'Watched' households use less energy | INFJ Forum

'Watched' households use less energy

Quiet

i know nothing
Dec 16, 2011
2,028
2,703
892
aus
MBTI
infj
Enneagram
1w9
'Watched' households use less energy

Tuesday, 3 September 2013 Anna Salleh
ABC

from http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/09/03/3839202.htm

People use less energy when they know their use is being monitored, a new US study has found.

Among other things the findings suggest ways to increase the success of energy efficiency programs.

Behavioural scientist, Dr Daniel Schwartz, from the University of Pennsylvania, and colleagues, report their findings this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"The survey that we conducted suggests that this effect might be explained because people increase their energy awareness during that period," says Schwartz.

Schwartz and colleagues studied the electricity consumption of nearly 6000 homes.

While half the households in the study were unaware their consumption was being monitored, the other half were informed of the monitoring - at least for some of the time.

Households in this group were sent weekly postcards for a month telling them their electricity use was being monitored. However the researchers actually collected data for two months after this.

Schwartz and colleagues found that the households that were told they were being monitored used 2.7 per cent less electricity than the control group, which were unaware of any monitoring.

This decrease in energy use, however, did not last longer than the month they thought they were being monitored. Once the postcards alerting them to monitoring stopped, the energy consumption climbed back to normal levels.
Energy awareness

Schwartz says the fact that energy consumption was reduced only while there were weekly reminders suggests energy awareness plays a key role in the success of energy efficiency programs.

"In general we don't think about energy in our life very often, so any reminders to think about this energy issue helps to save energy," he says.

Schwartz says the findings will also help researchers account for the role of energy awareness when they are studying energy efficiency programs.

Australian energy efficiency researcher Michael Ambrose of CSIRO's Urban Systems Program agrees.

He says it's long been known that being part of a study leads to a change in behaviour, but until now researchers have had no way of quantifying this effect.

"You don't know how much to correct for it. So you acknowledge that it might be there but then ignore it," says Ambrose.

He says understanding the human element is the "missing piece of the puzzle" in improving energy efficiency, that can sometimes have huge impacts.

Research he has been involved in shows that human behaviour can counteract the substantial benefits of energy-saving technology and design in the home.

For example, says Ambrose, if people believe they have a more efficient home, they often put their thermostat up by one or two degrees and there is no overall reduction in energy consumption.

He says including energy consumption in bills is a useful way of raising energy awareness, such as comparing a household's consumption to the average.

"In the past price has not been a big enough driver [to reduce energy use] but it's definitely changing now," adds Ambrose.


Ethics of study

Ambrose says the US study was well designed because people were not always aware their energy consumption was being monitored, but he says this presents ethical problems.

"We couldn't really undertake a study like that in Australia because we need to get permission from people to collect their energy consumption data," he says.

Schwartz says the study was approved by the institutional review boards of the universities involved in the research and at no stage was electricity consumption linked to the identity of specific individuals within the households being monitored.

Its interesting looking at this following on from the 'herd behaviour online likes' thread.
 
Yeah.

At this point I'll just come out and say that most humans do not think entirely on their own, and beliefs are not voluntary.

There is room for autonomous decision making, but options are environmentally presented and biased by norms and expectations. Rarely do you see somebody making a truly arbitrary choice.

In fact, this is why the Hobson's choice is a thing that works - a Hobson's choice is a choice with only one real option, otherwise called 'take it or leave it'. Hobson had a stable of 40 horses which made it appear that he had a large selection, however he would say "Take the horse by the gate, or take none at all." and would rotate out the horse by the gate. This works because many people are likely to take the horse if they need one, even if they don't want that horse. In the "take it or leave it" option, many would expect the "take it" option to be chosen even though the "leave it" option should be equally valid.
 
New Study Shows Reputation Trumps Money

And theres this:

New Study Shows Reputation Trumps Money
By Janice Wood Associate News Editor
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on June 15, 2013

from http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/06/15/new-study-shows-reputation-trumps-money/56078.html

Whether it’s an attempt to increase recycling rates, reduce energy consumption or cut carbon emissions, conventional wisdom says the best way to get people to do the right thing is to make it worth their while with financial incentives.

But a new study shows that there may be an easier – and cheaper – way: by boosting people’s reputations through the use of peer pressure.

