- Email: [email protected]
Saving energy at the workplace: The salience of behavioral antecedents and sense of community
Energy Research & Social Science 6 (2015) 121–127
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Research & Social Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss
Original research article
Saving energy at the workplace: The salience of behavioral antecedents and sense of community Graham N. Dixon a,∗ , Mary Beth Deline b , Katherine McComas c , Lauren Chambliss b , Michael Hoffmann d a
The Edward R. Murrow College of Communication, Washington State University, Murrow East 106a, United States Cornell University, Department of Communication, 336 Kennedy Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, United States Cornell University, Department of Communication, 313 Kennedy Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, United States d Cornell University, Department of Entomology, Ithaca, NY 14853, United States b c
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 19 September 2014 Received in revised form 7 January 2015 Accepted 8 January 2015 Keywords: Energy conservation Theory of Planned Behavior Organizational behavior
a b s t r a c t Research on employees’ perspectives and decision making about energy conservation within organizational contexts is limited, constraining appropriate and effective policy and planning. In addition, work considering the socio-psychological influences of such organizational contexts on individual energy decisions is also limited. To help fill these gaps, this study used the Theory of Planned Behavior to develop a survey on attitudes, subjective norms and behavioral intentions toward energy conservation behavior among faculty, staff and graduate students working at a large U.S. university (n = 2919). Results showed the influence of subjective norms (injunctive and descriptive), attitudes, and perceived behavioral control on behavioral intentions to engage in energy conservation behaviors at work. Sense of community also positively predicted behavioral intentions and self-reported behavior. Theoretically, this calls for more work on how sense of community influences energy behaviors, while practically it suggests that energy conservation interventions should consider sense of community as a potential factor in program uptake. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction With energy conservation considered a top policy issue within the United States, the commercial sector, made up of organizations, is increasingly recognized as an integral player for any meaningful energy conservation goals to be met [1,2]. Organizations consume much of America’s energy and contribute to increasing greenhouse gas emission levels. Yet, as a result of their scope, organizations also offer large opportunities for change [3,4]. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states the commercial sector signifies one with the highest potential to reduce emissions by 2020 [5], meaning that strategies to reduce energy use such as energy conservation initiatives within organizations are needed. Fulfilling the goals of organizational energy conservation will require attention to a variety factors. Structural changes are important starting points, such as retrofitting buildings with energy efficient features [6,7], using energy efficient materials on new
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 5093356547. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.N. Dixon). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.01.004 2214-6296/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
construction [8], and changing workflow procedures and product use for greater productivity and efficiency [9,10]. However, individual behavior is also key to energy consumption levels [11,12]. As such, understanding occupants’ energy behaviors is critical for organization-wide energy reduction (see [2,13]). However, research lags in this area [14,15,16], and while there is a growing repository of research into such decision making at the residential level [17], differences between contexts such as lack of direct payment of energy costs in organizational settings or uncertainty about responsibilities means the transfer of these findings are not necessarily applicable [9,18]. Therefore, for meaningful policy actions to be taken regarding commercial sector energy conservation, it is critical to better understand occupants’ perceptions of energy and possible predictors of workplace energy conservation [16,19,20]. Among such predictors are subjective norms, including descriptive and injunctive norms, which refer to people’s perception of what others are doing (i.e., descriptive norms) as well as perceptions of (dis)approval of others (i.e., injunctive norms) [21]. Together with attitudes and perceived behavioral control, subjective norms act as behavioral antecedents in the Theory of Planned Behavior [22]. Research has observed a diversity of
122
G.N. Dixon et al. / Energy Research & Social Science 6 (2015) 121–127
results regarding the influence of subjective norms on behavioral intentions. In some studies, subjective norms have a powerful effect on behavior [23,24,25,26], even in the context of energy conservation [21]. However, subjective norms have also been reported as weak predictors of intentions due to the variation in how norms are measured [27]. Environmental studies, for instance, have reported subjective norms to be weak predictors of environmental intentions [28,29,30]. In addition, previous research has reported that subjective norms are highly predictive of intentions only when a person’s environmental concern is low [31] or group identification is strong [32,33,34]. However, such research has not specifically explored the moderated effects of subjective norms on pro-environmental intentions/behavior within an organizational context. Given these findings of subjective norms and their effect on pro-environmental intentions and behavior, it is important to consider whether certain conditions must exist under which subjective norms can influence energy conservation behaviors. To that end, we offer a formative study of workplace energy conservation attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intentions. Building on existing research, we explore more precisely when subjective norms are likely to be the strongest predictors of behavioral intentions. To do so, we identify and explore whether individuals’ sense of community within a work organization acts as a moderator of subjective norms and behavioral intentions to conserve workplace energy. We define sense of community as feeling an affiliation with a collective within the organization [35]. This is important, as understanding the relationship between subjective norms, perceptual factors such as people’s sense of community, and energy reduction intentions can aid policy makers and campaign designers in tailoring effective intervention campaigns within organizational contexts. 1.1. Theory of Planned Behavior, subjective norms, and energy conservation Developed as an extension to Azjen’s Theory of Reasoned Action (1991), the Theory of Planned Behavior incorporates individuallevel variables as predictors of behavior. As a behavioral prediction model, the Theory of Planned Behavior posits that three individual determinants act as important predictors for behavior change, which include attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms (injunctive and descriptive) [22,36]. Together, these variables predict behavioral intentions, which in turn predict actual behavior. While the Theory of Planned Behavior’s parsimony and practical utility within the social sciences has made it a popular model for pro-environmental behavior change research, it is important to critically examine the degree to which its variables predict behavioral intentions. In general, research has found strong support for the Theory of Planned Behavior’s predictive power [15]. However, while the Theory of Planned Behavior variables together explain a large amount of the variance in predicting behavioral intentions, each individual determinant is not equally weighted. For instance Lo et al. [15] recently reviewed empirical articles to determine the degree to which attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and social norms predict pro-environmental behaviors within organizations. Overall, the review reveals differences in the predictive power of each variable. First, individuals’ attitudes, which refer to an evaluation (i.e., good vs. bad) of a set of behaviors [37], have been found to be moderately correlated to respective pro-environmental behavioral intentions but weakly correlated to actual behavior. Scholars [38,39], for instance, found that attitudes toward energy conservation and paper recycling were moderately associated with their
respective behavioral intentions. More recent research, however, has found that attitudes toward workplace energy conservation among populations of supervisors and lower-level employees were not strong predictors of more specific behaviors [39,40]. Furthermore, comparative feedback interventions, in which ones’ energy conservation behaviors are compared to another’s, have found positive changes in behavior without changes in attitudes [41,42]. In addition to attitudes, an individual’s perceived behavioral control, which refers to whether individuals perceive they have the ability (i.e., the necessary resources and skills) to perform a certain behavior [22], has also been measured in the context of energy conservation. In an organizational context, perceived behavioral control measures have ranged in predictive power, from weak correlations [43] to strong ones [44]. In general, for behavior change campaigns to be effective, attention should be paid to whether or not participants have the ability to perform the targeted behavior. Finally, subjective norms, which can be divided into injunctive and descriptive norms, have also been examined. Injunctive norms involve people’s perceptions of what others want them to do (or not do), whereas descriptive norms refer to ones’ perception of what others do [21]. Research has observed inconsistent findings regarding the predictive power of subjective norms on behavioral intentions. On the one hand, research has shown that subjective norms have a powerful effect on behavioral intentions, either from direct observation of others’ behavior (see review by [25]) or through indirect means, such as communication about a descriptive norm [45,46]. For instance, studies have found that normative messages about others’ energy conservation behaviors significantly increased recycling [47] and hotel towel reuse [48]. Additionally, campaigns that use comparative feedback showing the energy savings of others can spur competitive feelings and increase conservation behaviors at both the residential [49] and organizational levels [41,42]. More recently Nolan et al. [21] found that in a survey of California residents descriptive norms were the strongest predictor of energy conservation, despite the fact that respondents rated descriptive norms as being the least important factor in making energy conservation decisions. Furthermore, the scholars found in a follow up field experiment that descriptive norms produced the greatest change in energy conservation behaviors relative to informational campaigns highlighting other reasons to conserve. Participants, like those in the survey, paradoxically rated descriptive norms as being the least influential factor in their behavior decision-making despite evidence to the contrary. Interestingly, the two factors rated by participants as most influential in persuading them to conserve energy – environmental reasons and social responsibility – did not succeed in reducing energy conservation in the field study. Nolan et al. [21] surmise this disconnect is due to individuals’ naïve conception of their own behavior and mental processes, in which “individuals place greater weight on introspective thoughts and beliefs related to their decision to conform than to behavioral evidence of their conformity” (p. 914). What is troubling is that when individuals are made aware of normative influence on their behavior, they may react by decreasing such behavior and correct for any biasing effect [50]. Therefore, campaigns that strive to improve people’s awareness of what their referent groups do should be careful that blatant normative manipulation is not detected by participants. Despite the above findings, others have reported subjective norms to be rather weak predictors of environmental intentions [28,29,30]. This inconsistency could be due to the variation in how subjective norms are operationalized and measured [27]. Another reason is that the effect of subjective norms (both descriptive and injunctive) on behavioral intentions/behavior is dependent on
G.N. Dixon et al. / Energy Research & Social Science 6 (2015) 121–127
conditional factors. Prior work has explored this issue, finding that the effect of subjective norms on behavioral intentions is moderated by environmental concern [31] and group identification [32,33,34]. In particular, subjective norms were more effective at predicting intention for people with low environmental concern [31] and for people who strongly identify with a group [32,33,34]. However, such findings either involved non-environmental behaviors (e.g. [32,33]) or are placed within non-organizational contexts [31,34]. We seek to fill this gap by focusing on pro-environmental intentions/behavior within an organizational context – specifically whether certain conditions are necessary in order for subjective norms to influence energy conservation intentions/behavior in within an organization. This is important, as research has also shown that subjective norms hold strong influence on energy conservation behaviors within organizations, including intentions to recycle paper [38] and perform more sustainable waste management behavior [43]. However, since organizations are not equal in terms of employee routines, structure, and function, is it possible to identify factors that might explain when subjective norms are more or less likely to influence energy conservation behaviors? Drawing from work on social identity [33], we identify a sense of community within an organization as a potential moderator of relationship between subjective norms (both injunctive and descriptive) and intentions to conserve energy. The following section reviews this concept and integrates it into the Theory of Planned Behavior framework.
