Energy Research & Social Science 53 (2019) 34–46

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Research & Social Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss

Original research article

Bridging the electricity saving intention-behavior gap: A German field T

experiment with a smart meter website
⁎
Birgit Macka, , Karolin Tampe-Maia, Jens Kourosb, Frederick Rotha, Oliver Taubec, Eugen Dieschd
a
ZIRIUS Stuttgart Research Center for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies, University of Stuttgart, Seidenstr. 36, D-70174 Stuttgart, Germany
b
High Performance Computing Center Stuttgart (HLRS), Nobelstr. 19, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany
c
Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories, Survey Administration and Controlling, Central Coordination Unit, Wilhelmsplatz 3, D-96047 Bamberg, Germany
d
Department of Neurology, Section of Biomagnetism, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: We investigated whether a combination of prompted commitment, implementation information, and guided
Electricity saving process monitoring would facilitate bridging the intention-behavior gap in electricity saving. In a neighborhood
Smart meter interfaces supported action of new housing, user interaction with a smart meter web portal was analyzed and the effect of portal usage on
planning electricity consumption was evaluated. The information architecture of the web portal was designed following
Commitment
principles derived from a stage model of self-regulated behavioral change. The design focused on prompting
Process monitoring
commitment to saving tips and supporting their implementation. Users that committed themselves to at least one
saving tip were higher in pre-baseline goal intention than users that did not. The act of committing to saving tips,
together with continued self-monitoring of the process of tip implementation, was predictive of a significant
saving effect. Thus, for motivated users techniques inducing commitment to action and guiding towards im-
plementation of the action plan seem effective in generating electricity savings.

1. Introduction to account for no more than approximately 30% of behavioral variance

With the Paris climate agreement, the 196 attending parties of the
2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference set themselves the
goal to limit global warming to 2 °C or less [1]. In this vein, the German
federal government set as climate protection targets a reduction of
green house gas emissions, compared to 1990, by 80–95% in 2050 and
a reduction of electricity consumption, relative to 2008, of 10% in 2020
and of 25% in 2050. However, the electricity savings achieved thus far
remain below the levels necessary for meeting these goals. Between
2008 and 2016, the reduction was no more than 3.6%. To meet the
2020 goal, the yearly reduction rate would have to triple ([2,3], p 58).
Interestingly, about half to three quarters of German private
households intend to reduce their electricity consumption [4,5]. Given
that there is significant saving potential in many households [6], the
contrast between saving intention and actual consumption may be re-
garded as a manifestation of the well-known intention–behavior gap.
While intention is often considered the most important and direct de-
terminant of action, an influential meta-analysis concluded that mod-
erate or large variation in intention exerts only small or moderate ef-
fects on subsequent behavior [7]. These findings are echoed for pro-
environmental behavior more generally, as intentions have been found
[8,9]. In other words, having an intention does not ascertain that the
corresponding action is actually going to be performed [10–12].
1.1. Research goals
We investigated if the information architecture of a smart meter-
based web portal may support bridging the gap between intention and
behavior and thus result in a reduction of electricity consumption. To
this end, a treatment group website was designed against the backdrop
of the stage model of self-regulated behavioral change [8] with the
objective to support action planning and implementation. It was com-
pared with a control group website that did not support action plan-
ning, but merely provided factual information on saving opportunities.
We hypothesized that mere accessibility of the treatment group website
might not suffice to generate a saving effect. Therefore, in a second
step, we subdivided the treatment group into subgroups. We tested if
users’ actual interaction with certain features of that website – like
being asked for a commitment, being presented with implementation
information, being guided in process monitoring – translated into a
reduction of electricity consumption. Finally, we studied if the inter-
action of users with the treatment website was related to pre-study

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: birgit.mack@zirius.uni-stuttgart.de (B. Mack).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.01.024
Received 6 August 2018; Received in revised form 25 January 2019; Accepted 31 January 2019
Available online 07 March 2019
2214-6296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Mack, et al.
Fig. 1. The stages of self-regulated behavior change and associated psychological variables (adapted from [8]).
motivation and whether the interrelations among interaction elements
mirrored the information architecture of the website.
1.2. Stage model of self-regulated behavioral change
Several stage models that describe the planning and enacting of
behavioral change have been put forward in health and environmental
psychology to cast light on the intention-behavior gap. Such models
emphasize the process characteristics of behavioral change. Behavioral
change implies a journey through motivational stages of intention set-
ting and volitional stages of intention striving. Intention striving pro-
tects and implements the intention against distraction, competing in-
tentions, and external obstacles (cf. [8,13–17]).
A prominent example in environmental psychology is the stage
model of self-regulated behavioral change (SSBC) advanced by [8], see
Fig. 1). This model conceptualizes behavior change as a self-regulated
process extending across four time-ordered and qualitatively distinct
stages each of them associated with stage-specific tasks. It represents an
elaboration of the Rubicon model of action planning (MAP; [14,15]). Its
first stage is the predecision stage. The task of the predecision stage
consists in detecting and reflecting upon a problem, for instance the
problem of ever-increasing power consumption in a context of in-
creasing prices, increasing environmental pollution, and growing evi-
dence for climate change, and the conflicting motives associated with it.
This process may culminate in the formation of the goal intention of, for
example, reducing electricity consumption. According to Ref. [8]),
some of the determining factors and characteristic processes of the
predecision stage are well described by the norm activation model (Ref.
[18]; see also Ref. [19]). An actor may realize that his or her behavior
contributes to the aggravation of a problem. The perceived conflict with
one’s personal and social norms, together with self-attribution of re-
sponsibility and the insight that one could act differently, generates a
goal intention. This goal intention then mediates the transition to the
second stage, the preaction stage. Here, alternative strategies of action
are considered and the most satisfactory strategy gets selected. Strategy
selection leads to the development of a behavioral intention of, for in-
stance, running the washing machine at lower temperatures. Determi-
nants and processes of the preaction stage include those postulated by
the theory of planned behavior [20,21]. The latter emphasizes the at-
titudes and perceived behavioral control that are associated with the
behavioral alternatives evaluated at the preaction stage. The emergence
of a behavioral intention mediates the transition to the third or action
stage. At the action stage, spatial, temporal, and sequencing parameters
of action execution and coping with obstacles become salient [17]. The
35
Energy Research & Social Science 53 (2019) 34–46
problem faced and solved at this stage consists in elaborating an im-
plementation intention, leading to concrete behavioral steps that actually
implement the newly planned behavior in the context of everyday life
with its multitude of competing objectives and requirements. Planning
which garments are going to be washed when and at which tempera-
tures presents an example of implementation intention formation. Im-
plementation intentions may generate commitment to the intended
behavior [22]. An implementation intention mediates the transition to
the fourth or postaction stage. Now the new behavior gets habitualized
and is evaluated with respect to the initial goal intention. Strategies of
recovering from behavioral relapses become relevant at this stage [17].
Structural equation modelling has demonstrated the stage-specific sig-
nificance of these factors [8].
1.3. Smart meter interfaces as a measure to reduce electricity consumption
A European Union directive on energy efficiency describes the in-
troduction of smart meters as a strategic measure aimed at the reduc-
tion in electricity consumption by private households [23]. In recent
years, various types of smart meter information systems have been put
to use. These range from simple digital meters that enable consumption
information to be monitored to advanced information systems (e.g
[24–26].). An action-oriented information architecture informed by
smart meter data may facilitate bridging the intention–behavior gap
and result in a significant reduction of electricity consumption. Most
smart meter portals, however, lack an explicit representation of the
stages of action planning and thus fail to organize the provided in-
formation within a framework of action plans [27].
2. The websites
2.1. The treatment group website
Several studies conducted within the framework of the SSBC model
have administered short diagnostic questionnaires to determine the
stage a person is at and apply stage-specific interventions (cf.
[8,28–30]). However, it seems virtually impossible to use the model in
this fashion in the domain of electricity consumption. As has been
pointed out before for complex behavioral domains [26], an agent may
be in different SSBC stages with regard to distinct behaviors. For in-
stance, an individual may want to do something about his or her ever-
increasing electricity consumption. He or she may already have man-
aged to equip the whole apartment with LED lamps but may not even
have considered the sub-domain of washing. He or she would be in the
B. Mack, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 53 (2019) 34–46

