The critical role of second-order normative beliefs in predicting energy conservation

Abstract

Sustaining large-scale public goods requires individuals to make environmentally friendly decisions today to benefit future generations1,2,3,4,5,6. Recent research suggests that second-order normative beliefs are more powerful predictors of behaviour than first-order personal beliefs7,8. We explored the role that second-order normative beliefs—the belief that community members think that saving energy helps the environment—play in curbing energy use. We first analysed a data set of 211 independent, randomized controlled trials conducted in 27 US states by Opower, a company that uses comparative information about energy consumption to reduce household energy usage (pooled N = 16,198,595). Building off the finding that the energy savings varied between 0.81% and 2.55% across states, we matched this energy use data with a survey that we conducted of over 2,000 individuals in those same states on their first-order personal and second-order normative beliefs. We found that second-order normative beliefs predicted energy savings but first-order personal beliefs did not. A subsequent pre-registered experiment provides causal evidence for the role of second-order normative beliefs in predicting energy conservation above first-order personal beliefs. Our results suggest that second-order normative beliefs play a critical role in promoting energy conservation and have important implications for policymakers concerned with curbing the detrimental consequences of climate change.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: An example of an Opower Home Energy Report.
Fig. 2: Second-order normative beliefs predict energy savings in 211 large-scale energy savings RCTs.
Fig. 3: Information given to all participants about their energy consumption in the experimental study.

Data availability

The data set containing household energy savings from 211 large-scale RCTs is Opower’s propriety data and may not currently be shared publicly. To inquire about access to the proprietary Opower data, please get in touch with J.D.O. (jdpobrien@gmail.com). The survey response data collected on AMT is available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/jaz4w.

References

  1. 1.

    Levin, S. A. Public goods in relation to competition, cooperation, and spite. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 10838–10845 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Clark, W. C. & Dickson, N. M. Sustainability science: the emerging research program. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8059–8061 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Hauser, O. P., Rand, D. G., Peysakhovich, A. & Nowak, M. A. Cooperating with the future. Nature 511, 220–223 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Fischer, M.-E., Irlenbusch, B. & Sadrieh, A. An intergenerational common pool resource experiment. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 48, 811–836 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Barrett, S. & Dannenberg, A. Climate negotiations under scientific uncertainty. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 17372–17376 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Dennig, F., Budolfson, M. B., Fleurbaey, M., Siebert, A. & Socolow, R. H. Inequality, climate impacts on the future poor, and carbon prices. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 15827–15832 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A. & Reno, R. R. A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 24, 201–234 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bem, D. J. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Human Affairs (Brooks/Cole, Oxford, 1970).

  10. 10.

    Howe, P. D., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J. R. & Leiserowitz, A. Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 596–603 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Tertoolen, G., van Kreveld, D. & Verstraten, B. Psychological resistance against attempts to reduce private car use. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 32, 171–181 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Sedikides, C. & Alicke, M. D. in Oxford Handbook of Motivation (ed. Ryan, R.) Ch. 13 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2012).

  13. 13.

    Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C. & Rothengatter, T. Review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J. Environ. Psychol. 25, 273–291 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Gillingham, K., Newell, R. & Palmer, K. Energy efficiency policies: a retrospective examination. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31, 161–192 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Chiu, C.-Y., Gelfand, M. J., Yamagishi, T., Shteynberg, G. & Wan, C. Intersubjective culture: the role of intersubjective perceptions in cross-cultural research. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5, 482–493 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Zou, X. et al. Culture as common sense: perceived consensus versus personal beliefs as mechanisms of cultural influence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97, 579–597 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Shteynberg, G., Gelfand, M. J. & Kim, K. Peering into the ‘Magnum Mysterium’ of culture: the explanatory power of descriptive norms. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol. 40, 46–69 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Allport, G. The Nature of Prejudice (Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, 1954).

  19. 19.

    Staub, E. & Pearlman, L. A. in Psychological Interventions in Times of Crisis (eds Barbanel, L. & Sternberg, R. J.) 214–243 (Springer, New York, 2006).

  20. 20.