123
social interaction, directly influence energy conservation behavior. Additionally, previous work examining the role of social identification on the subjective norm and intention effect involved a non-environmental context (e.g. [32,33]) and within residential, rather than organizational settings [34]. To push this research forward, we investigate the role of organizational sense of community and its moderating role on the effect of subjective norms on energy conservation intentions and self-reported behavior. We suggest that organizations whose members have a stronger sense of community hold greater social connections and bonds between organizational members, which allows for subjective norms to become salient to organizational members and, as we argue, predictive of energy conservation intentions and self-reported behaviors. Therefore, we offer the following hypotheses: H1. Subjective norms will positively predict intentions to perform energy conservation behavior in an organization. H2. Sense of community will moderate the effect of subjective norms on intentions. We also explore the role of subjective norms and sense of community on self-reported behavior. H3. Subjective norms will positively predict self-reported energy conservation behavior in an organization. H4. Sense of community will moderate the effect of subjective norms on self-reported energy conservation behavior.
1.2. Sense of community in organizations
2. Methods
The definition of ‘community’ has a long history of being diffuse and contested [51,52]. However, most definitions contain three agreed upon components – spatial locations, social exchanges and attachments or social ties [51,52]. Many energy studies have focused on the first two components [53], while few have examined the latter component, community attachments [54,55]. By investigating sense of community, we focus on the last component of attachment or social ties; this is also referred to as psychological sense of community [56]. Sense of community is defined as “a feeling that members have a belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together” ([35], p. 9). It contains, according to McMillan and Chavis’ [35] model, four major components: (1) needs fulfillment; (2) group belonging; (3) impact; and (4) shared affect. In what little work there is applying sense of community to workplace contexts, researchers specify workgroups as the entities with which workers affiliate themselves [57]. They further argue that there are five key referent workgroups within organizations that employees affiliate with: friendship, task, professional association or organizational networks and the physical worksite itself [57]. Investigating sense of community within organizational energy studies could prove fruitful, and we propose that a sense of community could be an important condition under which subjective norms predict energy conservation behavioral intentions and self-reported behavior. To this end, there has been limited work on how social connection and attachment affects norm outcomes in a number of different fields, such as health and bullying [58,59,60]. This gap extends to the energy field, as the extent to which a sense of community interacts with subjective norms regarding energy conservation on behavioral intention has not been extensively studied, especially regarding its relationship with the Theory of Planned Behavior variables. Previous work, however, does provide a pathway to address these gaps. For instance, recent research [61] provides evidence that social factors related to sense of community, such as
This study used data from a 2012 online survey involving the Theory of Planned Behavior framework to measure energy conservation attitudes, behavioral intentions, descriptive and injunctive norms, perceived behavioral control, and self-reported behavior among faculty, staff, and graduate students at three colleges at Cornell University: (1) the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS), (2) the College of Engineering, and (3) the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management (Johnson). The survey was sent via an email link from the respective college’s dean to all faculty, staff, and graduate students by Cornell’s Survey Research Institute. Potential respondents received up to two email reminders to complete the survey and had an opportunity to enter their names in a lottery for small prizes. The overall response rate was 47.6% (n = 2919); female = 43%; male = 57%. The response rate for each college is as follows: CALS had a response rate of 54% (n = 1601); the College of Engineering had a response rate of 42% (n = 985); and Johnson had a response rate of 41% (n = 333). 2.1. Theory of Planned Behavior measures Using a 5-point Likert agreement scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) and items adapted from the Theory of Planned Behavior [22], the survey measured descriptive norms, injunctive norms, perceived behavioral control, attitudes, and intentions regarding workplace energy conservation behaviors. For stronger measurement validity, we created multi-item scales per variable. Injunctive norms involved a three-item scale that measured people’s perceptions of what they believed others would want them to do regarding energy conservation. These items included (1) most people who are important to me at work would think it is a good idea to conserve energy, (2) I am expected to conserve energy at Cornell, and (3) I feel responsible for conserving energy at work (Cronbach’s ˛ = 0.6). Descriptive norms involved a three-item scale that measured the extent to which respondents believed that people they work with are undertaking energy conservation measures at work. These
124
G.N. Dixon et al. / Energy Research & Social Science 6 (2015) 121–127
Table 1 Descriptive statistics (n = 2919).
Theory of Planned Behavior variables Injunctive norms Descriptive norms Attitudes Perceived behavioral control Behavioral intentions Self-reported behavior index Sense of community
Mean
SD
3.93 3.3 4.13 3.31 3.81 20.8 3.61
.63 .75 .6 .82 .72 3.51 .64
Table 2 Hierarchical regression model predicting energy conservation behavioral intentions (n = 2919). Predictor variables
Note. Theory of Planned Behavior variables measured using 5 point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree).
items included: (1) the people I work with, whose opinions I value, are concerned about their energy use, (2) most people I work with, who are important to me, try to pay attention to their energy use, and (3) many people I work with are trying to reduce their energy use (Cronbach’s ˛ = 0.8). Perceived behavioral control involved a three-item scale that measured to what extent people believed they have the ability to perform workplace energy conservation behaviors. These items included: (1) reducing my energy consumption at work would be simple, (2) if I wanted to, I could reduce my energy use at work, and (3) the amount of energy I consume at work is mostly up to me (Cronbach’s ˛ = 0.65). Attitudes were measured via a four-item scale. In particular, we measured respondents’ beliefs regarding energy conservation behaviors: (1) lowering energy use at work is a good thing, (2) my work habits contribute to Cornell’s overall energy use, (3) reducing my energy use at work would help the university save money, and (4) reducing energy use at work would be good for the environment (Cronbach’s ˛ = 0.75). For behavioral intentions, we used a two-item scale that asked respondents about their intentions to perform energy conservation behaviors over the next year. These items included: (1) over the next year, I will try to decrease the amount of energy I consume at work, and (2) I will try to reduce the amount of energy I use at work over the next year (Cronbach’s ˛ = 0.85).
Theory of Planned Behavior variables Injunctive norms Descriptive norms Attitudes Perceived behavioral control Incremental R2 Sense of community Incremental R2
Model 1 ˇ
Model 2 ˇ
Model 3 ˇ
.04* .14*** .34*** .36*** .45
.04* .14*** .34*** .36***
.04* .14*** .33*** .36***
.03* .45
.03*
Interactions Sense of community × injunctive norms Sense of community × descriptive norms Incremental R2
.03 .00 .452**
Note. All predictor variables are mean-centered. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
3. Results 3.1. Behavioral intention
Adapted from [9], we used a 6 item index involving the frequency with which respondents engaged in energy conservation behaviors within the past six months. These items included: (1) turned off lights when not needed; (2) set computer power to sleep or standby mode to minimize power use when idle; (3) printed or photocopied double-sided whenever I can; (4) minimized overhead light to use only what is necessary; (5) switched off lights in a hallway or restroom when not needed; and (6) turned off computer monitor when not being used.
Hypothesis 1 stated that subjective norms – both injunctive and descriptive – will positively predict workplace energy conservation behavioral intention. Using multiple linear regression, we found that injunctive (ˇ = .04; p < .05) and descriptive norms (ˇ = .14; p <.001) positively predicted intentions to perform workplace energy conservation (see Table 2). Therefore, we achieved support for hypothesis 1. However, the low beta weight of injunctive norms signifies a rather small effect on behavioral intentions, suggesting its overall influence on behavioral intentions is weak. Attitudes (ˇ = .34; p <. 001) and perceived behavioral control (ˇ = .36; p < .001) also positively predicted behavioral intentions at a statistically significant level. Together, the Theory of Planned Behavior variables explained 45% of the variance. Hypothesis 2 stated that the effect of subjective norms on behavioral intentions will be positively moderated by sense of community. To address this hypothesis, we included three new variables in our regression model (sense of community, sense of community × injunctive norms, and sense of community × descriptive norms). To measure R2 change, a hierarchical regression model was implemented. First, we observed that the sense of community did not significantly interact with injunctive norms (ˇ = .03; p = .08), or descriptive norms (ˇ = .00; p = .87). Therefore, hypothesis 2 is not supported. However, we observed that sense of community (ˇ = .03; p < .05) significantly predicted behavioral intentions, albeit a small effect (see Table 2). Including these three variables into the model increased the explained variance by .2%, indicating a small effect.
