Who we a re Pr ofe ssor Uwe Dulle c k Pr ofe ssor Re be kah - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Pro fe sso r Uwe Dulle c k & Pro fe sso r Re b e ka h Russe ll-Be nne tt

Hug, Nudge , Shove or Smac k?

T e sting appro ac he s to e nab ling c o nsume r e ne rg y use b e havio ur c hang e :

Me tho d

F unde d by

Who we a re

Pr

• fe ssor

Uwe Dulle c k

Be ha vio ura l E c o no mic s Pro fe sso r o f E c o no mic s, QUT Qld Be ha vio ura l E c o no mic s Gro up (QuBE ) Ho n. Pro fe sso r o f Be ha vio ura l E c o no mic s, Cra wfo rd Sc ho o l o f Pub lic Po lic y ANU

Pr

• fe ssor

Re be kah Russe ll- Be nne tt

So c ia l Ma rke ting a nd Co nsume r Psyc ho lo g y Pro fe sso r o f Ma rke ting QUT Busine ss Sc ho o l Adjunc t Pro fe sso r, Na tio na l Unive rsity o f I re la nd, Ga lwa y Ste e ring Co mmitte e Me mb e r, GE E R

Age nda and Pur pose of the Se ssion

 12.30-12.50pm: I

ntro duc tio ns

 12.50-1.00pm: Brie f Ba c kg ro und to the Pro je c t  1.00-2.30pm: I

nte ra c tive Disc ussio n

 We lc o me to tho se who also atte nde d the

e arlie r se ssio n!

Introduc tions

Who is in the ro o m? Wha t is yo ur inte re st in to da y’ s se ssio n?

Ba c kg round to the Proje c t

Re se a rc h Que stio ns

What we know

• T

he fo ur po lic y le ve rs c a n b e suc c e ssful a t a ffe c ting b e ha vio ur c ha ng e

What we don’t know

• Ho w (diffe re nt type s o f)

c o nsume rs will re spo nd to e a c h o f the fo ur le ve rs whe n it c o me s to T

• U

pric ing

Re se ar c h Que stions

• R

Q1: Ho w do c o nsume rs re spo nd to

e a c h o f the fo ur po lic y le ve rs?

R Q2: Ho w do e s the initia l e ffe c t de c a y

• ve r time fo r e a c h le ve r?

R Q3: Ho w do individua l diffe re nc e s

influe nc e c o nsume r re spo nse s to the le ve rs?

Re se a rc h Me tho d

E xpe r ime ntal L ab De sign

• Ab stra c t pub lic g o o d g a me
• Que stio nna ire inc luding individua l diffe re nc e s

like pro so c ia l pro pe nsity

Sample

• 160 pe o ple , g e ne ra l po pula tio n
• 10 g ro ups o f 16 pe o ple (4 g ro ups pe r se ssio n)

Da ta Cle a ning a nd Ana lysis

• T
• T

e sts a nd ANOVAs – Whic h le ve r is mo st influe ntia l, Ho w d o e s this d e c a y o ve r time

• ANCOVA a nd F

a c to ria l ANOVA – Whic h ind ivid ua l d iffe re nc e s influe nc e the e ffe c tive ne ss o f the le ve rs fo r e nc o ura g ing pro so c ia l b e ha vio ur?

E le c tric ity pric ing a nd c o nsume rs

 E

le c tric ity pric e s a re inc re a sing

 T

he re is inc re a se d pre ssure o n c o nsume rs

 We c a n e ithe r

influe nc e the de ma nd

• r the supply side

So urc e : Da ta fro m ABS, Gra ph fro m ACCC: Re tail E le c tric ity Pric ing I nq uiry – Pre liminary Re po rt, 22 Se pte mb e r 2017

Consume r E le c tr ic ity Pr ic e Inde x, Infla tion Adjuste d

Be ha vio ura l E c o no mic s: I nsig hts a nd L imita tio ns

 De faults and E

ffic ie nc y

E ffic ie nt (CF L B) b ulb s a re ke pt 80% o f the time whe n the y a re insta lle d a s the de fa ult, whe re a s tra ditio na l I L B (inc a nde sc e nt) b ulb s a re ke pt 56% o f the time (Dinne r e t a l., 2011) – US study.

“De fault is an implic it e ndor se me nt”

(Sunste in, 2016; Ma dria n & She a , 2001; Mc K e nzie e t a l, 2006).

Be ha vio ura l E c o no mic s: I nsig hts a nd L imita tio ns

 Smar

t Me te r s

E U ta rg e t o f 80% o f ho me s with sma rt me te rs (dire c tive 2009/ 72/ E C).

 Oe la nde r a nd T

ho rg e rso n (2013) sho w o pt

• ut fra me le a ds to a 50% hig he r upta ke in

sma rt me te rs tha n info rma tio n a lo ne .

