EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS (2): Box 4-1
Box 4-1 _____________________________________________________
Attitudes
versus Barriers to Action:-
Energy Conservation in Massachusetts, 1980
Energy Conservation in Massachusetts, 1980
In the
summer of 1980, a period of serious national concern about energy
conservation and rapidly rising energy prices, one of the authors and his
colleagues conducted a statewide survey of energy conservation activities
in Massachusetts (Black, Stern, and Elworth, 1985). We surveyed a random
sample of the households served by the state's five major electric utility companies,
and received responses from 478 households across the state. We tried to explain
why households differed in what they had done to conserve energy
and particularly, to see how much internal psychological factors, such as attitudes and
beliefs, mattered in comparison with external factors such as income,
home ownership, household size, and the like. We examined four classes of
energy-saving activities: major investments (such as
insulating walls and ceilings, adding storm windows, or making improvements
to furnaces), low-cost investments (such as caulking, weather stripping, or fixing
leaky hot water faucets), minor curtailments (such as turning off heat
in unoccupied rooms or lowering the temperature of home hot water), and
changes in indoor temperature. Households were asked which
energy-saving activities they had undertaken, and they also responded
to numerous questions about their energy attitudes and beliefs, household composition,
income and energy expenditures, and the structures of their homes
and heating systems (such as number of rooms, heating fuel used, and ability to
control heat room-by-room). The attitude questions tapped respondents'
feelings of personal obligation—given U.S. energy problems at the time—to use less
energy and to use it more efficiently.
When
we analyzed our results statistically, this is what we found: Generally
speaking, as the kind of energy-saving activity went from easy and
inexpensive
(changing temperature settings) to difficult and expensive (insulation and
major furnace repairs), attitudes and beliefs became less and less
important as predictors of behavior. The key results are shown on the
bottom line of Table 4-1 on page 78. The numbers are based on a statistical
technique known as regression analysis, the details of which are
beyond the scope of our discussion here. In intuitive terms, however,
the numbers on the bottom row indicate the strength of the relationship between people's pro-conservation
attitudes and the number of conservation actions they took (technically, the
boldface entries are the percentages of total explained variance in conservation
actions accounted for by attitudes and beliefs). A high number indicates that
respondents who had strong pro-conservation attitudes tended to take
more energy conservation actions than respondents with weaker pro-conservation
attitudes; a low number indicates little relationship between
the strength
of respondents' pro-conservation attitudes and the number of conservation actions they
took. As the bottom row of the table shows, strength of pro-conservation
attitudes correlated highly with the number of temperature-change actions taken, less
highly with the number of minor curtailments made, less still with the
number of low-cost investment actions taken, and least with the number of
major investments made in energy efficiency. Relevant attitude and
belief items from our survey are shown on the second row of the table.
To restate our main findings: The more difficult and expensive the
conservation action, the less people's attitudes and beliefs related to
whether or not they performed the action.
These
findings strongly suggest that external barriers and constraints set
limits on what can be accomplished by changing peoples' attitudes. The
higher the barriers—expense, inconvenience, technical difficulty, and
so on—the less effect pro-environmental attitudes have on behavior. It follows
that inducing pro-environmental attitudes will have little effect on expensive
or difficult
behaviors unless the external barriers can be lowered.
Komentar
Posting Komentar