2.3. Sense of community measure
3.2. Self-reported behavior1
To measure respondents’ sense of community, we asked them to what extent they “feel a sense of community with the people they work with” across six dimensions: (1) in my project group/lab; (2) on my floor; (3) in my department/unit, (4) in my building, (5) in my college, (6) at Cornell. This scale is loosely adapted from McMillan and Chavis’ [35] conceptual definition of a sense of community. A 5point Likert agreement scale was used for this measure (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The combined six item sense of community scale achieved acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s ˛ = .82) (Table 1).
Hypothesis 3 addressed the predictive power of subjective norms on self-reported energy conservation behavior. Unlike its relationship with behavioral intentions, injunctive norms did not
2.2. Self-reported behavior
1 We did not include behavioral intentions in this model because (1) including intention with the other predictors might lead to multicollinearity, given that all the predictive power attributable to the core predictors of intention should run through intention, and (2) predicting past behavior, which is what our self-reported behavior index captured, with future intentions is not a clean design. We believe that dropping intention from this model allows for a cleaner design.
G.N. Dixon et al. / Energy Research & Social Science 6 (2015) 121–127 Table 3 Hierarchical regression model predicting self-reported energy conservation behaviors (n = 2919). Predictor variables Theory of Planned Behavior variables Injunctive norms Descriptive norms Attitudes Perceived behavioral control Incremental R2 Sense of community Incremental R2
Model 1 ˇ
Model 2 ˇ
Model 3 ˇ
.00 .21*** .08*** .01 .06
−.02 .21*** .08*** .00
−.02 .21*** .08*** .00
.04* .06
.05*
Interactions Sense of community × injunctive norms Sense of community × descriptive norms Incremental R2
−.02 .03 .062**
Note. All predictor variables are mean-centered. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
significantly predict self-reported energy conservation behaviors (ˇ = .00; p = .73). Descriptive norms, however, did (ˇ = .21; p < .001). Therefore, hypothesis 3 achieved partial support. Attitudes also positively predicted self-reported behavior (ˇ = .08; p < .001), whereas perceived behavioral control did not (ˇ = .01; p = .79). Together, the model accounted for 6% of the variance (see Table 3). Lastly, hypothesis 4 examined whether the effect of subjective norms on self-reported energy conservation behavior was moderated by sense of community. Using the same hierarchical regression approach used to test hypothesis 2, we observed non-significant findings regarding sense of community × injunctive norms interaction (ˇ = −.02; p = .37) and sense of community × descriptive norms interaction (ˇ = .03; p = .19). Therefore, hypothesis 4 is not supported. However, sense of community emerged as a significant predictor of self-reported behavior (ˇ = .05; p < .05). Including these three variables into the model increased the percent variance explained by .2%, a small increase (see Table 3). 4. Discussion Overall, the present study confirmed the utility of the Theory of Planned Behavior as a model for predicting energy conservation behavioral intentions and self-reported behavior in workplace settings. Attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and descriptive norms emerged as strong predictors of energy conservation intentions. The predictive power of attitudes, while inconsistent across organizational energy conservation studies [15], is not surprising given the strong representation of CALS participants whose research and departments are heavily invested in environmentalrelated topics. Perceived behavioral control also emerged as a strong predictor of behavioral intentions, supporting previous organizational research [44,62]. Descriptive norms, in line with previous research [21], predicted behavioral intentions, whereas injunctive norms were not highly predictive. Sense of community had a small, but significant direct effect on behavioral intention, indicating the possible importance of community attachment of workplace members in influencing energy conservation behavioral intentions. One reason for the small effect could be that our measure of sense of community was too general and failed to capture important nuances of community identification necessary to observe significant direct and interaction effects. For example, including more specific items of sense of community, such as emotional safety, sense of belonging and identification, personal
125
investment, and common symbol systems might be able to detect stronger effects on intention and self-reported behavior, as well as interactions with subjective norms [35,63]. We also observed that the predictive power of Theory of Planned Behavior variables differed for behavioral intentions and selfreported behavior. First, the amount of variance explained by the model dropped from 45% to 6% when we tested our model on self-reported behavior instead of behavioral intentions, and only attitudes and descriptive norms acted as significant predictors (injunctive norms and perceived behavioral control were not significant predictors). This finding is not particularly surprising given that previous research has found moderate to weak correlations between attitudes, descriptive norms and energy behavior [28,29,30,43] and inconsistent findings with perceived behavioral control (see [15,18]). However, it could again be that the level of specificity with which we measured these variables played a role in the magnitude of their predictive power. Overall, our findings speak to the broader research that shows inconsistent relationships between Theory of Planned Behavior variables and actual energy conservation behavior [15,18]. Together, we view these findings as strong indications that the explanatory power of Theory of Planned Behavior might differ for behavioral intentions and self-reported behavior. In addition to predicting energy conservation behavioral intentions, we observed that sense of community positively predicted self-reported behavior. Although the effect was small, it was significant and speaks to the possible importance of community attachment of workplace members in cultivating conservation behaviors. Indeed, previous research has observed how social and group identity acts as a significant predictor of behavior as well as an important condition under which norms emerge [32,33,34]. Although we did not find evidence of moderation effects of sense of community on subjective norms, the findings on intentions and self-reported behavior provides a fresh perspective on the role that sense of community might play in the energy behaviors of organizational members, a context that until now has not been extensively explored. Therefore, we encourage greater investigation in order to provide a clearer picture on the boundary conditions under which subjective norms influences energy conservation behavior, either directly or via interaction, in residential and organizational settings. 4.1. Limitations Although we found promising results for guiding energy conservation campaigns, we remain cautious about the generalizability of our population sample. While the present study involved a large organization made up of autonomous work groups, it should not be assumed that the results can be extrapolated to other organizations. However, since our results corroborate with other organizational energy conservation research using Theory of Planned Behavior variables, we believe this study expands the scope of the Theory of Planned Behavior’s predictive power within organizations. That said, there is a need to continue formative research on organizational energy conservation, especially expanding our understanding of when certain behavioral predictors are more or less likely to matter. Additionally, while we found significant relationships between our predictors and dependent variables, we recognize that other variables not measured in the survey could have played a role. Future research could explore this area in more detail, such as structural factors, like organizational building space, and how the layout of workspace influences sense of community and Theory of Planned Behavior variables. It is possible that sense of community could be influenced by social as well as structural factors.
126
G.N. Dixon et al. / Energy Research & Social Science 6 (2015) 121–127
Including these variables could then provide an even stronger model for organizational energy conservation. Additional methods of analysis – such as the use of structural equation modeling – should also be explored. In terms of measurement validity, it is important to recognize the low reliability scores for injunctive norms and perceived behavioral control. While these scales were adapted from Ajzen’s [22] validated Theory of Planned Behavior scale, we acknowledge these measures did not achieve the desired reliability (i.e., Cronbach’s ˛ > .7). As a result, we are cautious in interpreting the results of these variables; however, our confidence in the results is bolstered by findings consistent with previous research showing similar patterns in relationships. We also recognize that our sense of community scale, while loosely adapted from McMillan and Chavis’ [35] conceptual definition of sense of community, captures a general measure of a sense of community without specifically identifying it to the respondents as something more precise, such as the strengths of their social networks. Future research might find more utility by specifying different factors present with a sense of community, such as emotional safety, sense of belonging and identification, personal investment, and common symbol systems [35,63]. Including more specific items of sense of community might be able to detect stronger effects on intention and self-reported behavior, as well as interactions with subjective norms.
5. Conclusions This study provides a positive step forward in understanding the underlying factors influencing organization-based energy conservation behavioral intentions and self-reported behavior. Overall, we found that the Theory of Planned Behavior can be useful for discovering the influential predictors of energy conservation behavioral intentions and self-reported behaviors. Formative research measuring attitudes, injunctive norms, descriptive norms, and perceived behavioral control paints an important picture by showing campaign designers what to target for improving organizational energy conservation. However, by identifying sense of community as a factor in workplace energy conservation, behavior change campaigns might prosper even more if they contain components that address organizational sense of community. For policy makers working to improve organizational energy conservation, this finding points to the potential importance of knowing the community dynamics of the organization and perhaps fostering a greater sense of community where appropriate. Lastly, although we did not observe sense of community as a moderator of subjective norms in our study, we believe our study signifies an important step in the research process that can fill theoretical gaps and provide practical guidance. Because of this, more research should be conducted on the moderating role of sense of community and subjective norms. Doing so might identify important boundary conditions under which subjective norms influence certain energy conservation behaviors in a variety of residential/organizational contexts, which, in turn, can aid the development of successful behavior change interventions.
Acknowledgements Cornell University’s Agricultural Experiment Station (CUAES) provided funds to support this research.