Fig. 2. The entry page of the web portal with (a) the monthly consumption display (“electricity consumption”) and (b) the historical feedback chart (“additional
consumption”), and links to (c) the consumption analysis module, (d) the What is Watt page, (e) the energy and climate information page, (f) the compare with others
page, (g) the goal setting module, (h) the electricity saving domains module, (i) the message module, and (j) the blackboard module. The study participants were
presented with a German language version of the page. Here, for reasons of readability, the English language version is presented.

maintenance stage with regard to lighting and in the preaction stage
with regard to washing. For this reason, we chose a different approach.
In the current study the SSBC model is interpreted as a blueprint: The
website and interaction with the website were structured according to
potential plans of action each of which described how to realize a
particular saving tip. We hypothesized that behavior change should be
facilitated by an information architecture structured in the same way
that action plans are predicted by the SSBC model to spontaneously
unfold in time – if they unfold.
Thus, the information architecture of the treatment group website
was designed against the backdrop of the SSBC model [8] and was in-
tended to guide users in their journey through the stages by the way the
information was structured. There were several interconnected modules
that instantiated established intervention techniques (see below for
details). They were chosen with regard to the respective SSBC model
stage and were meant to motivate the formation of stage-specific in-
tentions and facilitate the corresponding stage transitions (cf. [8,31]).
The dashed line which interconnects the modules on the starting
page (Fig. 2) suggested a journey across the SSBC stages. The same
transitions were also suggested by the hints and links located in each
module and referring to the next module. Still, with some important
restrictions, users could freely migrate between the modules. Users
could enter the predecision stage modules (Fig. 2e–g), the analysis
pages module (Fig. 2c), the preaction stage electricity saving domains
module (Fig. 2h), as well as the stage three modules (messages,
blackboard, Fig. 2i and j) from the starting page to which they could
return at any time. However, messages and blackboard became
accessible only after the user had committed to at least one saving tip in
the electricity saving domains module. Similarly, the third stage im-
plementation tip pages were accessible only via the electricity saving
domains module.
2.1.1. Formation of a goal intention (predecision to preaction)
To facilitate formation of the goal intention to save electricity, three
motivation modules that could be accessed from the starting page were
included with the website (Fig. 2). The module energy and climate in-
formation (Fig. 2e) addressed problem awareness and perceived re-
sponsibility [32] in relation to climate change and the German En-
ergiewende. The module compare with others (Fig. 2f) enhanced the
salience of social norms [33] by presenting socially comparative feed-
back of the annual electricity consumption of comparable households in
the neighborhood. The module goal setting (Fig. 2g) offered the possi-
bility to set a saving goal between 5–20%. Solicited goal setting is a
central motivational technique capable of assisting people in the for-
mation of goal intentions [31,34,35]. The module also encouraged the
households to monitor their savings using a historical feedback display
(Fig. 2b). The combination of goal setting and feedback has proven
effective in numerous studies (e.g., [31,34–36]). Goals set should be
kept salient via process monitoring to ascertain long-term effects on
goal attainment [11].
2.1.2. Formation of a behavior intention (preaction to action stage)
To support the development of behavior intentions, the electricity
saving domains module (Fig. 2h), accessible from the starting page,

