is there a generalized energy conservation ethic? a comparison of the determinants of gasoline and...
TRANSCRIPT
Journal of Economic Psychology 3 (1983) 317-331
North-Holland
317
IS THERE A GENERALIZED ENERGY CONSERVATION ETHIC? A COMPARISON OF THE DETERMINANTS OF GASOLINE AND HOME HEATING ENERGY CONSERVATION
John PAINTER, Richard SEMENIK and Russell BELK *
University of Utah, USA
Received September 26, 1982; accepted March 21, 1983
The body of research that has attempted to identify and characterize the “ecologically concerned”
or “socially responsible” consumer is challenged for its assumption that this is a single group
sharing a genera1 disposition to conserve. Based on a comparison of gasoline and home heating
energy conservers from a single sample, evidence is provided that these are two unique groups and
that those who are conservers in both areas form a third unique group that is closer to the original
notion of a generalized conservation ethic. Implications are discussed for future research focusing
on energy conservation and social responsibility.
During the past decade a small body of literature, based upon the assumption of a motivation to consume in a socially, ecologically, or environmentally sound manner, has influenced a much larger body of literature involving energy consumption. Because energy consumption studies have often assumed energy conservation tendencies to be a manifestation of a more general ecological orientation, they have typi- cally defined the domain of energy conservation in a casual manner. Thus, energy conservation studies have often generated seemingly con- tradictory findings and it is difficult to synthesize the literature.
This study examines the assumption that there is a generalized conservation ethic. It tests the validity of the assumption by examining the amount of overlap in two distinct types of conservation behavior and comparing the characteristics of those who engage or do not engage in each type of conservation behavior.
* Mailing address: J. Painter, Dept. of Marketing, Graduate School of Business, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
318 J. Painter et al. / Is there a generalized conseroatton ethic?
Prior research
The notion of generalized consumer responsibility
The work of Webster ( 1975, 1976) is a good example of the notion of generalized consumer responsibility. He defined the “socially consci- ous” consumer as “. . . a consumer who takes into account the public consequences of his or her private consumption or who attempts to use his or her purchasing power to bring about social change” (1975: 188). In operationalizing this notion, Webster included the following criteria: used a recycling service; had disconnected car’s pollution control device if it had one; reused paper grocery shopping bags; had reduced usage of petroleum products and electricity during the winter of 1972-74 fuel shortage; had ever refused to buy a product involved in a labor dispute; regularly used low lead or lead-free gasoline; regularly used low phos- phate detergent; and regularly used beverages in returnable bottles. While inter-item correlation coefficients are not reported, the average item-total correlation was 0.42, lending some support to combining these items into a single index.
But Webster’s (1975) attempt to find other correlates of socially conscious consumption was less successful. Using a series of demo- graphic, attitudinal, personality, and activity variables as predictors of social consciousness, a multiple regression analysis was only able to obtain an R2 of about 0.30.
In addition to Webster’s index of social consciousness, several other indices have been proposed to measure related concepts. These include a measure of “ecological concern” (Kinnear and Taylor 1973; Kinnear et al. 1974), an index of “socially responsible consumption behavior” (Anti1 and Bennett 1979), and a measure called “social responsibility” in its original form (Berkowitz and Daniels 1964). Although some of these indices included transportation-related activities that involve re- ductions in energy consumption, the real attempt is to measure pollu- tion-reducing activities in these instances. No other measures related to energy conservation are included in the scales. Since most of these scales were constructed prior to the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo, this omission is understandable. The omission may or may not make for a more homogeneous scale. Kinnear et al. (1974) obtained an R2 of only 0.28 in their regression using various attitudinal and demographic variables to predict ecological concern. While somewhat better results
J. Painter et al. / IS there a generalized conservolion ethic? 319
were obtained in a discriminant analysis of social consciousness by Anderson and Cunningham (1972), the results of studies attempting to profile the socially or ecologically concerned consumer have generally been quite weak.
More direct evidence of the internal consistency of such general scales is found in a study reported by Tognacci et al. (1972) who correlated a general measure of the “importance of a pure environment” with several more specific attitudes reflected in many of the scales just discussed. They found that this measure correlated between 0.32 and 0.49 with measures of attitudes toward conservation, pollution, and population control. By itself this would appear to offer some support for the scales combining such items, but it is also true that Webster (1975) obtained a correlation of only 0.02 between energy conservation and the scale of social consciousness of which it was a part. This raises special concern about whether an energy conservation ethic exists as a part of a more general consumer responsibility tendency.