References [1] Dixon RK, McGowan E, Onysko G, Scheer RM. US energy conservation and efficiency policies: challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy 2010;38:6398–408. [2] Prindle W, Finlinson S. How organizations can drive behavior-based energy efficiency. In: Sioshanshi F, editor. Energy, sustainability and the environment. Oxford: Elsevier; 2011. p. 305–35. [3] Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. Commercial buildings factsheet; 2011. Retrieved from: http://css.snre.umich.edu/ css doc/CSS05-05.pdf [accessed 21.11.12] [Pub. No. CSS05-05]. [4] US Energy Information Administration. International statistics; 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm? tid=90&pid=44&aid [accessed 07.03.11]. [5] Levine M, Urge-Vorsatz K, Blok K, Geng L, Harvey D, Lang S, et al. Residential and commercial buildings. Clim Change 2007:387–446. [6] Marans RW, Edelstein JY. The human dimension of energy conservation and sustainability: a case study of the University of Michigan’s energy conservation program. Int J Sustain Higher Educ 2010;11:6–18. [7] Starik M, Marcus AA. Introduction to the special research forum on the management of organizations in the natural environment: a field emerging from multiple paths with many challenges ahead. Acad Manage J 2000;43:539–46. [8] Kats G. Greening America’s schools: costs and benefits; 2006. Retrieved from: http://www.greenschoolbuildings.org/documents/pub Greening Americas Schools.pdf [01.03.13]. [9] Carrico AR, Riemer M. Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: an evaluation of the use of group-level feedback and peer education. J Environ Psychol 2011;31:1–13. [10] Dietz T, Gardner GT, Gilligan J, Stern PC, Vandenbergh MP. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2009;106:18452–6. [11] Lutzenhiser L. Social and behavioral aspects of energy use. Annu Rev Energy Environ 1993;18:247–89. [12] Socolow R, Sonderegger R. The twin rivers program on energy conservation in housing: four year summary report. Princeton: Center for Environmental Studies; 1976, August. Retrieved from: http://www.princeton.edu/pei/ energy/publications/reports/No.32.pdf [13] Ehrhardt-Martinez K. Behavior energy and climate change. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy; 2008. [14] Biggart NW, Lutzenhiser L. Economic sociology and the social problem of energy inefficiency. Am Behav Sci 2007;50:1070–87. [15] Lo SH, Peters G-JY, Kok G. A review of determinants of and interventions for proenvironmental behaviors in organizations. J Appl Soc Psychol 2012;42:2933–67. [16] Payne C. The commercial energy consumer: about whom are we speaking? ACEEE Summer Study on energy efficiency in buildings. CA: ACEEE, Asilomar; 2006. [17] Wilson C, Dowlatabadi H. Models of decision making and residential energy use. Annu Rev Environ Resourc 2007;32:169–203. [18] Lo SH, Peters G-JY, Kok G. Energy-related behaviors in office buildings: a qualitative study on individual and organizational determinants. Appl Psychol 2012;61:227–49. [19] Bin S. Greening work styles: an analysis of energy behavior programs. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy; 2012. [20] Janda KB. Building communities and social potential: between and beyond organizations and individuals in commercial properties. Energy Policy 2014;67:48–55. [21] Nolan JM, Schultz PW, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V. Normative social influence is underdetected. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 2008;34:913–23. [22] Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organiz Behav Hum Decis Process 1991;50:179–211. [23] Asch SE. Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol Monogr 1956;70:1–70. [24] Berkowitz L. Social norms feelings, and other factors affecting helping and altruism. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 1972;6:63–108. [25] Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu Rev Psychol 2004;55:591–621. [26] Milgram S, Bickman L, Berkowitz L. Note on the drawing power of crowds of different size. J Personal Soc Psychol 1969;13:79–82. [27] Armitage CJ, Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a metaanalytic review. Br J Soc Psychol 2001;40:471–99. [28] Abrahamse W, Steg L. Factors related to household energy use and intention to reduce it: the role of psychological and socio-demographic variables. Hum Ecol Rev 2011;18:30–40. [29] Aguilar-Luzón MC, García-Martínez JMÁ, Calvo-Salguero A, Salinas JM. Comparative study between the theory of planned behavior and the valuebelief-norm model regarding the environment on Spanish housewives’ recycling behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 2012;42:2797–833. [30] Kaiser FG, Hübner G, Bogner FX. Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 2005;35:2150–70. [31] Bamberg S. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J Environ Psychol 2003;23:21–32.
G.N. Dixon et al. / Energy Research & Social Science 6 (2015) 121–127 [32] Louis W, Davies S, Smith J, Terry D. Pizza and pop and the student identity: the role of referent group norms in healthy and unhealthy eating. J Soc Psychol 2007;147:57–74. [33] Terry DJ, Hogg MA. Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: a role for group identification. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 1996;22:776–93. [34] Terry DJ, Hogg MA, White KM. The theory of planned behaviour: self-identity, social identity and group norms. Br J Soc Psychol 1999;38:225–44. [35] McMillan DW, Chavis DM. Sense of community: a definition and theory. J Commun Psychol 1986;14:6–23. [36] Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Predicting and changing behavior: the reasoned action approach. New York: Psychological Press/Taylor & Francis; 2010. [37] Eagly AH, Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers; 1993. [38] Jones RE. Understanding paper recycling in an institutionally supportive setting – an application of the theory of reasoned action. J Environ Syst 1990;19:307–21. [39] Scherbaum CA, Popovich PM, Finlinson S. Exploring individual-level factors related to employee energy-conservation behaviors at work. J Appl Soc Psychol 2008;38:818–35. [40] Andersson L, Shivarajan S, Blau G. Enacting ecological sustainability in the MNC: a test of an adapted value-belief-norm framework. J Bus Eth 2005;59(295): 305. [41] Dixon G, Deline M, McComas K, Chambliss L, Hoffmann M. Using comparative feedback to influence workplace energy conservation: A case study of a university campaign. Environ Behav 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916513520417. [42] Siero FW, Bakker A, Dekker G, Marcel TC. Changing organizational energy consumption behaviour through comparative feedback. J Environ Psychol 1996;16:235–46. [43] Tudor TL, Barr SW, Gilg AW. Linking intended behaviour and actions: a case study of healthcare waste management in the Cornwall NHS. Resources. Conserv Recycl 2007;41:191–214. [44] Cordano M, Frieze IH. Pollution reduction preferences of US environmental managers: applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Acad Manage J 2000;43:627–41. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1556358 [accessed 23.10.13]. [45] Parks CD, Sanna LJ, Berel SR. Actions of similar others as inducements to cooperate in social dilemmas. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 2001;27:345–54. [46] Von Borgstede B, Dahlstrand U, Biel A. From ought to is: moral norms in largescale social dilemmas. Goteborg Psychol Rep 1999;29:1–19. [47] Schultz PW. Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: a field experiment on curbside recyclying. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 1999;92: 585–95.
