communicating climate behaviors: framing and false dichotomies

Beth Karlin University of California, Irvine

[email protected]

Communicating Climate Behaviors: Framing and False Dichotomies

A couple definitions

� Framing � Presentation of information in a way that

encourages certain interpretations and discourages others.

� Dichotomy � A pair of categories that are both

mutually exclusive & exhaustive.

B. Karlin / 15 Feb 2012

Garrison Institute

Framing of energy information

Option A Option B Supply Side Demand Side

Adaptation Mitigation

Technical solutions Behavioral solutions

Acceptance Denial

“________” works “______” doesn’t work

Environmental Apathetic

B. Karlin / 15 Feb 2012 Garrison Institute

There are benefits to simplicity…


But it’s not always that easy…


Potential Solutions

Technology People


People use technology


Beyond either/or “Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce carbon emissions … without waiting for new technologies or regulations or changing household lifestyle.”

Dietz, Gardner, Gilligan, Stern, & Vandenbergh (2009)


Media approaches


“Go Green” Single Behavior

Conservation = many behaviors

Example:


Information Overload

Turn off lights when you leave the room.

Wash your clothes in cold water. Wrap a blanket around your water heater.

Plug your electronics into a smart strip.

Switch to CFL or LED lightbulbs.

Consider buying an energy star appliance.

Check your home for thermal leaks.

Behavior Dimensions Curtailment Efficiency


Other proposed dimensions � Kempton et al. (1984)

�  Investment in efficient equipment

�  More efficient management

� Curtailment of amenities or comfort

•  Black et al. (1985) •  High Cost •  Low Cost

•  Nair et al. (2010) •  High investment •  Low investment •  Building envelope


Energy Survey Who: 836 adults who use electricity in the home

What: 15-minute survey on energy conservation attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors

When: December 2009 - March 2010

Where: Online

Why: Can residential energy conservation behaviors can be classified reliably into distinct categories, or dimensions?

If so, are there differences in the contextual and/or psychological variables best predict these dimensions?


Energy Behaviors � Curtailment

� Efficiency

Turn off lights Run full loads Turn off/unplug

Efficient Appliances Check toilet

for leaks

Check for thermal leaks

Change light bulb Insulate home


� Efficiency



for leaks



Investment Management


� Efficiency



for leaks



High Cost Low Cost


� Efficiency



for leaks



Building Envelope

Demographic / Housing Variable Sample 2010 Census

Gender 66% female 34% male

51% female 49% male

Age 41 years 37 years

Race 85% Caucasian 5% Hispanic 6% Asian 1% African-American 3% Other/Decline

79% Caucasian (15% Hispanic) 4% Asian 11% African-American 6% Other/Decline

Married 55% married 51% married

Education 17.4 years 29.4% College

Income $96,000 $68,000

Home Type 58% detached house --

Home Ownership 64% own 68% own

Home Size 1666 square feet 1769 square feet

# of People in Home 2.5 people 2.6 people

Psychological questions

Deep Ecology

Norm Activation

Media & Education

Focus on values


Is it in my best interest?

Market Failures

Incentives

Focus on outcomes

Rational Model Moral Model

Psychological questions

Bill Consciousness

Financial motivation

Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991)

Personal Norms

Environmental Motivation

New Ecological Paradigm (Dunlap, 2001)

Rational Model Moral Model


What did people do? Behavior % reported

Insulation 33.1%

New Appliance 61.3%

Replace Light Bulbs 80.9%

Check for Toilet Leaks 47.8%

Check for Thermal Leaks 21.1%

Turn off Lights 49.1%

Run Full Loads 77.6%

Shut Down Appliances 30.7%


Did they cluster in dimensions? � Two primary components found:

� Efficiency

� Curtailment


How were they different? Variable Curtailment Efficiency

Gender .031 -.099*

Age -.012 .370***

Race -.086* .028

Married -.077 .272***

Education -.019 .107*

Income -.052 .172***

Home Type -.021 .284***

Homeowner .004 .425***

Home Size -.030 .281*** B. Karlin / 15 Feb 2012

Garrison Institute

How were they different? Variable Curtailment Efficiency

Behavioral Beliefs .152*** .167***

Control Beliefs .162*** .028

Normative Beliefs .079 .026

Price Consciousness .134** .192***

Financial Motivation .038 .030

Env. Paradigm .165*** .056

Environmental Norm .232*** .101*

Environmental Motivation .196*** .074


How were they different?

A four-step regression model was run for curtailment and efficiency. Significant predictors in the final models for each dimension were:

Efficiency

•  Gender

•  Age •  Marital Status

•  Homeownership* •  Behavioral Beliefs

•  Bill Consciousness

Curtailment • Race

• # of people in home

• Bill Consciousness

• Personal Norms*

• Environmental Motivation*

* Indicates strongest predictor in model B. Karlin / 15 Feb 2012

Garrison Institute

Some implications

1. Encouraging “energy conservation” may not be specific enough for consumers.

2. A focus on rational AND moral motivations for behavior are important (for different behaviors).

3. Addressing (psychological & contextual) barriers for renters is important in promoting efficiency behaviors.

4. Provision of energy feedback, could be effective in promoting both curtailment and efficiency.


Suffer Spend

Is this it? Are we missing something?

Behavior Dimensions

Adjustments Conservation action

Usage Behavior Purchase-related

Practices/behaviors Measures

Direct energy use actions Device adoption

Frugality Technical/technology choices

Repeated behaviors One-time / Non-repetitive

Non-investments Investments

Non-durable behavior Durable behavior

Abrahamse et al., 2005; Attari et al., 2010; Ayres et al., 2009; Barr et al., 2005; Black et al., 1985; Butler & Hope, 1995; Cialdini & Schultz, 2003; Curtis et al., 1984; Dietz et al., 2009; Dillman et al., 1983; Geller et al., 1982; Gardner & Stern, 1996; Kempton et al., 1984; Kempton et al., 1992; Macey & Brown, 1983; Nair et al., 2010; McKenzie Mohr, 1994; Oikonomou et al., 2009; Poortinga et al., 2003; Samuelson, 1990; Stern, 1992; Stern & Gardner, 1981; Van Raaij & Verhallen, 1983


Adjustments Conservation action

Usage Behavior Purchase-related

Practices/behaviors Measures

Direct energy use actions Device adoption

Frugality Technical/technology choices

Repeated behaviors One-time / Non-repetitive

Non-investments Investments

Non-durable behavior Durable behavior



No/Low Cost (11) Require financial outlay (12)

Repetitive / Frequent (12) Infrequent /one-time (15)

Loss of amenities/comfort (6) No lifestyle changes (2)

Behavior / usage (6) Structural / purchases (12)

Reversible (4) Durable (7)

Saving energy / moral (2) Saving money / rational (3)

Less impact/savings (2) Greater savings (5)


Behavioral Dimensions Attribute Curtailment Efficiency

COST No/Low Cost (11) Require financial outlay (12)

FREQUENCY Repetitive / Frequent (12) Infrequent /one-time (15)

LIFESTYLE Loss of amenities (6) No lifestyle changes (2)

ACTIONS Behavior / usage (6) Structural / purchases (12)

PERMANENCE Reversible (4) Durable (7)

MOTIVATION Saving energy / moral (2) Saving money / rational (3)

OUTCOME Less impact/savings (2) Greater savings (5)


Is it really that simple? � Distinctions not always clear

(Black et al., 1985; Cialdini & Schultz, 2003; Curtis, 1984; Samuelson, 1990; Stern & Gardener, 1981)

� Operational definitions vary across studies Is curtailment … … subconscious, requiring little cognitive effort? (Barr et al., 2005; Nair et al., 2010)

… conscious and reliant on human volition? (Dillman et al., 1983; Van Raaij & Verhallen, 1983)

� Behaviors inconsistent across studies Is caulking … … a curtailment behavior? (Macey & Brown, 1983) … an efficiency behavior? (Ayres et al., 2009)


Let’s look at the attributes Attribute Curtailment Efficiency



LIFESTYLE Loss of amenities (6) No lifestyle changes (2)

ACTIONS Behavior / usage (6) Structural / purchases (12)

PERMANENCE Reversible (4) Durable (7)

MOTIVATION Saving energy / moral (2) Saving money / rational (3)

OUTCOME Less impact/savings (2) Greater savings (5)


Let’s look at the attributes Attribute Curtailment Efficiency




Features of a dichotomy: 1. Exclusive 2. Exhaustive

Behavior Dimensions

Low Cost

High Cost

Infrequent

Frequent

Curtailment ???

Efficiency Maintenance

Van Raaij & Verhallen, 1983; Kempton et. al., 1984; Kempton et al., 1992; McKenzie Mohr 1994; Stern, 1992


What’s the third option? Curtailment Efficiency Maintenance


Are there more? � High- vs. Low- cost (Black et al., 1985)

� Building Envelope (Nair et al., 2010)

� WEMAD: Weatherization, Equipment, Maintenance, Adjustments, and Daily behavior (Dietz et al., 2009)

� Energy behavior clusters (Flora et al., in preparation)

B. Karlin / 15 Feb 2012

Garrison Institute

Discussion (what does it mean?)

1. Curtailment and efficiency may be a false dichotomy …

2. … but individuals may behave in ways that are consistent with these two dimensions.

3. This dichotomy may emphasize the spending aspect of efficiency behaviors and the suffering aspect of curtailment behaviors.

4. This presents both challenges and opportunities for promotion of energy conservation.

Curtailment Efficiency

Predicted by environmental attitudes

Predicted by home ownership

Closing Thoughts “Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind” Rudyard Kipling

“With great power comes great responsibility”

Uncle Ben (Spiderman)

Contact: [email protected]

uci@home research team: �  David Kirkby, Physics �  Daniel Stokols, Psychology �  Nora Davis, Social Ecology �  Angela Sanguinetti, Planning �  Kristen Gamble, Psychology

communicating climate behaviors: framing and false dichotomies

Environment

garrison institute people

leaks check

loads turn

thermal leaks

efficient appliances

climate behaviors

behaviors example

energy conservation