Evidence from energy conservation studies
The question of the generality or specificity of consumer energy con- servation activities can also be approached by examining the more direct evidence concerning these behaviors and related attitudes. Com- pared to the research measuring consumer responsibility in general, there are many times more studies of energy consumption (see Farhar et al. 1979; Anderson and Cullen 1979; Anderson and McDougall 1980; and McDougall and Anderson 198 1, for reviews). Individually, these studies have also been more successful in their attempts to profile the consumer of interest; in this case the conserver of energy. However, collectively these studies have produced conflicting profiles. For exam- ple, using general energy conservation tendencies as a focus, some studies have found a positive association between energy conservation and income (e.g. Grier 1976), while other studies have reported this relationship to be negative (e.g. Opinion Research Corporation 1975b), curvilinear (e.g. Warren and Clifford 1975), or non-existent (e.g. Hogan 1976). Such conflicts have been obtained for nearly every other demo- graphic correlate of energy consumption examined as well.
There are a number of possible reasons for these conflicting findings, including sampling differences, measurement differences, time period differences and differing emphases on particular domains of conserva-
320 J. Painter et al. / Is there a generalized conservation ethic?
tion activity. Of these explanations, the question of differences due to varying consumption domains is the most relevant to the present discussion. If, say, findings differ depending on whether gasoline con- servation or home heating conservation was emphasized most heavily in the questions asked by these studies, this would be strong evidence against the notion of a general conservation ethic. And there clre instances in which differing consumption contexts provide different profiles of the conserver. However, there are also instances of incon- sistencies which remain within a particular consumption domain. For instance, for heating conservation Morrison and Gladhart (1976) report a positive association with income, Newman and Day (1975) report a negative association, and Walker and Draper (1975) report no signifi- cant relationship between income and heating conservation. The same is true of gasoline conservation where positive (Murray et al. 1974), negative (Barnaby and Reizenstein 1977), curvilinear (Warkov 1976), and nonsignificant (Opinion Research Corporation 1975a) relationships with income have been obtained. It appears from this mix of findings that the influence of the other explanations offered is too great to allow an assessment of the affect of different consumption contexts.
Compared to other socially responsible behaviors such as pollution reduction activities, energy conservation offers at least one unique characteristic that could logically create a consumer profile differing from other social responsibility contexts: the conservation of energy is more likely to be motivated by more purely economic incentives. Whereas pollution reduction activities may likely increase consumption costs and are therefore most likely to be value-based decisions, energy conservation activities resulting in lessened private consumption of energy are likely to decrease consumption costs and they thus allow the competing economic motivation explanation. In fact, some findings suggest that this economic motivation is the on/y operative motive in energy conservation (Milstein 1977).
There are also some more mundane reasons to expect that different people are conservers of different types of .energy. Obviously, to be a conserver of home heating fuel there must be some control over home heating conditions. Since younger people are less likely to own homes, heat conservers are likely to be older. Some flexibility is also needed to be able to reduce gasoline consumption. To the extent that middle-aged parents have larger families than others, they are likely to be more constrained in the types of automobiles that can accommodate their
J. Painter et al. / Is there a generalized conservation ethic? 321
needs. Such families may have higher incomes than younger families and be better able to afford capital investments in home heating improvements. While factors such as these suggest that the profiles of different types of energy consumers may differ if the incentive for energy conservation is primarily economic, this expectation has less basis if the primary incentive is instead a motivation to consume in socially desirable ways. These differing expectations lead to the present study.
Methodology
A study was conducted in an attempt to more clearly define the nature of energy conservation and the behaviors that may or may not contrib- ute to a general pattern of consumer conservation efforts. Data were collected regarding two consumption areas: gasoline and home heating. The study employed a cluster sampling plan and 359 personal inter- views were completed in Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A. during the winter and spring of 1979-80. Interviewers were instructed to screen so that all respondents were heads of households who paid their own heating bills and controlled home thermostat settings (as opposed to landlord con- trol), and who traveled at least 140 miles per month.
Respondents were asked about their gasoline and heating consump- tion behavior (25 variables). Other questions asked were anticipated to generate possible predictors of energy consumption behavior. This second set of 44 variables included: beliefs about the energy problem, its causes, and potential solutions; beliefs and behaviors related to personal energy consumption, locus of control, and demographics. Locus of control was measured on a three scale inventory by Levenson and Miller (1976) which measures the degrees that respondents feel in control of the environment (internal scale), feel events are controlled by key individuals (powerful others scale), and feel events are controlled by fate or circumstance (chance scale).