Using a California blackout prevention program as an experimental test bed, a team of researchers found that while financial incentives increased participation slightly, making participation in the program observable to neighbors through the use of signup sheets posted in apartment buildings produced a threefold increase in participation.

“We wanted to see how observability compares to a cash incentive for getting people to act to benefit the common good. The answer is that observability is really dramatically better,” said David Rand, formerly a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard University’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics (PED), who is now a professor at Yale University.

Using a cash incentive of $25, the utility company saw participation increase from about three percent to four percent. When researchers made people’s participation observable, participation jumped from three to nine percent. To get the same result using a cash incentive, the company may have had to offer every person as much as $175, said Erez Yoeli, a researcher at the Federal Trade Commission.

Observability proved to be the key factor in the results because it puts people’s reputation at stake, encouraging those who might not otherwise sign up to do so, according to the researchers.

“When people know it’s a cooperative effort, they feel peer pressure to take part,” Rand explained. “They think, ‘If I don’t do this, I’m going to look like a jerk.’ But if it’s not observable, then there’s no problem with not participating.”

“In fact, we think this is one reason why the Prius, for instance, is such a different-looking car,” added Moshe Hoffman, a visiting researcher at PED. “The designers at Toyota seem to have intuitively had this idea, designing a car that didn’t look like any other car so your neighbors can tell you’re driving a hybrid.”

“You can also see this phenomenon when you go to vote, and you get an ‘I voted’ sticker,” he continued. “Or when you go to give blood and you get a pin you can put on your backpack.”

To demonstrate the effect of observability in a real world setting, the researchers turned to a large-scale California blackout prevention program. Residents were asked for permission to install a monitoring device on their air-conditioning systems. If power demand spiked, the device would automatically adjust the air-conditioning temperature to reduce electricity demand and not overload the power grid.

Researchers randomly offered people one of two ways to sign up for the program.

In the first, people received a mailer that described the program, and were encouraged to sign up in their apartment building using a unique identification number. In the second, people received a similar mailer and identification number, but also had to write their name and apartment number when they signed up.

“The idea was that in one case, it’s anonymous, and in the other, it’s observable – everyone can see who has and hasn’t signed up,” Rand said. “When participation is observable, people worry about their reputation, and wanting to seem cooperative drives them to sign up.”

To support the explanation for the increased sign ups when participation was observable, the researchers point to three pieces of evidence: First, tests showed that the effect was greater in large apartment buildings – where more people were likely to see the sign-up sheets – than in row houses, which have less common space.

Second, tests showed that the effect was more pronounced among people who own their apartments than among renters.

“People who own their apartments are real, permanent members of their community,” Rand said. “They are more likely to care about what other people in the community think of them. If you are a renter, by comparison, you may not even know any of your neighbors.”

Finally, tests showed observability only increased participation when the program was portrayed as a community-wide benefit, the researchers noted.

“We showed that signing up only matters when others can see it, and particularly when people you care about can see it. But we also wanted to show that it matters whether people think you are being cooperative or not,” Rand said. “If you think about the way reputation works, you can get a bad reputation for being selfish, but things that don’t involve a cooperative element – like signing up for a promotion offered by your utility that has no effect on others – aren’t going to affect your reputation.”

Ultimately, the study suggests that similar strategies could be relatively cheaply and easily employed to boost participation in a host of programs to improve community-wide efforts, the researchers suggest.

“This finding is very policy-relevant, because we’re talking about changing real-world behaviors that are economically significant,” Rand said. “The moral here is that these type of reputation concerns deserve a prominent place in the toolkit used by policy makers to encourage people to do things that benefit the public good. We think that observability nd reputation concerns are powerful tools that are being under-utilized.”

Their study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Source: Harvard University
 
Study Finds Ignorance Is Bliss, and Then Some

And this, which i think can be extrapolated to most authority figures in our society such as corporartions as well the government

Study Finds Ignorance Is Bliss, and Then Some
By Rick Nauert PhD Senior News Editor
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on November 22, 2011

from http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/11/22/study-finds-ignorance-is-bliss-and-then-some/31768.html
Troubling new research suggests that the less people know about important complex issues such as the economy, energy consumption and the environment, the more they want to avoid becoming well-informed.

