Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Domestic energy conservation motivation

Domestic energy conservation motivation:
How can domestic energy conservation be motivated and behaviour changed?

Overview

Scenario Picture a young couple residing in a modern apartment complex, [grammar?] who are taken aback by their monthly energy bills being significantly greater than anticipated. While the couple knows that basic methods, such as turning off appliances when out of use or adjusting cooling and heating levels, lead to reduced costs, these methods are rarely practised. Daily routines, demanding work timetables, and sometimes forgetting lead to unchanged energy use. The couple want to improve their energy efficiency but is [grammar?] unsure how to start. This situation highlights a frequent issue in home energy conservation: despite people understanding both the financial and environmental advantages, consistent behavioural change can be hard to accomplish.

In residential environments, energy conservation isn’t solely a technical problem, but fundamentally a behavioural one. Homeowners typically experience higher perceived control over their energy use habits, whereas apartment residents frequently feel they have less authority over their usage patterns. This lack of control is attributed to their inability to independently perform upgrades with limitations on infrastructure, for example, pre-installed appliances and shared utilities. Moreover, social and psychological factors contribute to the complexity of behaviour change. The extent to which people feel inspired to change their energy consumption can be shaped by social norms and comparison among peers, while monetary incentives offer an external benefit that may create temporary behavioural shifts. Concurrently, established habits and cognitive biases, such as assuming one’s personal impact has a minimal effect in the wider environmental scope, poses a significant barrier. These dynamics highlight the importance of perceiving residential energy consumption beyond economic or environmental terms, but also as an issue in motivation and emotion. Through psychological theory and empirical research, this chapter clarifies the reasons individuals frequently struggle to conserve energy despite its obvious advantages, and how behavioural strategies can effectively foster lasting change.

Focus questions

How do habits and daily routines influence energy use?
What role do peer behaviour and social norms play in motivating energy saving?
What are the most effective incentives: financial, environmental, or social, for promoting sustained behaviour changes?
How can energy-conserving behaviours be encouraged in rented or shared living spaces?

Why Domestic Energy Conservation Matters

Domestic energy conservation is a key factor impacting both, [grammar?] the domestic welfare of households and environmental viability. Comprehending the importance of conservation necessitates an examination of its effects on the environment, monetary repercussions on individuals and groups, and the psychological hurdles that commonly impede people from adopting energy-saving behaviours.

Environmental impact

Globally, domestic energy consumption is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly where electricity production is derived from fossil fuels (IPCC, 2022). Consequently, daily household practices like heating, cooling and appliance operation, when combined are a contributor to climate change (Dietz et al., 2009).

When extended to millions of households, even minimal cutbacks by individuals can lead to a considerable effort to decrease this. It has been demonstrated that a considerable cutback in national energy demand can result from large-scale integration of efficient lighting and lowering standby power use (Abrahamse et al., 2005).

Increasing the public understanding of the correlation between household energy consumption and global ecological change is therefore necessary. Through employing behavioural interventions, such as individualised feedback or visual tools (for example, smart meters and energy reports), households can achieve a tangible understanding of their energy consumption, developing a stronger incentive to encourage action[factual?].

Economic incentives

Direct economic gain for households results from energy conservation. When energy consumption is decreased, electricity expenses are reduced, a matter especially important to households struggling with financial strain. Communicating energy conservation as a means to financial gain provides an effective incentive, particularly when combined with consistent feedback regarding the process (Frederiks, Stenner, & Hobman, 2015).

Incentive programs further enhance these effects. Incentive programs such as refunds for buying energy-efficient appliances, price reductions from off-peak energy use, or recognition schemes that acknowledge reduced consumption all encourage behavioural change (Gillingham & Tsvetanov, 2019). Of particular importance is presenting information positively, highlighting what households stand to gain, rather than what they may forfeit, this typically strengthens drive and motivation fostering longer-lasting energy conservation habits (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Psychological barriers to change

Although beneficial, consistent energy conservation remains difficult for many households. This phenomenon arises largely due to energy consumption being deeply rooted in habit and unconscious activity. Actions such as switching off lights, regulating thermostats, or disconnecting appliances commonly demands a shift in ingrained habits (Verplanken & Wood, 2006).

