Motivators of Energy Reduction Behavioral Intentions: Influences of Technology, Personality Characteristics, Perceptions, and Behavior Barriers

  • June A. FloraEmail author
  • Banny Banerjee
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9186)


Motivating behavior change for energy reduction using technological solutions has led to the development of hundreds of technological products in less than a decade. Technology design in the energy reduction field is often characterized by two perspectives; “build and they will come” and “begin with human need, motivation, and desire.” Using a human centered design perspective – we experimentally evaluated the role of three personality specific motivations, in the usability and behavior change intentions of three motivationally frame energy reduction applications. We found significant usability effects with both the affective and sociability technology have greater usability. There we no difference between technologies on behavioral measures and no interactions of outcomes with personality measures. However, both NFA and NFC have independent effects on differing behavioral outcomes. Discussion called for more research on the role of personality and motivationally framed technologies along with larger samples, and longer times between pre and post assessments.


Behavior change Technology Energy behavior Personality Motivation 



This research was funded in part by the Department of Energy ARPA-E under award number DE-AR0000018, the California Energy Commission under award number PIR-10-054, and Precourt Energy Efficiency Center. We acknowledge the data analysis assistance of Dave Voelker and the programming and implementation assistance of Ann Manley, Annie Scalmanini, Brett Madres, Nicole Greenspan, and Nikhil Rehendra.


  1. 1.
    Karlin, B., Ford, R., Squiers, C.: Energy feedback technology: a review of products and platforms. Energy Eff. 7, 377–399 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brooke, J.: SUS: a ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.A., McClelland, I.L. (eds.) Usuability Evaluation in Industry, pp. 9189–9194. Taylor and Francis, London (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karlin, B., Ford, R.: The usability perception scale (UPscale): a measure for evaluating feedback displays. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8012, pp. 312–321. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lin, J.C.-C.: Online stickness: its antecedents and effect on purchasing intention. Behav. Inf. Technol. 26(6), 507–516 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delmas, M., Fischlein, M., Asensio, O.: Information strategies and energy conservation behavior: a meta-analysis of experimental studies from 1975-2011, Institute of the Environment and sustainability, UCLA (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Kao, C.F.: The efficient assessment of “need for cognition”. J. Pers. Assess. 48, 306–307 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Feinstein, J.A., Jarvis, W.G.B.: Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: the life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psy. Bulletin. 119(2), 197–253 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flora, J., Banerjee, B.: Energy graph feedback: attention, cognition and Behavioral Intentions. In: Human Computer Interaction & Interactivity Design Workshop, Crete, Greece (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maio, G.R., Esses, V.M.: The need for affect: individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. J. Pers. 69, 583–615 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Appel, M., Richter, T.: Transportation and need for affect in narrative persuasion: A mediated moderation model. Media Psych. 13(2), 101–135 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hill, C.A.: Affiliation motivation: people who need people …but in different ways. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52(5), 1008–1018 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haddock, G., Maio, G.R., Arnold, K., Lindsay, D.S.: Should persuasion be affective or cognitive? the moderating effects of need for affect and need for cognition. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34, 769–778 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reeves, B., Cummings, J.D., Scarborough, J.K., Yeykelis, L.: Increasing energy efficiency with entertainment media: an experimental and field test of the influence of a social game on performance of energy behaviors. Environ. Behav. 47, 102–115 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alcott, H.: Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 95(9–10), 1082–1095 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ruiz, S., Sicilia, M.: The impact of cognitive and/or affective processing styles on consumer response to advertising appeals. J. Bus. Res. 57, 657–664 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Flora, J., Sahoo, A., Liptsey-Rahe, A., Scalamnini, A., Wong, B., Stehly, S., Banerjee, S.: Engaging the human in the design of residential energy reduction applications. In: Human Computer Interaction and Interactivity Design Workshop, Denver, CO (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robinson, T.N.: Stealth interventions for obesity preventions and control: motivating behavior change. In: Dube, L., Becharra, A., Dagher, A., Drewnowski, A., LeBel, J., James, P., Richard, D., Yads, R. (eds.) Obesity Prevention: The Role of Brain and Society on Individual Behavior, pp. 319–327. Elsevier Inc, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human Sciences and Technologies Advanced Research Institute and Solutions Science Lab in Department of PediatricsStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Human Sciences and Technologies Advanced Research Institute and ChangeLabsStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations