Is the Monster Green-Eyed, or just Green?

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF GROUP COHESION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES ON ENERGY CONSERVATION HABITS

ENVECON 2017

MIKE BROCK

MICHAEL.BROCK@UEA.AC.UK

FRIDAY MARCH 3RD 2017

Project Overview

▪ This work builds upon how to best incentivise behavioural change.

▪ More specifically, the study provided information on energy usage, emphasising absolute and relative performance and so making it salient how well participants versus their peers.

▪ Unlike similar studies in this area, it provided ‘group performance’ feedback to assess if this has any bearing on behavioural change or not.

Literature Background

• The main focus of this field experiment stemmed from work by Delmas & Lessem (2014). They

studied how students living in US Halls of Residence responded to being given information on

their comparative energy usage.

• By providing regular information, they recognised considerable conservation behaviour (by both

high and low quality performers), despite there being no personal financial reward in doing so.

• Since then, other studies are taking place which seek to test a similar thing (e.g. Alberts et al

2016).

Literature Background

• Shown in the upcoming treatment diagram, this study builds upon the existing

literature in a couple of crucial ways, taking advantage of the existing

infrastructure and procedures at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

• This is an ongoing study (Wave 2 currently is underway!) and so your (specific or

general) thoughts now or later through the day will be very welcome…

“Constable Terrace” “Norfolk Terrace”

Block A Floors 0, 1 & 2

10

Block E Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Block F Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

The Residences Used

Block D Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Flat 01

10

Flat 03

10

Flat 04

10

Flat 02

9

Constable Terrace Norfolk Terrace

The Residences UsedThe Buildings

Block A Floors 0, 1 & 2

10

Block E Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Block F Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Block D Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Flat 01

10

Flat 03

10

Flat 04

10

Flat 02

9

Constable Terrace Norfolk Terrace

The Residences UsedGreen Flats

Block A Floors 0, 1 & 2

10

Block E Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Block F Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Block D Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Flat 01

10

Flat 03

10

Flat 04

10

Flat 02

9

Constable Terrace Norfolk Terrace

The Residences UsedThe “Silent” Flats!

Block A Floors 0, 1 & 2

10

Block E Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Block F Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Block D Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Flat 01

10

Flat 03

10

Flat 04

10

Flat 02

9

Constable Terrace Norfolk Terrace

The Residences UsedThe League Table

Block A Floors 0, 1 & 2

10

Block E Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Block F Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Block D Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Flat 01

10

Flat 03

10

Flat 04

10

Flat 02

9

Block A Floors 0, 1 & 2

10

Block E Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Block F Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Block D Floors 0, 1 & 2

9

Flat 01

10

Flat 03

10

Flat 04

10

Flat 02

9

Constable Terrace Norfolk Terrace

The Residences UsedThe Email Groupings

Data Dissemination

Energy data was collected each Monday by the

university Estates Division. It is then formatted

and sent to each relevant email grouping. The

design of the information follows this set-up:

This means there is a:

Weekly Rating

An Overall Rating

A Running Total of Ranking

Week: 03

Your Group: Team YY

This Week Overall

Your History

The Treatments Tested

Reiterating what I have shown you in pictures, the key research questions were:

Whether those who self-selected into a Green Flat (a) have a lower baseline usage

and/or (b) are more response to the information.

How information dissemination impacts on action (if at all) by monitoring the ‘silent’

flats and the buildings baseline.

The impact of a group dynamic as opposed to individual data.

These results were particularly interesting to compare against the (individual-based) studies already

in operation or conducted.

Yes, but then No and Yes!

Yes, by about 4-5%

Level of ‘cohesion’ matters!

Results

1. Whether those who self-selected into a Green Flat (a)

have a lower energy usage and/or (b) were more

response to the information.