 Sunste in (2016), Jo hnso n a nd Go ldste in, se e

ine rtia o r pro c ra stina tio n a s a ma jo r re a so n.

Be ha vio ura l E c o no mic s: I nsig hts a nd L imita tio ns – Hug s & Sma c ks

 L

• ss a ve rsion

Ge rma n da ta (I nfa s E ne rg ie mo nito r, 2012) sho ws ta riff switc he s a re ra re – e ve n if the a lte rna tive is “g re e n a nd c he a pe r”.

 Ho w a pric e is pre se nte d ma tte rs – T

ha le r e t a l. (1994), Mc Gra w e t a l. (2010).

 Bro wn e t a l. (2013) – pe o ple g o with the

de fa ult unle ss it ma ke s the m to o c o ld, pa y to o muc h.

T he E thic s o f E ne rg y Nudg e s

 Sunste in (2016):

 We lfa re , ne t-b e ne fits: Gre e n

De fa ults vs. “b e ne fits, a s judg e d b y the mse lve s”

 Dig nity/ Auto no my: Ac tive Cho ic e .  Se lf g o ve rnme nt – trusting

institutio ns: E va lua te d so lutio ns a s de fa ults.

E le c tric ity usa g e is a so c ia l dile mma ?

 A ‘public good’ socia

ial d dil ilemma is where an individual must decide whether to contribute to a common resource (Dawes, 1980).

 Individual choices generally are made based on intuitive

and implicit judgments concerning short-term a and nd long ng- term be bene nefits, and the many competitive options available (Rothschild, 2001).

 Prosocia

ial P Persona nali lities influence behaviour (McDougall, 1908). Prosocial P Prope pensit ity, refers to the individuals predisposition to engage with prosocial behaviour. The he C Cons nsumer m mus ust de decide ide; Will I redu duce my own c cons nsumptio ion, inc ncurring ing a pe personal c cost, t to contribu ibute t to a common resource ( (Dawes, 1 , 1980).

Wha t is a pub lic g o o d g a me ?

T e rmino lo g y

 E

ndo wme nt- re fe rs to the sum o f 10 to ke ns e a c h pla ye r

is g ive n to use during e a c h ro und

 Co o pe r

ating- hig h c o ntrib utio ns to the pub lic g o o d

c o rre spo nd to a c ting pro -e nviro nme nta lly, a nd in turn re duc e d e le c tric ity c o nsumptio n

 Co ntr

ibutio n- dire c tly tra nsla te s a s e le c tric ity

c o nsumptio n b e ha vio ur

Ac hie ving high le ve ls of c ontribution by the group is c onside re d c o- ope ration. High le ve ls of c oope ration are the ultimate goal of the public good game .

Po ssib le 2 x 2

Choic e (re stric te d/ fre e ) a nd Outc ome (re wa rd/ punishme nt)

(Ac tive De c ision) F r e e c hoic e

I nc e ntive re wa rd

Hug

F re e c ho ic e o f E CU le ve ls Re wa rd o f a dditio na l $ e ndo wme nt

Smac k

F re e c ho ic e o f E CU le ve ls Punishme nt o f lo ss o f $ e ndo wme nt Disinc e ntive Punishme nt

Nudge

Re stric te d c ho ic e o f E CU le ve ls Re wa rd o f a dditio na l $ e ndo wme nt

Shove

Re stric te d c ho ic e o f E CU le ve ls Punishme nt o f lo ss o f $ e ndo wme nt

Re str ic te d c hoic e (Passive De c ision )

Que stio n: Ho w do yo u think the se finding s mig ht he lp to o pe ra tio na lise the nudg e , hug , smac k and sho ve in the e ne rg y se c to r?

Ho w do we c re a te hug s, nudg e s, sho ve s, a nd sma c ks?

Ba se line : Pa yoff = (10 – x)+ [ ¼ *(x+y)]*1.6

Standar d T r e atme nt

Hug : Pa yoff = (10 – x)+0.1x+ [¼*(x+y)]*1.6

Re wa rd fo r c o ntrib utio n

Nudg e : Pa yoff = (10 – x)+ [¼ *(x+y)]*1.6

Auto -se le c te d c o ntrib utio n a mo unt

Shove : Pa yoff = (10 – x)+ [¼ *(x+y)]*1.6

Cho ic e re stric tio n

Sma c k: Pa yoff = (10 – x) * 0.9 + [¼* (x+y)]*1.6

Punishme nt fo r no n- c o ntrib utio n

Que stio n: Wha t a re the e xisting le ve rs tha t yo u a re a wa re o f tha t e nc o ura g e c o nsume rs to c ha ng e the ir e ne rg y b e ha vio urs? Ho w a re c o nsume rs re spo nding ?