127
[48] Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V, Cialdini RB. Invoking social norms – a social psychology perspective on improving hotels’ Linen-Reuse programs. Cornell Hotel Restaur Admin Quart 2007;48:145–50. [49] Staats H, Harland P, Wilke HAM. Effecting durable change – a team approach to improve environmental behavior in the household. Environ Behav 2004;36:341–67. [50] Wilson TD, Brekke N. Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. J Personal Soc Psychol 1994;116:117–42. [51] Poplin D. Communities: a survey of theories and methods of research. Michigan: MacMillan; 1979. [52] Reich SM. Adolescents’ sense of community on Myspace and Facebook: a mixed methods approach. J Commun Psychol 2010;38:688–705. [53] Hoffman SM, High-Pippert A. From private lives to collective action: recruitment and participation incentives for a community energy program. Energy Policy 2010;38:7567–74. [54] Heiskanen E, Johnson M, Robinson S, Vadovics E, Saastamoinen M. Low-carbon communities as a context for individual behavioral change. Energy Policy 2010;38:7586–95. [55] Weenig MW, Midden CJ. Communication network influences on information diffusion and persuasion. J Personal Soc Psychol 1991;61:734–42. [56] Peterson NA, Speer PW, McMillan DW. Validation of a brief sense of community scale: confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. J Commun Psychol 2008;36:61–73. [57] Klein KJ, Aunno TAD. Psychological sense of community in the workplace. J Commun Psychol 1986;14:365–78. [58] Boer H, Westhoff Y. The role of positive and negative signaling communication by strong and weak ties in the shaping of safe sex subjective norms of adolescents in South Africa. Commun Theory 2006;16:75–90. [59] Paluck EL, Shepherd H. The salience of social referents: a field experiment on collective norms and harassment behavior in a school social network. J Personal Soc Psychol 2012;103:899–915. [60] Yun D, Silk KJ. Social norms self-identity, and attention to social comparison information in the context of exercise and healthy diet behavior. Health Commun 2011;26:275–85. [61] Southwell B, Murphy J. Weatherization behavior and social context: the influences of factual knowledge and social interaction. Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;2:59–65. [62] Siero S, Boon ME, Kok GJ, Siero FW, Veen P. Implementatie van energiebesp arend gedrag in een grote organisatie. M&O Tijdschrift voor Organisatiekunde en Sociaal Beleid 1984;38:323–38. [63] Hughey J, Speer P, Peterson A. Sense of community in community organizations: structure and evidence of validity. J Commun Psychol 1999;27:97–113.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Research & Social Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss
Original research article
Saving energy at the workplace: The salience of behavioral antecedents and sense of community Graham N. Dixon a,∗ , Mary Beth Deline b , Katherine McComas c , Lauren Chambliss b , Michael Hoffmann d a
The Edward R. Murrow College of Communication, Washington State University, Murrow East 106a, United States Cornell University, Department of Communication, 336 Kennedy Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, United States Cornell University, Department of Communication, 313 Kennedy Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, United States d Cornell University, Department of Entomology, Ithaca, NY 14853, United States b c
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 19 September 2014 Received in revised form 7 January 2015 Accepted 8 January 2015 Keywords: Energy conservation Theory of Planned Behavior Organizational behavior
a b s t r a c t Research on employees’ perspectives and decision making about energy conservation within organizational contexts is limited, constraining appropriate and effective policy and planning. In addition, work considering the socio-psychological influences of such organizational contexts on individual energy decisions is also limited. To help fill these gaps, this study used the Theory of Planned Behavior to develop a survey on attitudes, subjective norms and behavioral intentions toward energy conservation behavior among faculty, staff and graduate students working at a large U.S. university (n = 2919). Results showed the influence of subjective norms (injunctive and descriptive), attitudes, and perceived behavioral control on behavioral intentions to engage in energy conservation behaviors at work. Sense of community also positively predicted behavioral intentions and self-reported behavior. Theoretically, this calls for more work on how sense of community influences energy behaviors, while practically it suggests that energy conservation interventions should consider sense of community as a potential factor in program uptake. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction With energy conservation considered a top policy issue within the United States, the commercial sector, made up of organizations, is increasingly recognized as an integral player for any meaningful energy conservation goals to be met [1,2]. Organizations consume much of America’s energy and contribute to increasing greenhouse gas emission levels. Yet, as a result of their scope, organizations also offer large opportunities for change [3,4]. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states the commercial sector signifies one with the highest potential to reduce emissions by 2020 [5], meaning that strategies to reduce energy use such as energy conservation initiatives within organizations are needed. Fulfilling the goals of organizational energy conservation will require attention to a variety factors. Structural changes are important starting points, such as retrofitting buildings with energy efficient features [6,7], using energy efficient materials on new
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 5093356547. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.N. Dixon). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.01.004 2214-6296/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
construction [8], and changing workflow procedures and product use for greater productivity and efficiency [9,10]. However, individual behavior is also key to energy consumption levels [11,12]. As such, understanding occupants’ energy behaviors is critical for organization-wide energy reduction (see [2,13]). However, research lags in this area [14,15,16], and while there is a growing repository of research into such decision making at the residential level [17], differences between contexts such as lack of direct payment of energy costs in organizational settings or uncertainty about responsibilities means the transfer of these findings are not necessarily applicable [9,18]. Therefore, for meaningful policy actions to be taken regarding commercial sector energy conservation, it is critical to better understand occupants’ perceptions of energy and possible predictors of workplace energy conservation [16,19,20]. Among such predictors are subjective norms, including descriptive and injunctive norms, which refer to people’s perception of what others are doing (i.e., descriptive norms) as well as perceptions of (dis)approval of others (i.e., injunctive norms) [21]. Together with attitudes and perceived behavioral control, subjective norms act as behavioral antecedents in the Theory of Planned Behavior [22]. Research has observed a diversity of
122
G.N. Dixon et al. / Energy Research & Social Science 6 (2015) 121–127
results regarding the influence of subjective norms on behavioral intentions. In some studies, subjective norms have a powerful effect on behavior [23,24,25,26], even in the context of energy conservation [21]. However, subjective norms have also been reported as weak predictors of intentions due to the variation in how norms are measured [27]. Environmental studies, for instance, have reported subjective norms to be weak predictors of environmental intentions [28,29,30]. In addition, previous research has reported that subjective norms are highly predictive of intentions only when a person’s environmental concern is low [31] or group identification is strong [32,33,34]. However, such research has not specifically explored the moderated effects of subjective norms on pro-environmental intentions/behavior within an organizational context. Given these findings of subjective norms and their effect on pro-environmental intentions and behavior, it is important to consider whether certain conditions must exist under which subjective norms can influence energy conservation behaviors. To that end, we offer a formative study of workplace energy conservation attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intentions. Building on existing research, we explore more precisely when subjective norms are likely to be the strongest predictors of behavioral intentions. To do so, we identify and explore whether individuals’ sense of community within a work organization acts as a moderator of subjective norms and behavioral intentions to conserve workplace energy. We define sense of community as feeling an affiliation with a collective within the organization [35]. This is important, as understanding the relationship between subjective norms, perceptual factors such as people’s sense of community, and energy reduction intentions can aid policy makers and campaign designers in tailoring effective intervention campaigns within organizational contexts. 1.1. Theory of Planned Behavior, subjective norms, and energy conservation Developed as an extension to Azjen’s Theory of Reasoned Action (1991), the Theory of Planned Behavior incorporates individuallevel variables as predictors of behavior. As a behavioral prediction model, the Theory of Planned Behavior posits that three individual determinants act as important predictors for behavior change, which include attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms (injunctive and descriptive) [22,36]. Together, these variables predict behavioral intentions, which in turn predict actual behavior. While the Theory of Planned Behavior’s parsimony and practical utility within the social sciences has made it a popular model for pro-environmental behavior change research, it is important to critically examine the degree to which its variables predict behavioral intentions. In general, research has found strong support for the Theory of Planned Behavior’s predictive power [15]. However, while the Theory of Planned Behavior variables together explain a large amount of the variance in predicting behavioral intentions, each individual determinant is not equally weighted. For instance Lo et al. [15] recently reviewed empirical articles to determine the degree to which attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and social norms predict pro-environmental behaviors within organizations. Overall, the review reveals differences in the predictive power of each variable. First, individuals’ attitudes, which refer to an evaluation (i.e., good vs. bad) of a set of behaviors [37], have been found to be moderately correlated to respective pro-environmental behavioral intentions but weakly correlated to actual behavior. Scholars [38,39], for instance, found that attitudes toward energy conservation and paper recycling were moderately associated with their
respective behavioral intentions. More recent research, however, has found that attitudes toward workplace energy conservation among populations of supervisors and lower-level employees were not strong predictors of more specific behaviors [39,40]. Furthermore, comparative feedback interventions, in which ones’ energy conservation behaviors are compared to another’s, have found positive changes in behavior without changes in attitudes [41,42]. In addition to attitudes, an individual’s perceived behavioral control, which refers to whether individuals perceive they have the ability (i.e., the necessary resources and skills) to perform a certain behavior [22], has also been measured in the context of energy conservation. In an organizational context, perceived behavioral control measures have ranged in predictive power, from weak correlations [43] to strong ones [44]. In general, for behavior change campaigns to be effective, attention should be paid to whether or not participants have the ability to perform the targeted behavior. Finally, subjective norms, which can be divided into injunctive and descriptive norms, have also been examined. Injunctive norms involve people’s perceptions of what others want them to do (or not do), whereas descriptive norms refer to ones’ perception of what others do [21]. Research has observed inconsistent findings regarding the predictive power of subjective norms on behavioral intentions. On the one hand, research has shown that subjective norms have a powerful effect on behavioral intentions, either from direct observation of others’ behavior (see review by [25]) or through indirect means, such as communication about a descriptive norm [45,46]. For instance, studies have found that normative messages about others’ energy conservation behaviors significantly increased recycling [47] and hotel towel reuse [48]. Additionally, campaigns that use comparative feedback showing the energy savings of others can spur competitive feelings and increase conservation behaviors at both the residential [49] and organizational levels [41,42]. More recently Nolan et al. [21] found that in a survey of California residents descriptive norms were the strongest predictor of energy conservation, despite the fact that respondents rated descriptive norms as being the least important factor in making energy conservation decisions. Furthermore, the scholars found in a follow up field experiment that descriptive norms produced the greatest change in energy conservation behaviors relative to informational campaigns highlighting other reasons to conserve. Participants, like those in the survey, paradoxically rated descriptive norms as being the least influential factor in their behavior decision-making despite evidence to the contrary. Interestingly, the two factors rated by participants as most influential in persuading them to conserve energy – environmental reasons and social responsibility – did not succeed in reducing energy conservation in the field study. Nolan et al. [21] surmise this disconnect is due to individuals’ naïve conception of their own behavior and mental processes, in which “individuals place greater weight on introspective thoughts and beliefs related to their decision to conform than to behavioral evidence of their conformity” (p. 914). What is troubling is that when individuals are made aware of normative influence on their behavior, they may react by decreasing such behavior and correct for any biasing effect [50]. Therefore, campaigns that strive to improve people’s awareness of what their referent groups do should be careful that blatant normative manipulation is not detected by participants. Despite the above findings, others have reported subjective norms to be rather weak predictors of environmental intentions [28,29,30]. This inconsistency could be due to the variation in how subjective norms are operationalized and measured [27]. Another reason is that the effect of subjective norms (both descriptive and injunctive) on behavioral intentions/behavior is dependent on
G.N. Dixon et al. / Energy Research & Social Science 6 (2015) 121–127
conditional factors. Prior work has explored this issue, finding that the effect of subjective norms on behavioral intentions is moderated by environmental concern [31] and group identification [32,33,34]. In particular, subjective norms were more effective at predicting intention for people with low environmental concern [31] and for people who strongly identify with a group [32,33,34]. However, such findings either involved non-environmental behaviors (e.g. [32,33]) or are placed within non-organizational contexts [31,34]. We seek to fill this gap by focusing on pro-environmental intentions/behavior within an organizational context – specifically whether certain conditions are necessary in order for subjective norms to influence energy conservation intentions/behavior in within an organization. This is important, as research has also shown that subjective norms hold strong influence on energy conservation behaviors within organizations, including intentions to recycle paper [38] and perform more sustainable waste management behavior [43]. However, since organizations are not equal in terms of employee routines, structure, and function, is it possible to identify factors that might explain when subjective norms are more or less likely to influence energy conservation behaviors? Drawing from work on social identity [33], we identify a sense of community within an organization as a potential moderator of relationship between subjective norms (both injunctive and descriptive) and intentions to conserve energy. The following section reviews this concept and integrates it into the Theory of Planned Behavior framework.
123
social interaction, directly influence energy conservation behavior. Additionally, previous work examining the role of social identification on the subjective norm and intention effect involved a non-environmental context (e.g. [32,33]) and within residential, rather than organizational settings [34]. To push this research forward, we investigate the role of organizational sense of community and its moderating role on the effect of subjective norms on energy conservation intentions and self-reported behavior. We suggest that organizations whose members have a stronger sense of community hold greater social connections and bonds between organizational members, which allows for subjective norms to become salient to organizational members and, as we argue, predictive of energy conservation intentions and self-reported behaviors. Therefore, we offer the following hypotheses: H1. Subjective norms will positively predict intentions to perform energy conservation behavior in an organization. H2. Sense of community will moderate the effect of subjective norms on intentions. We also explore the role of subjective norms and sense of community on self-reported behavior. H3. Subjective norms will positively predict self-reported energy conservation behavior in an organization. H4. Sense of community will moderate the effect of subjective norms on self-reported energy conservation behavior.
1.2. Sense of community in organizations
2. Methods
The definition of ‘community’ has a long history of being diffuse and contested [51,52]. However, most definitions contain three agreed upon components – spatial locations, social exchanges and attachments or social ties [51,52]. Many energy studies have focused on the first two components [53], while few have examined the latter component, community attachments [54,55]. By investigating sense of community, we focus on the last component of attachment or social ties; this is also referred to as psychological sense of community [56]. Sense of community is defined as “a feeling that members have a belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together” ([35], p. 9). It contains, according to McMillan and Chavis’ [35] model, four major components: (1) needs fulfillment; (2) group belonging; (3) impact; and (4) shared affect. In what little work there is applying sense of community to workplace contexts, researchers specify workgroups as the entities with which workers affiliate themselves [57]. They further argue that there are five key referent workgroups within organizations that employees affiliate with: friendship, task, professional association or organizational networks and the physical worksite itself [57]. Investigating sense of community within organizational energy studies could prove fruitful, and we propose that a sense of community could be an important condition under which subjective norms predict energy conservation behavioral intentions and self-reported behavior. To this end, there has been limited work on how social connection and attachment affects norm outcomes in a number of different fields, such as health and bullying [58,59,60]. This gap extends to the energy field, as the extent to which a sense of community interacts with subjective norms regarding energy conservation on behavioral intention has not been extensively studied, especially regarding its relationship with the Theory of Planned Behavior variables. Previous work, however, does provide a pathway to address these gaps. For instance, recent research [61] provides evidence that social factors related to sense of community, such as
This study used data from a 2012 online survey involving the Theory of Planned Behavior framework to measure energy conservation attitudes, behavioral intentions, descriptive and injunctive norms, perceived behavioral control, and self-reported behavior among faculty, staff, and graduate students at three colleges at Cornell University: (1) the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS), (2) the College of Engineering, and (3) the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management (Johnson). The survey was sent via an email link from the respective college’s dean to all faculty, staff, and graduate students by Cornell’s Survey Research Institute. Potential respondents received up to two email reminders to complete the survey and had an opportunity to enter their names in a lottery for small prizes. The overall response rate was 47.6% (n = 2919); female = 43%; male = 57%. The response rate for each college is as follows: CALS had a response rate of 54% (n = 1601); the College of Engineering had a response rate of 42% (n = 985); and Johnson had a response rate of 41% (n = 333). 2.1. Theory of Planned Behavior measures Using a 5-point Likert agreement scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) and items adapted from the Theory of Planned Behavior [22], the survey measured descriptive norms, injunctive norms, perceived behavioral control, attitudes, and intentions regarding workplace energy conservation behaviors. For stronger measurement validity, we created multi-item scales per variable. Injunctive norms involved a three-item scale that measured people’s perceptions of what they believed others would want them to do regarding energy conservation. These items included (1) most people who are important to me at work would think it is a good idea to conserve energy, (2) I am expected to conserve energy at Cornell, and (3) I feel responsible for conserving energy at work (Cronbach’s ˛ = 0.6). Descriptive norms involved a three-item scale that measured the extent to which respondents believed that people they work with are undertaking energy conservation measures at work. These
124
G.N. Dixon et al. / Energy Research & Social Science 6 (2015) 121–127
Table 1 Descriptive statistics (n = 2919).
Theory of Planned Behavior variables Injunctive norms Descriptive norms Attitudes Perceived behavioral control Behavioral intentions Self-reported behavior index Sense of community
Mean
SD
3.93 3.3 4.13 3.31 3.81 20.8 3.61
.63 .75 .6 .82 .72 3.51 .64
Table 2 Hierarchical regression model predicting energy conservation behavioral intentions (n = 2919). Predictor variables
Note. Theory of Planned Behavior variables measured using 5 point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree).
items included: (1) the people I work with, whose opinions I value, are concerned about their energy use, (2) most people I work with, who are important to me, try to pay attention to their energy use, and (3) many people I work with are trying to reduce their energy use (Cronbach’s ˛ = 0.8). Perceived behavioral control involved a three-item scale that measured to what extent people believed they have the ability to perform workplace energy conservation behaviors. These items included: (1) reducing my energy consumption at work would be simple, (2) if I wanted to, I could reduce my energy use at work, and (3) the amount of energy I consume at work is mostly up to me (Cronbach’s ˛ = 0.65). Attitudes were measured via a four-item scale. In particular, we measured respondents’ beliefs regarding energy conservation behaviors: (1) lowering energy use at work is a good thing, (2) my work habits contribute to Cornell’s overall energy use, (3) reducing my energy use at work would help the university save money, and (4) reducing energy use at work would be good for the environment (Cronbach’s ˛ = 0.75). For behavioral intentions, we used a two-item scale that asked respondents about their intentions to perform energy conservation behaviors over the next year. These items included: (1) over the next year, I will try to decrease the amount of energy I consume at work, and (2) I will try to reduce the amount of energy I use at work over the next year (Cronbach’s ˛ = 0.85).
Theory of Planned Behavior variables Injunctive norms Descriptive norms Attitudes Perceived behavioral control Incremental R2 Sense of community Incremental R2
Model 1 ˇ
Model 2 ˇ
Model 3 ˇ
.04* .14*** .34*** .36*** .45
.04* .14*** .34*** .36***
.04* .14*** .33*** .36***
.03* .45
.03*
Interactions Sense of community × injunctive norms Sense of community × descriptive norms Incremental R2
.03 .00 .452**
Note. All predictor variables are mean-centered. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
3. Results 3.1. Behavioral intention
Adapted from [9], we used a 6 item index involving the frequency with which respondents engaged in energy conservation behaviors within the past six months. These items included: (1) turned off lights when not needed; (2) set computer power to sleep or standby mode to minimize power use when idle; (3) printed or photocopied double-sided whenever I can; (4) minimized overhead light to use only what is necessary; (5) switched off lights in a hallway or restroom when not needed; and (6) turned off computer monitor when not being used.
Hypothesis 1 stated that subjective norms – both injunctive and descriptive – will positively predict workplace energy conservation behavioral intention. Using multiple linear regression, we found that injunctive (ˇ = .04; p < .05) and descriptive norms (ˇ = .14; p <.001) positively predicted intentions to perform workplace energy conservation (see Table 2). Therefore, we achieved support for hypothesis 1. However, the low beta weight of injunctive norms signifies a rather small effect on behavioral intentions, suggesting its overall influence on behavioral intentions is weak. Attitudes (ˇ = .34; p <. 001) and perceived behavioral control (ˇ = .36; p < .001) also positively predicted behavioral intentions at a statistically significant level. Together, the Theory of Planned Behavior variables explained 45% of the variance. Hypothesis 2 stated that the effect of subjective norms on behavioral intentions will be positively moderated by sense of community. To address this hypothesis, we included three new variables in our regression model (sense of community, sense of community × injunctive norms, and sense of community × descriptive norms). To measure R2 change, a hierarchical regression model was implemented. First, we observed that the sense of community did not significantly interact with injunctive norms (ˇ = .03; p = .08), or descriptive norms (ˇ = .00; p = .87). Therefore, hypothesis 2 is not supported. However, we observed that sense of community (ˇ = .03; p < .05) significantly predicted behavioral intentions, albeit a small effect (see Table 2). Including these three variables into the model increased the explained variance by .2%, indicating a small effect.
2.3. Sense of community measure
3.2. Self-reported behavior1
To measure respondents’ sense of community, we asked them to what extent they “feel a sense of community with the people they work with” across six dimensions: (1) in my project group/lab; (2) on my floor; (3) in my department/unit, (4) in my building, (5) in my college, (6) at Cornell. This scale is loosely adapted from McMillan and Chavis’ [35] conceptual definition of a sense of community. A 5point Likert agreement scale was used for this measure (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The combined six item sense of community scale achieved acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s ˛ = .82) (Table 1).
Hypothesis 3 addressed the predictive power of subjective norms on self-reported energy conservation behavior. Unlike its relationship with behavioral intentions, injunctive norms did not
2.2. Self-reported behavior
1 We did not include behavioral intentions in this model because (1) including intention with the other predictors might lead to multicollinearity, given that all the predictive power attributable to the core predictors of intention should run through intention, and (2) predicting past behavior, which is what our self-reported behavior index captured, with future intentions is not a clean design. We believe that dropping intention from this model allows for a cleaner design.
G.N. Dixon et al. / Energy Research & Social Science 6 (2015) 121–127 Table 3 Hierarchical regression model predicting self-reported energy conservation behaviors (n = 2919). Predictor variables Theory of Planned Behavior variables Injunctive norms Descriptive norms Attitudes Perceived behavioral control Incremental R2 Sense of community Incremental R2
Model 1 ˇ
Model 2 ˇ
Model 3 ˇ
.00 .21*** .08*** .01 .06
−.02 .21*** .08*** .00
−.02 .21*** .08*** .00
.04* .06
.05*
Interactions Sense of community × injunctive norms Sense of community × descriptive norms Incremental R2
−.02 .03 .062**
Note. All predictor variables are mean-centered. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
significantly predict self-reported energy conservation behaviors (ˇ = .00; p = .73). Descriptive norms, however, did (ˇ = .21; p < .001). Therefore, hypothesis 3 achieved partial support. Attitudes also positively predicted self-reported behavior (ˇ = .08; p < .001), whereas perceived behavioral control did not (ˇ = .01; p = .79). Together, the model accounted for 6% of the variance (see Table 3). Lastly, hypothesis 4 examined whether the effect of subjective norms on self-reported energy conservation behavior was moderated by sense of community. Using the same hierarchical regression approach used to test hypothesis 2, we observed non-significant findings regarding sense of community × injunctive norms interaction (ˇ = −.02; p = .37) and sense of community × descriptive norms interaction (ˇ = .03; p = .19). Therefore, hypothesis 4 is not supported. However, sense of community emerged as a significant predictor of self-reported behavior (ˇ = .05; p < .05). Including these three variables into the model increased the percent variance explained by .2%, a small increase (see Table 3). 4. Discussion Overall, the present study confirmed the utility of the Theory of Planned Behavior as a model for predicting energy conservation behavioral intentions and self-reported behavior in workplace settings. Attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and descriptive norms emerged as strong predictors of energy conservation intentions. The predictive power of attitudes, while inconsistent across organizational energy conservation studies [15], is not surprising given the strong representation of CALS participants whose research and departments are heavily invested in environmentalrelated topics. Perceived behavioral control also emerged as a strong predictor of behavioral intentions, supporting previous organizational research [44,62]. Descriptive norms, in line with previous research [21], predicted behavioral intentions, whereas injunctive norms were not highly predictive. Sense of community had a small, but significant direct effect on behavioral intention, indicating the possible importance of community attachment of workplace members in influencing energy conservation behavioral intentions. One reason for the small effect could be that our measure of sense of community was too general and failed to capture important nuances of community identification necessary to observe significant direct and interaction effects. For example, including more specific items of sense of community, such as emotional safety, sense of belonging and identification, personal
125
investment, and common symbol systems might be able to detect stronger effects on intention and self-reported behavior, as well as interactions with subjective norms [35,63]. We also observed that the predictive power of Theory of Planned Behavior variables differed for behavioral intentions and selfreported behavior. First, the amount of variance explained by the model dropped from 45% to 6% when we tested our model on self-reported behavior instead of behavioral intentions, and only attitudes and descriptive norms acted as significant predictors (injunctive norms and perceived behavioral control were not significant predictors). This finding is not particularly surprising given that previous research has found moderate to weak correlations between attitudes, descriptive norms and energy behavior [28,29,30,43] and inconsistent findings with perceived behavioral control (see [15,18]). However, it could again be that the level of specificity with which we measured these variables played a role in the magnitude of their predictive power. Overall, our findings speak to the broader research that shows inconsistent relationships between Theory of Planned Behavior variables and actual energy conservation behavior [15,18]. Together, we view these findings as strong indications that the explanatory power of Theory of Planned Behavior might differ for behavioral intentions and self-reported behavior. In addition to predicting energy conservation behavioral intentions, we observed that sense of community positively predicted self-reported behavior. Although the effect was small, it was significant and speaks to the possible importance of community attachment of workplace members in cultivating conservation behaviors. Indeed, previous research has observed how social and group identity acts as a significant predictor of behavior as well as an important condition under which norms emerge [32,33,34]. Although we did not find evidence of moderation effects of sense of community on subjective norms, the findings on intentions and self-reported behavior provides a fresh perspective on the role that sense of community might play in the energy behaviors of organizational members, a context that until now has not been extensively explored. Therefore, we encourage greater investigation in order to provide a clearer picture on the boundary conditions under which subjective norms influences energy conservation behavior, either directly or via interaction, in residential and organizational settings. 4.1. Limitations Although we found promising results for guiding energy conservation campaigns, we remain cautious about the generalizability of our population sample. While the present study involved a large organization made up of autonomous work groups, it should not be assumed that the results can be extrapolated to other organizations. However, since our results corroborate with other organizational energy conservation research using Theory of Planned Behavior variables, we believe this study expands the scope of the Theory of Planned Behavior’s predictive power within organizations. That said, there is a need to continue formative research on organizational energy conservation, especially expanding our understanding of when certain behavioral predictors are more or less likely to matter. Additionally, while we found significant relationships between our predictors and dependent variables, we recognize that other variables not measured in the survey could have played a role. Future research could explore this area in more detail, such as structural factors, like organizational building space, and how the layout of workspace influences sense of community and Theory of Planned Behavior variables. It is possible that sense of community could be influenced by social as well as structural factors.
126
G.N. Dixon et al. / Energy Research & Social Science 6 (2015) 121–127
Including these variables could then provide an even stronger model for organizational energy conservation. Additional methods of analysis – such as the use of structural equation modeling – should also be explored. In terms of measurement validity, it is important to recognize the low reliability scores for injunctive norms and perceived behavioral control. While these scales were adapted from Ajzen’s [22] validated Theory of Planned Behavior scale, we acknowledge these measures did not achieve the desired reliability (i.e., Cronbach’s ˛ > .7). As a result, we are cautious in interpreting the results of these variables; however, our confidence in the results is bolstered by findings consistent with previous research showing similar patterns in relationships. We also recognize that our sense of community scale, while loosely adapted from McMillan and Chavis’ [35] conceptual definition of sense of community, captures a general measure of a sense of community without specifically identifying it to the respondents as something more precise, such as the strengths of their social networks. Future research might find more utility by specifying different factors present with a sense of community, such as emotional safety, sense of belonging and identification, personal investment, and common symbol systems [35,63]. Including more specific items of sense of community might be able to detect stronger effects on intention and self-reported behavior, as well as interactions with subjective norms.
5. Conclusions This study provides a positive step forward in understanding the underlying factors influencing organization-based energy conservation behavioral intentions and self-reported behavior. Overall, we found that the Theory of Planned Behavior can be useful for discovering the influential predictors of energy conservation behavioral intentions and self-reported behaviors. Formative research measuring attitudes, injunctive norms, descriptive norms, and perceived behavioral control paints an important picture by showing campaign designers what to target for improving organizational energy conservation. However, by identifying sense of community as a factor in workplace energy conservation, behavior change campaigns might prosper even more if they contain components that address organizational sense of community. For policy makers working to improve organizational energy conservation, this finding points to the potential importance of knowing the community dynamics of the organization and perhaps fostering a greater sense of community where appropriate. Lastly, although we did not observe sense of community as a moderator of subjective norms in our study, we believe our study signifies an important step in the research process that can fill theoretical gaps and provide practical guidance. Because of this, more research should be conducted on the moderating role of sense of community and subjective norms. Doing so might identify important boundary conditions under which subjective norms influence certain energy conservation behaviors in a variety of residential/organizational contexts, which, in turn, can aid the development of successful behavior change interventions.
Acknowledgements Cornell University’s Agricultural Experiment Station (CUAES) provided funds to support this research.
References [1] Dixon RK, McGowan E, Onysko G, Scheer RM. US energy conservation and efficiency policies: challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy 2010;38:6398–408. [2] Prindle W, Finlinson S. How organizations can drive behavior-based energy efficiency. In: Sioshanshi F, editor. Energy, sustainability and the environment. Oxford: Elsevier; 2011. p. 305–35. [3] Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. Commercial buildings factsheet; 2011. Retrieved from: http://css.snre.umich.edu/ css doc/CSS05-05.pdf [accessed 21.11.12] [Pub. No. CSS05-05]. [4] US Energy Information Administration. International statistics; 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm? tid=90&pid=44&aid [accessed 07.03.11]. [5] Levine M, Urge-Vorsatz K, Blok K, Geng L, Harvey D, Lang S, et al. Residential and commercial buildings. Clim Change 2007:387–446. [6] Marans RW, Edelstein JY. The human dimension of energy conservation and sustainability: a case study of the University of Michigan’s energy conservation program. Int J Sustain Higher Educ 2010;11:6–18. [7] Starik M, Marcus AA. Introduction to the special research forum on the management of organizations in the natural environment: a field emerging from multiple paths with many challenges ahead. Acad Manage J 2000;43:539–46. [8] Kats G. Greening America’s schools: costs and benefits; 2006. Retrieved from: http://www.greenschoolbuildings.org/documents/pub Greening Americas Schools.pdf [01.03.13]. [9] Carrico AR, Riemer M. Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: an evaluation of the use of group-level feedback and peer education. J Environ Psychol 2011;31:1–13. [10] Dietz T, Gardner GT, Gilligan J, Stern PC, Vandenbergh MP. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2009;106:18452–6. [11] Lutzenhiser L. Social and behavioral aspects of energy use. Annu Rev Energy Environ 1993;18:247–89. [12] Socolow R, Sonderegger R. The twin rivers program on energy conservation in housing: four year summary report. Princeton: Center for Environmental Studies; 1976, August. Retrieved from: http://www.princeton.edu/pei/ energy/publications/reports/No.32.pdf [13] Ehrhardt-Martinez K. Behavior energy and climate change. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy; 2008. [14] Biggart NW, Lutzenhiser L. Economic sociology and the social problem of energy inefficiency. Am Behav Sci 2007;50:1070–87. [15] Lo SH, Peters G-JY, Kok G. A review of determinants of and interventions for proenvironmental behaviors in organizations. J Appl Soc Psychol 2012;42:2933–67. [16] Payne C. The commercial energy consumer: about whom are we speaking? ACEEE Summer Study on energy efficiency in buildings. CA: ACEEE, Asilomar; 2006. [17] Wilson C, Dowlatabadi H. Models of decision making and residential energy use. Annu Rev Environ Resourc 2007;32:169–203. [18] Lo SH, Peters G-JY, Kok G. Energy-related behaviors in office buildings: a qualitative study on individual and organizational determinants. Appl Psychol 2012;61:227–49. [19] Bin S. Greening work styles: an analysis of energy behavior programs. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy; 2012. [20] Janda KB. Building communities and social potential: between and beyond organizations and individuals in commercial properties. Energy Policy 2014;67:48–55. [21] Nolan JM, Schultz PW, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V. Normative social influence is underdetected. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 2008;34:913–23. [22] Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organiz Behav Hum Decis Process 1991;50:179–211. [23] Asch SE. Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol Monogr 1956;70:1–70. [24] Berkowitz L. Social norms feelings, and other factors affecting helping and altruism. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 1972;6:63–108. [25] Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu Rev Psychol 2004;55:591–621. [26] Milgram S, Bickman L, Berkowitz L. Note on the drawing power of crowds of different size. J Personal Soc Psychol 1969;13:79–82. [27] Armitage CJ, Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a metaanalytic review. Br J Soc Psychol 2001;40:471–99. [28] Abrahamse W, Steg L. Factors related to household energy use and intention to reduce it: the role of psychological and socio-demographic variables. Hum Ecol Rev 2011;18:30–40. [29] Aguilar-Luzón MC, García-Martínez JMÁ, Calvo-Salguero A, Salinas JM. Comparative study between the theory of planned behavior and the valuebelief-norm model regarding the environment on Spanish housewives’ recycling behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 2012;42:2797–833. [30] Kaiser FG, Hübner G, Bogner FX. Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 2005;35:2150–70. [31] Bamberg S. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J Environ Psychol 2003;23:21–32.
G.N. Dixon et al. / Energy Research & Social Science 6 (2015) 121–127 [32] Louis W, Davies S, Smith J, Terry D. Pizza and pop and the student identity: the role of referent group norms in healthy and unhealthy eating. J Soc Psychol 2007;147:57–74. [33] Terry DJ, Hogg MA. Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: a role for group identification. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 1996;22:776–93. [34] Terry DJ, Hogg MA, White KM. The theory of planned behaviour: self-identity, social identity and group norms. Br J Soc Psychol 1999;38:225–44. [35] McMillan DW, Chavis DM. Sense of community: a definition and theory. J Commun Psychol 1986;14:6–23. [36] Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Predicting and changing behavior: the reasoned action approach. New York: Psychological Press/Taylor & Francis; 2010. [37] Eagly AH, Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers; 1993. [38] Jones RE. Understanding paper recycling in an institutionally supportive setting – an application of the theory of reasoned action. J Environ Syst 1990;19:307–21. [39] Scherbaum CA, Popovich PM, Finlinson S. Exploring individual-level factors related to employee energy-conservation behaviors at work. J Appl Soc Psychol 2008;38:818–35. [40] Andersson L, Shivarajan S, Blau G. Enacting ecological sustainability in the MNC: a test of an adapted value-belief-norm framework. J Bus Eth 2005;59(295): 305. [41] Dixon G, Deline M, McComas K, Chambliss L, Hoffmann M. Using comparative feedback to influence workplace energy conservation: A case study of a university campaign. Environ Behav 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916513520417. [42] Siero FW, Bakker A, Dekker G, Marcel TC. Changing organizational energy consumption behaviour through comparative feedback. J Environ Psychol 1996;16:235–46. [43] Tudor TL, Barr SW, Gilg AW. Linking intended behaviour and actions: a case study of healthcare waste management in the Cornwall NHS. Resources. Conserv Recycl 2007;41:191–214. [44] Cordano M, Frieze IH. Pollution reduction preferences of US environmental managers: applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Acad Manage J 2000;43:627–41. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1556358 [accessed 23.10.13]. [45] Parks CD, Sanna LJ, Berel SR. Actions of similar others as inducements to cooperate in social dilemmas. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 2001;27:345–54. [46] Von Borgstede B, Dahlstrand U, Biel A. From ought to is: moral norms in largescale social dilemmas. Goteborg Psychol Rep 1999;29:1–19. [47] Schultz PW. Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: a field experiment on curbside recyclying. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 1999;92: 585–95.
127
[48] Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V, Cialdini RB. Invoking social norms – a social psychology perspective on improving hotels’ Linen-Reuse programs. Cornell Hotel Restaur Admin Quart 2007;48:145–50. [49] Staats H, Harland P, Wilke HAM. Effecting durable change – a team approach to improve environmental behavior in the household. Environ Behav 2004;36:341–67. [50] Wilson TD, Brekke N. Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. J Personal Soc Psychol 1994;116:117–42. [51] Poplin D. Communities: a survey of theories and methods of research. Michigan: MacMillan; 1979. [52] Reich SM. Adolescents’ sense of community on Myspace and Facebook: a mixed methods approach. J Commun Psychol 2010;38:688–705. [53] Hoffman SM, High-Pippert A. From private lives to collective action: recruitment and participation incentives for a community energy program. Energy Policy 2010;38:7567–74. [54] Heiskanen E, Johnson M, Robinson S, Vadovics E, Saastamoinen M. Low-carbon communities as a context for individual behavioral change. Energy Policy 2010;38:7586–95. [55] Weenig MW, Midden CJ. Communication network influences on information diffusion and persuasion. J Personal Soc Psychol 1991;61:734–42. [56] Peterson NA, Speer PW, McMillan DW. Validation of a brief sense of community scale: confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. J Commun Psychol 2008;36:61–73. [57] Klein KJ, Aunno TAD. Psychological sense of community in the workplace. J Commun Psychol 1986;14:365–78. [58] Boer H, Westhoff Y. The role of positive and negative signaling communication by strong and weak ties in the shaping of safe sex subjective norms of adolescents in South Africa. Commun Theory 2006;16:75–90. [59] Paluck EL, Shepherd H. The salience of social referents: a field experiment on collective norms and harassment behavior in a school social network. J Personal Soc Psychol 2012;103:899–915. [60] Yun D, Silk KJ. Social norms self-identity, and attention to social comparison information in the context of exercise and healthy diet behavior. Health Commun 2011;26:275–85. [61] Southwell B, Murphy J. Weatherization behavior and social context: the influences of factual knowledge and social interaction. Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;2:59–65. [62] Siero S, Boon ME, Kok GJ, Siero FW, Veen P. Implementatie van energiebesp arend gedrag in een grote organisatie. M&O Tijdschrift voor Organisatiekunde en Sociaal Beleid 1984;38:323–38. [63] Hughey J, Speer P, Peterson A. Sense of community in community organizations: structure and evidence of validity. J Commun Psychol 1999;27:97–113.