LOS ANGELES, CA — Utilities hoping to nudge customers to conserve energy by telling them how much -- or little -- they and their neighbors consume may want to consider customers' political leanings first: That tactic tends to backfire with conservatives, a recent study suggests.
Democrats are more likely to lower their energy consumption in response to energy reports sent by their utilities, while conservative households may actually increase energy use, according to research from Dora L. Costa and Matthew E. Kahn, two professors at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
"To design nudges effectively, a 'nudger' must anticipate how diverse subjects will respond," Costa and Kahn wrote. "We have shown that while energy conservation nudges work with liberals, they backfire with conservatives."
The pair based their findings on a randomized field experiment conducted by a large California utility district that sent customers home energy reports with information on use, comparisons to their neighbors' consumption, and energy saving tips.
Costa and Kahn compared the responses of randomly selected households to information on their political views, such as individual political party of registration, donations to environmental groups, participation in green power purchase programs, and area demographics. They argued that those registered with liberal political parties, live in largely liberal communities, buy green power, and donate to environmental groups can be considered environmentalists.
The researchers estimated that Democratic households in liberal neighborhoods that buy green power and support environmental groups responded to the energy reports by lowering their energy use by 3 percent. Democratic households that were also large energy consumers cut their consumption by 6 percent.
Republican households that don't participate in green power programs and don't donate to environmental groups actually increased their energy consumption by 1 percent.
"If the same message 'turns on' greens but 'turns off' more conservative individuals, then to reach out to all members of a diverse population requires a mixed-messages strategy," the authors wrote.
Costa and Kahn noted that in a 2008 study, there was a 34 percentage point gap among Democrats and Republicans in perception of climate change.
A 2009 Gallup poll found a growing number of Americans think the seriousness of climate change is exaggerated; when broken down by political view, 22 percent of Democrats said the news about climate change is exaggerated, compared to 66 percent of Republicans.
While the findings may offer a cautionary note to utilities, as well as to other businesses and services that give consumers information on how much energy they use, other research has shown that providing such data is an effective motivator to consume less. Peer-to-peer reports in some studies, for example, were found to reduce consumption by 1.2 percent to 2.8 percent.
Image CC licensed by Flickr user LaMenta3.













Absolutely a good study by a
Absolutely a good study by a group who hates conservatives. Why would you possibly believe the study was fixed???
Anon — The study was
Anon —
The study was normalized to the amount of use — the change was reported as a percentage rather than as an absolute. It was not a comparison of who used more, it was a measure of how the use changed in response to information with a particular presentation. Your criticisms are not valid. A control group is not needed.
BFD. democrat republican etc
BFD. democrat republican etc etc. all they do is put us all in similar boats. they dont care about the people. they care about what party you belong to.
people need to grow the F*** up and realize their is no group besides humanity.
we are all one. not groups of many. we need to stop separating ourselves from the rest.
if you can not get along with the rest take your own life. what use are you anyways at that point but a drain on society.
back to the concept of energy consumption and parties. think about this. this was the worst study to date.
one company in one state in one area performed a test on power consumption. i know its more that just consumption it has to do with parties too.
WHERE WAS THE CONTROL GROUP? who says where one group lived was not hotter than the other and had to use more AC?
who to say the dems have gas stoves and the reps have electric?
does everyone in the neighborhood have all the exact same hardware? do they live in exactly the same climate? do they all have parking lots around them or trees which provide shade?
this is by far the worst of the worst. for ANYONE to call this a studdy needs to back to school.
"people need to grow the F***
"people need to grow the F*** up and realize their is no group besides humanity."
That is an oversimplification. Yes, we are all humans but we are all from different cultures. The article (and many other scientific articles) have shown that Democrats (a group of humans), and Republicans (a different group of humans from Democrats) value different things. You can't group all humans into one big ball of monkeys. Any good statistician (or sociologist, psychologist, medical doctor, etc.) will tell you this.
"if you can not get along with the rest take your own life. what use are you anyways at that point but a drain on society."
You are a very not nice person. I've lost a long-term partner, someone I was planning to marry because he chose to take his own life. You are not a very kind person to even offer this as a solution to another (let alone use it as an insult).
"WHERE WAS THE CONTROL GROUP?who says where one group lived was not hotter than the other and had to use more AC?
This was a within groups (really within household) study, a control group is not needed. It was comparing House A's Energy consumption at Time A, to House A's energy consumption at Time B, after a specific stimuli was applied. Control is not necessary. We know the stimuli will do something, we just want to know how much and if that change is affected by another unchanged variable (political affiliation). Additionally, because it was within household (House A compared to House A), it doesn't matter where they lived, or what equipment they had in comparison to House B. House A and House B are not being compared.
"this is by far the worst of the worst. for ANYONE to call this a studdy needs to back to school."
I beg to differ. You're use of grammar, spelling, syntax, and lack of statistical knowledge shows who really needs to go back to school. I'm sure your local community college offers great courses in both English, and Elementary Statistics. Please enroll and be informed.
I fight tooth and nail to
I fight tooth and nail to lower my energy usage. Anytime it's brought up to the landlord he immediately assume it's a cost issue. We've tried mentioning that there is more cost than just monetary considerations but are met with blank stares and sooth reassurances as if we just arrived on planet earth today.
Which makes me wonder if there wasn't more accountability in ensuring energy efficiency of rental properties across the board we might see a boon to both the climate change initiatives and the economy since more people (especially those of lower incomes) would have more money in there pocket each month.
As it stands now you need to have a lot of assets and resource yourself before you can afford to save resources. It's a lot like how the cheapest calories in the stores are also the worst for you, the net effect being the poor are harmed to a higher degree than the wealthy.
I dunno, just my ramble for the day I guess.
So basically Conservatives
So basically Conservatives aren't very conservative? Color me surprised.