The initial step in addressing the nature of consumer conservation was to place respondents into one of four groups: conservers of both gasoline and heating fuel, conservers of gasoline only, conservers of heating fuel only, and non-conservers. The classification into groups was made on the basis of the responses to the 25 consumption variables (listed with mean values in table 1). Conservers were defined as
Tab
le
1 M
eans
an
d t&
vari
ate
F-sc
ores
fo
r va
riab
les
used
in
gro
upin
g.
Var
iabl
e ’
Mea
n sc
ores
U
niva
riat
e F-
scor
es
Bot
h G
as
Hea
t N
one
Four
G
as
Bot
h (N
=
only
on
ly
(N=
gr
oup
vs
vs
83)
(N=
(N
=
100)
he
at
none
66)
46)
Day
th
erm
osta
t (F
ahre
nhei
t)
66.1
8 68
.89
66.9
1 68
.64
Nig
ht
ther
mos
tat
(Fah
renh
eit)
60
.20
67.1
6 62
.16
65.7
1
Mo
ved
to d
ecre
ase
trav
el
0.08
0.
21
0.00
0.
03
Bou
ght
car
that
us
es l
ess
gaso
line
0.44
0.
45
0.17
0.
12
Star
ted
car
pool
ing
0.31
0.
30
0.02
0.
02
Usi
ng
the
bus
mor
e 0.
36
0.40
0.
08
0.06
Cho
se
to d
rive
le
ss
0.19
0.
14
0.60
0.
51
Res
iden
ce
chan
ge
incr
ease
d tr
avel
0.
00
0.01
0.
06
0.02
Bou
ght
a ca
r th
at
uses
m
ore
gaso
line
0.03
0.
01
0.08
0.
10
Stop
ped
car
pool
ing
0.02
0.
00
0.00
0.
01
Usi
ng
the
bus
less
0.
01
0.tM
nn
3 no
r
3.79
h
10.1
9’
8.09
=
13.1
1 =
17.1
1 c
16.1
2’
6.17
’
2.17
2.19
0.54
n
0-l
5.36
’
30.8
9 ’
12.1
6’
10.2
2 c
15.8
2’
15.7
8’
2.26
1.97
3.31
0.00
1
a*
6.13
’
13.0
7 =
2.60
28.0
5 ’
35.6
3 =
30.0
8 ’
15.0
0c
I.67
2.81
0.33
__
_ --
.-
--
_
- --
_.
__
--
__
-
-
Dri
ving
lo
nger
di
stan
ces
0.01
0.
01
0.06
0.
07
1.93
1.
97
Mov
ed
to s
mal
ler
hom
e 0.
03
0.09
0.
02
0.00
2.
88
b I .6
2
Mov
ed
to m
ore
fuel
eff
icie
nt
hom
e 0.
03
0.03
0.
02
0.04
0.
11
0.07
Inst
alle
d m
ore
insu
latio
n 0.
63
0.12
0.
80
0.21
40
.69
= 97
.52
=
Inst
alle
d st
orm
w
indo
ws
0.54
0.
16
0.56
0.
22
15.1
6’
23.1
4’
Inst
alle
d au
to.
setb
ack
ther
mos
tat
0.08
0.
04
0.13
0.
02
2.65
b
2.66
At
hom
e le
ss
0.10
0.
12
0.13
0.
13
0.07
0.
02
Mov
ed
to l
arge
r ho
me
0.00
0.
07
0.00
0.
06
3.10
b 3.
70 b
Mov
ed
to l
ess
fuel
eff
icie
nt
hom
e 0.
01
0.06
0.
00
0.04
1.
58
2.91
Usi
ng
a hi
gher
th
erm
osta
t se
tting
0.
00
0.00
0.
00
0.03
I .
98
0.00
At
hom
e m
ore
0.12
0.
16
0.02
0.
10
1.90
6.
17’
Oth
er
effo
rts
(wal
king
et
c)
mor
e,
0.45
0.
21
0.36
0.
23
5.07
c
3.11
Use
of
bus
(5 p
oint
sc
ale)
sy
stem
2.
03
2.03
1.