36
B. Mack, et al.
presented saving tips (mainly curtailment behaviors) and their saving
potentials, organized by domain. There were pages with tips for
washing, cooking and baking, and so on. The user was invited to
commit to one or more of the tips he/she wanted to try. Commitment
was issued via a button click. Commitment techniques stimulate study
participants to issue self-obliging promises to change their behavior so
as to meet a saving objective [26,37]. Especially in combination with
supplementary techniques that keep it salient, like feedback and re-
minders, commitment has been shown effective in generating long term
effects on behavior [22,37]. Commitment to a particular behavioral
objective may be the most important step in overcoming the gap be-
tween intention and behavior.
2.1.3. Formation of implementation intentions (action to postaction),
stabilization of new behaviors (postaction stage)
The website was heavily focused on supporting the implementation
of planned behavior. Several intervention techniques intended to foster
the planning of implementing behavior intentions as well as the an-
ticipating and surmounting of obstacles were included [8,10,31,38].
Some of them also seem functional in the postaction stage for stabilizing
the new behaviors and protecting the new habits against relapses
[17,26,31].
The saving tips presented on the tip pages of the electricity saving
domains module (Fig. 2h) came with links to subordinate implementa-
tion pages. These included advice on how the respective tip could be
put into practice easily as well as ideas on how to socially support
members of the household in their attempt to overcome obstacles (cf.
[8,17,31,39]). Implementation pages could be accessed via the tips on
the tip pages before and after committing to the respective tip as well as
from the blackboard module (Fig. 2j, see below) after committing. It was
expected that exposure to implementation information would facilitate
the formation of implementation intentions that, in turn, would create
or amplify commitment to the intended behavior [22].
Receiving reminders on and self-monitoring the implementation
status of the new behavior assume a special role in this context. Harkin
et al. [11] showed that self-monitoring the process of realizing an in-
tention had a significant effect on goal attainment, especially if mon-
itoring required active participation. The effect of commitment grows
stronger if the commitment is kept salient (c.f [37]). Reminding about
the tip commitment/the new behavior is important for a successful
habit formation process and prevents relapses to the old behavior
[35,40,41].
Therefore, a self-monitoring process was triggered for every tip the
user had committed to. Every fortnight a reminder (an email message)
that asked the user to complete a short tip-specific self-monitoring
questionnaire on the then current status of tip commitment and tip
implementation was sent by the message module (Fig. 2i). The self-
monitoring questionnaires and reminders were meant to support testing
new behavior as well as to stabilize it through commitment renewal.
The blackboard module (Fig. 2j), accessible from the starting page, listed
all the tips the user had committed to, with their respective im-
plementation status indicated by the positions of runners on their ra-
cing tracks and together with a link to the associated implementation
pages (Fig. 3, “Umsetzen leicht gemacht”). The blackboard was empty
at the beginning of the treatment phase.
2.1.4. Consumption feedback as an instrument supporting stage transitions
from the first to the fourth stage
Consumption feedback is thought to be useful in all stages of action
planning [26,27,31]. Therefore, the starting page of the website (Fig. 2)
included a monthly consumption display (Fig. 2a) that showed electricity
consumption for the previous month. It also displayed a historical
feedback chart (Fig. 2b) that showed the – positive or negative – savings
relative to the corresponding baseline month, the same month a year
earlier. Consumption comparisons of this type may motivate users to
think about using electricity more efficiently and to develop a goal
37
Energy Research & Social Science 53 (2019) 34–46
intention to save, especially if there is an increase in consumption [27].
At later stages of action planning and implementation, the monthly
consumption and the historical feedback displays may serve the function
of informing about the extent to which saving objectives had been
achieved and if implementation of new behaviors had resulted in con-
sumption reduction. A recent meta-analysis indicated that outcome
monitoring with respect to set goals significantly impacted outcomes
[11].
In a more elaborate manner, the interactive consumption analysis tool
(Fig. 2c) accessible via the starting page offered near-realtime feedback
of consumption and historical feedback on a daily, weekly, and monthly
basis. Beyond the preset time intervals, time intervals could also be set
individually and compared among each other to help determine the
most energy-efficient use of a device, thus enabling the user to create a
detailed representation of his or her consumption and its time course.
The users were informed through video tutorials on how to use the
consumption displays and the consumption analysis tool as diagnostic
and goal monitoring instruments. The whole package was meant to
encourage the development of goal intentions, the transition to beha-
vior intentions and implementation intentions, and the self-monitoring
of progress towards goal attainment. While the most valuable type of
feedback information may differ between the planning stages, we hy-
pothesized that feedback was important at all stages. For instance, a
user may be interested in his or her overall level of consumption at an
early stage of planning and in the specific effects of an air-conditioning
system during the summer months at a later stage.
Intervention research shows that feedback is especially effective in
the reduction of energy consumption when combined with other in-
tervention techniques such as commitment and information on saving
behaviors [34,36,42–45]. Thus, the combination of intervention tech-
niques in the portal fits the findings of intervention research.
2.2. The control group website
The control group website did not support action planning. It pro-
vided information in a plain, factual format. The consumption analysis
tool – but without explanations on how to create action-relevant in-
formation – and the electricity saving tips – in the format of short in-
formation items – were included. Saving tip-related information was
not embedded in the context of a proposed course of action. Motivation
tools (problem-orientated information, comparison with others, goal
setting option) were not presented and commitment and implementa-
tion support were not given. There were no tip commitment options, no
implementation information, no option of monitoring the status of the
tip-implementation process, and no reminders.
3. Methods
3.1. Study design
We realized a treatment/control group design with a baseline and a
treatment phase of one year each in a neighborhood of new housing
located in Heidelberg, Germany. The effects on power consumption of
smart meter website availability and of website usage were evaluated.
86 households participated in the study. Two thirds of households (58)
were randomly assigned to the treatment group; the remaining third
(28) was assigned to the control group. After termination of the base-
line, the treatment group was given access to the treatment group
website and the control group to the control group website. The
treatment group was made twice as large as the control group to make it
possible – by subdivision of the treatment group – to investigate the
hypothesis that not the mere access to the treatment website per se, but
specific patterns of interaction with the website generated an effect on
consumption. All participating households were equipped with a smart
meter that recorded and sent household consumption data every 15 min
to the website.
B. Mack, et al.
Fig. 3. The blackboard module. “Energiemanager”: energy manager. “Andere Personen”: other household members. “Tipp: Wäsche auf die Leine hängen”: Use the
clothes line (rather than a dryer). “Probieren wir aus”: We will try this tip. “Tipp mal getestet“: The tip has been tested. “Tipp wird schon öfters durchgeführt“: The tip
is made use of occasionally. “Tipp wird regelmäßig durchgeführt“: The tip is made use of on a regular basis.
Data were collected for a 12-month baseline phase followed by a 12-
month treatment phase. However, the website – the treatment website
for the treatment group and the control website for the control group –
was available only for the duration of the treatment phase. During the
treatment phase, user interaction with the respective website was re-
corded (page visits, page visit duration, button clicks, etc.).
Additionally, a questionnaire asking for socio-demographic information
and measuring social-cognitive variables was presented at the begin-
ning of the baseline phase.
Each participating household appointed an "energy manager". He or
she handled the interaction with the website, but included the others in
his or her decisions. This decision was made because only one login
identity to the website could be realized for each household. It was the
energy manager who completed the questionnaire presented at the
beginning of the study.
3.2. Questionnaire measures
The questionnaire measured the socio-demographic variables
gender, age, education, and occupation of the energy manager, as well as
household size and monthly household income and the social-cognitive
variables saving goal intention, personal saving norm, social saving norm,
self-efficacy related to electricity saving, and environmental attitude.
Saving goal intention, social saving norm, and personal saving norm
are central constructs of the SSBC predecision stage. They were oper-
ationalized following Bamberg [8]. The items registered on a 5-point
scale from not to very: Saving goal intention (2 items), e.g. "I intend to
try hard to reduce electricity consumption during the next few
months.”, social saving norm (4 items), e.g. "Most people important to
me would value it positively when I tried hard to reduce electricity
consumption during the next few months.", personal saving norm (2
items), e.g. “Due to my personal values and principles I feel obliged to
38
Energy Research & Social Science 53 (2019) 34–46
decrease electricity consumption in everyday life.”
Furthermore, a self-efficacy scale specifically related to electricity
saving was developed on the background of Bandura's conceptualiza-
tion of perceived self-efficacy [46]. The scale comprised 17 items re-
ferring to efficiency and curtailment behaviors. The items referred to
distinct skills such as information gathering, choosing among alter-
natives, and behavioral implementation in contexts of impediments
varying in difficulty (e.g. “To what extent do you feel capable of
checking, over the next few weeks, the electricity efficiency of various
washing programs for diverse fabrics”). Participants’ answers were re-
gistered on a 10-point scale from I cannot do that at all to I can do that,
absolutely.
Participants’ environmental attitude was assessed with a Rasch scale
of 45 self-reported ecological behavior items adopted from the General
Ecological Behavior scale (GEB, see [47,48]). Engagement was ac-
knowledged with a yes/no statement for 15 items. The remaining 30
items were assessed with a 5-point frequency scale (never to always) and
dichotomized in line with the standard procedure for calibrating the
GEB scale.
3.3. Sample characteristics
By comparison with the 2015 German national average [49], in our
sample 1-person households were underrepresented while 2-, 3-, and 4-
person households were overrepresented. Baseline electricity con-
sumption of the participating households was comparatively low and,
depending on household size, amounted from 77% to 93% of the con-
sumption of German average households of the same size [50]. Neither
the sample nor the reference households used electricity for heating or
hot water preparation. There was no significant difference between
treatment and control group in relation to baseline consumption. Fur-
thermore, there were no significant differences between the groups
B. Mack, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 53 (2019) 34–46

