88 payment and encouraged them to return the com- pleted questionnaire. Fortunately, utility release forms were already available. Thus, energy consumption outcomes were obtained for all 22 participants who returned post-questionnaires. Design The present research employed a randomized, two— condition, posttest only design (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). Dependent measures included an energy attitude mea— sure, a self—report of energy-related actions, and weathere corrected energy consumption. Data collection methods, re- liabililty issues and independent variables will be pre- sented in more detail in the next section. Table 7 outlines 66 Table 6 Attrition Reason for Attrition Feedback Information Only Moved to a different 2 1 community Death l l Refusal to continue 2 O in the experiment Unknown 0 1 67 Table 7 Experimental Design instrumental information instrumental plus information efficiency only feedback (treatment-as-usual (experimental group) control group) n = 10 n = l2 (1,2,3) (1,2,3) l = energy behaviors N ll energy attitudes energy consumption 68 the experimental design. Considering that the assessment of the effects of both weatherization and the experimental intervention were under- taken, energy consumption data was collected three separate times. Figure 2 details the chronology of this data col- 1ection. The comparison between energy use during heating season 1 (18/78-3/79) and heating season 2 (18/79-3/88) rep— resents the assessment of the effects of weatherization (i.e., HWP evaluation). Energy data from heating season 3 (18/88-3/81) was analyzed for differences between the ex- perimental and control groups. The energy attitude and action outcomes were collected soon after heating season 3, in May, 1981. The energy data from heating season 3 is the data of interest when determining the effects of the ex- perimental intervention. The intent with this data was to examine differences between the two treatment groups. Al- ternatively, the comparison between heating season 1 and heating season 2 enabled the computation of weatherization- related efficiency feedback, and, therefore, this data was not of interest as an outcome measure but as an operation— alization of the independent variable. Procedures This section will detail the independent treatment variables as well as present measurement development issues. The two components of the treatment included provision of both efficiency feedback and instrumental information. 69 Efficiency Feedback Individualized information concerning the efficiency benefits of weatherization was mailed to experimental house- holds at the beginning of heating season 3. This informa- tion was obtained by disaggregating the results obtained from the comparison of heating season 2 with heating season 1 on a household basis (i.e., the results of the HWP eval- uation). There were several different aspects to the feed- back. First, it should be emphasized that the feedback re- flected changes in energy consumption for the particular home to which it was being sent. It was personalized and individualized. Second, the information included in the feedback was adjusted for differences in temperature using heating degree days. Finally, the attempt was made to pre— sent the feedback in a form that was highly understandable. The contents of the feedback mailout are contained in Appen- dix 2. The specific information provided included the percent— age decrease in gallons or ccf per heating degree day (de— pendent upon fuel type), the raw amount of gallons or ccf saved, and the amount of money saved in energy bills between the pre and post weatherization heating seasons. To maxi- mize the impact of this information, money and energy sav— ings were provided in a visual presentation as well. In- cluded in the feedback mailout were two bar graphs depicting energy used and money spent on space heating for the pre- 78 weatherization and post-weatherization heating seasons. This enabled residents to visualize the energy efficiency benefits of weatherization directly. It was indicated in the letter that this information reflected "specific savings achieved for your home." In short, specific, personalized, and understandable information concerning weatherization— related efficiency benefits was provided to homeowners in the experimental condition. This information compromised the independent variable of interest. Instrumental Information Homeowners in both the experimental and control groups were provided with an 18-page booklet describing a variety of low cost/ no cost conservation actions that they could undertake themselves. This booklet was written and prepared by the author. The attempt was made to provide conservation suggestions that were appropriate for low—income families and that represented a self—help, low-cost approach to con- servation (Eccli & Eccli, 1977; Cornell Cooperative Exten- sion Energy Task Force, 1977; Grier, 1977). Appendix 3 con— tains a copy of this booklet. The booklet contained suggestions about in-the-home behavioral actions as well as a number of small-scale ”ap- propriate technology” actions. Obviously, none of the sug- gested actions replicated conservation improvements included in the HWP. Rather, the suggested conservation actions were designed to complement weatherization and, therefore, to 71 extend overall energy and money savings. Given the lack of economic discretion that low-income families face in terms of making conservation improvements (McBride, 1979; Newman & Day, 1975), the majority of the suggestions cost nothing. Those that did involve some hardware (and thus involve spending money) were designed to be inexpensive. For exam— ple, one might need to purchase a refrigerator door gasket in order to increase the efficiency of this appliance. The strictly behavioral conservation actions did not involve the purchase of hardware and it was important to perform these actions repeatedly. The areas of conservation practice in- cluded in the booklet were space heating, cooking, refrig- erator use, hot water use, laundry and landscaping The booklet was mailed to homeowners in both the feed- back and information-only conditions. Thus, this research contained an ”additive” independent variable. The control group received only instrumental information whereas the experimental group received instrumental and efficiency feedback information. The control group was characterized as 'treatment—as-usual" because information—only approaches represent the status quo among conservation programs (Crossley, 1979; Olsen, 1978; Hutton & McNeill, 1988). Finally, the information was designed to reflect the suggestions of other investigators who have worked with en- ergy information programs in the field. Thus, the informa- tion was readable and personalized (McClelland & Canter, 72 1981), was disseminated from a local rather than a cen- tralized source (Milstein, 1976), was disseminated during a peak-use period (Eittle, Valesano, & Thaler, 1979-88), and focused on low technology/behavioral conservation actions (Hutton & McNeil, 1988). The remainder of this section will describe how de- pendent variables were operationalized. This includes a discussion of the reliability of the instruments, how the data was collected, and how various criticisms of energy outcome measures were taken into account. Measures included demographics, energy-related attitudes and behaviors, and energy consumption. Demographics Some of these variables were collected 'archivally" through the Community Action Agency, while others were col- lected in the post-questionnaire. The post-questionnaire was mailed directly to homeowners. As indicated previously, they were paid $3.88 for completing and returning this questionnaire. The archival measure detailed a number of housing dem- ographics (floor area, type of fuel, structure type, height, R-values, total household membership and own/rent) and pro- vided information about the type and cost of conservation improvements installed during weatherization. In addition, weatherization work crews rated the condition of roofs, walls, doors, windows and cellars on a three—point scale (1 73 : tight seal, 2 = cracks, loose fit, 3 = leaks, holes, cracks). Finally, the number of manpower hours expended on weatherization for each home was also obtained. The post—questionnaire is in Appendix 4. It asks name, address, phone number, sex, and age in Part 1. The other parts of this questionnaire will be discussed in the follow- ing sections. It should be noted that this instrument was field tested and piloted during several face-to-face con— servation workshops conducted by the present author. Prob— lems encountered from both respondent misinterpretation of items and from items with lack of variance were taken into account. The instrument that was finally used represents the final iteration of a number of drafts. Dependent Variables Energy attitudes. This section of the post—question— naire contained thirteen items that were responded to on a 5-point, Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The items were borrowed from the work of Becker and his colleagues (Becker, Seligman & Darley, 1979; Becker, Seligman, Fazio & Darley, 1981; Seligman, Kriss, Darley, Fazio, Becker & Pryor, 1979). These researchers originally employed a 58-item instrument which they submit- ted to a principal components analysis. Seven highly reli— able factors emerged. The items selected for use in the present research were the items with the highest loadings on these seven factors (see the Introduction). Thus, the at- 74 titude instrument that was used contained items which spanned a number of energy-related attitudinal dimensions. The complete l3—item instrument can be found in Appendix 4 (part 3). The attitudinal data was analyzed using a rational- empirical scaling approach (Hunter & Gerbing, 1979). An oblique multiple groups factor analysis was performed using Hunter‘s PACKAGE. PACKAGE enables the user to define his/her own clusters, based on rational concerns, and then put these user—defined clusters to an empirical-test of uni- dimensionality. The attitudinal subscales that emerged from this process are presented in Table 8. Corrected item- factor correlations are included as well as the Cronbach alpha coefficient, which is an index of internal consis- tency. Three reliable subscales were discovered. Eleven of the thirteen items were included across the three subscales. The first subscale was interpreted as pessimism with respect to money savings and family health resulting from energy conservation. The items in this subscale reflected resi- dents' skepticism concerning the monetary benefits of con- servation efforts and their concerns about low house tem— peratures resulting from thermostat setbacks. The second subscale contained three items and was labeled optimism with respect to individual conservation efforts. Substantially, these items concern the role of the individual in meeting 75 Table 8 Attitude Subscales: Items, Item Loadings and Internal Consistency Coefficients Scale 1 PESSIMISM WITH RESPECT TO MONEY SAVINGS AND FAMILY HEALTH RESULTING FROM ENERGY CONSERVATION (Cronbach alpha = .79) Items Loadings Conserving energy in the house does not 83 save much money. My family would probably get more colds and other illnesses if I turned down the .73 thermostat in the winter. Most energy saving home improvements cost 62 more money than they save. ' My heating consumption habits are pretty well fixed and I cannot see myself changing .54 them. No matter how hard I try to conserve 56 energy, I could only save pennies a day. ' Scale 2 OPTIMISM WITH RESPECT TO INDIVIDUAL CONSERVATION EFFORTS (Cronbach alpha = .84) Items Loadings More conservation on the part of individ- 92 uals can alleviate the energy problem. ' Energy conservation is a very important 78 goal for American society. ' Overconsumption by individuals has contrib- 70 uted to the country's energy problem. ‘ Scale 3 OPTIMISM WITH RESPECT TO TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS TO ENERGY PROBLEMS (Cronbach alpha = .56) Items Loadings There are things a person can do with little 83 effort to reduce his/her heating bill. Modern technology will soon provide society 49 with a lasting source of energy. ° I am willing to spend a few days on do-it- yourself projects to reduce my home's heat .35 loss. 76 national energy conservation goals. Residents scoring high on this dimension believe that it is important for indivi- duals to advocate conservation action and that individual actions can impact on our energy problems. The final sub— scale was interpreted as optimism with respect to techno- logical solutions. These items reflected residents' beliefs that both large-scale and small-scale technologies can lead to increased efficiency. In sum, the rational-empirical scaling approach resul- ted in three independent and internally consistent attitude subscales. Energy behaviors. Residents were asked how frequently they performed 22 energy conservation actions in the post— questionnaire. These 22 items replicated, to a large ex— tent, the conservation suggestions that were included in the instrumental information booklet. Residents responded on a S-point frequency scale (1 = does not apply, 5 = always). Appendix 4 contains the energy behavior part of the post— questionnaire (part 2). A two-fold reliability analysis was undertaken for the behavior items. Both a test—retest and an internal consis- tency approach was employed. Given the previously discussed cautions concerning energy behavior self-reports (Geller, Ferguson & Brasted, 1978), it was important to emphasize and illustrate the potential quality of this data. Data involving self-report of energy behaviors was col- 77 lected twice from a randomly-selected 28% subsample of the overall participants. The first time it was collected on the post-questionnaire (all 22 subjects included); the sec- ond time it was collected by telephone interview. The av- erage time span between these two administrations was three and one-half weeks. Appendix 5 contains the protocol used in conducting the retest interviews. The interviewer iden- tified himself as a staff member of the Community Energy Education Project and assured the respondent about any con- fidentiality concerns he or she may have had. He then ex- plained the response categories and asked the respondent to rate the frequency of each behavior as it was read. The exact agreement between the interview and questionnaire ad- ministrations was 72% This is a conservative reliability estimate given the different data collection modalities em- ployed (telephone vs. questionnaire). Similar to the attitude items, the behavioral section was also submitted to a rational-empirical scaling procedure using PACKAGE. Although it is not common practice to look for underlying factors in items of this type, it was rea- soned that behaviors that impact on one area of energy use may covary and, therefore, cluster into an internally- consistent and rationally interpretable factor. The results of this analysis can be found in Table 9. Once again, Cron- bach's alpha coefficient and corrected item-total correla- tions are presented. 78 As indicated by Table 9, ten of the items did not fall into either of the two subscales. Each subscale contains six individual items. The first subscale includes behaviors dealing with changes in space heating consumption. Each of these conservation actions results in more efficient uses of space heating energy. The items in the second subscale con- cern behaviors related to hot water and appliance use. Each of these items represents a particular curtailment activity which results in decreased energy use. Respondents who scored high on either of these two subscales have performed the included behaviors on a more frequent basis and, there- fore, have engaged in more pro~conservation action. In sum, two methods were used for determining the re- liability of the energy behavior self-report. Both test— retest and internal consistency reliability analyses sug- gested that the quality of this data is better than would be expected given other researchers' concerns. Energy consumption. This set of data was collected directly from utility companies. Signed release of informa- tion forms had already been obtained during the HWP evalua- tion. It was necessary to collect consumption information for three different fuel types, namely, fuel oil, natural gas and LP gas. The data was collected in terms of units of energy used over the course of a heating season (October to March). In the case of fuel oil and LP gas an energy ”unit" is represented by a gallon. In the case of natural gas one 79 Table 9 Energy Behavior Subscales: Items, Item Loadings and Internal Consistency Coefficients Scale l SPACE HEATING (Cronbach alpha = .68) Items Loadings Close off unused rooms. .83 Bleed radiators .72 Build a reflector of cardboard and aluminum foil for radiators or heat .52 registers. Make paper logs. .42 Open drapes and curtains on sunny 34 days and close at night. Move furniture away from heat registers 29 or radiators. ' Scale 2 HOT WATER AND APPLIANCE USE (Cronbach alpha = .70) Items Loadings Drain a bucket of water from the bottom of hot water heater tank, .6l as necessary. Turn off unused appliances (such as lighting fixtures, stereos, TV. .6l radios, etc. Limit amount of hot water for bathing 58 and dishwashing. ' Replace refrigerator gaskets. .49 Match the size of the utensil to the 48 size of the stove burner you are using. Install shower flow restrictors. .4l 88 hundred cubic feet (Ccf) represented one energy "unit." Although, at first glance, consumption data may seem to be an ideal outcome measure (e.g., it is on a ratio scale, non-reactive, reliable and valid), numerous problems exist in determining whether changes in consumption are caused directly by the intervention or by other, potentially con- founding variables. McClelland and Cook (1988) indicate several plausible rival hypotheses: (1) changes in weather, (2) changes in household membership, and (3) differences in the area of living space among households. The present re— search needed to confront these problems as well as the problem of differing fuel types. Several data transformations were undertaken to deal with these problems. First, information was collected from the National Weather Service about the number of heating degree days experienced during the heating season in ques- tion. HDD is a deviation from 65 degrees for one day. By expressing consumption as units of energy used per HDD, dif- ferences in temperature between heating seasons are taken into account. Second, residents were asked if there had been any changes in household membership over the past year. All residents responded that household size had remained constant. Thus, this particular threat to validity dis- appeared. Third, information about the number of square feet of living space in target homes had been obtained ar- chivally from the Community Action Agency. By expressing 81 consumption as units of energy per HDD per square foot of living space, both weather and house size differences are controlled. Finally, the raw gallon and Ccf data was con— verted to British Thermal Units (BTU). In this way the amount of energy used is directly comparable across fuel types. Thus, the validity of the consumption outcome data was enhanced by performing the above transformations. This data was analyzed in terms of BTU per HDD per square foot, sometimes known as the thermal requirement. Factors impacting on conservation action. This data was also collected in the post-questionnaire and is con- tained in Appendix 4 (Part 4). Two sets of items were in- cluded, each containing four items. The first set asked about reasons facilitating conservation actions; the second asked about reasons inhibiting conservation actions. The directions instructed respondents to rate each facilitating or inhibiting factor on a 5-point, Likert—type scale (1 = extremely unimportant, 5 = extremely important). The items attempted to discern the role of several mediators on con- servation actions, such as the impact of perceived money and efiergy savings, ability to implement difficult conservation improvements, finding the time to take conservation actions, and the realization that investments would pay for them- Selves over time. In addition, one item served as a manip- ulantion check. This item asked respondents to rate the im- Portance of the instrumental information booklet in facili- 82 tating conservation practice. In this way an unobtrusive measure of treatment integrity was included. gummary This section has outlined participant selection and assignment, design issues, and independent (treatment) and dependent (outcome) variables. In sum, a randomized field experiment was conducted. The experimental group's treat— ment consisted of both efficiency feedback and instrumental information. The control group received only instrumental information. Participants were low-income household heads who had experienced a major energy efficiency initiative in the form of subsidized weatherization. Outcomes included post-only measures of attitudes, behaviors and energy con- sumption. Finally, participants were asked to rate a number of different factors facilitating and inhibiting energy con— servation action. CHAPTER 3 RESULTS This section will be organized around the five research questions presented at the conclusion of the Introduction. The first part of this section will discuss the issues re- lated to the initial equivalency of the two experimental groups. Following this, each research question will be con- sidered in turn. Equivalency Given that a post-test only design was utilized, it is especially important to test for initial differences between the experimental and control groups. This discussion will serve as a check on the random assignment procedure that was used to construct the two groups. Although no formal pre— test was administered, the archival data collected from the Community Action Agency was obtained by agency staff prior- to the intervention and was largely composed of face-valid variables that typically do not change over time. 83 v—N—‘H-‘i M ... , _ L 84 Table 18 reports the means and standard deviations of several personal, housing and energy—use demographics. The only personal demographic considered is age. Although the control group residents are older than the experimental group residents this difference is not significant. Housing demographics include such variables as house condition, floor area, total household membership, and attic insulation R—value. As indicated previously, the house condition var- iable is the sum score of five individual ratings made by members of the weatherization work crews. Analyses of var— iance revealed two significant differences for the housing demographic variables. First, homes in the control group contained signifi- cantly more insulation in their attics than control group homes prior to weatherization (p < .85). The analysis of variance is summarized in Table 11. On the average, control group homes had four times as much protection against heat loss as experimental group homes. Of course this difference existed before weatherization occured. Following weather- ization the mean R-value for both groups was almost ident- ical. However, it does indicate that control group homes were better insulated prior to any type of energy-related intervention, whether weatherization or information provi- sion. Second, there was a significant difference in house' condition (p > .85). The analysis of variance is presented in Table 12. This measure encompassed five different aspects Pre-intervention Equivalency of Table 10 85 Feedback and Information—only Groups Feedback Information Only T’ s0 7‘ so Total # in Household 2.25 1.91 2.55 1.97 Floor Area in sq. ft. 1,090.75 285.61 938.73 519.27 BTU/DD 18,175.85 10,496.11 12,744.99 6,219.02 BTU/DD/sq. ft. 16.33 7.37 17.18 12.55 Resident Age 55.00 18.42 56.83 17.54 weatherization TOtal 520.05 209.10 457.66 155.66 Costs weatherizatl°n ”aterlal 390.89 162.72 361.56 125.53 Costs Payback Period 6.85 5.41 5.02 5.79 Percentage Change in BTU/DD/sq. ft. 20.46 3.31 23.87 4.63 Pre/post Weatherization R-value (Post Weatheriza- 33 00 0 33.1] 3.76 tion) R-value (Pre Weatheriza- 2.20 4.92 9.00 6.06* t1on) House Condition 1.24 5.29 2.14 4.01* *p < .05 86 Table 11 Pre-weatherization R—value of Attic Insulation feedback information-only 2.2 9.00 (:9.64)* (lll.88) Analysis of Variance Source df MS F Prob. n2 Condition 1 148.63 4.56 .05 .28 Residual 12 32.57 Total 13 41.50 *95% confidence interval in parentheses .. _ 4_—.‘_._.— 87 Table 12 House Condition feedback information—only 6.22 10.66 (:10.36)* (:7.86) Analysis of Variance Source df MS F Prob. n2 Condition 1 101.59 4.82 .04 .20 Residual 19 21.06 Total 20 25.09 *95% confidence interval in parentheses 88 of infiltration-related house condition. The control group possessed the greater mean rating. Thus, experimental group homes experienced a significantly greater degree of heat loss through both conduction (insulation) and infiltration (cracks and leaks) prior to weatherization, but not after ‘weatherization. All other housing demographic differences svere non-significant. Another set of variables included here is energy-use (demographics. It was important to examine differences with- .in this set of variables in order to ensure that weather- :ization wasn't performed differentially between the two grnaups. Thus, energy-use demographics included variables srnsh as weatherization costs, payback periods, pre/post Analyses changes in consumption, and thermal requirements. <3f’ variance revealed no significant differences. Therefore, it: can be concluded that the weatherization "treatment" was chel.ivered equivalently to the experimental and control gr<>t1ps. Furthermore, this also indicates that there were no sigyriificant differences between the efficiency feedback in— formation provided, if it had been delivered to both groups. Overall, it appears that the control group homes had more: I'thermal integrity" prior to weatherization, but that weatherization resulted in equating the efficiency features of the homes across both groups. .Several other demographic variables were not continuous and,. 'therefore, were analyzed using chi—square, a non- 89 parametric technique. These variables included height of the house (l-story, 2-story, etc.), fuel type (fuel oil, natural gas, LP gas), heating delivery system (hot water, hot air), construction materials (wood, masonry), and sex of the respondent. One significant difference emerged. Control group homes were more likely to be heated with fuel oil, whereas feedback group homes were more likely to be heated 'with natural gas (chi—square = 6.75, df = 2, p > .85). The contingecy table is presented in Table 13. jDependent variables Impact on attitudes. As discussed previously, the at- t:itude data was broken down into three subscales using a reational-empirical approach. Therefore, on the first pass, triis data was not analyzed at the individual item level. Ralther, sum scores for each subscale were computed and these scale scores were submitted to an analysis of variance. Ex- pearfiimental condition served as the independent variable. TTlinS analysis indicated that there were no significant dif- ferences between the two groups on any of the subscales. Due to the lack of differences uncovered in the above aneal.ysis, an analysis of individual items was performed. One marxgzinally significant difference emerged. Residents in the feecitaack group believed more strongly that conserving energy does; not save much money (p < .18). The analysis of varianCe is summarized in Table 14. This lack of differences was perhaps due to the initial 90 Table 13 Cross-tabulation: Condition by Fuel Type Information- Feedback Only Fuel 011 § 1 (4.8%) 8 (38.1%) Natural Gas ) 7 (33.3%) 3 (14.3%) 1 f LP Gas 1 1 (4.8%) l (4.8%) 1 9 (42.9%) 12 (57.1%) 10 91 Table 14 Individual Attitude Items: Conserving Energy Does Not Save Much Money feedback information-only 3.11 2.00 (:3.ll)* (22.51) Analysis of Variance Source df MS F Prob. n2 Condition 1 4.80 2.70 .10 .13 Residual 18 1.78 Total 19 1.94 *95% confidence interval in parentheses 92 nonequivalence of the two groups on fuel type. An attempt was made to control for these differences by using analysis of covariance. Specifically, two univariate analyses of covariance were performed with overall energy costs and dol— lars per BTU employed as covariates. These two covariates represent the differential economic impacts of different fuel types. Fuel oil users pay more per BTU of energy and therefore may have a larger incentive to conserve. Alterna— tively, natural gas users pay less per BTU and therefore may riot be as inclined to undertake conservation action. Remem- laer that the control group contained a significantly higher proportion of fuel oil users. It was thought that this dif- fearence may have masked the effects of the intervention. Th us, in this analysis, overall energy costs and dollars per BTU were used as covariates, experimental condition served as; the independent variable, and attitude scale scores and itzenn scores were used as the dependent variable. These re- SLilyts did not differ from those using analysis of variance as described above. Impact on behaviors. An analysis of variance was per- formed on the rationally-empirically derived behavior sub- scales. Experimental condition served as the independent variable and the behavior subscale scores (i.e., the sum SCOZTEi of the items in the subscale) served as the dependent vari-eable. No significant differences emerged. Because the test2-retest agreement figure was relatively high (72%): an 93 analysis of variance on the individual item scores was per~ formed as well. Significant differences existed on three items. The means for these three items were greater for the control group than for the experimental group, indicating that control group residents performed these behaviors more