Cognitive biases are also influential, with optimism bias, a type of cognitive distortion, causing individuals to downplay and undervalue their personal contribution to energy wastage, perceiving their actions as insignificant in comparison to emissions from industrial or state-level sources (Weinstein, 1980). In shared living situations, such as rented homes or apartments, a lack of direct visibility or control over energy consumption can lead to a reduced sense of responsibility among residents (Nyborg & Rege, 2003). The challenge is further compounded by a lack of awareness of where energy consumption is highest (for example, heating and cooling systems versus minor appliances)(Karlin, Zinger, & Ford, 2015).

Overcoming these psychological hinderances is vital for successful interventions. Policymakers and practitioners can aid individuals in bridging the gap between positive intentions and consistent actions by addressing behavioural patterns, correcting misconceptions and highlighting energy usage.

Table 1. Environmental, economic, and psychological dimensions of domestic energy conservation
Dimensions	Key issues	Practical implications
Environmental impact	Household energy use contributes significantly to global CO₂ emissions. Even small reductions across households can collectively reduce environmental impact.	Encourage awareness of household contributions to climate change. Use personalised feedback (e.g., smart meters, energy reports) to make environmental benefits tangible.
Economic incentives	Energy conservation reduces household bills. Financial benefits can reinforce intrinsic motivation if framed positively. Incentive schemes (rebates, discounts, recognition) increase engagement.	Provide clear feedback about financial savings. Design programs that highlight gains rather than losses. Use immediate rewards where possible to sustain motivation.
Psychological barriers	Habits and routines dominate daily energy use. Optimism bias and diffusion of responsibility reduce perceived personal impact. Lack of knowledge about high-energy activities hinders effective change.	Target habitual behaviours through reminders and prompts. Correct misconceptions about the value of individual action. Improve energy literacy by highlighting which behaviours have the greatest impact.

Theories of motivation relevant to energy conservation

Grasping the reasons why households adopt or forgo energy-saving behaviours demands utilising psychological theories of motivation. Multiple conceptual models provide valuable insight into the influences of values, attitudes and perceived responsibility on energy consumption. Self-Determination Theory, The Theory of Planned Behaviour, and the Norm Activation Model are three particularly significant theories. Collectively, these approaches elucidate both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators, underscore the significance of social norms, and address the ethical dimensions of environmentally conscious behaviour.

Self-Determination Theory

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) highlights the inherent motivation in encouraging sustainable behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Behaviours that resonate with one’s personal values are, according to SDT, more persistently upheld then actions motivated solely by external incentives. The theory posits that motivation is driven by three core psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ibid).

In the context of energy conservation, autonomy pertains to individual’s perception of having significant options regarding their energy consumption, competence denotes their self-assurance in successfully reducing their electricity usage, and relatedness indicates a feeling of being bonded with others who hold similar objectives (for example, community-led sustainability initiatives). Upon satisfying these requirements, households are more inclined to embrace energy-conserving behaviours, as they perceive themselves as personally responsible and capable of creating change. Empirical evidence suggests that individuals who perceive energy efficiency as part of their identity or as a moral obligation are more prone to maintain conservation behaviours, even when financial incentives are absent (Pelletier et al., 1998).

Theory of Planned Behaviour

Among models extensively applied for forecasting pro-environmental behaviours, such as deducing domestic energy use, is The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991). TPB postulates that intentions are the primary determinants of a behaviour, and that these intentions are comprised of three components: attitudes (which are the individual’s positive or negative assessment of energy conservation), subjective norms (the perceived social expectation to reduce energy consumption), and perceived behavioural control (PBC) (the conviction about one’s ability to engage in energy-efficient behaviours).

It is repeatedly demonstrated through empirical evidence that heightened ecological awareness, coupled with favourable societal norms, raises the propensity for conservation efforts (Bamberg & Möser, 2007). An example of this being, where households are equipped with smart-meter feedback, residents feel a heightened sense of control, in turn leading to their commitment and a tangible decrease in energy consumption (Karlin, Zinger, & Ford, 2015). Despite its merits, however, TPB has been criticised for its inability to adequately explain the disparity between intentions and actual behaviour, which occurs when individuals express their intentions to save energy but do not perform these behaviours reliably due to situation restrictions or established habits (Steg & Vlek, 2009).