Table 1 represented the independent variables. In addititon, there were several

Sample characteristics. Age, gender, education, and occupation of the energy
manager. Income/month: household monthly income. Household size: number
of persons living in the household.
Variable Treatment Group Control Group
Age (years) mean = 37.5 (SD = 12.8) mean = 38.4 (SD = 8.4)
Gender male: 74%, female: 26% male: 64%, female: 35%
Income / month mean: € 3852 (SD = 1375) mean: €4299 (SD = 927)
Education degree: 76%, others: 24% degree: 90%, others: 10%
Occupation employee: 67%, others: 33% employee: 70%, others: 30%
Household size mean = 2.46 (SD = 0.96) mean = 2.70 (SD = 1.17)
with respect to the socio-demographic variables household size,
monthly income, education, occupation, gender and age of the energy
manager and with regard to the social-cognitive variables environ-
mental attitude, personal saving norm, self-efficacy in relation to
saving, and pre-baseline saving goal intention. The groups differed
significantly with respect to social saving norm (t=−3.01, df = 64,
p = 0.004, Cohen’s d=−0.82), with the treatment group scoring lower
than the control group. The majority of energy managers were males,
were in their mid to end thirties, were holding a university degree, and
were working as employees (Table 1).
3.4. Procedure
Participants entered the baseline phase of the study as soon as they
agreed to participate. Thus, the start (and end) both of the baseline and
the treatment phase varied across participants. Sixty-six households
were included in the analysis. Of these, 46 belonged to the treatment
group and 20 to the control group. Loss of participants occurred be-
cause households moved away from the neighborhood studied and, in
some cases, because loss of data due to technical glitches exceeded
tolerable limits.
3.5. Data analysis
3.5.1. Treatment group vs. control group comparison
The daily consumption values were aggregated into monthly con-
sumption values. It was tested whether having access to the treatment
rather than the control website presented an advantage in reducing
consumption. A MANOVA (SPSS procedure GLM) was computed with
12 baseline and 12 treatment phase monthly consumption values as
dependent variables. A grouping factor, household group (treatment
group, control group), and two repeated measurement factors, study
phase (baseline, treatment) and month-of-year (January to December),
covariates (the household’s monthly income, household size, age and
gender of the energy manager, website pages total visit duration, and
consumption analysis tool pages total visit duration). Consumption was
represented with month resolution to capture and control for seasonal
variation. There were no statistically significant differences between
treatment and control group with regard to any of the covariates. All of
the covariates may be hypothesized to co-determine electricity con-
sumption and/or saving behavior. However, they are probably not
proximal precursors of the formation of a goal intention to reduce
consumption in general or the behavior intention to implement a spe-
cific saving tip in particular. Neither are they likely to constitute
proximal precursors of acts of commitment.
3.5.2. The interaction of users with the treatment website
We hypothesized that not so much the mere availability of the
treatment website, but rather the occurrence of specific elements of the
user-treatment website interaction sequences might generate an elec-
tricity saving effect. By recording button click rates, our candidate
variables encoded the frequency of the selection of and the interaction
with certain pages of the website, on the one hand, and the frequency of
certain acts of commitment and commitment completion, on the other
hand. The visit and interaction category included analysispagesvisits,
motivationpagesvisits, tippagesvisits, and implementationpagesvisits.
Analysispagesvisits comprises all activities on pages of the consumption
analysis tool. Motivationpagesvisits refers to interaction with website
pages intended to facilitate formation of a goal intention to save elec-
tricity, i.e. the “energy and climate information” module, the “compare
with others” module, and the “goal setting” module. Tippagesvisits refers
to the interaction with the website pages presenting information on
electricity saving behaviors. Implementationpagesvisits relates to the in-
teraction with website pages presenting information on how to best
implement particular saving tips. The latter pages were intended to
foster the formation of implementation intentions. Acts of commitment
and completion were goalsetting, tipcommitment, selfmonitoring, and tip-
completion. Goalsetting refers to a commitment to a saving objective in
terms of percentage-to-be-saved and tipcommitment to the formation of a
behavior intention as indicated by the issuing of a commitment to im-
plement one or several saving tips. Selfmonitoring indicates self-mon-
itoring questionnaire completion that was intended to support keeping
track of the implementation status of a particular behavior intention.
Tipcompletion encodes the number of saving tips that were put into
practice. It represents user self-assessment as to whether a novel be-
havior has been implemented completely or is now being practiced on a
regular basis, respectively. With the exception of analysispagesvisits,
these variables existed only for the treatment group. Table 2 presents a

Table 2
The variables characterizing the interaction between users and the modules and pages of the treatment website.
Variable Label Modules and Pages of the Web Portal Location in the SSBC Model

ANALYSISPAGESVISITS Consumption analysis module (Fig. 2c) SSBC stages 1, 2, 3, and 4. Supporting formation of intentions
and stage transitions from the first to the fourth stage.
MOTIVATIONPAGESVISITS Energy and climate information page (Fig. 2e), compare with others page SSBC stage 1 (predecision stage). Prompting formation of a
(Fig. 2f) goal setting module (Fig. 2g) goal intention (predecision to preaction stage).
TIPPAGESVISITS Electricity saving domains module (Fig. 2h), SSBC stage 2 (preaction stage). Prompting formation of
comprising the saving tip pages behavior intentions (preaction to action stage).
IMPLEMENTATIONPAGESVISITS Tip-specific implementation information pages, accessible via the saving tip SSBC stage 3 (action stage). Prompting formation of
pages of the electricity saving domains modules (Fig. 2h) implementation intentions (action to postaction stage).
GOALSETTING Goal setting module (Fig. 2g), commitment to a saving objective in SSBC stage 1 (predecision stage). Formation of a goal intention
percentage terms (predecision to preaction stage).
TIPCOMMITMENT Electricity saving domains module (Fig. 2h), selection of and thus SSBC stage 2 (preaction stage). Formation of behavior
commitment to particular saving tips intentions (preaction to action stage).
SELFMONITORING Messages module (Fig. 2i) sends self-monitoring questionnaires and SSBC stage 3 (action stage). Formation of implementation
blackboard module shows the reported status of implementation of tips intentions (action to postaction stage).
(Fig. 2j; Fig.3)
TIPCOMPLETION Blackboard module (Fig. 2j; Fig.3), documentation of tip implementation SSBC stage 4 (postaction stage). Indicates complete realization
completion. of an implementation intention.