frequently. The items on whict these differences occured dealt with appropiate use of window coverings, cleaning of lighting fixtures, and the installation of shower flow re- strictors. Table 15 depicts the analyses of variance for each of these three items. Using the same reasoning that was presented in the above section, an analysis of covariance using the same co- variates was performed on the behavior subscale scores and item scores as well. Once again, overall energy costs and dollars per BTU served as the covariates. Theses results did not differ from those using analysis of variance. Impact on consumption. As discussed previously, the consumption data was transformed from raw energy units into BTU/HDD/sq. ft. in order to take into account several poten— tially confounding varaibles. These transformations result- ed in a dependent variable that was uncontaminated by household differences in fuel type and amount of living space or by differences in temperature across heating sea- sons. Table 16 reports the means and standard deviations of BTU/HDD and BTU/HDD/sq. ft. for both experimental and con- trol groups. Analyses of variance designed to test for dif— 1 94 Table 15 Individual Behavior Items ”Open drapes and curtains on sunny days; close at night“ feedback information-only 4.00 4.92 (:2.94)* (:.57) Analysis of Variance Source df MS F Prob. n2 Condition 1 4.32 4.34 .05 .18 Residual 19 .99 Total 20 1.16 “Clean lighting fixtures" feedback information-only 3.56 4.33 (31.04) (:1.27) Analysis of Variance Source df MS F Prob. n2 Condition 1 3.11 8.58 .01 .31 Residual 19 .36 Total 20 .50 ”Install shower flow restrictor" feedback information-only 1.44 2.58 ( ($1.04) . (:3.29) ( Analysis of Variance Source df MS F Prob. 02 Condition 1 5.63 3.08 .10 .15 Residual 18 1.83 Total 19 * - 95% confidence interval in parentheses 95 Table 16 Feedback, Information—only and Overall Means for Post-treatment Energy Usage Indicators Information Feedback Only Overall I so I so I so BTU/HDD BTU/HOD/sq. 18,405.88 10,101.54 12,308.10 5779.64 14,852.99 8089.11 ft. 16.17 7.59 16.58 11.86 16.41 10.03 96 ferences between groups on these two energy consumption in- dicators revealed no significant differences. Perhaps a more sensitive indicator of changes in energy consumption is represented by the percentage change in con— sumption between heating seasons. In terms of the present study this new variable was computed by comparing consump— tion figures for the heating season prior to the interven— tion with consumption for the heating season following the intervention. More specifically, this new variable was the percentage change in BTU/HDD/sq. ft. between heating season 2 and heating season 3 (see Figure 2). An analysis of var- iance was performed on this percentage change energy out- come. Cell means and standard deviations as well as a sum— mary of the analysis of variance are presented in Table 17. The control group's consumption decreased more than the ex- perimental group's consumption. This difference was margin- ally significant (p < .18). Once again, when analysis of covariance was performed the results exhibited the same pat- tern as when analysis of variance was performed. In sum, it appears that the control group residents conserved more energy than experimental group residents, at least to a marginal degree. Relationships Among Dependent variables Given the discussion and controversy surrounding the relationships among energy-related behaviors, attitudes and consumption (Becker, Seligman, Fazio, and Darley, 1981; 97 epee zeppesemcee we eewuoeppee meepmes meeweceepemeee1umee m :emmem assume: meeetm seen on eeppes meoexeee coweesceecH meme comp nesemeee we neweeeepeo ‘\ \ N cemeem mevuee: \ \ mzoge gee; ex: As eo__aemee magma ue>eceew cospeNVEespemz F cemeem mewpeez $3 14$! :{m 14¢.l OMS: 11¢) ow\m I4¢.l atop 14¢| QO 14¢) on}: coppeoppeo even me ameFeeeteo N deemed 98 Table 17 Percentage Change in Energy Consumption1 feedback information-only 1.32 O 3.60 (:4.511‘ (:5.84) Analysis of Variance Source df MS F Prob. n2 Condition 1 23.97 3.24 .09 .16 Residual 17 7.39 Total 18 8.32 1 Based on computations of percentage change in BTU/HOD/sq. ft. between heating season 2 and heating season 3. 2 y . . , . 95% conf1dence 1nterva1 1n parentheses. 99 McClelland and Canter, 1981; Geller, 1981; Winett, 1988; Olsen, 1981; Pallak, Cook and Sullivan, 1981), a correla- tional approach was utilized to examine this issue. Speci- fically, pearson correlation coefficients were computed among the behavioral and attitudinal subscales and the ener— gy consumption outcome variables. Several significant and illuminating relationships emerged. First, behaviors involving hot water and appliance use conservation appear to be related to energy attitudes, whereas behaviors involving space heating conservation were unrelated to attitudes. The attitude subscale concerned with pessimism regarding money savings due to conservation ef- forts was negatively related to the frequency of hot water and appliance use conservation action (r = -.38, n = 28,p <. 85). In other words, residents who believed that conserva— tion actions were unlikely to result in money savings tended to not undertake conservation action. On the other hand, the two optimism subscales were positively related to hot water and appliance use conservation action. More specifically, these behaviors were significantly correlated to attitudes concerning the role of individual efforts in conservation (r = .69, n = 22, P < .881) and optimism with regards to technology-based conservation (r = .53, n = 19, p < .18). Interestingly, space heating conservation behaviors had no significant correlations with any of the three attitude sub- scales. 188 Second, there was a trend that indicated that space heating behaviors were related to indices of home effi- ciency. This relationship was negative and thus suggested that people who have well-insulated, efficient homes feel complacent and do not engage in space heating conservation behavior on a regular basis. Space heating actions were re— lated to consumption during both heating season 2 (r = -.38,n = 18, p < .18) and heating season 3 (r = -.36, n = 18, p < .18). Thus, it seems that residents who are ex- periencing energy efficiency via technology do not feel the need to undertake further behavioral space heating conserva- tion action. Third, the correlational analysis suggested that resi- dents who lived in energy inefficient homes tended to be more optimistic in terms of solving energy problems. Speci- fically, the two attitude subscales concerned with optimism regarding individual conservation action (r = -.49, n = 16, p < .85) and optimism with regard to technology-based con- servation (r = —.33, n = 19, p < .18) were negatively rela- ted to home efficiency. Not suprisingly, this relationship was stronger for the individual role subscale. These results would be predicted by and concur with the results of Hummel, Levitt and Loomis (1978). In other words, residents who live in less energy efficient homes were more optimistic in terms of meaningful conservation occuring via both individual ac- tion and the implementation of conservation technology. 181 The correlational analysis discussed above was also performed for the experimental and control groups separate— ly. The intent of this analysis was to determine if these relationships were as strong within the two treatment groups. This issue is of interest because the experimental group residents received efficiency feedback whereas the control group residents did not. Thus the above relation- ships, at least those focusing on home efficiency, attitudes and behaviors, might be stronger among experimental group residents. Of course, the significance level of these within group correlations will be decreased given that the sample size of each group is approximately half that of the entire study. Nevertheless, the relative magnitude and direction of these within group correlations might be illustrative of some important trends. The results of this analysis were not conclusive. For both experimental and control groups the relationship be— tween efficiency and space heating behavior was still nega- tive and of a comparative magnitude. Therefore, the negative relationship between behavior and efficiency appears to be as strong for one group as for the other. For the attitude- efficiency relationships the correlations were still nega- tive for both groups. However, the magnitude was much great- er within the experimental group (r = -.52) than within the control group (r = -.27). This suggests that the attitude- efficiency relationships were stronger within the experi- 182 mental group. Thus, it might be suggested that the following conclusion is more salient among experimental group resi- dents: residents who have high efficiency homes tend to have pessimistic energy-related attitudes. Decision Factors This part of the post-questionnaire was designed to measure residents' reasons for implementing or not imple- menting any type of conservation action. The format and con- tent of this part of the instrument was partially adapted from Olsen and Cluett's (1979) evaluation of Seattle City Light's Neighborhood Conservation Program. There were two separate sections. The first asked about reasons facili— tating conservation action; the second asked about reasons inhibiting conservation action. Table 18 presents the group and overall means and stan— dard deviations for both facilitating and inhibiting reasons impacting on conservation action. The overall means were used.to rank order these items on the ratings of their im— portance. The far right column in Table 18 assigns a numeri- cal rank order to each of the facilitating and inhibiting reasons. As can be seen, those reasons involving money pay- backs or lack of investment monies were rated as most im— portant. It was also of interest to determine whether there were any differences between the experimental and control groups on these variables. Consequently, an analysis of variance on as as Low essowwwwe coo aw N mm.P mw.m mN._ oo.e oo._ ee.m ego: we ecwx mwcu use» mcwwoow .e w mm. mw.e mo. wo.e mm. mm.e moeceemoc wewececww we xoe— .o eeem cowee>tomceo Leweowptee see ee m mN._ mm.m cm._ mo.m w_._ mw.m on 3e; we emeePZecx we xeew .e e mm._ ow.m mm._ ww.m oo.— oo.m eewe we xee_ .e am V mm M am e. Lento FFeLo>o cho xoeeeeod xeem . cowbesceweo meoweoete cowbe>eemceo xmcoco mcwuwewceH mcemeem wwwwe motoco cw mmcw>em setw oswu co>e xeee ewee on eweez .3e: eopmm>cw P we. mm.e we. mm.e ”N. wo.e emcee ece mews page :ewuerpeec .e socewowwwemuwwom emceco Fecewpe: we Poem oz» cu m mm. e_.e em. ww.e mm. m_.e mewpeewguceo one so» peep mcwzeex .e eewxeee zxmteem e>em .aeeez e>em= e o_.F ww.m ew.w mw.m we.w mc.m ecu cw eo>weoee eewuesgewcw .e wwomtee» see; one mcwee an N mm. mm.e om. om.e no. mw.e memcoexe oeeeoc ea open mcwee .e cm m. cm N. am .M Lento wwete>o cho xeeeeeem xcem :ewuescewcH meewpeete cowbe>temceo smcmcm mewuepwwweee meemeem mp oweew 184 was performed for each item. Experimental treatment served as the independent variable and importance ratings for each item served as the dependent variable. There were no sig- nificant differences between the groups. Thus, it seems that treatment had no differential impact on residents' reasons for implementing or not implementing conservation action. Finally, one of the items was designed to serve as a manipulation check. This item asked residents to rate the importance of the instrumental information booklet on facil- itating conservation action. This measure may be viewed as a measure of treatment intensity. The overall mean for this item was 3.71, indicating that residents considered the booklet "slightly important" in facilitating conservation action. Although this item was last in the rank order, the rating suggested that the instrumental information booklet was still considered relatively important in terms of decision—making regarding conservation action. Furthermore, there were no differences between the groups in how they rated the importance of the booklet. Summary Overall, the results suggested that providing effi- ciency feedback did not act to increase pro-conservation behaviors and attitudes. Indeed, it appears that informing residents about efficiency retarded their frequency of per— forming conservation action. This conclusion is largely substantiated by the difference between the groups on per— 185 centage change in actual energy consumption. The control group decreased their consumption following treatment sig- nificantly more than the experimental group did. Several attitude and behavior item-level analyses supported these results. One major problem that was revealed concerned the ini— tial nonequivalence of the groups. Control group homes were better insulated prior to weatherization. However, these differences were nullified immediately prior to the inter- vention via conservation improvements installed through the HWP. In other words, these initial differences may be un- important because homes in both groups were weatherized to the same standards prior to the information provision inter- vention. However, significant differences in fuel type still existed. An attempt was made to deal with this problem em— ploying analysis of covariance. The correlational analysis provided several conclusions which may bear upon the outcome results discussed above. Specifically, residents with highly efficient homes tended not to perform space heating conservation behaviors and tended to have more pessimistic attitudes with regard to the positve benefits of conservation. This suggests an explana- tion of why experimental group residents saved less energy: they possessed knowledge of the highly efficient nature of their homes and thus felt they did not need to take further conservation action. This issue will be discussed more thor- 186 oughly in the next section. Finally, a rank ordering pro- cedure was used to discriminate among various reasons facil- itating and inhibiting pro-conservation decision-making. Reasons involving some moneynbased concerns were viewed as most important. CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION It was the intent of this study to experimentally ex- amine the effects of instrumental and efficiency information provision on low-income households. One of the randomly- constructed treatment groups received both efficiency feed- back and instrumental information. The other group received only instrumental information. Given the results of pre- vious research (Ellis, Gaskell & Pike,1979; Stern, 1976; Claxton & Anderson,l979; Worral,1976), it was hypothesized that efficiency and instrumental information provision might be complementary. In other words, one type of information would enhance the effects of the other. In general, the ,results suggested that this was not the case. In fact, the results suggested the opposite. Given the differing con-g texts of the previously cited research (appliance sales and frequent, behavior-based feedback) and the current research (one-time, structural efficiency-based feedback), it cannot 107 188 be said that the present results directly contradict the results of the previous research. Indeed, the efficiency of homes and the efficiency of appliances are surely treated differently by consumers in terms of attitudes and decision- making behaviors. One possible account for the current re- sults is suggested by the phenomena which may be labeled compensation (Hayes, 1976). Essentially, compensation is a direct technology-behavior interface. It refers to con— sumers' behavioral reactions to the introduction of energy efficiency in their lives. In short, if someone feels that conservation is already being accomplished due to an ef- ficient technology, then they see no need to implement con- servation action themselves. Thus, it might be suggested that feedback group residents exhibited little conservation action compared to control group residents because they were informed of the high efficiency of their homes. Whereas the control group residents might suspect this is the case, they had no concrete, personalized information which indicated to them the highly efficient nature of their homes. This issue will be discussed in more detail later. Three different dependent variables were examined in order to draw conclusions about the impact of the interven— tion. These were attitudes, conservation behaviors and en- ergy consumption. The effects of the intervention on these three outcomes constitutes the first three research ques- tions posed at the conclusion of the introduction. The 189 fourth and sixth research questions were concerned with the interrelationships among the three dependent variables and demographic characteristics. Several of these relationships bear upon the interpretation of the outcome results, partic- ularly in regard to the compensation issue. The final re— search question addressed reasons for implementing or not implementing various conservation actions. Each of these questions will be considered in turn. The concluding sec- tions of this discussion will attempt to integrate the find- ings across research questions, to outline the limita- tions of this exploratory piece of research, and to indicate some future directions. Dependent variables Impact on attitudes. Three attitudinal subscales were developed employing a rational-empirical approach. The first dealt with pessimism with regard to money savings re— sulting from conservation. The other two were concerned with optimism with respect to individual conservation ef- forts and with respect to technology—based solutions to en- ergy problems. Sum scores for these three subscales com— prised the attitudinal dependent variables. The results indicated that there were no differences between the groups; these same results were obtained when an analysis of co- variance was performed. When an analysis was performed at the individual item level, one significant difference emerged. Experimental group residents thought that "con- 118 serving energy does not save much money" more so than con- trol group residents. Thus, control group residents exhib— ited stronger pro-conservation attitudes in this limited way. In terms of measurement issues, the technology-based conservation optimism subscale had less than ideal internal consistency. It is somewhat questionable whether the items in this subscale are measuring a unitary dimension. The other two subscales exhibited good internal consistency. Furthermore, only one of thirteen items was significantly different for the two groups. And this difference was only marginal (p < .18). In sum, treatment had little, if any, impact on energy—related attitudes. Impact on behaviors. Twelve of the 22 behavior items formed two subscales containing six items each. One con— cerned space heating behaviors and the other hot water and appliance use behaviors. Some of the items not included in the subscales because of empirical reasons should have been included with one or the other subscales based on rational reasons. In other words, some items, that in a rational sense, should have become an item within one of the sub- scales did not. Further, the internal consistency coeffi- cients were not outstanding. However, the test-retest reli- ability coefficient indicated that the data was of relative- ly good quality. Given the above, both scale level and item level analyses were conducted. 111 The results indicated no significant differences be- tween groups on the behavioral subscale sum scores. At the individual item level, three significant differences emerged. For each of these significant items the control group residents possessed the higher mean. Thus, in a lim— ited way, the control group residents performed certain con- servation behaviors more frequently. When an analysis was performed using a sum score encompassing all 22 behavior items, the difference was not significant, although the con- trol group still possessed the higher mean. A note of cau- tion is in order here. It may be that the three differences that did emerge could be spurious (i.e., due to chance alone given the large number of items individually analyzed). The high test-retest reliability coefficient is of in- terest in and of itself. Given past researchers' lack of confidence in behavioral self—reports (Geller, Ferguson & Brasted, 1978; Winett, 1979; McClelland & Cook, 1981), one would expect this reliability coefficient to be poor. This was not the case. The exact agreement coefficient was 72%. If a correlation was used as the coefficient, the test- retest index would be inflated. Perhaps energy behavior self—reports-should not be dismissed outright as unreliable. This is especially important when some small, topically- oriented subset of behaviors are targeted for change. When consumption alone is employed as a dependent variable, it is impossible to determine what particular actions led to what 112 proportion of changes in consumption. This exact problem has plagued past research (Newsom & Makranczy,1978; McClel— land & Canter,l981). Although the interventions utilized in the above studies resulted in decreased consumption, it was not clear what led to the consumption reductions. These researchers could only speculate that the reductions were due to some combination of physical and behavioral changes. Continued use of test—retest methodology as well as observa— tional checks on self—reports may provide information bear— ing on the potential usefulness of this type of data. In sum, the results indicated that control group resi- dents performed at least three conservation behaviors more frequently than experimental group residents. On the re— maining items, no significant differences emerged. Some marginal evidence existed that control group residents un— dertook more conservation actions. Impact on consumption. The raw energy consumption data that was collected was transformed in order to eliminate several potentially confounding variables. Specifically, BTU/HDD and BTU/HDD/sq. ft. were utilized as consumption dependent variables. Although these indices of consumption decreased dramatically following weatherization, there were no significant differences between the two experimental groups following the intervention. In an attempt to make these measures more sensitive to any changes that may have occurred, the percentage change in consumption was utilized 113 as a dependent variable as well. In this analysis a mar— ginal difference existed between the groups (p < .18). Con— trol group residents decreased their consumption to a great- er extent than experimental group residents. Although it cannot be precisely determined what caused these consumption changes, it might be suggested that be- havioral change on the part of residents is the only avail- able explanation. lhis speculation is offered because other, alternative explanations are essentially ruled out. Weather, house size and changes in household membership are implicitly controlled for given the nature of the dependent variable. It is highly unlikely that any other major tech- nological improvements were undertaken because: (1) the homes had already been weatherized, and (2) it is unlikely that the low-income residents had enough money to do so (Grier, 1977; McBride, 1979; Newman & Day, 1978). Further- more, the magnitude of the consumption changes correspond to what would be expected from some combination of behavioral changes (Jacobs & Shama, 1981; Stern & Gardner, 1981). Finally, the self-report behavior data marginally indicated that control group residents performed some conservation behaviors more frequently than experimental group residents. Furthermore, mean sum scores for all 22 behavior items were computed for each group. Although the difference of these means was not statistically significant, the trend indicated that control group residents engaged in conservation be- 114 havior more frequently than experimental group residents. In sum, control group residents decreased their con— sumption to a greater extent than experimental group resi- dents. An argument was made that these consumption changes were attributable to changes in resident behavior. Relationships Among Dependent Variables Several significant relationships were uncovered in this analysis. A pattern of correlations suggested that energy attitudes were related to hot water and appliance use behaviors but were not related to space heating conservation behaviors. Hot water and appliance use behaviors were nega— tively correlated with the pessimism attitude subscale and positively correlated with the two optimism attitude sub- scales. This finding suggests the reality of these rela- tionships. If all the correlations had been negative, one would be suspicious of the findings simply because the op— timism and pessimism subscales are opposing in their direc- tionality. Thus, if the pessimism subscale had a negative relationship with a measure, one would expect the optimism subscales to have a positive relationship with that same measure. And, in fact, this was the case. Residents who were optimistic about technological solutions and about the role of the individual performed hot water and appliance use behaviors more frequently. Those who were pessimistic con- cerning the dollars savings resulting from conservation per- formed conservation behaviors less frequently. These find— 115 ings parallel those of Hummel, Levitt and Loomis (1978) and Becker, Seligman and Darley (1979). These researchers dis— covered that residents who attributed blame to individual consumers were more likely to report behavioral intentions to conserve or to consume less energy. It should also be noted here that participants were provided with definite expectations about the potential re- sults of conservation actions. The instrumental information booklet clearly suggested that the implementation of con- servation action would result in money and energy savings. Given Olsen's (1981) and Pallack, Cook and Sullivan's (1981) advocacy of the Fishbein model (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) in energy attitude-behavior work, it may be that this communi- cated expectation provided a particular situational context that tied certain behaviors to certain attitudes. The Fish- bein model posits that attitudes will predict behavior only when attitudes toward a particular action, which are the. result of the consequences of that action, are considered. Both of these conditions are met within the present re- search. Perhaps the context that was provided through the informational booklet (i.e., these behaviors will have these results) helped solidify the particular attitude—behavior relationships that were uncovered. The second set of findings in this area concerned the relationship between attitudes and behaviors and indices of thermal efficiency. These results will be integrated with 116 the results concerning treatment outcome. This set of find- ings indicated the following: (1) space heating actions were negatively correlated with efficiency and (2) the two opti- mism attitude subscales (individual role and technology— based conservation) were negatively correlated with effi— ciency. This suggests that people who live in efficient homes tend to perform conservation actions less frequently and tend to be pessimistic about the benefits of conserva- tion. Thus, it appears that residents who have well- insulated, thermally efficient homes feel complacent, do not engage in space heating conservation actions on a regular basis, and possess attitudes that are not ”pro-conserva- tion.” Furthermore, the results indicated that these relationships were of a stronger magnitude within the experimental group, although no longer significant (the sam- ple size was halved). This finding may be useful in attempting to explain and interpret the outcome results (i.e., answers to the first three research questions). Remember that the experimental group received efficiency feedback (i.e., personalized in- formation documenting the improved thermal efficiency of homes) whereas the control group did not. Of course, con— trol group residents knew that the efficiency of their homes had been improved to some extent. But they were not in? formed of the specific efficiency—related benefits of weath- erization nor of the details of their own home's efficiency. 