    Paluck, E. L. What’s in a norm? Sources and processes of norm change. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96, 594–600 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Paluck, E. L. Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: a field experiment in Rwanda. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96, 574–587 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Paluck, E. L. & Shepherd, H. The salience of social referents: a field experiment on collective norms and harassment behavior in a school social network. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103, 899–915 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Hallsworth, M., List, J. A., Metcalfe, R. D. & Vlaev, I. The behavioralist as tax collector: using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance. J. Public Econ. 148, 14–31 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Turner, J., Perkins, H. W. & Bauerle, J. Declining negative consequences related to alcohol misuse among students exposed to a social norms marketing intervention on a college campus. J. Am. Coll. Health 57, 85–94 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Neighbors, C., Lee, C. M., Lewis, M. A., Fossos, N. & Larimer, M. E. Are social norms the best predictor of outcomes among heavy-drinking college students? J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 68, 556–565 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Allcott, H. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 95, 1082–1095 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Fischer, C. Feedback on household electricity consumption: a tool for saving energy? Energy Effic. 1, 79–104 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Costa, D. L. & Kahn, M. E. Energy conservation ‘nudges’ and environmentalist ideology: evidence from a randomized residential electricity field experiment. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 11, 680–702 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    McAuliffe, K., Raihani, N. J. & Dunham, Y. Children are sensitive to norms of giving. Cognition 167, 151–159 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Fehr, E. & Gächter, S. Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity. J. Econ. Perspect. 14, 159–182 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Rand, D. G., Dreber, A., Ellingsen, T., Fudenberg, D. & Nowak, M. A. Positive interactions promote public cooperation. Science 325, 1272–1275 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Posner, R. & Rasmusen, E. Creating and enforcing norms, with special reference to sanctions. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 19, 369–382 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Feinberg, M., Willer, R. & Schultz, M. Gossip and ostracism promote cooperation in groups. Psychol. Sci. 25, 656–664 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Balafoutas, L. & Nikiforakis, N. Norm enforcement in the city: a natural field experiment. Eur. Econ. Rev. 56, 1773–1785 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Chopik, W. & Motyl, M. Ideological fit enhances interpersonal orientations. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 7, 759–768 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Hauser, O. P., Hendriks, A., Rand, D. G. & Nowak, M. A. Think global, act local: preserving the global commons. Sci. Rep. 6, 36079 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Allcott, H. Site selection bias in program evaluation. Q. J. Econ. 130, 1117–1165 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Hauser, O. P., Linos, E. & Rogers, T. Innovation with field experiments: studying organizational behaviors in actual organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 37, 185–198 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Wooldridge, J. M. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach (Upper Level Economics Titles) (Southwestern College Publishing, Nashville, 2012).

  41. 41.

    O’Brien, R. M. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual. Quant. 41, 673–690 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Côté, S., House, J. & Willer, R. High economic inequality leads higher-income individuals to be less generous. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 15838–15843 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Rand, D. G. & Nowak, M. A. Human cooperation. Trends. Cogn. Sci. 17, 413–425 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Castro Santa, J., Exadaktylos, F. & Soto-Faraco, S. Beliefs about others’ intentions determine whether cooperation is the faster choice. Sci. Rep. 8, 7509 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D. & Nowak, M. A. Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature 489, 427–430 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Tinghög, G. et al. Intuition and cooperation reconsidered. Nature 498, E1–E2 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Bouwmeester, S. et al. Registered Replication Report: Rand, Greene, and Nowak (2012). Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 527–542 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Brozyna, C., Guilfoos, T. & Atlas, S. Slow and deliberate cooperation in the commons. Nat. Sustain. 1, 184–189 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Hauser, O. P. Running out of time. Nat. Sustain. 1, 162–163 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Tankard, M. E. & Paluck, E. L. Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 10, 181–211 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Berinsky, A., Huber, G. & Lenz, G. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Polit. Anal. 20, 351–368 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Huff, C. & Tingley, D. ‘Who are these people?’ Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Res. Polit. 2, 1–12 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Harrington, J. R. & Gelfand, M. J. Tightness-looseness across the 50 united states. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 11, 7900–7995 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Jokela, M., Bleidorn, W., Lamb, M. E., Gosling, S. D. & Rentfrow, P. J. Geographically varying associations between personality and life satisfaction in the London metropolitan area. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 725–730 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Waytz, A., Young, L. L. & Ginges, J. Motive attribution asymmetry for love vs. hate drives intractable conflict. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 15687–15692 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Ross, L. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 10, 173–220 (1977).

  57. 57.

    Heilman, M. E. & Haynes, M. C. No credit where credit is due: attributional rationalization of women’s success in male-female teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 90, 905–916 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Kelley, H. H. & Stahelski, A. J. Social interaction basis of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefs about others. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 16, 66–91 (1970).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Paolacci, G., Chandler, J. & Ipeirotis, P. G. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 5, 411–419 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T. & Gosling, S. D. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 3–5 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Hauser, D. J. & Schwarz, N. Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than subject pool participants. Behav. Res. Methods 48, 400–407 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to N. Castelo, K. Duke, F. Cushman, H. Foster, J. Greene, G. Kraft-Todd, E. U. Weber and L. Zaval for helpful feedback, and the Center for Decision Sciences at Columbia University, the Behavioral Insights Group at Harvard University and the German Academic Merit Foundation for funding. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J.D.O. and E.S. oversaw the Opower data collection. J.M.J. and O.P.H. analysed the data, designed the online experiment and wrote the manuscript. J.D.O., E.S. and A.D.G. provided critical revisions. All authors approved the final version of this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jon M. Jachimowicz.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

J.D.O. and E.S. previously worked at Opower. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supporting Information

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Results, Supplementary Figure 1, Supplementary Tables 1–5

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jachimowicz, J.M., Hauser, O.P., O’Brien, J.D. et al. The critical role of second-order normative beliefs in predicting energy conservation. Nat Hum Behav 2, 757–764 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0434-0

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter for a daily update on COVID-19 science.
Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing