diffusion of feedback: perceptions and adoption of devices
TRANSCRIPT
Beth Karlin School of Social Ecology
University of California, Irvine
Diffusion of Feedback Perceptions and Adoption of Devices
Underlying Assumptions 1. Technology & new media are changing how people
interact with our natural, built, and social worlds.
Karlin 2012
Underlying Assumptions 1. Technology & new media are changing how people
interact with our natural, built, and social worlds.
2. There are potential opportunities to leverage these changes for pro-social / pro-environmental benefit.
Karlin 2012
Underlying Assumptions 1. Technology & new media are changing how people
interact with our natural, built, and social worlds.
2. There are potential opportunities to leverage these changes for pro-social / pro-environmental benefit.
3. Psychology provides a rich history and theoretical base with which to understand this potential.
Karlin 2012
Transformational Media Lab Mission:
Our lab studies how media is (and can be) used to transform individuals, communities, and systems.
Karlin 2012
Narrative Strategies
Social Action Campaigns
Energy Feedback
What is Feedback? “Information about the result of a process or action that can be used in modification or control of a process or system”
Oxford English Dictionary
Karlin 2012
What is Feedback? “Information about the result of a process or action that can be used in modification or control of a process or system”
Oxford English Dictionary
Kempton & Layne, 1984
How much energy does your washer use?
Karlin 2012
How about your whole house?
The “Behavioral Wedge” � “Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the US Economy”
� $1 trillion � 20 gigatons of greenhouse gas
“…but only if the nation can craft a comprehensive and innovative approach to unlock it.” (McKinsey & Company, 2009)
� “Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce carbon emissions” � 5-12% reduction in 5 years � 9-22% reduction in 10 years “…without waiting for new technologies or regulations or changing
household lifestyle.” (Dietz, Gardner, Gilligan, Stern, & Vandenbergh, 2009)
Karlin 2012
Our Window of Opportunity
RIP Traditional Meter Circa 1880 –2020
Automatic transmission to utilities Feedback to consumers
Karlin 2012
200+ products in the market
Karlin 2012
Looking at past research � 100+ studies conducted since 1976 � Effect sizes ranged from -.0830 to .4803 � Mean r-effect size = .1174 (p < .001)
� Moderating variables: � duration (longer = more effective) � Frequency (more frequent = more effective) � Medium (computer/device > paper)
Karlin 2012
Limitations of Studies
� Not naturalistic � Participants recruited to participate � May be different from “active adopters”
� Not comparative � Most studies tests one type of feedback (vs. control) � Very few commercial products in studies
� Not testing mediation � DV is energy use, but studies rarely test possible
mediators to explain effectiveness
Karlin 2012
Present research
1. Identify ‘naturalistic’ users of feedback � Who is really using these products? � Purposive sampling
2. Ask about the user experience � Enables comparisons between devices � Gain insights into usability, adoption, etc.
3. Explore perceptions and barriers � Understand market beyond the “early adopters” � Identify potential barrier and leverage points
Karlin 2012
But first…
A (very) brief introduction to Diffusion of Innovation Theory
Karlin 2012
Diffusion of Innovation Theory of technology adoption which explains:
1. Social process by which an innovation spreads throughout a population
2. Personal process by which individuals decide to adopt an innovation
(Rogers, 1962) Karlin 2012
Diffusion of Innovation Theory of technology adoption which explains:
1. Social process by which an innovation spreads throughout a population
2. Personal process by which individuals decide to adopt an innovation
(Rogers, 1962) Karlin 2012
Diffusion of Innovation Theory of technology adoption which explains:
1. Social process by which an innovation spreads throughout a population
2. Personal process by which individuals decide to adopt an innovation
Karlin, 2012 (Rogers, 1962)
Knowledge Persuasion Decision Confirmation
Our Study Antecedent characteristics: 1. Demographic 2. Psychographic
Knowledge factors: 1. Awareness 2. Impression
Perceived Barriers 1. Cost 2. Requirements
Sample: 836 adults who use energy in the home
Method: 15-minute online survey on energy conservation and feedback devices
Variables: Demographic & psychographic variables; awareness, impressions and use of feedback devices, willingness to pay, barriers to adoption.
Confirmation factors: 1. Usability 2. Outcome
Karlin 2012
Did they adopt?
Social System 1. Adoption
Knowledge Persuasion Decision Confirmation
Our Study Antecedent characteristics: 1. Demographic 2. Psychographic
Karlin 2012
Did they adopt?
Are feedback users different?
Demographic Psychological
Gender Environmental Motivation
Age Environmental Concern
Race Financial Motivation
Marital Status Price Consciousness
Political Affiliation Social Motivation
Education Social Norms
Income
Home Type
Homeownership
Karlin 2012
Demographic Variable Feedback users Non-feedback users
Gender*** 46% female 54% male
70% female 30% male
Age** 45.5 years 39.9 years
Race 81.7% Caucasian 1.2% Hispanic 6.1% Asian 1.2% African-American 9.7% Other/Decline
81.8% Caucasian 6.7% Hispanic 6.1% Asian 1.6% African-American 3.8% Other/Decline
Marital Status* 62% married 38% not married
52% married 48% not married
Political Affiliation* (1 = liberal, 5 = conservative)
2.04 2.33
Education 17.9 years 17.4 years
Income** $104,000 $88,000
Home Type ** 74% detached house 26% apartment/condo/other
53% detached house 47% apartment/condo/other
Homeowner*** 82% own 18% rent
57% own 43% rent
* p < .05, ** p < .01, p < .001
Psychographic Variable Feedback users
Non-feedback users
Environmental
- Environmental Concern*** 4.40 4.18
- Environmental Motivation** 3.18 2.80
Financial
- Price Conciousness* 0.70 0.59
- Financial Motivation** 2.67 3.07
Social
- Social Norms 3.04 2.92
- Social Motivation 1.95 1.83
* p < .05, ** p < .01, p < .001 Karlin 2012
What variables best explain variance?
Karlin 2012
Knowledge Persuasion Decision Confirmation
Our Study
Karlin 2012
Did they adopt?
Social System 1. Adoption
Adoption Questions
� What device/system did you use? � How did you find out about it? � Where did you get it?
Findings � Social Diffusion (family/friends/colleagues)
� 20% learned about product through friend/family
� 14% received product from friend/family
� Utility acquisition (21%)
� Borrowing (13%)
Karlin 2012
Knowledge Persuasion Decision Confirmation
Our Study
Karlin 2012
Knowledge factors: 1. Awareness 2. Impression
Awareness
Karlin 2012
27%
35%
37% Aware of devices
Aware, but not specific
Not aware of feedback
38%
62%
Adopted
Not adopted
Had no idea that these exist. The idea of it I find very appealing.
I have never heard about this kind of mechanism as I have not been proactive in learning about it.
General Impression
Karlin 2012
10%
48%
42%
Negative
Ambivalent
Positive
No because I don't feel its your business to tell me what I can use or to monitor my opinions on the matter
Assume they make sense since the utility companies are promoting them.
A wonderful idea!
Knowledge Persuasion Decision Confirmation
Our Study
Karlin 2012
Perceived Barriers 1. Cost 2. Requirements
Persuasion Reason For Not Using Feedback %
Did not know that they existed 44%
Do not know where to buy them 27%
Do not know how to install/set up 18%
Already conserving energy 16%
Never got around to it 15%
Too expensive 11%
No time to install/set up 9%
Do not see any benefit in using such a device 5%
Conserving energy is not a priority in my life 2% I already keep track of many things in my life and do not want to add another burden
I’m too busy to worry about my energy consumption
they might not be available in my area
Willingness to Pay
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
$0 (Not willing to
pay)
$1 - $20 $21 - $50 $51 - $100 $101 - $200 $200 +
17%
27% 26%
7%
2% 1%
Karlin 2012
“To induce behavior these devices have to be free or very low cost.”
“I often recommend it, but have a hard time convincing others that it is worth the [money]”
Knowledge Persuasion Decision Confirmation
Our Study
Karlin 2012
Did they adopt?
Confirmation factors: 1. Usability 2. Outcome
Confirmation
Usability � What do you like / dislike about the product? � What was your most surprising experience?
Outcomes � Did knowledge, behavior, and/or energy use change? � Do you still use this product?
Karlin 2012
Confirmation – positive
Usability � Ease of use � Effective energy information
Outcomes � Correct inaccurate assumptions about energy use � Both general and specific behavior change reported
Karlin, 2012
I had no idea how much energy computers used
We installed power strips to easily power off all high energy items
Confirmation - negative
“Rebound Effect” � 15% were surprised that they used less energy than they thought
Diminishing utility � 48% said they do not still use the product
� No longer in possession/borrowed � Do not see a need to continue using
“…I’ve actually wound up using more energy on some devices when I see how little energy they use (my laptop, for one).”
“it’s served it’s purpose”
“I checked almost every device I have, so continued usage isn't very informative unless I start tracking usage in a spreadsheet - way too much work.”
Karlin, 2012
Implications
1. Further research into active feedback adopters could yield positive results for segmentation.
2. Research into leveraging social networks to promote the use of feedback devices is promising.
3. There is promise for utility-based and lending/borrowing programs for distribution.
4. Integrating injunctive social norms (e.g. social comparison) could address rebound effect.
5. Further research is needed into actual and perceived barriers of potential users.
Karlin 2012
Closing Thoughts “Energy efficiency is not just low-hanging fruit; it is fruit that is lying on the ground.”
Steven Chu, US Energy Secretary
uci@home research team
David Kirkby, Physics Daniel Stokols, Psychology Nora Davis, Social Ecology Kristen Gamble, Psychology Haly Hererra, Engineering Angela Sanguinetti, Planning
Acknowledgements
Contact: [email protected]