117 The correlational results above suggested that high effi— ciency homeowners tend to perform less conservation action and have pessimistic attitudes with regards to conservation. Control group residents conserved more energy and performed conservation behaviors more frequently. Informing residents about the improved efficiency of their homes probably acted to retard conservation action rather than encourage it. In other words, the efficiency information probably triggered residents to feel more complacent, and perform conservation action less frequently because they knew their home was al— ready highly efficient (that they were already conserving energy). This is an example of the previously described concept of compensation. Once again, it reflects a direct behavioral change in reaction to the introduction of effi- ciency technology. Whereas, it was hypothesized that resi- dents would think “my house is so efficient now, and saving energy as well, I should try to conserve even more," they actually thought "my house is so efficient, I probably don't need to take much further conservation action." The effi- ciency feedback, if anything, appeared to reinforce this latter line of reasoning. In sum, relationships between attitudes and behaviors were uncovered that replicated the results of other re- searchers (Hummel, Levitt and Loomis, 1978; Becker, Seligman and Darley, 1979). Other relationships, among home effi- ciency, attitudes and behaviors, helped explain the marginal 118 results that were obtained from analyses of the effects of treatment on the three outcome measures. Decision Factors The rank orderings of reasons inhibiting and facilitat- ing conservation action indicated that reasons involving monetary concerns were perceived as most important by resi- dents. Among the facilitating reasons, being able to reduce expenses by virtue of the do—it—yourself nature of the con— servation actions as well as payback periods were rated as the most important decision factors. Among the inhibiting reasons, lack of financial resources stood out clearly as most important. It was rated almost one entire scale point above the next more important reason. All of the items had means above three, indicating that each item was of at least some importance in terms of conservation decision-making. These results suggest that programs targeting the en- couragement of pro-conservation actions among low-income households should pay attention to residents' monetary con- cerns about implementation. Limitations of this Research Of course, any piece of research has its limitations. The conclusions reached in the current research should be qualified with the following notes of caution. First, the sample size was small. This was due to both the limited population from which the sample could poten— tially be drawn and to attrition. Actually, attrition oc- 119 curred at two separate time points within the selection and assignment process. The first attrition incident occurred when twenty of the fifty, randomly-selected subjects of the HWP evaluation, did not return signed utility release forms. These subjects had to be eliminated from the study because consumption data could not be obtained on them. Thus, the population of the study was defined as eligible participants of the HWP, whose homes had been weatherized, and on whom consumption data could be collected. The second attrition incident occurred when eight of the thirty remaining sub- jects failed to return the post—questionnaire. The small sample size probably introduced substantial amounts of sam- pling error into measurements and thus differences which may have actually existed in the population were not detected. Second, initial differences existed between the groups, even though random assignment was the method of constructing them. Two of these differences, attic R-values and overall house condition, existed prior to weatherization of the homes. After weatherization these differences no longer existed. Following weatherization differences in R-values between the groups disappeared; the cell means were almost identical on the post measure. Although no post- weatherization measure of house condition was available, it is probably the case that these differences were ameliorated following weatherization. And, in fact, there were no sig- nificant differences in heat loss between the groups after 128 weatherization. The remaining pre-treatment difference reflected dif- fering fuel types between the experimental and control groups. The control group predominantly used fuel oil, whereas the experimental group predominantly used natural gas. Fuel oil users pay more for a BTU of energy than nat— ural gas users. Thus, fuel oil users implicitly possess additional economic motivation to conserve. The pay back periods and dollar savings (although not energy savings) for fuel oil users, for any given conservation action, are greater. Indeed, in the present study, fuel oil users paid 1 three times as much for one BTU as natural gas users did. 1 This problem was dealt with using analysis of co- variance. Cost per BTU and overall energy costs were em- ployed as covariates. These variables directly reflected the problematic pre-treatment differences. This statistical control was the only real option because small sample size prohibited blocking on fuel type. Additionally, the small sample size probably explained why random assignment seem— ingly failed. In retrospect, it would have been wise to match on fuel type before doing random assignment to groups, given the small sample size. Third, there were several factors that impinged on ex- ternal validity. The combined agency selection process and research requirements enhanced attrition and limited gen— eralizability. The agency screening procedure eliminated 121 subjects who had incomes above 125% of the poverty level or who would not make efforts to apply for subsidized weath- erization assistance. The necessity of obtaining utility release forms eliminated those who would not return them. What constellation of variables are associated with these selection factors is open to speculation. However, it should be noted that the population, for which the treatment examined in this study is most appropriate, was limited a priori. The intervention was intended to complement and enhance the effects of some set of technological conserva- tion improvements. Thus, only homeowners experiencing some major efficiency initiative were included in the study. The intention was to generalize to a population of similar households. One final point should be made with regards to this issue. Random assignment occurred twice in the selec- tion process. It first occurred when selecting from the HWP caseload of the Community Action Agency and again when as- signment to experimental conditions was performed. The first random selection ensured that the study participants were representative of the agency's weatherization caseload. There is no reason to believe that the agency's caseload was atypical in any way. Perhaps, then, double randomization helped external validity (at least subjects weren't volun- teers). The first randomized process enhanced the subjects' representativeness. In sum, the major limitation of the current research is 122 small sample size. Blocking on fuel type to control for initial group differences was impossible due to the small N. Fuel type differences between the groups may be a possible explanation for the differences on outcome measures that were reported. However, results from the analyses of co— variance suggested that this was not the case. Implications The results did not confirm the original hypothesis. It was hypothesized that the efficiency feedback would act to encourage additional pro—conservation behavior and atti- tudes among homeowners in the experimental condition. The instrumental information booklet provided appropriate and - ..... P-;_,.-. wk n--. doable (given economic constraints on low-income families) suggestions for further conservation action. In fact, the‘ efficiency feedback appeared to dissuade homeowners from taking further conservation action. Some of the results, if anything, indicated that control group homeowners had better energy attitudes, performed conservation behaviors more fre— quently and actually consumed less energy than before the intervention. However, these results should be interpreted with caution given the issues discussed in the previous sec— tion. These results, coupled with the high negative correla- tions between home efficiency and pro-conservation behaviors and attitudes, suggested the compensation explanation of treatment effects. It seems that informing people about the efficient nature of their homes acted to negate utilization of the suggestions in the booklet rather than encourage their implementation. Control group homeowners, of course, knew efficiency upgrades had been made, however, unlike ex~ perimental group homeowners, they were not informed specifi— cally about this efficiency. They did not receive informa— tion about the payback periods of the weatherization in- stallations nor about changes in energy use and costs attri— butable to weatherization. Given that owners of efficient homes tended not to take conservation action, the major im— plication is that knowing about efficiency (i.e., high effi- ciency in this case because of weatherization improvements) lowered residents' motivation to conserve. This is what has been labeled compensation (e.g., “Why should I try to con— serve when conservation is already taking place? My highly efficient home is already saving energy."). In other words, homeowners who know how much efficiency results from weath- erization feel that they do not need to complete further conservation action. These results seemingly contradict the results of other research which demonstrated that information provision en- hanced the effects of feedback (Ellis, Gaskell & Pike,1979; Worrel,1976; Claxton & Anderson, 1979; Stern,l976). How-_ ever, the very different contexts of the studies and quali- tative differences in the types of feedback may help explain this discrepancy. In former feedback studies, the feedback ‘4 (“Q A was provided frequently (typically at least four days per week). In the current study feedback was provided only once. The purpose of feedback in the former studies was to provide information about reaching behavioral conservation goals (Seligman, Becker & Darley, 1981). In this case fre- quent feedback would seem to be important. In the present study the purpose of the feedback was to provide information about the efficiency benefits of one-time technological change (i.e., weatherization). In this case infrequent feedback makes much more sense. In the current research it was anticipated that information about technological change would enhance behavioral change. In the frequently-provided feedback research behavioral change was of sole concern. Thus, the research of Ellis, Gaskell, and Pike (1979) dif- fers from the current research in this important way. In that study information about behavioral change was provided along with feedback concerning behavioral change. In the present study information about behavioral change was pro— vided along with feedback concerning technological change. Therefore, it should not be expected that similar results would unfold. The other research that coupled information and feed— back provision was conducted within an appliance purchase decision-making context (Worrel,l976; Claxton & Anderson,— 1979). In these studies, similar to the present research, the feedback concerned the efficiency of a technology. How- 125 ever, the Worrel (1976) and Claxton and Anderson (1979) studies provided feedback about the efficiency of major home appliances (e.g., Kwh/hour) rather than about the efficiency of homes (BTU/HDD/sq. ft.). Perhaps, the effects within an appliance use context are not generalizable to a residential context. Furthermore, the outcomes employed were markedly different. In the appliance use research purchase decision served as the dependent variable. In the current research, consumption, as well as attitudes and behaviors, served as multiple dependent variables. Finally, the present research differed from Stern (1976) in that it was field based rather than carried out in the laboratory. The Stern (1976) study utilized a labora- tory analog of resource decision—making based on a car pool. Information provision was the independent variable. Feed- back was implicitly provided within the mechanics of the analog. Although feedback and information combined resulted in the most pro-conservation decision-making, it is gues~ tionable whether the laboratory analog behavior should gen- eralize to field settings. Indeed, even the context of the laboratory exercise, car pooling, differed from the context of the current research. The more general issue of compensation is one that has not received much attention or study in the literature. This is somewhat attributable to the lack of mutual endeavor among physical and social scientists (Winett, 1976; Seligman 126 & Hutton, 1981; Shippee, 198%; Johnson & Geller, 1982). Research has not been fielded on a broad basis dealing with behavior and technology as an integrated system. However, the issues germane to this type of research have been ex— plored. For example, Jacobs and Shame (1981) discuss the potential importance of considering economic, technical and behavioral dimensions of energy—related change. Addi~ tionally, these researchers, as well as others, present ar- guments advocating the involvement of social scientists in studying social change that will occur concomitantly with technological change (Lovins, 1977; Stern & Gardner, 1981); Geller, 1981; Leonard—Barton & Rogers, 1980). The results of the current research suggest that this will be an impor— tant area in the future. Hayes (1976) discusses the compensation issue in what he calls 'snowballing effects." This refers to the accumu— lation of pro-conservation action by residents who have ex- perienced some initiative towards energy efficiency. An example of 'snowballing" in the present context is a res- ident being prompted towards further conservation action by weatherization. The results suggested that "snowballing' did not occur. The more important and relevant question becomes: What is the systems impact of increasing effi- ciency? It may be that technological progress towards con- servation has implications for behavioral change. What may not be the case is that the behavioral change will be in a pro-conservation direction. Within the theoretical context of McClelland and Canter (1981) compensation is represented by links between balance modifiers and energy-consuming behaviors (see Figure l ). The introduction of weatherization (a balance modifier) changed the ratio of individual benefits (due to improved efficiency) and consequently affected behavior. This sug- gests that reality may be better reflected by a more complex theoretical model. Links do exist between components of the model that are not currently prescribed. Finally, there may be an implicit ceiling effect on pro—conservation actions among low—income families. Survey research has indicated that low-income groups perform less conservation behaviors due to their already minimal use of energy and their inability to invest in home improvements (Farlar, Uhseld, Vories, & Crews, 198B; Lopreato & Meri— weather, 1976; Milstein, 1976). Future Directions Perhaps the most important implication of the present research is to invest more resources in studying behavior- technology interactions. At least it seems that people's knowledge of technology efficiency affects their future energy-related behaviors. In short, it is critical that social and physical scientists begin to collaborate on re~ search in which both technological and behavioral variables play a role. The present study, similar to the majority of psychological energy research, has been concerned with the residential/consumer sector. More research emphasis should be placed on other sectors. Perhaps, compensation occurs within other cells of Geller's (1981) matrix. For example, what impact has increasing miles—per—gallon efficiency had on the driving behaviors of automobile drivers? As techno- logy changes in response to changing global energy utiliza— tion, so will behavioral and social organizational prac» tices. It will continue to be important for research to be conducted within this dynamic area. APPENDIX 1 Request to Complete Questionnaire MICHIGAX STATE UNIVERSKTY DPWARTMENT Ol- PSYLHOlIXiY [ARE l.-\\.\!\(. . HR }{:(,,=.