Studies across multiple disciplines demonstrate the importance of peers in shaping energy-related behaviours. Research on this process is wide ranging, from documenting spatial peer effects in the adoption of rooftop solar—when an individual’s behaviour is influenced by the behaviours of neighbours—to showing how neighbour comparisons can be used to reduce household electricity consumption. However, gaps exist in our understanding of how and why these peer effects occur. In this Review, we examine recent findings on social influence in energy behaviour and discuss pathways through which social influence can result in peer effects. We propose a conceptual framework for predicting which social influence processes will most often result in peer effects, depending on the targeted energy behaviour. We also review the limitations of social influence as well as evidence for when it is expected to be the strongest.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $4.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Hertwich, E. G. & Peters, G. P. Carbon footprint of nations: a global, trade-linked analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 6414–6420 (2009).
Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C. & Vandenbergh, M. P. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 18452–18456 (2009).
Stern, P. C. et al. Opportunities and insights for reducing fossil fuel consumption by households and organizations. Nat. Energy 1, 16043 (2016).
Dixon, R. K., McGowan, E., Onysko, G. & Scheer, R. M. US energy conservation and efficiency policies: Challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy 38, 6398–6408 (2010).
Sangroya, D. & Nayak, J. K. Factors influencing buying behaviour of green energy consumer. J. Clean. Prod. 151, 393–405 (2017).
Schultz, P. W., Estrada, M., Schmitt, J., Sokoloski, R. & Silva-Send, N. Using in-home displays to provide smart meter feedback about household electricity consumption: A randomized control trial comparing kilowatts, cost, and social norms. Energy 90, 351–358 (2015).
Sintov, N. D. & Schultz, P. W. Unlocking the potential of smart grid technologies with behavioral science. Front. Psychol. 6, article 410 (2015).
Stoll, P., Brandt, N. & Nordström, L. Including dynamic CO2 intensity with demand response. Energy Policy 65, 490–500 (2014).
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. Normative social influence is underdetected. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34, 913–923 (2008). A study showing the influence of normative information on household electricity consumption, and the tendency for individuals to underestimate this influence.
Abrahamse, W. & Steg, L. Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: A meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1773–1785 (2013). A meta-analysis on social influence interventions to encourage environmental resource conservation.
Pettifor, H., Wilson, C., Axsen, J., Abrahamse, W. & Anable, J. Social influence in the global diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles – a meta-analysis. J. Transp. Geogr. 62, 247–261 (2017). A meta-analysis on interpersonal communication, neighbourhood effects and normative social influence on alternative fuel vehicle purchasing and purchase intentions.
Axsen, J. & Kurani, K. S. Social influence, consumer behavior, and low-carbon energy transitions. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 311–340 (2012).
Sacerdote, B. Experimental and quasi-experimental analysis of peer effects: two steps forward? Annu. Rev. Econom. 6, 253–272 (2014).
Narayanan, S. & Nair, H. S. Estimating causal installed-base effects: a bias-correction approach. J. Mark. Res. 50, 70–94 (2013).
Cialdini, R. B. & Goldstein, N. J. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 591–621 (2004). An overview of the social influence research literature.
Graham, B. S. Identifying and estimating neighborhood effects. J. Econ. Lit. 56, 450–500 (2018).
Bailey, M., Johnston, D. M., Kuchler, T., Stroebel, J. & Wong, A. Peer effects in product adoption NBER Working Paper No. 25843 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019).
Bollinger, B. & Gillingham, K. Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Mark. Sci. 31, 900–912 (2012). A study that demonstrates causal spatial peer effects in solar adoption in California.
Richter, L. L. Social Effects in the Diffusion of Solar Photovoltaic Technology in the UK CWPE 1357 & EPRG Working Paper 1332 (University of Cambridge, 2013); https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/255233
Graziano, M. & Gillingham, K. Spatial patterns of solar photovoltaic system adoption: the influence of neighbors and the built environment. J. Econ. Geogr. 15, 815–839 (2015).
Müller, S. & Rode, J. The adoption of photovoltaic systems in Wiesbaden, Germany. Econ. Innov. New. Tech. 22, 519–535 (2013). A study showing spatial peer effects at a highly refined geographic level in a city in Germany.
