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