Our aim in this study was to see if the described set of determinants in the “
Theory-derived constructs” section had a clear and unequivocal effect on intentions towards the four energy-saving behaviours or whether differences can be found between these in terms of their determinants. To this end, we first look at the potential of general energy awareness and knowledge as determinants to energy behaviour (intentions to save or otherwise be energy ‘friendly’). Thereafter, we have a closer look at the differences between the four behaviours in terms of means of intentions and the determinants: attitudes, subjective norms, PBC and moral norms (and underlying beliefs). This is a
means comparison, which implies that we compare the level of strength with which respondents assessed each of these determinants. Such an analysis may not reveal whether the determinants actually co-vary with intentions to behave; in order to elucidate this, we run four ordinal logistic regression analyses in the last section to see which determinants are predictors to intentions to behave.
Knowledge and awareness
As a first step in investigating if awareness and knowledge of energy consumption affected behaviours and intentions, we looked at the correlations between these variables. If awareness (knowledge) is causally related to behavioural intent (either as a determinant or a consequence), then a correlation between these variables should exist.
Respondents’ composite scores on awareness and knowledge were related to one another, (r
Spearman = .396, p < 0.001). However, no clear correlations could be found between awareness (knowledge) and intentions to behave, except for replacing household appliances. Awareness correlated to intentions to replace household appliances (r
s
= .284, p = 0.019), as did knowledge (r
s
= .260, p = 0.032). All other correlations had an absolute magnitude below r
s
= .225, ns.
At this point in the analysis, we concluded that awareness and knowledge (as was measured in this survey) were not likely candidate determinants for (intentions to) energy-saving behaviour, except for replacing old household appliances with new more energy-efficient ones.
Behavioural determinants and underlying beliefs
Table
2 shows the mean of each of the TPB constructs and moral norm per behaviour, showing the motivations people have in performing each behaviour. Note that these means were of combined scores on a number of beliefs (with the exception of moral norms, which is based on one question). A brief observation on subjective norms is that it seems that no matter the behaviour, subjective norms were not a strong motivator (in people’s own assessment). Indeed, as is shown later, subjective norms did not come out as a significant predictor in regressions onto intentions either. We hypothesize that since the behaviours in this survey were of a private nature (one performs them at home), the opinions of others outside the household were held to be trivial by respondents. However, we have no measure for interpreted level of privacy so we cannot support such hypothesis.
Table 2
Means and standard deviation of determinants to behaviour
Attitudes | 72 | 2.664 | 1.361 | 70 | 2.537 | 1.33 | 70 | 2.694 | 1.183 | 68 | 4.224 | 1.62 |
Subjective norms | 72 | 1.15 | 1.255 | 70 | 1.12 | 1.195 | 70 | 1.366 | 1.381 | 68 | 1.081 | 1.189 |
PBC | 72 | 2.811 | 1.484 | 70 | 1.892 | 1.524 | 70 | 2.438 | 1.207 | 68 | 2.62 | 1.101 |
Moral norm | 72 | 2.708 | 1.682 | 70 | 4.057 | 1.887 | 70 | 4.014 | 1.96 | 68 | 3.662 | 1.645 |
In Table
2, we can also see that the relatively ‘easy and cheap’ behaviours (turning off standby and showering less) have the highest average mean for moral norms (which indicates that respondents felt most responsible for these behaviours, compared to the other two behaviours). For the (often) one-off behaviour of investing in PV cells, moral norms were not as high, more on par with attitudes and PBC scores (expressed as barriers to perform the behaviour). Replacing appliances seems to take a somewhat middle ground between these extremes.
We ran Friedman tests to see if the means of each construct were significantly different between behaviours. For attitudes, we found a significant difference between the four means (χ
2(3) = 60.43, p < 0.001); post hoc Wilcoxon tests reveal that attitudes for replacing old household appliances were significantly higher than for the other behaviours. Subjective norm values differed as well, (χ
2(3) = 14.67, p = 0.002), with a difference between replacing appliances and turning off standby as the only significant post hoc difference, as did the means of PBC (χ
2(3) = 26.09, p < 0.001), with showering less being significantly less impeded by barriers than the other behaviours. Moreover, the means of moral norms differed (χ
2(3) = 29.37, p < 0.001), with moral norms for investing in PV cells being significantly less motivating than for the other three behaviours. In sum, respondents felt less morally obliged to invest in PV cells and had most positive attitudes towards replacing household appliances, in a comparison between behaviours. Although perhaps interesting on its own, there is more value to be found if we dive into the individual beliefs underlying these constructs, which we will deal with now.