Rode, J. & Weber, A. Does localized imitation drive technology adoption? A case study on rooftop photovoltaic systems in Germany. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 78, 38–48 (2016).
Baranzini, A., Carattini, S. & Péclat, M. What Drives Social Contagion in The Adoption of Solar Photovoltaic Technology? (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, 2017); http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/what-drives-social-contagion-in-the-adoption-of-solar-photovoltaic-technology/
Bollinger, B., Gillingham, K., Kirkpatrick, A. J. & Sexton, S. Visibility and Peer Influence in Durable Good Adoption (SSRN, 2019); https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3409420
Rode, J. & Müller, S. I Spot, I Adopt! A Discrete Choice Analysis on Peer Effects in Solar Photovoltaic System Adoption of Households (SSRN, 2019); https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3469548
Carattini, S., Péclat, M. & Baranzini, A. Social Interactions and the Adoption of Solar PV: Evidence from Cultural Borders (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, 2018). A study that shows spatial peer effects can be hindered by geographic borders, especially when there is a language barrier.
Graziano, M., Fiaschetti, M. & Atkinson-Palombo, C. Peer effects in the adoption of solar energy technologies in the United States: An urban case study. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 48, 75–84 (2019).
Inhoffen, J., Siemroth, C. & Zahn, P. Minimum prices and social interactions: Evidence from the German renewable energy program. Energy Econ. 78, 350–364 (2019).
Goetzke, F. & Weinberger, R. Separating contextual from endogenous effects in automobile ownership models. Environ. Plan. A 44, 1032–1046 (2012).
Grinblatt, M., Keloharju, M. & Ikäheimo, S. Social influence and consumption: evidence from the automobile purchases of neighbors. Rev. Econ. Stat. 90, 735–753 (2008).
McShane, B. B., Bradlow, E. T. & Berger, J. Visual influence and social groups. J. Mark. Res. 49, 854–871 (2012).
Adjemian, M. K., Lin Lawell, C.-Y. C. & Williams, J. Estimating spatial interdependence in automobile type choice with survey data. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 44, 661–675 (2010).
Keith, D. R., Sterman, J. D. & Struben, J. Supply constraints and waitlists in new product diffusion. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 33, 254–279 (2018).
Heutel, G. & Muehlegger, E. Consumer learning and hybrid vehicle adoption. Environ. Resour. Econ. (Dordr.) 62, 125–161 (2015).
Zhu, X. & Liu, C. Investigating the neighborhood effect on hybrid vehicle adoption. Transp. Res. Rec. 2385, 37–44 (2013).
Jansson, J., Pettersson, T., Mannberg, A., Brännlund, R. & Lindgren, U. Adoption of alternative fuel vehicles: influence from neighbors, family and coworkers. Transp. Res. D. Transp. Environ. 54, 61–73 (2017).
Bonan, J. et al. Social Interaction and Technology Adoption: Experimental Evidence from Improved Cookstoves in Mali (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, 2017); https://www.feem.it/en/publications/feem-working-papers-note-di-lavoro-series/social-interaction-and-technology-adoption-experimental-evidence-from-improved-cookstoves-in-mali
Beltramo, T., Blalock, G., Levine, D. I. & Simons, A. M. Does peer use influence adoption of efficient cookstoves? Evidence from a randomized controlled trial in Uganda. J. Health Commun. 20, 55–66 (2015).
Miller, G. & Mobarak, A. M. Learning about new technologies through social networks: experimental evidence on nontraditional stoves in Bangladesh. Mark. Sci. 34, 480–499 (2014).
Carranza, E. & Meeks, R. Shedding Light: Understanding Energy Efficiency and Electricity Reliability World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 7891 (SSRN, 2016); https://ssrn.com/abstract=2870159
Rai, V. & Robinson, S. A. Effective information channels for reducing costs of environmentally-friendly technologies: Evidence from residential PV markets. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 014044 (2013). A study examining the impact of active and passive peer effects on the time period for getting rooftop solar.
Rai, V., Reeves, D. C. & Margolis, R. Overcoming barriers and uncertainties in the adoption of residential solar PV. Renew. Energy 89, 498–505 (2016).