Researchers also determined that the more urgent the issue, the more people want to remain unaware.

“These studies were designed to help understand the so-called ‘ignorance is bliss’ approach to social issues,” said author Steven Shepherd, a graduate student with the University of Waterloo in Ontario. “The findings can assist educators in addressing significant barriers to getting people involved and engaged in social issues.”

Researchers conducted a series of five studies in 2010 and 2011 studying 511 adults in the United States and Canada.

After the interviews, researchers described “a chain reaction from ignorance about a subject to dependence on and trust in the government to deal with the issue.”

In one study, comprised of 197 Americans with a mean age of 35 (111 women and 89 men) participants who felt most affected by the economic recession avoided information challenging the government’s ability to manage the economy.

Researchers tested the relationship among dependence, trust and avoidance, by providing either a complex or simple description of the economy to a group of 58 Canadians, mean age 42, composed of 20 men and 38 women.

The participants who received the complex description indicated higher levels of perceived helplessness in getting through the economic downturn, more dependence on and trust in the government to manage the economy, and less desire to learn more about the issue.

“This is despite the fact that, all else equal, one should have less trust in someone to effectively manage something that is more complex,” said co-author Aaron C. Kay, Ph.D., of Duke University. “Instead, people tend to respond by psychologically ‘outsourcing’ the issue to the government, which in turn causes them to trust and feel more dependent on the government.

“Ultimately, they avoid learning about the issue because that could shatter their faith in the government.”

Participants who felt unknowledgeable about oil supplies not only avoided negative information about the issue, they became even more reluctant to know more when the issue was urgent, as in an imminent oil shortage in the United States, according to the authors.

The findings suggest that educators need to explain complex issues in ways that make them easily digestible and understandable, with a clear emphasis on local, individual-level causes.

The authors recommended further research to determine how people would react when faced with other important issues such as food safety, national security, health, social inequality, poverty and moral and ethical conflict, as well as under what conditions people tend to respond with increased rather than decreased engagement.

The new research is published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
 
[MENTION=4956]charlene[/MENTION]

Yes and the above two things apply to the government - the individuals in the government - as well.

They are just as subject to these tendencies and biases. Stuff rolls down hill but everyone has at some point been at the bottom of another hill, so in a sense it goes uphill too.
 
[MENTION=4956]charlene[/MENTION]

Yes and the above two things apply to the government - the individuals in the government - as well.

They are just as subject to these tendencies and biases. Stuff rolls down hill but everyone has at some point been at the bottom of another hill, so in a sense it goes uphill too.

Yes, they're just people. Mostly 'normal' people as well from what ive met, more or less trying to do the best they can, confused and torn by different agendas and interests.

And even these ones at the 'top' of the hill, they're just people too.

Although, lol, my dad would say a lot of them are just demons or aliens! Especially Obama, omg! I think its easier to blame an 'other' or label what we dont want as 'evil' than to accept and deal with the humaness of all this shit. Looking at ourselves collectively in a mirror and working it out by actually changing our own behaviour is the only way we're going to move foward. We really do need to stop letting ourselves being so overtly manipulated though. Its getting beyond embarassing
 
Yes, they're just people. Mostly 'normal' people as well from what ive met, more or less trying to do the best they can, confused and torn by different agendas and interests.

And even these ones at the 'top' of the hill, they're just people too.

Although, lol, my dad would say a lot of them are just demons or aliens! Especially Obama, omg! I think its easier to blame an 'other' or label what we dont want as 'evil' than to accept and deal with the humaness of all this shit. Looking at ourselves collectively in a mirror and working it out by actually changing our own behaviour is the only way we're going to move foward. We really do need to stop letting ourselves being so overtly manipulated though. Its getting beyond embarassing

Yes this is why karma is an important idea to me. Nobody is simply bad or a demon. Inherent badness does not exist, people simply become corrupted.

Yes people DO really bad things and often have a great amount of responsibility brought on themselves, but it is not all or only them, others have enabled it or led by example.

This is just like determinism in physics. It is strange how a human can invent a clock with a large amount of precise cogs that all function as an interconnected whole but they see themselves as magically separated, with no rational cause or objective reason to believe in this separation.

Separation is just conveniently assumed due to self absorbed illusions and delusions.
 
[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

absolutely. im with you