\ _ 45‘}; PSYCHOlOGY RIiSi-ARCH HL'II Di‘s‘b Recently you received a booklet of energy conservation suggestions as a participant in the Home Weatherization Program. This community service was jointly sponsored by the Mid-Michigan Alliance for Community Development and Michigan State University. In order to help us understand the potential benefit of energy programs of this kind, we are asking you to provide us with information about your own energy usage habits. Enclosed is a questionnaire that asks about energy actions and energy attitudes. If you complete the questionnaire and mail it to us in the enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelope, we will reimburse you THREE DOLLARS for your time. It will take about THIRTY-FIVE MINUTES to finish it. Your answers are very important and will help us in designing future energy education programs. Why not do it right now? If you have any questions please free to either call or write. Thank you very much for your assistance and cooperation. Sincerely, Jeffrey P. Mayer, Director Community Energy Education Project (517) 353-5015 APPENDIX 2 Feedback Mailout 1.32 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UIiPAK'I‘MI-N'l' 0F PSYCHOLOGY EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 43824 SNYDER HALL Dear Mid-Michigan resident, Approximately one year ago your home was weatherized by Mid-Michigan Alliance for Community Development work crews. These ‘work crews may have installed a number of different energy conserving home improvements, such as insulation, storm windows and doors, caulking, and weatherstripping. These home improvements have made your home more energy efficient so that your home uses less energy for heating. This has resulted in lower energy bills for you and so has saved you money. Recently, the Mid-Michigan Alliance, with the help of Mich'gan State University, conducted a study of how much money and energy is saved by weatherization. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information about 1) the specific savings achieved £g£.yggg_hgmg_2) other ways in which you can continue to save energy and money. The enclosed graphs show the savings achieved for money and energy for your own home (differences in temperature are taken into account). As can be seen, after weatherization you used less energy and spent less money for heating. Weatherization resulted in a per cent decrease in energy which saved and per year. 133 We are also providing you with information on how you can save even further. The enclosed booklet, Save Energy and Money at Low or No Cost, contains suggestions on how to conserve. Please read this and see if the suggestions are something that you can do. Save more energy and money with little effort and little cost. If you have any questions, you can call me at (517) 355-5015 or write me at the above address c/c Community Energy Education Project. A follow up letter will be sent to you in the near future. Thanks for your participation. Coordinator Community Energy Education Project energy use .20 .10 134 1 1 -o— ”o ”—— before {ter weatherization " weatherization ENERGY SAVINGS doHars 2000 "" 1900 -+ 1800 .-- 1700 -... 1600 .. 1500 ‘1... 1400 .___ 1300 _._. 1200 .._.. 1100 -... 1000 .. 900 1 $374"? 800 d— , f‘ 1 O 600 't’ 500 ** 400 ‘” 300 “- 200 *- 100 ‘r’ before after weatherization weatherization MONEY SAVINGS I36 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DI‘IPAK'I'MEN’I' OF PSYCHOLWY SNYDER MALI. EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 438.24 Dear Mid—Michigan resident, Approximately one year ago your home was weatherized by Hid-Michigan Alliance for Community Development work crews. These~ work crews may have installed a number of different energy conserving home improvements, such as insulation, storm windows and doors, caulking, and weatherstripping. These home improvements have made your home more energy efficient so that your home uses less energy for heating. This has resulted in lower energy bills for you and so has saved you money. Why not save more energy and money? The purpose of this letter is to provide you.with information on how you can save even further. The enclosed booklet, Save Energy and Money at Low or No Cost, contains suggestions on hovvto conserve. Please read this and see if the suggestions are something that you can do. Save more energy and money with little effort and little cost. If you have any questions, you can call me at (517) 355-5015, or write me at the above address c/o Community Energy Education Project. A fOIIOW’up letter will be sent to you in the near future. Thanks for your participation. Sincerely, Jeffrey P. Mayer Coorninator Community Energy Education Project APPENDIX 3 Instrumental Information Booklet I38 SAVE ENERGY AND MONEY: At Low or No Cost Community Energy Education Project Mid-Michigan Alliance for Community Development I39 SAVE MONEY AND ENERGY : At low or no cost This booklet suggests a number of ways in which you can conserve energy and at the same time save money. The savings that weatherization has achieved can be extended even further by changing around-the-home practices in regard to cooking, laundry, curtain use and other areas. Please read this over, try the suggestions, and your on your way to even greater savings !!! SPACE HEATING Layergyour clothing and blankets. Use quilts and comforters on beds to keep you warm at night. Just as with clothes, several light blankets trap warm air and keep you comfortable than one heavy cover. Wear wool and cotton. clothing. shutter-a; 2‘3 ass is amasse- "I Close off doors windows and rooms which are not in use. To close off doors and windows to the outside that are not in use- first fill any cracks around the edge with folded newspapers or cloth. Then tack up plastic storm window or storm door to ensure that all leaks are stopped. l4O To close off extra rooms -- first, make certain that a thermostat which controls the heat for other rooms is not located in the room you intend to close off. Then cover the windows in the extra room with ply- wood or cardboard. Now turn the heat off in that room. Shut off valves on radiators till they are tight. If you have hot air registers, close registers and block the heat further with a towel or throw rug. Close the valves on baseboard radiators. If there are no valves, block the heat flow by closing the metal vanes on top of the baseboard unit. Now close the door, using newspaper or cloth to make a tight seal. It's a good idea to check these rooms at first. Make sure the temperature stays above freezing. Also, moist house air will sometimes get into the cold room. This wetness can damage paint, wallpaper and furniture. Open the door after a few cold days and take a look. If this isn't a problem, you can leave the door closed all winter. But if it is, leave the door Open a few hours each day. Rooms without doors can be shut off, too. Add a door if you can. Another way is to tack a blanket around the frame of the opening, or use cardboard or a plastic sheet as you would on a window. Dryness. The winter is a dry time in most houses. You can catch colds from dryness. Place metal cans of water on radiators or heaters (NEVER on ELECTRIC heaters!!!). The water puts moisture in the air. '—v THREE WAYS TO HUMIOIFY THE AIR Built-In uni! Freestanding unit Vaporizer The amount of water vapor in the air - humidity - affects comfort and determines the need for heat. In the winter dryness in the air makes you feel colder.It is good to add water vapor to the air in the winter-to aid in comfort. Plants not only beautify the home but add some water vapor to the air. Move furniture away from vents or radiators. Don't block air inlets and outletSJincluding radiators, with furniture or drapes. Adjust thermostat. Try to be more aware of your energy use for space heating. Make it a habit to adjust your thermostat. If no one is at home or if it is night time, it might be reasonable to lower the temperature setting. Keep the thermostat free of dust. ' I42 IMove heat away from the heater. . Try to get more heat out into the room where it can be used. Make a radiator reflector out of cardboard and aluminum .foil. Tape or tack it onto the wall in the back of the radiator. MAKE RADIATOR REFLECTOR TO GET MORE HEAT | ' upso ALUMINUM r L 1 \ OI Bleed radiators. For hot water systems. Also, clean dirt and dust off of the surface of the radiator. I L, ’1'." MM ’ ‘ . r, .. \I Purge unwanted air from a radiator by turning me valve until die hissing -. I. stop: and water comes out. 4 The better radia tor: for hot water systems are called convecrarx. They employ a series of fins to transfer heat. I43 If air gets caught in a radiator am vaw: fl or in a pipe, the hot water may not be able to enter. To remove the air turn the air vent valve until the hissing stops and water comes out. This increases the efficiency of your hot water heating system. Q i Radiator maintenance ' _ '1 g; 5; 5.:I ‘:. 'tt .-.. -' f. as sfi a a .1 ‘33. '5 I " ""3: :95“ 9'7 . its}: 3.1.".- i‘L ‘- se - ‘ § 3? E fl; :3 .~‘-.: ter-1 .15. 3'. E {‘2'}. 7'.- if 3i; .- 3}; r9,” gig-.1 ,1'2’. g fig 51 so s3 59 g BLEED RADIATORS _: i Make paper logs. A nice way to make use of extra newspapers or magazines is to make paper logs. Roll up the paper in round log-like shapes. Tie these with string and let them soak in water until fully wet. Dry them.out in.the house. The moisture helps fight winter dryness. Once dry, paper logs burn almost like wood and keep a good fire going. I44 Clean furnace filter. For forced hot air systems. Clean the filters once a month with a vacuum cleaner. Also, vacuum over the outlet to remove any dirt or dust. Filter .--.'.:.':...'o~ , .1. :!'-'.'-.:';"-L.' 1 .- / 4 \‘I I/ Return Air Vent After removing the filter access panel on the front of the furnace, take out we old filter; it is either held in place by some sort of a lift-off device or else it is in a slot. Be sure to installs new filter of the correct size, and check that the arrow on the filter points in the same direction one air flaws. Steps in hot air system maintenance: 1. Clean or replace the filter frequently. 2. Keep the blower fan clean and properly lubricated. 5. Clean all vents and registers from time to time. 4. Check the ducts for signs of heat loss due to loose joints or damaged or faulty insulation. 145 Use the curtains. Use the winter sun if you can. Open curtains on sunny days. let the heat in. Close off curtains at night and keep the heat in your house. A good curtain should be thick enough so that air does not pass through it easily. If the curtain is tight around the window it acts as an insulator. The air space between the window glass and the curtain keeps warm air away from cold windows. A cap or valence at the top of the window helps reduce heat loss even further. AIR IN CONTACT WITH C“‘ WINDOW LOSES HEAT \\ \\ Replace broken glass. If window glass gets cracked or broken, seal it up. Freezer tape or duct tape cries-crossed over the hole or taped along the crack works fine, at least temporarily. Other holes can be temporarily patched with newspaper, cloth, and tape if need be. 146 COOKING Match the pan to the unit or burner. The bottom of the pan should not extend more than one inch beyond the outer ring of the unit. Similarly, the flame or coil should not extend beyond the pan. POT 100 SMALL BAD Fix leaky faucets . Leaky faucets waste both hot and cold water. They cost you money. Usually a drip can be stopped by replacing a washer. A faucet that leaks one drip per second wastes 2,400 gallons of hot water each year. Most faucet leaks are caused by poor contact between the rubber washer at the base of the spindle and the valve seat. Spindle Replace the masher or repair P k' or replace the valve seat. Hmd“ ac mg l TE ; , 3’”: ' ._ Packing -. g '2‘ l 1?. Nut \ Z a 3 2': w ;= a. W'ShCF .~.- 35 -; 1 figs... it - Valve sm 5 3.35.; ' ; \\\\ I '- ' s\ \ ' ~ § Keep seal around oven door \ clean and In good repair. - rere- M11 '35 '61 147 Pressure cookers use less energy. Match the cookwere to the burner. Bake several things at once. REFRIGERATION Keep refrigerators away from heat. If the refrigerator is near a heater or oven or sunny window, move it to a cooler spot in the kitchen. Keep refrigerators ewey lrom sources at beet. Replace worn gasketsg Make sure the gasket on the refrigerator door closes tightly. To test for this, close the door on a dollar bill. If the dollar pulls out easily, you may need a new gasket. The problem could also be that the door is bent and not closing properly. ~ Retaining Strip \ - Screw ~ - Gasket C223 .1". ~ ‘- .'. e; U.‘ . . -. , 0 . e . C 1‘..." A . . . U ,. - . {any . '. \ ‘- u I O . ..'.' . . Maintain seals and gaskets. - The refrigerator gasket, held to the door by screws through a retaining smo (left), usually has magnets inside to create a righ t door seal (righ t). A faulty gasket can prevent a tight seal. Most gaskets have a magnet inside to hold the door closed. To get at the screws holding the gasket and retainer strip to the door, peel . back the gasket. When the new gasket is in place, make sure it makes contact all the way around. Keep condenser coils clean. vacuum the motor housing and the condenser coils on the back of refrigerators or freezers 3 or 4 times a year. Q 1 . I. I I. ..::‘ e. C. e I e O I 0 e. ' 0 O 0 'e e~‘ '..e ' 'e e. . . ~ e .e 0 es .- :"‘..l.e‘. e‘ .e e‘.‘ 'u . e 0 e’ ’ , '- a. e e '0. o e e";:... *u'isA'u-H", O Q . I : .. I t I. .5 e'.e‘.e, e...’ O. ' e O ee. a'e‘. ALLA'L..1"‘ Keep condenser coils clean. fi? ‘ T.— 149 HOT WATER CONSERVATION Drain hot water heater tank. At least twice a year drain a bucket of water out of the bottom of the tank. Sometimes the bottom is full of sediment. This sediment prevents the heat from getting to the water in the tank. The sediment insulates the water in the tank from the heating element - that wastes energy. Don't ovepheatyour water. Your water heater burns fuel when you're not using any hot water - the higher you set it, the more it burns. If you've got a dishwasher, 1400 is high enough, If not 120° is fine. There is a dial for this setback, usually near the pilot light. Drain Valve V A flow restrictor . reduces hot water ‘ consumption. WATER HEATER L..— _ Drain the accumulated sediment out of ' water heater regularly to keep it franc-- timing at peak energy efficiency. Use a flow restrictor. A flow restrictor can be purchased for as little as 31.50. Easily installed in a shower head, this device reduces the amount of water flowing from the pipe, but not the pressure. 150 LAUNDRY Match amount of water used to size of load. When you use a large amount of hot water for a small amount of clothes, it wastes energy and costs more money. Use cold water on the rinse cycle. The temperature of rinse water has no effect on cleaning. Front-loadlng washers use less water than top-losdlng washers. Match amount of water use to size of load. Line dpy when possible. The sun will dry your clothes without adding to your electric bills. Use dpyer during off peak-hours. Some utility companies offer an off-peak rate to reduce peak electric demand. These rates usually apply to evening hours. By gearing hot water usage to off-peak hours, you can save money. .Jndwmgm clothes saves energy. 