De pe nde nt Va ria b le s

 Co nsume r re spo nse s:

 Willing ne ss to c o nse rve e ne rg y (kwh) Que stio n: wha t o the r va ria b le s wo uld yo u like to b e a b le to influe nc e ?

Da ta Co lle c tio n

T wo sta g e s a re pro po se d, a llo wing us to te st the ro b ustne ss o f the re se a rc h in two e nviro nme nts, b uilding the e vide nc e b a se fo r kno wle dg e a nd me tho d a t o nc e (pro viding use ful insig hts into c o nsume r b e ha vio ur and the b e st pla tfo rm to use ).

 Stage 1: QuBE

L a b a t QUT (in pe rso n)

 Stage 2: Online surve y using pa rtne r Rub in8

 http:/ / www.rub in8.c o m.a u/

Que stio n: wha t do yo u think o f the o nline vs the

• ffline a ppro a c h? Wha t pe rc e nta g e o f sa mple

sho uld b e in e a c h?

Sa mpling a nd Re c ruitme nt

 We c a n c o lle c t o nline o r o ffline  Se e king g e ne ra l po pula tio n a dults

(diffe re nt fro m the stude nt sa mple s usua lly use d)

Que stio n: wha t sa mpling c rite ria a re c ritic ally impo rta nt?

E xpe rime nta l Pro c e ss

Gro ups o f 4 pla ye rs (16 pe o ple a t a time ) simulta ne o usly Re a d instruc tio ns, T e st q ue stio ns Pla y 16 ro unds

• f the g a me

T he n c o mple te surve y – de mo g ra phic s a nd mo de ra ting va ria b le s

Ho w do e s the g a me run?

Intro d uc tio n Sc re e n Co ntro l Che c k Que stio ns Co ntrib ute Sc re e n Ro und F e e d b a c k Sc re e n Surve y Pa yme nt Pa g e

An e xa mple

Que stio n: Are the instruc tio ns c le a r a nd intuitive fo r the e xpe rime nt?

I nstruc tio ns

Que stio n: T he fig ure o f 160% c o me s fro m the lite ra ture …is this re a listic ?

Unde rsta nding o f Que stio ns

I ma g ine in ne ig hb o urho o d 1, the se we re the c o ntrib utio ns:

 9  5  3  5

If we a dd the se to g e the r, we g e t 20 to ke ns fo r the ne ig hb o urho o d to sha re . T he inve stme nt me a ns this to ta l g o e s up b y 160%, me a ning the ne ig hb o urho o d a c tua lly ha s 32 to ke ns. Whe n we divide 32 b y 4 pe o ple , this me a ns tha t e a c h pe r

son g e ts 8 toke ns ba c k.

Re sults

T hanks for playing in r

• und 3!

Yo u c o ntrib ute d: 9 to ke ns Othe r pla ye rs c o ntrib ute d: 5 to ke ns 3 to ke ns 5 to ke ns T

• ta l c o ntrib utio n:

20 to ke ns

Your e ar nings in this r

• und:

8 toke ns

(to tal ne ig hb o urho o d to ke ns x 160% and divide d b y numb e r o f playe rs)

Your total toke ns le ft: 9 toke ns

(yo ur share o f ne ig hb o urho o d to ke ns + to ke ns yo u have n’ t spe nt ye t)

Ove rvie w o f Re sults fro m Prio r Study

T he lo ng -te rm e ffe c tive ne ss o f the sho ve a ppro a c h T he sho rt-te rm e ffe c tive ne ss o f the hug a ppro a c h T he ine ffe c tive ne ss o f the nudg e a nd sma c k T he mo de ra ting e ffe c ts o f pro - so c ia l pro pe nsity in e le c tric ity c o nsumptio n. Ma le s a nd fe ma le s re spo nd diffe re ntly to inte rve ntio n a ppro a c he s. Pr ac tic al Implic ations for Polic y De ve lopme nt in the Pr

• E

nvir

• nme ntal Spac e
• Na nny Sta te vs

F re e Cho ic e

• De la ying the

Sa tura tio n Po int

• Se g me nta tio n

So urc e : Orr, Russe ll-Be nne tt & Dulle c k, 2017

T he Shove is the most e ffe c tive a ppr

• a c h to

be ha viour c ha ng e for e le c tr ic ity c onsumption.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

A VERA G E C O NT RIBUT IO NS- DEC A Y EFFEC T (RO UNDS 1 - 1 6 )

Ba se line Hug Nudg e Sho ve Sma c k

Ke y Points

T he d a ta sa ys:

• In ro und 1, the sho ve

tre a tme nt ma ke s the hig he st c o ntrib utio ns o f a ll fo ur tre a tme nts.

• In ro und 1, the hug

tre a tme nt ma ke s hig he r c o ntrib utio ns tha n the b a se line tre a tme nt.