Behavioural beliefs
As per TPB, beliefs differ per behaviour; thus, the beliefs underlying intentions to invest in PV cells can differ from the beliefs underlying, for example, turning off standby. In the pre-pilot, we found a set of behavioural beliefs that underlie all four behaviours (economic/financial effects, environmental benefits and effects on comfort/quality of life), and here, we compare the scores of respondents on these beliefs across behaviour.
9 We do this in order to assess whether motivations (self-reported) for each of the four behaviours are similar or different. As we saw in the previous section, there seem to be differences in attitudes, PBC, and moral and subjective norms. Here, we ask the question if this difference is visible on the sublevel of beliefs and if this level can add to our understanding.
Figure
1 suggests that respondents had less intentions towards investing in PV cells than the other behaviours, and we hypothesized that this could have been due to the lack of financial incentives (direct savings that compensate for initial costs). Comparing means of behavioural beliefs revealed that the behavioural beliefs concerning ‘economic benefits’ were not the same across behaviours (
χ
2(3) = 34.695,
p < 0.001). Indeed, investing in PV cells’ mean was significantly lower than the means for the other behavioural beliefs, which indicates that people believed less strongly in the financial benefits of PV cell installation. It seems that respondents did not heed the market’s endorsement of PV cells as ‘economically sound’ decision, in that one makes good investments with large savings in the long run. In the short run, it, however, is not financially beneficial to invest in PV cells, as a large upfront investment is required, whereas no (relatively small) initial investments are needed for turning off standby modes and showering less (respectively, investing in new household appliances).
Environmental benefits concerning all four behaviours were important, and no differences in their means were found across behaviours, χ
2(3) = 3.489, p = .322. It seems that respondents assessed all these behaviours as equally important ‘good’ practices for the environment, which suggests they were insensitive to the magnitude of the potential effect of each behaviour; objectively, the belief valence (how positively one believes a behaviour affects the environment) and importance should be higher for investment in PV cells than turning off standby. However, we did not ask participants to directly compare the four behaviours on behalf of environmental impact, so it may be possible that they were operating with different internal meters when answering these questions.
The beliefs concerning effects on comfort were significantly different, χ
2(3) = 157.52, p < 0.001), with these being more important for appliance replacement, compared to the other behaviours. However, questions about comfort for turning off lights and showering less were stated in terms of ‘loss of comfort’ and replacing household appliances in terms of ‘gain in comfort’ (in the case of investment in PV cells, respondents were asked to first indicate if they believed this action would result in a gain or loss of comfort). These concepts are not necessarily two opposites of the same scale, and we can therefore only compare showering less with turning off standby and investing in PV cells with replacing household appliances. From this, it follows that the belief concerning reduction of comfort did not differ between showering less and turning off standby, but that there was a significant difference between assessments of increased comfort for investing in PV cells and replacing household appliances, with the latter behaviour being held to increase comfort more than the former. This rings true, as new household appliances are, apart from being environmentally friendly, also often quicker, more effective in their task and less noisy, for instance; in total, more comfortable. PV panels, however, do not provide any comfort; they merely exist and deliver electricity.
To conclude, then, we saw that there are some differences in how behavioural beliefs are assessed across the behaviours we measured. We saw that economic beliefs were less strong for PV cell installation, despite its endorsement as a sound long-term investment. We also saw that the beliefs about environmental benefits are shared across all behaviours and are assessed as equally important. Finally, the effects on comfort (be they positive or negative) were considered important, though in the case of comfort gain, more is believed to be gained from household appliances compared to PV cells. Now, we turn to the last determinant of this study: moral norms.
Moral norms
Moral norms’ means differed across behaviours (χ
2(3) = 29.368, p < 0.001), with assessments of moral responsibility being high for all three behaviours except for investing in PV cells. One possible explanation is that respondents, of whom some lived in rental apartments or condominiums, felt that they had no possibility to invest in PV cells, even if they wanted to, and thus consequently did not feel a moral obligation to do this behaviour as much as the performance of the other behaviours. Another explanation could be that there is no direct monetary incentive to invest in PV cells (no immediate gains in electricity savings to be made), and for respondents who had decided for themselves that they are not ‘the people’ who invest in such things, the feeling of moral obligation is gone. Earlier, we saw that indeed, the belief concerning economic benefits was less for investment in PV cells compared to the other behaviours. We delve deeper into the possible implications of these results in the discussion.
For now, we conclude that respondents were less motivated by economic investments and moral concerns about investment in PV panels, whereas for the replacement of household appliances they were motivated by economic incentives and improved comfort. For the more mundane everyday behaviours of turning off standby and showering less, economy, environment and moral concerns were all motivating, while the decreased comfort speaks against performing the behaviours.
Up to this point, we have merely looked at the means of responses, which is a rough indication of how important people consider several potential motivating factors for their behaviour. However, what people think is important may not necessarily resonate with what guides their behaviour. In order to shed light on this, we also analysed which constructs co-varied with intentions to behave (and self-reported behaviour). When constructs co-vary with intention (behaviour), regardless of how high the mean is, we can carefully suggest it may be a determinant to intention to act. We explore this next in four regressions.
