Energy conservation among finnish homeowners

Enqy Vol. I I, No. 3, pp. 293-298. Printed I” Greal Britam.

0360-5442/86 $3.00 + .oO 0 1986 Pergamon Press Ltd.

1986

ENERGY CONSERVATION AMONG FINNISH HOMEOWNERS UGUR YAVAS University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran. Saudi Arabia ANTTI HAAHTI Helsinki School of Economics, Runeberginkatu 22-24, 00100 Helsinki IO. Finland and GLEN RIECKEN East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN 37614, U.S.A. (Received 8 January 1985; receivedfor publication 30 July 1985)

Abstract-There has been a growing emphasis on consumer education for energy conservation. Models have been developed on the assumption that cognitive change is an antecedent for behavioral change. We examine the effectiveness of energy-conservation campaigns within the context of hierarchy of effects models. A sample of 265 Finnish homeowners was divided into three categories based on their energy cognition. They were then compared in terms of their energy-conservation behavior. Results showed that consumers with varying levels of cognition did not differ in their behaviors. We suggest several potentially useful strategies for increasing the efficacy of energy conservation campaigns.

I. INTRODUCTION

During the past 15 years, energy costs have caused serious economic and social problems for policymakers around the world. Countries dependent on foreign energy sources have sought solutions on two fronts. Projects dealt with the supply side of the energy equation through development of alternative forms of energy such as solar energy, synthetic and fossil fuels, and wind power, as well as exploitation of existing domestic sources. Other programs were designed to curtail demand.’ Part of the demand curtailment strategies involved legislative measures such as rationing of gas and mandatory blackouts in Turkey. censoring of advertisement campaigns for products encouraging energy consumption in France, banning of gasoline advertising in Brazil, and institution of time-of-day rates in some European countries.* In addition to regulatory action, public officials in Europe and North America instigated promotional campaigns to inform consumers about energy-conservation practices. It was believed that increasing awareness and knowledge regarding energy conservation around the home. on the road, etc. would induce consumers to take necessary actions to reduce their consumption of energy. For instance, if Canadian consumers could be persuaded to set their thermostats 2°F higher in summer and 2” lower in winter, accumulated savings of 1% of total fuel consumption would be achieved over a IO-yr period. Similarly, a reduction of 10% in the miles driven by each household in Canada would amount to annual savings of 3.15 X 10’ bbl of oil. Ten times this amount could be saved in the USA if American consumers changed their driving habits in a similar fashion.3 The magnitude of such potential savings, coupled with the desirability of consumer education over mandatory measures from a public policy perspective, have accelerated the implementation of educational programs to promote voluntary energy-conservation behavior. 2. EDUCATION

PROGRAMS

The basic rationale of consumer education programs is embedded in the hierarchy of effects models.4 While these models differ in detail, their underlying premise is that cognitive change is an antecedent condition for behavioral change. Although the linkage is not inviolate, within the context of energy conservation it means that positive changes in consumers’ cognitive states (awareness/knowledge about energy conservation) should eventually result 293

U. YAVAS et al.

294

in positive changes in their conative states (actions/behaviors related to energy conservation). A logical extension of this reasoning is that the higher the cognition of consumers, the more likely they are to engage in energy-con~~ing behaviors. 3. STUDY