Palm, A. Peer effects in residential solar photovoltaics adoption—A mixed methods study of Swedish users. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 26, 1–10 (2017).
Hogg, M. Influence and leadership. in Handbook of social psychology (eds. Fiske, S., Gilbert, D. & Lindzey, G.) 1166–1207 (Wiley, 2010).
Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations 5th Edition (Simon and Schuster, 2003).
Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory (Prentice Hall, 1977).
Aronson, E. & O’Leary, M. The relative effectiveness of models and prompts on energy conservation: a field experiment in a shower room. J. Environ. Syst. 12, 219–224 (1983).
Sussman, R., Greeno, M., Gifford, R. & Scannell, L. The effectiveness of models and prompts on waste diversion: a field experiment on composting by cafeteria patrons. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 43, 24–34 (2013).
Westbrook, R. A. Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase processes. J. Mark. Res. 24, 258–270 (1987).
Bollinger, B., Gillingham, K., Lamp, S. & Tsvetanov, T. Promotional Campaign Duration and Word-Of-Mouth (SSRN, 2019).
Berger, J. Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. J. Consum. Psychol. 24, 586–607 (2014).
Struben, J. & Sterman, J. D. Transition challenges for alternative fuel vehicle and transportation systems. Environ. Plann. B Plann. Des. 35, 1070–1097 (2008).
Lane, B. W. et al. All plug-in electric vehicles are not the same: predictors of preference for a plug-in hybrid versus a battery-electric vehicle. Transp. Res. D. Transp. Environ. 65, 1–13 (2018).
Granovetter, M. S. The strength of weak ties. AJS 78, 1360–1380 (1973).
Weenig, M. W. & Midden, C. J. Communication network influences on information diffusion and persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 61, 734–742 (1991).
Zint, M. & Wolske, K. S. From information provision to participatory deliberation: engaging residents in the transition toward sustainable cities. in Elgar Companion to Sustainable Cities Strategies, Methods and Outlook (eds. Mazmanian, D. A. & Blanco, H.) 188–209 (Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2014).
Bloodhart, B., Swim, J. K. & Zawadzki, M. J. Spreading the eco-message: using proactive coping to aid eco-rep behavior change programming. Sustainability 5, 1661–1679 (2013).
Noll, D., Dawes, C. & Rai, V. Solar community organizations and active peer effects in the adoption of residential PV. Energy Policy 67, 330–343 (2014).
Kraft-Todd, G. T., Bollinger, B., Gillingham, K., Lamp, S. & Rand, D. G. Credibility-enhancing displays promote the provision of non-normative public goods. Nature 563, 245–248 (2018).
Cialdini, R. B. & Trost, M. R. Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance. in The handbook of social psychology 4th edn, Vols. 1–2 (eds Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T & Lindzey, G.) 151–192 (McGraw-Hill, 1998).
Stiff, J. B. & Mongeau, P. A. Persuasive Communication (The Guilford Press, 2016).
Kumkale, G. T., Albarracín, D. & Seignourel, P. J. The effects of source credibility in the presence or absence of prior attitudes: implications for the design of persuasive communication campaigns. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1325–1356 (2010).
Cialdini, R. B. Basic social influence is underestimated. Psychol. Inq. 16, 158–161 (2005).
Schultz, P. W., Tabanico, J. J. & Rendón, T. Normative beliefs as agents of influence: basic processes and real-world applications. in Attitudes and attitude change 385–409 (Psychology Press, 2008).
McDonald, R. I. & Crandall, C. S. Social norms and social influence. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 3, 147–151 (2015).
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. A social norms approach: wise interventions for solving environmental problems. in Handbook of wise interventions: How social-psychological insights can help solve problems (eds. Walton, G. M. & Crum, A.) (Guilford, in press).
Miller, D. T. & Prentice, D. A. Changing norms to change behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67, 339–361 (2016).
Neighbors, C., Larimer, M. E. & Lewis, M. A. Targeting misperceptions of descriptive drinking norms: efficacy of a computer-delivered personalized normative feedback intervention. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 72, 434–447 (2004).
Staats, H. J., Wit, A. P. & Midden, C. Y. H. Communicating the greenhouse effect to the public: evaluation of a mass media campaign from a social dilemma perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 46, 189–203 (1996).