151 Clean lint when dpying. Clean the lint screen after each load. In addition, the outside vent shouldbe checked and cleaned monthly. A clogged vent reduces efficiency and wastes energy and money. LANDSCAPING Windbreaks. Cold, north winds can cause large amounts of heat to be lost from a home in winter. A windbreak of evergreen trees reduces heat loss and helps save fuel. Plant a windbreak in an L-shape extending around the north and west sides of the area to be protected. «E QKK‘KKKK Foundation plantings provide some insulation and add to wind protection. fa K .3 .I I a -' ' .A . ': e. . e '- K KKKKKK Winett-eats reduce heat loss. 152 Egundationrplanting; Smaller evergreens planted next to a foundation wall create dead air space between the wall and the plants and thus provide some insulation in addition to wind prot Add deciduous trees. Deciduous trees - those which drop their leaves in the fall - can shade a home in summer but allow the warm 3 home in winter. action. sun's rays to Deciduous trees ., increase comfort. ? f: z._ Winter sun Summer shade .«e. lh'betfietean-eel 153 Thanks to the following sources: Community Services Administration. Save Energy: Save Money. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, may, 19770 ‘ Consumer Guide. Energy Savers Catalog. New York: Beekman House, 1977. Cornell Cooperative Extension Energy Task Force. Save Energy: Save Dollars. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977. Wilson, R.L. Build_your own energy saver home or upgrade your existing one. Austin, TX: Energy Saver Homes 00., 1978. APPENDIX 4 Energy Survey 155 MID4MICHIGAN ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY ERERGY EDUCATION PROJECT ' ENERGY SURVEY This questionnaire has five parts. Part one, DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION asks about you as an individual. Part two, ENERGY ACTIONS asks about things that you may do around the house to conserve energy. Part three, ENERY ATTITUDES asks about your opinions towards energy issues. Part four, DECISION FACTORS. asks about different aspects of deciding to begin energy conservation actions. Finally, part five, PROGRAM EVALUATION asks your thoughts about the Home Weatherization Program. It should take about a half-hour to complete this questionnaire. Please ignore numbers in parentheses; they are for coding purposes only. Please answer all questions. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. Part 1. DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION Name: Address: Phone Number: Sex: 1 a Dmale 2 = D female . (1) Age: - (2-3) Part 2. ENERGY ACTIONS This section contains a list of actions that people can take to conserve energy. These actions can be undertaken frequently. Please indicate how often you have taken each action by circling the number of the most appropriate response for you. "Does‘not apply to me” means that you never do that particular action. For example, you would circle five (5) for the first question (“Bleed radiators") if you had a hot air system and therefore didn’t have radiators. = never a occasionally -’Ethuently = always = does not apply to me uia-giood l. Bleed radiators. i 2 3 4 5. (4) never occasionally frequently. always' . does not apply 2. Clean or replace furnace filter. 1 2 3. ,. 4 5 (5) never occasionally frequently always does not apply 3. MOVE furniture away from heat registers or radiators. .' 1 2 3 . . 4. _ 5 (6) never occasionally frequently always does not apply O\ 9. 10. ll. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. C. .2 0 _ Clean ;ndenser coils on the back of refrigerator or freezer. 1 2 3 4 5 (7) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Make paper logs. l 2 3 4 5 (8) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Open drapes and curtains on sunny day; cloSe at night. 1 2 3 4 5 (9) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Layer clothing or blankets. 1 2 3 4 5 (10) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Drain a bucket of water out of the bottom of hot water heater tank, as necessary. 1 2 3 4 5 (11) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Lower setting on hot water heater. 1 2 3 4 5 (12) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Match the size of the utensil to the size of the stove burner you're using. 1 2 3 4 5 (13) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Clean lint from dryer vents. l 2 3 4 5 (14) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Close off unused rooms. 1 2 3 4 5 (15) never occasionally ' frequently always does not apply Turn off unused appliances (including lighting fixtures, stereos, T.V.'s, radios, etc.). 1 2 5 3 4 5 (16) never occasionally frequently always does not apply When doing laundry, match amount of water to size of wash load. 1 2 3 4 5 (17) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Close fireplace damper when not in use. 1 2 3 4 5 (18) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Limit amount of hot water for bathing and dishwashing. 1 2 3 4 5 (19) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Clean lighting fixtures. 1 2 3 . 4 5 (20) never occasionally frequently always does not apply 15? 18. Build a reflector of cardboard and aluminum foil for radiators or heat registers. a .1 2 3 4 5; (21) never occasienally frequently ‘_,always does not apply' 19. Fix leaky faucets. 1 2 3 ' 4f. 5 (22) never occasionally frequently always does not apply 20. Replace refrigerator gaskets. ' l 2 3 4 5 (23) never occasionally frequently always does not apply 21. Install shower flow restrictor. , l 2 3 4 5 (24) never occasionally frequently always does not apply 22. Plant bushes near foundation wall as windbreaks. ‘ ' 1 2 3 4 5 (25) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Part 3. ENERGY ATTITUDES This section asks about your attitudes towards energy issues. Please indicate your response by circling the appropriate number that reflects your attitude' toward the statements below. 1 - strongly disagree 2 - disagree 3 - neither agree or disagree 4 - agree 5 - strongly agree .Strongly Strongly disagree . agree I. Overconsumption by individuals - has contributed to the country's energy problem. 1 2 3 4 5 (26) 2. Conserving energy in the house ' does not save much money. 1 2‘ 3 4 S (27) 3. It is essential to my family's 1 health for the house to be well a l heated in the winter. 1 2 3 4 5 (28) 4. Most energy saving home imporvements (e.g., caulking, weatherstripping) cost more money .1 ,_ ; , ~ than they save. 1 :_t2.“' ,. 3 4 5 (29) S. I am willing to spend a few days ' on do-it—yourself projects to reduce my home's heat loss. 1 2 3 4 ,5 (30) 6. More conservation on the part of ' individuals can alleviate the energy problem. 1' '2 3 4 S (31) 7. No matter how hard I try to conserve energy, I could only save 7 . . pennies a day.~ 7 l '3 2 3 4 ~ 5 (32) 8. Energy conservation is a very _ - important goal for American society. 1 2 3 4 5 (33) 10. ll. 12. 13. Modern technology will soon provide society with a long lasting source of energy. The energy crisis is a hoax. My family would probably get more colds and other illnesses if i turned down the thermostat in the winter. My heating consumption habits are pretty well fixed and I cannot see myself changing them. There are things a person can do with little effort to reduce his or her heating bill. Part 58 1 2 3 4 5 (34) l 2 3 4 5 (35) l 2 3 4 5 (36) l 2 3 4 5 (37) l 2 3 4 5 (38) 4. DECISION FACTORS This part of the questionnaire asks about reasons for doing or not doing energy conservation practices. 1. Which of the following reasons have helped you in making a decision to go ahead with any energy conservation practice? Please rate the importance of each reason listed below according to the following scale. 1 = extremely unimportant _2 = slightly unimportant -3 B neither important or unimportant 4 a slightly important 5 - extremely important Extremely Extremely unimportant important being able to reduce expenses by doing the work yourself I 2 3 4 5 (39) information received in the ' "Save Money, Save Energy" booklet l 2 3 4 5 (40) knowing that you are contributing to the goal of national energy self-sufficiency , l 2 3 4 5 (41) realization that time and money invested now, would be paidtbaék over time from savings in energy "‘ bills 1 2 3 4 5 (42) Which of the following reasons have worked towards you not implementing any energy conservation practice? Please rate the importance of each reason listed below according to the following scale. l 8 extremely unimportant 2 8 slightly unimportant 3 - neither important or unimportant 4 . slightly important 5 - extremely important Extremely Extremely unimportant *important~ lack of time 1 2 3 4 5 (43) lack of knowledge of how to “ do any particular conservation step ; 1 2 3 4 S (44) lack of financial resources' 1 2 3 4 5 (45) d. feeling that this kind of work is too difficult for me to do 1 2 3 4 5 (46) Part 5. PROGRAM EVALUATION This part of the questionnaire asks about your thoughts and feelings about the Home Weatherization Program (HWP). Your home was weatherized about a year ago and the following questions ask you to evaluate that activity. 1. Overall, how would you rate the services provided through the HWP? Check one excellent good fair poor __not worthwhile (47) 2. Have you noticed that your home has been warmer since weatherization? Check one. yes, a great deal (48) somewhat no, same as before 3. WOuld you recommend to your friends and relatives to participate in the HWP? Check one. _______yes (49) maybe no 4. Do you have any other comments about the HWP? Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. APPENDIX 5 Telephone Interview Protocol l6] MMACD Survey - reliability phone interview protocol (Make sure to LOG ALL CALLS.) Hello, my name is from the Community Energy Education Project. Is this the residence? Am I speaking to ? (verify that you have the research participant on the phone) (reassure confidentiality if necessary) I am calling to ask you some questions about energy conservation actions that you may have undertaken. About half the questions deal with in-home behaviors that conserve energy. The other half of the questions concern weatherization actions, for example, insulating the attic. It should take about 10 minutes to answer these questions. Do you have time now to do this short interview? (if yes, proceed below, if no, probe further to find a good time to call back) I'm going to read a list of in-home energy conservation behaviors. Please indicate how often you perform these actions with one of the following responses: NEVER, OCCASIONALLY, FREQUENTLY, ALWAYS. If you never have the opportunity to do a particular action, then you can say it does not apply. For example, you would say "does not apply" for the action "Bleed radiators" if you had a hot air system and therefore didn't have radiators. . (make sure the participant understands the response categories) I'm going to begin reading the list of conservation actions, remember to answer with either never, occasionally, frequently, always, or does not apply. (work from the answer sheet and record the response) The second part of this interview deals with weatherization actions you may have undertaken. I'm going to read a list of weatherization actions. Please indicate if you have started or completed any of these actions with one of the following responses: IN THE PLANNING STAGE HAVE BEGUN HAVE COMPLETED DOES NOT APPLY "Does not apply" means you never have the opportunity to take that particular weatherization action. 162 O.K., I'm going to begin reading the list of weatherization actions. (work from the answer sheet and record the response) Thank you very much. Do you have any questions? (respond to any questions) Thanks again. Your answers are very important to our efforts in further energy conservation programs. 163 iaedback study — reliabi1ity Gold co11ection form Name: SUbJECt # date & time of call: ,phone # used: 1. Bleed radiators. 1 2 3 4 5 (4) never occasionally frequently always. does not apply 2. Clean or replace furnace filter. 1 2 3 4 5 (5) never occasionally frequently always does not apply 3. Move furniture away from heat registers or radiators. . 1 2 ‘ 3 ' 4 .5 (6) never occasionally frequently always does not apply 4. Clean condenser coils on the back of refrigerator or freezer. l 2 3' 4 S (7) never occasionally frequently always does not apply 5. Make paper logs. . 1 2 3 4 5 (8) never occasionally frequently always does not apply — 6. Open drapes and curtains on sunny day; close at night. 1 2 3 4 5 (9) never ' occasionally frequently always does not apply 7. Layer clothing or blankets. l 2 3 4 5 (10) never occasionally frequently always does not apply 8. Drain a bucket of water out of the bottom of hot water heater tank, as necessary. 1 2 3 4 5 (11) never occasionally frequently , always does not apply 9. Lower setting on hot water heater. 1 . 2 3 4 5 (12) never occasionally frequently always does not apply 10. Match the size of the utensil to the size of the stove burner you're using. 1 2 3 4 ‘5 (13) never occasionally frequently always ~does not apply 11. Clean lint from dryer vents. l 2 3 4 5 (1A) never occasionally frequently always does not apply 12. Close off unused rooms. l 2 3 4 5 (15) never occasionally frequently always does not apply l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 19.’ 20. 21. 164 Turn off unused appliances (including lighting fixtures, stereos, T.Y.‘s, radios, etc.). 1 2 3 4 5 (16) never occasionally frequently always does not apply When doing laundry, match amount of water to size of wash load. 1 2 3 4 5 (17) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Close fireplace damper when not in use. 1 2 ‘ 3 4 5 (18) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Limit amount of hot water for bathing and dishwashing. l 2 3 . 4 5 (19), never occasionally frequently ‘ always does not apply Clean lighting fixtures. l 2 ' 3 4 5 (20) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Build a reflector of cardboard and aluminum foil for radiators or heat registers. - , . l 2 p 3 « 4 5 (21) never - occasionally frequently always does not apply Fix leaky faucets. never occasionally frequently always does not apply Replace refrigerator gaskets. .. - ‘._. 1 2 3 4 S (23) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Install shower flow restrictor. l 2 3 4 5 (24) never occasionally frequently always does not apply Plant bushes near foundation wall as windbreaks. . l 2 3 4 5 (25) never occasionally frequently always does not apply REFERENCES Bandura, A. Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969. Becker, L.J. The joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: A field study of residential energy conservation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63, 228-233. Becker, L.J., & Seligman, C. Reducing air-conditioning waste by signaling it is cool outside. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle- _t_ir_i, 1978, 3, 412-415. Becker, L.J., Seligman, C., & Darley, J.M. Psychological strategies to reduce energy consumption: Project summarygreport. Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. Unpublished manuscript. Princeton University, June, 1979. Becker, L.J., Seligman, C., Fazio, R.H., & Darley, J.M. Relationship between attitudes and residential energy use. Unpublished manuscript. Princeton University, 1978. Bittle, R.G., Valesano, R.M., & Thaler, G.M. The effects of daily feed- back on residential electricity usage as a function of usage level and type of feedback information. Journal of Environ- mental Systems, 1979-80, 9(3), 275—287. Brechner, K.C. An experimental analysis of social traps. Journal of Experimental Social ngchology, 1977, 1}, 552—564. Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Claxton, J.D., & Anderson, C.D. Energy information at the point of sale: A field experiment. Proceeding of the Association for Consumer Research, San Francisco, October, 1979. Commoner, B. The politics of energy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979. Cook, s.w., & Berrenberg, J.L. Approaches to encouraging conservation behavior: A review and conceptual framework. Journal of Social Issues, 1981, g1, 73-107. Cornell Cooperative Extension Energy Task Force. Save energy, save dollars. Ithaca, NY: 1977. Craig, S.M., & McCann, J.M. Consumers without direct economic incentive to conserve energy. Journal of Environmental Systems, l980-8l, 19(2), 157-164. 165 166 Crossley, D.J. The role of popularization campaigns in energy conserva- tion. Energy Policy, 1979, le), 57-68. Curtin, R. Consumer adaptation to energy shortages. Journal of Energy and Development, 1976, 2, 38-60. Delprato, D.J. Prompting electrical energy conservation in commercial users. Environment and Behavior, 1977, 9, 433-440. Eccli, G., & Eccli, D. Save energy, save money. Washington, DC: Community Services Administration, 1977. Edney, J.J., & Harper, C.S. The commons dilemma: A review of contribu- tions from psychology. Environmental Management, 1978, 2, 391-507. Elgin, D., & Mitchell, A. Voluntary simplicity. In R.H. Williams (Ed.), The energy conservation papers. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1977. Everett, P.B., Hayward, S.C., & Meyers, A.W. The effects of token rein- forcement procedures on bus ridership. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974,_Z, l-lD. Farhar, B.C., Unseld, C.T., Vories, R., & Crews, R. Public opinion about energy. Annual Review of Energy, 1980, g, 141-172. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley, 1975. Ford Foundation Energy Policy Project. The American energy consumer: Rich, poor and in-between. In A time to choose: America's energy future. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1976, 113-132. Fowler, J.W. Energy-environment sourcebook. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association, 1975. Gaskell, 6., Ellis, P., & Pike, R. The energy literate consumer: The effects of feedback and information on beliefs, knowledge and behavior. Unpublished manuscript. London School of Economics, London, England, 1979. Geller, E.S. The energy crisis and behavioral science: A conceptual frame— work for large scale intervention. In A.W. Childs and 6.8. Melton (Eds.), Rural psychology. New York: Plenum Press, 1981. Geller, E.S., Ferguson, J.F., & Brasted, W.S. Attempts to promote residen- tial energy conservation: Attitudinal versus behavioral out- comes. Unpublished manuscript. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 1978. Grier, E. Colder....Darker: The energy crisis and low-income Americans. Washington, DC: Community Services Administration, June, 1977. 167 Hake, D.F., & Foxx, R.M. Promoting gasoline conservation: The effect of reinforcement schedules, a leader,anmlself-recording. Behavior Modification, 1978, g, 339-364. Hardin, G. The tragedy of the commons. Science, 1975, 189, 95—101. Hass, J.W., Bagley, G.S., & Rogers, R.W. Coping with the energy crisis: Effects of fear appeals upon attitudes towards energy consump- tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, g9, 754~756. Hayes, D. Energy: The case for conservation. Worldwatch Paper #4. Wash- ington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, 1976. Hayes, S.C., & Cone, J.D. Reducing residential electricity use: Payments, information and feedback. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, 19, 425-435. Heberlein, T.A. Conservation information: The energy crisis and electricity conservation in an apartment complex. Energy Systems and Policy, 1975, 1, 105-115. Heilman, J. Uses of direct and indirect measures: A case study of program impact in the energy conservation field. Evaluation Review, 1982, 6, 61-78. Hirst, E. Residential energy use alternatives: 1976-2000. Science, 1976, M, 1247-12520 Hirst, E., & Talwar, R. Reducing energy consumption in low-income homes: Evaluation of the weatherization program in Minnesota. Evalu- ation Review, 1981,_§, 671-685. Hummel, C.F., Levitt, L., & Loomis, R.J. Perceptions of the energy crisis: Who is blamed and how do citizens react to environment- 1ifesty1e tradeoffs? Environment and Behavior, 1978, 19, 37-88. Hunter, J.E., & Gerbing, D.W. Unidimensional measurement and confirmatory factor analysis. E. Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1979. Hutton, R.B., & McNeill, D.L. An empirical evaluation of the low cost/no cost energy conservation program. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Conservation and Solar Applications, Washington, DC, 1980. Jacobs, K., & Shama, A. Eneggy conservation in buildings: A behavioral perspective. Golden, C0: Solar Energy Research Institute, September, 1981. Johnson, R.P., & Geller, E.S. Engineering technology and behavior analysis for interdisciplinary environmental protection. Behavior Analyst, 1980, g, 23-29. Koening, H.E. Energy conservation: Imperative and opportunity. Center for Environmental Quality. Unpublished manuscript. Michigan State University, 1978. 168 Kohlenberg, R., Phillips, T., & Proctor, W. A behavioral analysis of peaking in residential electrical energy consumers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9, 13—18. Leonard-Barton, D., & Rogers, E.M. Voluntary simplicity in California: Precursor or fad? American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 1980. Lopreato, S.C., & Meriweather, M.W. Energy, attitudinal surveys: Summary, annotations, research recommendations. Center for Energy Studies. Unpublished manuscript. University of Texas, November, 1976. Lovins, A.B. Energy strategy: The road not taken? Foreign Affairs, 1976, 99, 65—96. Lovins, A.B. Soft energy paths. New York: Harper, 1977. Mayer, J.P., & Johnson, C.D. Home weatherization program: A cost- effectiveness and evaluation study. Clare, MI: Mid-Michigan Alliance for Community Development, 1981. McBride, J. Energy and thegpoor. Butte, MT: National Center for Appro- priate Technology, December, 1979. McClelland, L. Encouraging energy conservation in multi-family housing: RVBS and other methods of allocating energy costs to residents. Unpublished report prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, 1980. McClelland, L., & Belsten, L. Promoting energy conservation in university dormitories by physical, policy and residential behavior changes. Journal of Environmental Systems, 1979, 9(1), 29—38. McClelland, L., & Canter, R.J. Psychological research on energy conserva- tion: Context, approaches and methods. In A. Baum and J.E. Singer (Eds.), Advances in Environmental Psychology. Vol. 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981. McClelland, L., & Cook, S.W. Energy conservation effects of continuous in-home feedback in all-electric homes. Journal of Environmental System , 1979, 912), 169—173. McClelland, L., & Cook, S.W. Energy conservation in university buildings: Encouraging and evaluating reductions in occupants' electricity use. Evaluation Review, 1980, 9, 119-134. Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W.W. The limits to growth. New York: Signet, 1972. Milstein, J.S. Attitudes, knowledge and behavior of American consumers regarding energy conservation with some implications for governmental action. Washington, DC: Federal Energy Adminis- tration, October, 1976. Morrison, D.E. Equity impacts of some major energy alternatives. In S. Warkov (Ed.), Energy policy in the U.S.: Social and behavioral dimensions. New York: Praeger, 1978. Nader, L., Millerton, M., Palacia, J., 8 Rich, C. Belief, behavior and technologies as driving forces in transitional stages--the problem in dispersed energy futures. Centralized vs. Decentralized energy systems: Diverging or Parallel Roads? (Subcommittee on Energy and Power, U.S. Congress). Washington, DC: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, May, 1979. Newman, D.K., 8 Day, 0. The American energy consumer. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1975. Newsom, T.J., 8 Makranczy, V.J. Reducing electricity consumption of resi- dents living in master-metered dormitory complexes. Journal of Environmental Systems, 1978, 9, 215-235. Olsen, M.E. Public acceptance of energy conservation. In S. Warkov (Ed.), Energy policy in the U.S.: Social and behavioral dimensions. New York: Praeger, 1978. Olsen, M.E. Consumers' attitudes toward energy conservation. Journal of Social Issues, 1981, 92, 108-131. Olsen, M.E., 8 Cluett, C. Evaluation of the Seattle City Light Neighbor- hood Energy Conservation Program. Seattle, WA: Batelle Human Affairs Research Center, October, 1979. Pallak, M.S., Cook, D.A., 8 Sullivan, J.J. Commitment and energy conserva- tion. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 1980, 1, 235-253. Palmer, M.H., Lloyd, M.E., 8 Lloyd, K.E. An experimental analysis of elec- tricity conservation procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1978, 19, 665-672. Platt, J. Social traps. American Psychologist, 1973, 99, 641-651. Ross, M., 8 Williams, R. Energy efficiency: Our most underrated energy resource. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1976, November, 30-38. Schipter, L., 8 Lichtenburg, A.J. Efficient energy use.and well-being: ’ The Swedish example. Science, 1976, 193, 1001-1012. Schumacher, E.F. Small is beautiful. New York: Harper 8 Row, 1973. Seaver, W., 8 Patterson, A. Decreasing fuel oil consumption through feed- back and commendation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 2: 147‘152. Seligman, C., Becker, L.J., 8 Darley, J.M. Encouraging residential energy conservation through feedback. In A. Baum and J.E. Singer (Eds.), Advances in Environmental Psychology, Vol. 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981. 170 Seligman, C., 8 Darley, J.M. Feedback as a means of decreasing residential energy consumption. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 99, 363-368. Seligman, C., 8 Hutton, R.B. Evaluating energy conservation programs. Journal of Social Issues, 1981, 9], 51-73. Seligman, C., Kriss, M., Darley, J.M., Fazio, R.H., Becker, L.J., 8 Pryor, J.E. Predicting summer energy consumption from homeowners‘ attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1979, 9, 70-90. Shippee, G. Energy consumption and conservation psychology: A review and conceptual analysis. Environmental Management, 1980, 9, 297-314. Slavin, R.E., Wodarski, J.S., 8 Blackburn, B.L. A group contingency for electricity conservation in master-metered apartments. gournal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1981, 19, 357-363. Socolow, R.H. The Twin Rivers program on energy conservation in housing: Highlights and conclusions. Energy and Buildings, 1978, 1, 207-242. Sonderegger, R. C. Movers and stayers: The resident's contribution to variation across houses in energy consumption for space heating. Energy and Buildings, 1978, 1, 313-324. Stern, P.C. Effect of incentives and education on resource conservation decisions in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 99, 1285-1292. Stern, P.C. When do people act to maintain common resources? International Journal of Psychology, 1978, 99, 149-158. Stern, P.C., 8 Gardner, G.T. The place of behavior change in the manage- ment of environmental problems. New Haven, CT: Institute for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, 1981. Stern, P.C., 8 Gardner, G.T. Psychological research and energy policy. American Psychologist, 1981, 99, 329-342. Stern, P.C., 8 Kirkpatrick, E.M. Energy behavior. Environment, 1977, _9(9), 10-15. Stobaugh, R., 8 Yergin, D. (Eds.) Energy future. New York: Random House: 1979. Talwar, R. Evaluation of the federal weatherization assistance program in Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: Mid-American Solar Energy Center, December, 1979. Tuso, M.A., 8 Geller, E.S. Behavior analysis applied for ecological rebal- ance: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9, 526. 171 U.S. Department of Energy. Part 1 of Title 2 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. Public Law No. 95-619, 1979. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Residential Energy Con- servation. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and ~.-—.’— Analysis, July, 1974. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. Residential Energy Con- servatipp, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. Conservation and solar energy programs of the DOE: A critique. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981. Walker, J.M. Energy demand behavior in a master-metered apartment complex: An experimental analysis. Journal of Applied PsycholOQX) 1979, éfl, 190-196. Wiegel, R.H., 8 Wiegel, J. Environmental concern: The development of a measure. Environment and Behavior, 1978, 19, 3-16. Winett, R.A. Efforts to disseminate a behavioral approach to energy con- servation. Professional Psychology, 1976, 1, 222-228. Winett, R.A. Prompting turning out lights in unoccupied rooms. Journal of Environmental Systems, 1978, 9, 237-241. Winett, R.A. An emerging approach to energy conservation. In D. Glenwick and L. Jason (Eds.), Behavioral Community Psychology. New York: Praeger, 1980. :0 Winett, .A., Kagel, J.H., Battalio, R.C., 8 Winkler, R.C. Effects of mone- tary rebates, feedback, and information on residential electricity consumption. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, pg, 73—80. JD Winett, .A., Neale, M.S., 8 Grier, H.C. The effects of self-monitoring and feedback on residential electricity consumption. Journal of Applied Behavior Ana1ysis, 1979, 19, 173-184. SO Winett, .A., Neale, M.S., Williams, K., Yokely, J., 8 Kauder, H. The effects of feedback on residential electricity consumption: Three replications. Journal of Environmental Systems, 1979, §(3), 217-233. Winett, R.A., 8 Nietzel, M. Behavioral ecology: Contingency management of residential energy use. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1975, 9, 123-133. Woteki, T. Some effects of retofits on space heating requirements. Princeton, N.J.: Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton University, 1977. Worrall, J.W. A study of the effectiveness of energy use labelipg. McClean, VA: Human Sciences Research, Inc., 1976.