Regression analyses and barriers
With four ordinal logistic regression models (one for each behavioural intent), we investigated the degree to which the constructs, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behaviour control and moral norms, predicted the stated intention to perform the behaviours. We regressed these determinants (composite belief scores forming variables for attitudes, subjective norms and PBC) onto its specific behaviour intention measure. For the replacing of household appliances, we also incorporated awareness and knowledge as determinants (see the “
Knowledge and awareness” section).
The regressions (Table
3) showed that PBC and moral norms were strong predictors to investing in PV cells, with attitudes gaining only a marginally significant contribution. The large influence of PBC (which are to be understood as barriers) is in sync with the lower mean of intentions to invest in PV cells, compared to the other behavioural intentions. The other three behaviours indeed exhibited a different pattern, where attitudes and moral norms were the significant predictors and PBC was not (or only marginally, in case of turning off apparatus from standby modes).
Table 3
Ordinal logistic regressions of behaviour determinants onto intentions to perform to the four behaviours
Invest in PV cells |
Attitudes | 1 | 0.374 | 3.637 | 0.057 |
Subjective norms | 1 | 0.023 | 0.011 | 0.916 |
PBC | 1 | −0.749 | 14.405 | 0.000 |
Moral norm | 1 | 0.672 | 12.909 | 0.000 |
Turn off standby |
Attitudes | 1 | 1.193 | 22.323 | 0.000 |
Subjective norms | 1 | −0.082 | 0.192 | 0.661 |
PBC | 1 | −0.356 | 3.017 | 0.082 |
Moral norm | 1 | 0.916 | 30.774 | 0.000 |
Shower less |
Attitudes | 1 | 0.736 | 12.142 | 0.000 |
Subjective norms | 1 | 0.411 | 2.670 | 0.102 |
PBC | 1 | −0.041 | 0.068 | 0.795 |
Moral norm | 1 | 0.698 | 17.092 | 0.000 |
Replace appliances |
Awareness | 1 | 0.085 | 0.174 | 0.676 |
Knowledge | 1 | 0.177 | 0.891 | 0.345 |
Attitudes | 1 | 0.552 | 12.442 | 0.000 |
Subjective norms | 1 | 0.039 | 0.033 | 0.855 |
PBC | 1 | −0.119 | 0.271 | 0.602 |
Moral norm | 1 | 0.400 | 6.522 | 0.011 |
In the case of investing in PV cells,
barriers (and accompanying means of these assessments) were not having the economic means to perform the initial investment (
M = 21.63,
SD = 15.375), having no power over the decision to invest/install PV cells (
M = 18.73,
SD = 16.087) and having little or no knowledge on how to initiate/perform such an investment (
M = 18.681,
SD = 13.765).
10 For the other behaviours, forgetting was the highest barrier for turning off standby (
M = 18.57,
SD = 15.050), with having no apparatus that has a standby mode being assessed lower (
M = 15.56,
SD = 12.236). Not being able to influence other household members’ showering time was considered a comparably small barrier for showering less (
M = 13.24,
SD = 10.668). For replacing household appliances, a similar argument to investing in PV cells, not having the financial capital to make the investment, was considered a barrier (
M = 18.750,
SD = 13.179) but even more so was the control belief: already having replaced all old household appliances (
M = 24.79,
SD = 13.394), with having no control over the decision to invest in appliances being comparably unimportant (
M = 11.47,
SD = 11.757)).
In conclusion, first, depending on the type of behaviour, either attitudes or PBC seems to contribute to intentions to perform the behaviour. For behaviours where initial economic investment is warranted and only delayed gains in the future are to be expected (investing in PV cells), barriers were a stronger predictor to intent than attitudes (though note that in the regression for PV cell, intention attitudes are still marginally significant). For slightly less ‘expensive’ investments such as replacing household appliances and easy behaviours such as showering less, attitudes are an important predictor; barriers are not. The marginal significance of PBC in the turning off standby behaviour is an oddity, which was expected to follow a pattern like showering less. However, the PBC construct consisted of qualitatively completely different control beliefs, which makes this result difficult to interpret. A second conclusion is that moral norms are a strong motivator for intentions to perform any of these energy behaviours, and thirdly, next to moral norms, subjective norms seem to have little importance in the assessed energy behaviours. The latter observation is in sync with earlier reviews, which underline that subjective norms are often bereft of direct effects on intention after being combined with the effects of attitude and PBC (Ajzen
1991; Armitage and Conner
2001; Bamberg & Möser
2007; but see Nolan et al.
2008, for a counter-example).