39
B. Mack, et al.
conspectus on the variables.
To test the effect of the interaction variables on electricity con-
sumption and an eventual saving effect, the variables were transformed
into categorical variables. These were used as grouping factors in
treatment group (subgroup1, .. , subgroupN) X study phase (baseline,
treatment) X month (January, .. , December) MANOVAS (SPSS proce-
dure GLM). The number of subgroups was determined by kmeans
cluster analyses [51]. Cluster solutions were computed for 2, 3, and 4
clusters based on both the cosine and the city block distance metric. As
the range of frequencies differed considerably among the variables, the
frequency values were remapped onto the interval between 0 and 1
using the function f(n) = 1 - exp10 (-n 4.0 / max(n)), where n is fre-
quency and max(n) is the maximum frequency value across households.
Cluster solutions were deemed acceptable if each of the clusters com-
prised at least 10 members and all silhouette values were non-negative.
The silhouette value of a cluster member equals a number between -1
and 1. It is a measure of how similar that member is to other members
in its own cluster compared to members of the other cluster(s) ([51,
silhouette plots]).
3.5.3. SSBC stage assignment of the interaction variables
Presumably, motivationpagesvisits and goalsetting are SSBC stage 1 or
“predecision” process indicators, tippagesvisits and tipcommitment stage
2 or “preaction” indicators, and implementationpagesvisits and self-
monitoring stage 3 or “action stage “indicators. Tipcompletion might re-
present a stage 4 or “post-action” stage indicator. In the current context,
a user-website interaction variable indicates stage-specific activity in
that the website presents stage-specific information or offers the pos-
sibility to execute stage-specific acts, not in the sense that the user may
be said to be at a certain stage. Analysispagesvisits may be hypothesized
to exert effects on all stages of the SSBC.
The variables were entered into a path analysis to test if the above
stage assigments could be upheld. In path-analytic terms, if the stage
assignments were correct, stage N variables or a subset thereof would
directly predict stage N + 1 variables. The visit and interaction vari-
ables would directly predict same-stage acts of commitment and com-
mitment completion variables. Based on this rationale, an initial path-
analytic model was built (Fig. 4). Analysispagesvisits was declared as
exogenous variable, hypothesized to be correlated with motivationpa-
gesvisits, and considered to directly influence each of the other vari-
ables. Motivationpagesvisits was a second exogenous variable and a di-
rect predictor of goalsetting. Both motivationpagesvisits and goalsetting
were hypothesized to act as direct predictors of both tippagesvisits and
tipcommitment, with tippagesvisits also directly feeding into tipcommit-
ment. Tippagesvisits and tipcommitment were direct predictors of both
implementationpagesvisits and selfmonitoring and implementationpagesvisits
and selfmonitoring were direct predictors of tipcompletion. It would seem
sensible to hypothesize that implementationpagesvisits and selfmonitoring
directly and reciprocally predict one another. However, this type of link
cannot be represented within the framework of path analysis. Thus, the
direction of the link was determined by fitting the two unidirectional
model variants. The initial models were evaluated with respect to
model fit and the statistical significance of individual links. To arrive at
a final model, the model was refitted after removal of all insignificant
links. On the basis of the SSBC model and the website architecture, we
hypothesized that the strongest prediction links would obtain between
tippagesvisits and tipcommitment, tipcommitment and selfmonitoring, and
selfmonitoring and tipcompletion.
4. Results
4.1. Treatment group vs. control group comparison
The treatment/control group MANOVA was computed to test if
access to the treatment rather than the control website was advanta-
geous in generating a saving effect. Whereas treatment and control
40
Energy Research & Social Science 53 (2019) 34–46
group should not differ in the baseline phase, the treatment group
should be lower in consumption than the control group during the
treatment phase. However, the critical group (treatment, control) X
study phase (baseline, treatment) interaction was statistically insignif-
icant (T2(1,58) = 0.031, F = 1.81, p = 0.23, Fig. 5). Only the covariate
“household size” and its interaction with the month factor attained
significance (household size: F(1,58) = 30.03, p = 0.000, part.
η2 = 0.34, household size X month: T2(11,48) = 1.26, F = 5.50,
p = 0.000, part. η2 = 0.59). Corresponding with expectation, house-
hold size correlated positively with consumption. The insignificant
group by study phase interaction suggests that the mere availability,
during the treatment phase, of the treatment website as opposed to the
control group website is not sufficient to generate an effect on elec-
tricity consumption.
4.2. The interaction of users with the treatment website
The interaction variables were transformed into categorical vari-
ables to be used as grouping factors in group (subgroup1, .. ,
subgroupN) X study phase (baseline, treatment) X month (January, .. ,
December) MANOVAs. To determine the number of subgroups to be
distinguished, kmeans cluster analyses of the interaction variables were
computed. There was exactly one cluster solution that came with non-
negative silhouette values throughout and comprised at least 10
members for each cluster, the two-cluster solution based on the city-
block distance metric. All the variables entered into the analysis were
significantly correlated with this cluster solution and all of them dif-
fered significantly between the two clusters (Table 3). On each of the
variables, the committed cluster (n = 15) scored higher than the un-
committed cluster (n = 31). Thus, all variables contributed to the cluster
solution, but some variables (tipcommitment, tipcompletion, ..) were more
representative of it than others (goalsetting, analysispagevisits, ..).
The interaction variables were dichotomized ([ < 0.1, ≥0.1]) to
serve as grouping factors in the MANOVA analyses. After dichot-
omization, the resulting tipcommitment and selfmonitoring groups were
coextensive with the cluster solution in terms of group membership
and, with the exception of a single household, tipcompletion was, too.
For the MANOVA with tipcommitment or selfmonitoring as grouping
variable, the group X study phase interaction attained significance
(T2(1,38) = 0.122, F = 4.62, p = 0.038, part. η2 = 0.108, Fig. 6a).
Households that committed to tips and self-monitored their behavior
consumed less in the treatment than in the baseline phase (-5.1%),
whereas those that did not consumed more (+2.2%). As in the treat-
ment / control group design, household size and its interaction with the
month factor were also significant (household size: F(1,38) = 17.27,
p = 0.000, part. η2 = 0.31, household size X month:
T2(11,28) = 1.355, F = 3.45, p = 0.004, part. η2 = 0.575).
The same interactions and covariates attained significance for the
MANOVA with tipcompletion as the grouping variable (group X study
phase: T2(1,38) = 0.177, F = 6.71, p = 0.014, part. η2 = 0.150,
Fig. 6b, household size: F(1,38) = 17.82, p = 0.000, part. η2 = 0.319,
household size X month: T2(11,28) = 1.38, F = 3.51, p = 0.004, part.
η2 = 0.580). Households that completely implemented at least one tip
consumed less in the treatment phase than in the baseline phase
(-6.1%), whereas those that did not consumed more (+2.5%). The
grouping variable X study phase interaction did not attain significance
for any of the other grouping variables derived from the user-website
interaction variables.
The results of these MANOVAs suggest that the act of committing
oneself to a particular saving tip, together with subsequent acts of
commitment maintenance – like self-monitoring of the implementation
status via the website’s mini-questionnaires, asserting progress, and
reasserting the commitment – generated the saving effect. But what
about grouping factor confounds? With the exception of social saving
norm, the differences between the treatment and the control group with
respect to the socio-demographic variables (household size, monthly
B. Mack, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 53 (2019) 34–46

Fig. 4. The initial path analysis model. Stage 1-4: SSBC model [8] stages of action planning (Stage 1: predecision stage, stage 2: preaction stage, stage 3: action stage,
stage 4: postaction stage), e: error terms.

Table 3
User-treatment website interaction variables entered into the cluster analysis:
Correlation with the cluster solution, difference between the clusters.
Interaction Variable Correlation with Cluster Difference between Clusters

tipcommitment r = 0.981, p = 0.000 t(44) = 33.6, p = 0.000

tipcompletion r = 0.928, p = 0.000 t(44) = 16.5, p = 0.000
selfmonitoring r = 0.890, p = 0.000 t(44) = 12.9, p = 0.000
implementationpagesvisits r = 0.771, p = 0.000 t(44) = 8.0, p = 0.000
tippagesvisits r = 0.720, p = 0.000 t(44) = 6.9, p = 0.000
analysispagesvisits r = 0.508, p = 0.000 t(44) = 3.9, p = 0.000
motivationpagesvisits r = 0.412, p = 0.004 t(44) = 3.6, p = 0.000
goalsetting r = 0.406, p = 0.005 t(44) = 3.0, p = 0.000

efficacy in relation to saving) were statistically not significant (see

Fig. 5. Electricity consumption estimated marginal means and standard errors
of the mean, adjusted for other factors and covariates. Group (treatment group,
control group) X study phase (baseline phase, treatment phase) interaction.
income, education, occupation, gender and age of the energy manager)
and the social-cognitive variables (pre-baseline goal intention, personal
saving norm, social saving norm, environmental attitude, and self-
above, 3.2, 3.3). Similarly, there were no significant differences be-
tween the two groups defined by tipcommitment/selfmonitoring.
However, the groups differed significantly with respect to pre-baseline
saving goal intention (t = 2.83, df = 44, p = 0.007, Cohen’s d = 0.91).
This also was true of tipcompletion (t = 2.70, df = 44, p = 0.010,
Cohen’s d = 0.89). The committed group scored higher than the un-
committed group (4.1 vs. 3.2) and the completed group higher than the
uncompleted group (4.1 vs. 3.3). Interestingly, the groups defined by the

