AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF ELECTRICITY CONSERVATION PROCEDURES¹

Abstract

Daily electricity consumption of four families was recorded for 106 days. A reversal design, consisting of various experimental conditions interspersed between repeated baseline conditions, was used. During experimental conditions, daily prompts (written conservation slogans attached to front doors) and/or daily feedback (daily kilowatts consumed and daily cost information) were in effect. Maximum consumption occurred during the initial baseline; minimum consumption occurred during different experimental conditions for different families. The mean decrease from the maximum to the minimum for all families was 35%. Reversals in consumption were demonstrated in three families, although successive baselines tended to decrease. No clear differences in effectiveness between prompting and feedback conditions were apparent. The procedures used resulted in considerable dollar savings for the families.DESCRIPTORS: electricity conservation, reversal design, prompts, feedback, cost information, daily kilowatt hour consumption, suburban families Environmental problems have been the subject of recent behavioral analyses, e.g., littering (Burgess, Clark, and Hendee, 1971; Kohlenberg and Philips, 1973), destructive lawn walking (Note 1), and recycling (Geller, Farris, and Post, 1973). The energy shortage is an environmental problem that has recently become critical. Seaver and Patterson (1976) increased fuel-oil conservation by providing consumption feedback plus social commendation for lowered consumption levels. Behavioral procedures have also been used to delay the use of some electrical appliances until nonpeak times of the day (Kohlenberg, Phillips, and Proctor, 1976

A Group Contingency for Electricity Conservation in Master‐metered Apartments

“…Several studies have demonstrated that regular feedback on energy use can reduce consumption (Becker, 1978;Hayes & Cone, 1977;Kohlenberg, Phillips, & Proctor, 1976;Palmer, Lloyd, & Lloyd, 1978;Seligman & Darley, 1977;Winett, Kaiser, & Haberkorn, 1977;Winett, Neale, & Grier, 1979). Monetary rebates based on decreases in energy consumption have also been shown to be effective means of reducing residential energy use (Winett, Kagel, Battalio, & Winkler, 1978;Winett & Nietzel, 1975 There is a category of residential units in which there is someone with a strong interest in getting residents to conserve energy.…”

Reduction of Residential Consumption of Electricity Through Simple Monthly Feedback

“…A preliminary effort was made by Palmer, Lloyd, and Lloyd (1977). They tested the effects of daily feedback expressed in either monetary of kWh form.…”

“…Effects have been obtained with feedback given continuously (Kohlenberg, Phillips, & Proctor, 1976); daily (e.g., Hayes & Cone, 1977;Palmer et al, 1977); four times each week (Seligman & Darley, 1977) and, in the case of fuel oil, as infrequently as only once in several months (Seaver & Patterson, 1976 Fitch, 1977) or (b) give feedback monthly. Hayes (1977) and Winett, Neale, and Grier (1979) have generated preliminary data supportive of the first alternative; the present study is designed to investigate the second.…”

Feedback and Goal-Setting Interventions to Reduce Electricity use in the Real World

“…For example Palmer, Lloyd and Lloyd (1977) used behavioral intervention techniques such as various forms of prompting and feedback to achieve a mean reduction in daily electricity use of 35% on a sample of four families, also illustrating some reversal of intervention effects during periods when interventions were removed. Becker (1978) used feedback interventions to achieve reductions of 5-15% in energy use.…”

“…However, in the Becker study, as in that by Palmer et al (1977), feedback was provided by researchers attaching notices to participants' front doors on a daily basis, making it time and resource intensive to administer on a large scale. Hayes and Cone (1981) illustrated the effectiveness of more economical forms of feedback using monthly letters to participants, comparing the previous month's use to the same month during a preceding baseline period.…”