Norm Activation Model

The Norm Activation Model (NAM) emphasises the moral and altruistic drivers of behaviour (Schwartz, 1977). According to NAM, individuals are more inclined to undertake actions beneficial to society or the environment when they:

Become aware of the negative consequences of inaction (awareness of consequences), and
Accept personal responsibility for those consequences (ascription of responsibility).

In the context of energy conservation, initiatives stressing the shared advantages of reducing energy consumption (such as “minor efforts result in major environmental savings”) can engage individual ethical values, prompting people to act from a sense of moral responsibility. Research indicates that promoting a sense of duty and consciousness are key in altering behaviour, chiefly when paired with data into one’s own impacts (Harland, Staats, & Wilke, 2007). For instance, community-centred initiatives advocating for social responsibility paired with hands-on resources have yielded more enduring results in comparison to campaigns based only on information (Ibid.).

Comparative Insights

Each theory highlights different dimensions of motivation. SDT provides the rationale for why behaviours driven by intrinsic motivations are more enduring, while TPB depicts the influences of social norms and perceived control on intentions, and NAM addresses the moral responsibility stemming from value-based conduct. The synthesis of these theories points to the necessity of multi-faceted interventions for domestic energy conservation: combining the internalisation of values (SDT), reinforcing intentions through feedback and social benchmarking (TPB), and ethical calls for communal accountability (NAM).

Behaviour change strategies

To achieve meaningful energy conservation, it is necessary to progress beyond being informed, to instead focus the impetus into lasting changes in behaviour. To encourage a reduction in the consumption of energy among households, various approaches rooted in motivation psychology and behavioural economics are useful. These approaches include established goals and the provision of feedback, utilising social norms, the impact of peer influence, and creating incentives and penalties that influence behaviour.

Goal setting and feedback

Goal setting is a well-established mechanism for behaviour change. As per Locke & Latham’s (2002) Goal-Setting Theory, individuals with clearly defined and measurable objectives show increased commitment and enhanced performance compared to those with ambiguous aims. When aiming to save energy, households that establish specific goals, such as reducing monthly electricity use by 10%, tend to adjust their behaviours more readily than those provided with general guidance.

For goal setting to be effective, feedback is heavily relied on as it enables households to track their advancements and adapt as needed (Karlin, Zinger, & Ford, 2015). With the advancement of smart meters and companion mobile applications, households can observe the direct impact of their behaviours in real time. This feedback mechanism allows for both the self-monitoring of energy consumption and a comparative analysis against the consumption of energy in neighbouring homes. Evidence indicates that both mechanisms decrease energy consumption, with comparative feedback playing a notable role in sustaining behaviour changes long-term (Delmas, Fischlein, & Asensio, 2013).

Social norms and peer influence

Human behaviour is profoundly shaped by perceptions of others’ activities, a principle that extends to household energy consumption. Interventions centred on social norms highlight the comparison between an individual’s actions and those of their peers, promoting conformity to the perceived standard (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990).

Large-scale programs such as Opower demonstrate the power of social comparisons. Through implementing the distribution of routine energy reports that contrasted household consumption with that of homes in similar neighbourhoods, Opower saw a decrease of 2-3% in energy consumption among millions of households (Allcott, 2011). When expanded, these seemingly minor reductions lead to considerable environmental and financial impacts. Behavioural changes can be further solidified through community-based initiatives, such as local contests or official acknowledgement for households conserving electricity, utilising the power of common identity to strengthen changes in behaviour (Abrahamse & Steg, 2013).

Incentives and disincentives

Although intrinsic drive is vital for lasting sustainability, external motivators, including incentives, also affect household energy habits. Among the positive incentives are financial reimbursement for buying energy-efficient appliances, reduced prices for participating in energy demand-reduction schemes, and public appreciation for conservation behaviours. Such initiatives can diminish obstacles for uptake and motivate individuals to alter their behaviour (Gillingham & Tsvetanov, 2019).