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R. & Kallgren, C. A. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 1015–1026 (1990).
Cialdini, R. B. Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 12, 105–109 (2003).
Göckeritz, S. et al. Descriptive normative beliefs and conservation behavior: The moderating roles of personal involvement and injunctive normative beliefs. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 514–523 (2010).
Jacobson, R. P., Mortensen, C. R. & Cialdini, R. B. Bodies obliged and unbound: differentiated response tendencies for injunctive and descriptive social norms. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100, 433–448 (2011).
Jacobson, R. P., Mortensen, C. R., Jacobson, K. J. L. & Cialdini, R. B. Self-control moderates the effectiveness of influence attempts highlighting injunctive social norms. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 6, 718–726 (2015).
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Sci. 18, 429–434 (2007). A study showing the influence of descriptive normative information, and the differential response for people above and below the norm.
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms: reprise. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 249–254 (2018).
Allcott, H. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 95, 1082–1095 (2011).
Ayres, I., Raseman, S. & Shih, A. Evidence from two large field experiments that peer comparison feedback can reduce residential energy usage. J. Law Econ. Organ. 29, 992–1022 (2013).
Allcott, H. & Rogers, T. The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: experimental evidence from energy conservation. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 3003–3037 (2014).
Ferraro, P. J. & Price, M. K. Using nonpecuniary strategies to influence behavior: evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Rev. Econ. Stat. 95, 64–73 (2013).
Mitchell, D. L. & Chesnutt, T. W. Evaluation of East Bay Municipal Utility District’s Pilot of WaterSmart Home Water Reports (Alliance for Water Efficiency, 2013); https://www.financingsustainablewater.org/resource-search/evaluation-east-bay-municipal-utility-districts-pilot-watersmart-home-water-reports
Schultz, P. W., Javey, S. & Sorokina, A. Social comparison as a tool to promote residential water conservation. Front. Water 1, 1–9 (2019).
Barth, M., Jugert, P. & Fritsche, I. Still underdetected—social norms and collective efficacy predict the acceptance of electric vehicles in Germany. Transp. Res. Part F. Traffic Psychol. Behav. 37, 64–77 (2016).
Jaeger, C. M. & Schultz, P. W. Coupling social norms and commitments: testing the underdetected nature of social influence. J. Environ. Psychol. 51, 199–208 (2017).
Allen, S., Dietz, T. & McCright, A. M. Measuring household energy efficiency behaviors with attention to behavioral plasticity in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 10, 133–140 (2015).
Truelove, H. B. & Gillis, A. J. Perception of pro-environmental behavior. Glob. Environ. Change 49, 175–185 (2018).
Klöckner, C. A. & Nayum, A. Specific barriers and drivers in different stages of decision-making about energy efficiency upgrades in private homes. Front. Psychol. 7, (2016).
Klöckner, C. A. The dynamics of purchasing an electric vehicle – A prospective longitudinal study of the decision-making process. Transp. Res. Part F. Traffic Psychol. Behav. 24, 103–116 (2014).
Wolske, K. S. & Stern, P. C. Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change: opportunities through consumer behavior. in Psychology and Climate Change (eds. Clayton, S. & Manning, C.) 127–160 (Academic Press, 2018).
Delmas, M. A., Fischlein, M. & Asensio, O. I. Information strategies and energy conservation behavior: a meta-analysis of experimental studies from 1975 to 2012. Energy Policy 61, 729–739 (2013).
Karlin, B., Zinger, J. F. & Ford, R. The effects of feedback on energy conservation: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 141, 1205–1227 (2015).
Comin, D. & Rode, J. From Green Users to Green Voters (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2013); http://www.nber.org/papers/w19219
Bollinger, B., Burkhardt, J. & Gillingham, K. Peer effects in water conservation: evidence from consumer migration. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy (in the press).
Manski, C. F. Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Rev. Econ. Stud. 60, 531–542 (1993).
Brock, W. A. & Durlauf, S. N. Discrete choice with social interactions. Rev. Econ. Stud. 68, 235–260 (2001).
Clark, R. A. & Goldsmith, R. E. Interpersonal influence and consumer innovativeness. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 30, 34–43 (2006).
