Using Social Cognition and Persuasion to Promote Energy Conservation: A Quasi‐Experiment1
Abstract
A quasi‐experiment was conducted to determine if the effectiveness of the R.C.S. Home Energy Audit Program could be improved by training auditors to use social‐psychological principles during the audit procedure. Nine experienced home energy auditors attended two 1‐day workshops in which they were trained to: (a) communicate vividly; (b) personalize their recommendations to homeowners; (c) induce commitment; and (d) frame their recommendations in terms of “loss” rather than “gain”. The effectiveness of the trained auditors was compared with a control group of experienced auditors who did not receive specific training. Both telephone interview data and utility company records pointed to the success of the auditor training. In interviews, customers served by the trained auditors reported a greater likelihood of acting on the auditors' recommendations, and a large number of these customers reported applying for utility programs to finance retrofits. Utility records validated these customer claims: A significantly larger number of customers served by trained auditors actually did apply for retrofit finance programs. A longitudinal measure of actual energy consumption showed no difference between experimental and control households. Taken as a whole, these findings demonstrate the potential for using principles uncovered in the social psychological laboratory to design applied interventions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Empirical studies in environmental psychology have consistently supported the applicability of Prospect Theory, demonstrating that loss-framed messages are generally more persuasive than gain-framed messages in encouraging pro-environmental behaviors.
“Empirical studies in environmental psychology have consistently supported the applicability of Prospect Theory, demonstrating that loss-framed messages are generally more persuasive than gain-framed messages in encouraging pro-environmental behaviors.”
From The power of loss: message framing, climate anxiety, and engagement in personal carbon trading (2025) · cites this paper as [21]
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524 · see citing works
Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique.
Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0023552 · Cited by 1,637 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In a now classic study, Freedman and Fraser (1966) found that people who agreed to sign a petition favoring safe driving and were then asked to put an ugly sign advertising safe driving in their”
BackgroundCommitment and voluntary energy conservation
Pallak, M. S., & Cummings, W. (1976) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/014616727600200105 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001 · Cited by 3,037 · see citing works
A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.002 · Cited by 2,668 · see citing works
Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0017346 · Cited by 2,174 · see citing works
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2007) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.08.002 · Cited by 880 · see citing works
The design of eco-feedback technology
Froehlich, J., Findlater, L., & Landay, J. (2010) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1753326.1753629 · Cited by 813 · see citing works
Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J. P. (2012) · Environment and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0013916511402673 · Cited by 754 · see citing works
The power of loss: message framing, climate anxiety, and engagement in personal carbon trading
Li, T., Yang, Y., Liu, X., & Zeng, S. (2025) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-025-03713-w · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gonzales, M. H., Aronson, E., & Costanzo, M. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- University of California System (US)
- Portland State University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1988-09
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1049-1066
- ISSN
- 0021-9029 (ISSN-L)
- 1559-1816
- OpenAlex
- W1983826924
- Cited by
- 141
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 9.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
- Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
- Keywords
- energy conservation, home energy audits, social cognition, persuasion, auditor training, framing effects, personalization, utility programs, behavioral interventions, energy consumption
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review