Negative motivators can also prove successful, especially when clearly associating elevated usage with rising costs. Systems with escalating pricing models, which charge more for energy as consumption increases, deter wasteful use (Frederiks, Stenner, & Hobman, 2015). Though not widely favoured, sanctions for over consuming energy can encourage households to re-evaluate their high-consumption habits.

Notably, empirical evidence suggests that instant rewards are more efficient in prompting behavioural change than deferred rewards (Attari, Krantz, & Weber, 2016). For instance, immediate bill reduction for decreased energy consumption during peak hours, is a stronger incentive than reimbursements received much later. It is important, however, that incentive schemes are carefully structured to prevent them from eroding intrinsic motivation: If individuals observe conservation as only a means to gain external compensation, their efforts may stop if the encouragements cease (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999).

Table 2. Behaviour change strategies for domestic energy conservation
Strategy	Underlying mechanism	Example	Evidence of effectiveness
Goal setting and feedback	Specific, measurable goals increase motivation; feedback allows monitoring and adjustment.	Smart meters providing real-time data and mobile apps tracking daily usage.	Goal-setting theory predicts higher commitment (Locke & Latham, 2002). Meta-analysis shows feedback reduces energy use by 7–12% (Karlin, Zinger, & Ford, 2015).
Social norms and peer influence	Behaviour aligns with perceived norms; social comparison motivates conformity.	Opower energy reports comparing household use with neighbours.	Opower program reduced consumption by 2–3% across millions of households (Allcott, 2011). Community competitions also strengthen peer influence (Abrahamse & Steg, 2013).
Incentives and disincentives	Rewards encourage adoption; penalties discourage overuse; immediacy of incentives strengthens impact.	Rebates for efficient appliances, tiered electricity pricing, and instant bill credits for off-peak savings.	Rebates and tiered pricing influence consumer choices (Gillingham & Tsvetanov, 2019). Immediate rewards more effective than delayed (Attari, Krantz, & Weber, 2016). Overuse penalties reduce demand but risk negative reactions.

Case studies and applications

[Include an introductory paragraph before branching into sub-sections]

Successful campaigns (e.g., Opower)

The Opower program in the United States is among the most significant large-scale efforts to conserve energy at home. Through partnerships with utility firms, Opower issues detailed Home Energy Reports, which offered tailored insights into power usage comparative to nearby households. The Home Energy Report’s[grammar?] were rooted in Social Comparison Theory (Cialdini et al., 1990) and emphasised if households were doing “better” or “worse” than the average.

The Opower program resulted in roughly 2-3% decreases in residential electricity use, a modest seeming figure that nevertheless, led to considerable energy conservation across millions of households (Allcott, 2011). Critically, the reports integrated a range of approaches for altering behaviour, such as goal setting, tailored feedback, and comparative data. This multi-faceted approach employs principles from The Planned Theory of Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) and the Norm Activation Model (Schwartz, 1977), demonstrating how changes in perceived control, social norms and responsibility can collectively drive behaviour. Subsequent research proposes that these outcomes endured across time, implying that strengthening collective and personal motivations can foster lasting conservation behaviours (Brandon et al., 2017).

Community-based programs

In addition to extensive utility-led programs, community-based programs also illustrate the effectiveness of multi-strategy interventions. Local government and community-based organisations have promoted reduced consumption among households, through workshops, challenges and peer assistance programs. These programs are commonly dependent of [awkward expression?] social identity and peer influence, capitalising on the motivation individuals feel when they are acknowledged by their community or when they observe others acting similarly (Abrahamse & Steg, 2013).

An example of this is community energy competitions, where groups strive for the greatest decrease in energy consumption, [grammar?] this leverages the motivating power of peer comparison, while also providing performance feedback and at times financial incentives. Research indicates that these initiatives not only decrease consumption during they [spelling?] duration but also encourage lasting awareness and changes to household routines (Nolan et al., 2008). Whether through rewards or public acknowledgement, community recognition fosters a sense of belonging and duty, aligning with Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Comparative insights

These case studies illustrate that multi-strategy approaches are most effective. Opower combined social norms with feedback and goal setting, while community led programs integrated education, incentives and peer recognition. These two methods both demonstrate the necessity of addressing diverse sources of motivation, such as, intrinsic (personal responsibility and ethics), extrinsic (monetary incentives), and social (group expectations and approval). Strategies consistent with these psychological principles that target the multifaceted motivations of behaviour are more likely to achieve sustained change.

Quiz

Poll on Household Energy Saving Strategies

Which of these strategies do you think would be most effective in your home? (Select one and reflect on why.)

a) Using smart meters and daily feedback
b) Setting weekly energy-saving goals
c) Comparing your energy use with neighbours
d) Installing energy-efficient appliances without tracking usage

Imagine you want to reduce your household energy use. Which of these factors would most motivate you to change your behaviour? (Select one and reflect on why.)

a) Receiving regular feedback on your energy consumption
b) Competing with neighbours to use less energy
c) Financial incentives or rebates for energy-efficient appliances
d) Environmental concern and personal values

Conclusion

Domestic energy conservation is a behavioural and motivational challenge. Despite often understanding the financial and environmental advantages of consuming less, households require more than just knowledge for lasting change. Why these phenomena occur is highlighted by psychological theories: Self-Determination Theory explains the crucial step of adopting conservation as a personally valuable objective; the Theory of Planned Behaviour illustrates how attitudes, societal norms, and a sense of control are vital in forming intentions; and the Norm Activation Model indicates that a feeling of moral duty can lead to pro-social behaviours.

Evidence-based methods to change include feedback-driven goal setting, leveraging social norms, and through well-structured incentives. It is observed in studies, including Opower’s comprehensive energy reports and community programs, that multifaceted interventions produce the most sustained changes.

The main takeaway is that no sole motivative factor can be effective in isolation. Significant and lasting declines in domestic energy consumption are observed when initiatives synchronise with personal values, social norms and external resources. Through addressing habits, enhancing perceived control and emphasising both ethical and financial responsibility, households can be enabled to embrace energy conservation behaviours that are advantageous for themselves and the wider environment.

References

Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2013). Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1773–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.029

Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.002

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9–10), 1082–1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003

Attari, S. Z., Krantz, D. H., & Weber, E. U. (2016). Statements about climate policies: What makes them effective? Climatic Change, 138(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1714-z

Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002

Brandon, A., List, J. A., Metcalfe, R. D., Price, M. K., & Rundhammer, F. (2017). Testing for crowd out in social nudges: Evidence from a natural field experiment in the market for electricity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(8), 1361–1366. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1614893114

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627

Delmas, M. A., Fischlein, M., & Asensio, O. I. (2013). Information strategies and energy conservation behavior: A meta-analysis of experimental studies from 1975 to 2012. Energy Policy, 61, 729–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.109

Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce U.S. carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(44), 18452–18456. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908738106

Frederiks, E. R., Stenner, K., & Hobman, E. V. (2015). Household energy use: Applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, 1385–1394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.026

Gillingham, K., & Tsvetanov, T. (2019). Nudging energy efficiency audits: Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 96, 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2019.04.003

Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2007). Situational and personality factors as direct or personal norm mediated predictors of pro-environmental behaviour: Questions derived from Norm-Activation Theory. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(4), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701665058

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2022). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926

Karlin, B., Zinger, J. F., & Ford, R. (2015). The effects of feedback on energy conservation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1205–1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039650

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 913–923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208316691

Nyborg, K., & Rege, M. (2003). Does public policy crowd out private contributions to public goods? Public Choice, 115(3–4), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024285125129

Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., Green-Demers, I., Noels, K., & Beaton, A. M. (1998). Why are you doing things for the environment? The motivation toward the environment scale (MTES). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(5), 437–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01714.x

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221–279). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5

Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004

Verplanken, B., & Wood, W. (2006). Interventions to break and create consumer habits. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.25.1.90

Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 806–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.806

External links

Australian Government: Energy efficiency at home (Australian Government)
Opower energy saving programs (Opower)

	Ignoring electricity bills
	Tracking daily energy use with a smart meter
	Buying energy-efficient appliances but never checking usage
	Leaving appliances on standby

	Their favourite colour
	Perceived social norms about saving energy
	Whether their appliances are new
	The weather

	True
	False