23
1.24
19
.15
= 21
.14’
Aut
o’s
gaso
line
ratin
g (m
pg)
21.0
2 21
.01
16.3
0 16
.32
14.4
2 =
16.9
2 =
’ A
ll va
riab
les
are
O-l
du
mm
y va
riab
les
unle
ss
othe
rwis
e -s
peci
fied
.
b p
5 0.
05
= p~
o.00
5
Not
e:
For
the
Cgr
oup
com
pari
sons
df
=
3,29
1;
for
the
2-gr
oup
com
pari
sons
df
= I
, 18 I ;
and
df
=
I, 110
re
spec
tivel
y.
3.67
’
3.70
h
0.01
42.1
8’
22.5
6 ’
4.06
’
0.19
5.24
b
1.32
2.
53
0. I
7
11.1
2c
25.6
9 ’
35.3
7 =
324 J. Painter et al. / Is there a generalized conservation ethic?
respondents whose consumption behavior on two or more variables was conserving in nature (gasoline or home heating). Respondents engaging in fewer than two conservation behaviors (for both types of energy) or, in fact behaving in a fashion that indicated increased consumption, were categorized as non-conservers. On the basis of reported behavior, 83 respondents were classified as conservers of both gasoline and home heating fuel, 66 were classified as conservers of gasoline, 46 were classified as conservers of home heating fuel, and 100 were classified as non-conservers. The remaining 64 respondents were unclassified due to contradictory conservation and non-conservation behaviors in one or both areas of consumption.
In order to verify this grouping procedure, discriminant analyses were performed using the variables used to establish the groups as predictors. Shown in table 1 are the univariate P scores for a four group comparison (conservers of both fuels versus gasoline only versus home heating only versus non-conservers) and for two different two group comparisons (gasoline only versus home heating only and conservers of both versus non-conservers). Discriminant analysis of the four groups and two sets of two groups all resulted in an overall F and Wilks’ Lambda statistic significant at p -c 0.0001. The correct classification percentage for each analysis was: 79 percent for the four group analy- sis, 98 percent for gasoline only versus home heating only, and 92 percent for conservers of both versus non-conservers.
Results
The first and most direct method used to consider whether there is a generalized conservation ethic was to consider the amount of overlap in conservation for the two consumption areas considered in the study. Conservation ‘status in one of the consumption areas is not independent of conservation status in the other consumption area. Furthermore, the relationship is ,positive; conservers of gasoline are more likely than
others to be conservers of home heating fuel and conservers ,of home heating fuel are more likely than others to be conservers of gasoline. The overall percentage of conservers of either type who are conservers of both types of energy is just over 43 percent. Although this is significantly greater than the 22 percent overlap expected by chance if the two types of conservation were truly independent, it is still far from
J. Painter et al. / Is there a generalized conservation ethic? 325
the 100 percent overlap that a strict interpretation of a generalized conservation ethic might imply. Thus, while it appears that there is validity to the notion of a generalized conservation tendency on the part of some consumers, it remains to be seen how valid this conceptu- alization is for the 57 percent of the conservers who were classified as conservers of only one type of fuel. In order to examine the hypothesis further for these respondents, the profiles of consumers in each con- server status group are considered. To the extent that the 57 percent of conservers classified as only conserving one fuel type are really moti- vated by a generalized conservation ethic, it would be expected that they would have similar profiles to the 43 percent classified as conserv- ing both types of fuel, and that all of these conservers would have distinctly different profiles from non-conservers.
To investigate the similarity or dissimilarity of the profiles, a four- group discriminant analysis was first performed using the set of 44 variables considered as potential predictors. An examination of the results in Table 2 provides some important insights regarding the concept of a generalized conservation ethic. Note that table 2 only includes variables from the set of 44 that entered one or more of the predictor sets generated by the three discriminant analyses reported in this section. From the original set of 44, 17 variables constituted the subset that produced the highly significant discriminant functions ( p -z
0.0001 with correct classification of 57 percent). Examination of the significant univariate F scores reveals that the distinction between groups was not solely based on differences between the three conserver groups and the non-conserver group. Quite contrary, the three con- server groups are significantly different (verified through a discriminant analysis not reported here) on variables such as home ownership, belief in the existence of gasoline and home heating energy problems, educa- tion, use of auto for work and other variables.