Seebauer, S. Why early adopters engage in interpersonal diffusion of technological innovations: an empirical study on electric bicycles and electric scooters. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 78, 146–160 (2015).
Faiers, A. & Neame, C. Consumer attitudes towards domestic solar power systems. Energy Policy 34, 1797–1806 (2006).
Labay, D. G. & Kinnear, T. C. Exploring the consumer decision process in the adoption of solar energy systems. J. Consum. Res. 8, 271–278 (1981).
Jansson, J. Consumer eco-innovation adoption: Assessing attitudinal factors and perceived product characteristics. Bus. Strategy Environ. 20, 192–210 (2011).
Brudermann, T., Reinsberger, K., Orthofer, A., Kislinger, M. & Posch, A. Photovoltaics in agriculture: a case study on decision making of farmers. Energy Policy 61, 96–103 (2013).
Korcaj, L., Hahnel, U. J. J. & Spada, H. Intentions to adopt photovoltaic systems depend on homeowners’ expected personal gains and behavior of peers. Renew. Energy 75, 407–415 (2015).
Wolske, K. S., Stern, P. C. & Dietz, T. Explaining interest in adopting residential solar photovoltaic systems in the United States: toward an integration of behavioral theories. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 25, 134–151 (2017).
Wolske, K. S., Todd, A., Rossol, M., McCall, J. & Sigrin, B. Accelerating demand for residential solar photovoltaics: Can simple framing strategies increase consumer interest? Glob. Environ. Change 53, 68–77 (2018).
Wang, S., Fan, J., Zhao, D., Yang, S. & Fu, Y. Predicting consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles: using an extended version of the theory of planned behavior model. Transportation 43, 123–143 (2016).
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L. & Kelley, H. H. Communication and Persuasion (Yale University Press, 1953).
Pornpitakpan, C. The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical review of five decades’ evidence. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34, 243–281 (2004).
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change (Springer-Verlag, 1986).
Rimal, R. N. & Real, K. How behaviors are influenced by perceived norms: a test of the theory of normative social behavior. Communic. Res. 32, 389–414 (2005).
Kredentser, M. S., Fabrigar, L. R., Smith, S. M. & Fulton, K. Following what people think we should do versus what people actually do: elaboration as a moderator of the impact of descriptive and injunctive norms. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 3, 341–347 (2012).
Pellerano, J. A., Price, M. K., Puller, S. L. & Sánchez, G. E. Do extrinsic incentives undermine social norms? Evidence from a field experiment in energy conservation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 67, 413–428 (2017).
Mortensen, C. R. et al. Trending norms: a lever for encouraging behaviors performed by the minority. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 10, 201–210 (2019).
Sparkman, G. & Walton, G. M. Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1663–1674 (2017). A study showing that people conform to information that others’ behaviour is changing (dynamic norms).
Schultz, P. W. Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 21, 25 (1999).
Bergquist, M. & Nilsson, A. I saw the sign: promoting energy conservation via normative prompts. J. Environ. Psychol. 46, 23–31 (2016).
Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. New directions in goal-setting theory. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 15, 265–268 (2006).
Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A. & Turner, J. C. Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 29, 97–119 (1990).
Costa, D. L. & Kahn, M. E. Do liberal home owners consume less electricity? A test of the voluntary restraint hypothesis. Econ. Lett. 119, 210–212 (2013).
Agerström, J., Carlsson, R., Nicklasson, L. & Guntell, L. Using descriptive social norms to increase charitable giving: the power of local norms. J. Econ. Psychol. 52, 147–153 (2016).
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B. & Griskevicius, V. A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 35, 472–482 (2008).
DeDominicis, S., Sokoloski, R., Jaeger, C. & Schultz, P. W. Making the smart meter social promotes long-term energy conservation. Palgrave Commun. 5, 51 (2019).
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Wolske, K.S., Gillingham, K.T. & Schultz, P.W. Peer influence on household energy behaviours. Nat Energy 5, 202–212 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0541-9
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2020)
Nature Energy (2020)
Analysis of the impact of policies intervention on electric vehicles adoption considering information transmission—based on consumer network model
Energy Policy (2020)
Current Opinion in Psychology (2020)