41
B. Mack, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 53 (2019) 34–46

Fig. 6. a-d: Electricity consumption estimated marginal means and standard errors of the mean, adjusted for other factors and covariates. (a) Tip commitment / self-
monitoring questionnaire activity (committed, uncommitted) X study phase (baseline phase, treatment phase) interaction. (b) Tip implementation completion
(completed, uncompleted) X study phase (baseline phase, treatment phase) interaction. (c) Tip commitment / self-monitoring questionnaire activity (committed,
control’) X study phase (baseline phase, treatment phase) interaction. (d) Tip implementation completion (completed, control’) X study phase (baseline phase,
treatment phase) interaction.

interaction variable goal setting did not differ significantly in pre-base-
line saving goal intention (t = 1.46, df = 44, p = 0.15). This may re-
flect that users were free to enter the treatment website through one of
the predecision entry points (Fig. 2e–g) as well as through the preaction
entry point (Fig. 2h).
Would the saving effect disappear if pre-baseline intention was
controlled for? To answer this question, we compared the committed
and the completed subgroups of the treatment group with a subgroup of
the original control group comparable in pre-baseline saving goal in-
tention.1 The mean intention score both of the committed and the
completed group was 4.1. The intention scores of the control group were
rank-ordered. Beginning with the lowest score, participants were de-
selected until the reduced control group, control’, was as similar to the
committed group in pre-baseline intention as possible. Deselection
stopped when the mean intention score of the control’ group was 4.2. Of
course, being presented with the control group website, participants of
the control’ group never issued a commitment. The group (committed,
control’) X studyphase (baseline, treatment) interaction was significant
(T2(1,19) = 0.234, F = 4.46, p = 0.048, part. η2 = 0.190, Fig. 6c) as
was the group (completed, control’) X studyphase (baseline, treatment)
interaction (T2(1,18) = 0.269, F = 4.84, p = 0.041, part. η2 = 0.212,
Fig. 6d). Consumption of households with tipcommitment was less in the
treatment phase than in the baseline phase (-6.2%). Consumption of
those without was more (+8.9%). Similarly, for households that com-
pletely implemented at least one tip consumption was less in the
treatment phase than in the baseline phase (-8.0%). For those that did
not it was more (+7.0%). Apparently, commitment, self-monitoring,
and commitment maintenance exert an influence on electricity con-
sumption that does not disappear if pre-baseline saving goal intention is
controlled for.
Additionally, we computed a multiple regression analysis (SPSS)
with environmental attitude, personal saving norm, social saving norm,
and self-efficacy in relation to saving as predictors to get some hint
about what may determine the pre-baseline goal intention. The analysis
yielded a multiple correlation coefficient of R = 0.64, F(4,61) = 10.4,
p = 0.000 and a single significant predictor, personal saving norm,
computed using the SPSS bootstrapping procedure (β = 0.43,
p = 0.010). The finding is compatible with the hypothesis advanced by
[52,53]) that norms close to one’s personal identity have a better
chance than others to be expressed in intention formation and, even-
tually, behavior.
4.3. SSBC stage assignment of the interaction variables

The path analysis was performed to investigate if the interaction of

users with the treatment website mirrored the SSBC model and the
1
This analysis was suggested by one of the anonymous reviewers of an earlier treatment website information architecture derived from it. Fig. 7
version of this paper. shows the final model arrived at after statistically insignificant links

