Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Energy Efficiency Gap in Switzerland: An Empirical Study on Online Purchases of White Goods Read chapter Read first chapter

2021 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

14. The Effects of Upward and Downward Social Comparisons on Energy Consumption Behavior

Evidence from a Field Study on Air-Conditioning Usage

Authors : Lorenz Göette, Zhengyi Jiang, Jan Schmitz, Renate Schubert

Published in: Sustainability and Environmental Decision Making

Publisher: Springer Singapore

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This study aims to (1) disentangle the effects of upward and downward social comparisons on individual electricity consumption behavior and (2) figure out how these effects differ across individuals with heterogeneous electricity consumption. A field study on air-conditioning usage behavior of residents was conducted in a university dormitory. The dormitory residents were randomly allocated to the upward comparison and downward comparison treatment groups and the control group. Those in the treatment groups received weekly feedback about their own electricity consumption for air-conditioning and a distribution of all residents’ consumption, while those in the control group received no feedback. The feedback to the upward comparison (downward comparison) treatment group framed comparisons as upward (downward) by highlighting the proportion of residents who behaved in a more (less) desirable way, i.e., consumed less (more) electricity for air-conditioning than the feedback recipient. The results are twofold: (1) there were no statistically significant consumption differences between any of the treatment groups and the control group and (2) significantly lowered consumption was observed only among the subgroup of the upward comparison group residents whose electricity consumption for air-conditioning was in the lowest 20th percentile. Hence, the feedback had significant effects on certain subgroups of the residents, but no overall effect.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Promoting Electricity Conservation in Singapore
next chapter Role of International Remittances as an Economic Instrument for Poverty Eradication in Line with Sustainable Development Goals
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
Abeler J, Falk A, Goette L, Huffman D (2011) Reference points and effort provision. Am Econ Rev 101(2):470–492CrossRef
Allcott H (2011) Social norms and energy conservation. J Public Econ 95(9):1082–1095CrossRef
Allcott H (2015) Site selection bias in program evaluation. Q J Econ 130(3):1117–1165CrossRef
Anderson K, Song K, Lee S, Krupka E, Lee H, Park M (2017) Longitudinal analysis of normative energy use feedback on dormitory occupants. Appl Energy 189:623–639CrossRef
Andor MA, Gerster A, Peters J, Schmidt CM (2020) Social norms and energy conservation beyond the US. J Environ Econ Manag, 103, 102351
Ayres I, Raseman S, Shih A (2013) Evidence from two large field experiments that peer comparison feedback can reduce residential energy usage. J Law Econ Org 29(5):992–1022CrossRef
Bhanot SP (2017) Rank and response: a field experiment on peer information and water use behavior. J Econ Psychol 62:155–172CrossRef
Brent DA, Cook JH, Olsen S (2015) Social comparisons, household water use, and participation in utility conservation programs: evidence from three randomized trials. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ 2(4):597–627
Bruelisauer M, Goette L, Jiang Z, Schmitz J, Schubert R (2018) Appliance specific feedback and social comparisons: evidence from a field experiment on electricity saving. Available at SSRN 3299500
Buunk AP, Groothof HA, Siero FW (2007) Social comparison and satisfaction with one’s social life. J Soc Pers Relat 24(2):197–205CrossRef
Byrne DP, Nauze AL, Martin LA (2018) Tell me something i don’t already know: Informedness and the impact of information programs. Rev Econ Stat 100(3):510–527CrossRef
Croson R, Shang JY (2008) The impact of downward social information on contribution decisions. Exp Econ 11(3):221–233CrossRef
Dolan P, Metcalfe R (2015) Neighbors, knowledge, and nuggets: two natural field experiments on the role of incentives on energy conservation. The Becker Friedman Institute, Chicago, Illinois
Dutcher EG, Balafoutas L, Lindner F, Ryvkin D, Sutter M (2015) Strive to be first or avoid being last: an experiment on relative performance incentives. Games Econ Behav 94:39–56CrossRef
Ellis PD (2010) The essential guide to effect sizes: statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
Falk A, Meier S, Zehnder C (2013) Do lab experiments misrepresent social preferences? The case of self-selected student samples. J Eur Econ Assoc 11(4):839–852CrossRef