The result to (a) was seemingly Yes if we look at model

(2)!. Our three green flats would be consistently lower

users of energy compared with their ‘standard flat’

cohort…

But when we introduce “greenrank” into model (3), which

interacts a flat’s response to a worsening ranking, we see

that Green Flats are not inherently better, they just are

more responsive to relative standing.

Model (1) Model(2)

Model (3)

Coef. P>|z| Coef. P>|z| Coef. P>|z|

Constant 7.562 0.000 6.221 0.001 5.835 0.000 WEEK -0.418 0.499 -0.418 0.512 FLATAA -2.089 0.020 FLATBB -3.518 0.000 FLATCC -3.154 0.000 FLATDD -2.197 0.020 FLATEE -2.329 0.021 FLATGG -1.609 0.056 FLATHH -3.041 0.000 TEMPMAX -0.116 0.349 -0.116 0.365 TEMPMIN 0.358 0.013 -0.001 0.016 RANK 1.668 0.000 1.754 0.000 1.843 0.000 RANKCH 0.211 0.190 0.250 0.131 0.261 0.112 TERMTIME 6.588 0.000 6.588 0.000 6.198 0.000 GREEN -1.206 0.042 0.810 0.457 ENSUITE -1.332 0.025 -1.020 0.102 SILENT -2.000 0.005 -1.857 0.022 UKRATIO -2.130 0.523 MALE 4.864 0.236 GREENRANK -0.413 0.086

Model Fit (𝑭) 44.47 0.000 48.27 0.000 73.81 0.000

𝑹𝟐 0.7984 0.782 0.7727

Observations 160 160 160

Results

2. How information dissemination impacts on action (if

at all) by comparing our treatment group against

their overall buildings baseline.

The small cohort represented by the ‘Silent Flats’ meant

instead the entire accommodation buildings block was

used as a baseline from which to see how students

reacted to the emailed data.

We see that the treatment groups actually began as

above-average users…

….but then fell below the average use.

In total this equated to a 4 – 5 %-point fall in usage: a

magnitude similar to those previously mentioned studies.

“Cohesion”* | Rank Average Rank | Rank

Flat AA 2.875 (2) 3.7 (3)

Flat BB 3 (3) 5.6 (5)

Flat CC 4 (5) 5.05 (4)

Flat DD 3.5 (4) 2.7 (2)

Flat EE 2.5 (1) 1.65 (1)

Flat FF 4 (5) 5.95 (6)

Results

3. The impact of a group dynamic as opposed to

individual data

Over and above the fact Green Flat students appeared

more competitive, an analysis of the data alongside a

“cohesion rank” derived from the post-trial questionnaire

was used to assess the role of group identity as a driver of

behavioural change.

The table shows a clear link between the degree of

affiliation with one’s peers and the ability to conserve

energy...

…or not!

This seems valuable to consider when assessing how

successful such schemes may be in a given location.

*Given the wording of this question (10), a low score indicates a stronger degree of social cohesion

Relationship to Consumer Behaviour and Monitoring

A major focus here was how (and to what extent) non-financial stimuli can influence behaviour:

Students are a ‘clean group’: they had no financial incentive to reduce usage.

They are (on average) a ‘naïve’ group, who are less familiar with energy decisions. This

could be a bonus or a curse!

The impact of persistence and a ‘change in attitude’ is something we have included in

Wave 2 and may shed some light for the industry on how to facilitate adaptation towards

‘good habits’.

The results from this first wave have been encouraging, but the beauty of the project is that it can

now seek to replicate and confirm or refute the three main results which the 2016 cohort appeared

to show…

…and means we have room to make further treatments if the audience have some good ideas!!

Is the Monster Green-Eyed, or just Green?

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF GROUP COHESION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES ON ENERGY CONSERVATION HABITS

ENVECON 2017

MIKE BROCK

MICHAEL.BROCK@UEA.AC.UK

FRIDAY MARCH 3RD 2017

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!

I LOOK FORWARD TO QUESTIONS AND

COMMENTS