42
B. Mack, et al.
Fig. 7. The final path analysis model. Stage 1-4: SSBC model [8] stages of action planning (Stage 1: predecision stage, stage 2: preaction stage, stage 3: action stage,
stage 4: postaction stage), e: error terms. The numerical labels on the links represent their β-weights.
had been removed from the initial model. The model fit was
χ2 = 22.54, df = 18, p > 0.2, Cmin/df = 1.25. A “primary” path led
from the exogenous variable motivationpagesvisits via tippagesvisits to
tipcommitment, and from there to selfmonitoring and tipcompletion. The
primary path reflects a course of the evolution of action and action
planning that corresponds to the SSBC model stage succession.
A “secondary” path led from tipcommitment via im-
plementationpagesvisits to tipcompletion. Interestingly, there was no sig-
nificant link from tippagesvisits to implementationpagesvisits. Tip im-
plementation information seems to be searched for only after tip
commitment. Both the primary and the secondary path were necessary;
removal of either implementationpagesvisits or selfmonitoring resulted in
complete breakdown of the model fit. Implementationpagesvisits exerted
a suppressive influence on selfmonitoring. The model alternative with a
link projecting from selfmonitoring to implementationpagesvisits rather
than from implementationpagesvisits to selfmonitoring suffered from pro-
nounced collinearity between tipcommitment and selfmonitoring
(r = 0.954, VIFs= [11.2, 11.2]). Thus, the secondary path both com-
plements and competes with the primary path.
The second exogenous variable, analysispagesvisits, was weakly but
significantly correlated with motivationpagesvisits (r = 0.40, n = 46,
p = 0.005) and, like motivationpagesvisits, was a significant predictor of
the stage 2 variable tippagesvisits. All other links originating from ana-
lysispagesvisits in the original model were statistically insignificant and
were removed in the final model. Finally, a dead-end path led from
motivationpagesvisits to goalsetting. Goalsetting was not predictive of
further progress through the SSBC stages. Moreover, removal of goal-
setting improved the model fit: χ2 =9.54, df = 12, p > 0.65. This may
indicate that goalsetting, at least in the context of interacting with the
website, is not a valid indicator of a SSBC goal intention to save elec-
tricity.
5. Discussion
In the present study, we investigated if access to the treatment
group smart meter website with its electricity saving action plan-or-
iented information architecture resulted in a stronger saving effect than
access to the control group website that merely offered uncommented
consumption feedback and unstructured factual information. After
subdivision of the treatment group into subgroups we also tested which
elements of the interaction of users with the treatment website were
related to a reduction in consumption. We determined the elements of
user-treatment website interaction that were dependent on pre-baseline
intention. Finally, we tested if user-treatment website interaction mir-
rored the information architecture of the website and thus SSBC stage
structure.
43
Energy Research & Social Science 53 (2019) 34–46
5.1. Availability of action plan-oriented information architecture
The treatment group decreased consumption by -0.4% from the
baseline to the treatment phase whereas the control group increased
consumption by +4.8% (see Fig. 5). Both changes were statistically
insignificant. Across groups, consumption seemed to increase, again
statistically insignificantly, from the baseline to the treatment phase.
This may mirror the fact that the neighborhood studied was new and
that most households had moved into their apartment only weeks or
months before their baseline period was started. It fits that the baseline
electricity consumption of the current sample was below the con-
sumption of the German average household. Importantly, however, the
group by study phase interaction failed to attain significance. It may be
inferred that the mere availability of an action plan-oriented informa-
tion architecture does not suffice. A saving effect may be generated only
to the extent that the users accept the action-planning format of the
website, adopt at least some of the suggested courses of action, and
actively engage themselves in their pursuit as indicated by activities
like goal setting, tip commitment, tip implementation, and self-mon-
itoring activity.
5.2. Clustering user-website interaction
To test this hypothesis, the interaction variables were categorically
recoded, with the number of categories/subgroups being determined by
kmeans cluster analysis. The cluster analysis yielded a two-cluster so-
lution. The interaction variables most closely correlated with the clus-
ters were tipcommitment, selfmonitoring, and tipcompletion. After these
variables had been dichotomized, the resulting sample subdivisions
were very close to or identical with the cluster solution in terms of
category membership. Users belonging to the committed group com-
mitted to saving tips and self-monitored their progress towards tip
implementation completion. They made use of the short questionnaires
generated by the website to report about the status of their im-
plementing a new behavior or a set of new behaviors, eventually re-
sulting in an advancement of the position of the associated runner on
the website blackboard. With one exception, they reported to have
completed the practical realization of at least one of the tips. Users
belonging to the uncommitted group did not commit to any of the saving
tips and, as a consequence, did not perform self-monitoring activities.
They did not complete the implementation of any of the tips. Moreover,
the committed group was more active with regard to goalsetting and
motivationpagesvisits, tippagesvisits and implementationpagesvisits and
interacted more frequently with the consumption feedback tool than
the uncommitted group.
B. Mack, et al.
5.3. The role of tip commitment, self-monitoring, and tip completion
The way users interacted with the website proved predictive of an
electricity consumption saving effect. The group X study phase inter-
action attained significance for the MANOVAs with tipcommitment,
selfmonitoring, and tipcompletion dichotomized as the respective
grouping variable. Households that committed to tips and self-mon-
itored their adherence to those tips consumed less in the treatment
phase than in the baseline phase (-5.1%), whereas those that did not
consumed more (+2.2%).The difference equals 7.3 percentage points.
This savings effect or, given the absolute numbers, this protection-
against-consumption-increase effect, was statistically significant. The
level of significance and the effect size were better still with tipcom-
pletion as the grouping variable. Households that committed to saving
tips, received reminders, self-monitored their implementation status for
at least one tip, and recommitted themselves up until that tip had been
completely implemented saved -6.1% of their baseline consumption.
Their counterparts consumed +2.5% more. The difference amounts to
8.6 percentage points. The role of tipcommitment/selfmonitoring and
tipcompletion was corroborated by significant group X study phase in-
teractions in the MANOVAs contrasting the committed group with a
select subgroup of the original control group equivalent in pre-baseline
intention. Here, both committing to tips and self-monitoring one’s be-
havior decreased consumption by -6.2%. Not doing so increased con-
sumption by +8.9%. For completely implementing a tip and its control
counterpart, these numbers were -8.0% and +7.0%. “Thus, a propor-
tion of users followed the course of action suggested by the website,
engaged in key interactions, and achieved a significant saving effect, or
a significant protection-against-consumption-increase effect, in return.
The effect appears even more impressive if the relatively low baseline
consumption of the participating households is considered (see above).
The grouping variable by study phase interaction did not attain
significance for any of the other MANOVAs derived from the dichot-
omized user interaction variables. Visiting the motivation pages, the tip
pages, or the implementation pages and using the consumtion analysis
tool, even setting a saving goal in percentage terms, was not directly
predictive of a saving effect. This may seem counterintuitive, at least
with regard to consumption analysis tool use. However, a significant
proportion of users access smart meter-based web portals not primarily
with the intention to monitor their progress in implementing a saving
goal they are committed to, but rather to satisfy goals like gaining
knowledge by or deriving fun from exploration of their own con-
sumption patterns [54].
5.4. Is user-website interaction influenced by the information architecture of
the website?
The results of the cluster and the MANOVA analyses were extended
by the path analysis. The user-website interaction variables tipcommit-
ment, selfmonitoring, and tipcompletion, which showed the strongest
correlations with the cluster solution and yielded significant group by
study phase interactions in the MANOVA analyses, were identical with
the final three nodes of the path analysis primary path. However, al-
though the implementationpagesvisits interaction variable did not enter
into a significant group by study phase interaction in the MANOVA
analysis, it constituted the distinctive node of the path analysis sec-
ondary path with a facilitative effect onto the tipcompletion node. Thus,
tipcommitment facilitates both of the implementation phase indicators,
selfmonitoring and implementationpagesvisits, that, in turn, both facilitate
the final node, tipcompletion. Indirectly, this dual path may have
boosted the significance level of the MANOVA tipcompletion by study
phase interaction. The negative β-weight of the link from the im-
plementationpagesvisits to the selfmonitoring may indicate that visits to
the implementation pages were made mainly by users facing some
particular difficulty or difficulties in implementing a saving tip they had
committed to, difficulties that impeded their progress reported via the
44
Energy Research & Social Science 53 (2019) 34–46
self-monitoring questionnaires.
Visits of the motivation pages as well as use of the consumption
analysis tool were predictors of the visiting of tip pages.
Motivationpagesvisits also predicted the act of committing to a saving
goal in percentage terms (goalsetting). But goalsetting was not a predictor
for either tippagesvisits or tipcommitment and both motivationpagevisits
and consumption analysis tool use, while predicting tippagesvisits, failed
to predict tipcommitment. Obviously, soliciting tipcommitment was a
singularly important element of the website information architecture.
Solicitation of goalsetting did not compare well. It was accepting the
offer to issue a tip commitment while visiting the tip pages and the
subsequent progress monitoring that constituted the crucial bottleneck
on the way to achieving a saving effect. Committing to one or more of
the proposed saving tips and persisting in actively monitoring beha-
vioral change helped to overcome the gap between a goal intention to
reduce electricity consumption and the implementation of behavioral
changes that were effective in actually achieving a reduction.
5.5. The findings against the backdrop of the SSBC model
These findings make sense in the light of the SSBC model [8]. The
model stipulates that formation of a behavior intention is bound to the
prior formation of a goal intention, but not that having a goal intention
automatically leads to a behavior intention. For instance, the formation
of a goal intention as indicated by the act of setting a saving goal in
percentage terms does not necessarily mean that suitable changes of