Thus, it does not appear that conservers of only one type of fuel are just like conservers of both types. They are different in fundamental demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral ways (beyond conservation behaviors). That is, there were two groups engaging in very singular conservation efforts (gasoline only or heat only) rather than the perva- sive conservation activities representing a generalized conservation ethic. At the same time, the results in table 2 do lend support to the proposition that there is a generalized conservation ethic, but on& on the part of a particular group; those who conserve both types of fuel.
Tab
le
2 M
eans
an
d un
ivar
iate
F-
scor
es
for
pred
icto
r va
riab
les
ente
ring
di
scri
min
ant
anal
yses
.
Pred
icto
r va
riab
les
’ M
eans
F’
s an
d or
der
of e
ntry
’
Bot
h(N
= G
as(N
= H
eat
(N=
N
one(
N=
Fo
ur
grou
p G
as
Bot
h
83)
66)
46)
100)
V
S vs
heat
no
ne
Dri
ve
fore
ign
car
0.44
0.
42
0.17
0.
21
7.27
(2
) 8.
22
(5)
13.1
9 (2
)
U.S
. sh
orta
ge
not
real
b
2.55
3.
15
3.50
3.
48
6.30
(6
) -
15.2
5 (I
)
Gas
olin
e pr
oble
m
real
b
4.43
4.
34
3.67
3.
71
5.49
(3
) 6.
13
(9)
-
Hea
ting
prob
lem
re
al
b 4.
18
3.56
3.
69
3.52
3.
14
(4)
0.02
(1
0)
8.78
(1
0)
Shor
tage
ca
used
by
con
sum
ers
0.02
0.
07
0.00
0.
04
1.64
(13
) 3.
70
(2)
-
Shor
tage
O
PEC
ca
used
0.
27
0.12
0.
18
0.18
2.
47
(10)
-
2.46
(5
)
Solu
tion
gov’
t fo
rced
co
nser
vatio
n 0.
16
0.21
0.
10
0.09
1.
93 (
15)
2.06
(1
1)
Har
d to
cut
m
ore
gaso
line
’ 1.
91
2.03
2.
04
2.05
0.
01
(14)
-
Har
d to
cut
m
ore
heat
’ I .
89
2.07
1.
84
2.13
3.
05
(8)
3.19
(7
)
Polit
ical
at
titud
e d
3.06
2.
86
2.73
2.
64
0.27
(13)
-
Inte
rnal
co
ntro
l (g
ener
al)’
-3
.61
- 5.
63
- 3.
56
- 4.
84
_ A
I6
Ih
\ _
Port
ion
mile
age
wor
k re
late
d 37
.16
28.1
0 33
.97
43.9
4 R
ent
apar
tmen
t 0.
06
0.22
0.
02
0.08
O
wn
cond
omin
ium
0.
00
0.00
0.
00
0.02
G
wn
ho
use
0.
90
0.62
0.
95
0.76
A
ge
of h
ome
(yea
rs)
31.7
1 30
.09
34.2
8 34
.65
Hea
t by
cen
tral
na
tura
l ga
s 0.
96
0.90
0.
95
0.99
H
eat
by s
pace
he
ater
s 0.
00
0.04
0.
04
0.01
H
ours
/day
lis
ten
radi
o 2.
75
2.81
2.
19
2.37
H
ours
/wee
k w
atch
T
V
11.2
5 14
.31
15.0
2 15
.50
Age
(y
ears
) 43
.20
42.0
6 48
.00
44.4
6
Edu
catio
n (7
cat
egor
ies)
4.
24
3.45
3.
69
3.34
Inco
me
(6 c
ateg
orie
s)
4.04
3.
56
4.34
3.
71
3.06
(5
)
1.30
(12
)
9.69
(1
)
0.92
(1
6)
2.61
(7
)
1.87
(9
) _ 2.
37
(17)
_ 4.
41
(11)
3.23
(14
)
1.78
(6
)
_ 0.
26
(9)
1.67
(14
)
19.2
2 (1
) 6.
64
(4)
1.07
(4
) 1.
20 (
15)
_ 2.
19
(3)
_ 0.
82(1
1)
0.64
(8
)
0.09
(8
) 6.
67
(13)
4.17
(1
2)
0.36
(1
2)
0.58
(1
5)
11.0
4 (7
)
7.08
(3
) -
’ A
ll va
riab
les
are
0-
1 du
mm
y va
riab
les
unle
ss
othe
rwis
e sp
ecif
ied.
b Si
x-po
int
scal
e,
‘I’
stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
to
‘6’
stro
ngly
ag
ree.
’ T
hree
-poi
nt
scal
e,
‘I’
easi
er
to
‘3’
hard
er.
d Si
x-po
int
scal
e,
‘I’
very
co
nser
vativ
e ‘6
’ ve
ry
liber
al.
’ L
even
son
and
Mill
er
(197
6)
’ O
vera
ll F
Wilk
s’
Lam
bda
sign
ific
ant
(p
c 0.
001)
al
l th
ree
disc
rim
inan
t an
alys
es.
Uni
vari
ate
F’s
only
lis
ted
for
univ
aria
te
F =
2.63
6 (
p =
0.05
).
Gas
vs
. he
at
F =
3.89
7 ( p
= 0
.05)
. B
oth
vs.
none
F
= 3.
933
( p = 0.05).
vari
able
s en
teri
ng.
Four
gr
oup
328 f. Painter et al. / Is there a generalized conseroarion ethic?
To further characterize the nature of those who appear to display a general conservation ethic, a two group discriminant analysis of the conserver of both fuels group versus the non-conserver group was undertaken. This analysis had an overall F and Wilks’ Lambda signifi- cant at p < 0.0001 and a correct classification of 78 percent. The results shown in table 2 suggest substantial differences between conservers of both forms of energy and the non-conservers. Non-conservers are more prone to believe that no fuel shortage exists and that there really isn’t an energy problem for heating.
The two groups also differ with regard to various physical descrip- tions and behaviors. Conservers show a higher incidence of foreign car and home ownership, are higher in education, and watch significantly fewer hours of television per week. These findings are generally con- sistent with the profiles that might be expected for those motivated and unmotivated by a generalized energy conservation ethic. The analysis of respondents who conserve both fuels and those who conserve neither fuel is similar to the approach used in prior research that assumes that some consumers are generally conservation-oriented and others are not. The analysis verifies that distinctions between groups can be achieved by adopting this orientation to the conservation issue. Some of the contradictory findings and weak profiling results of prior research may be due to including as conservers the one-fuel conservers.
Analysis presented earlier, however, suggests a more complex nature to conservation activities. Those who conserve both types of fuel are dissimilar to those who conserve only one of the fuels. A two-group discriminant analysis of gasoline conservers only versus heating conservers only (table 2) indicates that these two groups are also readily distinguishable. Overall F and Wilks’ Lambda statistics were significant at p -c 0.0001, and there was an 82 percent correct classification of the groups. The conservers of heat only match some of the a priori expectations regarding their profile. They are, in fact, older, more likely to be home owners, and have higher incomes than the gasoline conservers, and they are not as convinced of a gasoline shortage as gasoline conservers. The results indicate that even among conserver types, differences in attitudinal and physical descriptor factors exist which require a more context-specific approach to the investigation of the nature of energy conservation.
J. Painter er al. / Is rhere a generalized consemation ethic? 329
Discussion
The results do not completely discredit the assumption of a generalized conservation ethic, but they help to put it in perspective. A generalized conservation tendency is present only among a fraction of the popula- tion. Even here, the motivation does not appear to be entirely one of social responsibility. Rather, there also appear to be pragmatic reasons related to such factors as income and home ownership which prod some people to become generalized energy conservers.
When conservers of only gasoline or only heating fuel were compared, it became apparent that not only are these conservers different from dual conservers and from non-conservers, they are also distinct from one another in a variety of primarily attitudinal ways. This suggests that studies of conservation behavior that combine conservers of differ- ent fuels or that attempt to generalize from conservation of one fuel to conservation of others may be quite misleading. While nothing in this study contradicts grouping people who are joint conservers, grouping people as conservers on the basis of “either-or” or scaled general measures of conservation may well be mixing hetergeneous groups. Similarly, even when conserver groups are defined by joint behaviors, comparisons to all other consumers would mix unique groups of non-conservers and those who conserve only a single type of fuel.
In light of these findings, some of the contradictions of prior studies of “energy conservers” may be more understandable. Future research should proceed with greater caution in defining and separating consumption domains where conservation may be practiced. With proper caution, these findings suggest it should be feasible to better profile those displaying a general conservation ethic and obtain more satisfactory predictors of socially conscious consumption behavior. The primary caution urged is to define the groups of interest on the basis of a configuration of behaviors rather than using compensatory scales or allowing only one such behavior to categorize the consumer as display- ing social responsibility or an energy conservation ethic.
References
Anderson, Dennis and Carman Cullen, 1979. Energy research from a consumer perspective: an annotated bibliography. Ottawa: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada.
330 J. Painter et al. / Is there a generalized conservarion ethic?
Anderson, Dennis and Gordon McDougall, 1980. Consumer research: an annotated bibliography.
Ottawa: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada.
Anderson, W. Thomas, Jr. and William H. Cunningham, 1972. The socially conscious consumer.
Journal of Marketing 36(3), 23-3 1. Anti], John H. and Peter D. Bennett, 1979. ‘Construction and validation of a scale to measure
socially responsible consumption behavior’. In: Karl E. Henion, Jr. and Thomas C. Kinnear
(eds.), The conserver society. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association. pp. 5 l-68.
Barnaby, David J. and Richard C. Reizenstein, 1977. ‘Consumer attitudes and gasoline usage: a
market segmentation study’. In: Justin D. Stolen and James J. Conway (eds.), Proceeding of the
9th annual conference of the American Institute for Decision Sciences. pp. 230-232.
Berkowitz, Leonard and Louise R. Daniels, 1964. Affecting the salience of the social responsibility
norm. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68, 275-28 1, Farhar, Barbara C., Patricia Wells, Charles T. Unseld and Barbara A. Burns, 1979. Public opinion
about energy: a literature review. Golden, CO: Solar Energy Research Institute.
Crier, Eunice S., 1976. Changing patterns of energy consumption and costs in U.S. households.
Presented at the Allied Social Science Association Annual Meeting, Atlantic City.
Hogan, Janice M., 1976. Energy conservation: family values, household practices, and contextual
variables. Ph.D. Dissertation. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Kinnear, Thomas C. and James R. Taylor, 1973. The effect of ecological concern on brand
perceptions. Journal of Marketing Research 10(2), 191-197.
Kinnear, Thomas C., James R. Taylor and Sadrudin A. Ahmed, 1974. Ecologically concerned
consumers: who are they? Journal of Marketing 38(2), 20-24.
Levenson, Hanna and Jim Miller 1976. Multidimensional locus of control in sociopolitical activists
of conservative and liberal ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33(2),
198-208.
McDougall, Gordon and Dennis Anderson, 1981. Consumer energy research: an annotated
bibliography. Ottawa: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada.
Milstein, Jeffrey S., 1977. Attitudes, knowledge and behavior of American consumers regarding
energy conservation with some implication for government action. Presented at Social and
Behavioral Implications of the Energy Crisis Symposium, Woodlands, TX.
Morrison, Bonnie Maas and Peter Gladhart, 1976. Energy and families: the crisis and response.
Journal of Home Economics 68(l), 1 S- 18.
Murray, James R., Michael J. Minor, Norman M. Bradburn, Robert F. Cotterman, Martin Frankel
and Alan E. Pisarski, 1974. Evolution of public response to the energy crisis. Science 19,
257-263.
Newman, Dorothy K. and Dawn Day, 1975. The American energy consumer. Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger.
Opinion Research Corporation, 1975a. Consumer attitudes and behavior resulting from issues
surrounding the energy shortage. Technical Information Service No. 244 986.
Opinion Research Corporation, 1975b. General public attitudes and behavior toward energy
saving. Technical Information Service No. 244 989.
Tognacci, Louis N., Russell H. Weigel, Marvin F. Wideen and David T.A. Vernon, 1972.
Environmental quality: how universal is public concern ? Environment and Behavior 4(l),
73-86. Walker, Nolan E. and E. Linn Draper, 1975. The effects of electricity price increases on residential
usage of three economic groups: a case study. Texas Nuclear Power Policies, 5. Austin, TX:
University of Texas. Warkov, Seymour, 1976. Energy conservation in the Houston-Galveston area complex: 1976.
Houston, TX: University of Houston. Warren, Donald, I. and David L. Clifford, 1975. Local neighborhood social structure and response
to the energy crisis of 1973-74. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
J. Pointer et al. / Is there a generalized conservation ethic? 331
Webster, Frederick E., 1975. Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer.
Journal of Consumer Research 2(3), 188-196.
Webster, Frederick E., 1976. ‘Who is the socially-ecologically concerned consumer?’ In: Karl E.
Henion II and Thomas C. Kinnear (eds.), Ecological marketing. Chicago, IL: American
Marketing Association. pp. 121-130.