Fang X, Goette L, Rockenbach B, Sutter M, Tiefenbeck V, Schoeb S, Staake T (2020) Complementarities in Behavioral Interventions: Evidence from a Field Experiment on Energy Conservation (No. crctr224_2020_149). University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany
Ferraro PJ, Miranda JJ (2013) Heterogeneous treatment effects and mechanisms in information-based environmental policies: evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Resour Energy Econ 35(3):356–379CrossRef
Ferraro PJ, Price MK (2013) Using nonpecuniary strategies to influence behavior: evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Rev Econ Stat 95(1):64–73CrossRef
Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat 7(2):117–140CrossRef
Garcia SM, Tor A, Gonzalez R (2006) Ranks and rivals: a theory of competition. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 32(7):970–982CrossRef
Goette L, Leong C, Qian N (2019) Motivating household water conservation: a field experiment in Singapore. PLoS One 14(3):e0211,891CrossRef
Hett F, Schmidt F (2018) Pushing through or slacking off? Heterogeneity in the reaction to rank feedback, SAFE Working Paper
Hunter E, Crago C, Spraggon J et al (2015) Feedback, social nudges, and energy conservation. In: 2015 AAEA & WAEA joint annual meeting, July 26–28, San Francisco, California, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association & Western Agricultural …, 205414
Iwafune Y, Mori Y, Kawai T, Yagita Y (2017) Energy-saving effect of automatic home energy report utilizing home energy management system data in Japan. Energy 125:382–392CrossRef
Kahneman D (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47:278CrossRef
Loock CM, Landwehr JR, Staake T, Fleisch E, Pentland AS (2012) The influence of reference frame and population density on the effectiveness of social normative feedback on electricity consumption, Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando
Mahler HI, Kulik JA, Gerrard M, Gibbons FX (2010) Effects of upward and downward social comparison information on the efficacy of an appearance-based sun protection intervention: a randomized, controlled experiment. J Behav Med 33(6):496–507CrossRef
McFarland C, Miller DT (1994) The framing of relative performance feedback: seeing the glass as half empty or half full. J Pers Soc Psychol 66(6):1061CrossRef
Myers E, Souza M (2018) Social comparison nudges without monetary incentives: evidence from home energy reports. Technical report, E2e Project, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
Nauclér T, Enkvist PA (2009) Pathways to a low-carbon economy: version 2 of the global greenhouse gas abatement cost curve. McKinsey & Company, United States, p 192
Otaki Y, Ueda K, Sakura O (2017) Effects of feedback about community water consumption on residential water conservation. J Clean Prod 143:719–730CrossRef
Rancourt D, Leahey TM, LaRose JG, Crowther JH (2015) Effects of weight-focused social comparisons on diet and activity outcomes in overweight and obese young women. Obesity 23(1):85–89CrossRef
Rancourt D, Schaefer LM, Bosson JK, Thompson JK (2016) Differential impact of upward and downward comparisons on diverse women’s disordered eating behaviors and body image. Int J Eat Disord 49(5):519–523CrossRef
Roels G, Su X (2013) Optimal design of social comparison effects: setting reference groups and reference points. Manag Sci 60(3):606–627CrossRef
Sælen H, Westskog H (2013) A multi-method evaluation of the potential for using the electricity bill to encourage energy savings in Norwegian households. Energy Environ Res 3(1):135CrossRef
Schultz PW, Nolan JM, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V (2007) The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol Sci 18(5):429–434CrossRef
Schwerter F (2013) Social reference points and risk taking. Technical report, Bonn econ discussion papers. Graduate School of Economics, Bonn
Shen M, Young R, Cui Q (2016) The normative feedback approach for energy conservation behavior in the military community. Energy Policy 98:19–32CrossRef
Suls J, Wheeler L (2013) Handbook of social comparison: theory and research. Springer Science & Business Media, Boston
Tincani M (2017) Heterogeneous peer effects and rank concerns: theory and evidence, CESifo Working Paper Series No. 6331
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Q J Econ 106(4):1039–1061CrossRef
Wills TA (1981) Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychol Bull 90(2):245CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Effects of Upward and Downward Social Comparisons on Energy Consumption Behavior
Authors
Lorenz Göette
Zhengyi Jiang
Jan Schmitz
Renate Schubert
Copyright Year
2021
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Book
Sustainability and Environmental Decision Making

Print ISBN: 978-981-15-9286-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-981-15-9287-4

Copyright Year: 2021

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9287-4_9