OUTLINE

We report results and implications of a study undertaken in Finland to gauge the effectiveness of energy conservation campaigns on the energy-conserving behavior of consumers. More specifically, a scale of energy conservation awarene~/knowledge was used to identify consumers with varying levels of cognition. These consumers were then compared in terms of their energy-conservation behavior. Study background Because of its climatic conditions and structure of industries heavily relying on energy resources, Finland is a large energy user, ranking fifth among all OECD countries (excluding Luxem~urg) in terms of per capita energy use and sixth in terms of energy intensity of output.5 Recognizing the potential vulnerability of the country to sharp increases in international energy prices and/or possible curtailment of foreign supplies (which account for 70% of Finland’s total energy requirements), the Finnish government adopted, in March 1979, a long-term program hallmarked by two primary objectives6 One was to exploit indigenous energy sources (wood or peat). The other was energy conflation to ensure that the growth rate of energy demand could be kept below the real GNP growth rate. In terms of budgetary expenditures, the emphasis was placed on the conservation objective. One of the thrusts of the conservation objective has been to inform Finnish consumers on means of conserving energy in and around the home. Statistics show that households account for I2- 15% of the total electricity consumption of the country.’ Given the concern over energy conservation, it is im~rative that Finnish policymakers have a better understanding of the effects of their policies on the public. This study was designed to fill that need partially. Additionally, the study findings can shed further light on the validity of the hierarchy of effects notion within the context of energy-related behavior. Although the notion is intuitively pleasing, past efforts to relate cognition to behavior have not provided monotonic support.* Dais colleciion Data were collected via mail questionnaires from residents of Tapiola, a suburb of Helsinki. A high response rate was sought by publishing a preliminary article in the local newspaper, followed by two waves of mailing. The article was intended to create awareness of the study and stress its importance. The first mailing was then sent and followed three weeks later by a second mailing. A response rate of 64% was thus generated. The returned questionnaires were checked for completeness. Of the usable questionnaires, 265 were from homeowners and these respondents form the sample analyzed in this study. We believe that better insights into the efficacy of conservation programs would be gained by focusing on homeowners rather than renters since owners tend to be more actively involved in energy conservation.’ Readers are cautioned that respondents and nonres~ndents were not distinguished; if participating homeowners differ from nonparticipating ones, the results may be distorted. Therefore, results should be interpreted with this possible bias in mind. Operational de$nition of cognition Respondents’ knowledge concerning energy conservation was measured using a I3-item inst~ment (see Table 1). A score of 1 was awarded for each correct answer the respondent gave. A cognition index was then developed by summing the respondents’ answers on individual items. The internal reliability coefficient of0.58, derived with the Kuder-Richardson 20 formula, is within Nunnally’s guidelines. lo After rank ordering overall scores, respondents were classified into three groups: high cognition (upper quartile), moderate cognition (middle two quartiles), and low cognition (lower quartile). Based on this procedure, 60 respondents were labelled as high, 125 as moderate, and 80 as 1ow.t 7 Precise quartiles were not obtained but were approximated as close as possible.

295

Energy conflation Table I. Statements used in deriving the cognition index.

3.

Freelers/rrfFlQeratOrs

4.

50% of

5.

Heating

d.

The optimum day.

7%

The

8.

Durtn~ mtnute

9.

If to

la.

An autwnatIc heat emltted

11.

PiaCInQ 5ahe heavy thermostat setting

12.

If In

13.

the

energy

taKer

work in

FInland

35

to

40% af

about amount

SuQQ,Sted

of

water

temperatorc

the heating urndw arring.

period,

the curtains are drawn keep the heat ,ns,de.

anr the

thermostat from the

liwerr, h$atlnQ

If 10” take a sharer.

more

used

in

it

uses

enefQv a bane

a living

r~fm

rsght

front

crf

to

21

tn

three

are

fU:l

nf

food.

person

per

~o”r;es.

budget. $9 250

literr,

is

C.

to

the

front of thermostat

fr-a

two

way

connected machlnrs.

,n the

the tempcrarure costs.

a bath

*our

they

dwnestic

in

the

,n

Mien

1s iran

used

srttlng household

furniture disturbs

effective!?

20”

air

the

wtndcws

to

per

house

dWIn$

a radiator

a radiator sett$ng.

with

20’

C thts

could

ttmes

more

water

1% through

the

can

ntQht

d 20

It

benefit

helps

the

an dutaaatic

(lean

than

3 5X sraring

If

YC~U take

J

L

Operational deJnition of conative component Respondent actions to consume energy efficiently were given operational definitions through three composite measures. These were: ethics-oriented actions regarding heating/ lighting in the home, using appliances, and purchasing energy conserving products. The first measure, “Home Comfort,” consisted of seven items (five Spoint items, one 3-point item, and one 2-point item). The second measure, “Home Convenience,” contained five items (two 3-point and three 2-point items), while the third measure, “Product Purchase.” consisted of 15 binary items reflecting purcha~/nonpurcha~ of 15 products. Table 2 presents a list of sample items and the possible range of scores for each measure. 4. SURVEY

RESULTS

Sociodemographic characteristics The differences between the sociodemographic characteristics of the three cognition groups were tested by the application of cross-classification with chi-square tests.” As can be inferred from the results summarized in Table 3, there were no differences between the three groups in relation to membership in organizations, type of housing, marital status. household size, presence of children in the home, income, and education. However. profile differences emerged with respect to sex and age. Male respondents were more knowledgeable than female respondents. Additionally, the high cognition group consisted predominately of individuals 35-54 yrs old, whereas the moderate cognition group included more individuals over 54. The overall homogeneity among the respondent groups is not attogether su~~sing since the information campaigns in Finland are targeted to a cross-section of the population rather than to specific segments. Energy-conservationethics Energy-conservation ethic is demonstrated through behavior which reduces energy consumption without requiring any expenditures. This is captured in the “Home Comfort” and “Home Convenience” indicies. However, chi-square tests revealed that consumers with varying degrees of cognition did not differ in terms of their ethics-o~ented behavior. An analysis of individual items comprising the two scales showed that, while individuaIs were likely to engage in practices resulting in no dis~omfo~ to themselves, they were ap-

296

U.

YAVAS et al.

Table 2. Derivation of conative indices. Rwlpc

S~mplc 1tern

In&r

Turnln9 off unneeded I9htr

Home canfort

7-30

I

fiodc of lower,“9 tcmpcrlturc

Wash,n9 full of clothIn

loads

5-12

R1ns1n9 dlshrs before ma,” wash

Purchase

of

products

o-15

Insulrtlon Ener9r

wlndcw

parently less interested in taking actions which resulted in discomfort. For example, more than 80% of all respondents reported turning off unneeded lights or turning off televisions or radios when not paying attention to them. Yet around 90% of the respondents keep their homes heated at 20°C or more. Association between consumers’ willingness to engage in the two types of ethics-oriented behaviors were tested with Kendall’s tau correlation procedure.12 The low and statistically not significant correlation (tau = 0.08) between the two indices clearly suggests that individuals do not engage in energy consumption consistently across a variety of situations. While more studies are needed to further support this observation, the findings of this study suggest that individuals who are conscious about saving energy in terms of home comfort are not necessarily the ones who make deliberate efforts to conserve energy in running appliances and visa versa. Product purchase Consumer’s were asked to indicate which (if any) of 15 energy conserving products they had purchased or installed in their homes. Summation of the number of products purchased produced a product purchase index. The low, moderate, and high cognition groups all purchased, on the average, about eight products each. An analysis of variance confirmed there is no reason to believe that varying levels of knowledge leads to differential product purchase patterns. Table 3. Relationships between sociodemographic characteristics and level of cognition.

Chrrrctcrlstac

Mrmbrrsh~p Type

of

,n

Cht-square

or9anIzrt,onst

hous,npt

se* $

statust

Marital Age 5 Household Presence Annual Educat

s,zc of

gross don t

t

chlldrrn household

at

Ge9rces

of

4.78

2

4.27

4

11.49

i

4.62

2

20.36

:0

8.23

8

hc,,,rt

2.42

2

,ncomet

5.34

6

8.37

6

Freedon

Energy ionization

The three groups were also compared, via cross-tabulations and chi-square tests, in terms of their conviction about the severity of the energy crisis, Both the seriousness of the crisis and the likelihood that it would continue in the forseeable future were measured by single 5-point scales. This was done to determine if the ~rf~~ance level of the governm~~t’s conservation programs might be due to a skepticism on the part of consumers regarding the extent of the problem. All three cognition groups tended to believe (their mean scores were close to 2) that a crisis does exist in the present, but they are ambivalent about whether it is a long-term problem. This unce~aint~ should be alleviated if they are to grasp the severity of the crisis. Unless local residents firmly believe in the long-term nature of the problem, they are not likely to support extensive measures to save energy.”

Earlier writings have partially attributed the limited success of other energy conservation programs in inducing behavioral changes to the low credibility of the sources involved in di~minating such information. l4 Apparently in Finland, however, source credibility does not Seem to be a major problem. Credibility of various sources was measured on single Spoint scales for each source; these responses were cross-tabulated with the three cognition groups and chi-square tests performed. None of the sources elicited any negative responses, Finnish people were even neutrai about the credibility of oif companies-which were considered as a primary source of blame in other studiesi 5. DISCUSSION

Public ~Iicyrnak~~ are assigned the task of designing strategies that will benefit the whole ofsociety. Consequently, the energy conservation campaigns employed by government agencies are targeted to a cross-section of the population, Unfortunately, this is a shortsighted strategy for at least three reasons. First, it is based on the assumption that everyone’s energy info~ation is the same, Second, it is believed that consumers process information in a uniform manner. Third, it is assumed that people act rationally. None of these are true. The Finnish government’s undifferentiated communication campaigns are likely designed without prior notions of how and whom the strategies wili affect. A marketing oriented approach is needed, which calls for the recognition of different population segments whose needs differ and the design of communi~tion messages tailored to each segment. The current research effort will not permit su~~ng detailed policy outlines. However, some speculations may be made based on the results reported here. A usefui framework for discussion is how individuals process information differently under conditions of low and high involvement. involvement essentially reflects the degree of interest or personal relevance something has for an individual. Information processing is seen as canning and ending with similar steps under either involvement condition. Both begin with exposure to messages and end with retention in memory, although what is retained and the form in which it is retained will not be the same. The essential difference between high and low involvement is that under high involvement conditions, the individual is an active information seeker and processor. Such an individual thus deals with incoming information by examining it and will either reject it through the development of counter arguments or source derogation, or will accept it and inco~orate it through restructuring of the existing ~lief/attitude structure. Under low involvement conditions, the individual is seen as a passive recipient of information and makes no effort to deal with it. Hence. no restructuring of existing beliefs/attitudes occur at that time but some fragments of the information will be simply retained, Thus, two different campaigns may be in order. One would be aimed at those who have high involvement with the energy crisis and the other would be aimed at those who exhibit low involvement. For the high involvement group, messages should focus on persuasive arguments based on logic and reasoning which draw conclusions for the audience. There will be consumer resistance to policies that affect their lifestyles and counterarguments are likely to be raised by this high involvement group. Consequently, messages that evoke a strong fear appeal but that avoid emotionally charged language could be effective. It would

U. YAVAS et al.

298

also be effective to use a highly credible source that offered two-sided arguments (i.e., give both points of view) in a climax order (i.e., the strongest arguments appear at the end). The persuasive argument approach will likely be lost on the low involvement segment since they will not, by definition, deal with the information. For this audience, shorter, simpler messages with frequent repetitions are called for. Again, a highly credible source should be used. The source should present the basic message in highly favorable words and use an emotional appeal by associating the proposed idea with visual or nonverbal stimuli that might arouse emotions. Humor might be effectively used to attract attention and aid retention. One-sided messages would probably be the best choice. One final observation is that one common factor in both types of campaigns is the use of a highly credible source. Since opinion leaders are widely regarded as being highly credible, the Finnish government could consider such an approach. Because the role of opinion leadership in facilitating the diffusion of energy conservation among the public is articulated elsewhere, it need not be reiterated again here. I6 Since opinion leadership has been demonstrated not to be culture-specific (some evidence from Finland itself suggests that conclusion)” and is easily measured by a simple, reliable research tool,” it is an approach that should be considered. Successful campaigns to promote energy conservation will depend upon implementation of these kinds of differentiated strategies in the future. Careful research is needed, however, to determine the most effective approaches. Acknowledgments-The

authors thank L. Koresaan for help during the data collection phase of this study. Research support from the University of Petroleum and Minerals is also gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES I. M. Durand and S. Sharma, J. Acad. Marketing Sci. 10,4 IO ( 1982). 2. D. Yergin, Fortune, July 17, 106 (1978); U. Yavas and G. Riecken, Bogazici Universitesi Dergisi: Yoneticilik 7, 107 (1979); J. J. Boddewyn, Marketing News, Oct. 17, 3 (1980); J. J. Kasulis, D. A. Huettner and N. J. Dikeman, J. Consumer Res. 8,279 (I 98 I). 3. G. H. G. McDougall, Alternative Energy Conservation Appeals: Relative Effects, in Proceedings: American Marketing Association. American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL (1980). 4. R. J. Lavidge and G. A. Steiner, J. Marketing 2,6 I ( 196 I); E. K. Strong, The Psychology of Selling. McGrawHill, New York (I 925); R. H. Colley, Defining Advertising Goalsfor Measured Advertising Results. Association of National Advertisers, New York (1961); E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York ( 1962). OECD Economic Survey: Finland (I 979). The Finnish Energy Policy Programme, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Energy Department, Helsinki (1979). Energiatilastot 1980, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Energy Department, Helsinki (1981). M. E. Slama, A. Tashchian and R. 0. Tashchian, Factors Influencing Gasoline Consumption: The Family Life Cycle, Attitude Towards Energy Conservation, and Energy Related Knowledge, in Proceedings: Southern Marketing Association Carbondale, IL (I 982); U. Yavas and G. Riecken, Der Markt 20, I6 (I 98 I). 9. G. Riecken, U. Yavas and V. V. Bellur, Energy Conservation Knowledge and Behavior of Homeowners Vs. Renters: A Comparative Study, in Proceedings: AIDS. Atlanta, GA (1978); G. H. G. McDougall and R. B. Mank, Energy Policy IO.2 I2 (1982); P. M. Chisnall, Admin. Sot. Work 3, 343 (1979). 10. J. C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1967). II. D. E. Hinkle, W. Wiersman and S. G. Juts, Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston MA (I 979). 12. S. Siegal, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York (1956). 13. D. Gottlieb and M. Matre, Sot. Sci. Q. 57, 42 1 (I 976). 14. U. Yavas and G. Riecken, Energy Policy 9, 226 (I 98 I); W. L. Shanklin, Atlanta Eco. Rev. 28, 28 (1978). 15. K. E. Henion II, J. Consumer Res. 8, 341 (1981). 16. U. Yavas and G. Riecken, Energy Policy 9,226 ( I98 I); A. Sharma, Energy Policy 11, I48 ( 1983); D. L. Davis and R. S. Rubin, J. Acad. of Marketing Sci. 11, I69 (1983). 17. U. Yavas, G. Riecken and A. Haahti, Liiketaloudeilinen Aikakauskirja 31,239 (1982). 18. U. Yavas and Glen R&ken, J. Marketing Res. 19, I54 (1982); G. Riecken and U. Yavas, J. Marketing Res. 20,325

(1983).