• In ro und 16, sho ve

c o ntrib utio ns we re no t sta tistic a lly d iffe re nt c o mpa re d to ro und 1.

• In ro und 16, c o ntrib utio ns

we re sta tistic a lly sma lle r in the hug tre a tme nt c o mpa re d to ro und 1. Wha t this me a ns…

• T

he sho ve is the mo st e ffe c tive a ppro a c h to a c hie ving susta ine d re d uc e d e le c tric ity c o nsumptio n.

• T

he hug pro vid e s o nly te mpo ra ry b e ha vio ur c ha ng e in re d uc ing e le c tric ity c o nsumptio n.

• T

he nud g e a nd sma c k a re no t e ffe c tive a ppro a c he s to a c hie ving re d uc e d e le c tric ity c o nsumptio n.

Ho w do we imple me nt hug , nudg e , sma c k, sho ve ?

Que stio n: Ho w c lo se ly do yo u think the e xpe rime nts ma tc h wha t ha s b e e n do ne ? Wha t is ne w o r diffe re nt?

Ba se line

 Optio ns: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9  De fa ult: No t a pplie d  F

ina nc ia l I nc e ntive : No ne

Hug – a re wa rd

 Optio ns: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9  De fa ult: No t a pplie d  F

ina nc ia l inc e ntive : Po sitive

Nudg e – g e ntle push in the rig ht dire c tio n

 Optio ns: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9  De fa ult: Auto ma tic a lly la nds o n 7  F

ina nc ia l inc e ntive : No ne

Sma c k – a punishme nt

 Optio ns: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9  De fa ult: No t a pplie d  F

ina nc ia l inc e ntive : Ne g a tive

Sho ve – a re stric tio n o f c ho ic e

 Optio ns: 5, 7, 9  De fa ult: Re mo ve s lo we r o ptio ns e ntire ly  F

ina nc ia l inc e ntive : No ne

Que stio n: T he stude nt re sults indic a te d the sho ve wo rke d b e st BUT wa s the b o tto m le ve l re stric tio n to o hig h – wa s it re a listic (e xte rna l va lidity)?

I ndividua l diffe re nc e s -o ptio ns

 Wha t do we think mig ht influe nc e the e ffe c t

• f the le ve rs o n c o nsume r re spo nse s?

 So c ia l/ e nviro nme nta l c o nsc io usne ss  De mo g ra phic s – g e nde r, a g e , inc o me  Po litic a l pe rsua sio n (c itize n type )  Struc tura l e ne rg y e ffic ie nc y to o ls e .g . so la r PV,

b a tte rie s

 L

e a rne d/ Pe rc e ive d he lple ssne ss

 Se lf e ffic a c y  Pe rc e ive d b e ha vio ura l c o ntro l

Que stio n: wha t o the r individua l diffe re nc e s do yo u think a re inte re sting in this c o nte xt?

Additio na l De pe nde nt Va ria b le s

 Po we r a nd c o ntro l  Po litic a l le a ning s  Othe rs?

Re visiting o ur Disc ussio ns



Ho w c lo se ly d o yo u think the e xpe rime nts ma tc h wha t ha s b e e n d o ne ? Wha t is ne w o r d iffe re nt?



Wha t a re the e xisting le ve rs tha t yo u a re a wa re o f tha t e nc o ura g e c o nsume rs to c ha ng e the ir e ne rg y b e ha vio urs? Ho w a re c o nsume rs re spo nd ing ?



De pe nd e nt va ria b le s: wha t o the r va ria b le s wo uld yo u like to b e a b le to influe nc e ?



Wha t d o yo u think o f the o nline vs the o ffline a ppro a c h? Wha t pe rc e nta g e o f sa mple sho uld b e in e a c h?



Wha t sa mpling c rite ria a re c ritic ally impo rta nt?



Are the instruc tio ns c le a r a nd intuitive fo r the e xpe rime nt?



T he e xpe rime nts: T he fig ure o f 160% c o me s fro m the lite ra ture …is this re a listic ?



Ho w d o yo u think the se find ing s mig ht he lp to o pe ra tio na lise the nudg e , hug , smac k and sho ve in the e ne rg y se c to r?



T he stud e nt re sults ind ic a te d the sho ve wo rke d b e st BUT wa s the b o tto m le ve l re stric tio n to o hig h – wa s it re a listic (e xte rna l va lid ity)?



Wha t o the r ind ividua l d iffe re nc e s d o yo u think a re inte re sting in this c o nte xt?

Ne xt Ste ps

 Disc ussio n to da y  Sub missio n o f dra ft re se a rc h pla n  E

thic a l c le a ra nc e , pre pa ra tio n, re c ruitme nt

 F

inal r e se ar c h plan (Stage 3)

 T

he n o n to Sta g e 4: Co nduc ting the e xpe rime nts

T ha nk yo u!