IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0209469.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which construal level combinations generate the most effective interventions? A field experiment on energy conservation

Author

Listed:
  • Anouk M Griffioen
  • Michel J J Handgraaf
  • Gerrit Antonides

Abstract

Many campaigns targeting pro-environmental behavior combine multiple approaches without properly understanding how these different approaches interact. Here we study the effect of such combinations. We apply construal level theory to classify different intervention approaches, which can either be at a high construal level (abstract and distant) or at a low construal level (concrete and proximal). In a field experiment we recruited 197 students living in one-person apartments in an all-inclusive student housing facility. We objectively measured their individual electricity and warm water use, and measured psychological variables through surveys. We expected that the (commonly considered superior) combination between a high and a low construal level approach would be least effective. Participants were randomly assigned to a 2(Construal Level: low vs. high) × 2(Social Distance: low vs. high) plus control condition mixed-model design targeting a reduction in warm water use. Our findings suggest that a congruent combination at a high construal level (i.e., the high construal level condition combined with the high social distance condition) has the largest effect on warm water use and that spillover to electricity use is most likely to occur when a high construal level is used (i.e., high social distance). Moreover, especially participants who valued nature and the environment less were most strongly influenced by the combination of two high construal level approaches. In sum, our study suggests that when designing interventions one should consider the construal level and when targeting pro-environmental behavior high construal levels appear most appropriate.

Suggested Citation

  • Anouk M Griffioen & Michel J J Handgraaf & Gerrit Antonides, 2019. "Which construal level combinations generate the most effective interventions? A field experiment on energy conservation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-24, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0209469
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209469
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0209469
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0209469&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0209469?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Griffioen, Anouk M. & van Beek, Jannette & N. Lindhout, Simone & J. J. Handgraaf, Michel, 2016. "Distance Makes The Mind Grow Broader: An Overview Of Psychological Distance Studies In The Environmental And Health Domains," APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, AGRIMBA, vol. 10(2-3), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Tiefenbeck, Verena & Staake, Thorsten & Roth, Kurt & Sachs, Olga, 2013. "For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 160-171.
    3. Anthony A. Leiserowitz, 2005. "American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change Dangerous?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1433-1442, December.
    4. Laurel Evans & Gregory R. Maio & Adam Corner & Carl J. Hodgetts & Sameera Ahmed & Ulrike Hahn, 2013. "Self-interest and pro-environmental behaviour," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(2), pages 122-125, February.
    5. Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & Van Lidth de Jeude, Margriet A. & Appelt, Kirstin C., 2013. "Public praise vs. private pay: Effects of rewards on energy conservation in the workplace," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 86-92.
    6. Adrian Brügger & Suraje Dessai & Patrick Devine-Wright & Thomas A. Morton & Nicholas F. Pidgeon, 2015. "Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(12), pages 1031-1037, December.
    7. Delmas, Magali A. & Fischlein, Miriam & Asensio, Omar I., 2013. "Information strategies and energy conservation behavior: A meta-analysis of experimental studies from 1975 to 2012," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 729-739.
    8. Kelly Goldsmith & George E. Newman & Ravi Dhar, 2016. "Mental representation changes the evaluation of green product benefits," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(9), pages 847-850, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew Mzembe, 2021. "The psychological distance and construal level perspectives of sustainable value creation in SMEs," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2), pages 465-478, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Griffioen, Anouk M. & van Beek, Jannette & N. Lindhout, Simone & J. J. Handgraaf, Michel, 2016. "Distance Makes The Mind Grow Broader: An Overview Of Psychological Distance Studies In The Environmental And Health Domains," APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, AGRIMBA, vol. 10(2-3), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Ohler, Adrienne M. & Billger, Sherrilyn M., 2014. "Does environmental concern change the tragedy of the commons? Factors affecting energy saving behaviors and electricity usage," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-12.
    3. Cattaneo, Cristina & D’Adda, Giovanna & Tavoni, Massimo & Bonan, Jacopo, 2019. "Can We Make Social Information Programs More Effective? The Role of Identity and Values," RFF Working Paper Series 19-21, Resources for the Future.
    4. Daminato, Claudio & Diaz-Farina, Eugenio & Filippini, Massimo & Padrón-Fumero, Noemi, 2021. "The impact of smart meters on residential water consumption: Evidence from a natural experiment in the Canary Islands," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    5. Fang, Ximeng & Goette, Lorenz & Rockenbach, Bettina & Sutter, Matthias & Tiefenbeck, Verena & Schoeb, Samuel & Staake, Thorsten, 2023. "Complementarities in behavioral interventions: Evidence from a field experiment on resource conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    6. Audronė Minelgaitė & Genovaitė Liobikienė, 2021. "Changes in pro-environmental behaviour and its determinants during long-term period in a transition country as Lithuania," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16083-16099, November.
    7. Andor, Mark A. & Gerster, Andreas & Peters, Jörg, 2022. "Information campaigns for residential energy conservation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    8. Nicole Betz & John D. Coley, 2022. "Human Exceptionalist Thinking about Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-28, August.
    9. Yang, Xisi & Thøgersen, John, 2022. "When people are green and greedy: A new perspective of recycling rewards and crowding-out in Germany, the USA and China," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 217-235.
    10. Andor, Mark A. & Fels, Katja M., 2018. "Behavioral Economics and Energy Conservation – A Systematic Review of Non-price Interventions and Their Causal Effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 178-210.
    11. Christoph Buehren & Maria Daskalakis, 2020. "Which green nudge helps to save energy? Experimental evidence," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202042, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    12. Alacevich, Caterina & Bonev, Petyo & Söderberg, Magnus, 2021. "Pro-environmental interventions and behavioral spillovers: Evidence from organic waste sorting in Sweden," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    13. Tonke, Sebastian, 2020. "Imperfect Procedural Knowledge: Evidence from a Field Experiment to Encourage Water Conservation," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224536, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    14. Farrow, Katherine & Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette, 2017. "Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-13.
    15. Saunders, Harry D. & Roy, Joyashree & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Chakravarty, Debalina & Dasgupta, Shyamasree & De La Rue Du Can, Stephane & Druckman, Angela & Fouquet, Roger & Grubb, Michael & Lin, Boqiang, 2021. "Energy efficiency: what has research delivered in the last 40 years?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114344, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Schlindwein, L.F. & Montalvo, C., 2023. "Energy citizenship: Accounting for the heterogeneity of human behaviours within energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    17. Picard, Julien & Banerjee, Sanchayan, 2023. "Behavioural spillovers unpacked: estimating the side effects of social norm nudges," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120566, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. McAndrew, Ryan & Mulcahy, Rory & Gordon, Ross & Russell-Bennett, Rebekah, 2021. "Household energy efficiency interventions: A systematic literature review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    19. Lorteau, Steve & Muzzerall, Parker & Deneault, Audrey-Ann & Kennedy, Emily Huddart & Rocque, Rhéa & Racine, Nicole & Bureau, Jean-François, 2024. "Do climate concerns and worries predict energy preferences? A meta-analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    20. Mi, Lingyun & Gan, Xiaoli & Sun, Yuhuan & Lv, Tao & Qiao, Lijie & Xu, Ting, 2021. "Effects of monetary and nonmonetary interventions on energy conservation: A meta-analysis of experimental studies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0209469. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.