behavior are conceived of, initiated, adapted to the prevailing cir-
cumstances, and upheld in the face of obstacles, such that an actual
saving effect is realized in the end. Furthermore, while it seems possible
that consumption analysis tool use or visits of the motivation pages
induced a saving intention in some users, for instance via the con-
sumption comparison with reference households of the neighborhood,
others may have accessed the pages and informed themselves about
saving options, but then declined the proposals concerning saving goals
and behavioral change. One may get lost on the way. Users may have
failed to “document” their intention via the “goal setting” option. When
visiting the tip pages, a user may conclude that nothing new was offered
and thus fail to proceed to tip commitment and tip implemenation.
Moreover, it is possible for a user to develop or have developed a
fully-fledged saving goal intention plus anticipatory ideas about pos-
sible routes of action outside and independent of the website. For those
users, the website offered a SSBC stage 2 entry point directly leading to
the tip pages and from there to tip commitment and tip implementa-
tion. However, by itself neither the visit of tip pages nor the visit of tip
implementation pages was significantly associated with a saving effect.
Some users may have taken note of the tips and even the im-
plementation proposals only to reject them as unsuitable.
What did count was committing oneself to one or more saving tips.
The act of committing to a tip indicates formation of a behavior in-
tention and was predictive of activities furthering behavioral im-
plementation, like the self-monitoring of behavior change and the in-
spection of implementation tips, ultimately resulting in complete tip
implementation and, by consequence, in a consumption saving effect.
Interestingly, at the beginning of the study, the committed group fea-
tured a higher score than the uncommitted group on the pre-baseline
saving goal intention as measured by the questionnaire. Interestingly,
this saving intention was significantly related to personal saving norm,
but not to social saving norm, environmental attitude, and self-efficacy
related to saving. This does not come as a surprise. Normative standards
close to one’s personal identity have a better chance to be expressed in
intention formation and, eventually, behavior [52,53]. An extensive
meta-analysis confirmed the importance of personal moral norms as
predictors of pro-environmental action intention [9]. However, the pre-
baseline saving goal intention did not materialize during the baseline
phase. Apparently, the implementation of novel saving behaviors that
were sufficient to achieve a saving effect needed the action planning
B. Mack, et al.
and progress monitoring support provided by the website. This makes
sense in the light of recent meta-analyses of studies on goal commit-
ment [37] and process monitoring [11]: Goals and commitments must
be kept salient to become and remain behaviorally effective. Salience
may be maintained by feedback, reminders, and other appropriate
techniques like status questionnaires that increase the frequency of
progress monitoring. Future research on smart meter website interfaces
might benefit from heeding the distinction advocated by Harkin et al.
[11] between process monitoring focused on behavioral progress and
process monitoring focused on outcomes.
Given the above findings, the decisive bottleneck for the transfor-
mation of a goal intention into behavior is the formation of a behavior
intention the actor actually commits to and the subsequent control of
behavioral progress persisting until the behavioral goal is attained. This
conclusion may be unexpected given the role attributed to im-
plementation intentions from the perspective of the Rubicon model of
action planning [10,12,14,55]. The contradiction is only apparent,
though, and arises from a difference between the Rubicon model and
the SSBC. Within the framework of the Rubicon model, implementation
intentions – which are said to specify the when, where, and how of the
behavior planned – are assigned to the preaction stage. Within the
framework of the SSBC, they are assigned to the action stage and
mediate the transition to the postaction stage [8]. This seems sensible.
While a behavior intention without implied representations of the
when, where, and how of the intended behavioral strategy is difficult to
envisage, in the initial representation these temporal, spatial, and
modal aspects may be represented rather abstractly or else default to
particular concrete values. The representation of a behavioral strategy
may accommodate to the most suitable concrete parameter settings
only after the initialization of action and during persistent attempts to
perform.
5.6. Limitations of the study
The interpretation of the findings of the present study is confined by
several limitations relating to the sample of households, the re-
presentation of households by the respective energy manager, to fea-
tures of the smart meter treatment website, and to the fact that the
smart meter interface was only accessible via a web-browser and not
also via a smartphone app. Moreover, the main findings of the study
reveal a distinct limitation of smart meter interface-based intervention
strategies aimed at facilitating a reduction of consumption.
The sample of households studied was relatively small, comprising
46 treatment group households and 20 control group households. It was
not representative of the German population at large, but rather of a
particular age segment of individuals in their late thirties with above
average levels of education, occupation, and income. Their baseline
electricity consumption was below the German average. The study took
place in a newly constructed neighborhood. Most households had
moved in just a few weeks or months before their individual baseline
period commenced. It is probably due to the sample composition that
the saving effect observed assumed, at least in part, the form of pro-
tection against consumption increase.
The participating households were represented by a single in-
dividual, the energy manager. This represents a more severe limitation.
The energy manager was the only individual in the household who
actually interacted with the website. Thus, effects of the website on the
behavior of other members of the household were completely depen-
dent on the energy manager’s communicative behavior. The importance
of communication and discussion within the household was stressed by
instructions. However, measures of the extent to which these instruc-
tions were heeded could not be recorded.
In the present study, the smart meter interface could be accessed
using a web browser running on a notebook or a desktop PC. Due to
resource restrictions, access optimized for smartphones could not be
implemented. However, access via a smartphone app would be of great
45
Energy Research & Social Science 53 (2019) 34–46
advantage given that many people carry their smartphone with them
most of the time even at home. For instance, with smartphones, use
could be made of notification mechanisms to send prompts and re-
minders supportive of behavior change progress monitoring.
Users who committed themselves to one or more saving tips and
subsequently achieved a saving effect were more likely than others to
have set themselves a general saving goal using the goal setting module
of the website. They were also higher in pre-baseline goal intention.
Thus, forming a goal intention facilitates or is even a prerequisite for
committing oneself to a concrete saving tip. This signals a major lim-
itation. While the majority of treatment group users visited the moti-
vation pages as well as the analysis pages, no more than a third of them
set themselves a general saving goal and no more than a third issued a
tip commitment. Obviously, our motivation modules did not suffice to
trigger the formation of a saving goal intention in the majority of users.
It seems necessary to intervene in social contexts that facilitate the
generation of climate change risk perceptions [56] and personal and
social consumption norms [57] suitable to foster the motivation that is
expressed in saving goal intentions.
6. Conclusions
Although the sample investigated was lower in consumption than
the national average, compared with the baseline phase, households
that committed to saving tips and gave feedback that at least one tip
was completely implemented consumed less electricity in the treatment
phase, while households without commitments completely im-
plemented consumed more. This shows that techniques inducing com-
mitment to action and guiding towards implementation of the action
plan may be effective in producing real savings of electricity.
Declarations of interest
None.
Acknowledgments
Research was funded by the Helmholtz Association (grant number:
HA-303), Germany, and the federal state of Baden-Württemberg,
Germany, within the framework of the Helmholtz Alliance ENERGY-
TRANS (https://www.energy-trans.de/english/index.php); further data
analysis and evaluation by the Kopernikus-project ENavi (https://www.
kopernikus-projekte.de/en/projects/system-integration) was funded by
the German Federal Ministery of Education and Research, BMBF (grant
number: 03SFK4M).
The authors would like to express their gratitude towards our pro-
ject partners, the Stadtwerke Heidelberg Energie GmbH and the Trianel
GmbH.
We would like to thank the reviewers of an earlier version of this
paper for their insightful and constructive comments.
We would also like to thank the Öko-Institut e.V. Institute for
Applied Ecology, Freiburg, Germany for support with the selection of
energy saving tips and Daniel Kraus, Würzburg, Germany, for providing
the XL Toolbox.
Our special thanks go to Prof. Dr. Dr. hc Ortwin Renn for his great
support and most helpful comments on our work.
References
[1] UNFCCC, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Paris
Agreement, Retrieved July 24, 2017 from: (2017) http://unfccc.int/paris_
agreement/items/9485.php.
[2] BMWI, Energieeffizienz in Zahlen. [Energy efficiency by numbers] Retrieved
December 13, 2017, from: (2017) http://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/
Publikationen/Energie/energieeffizienz-in-zahlen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&
v=14.
[3] Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache 19/3040, Retrieved August 3, 2018, from (2018)
B. Mack, et al.
http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/030/1903040.pdf.
[4] D. Krömker, C. Dehmel, Einflussgrößen auf das Stromsparen im Haushalt aus psy-
chologischer Perspektive [Factors influencing the saving of electricity in households
— a psychological perspective.], Retrieved December 13, 2017 from (2010) https://
www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/transpose/publikationen/kroemker_
dehmel_2010_einflussgroessen_auf_das_stromsparen_im_haushalt_aus_
psychologischer_perspektive.pdf.
[5] Greenpeace Energy eG, Verbraucher wollen Strom sparen, um die Umwelt zu
schützen. [Consumers do want to save electricity in order to protect the environ-
ment], Retrieved January 23, 2018 from (2017) https://www.greenpeace-energy.
de/presse/artikel/verbraucher-wollen-strom-sparen-um-die-umwelt-zu-schuetzen.
html.
[6] M. Nachreiner, E. Matthies, Enhancing informational strategies for supporting re-
sidential electricity saving: identifying potential and household characteristics in
Germany, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11 (2016) 276–287, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.
2015.10.007.
[7] T.L. Webb, P. Sheeran, Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior
change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence, Psychol. Bull. 132 (2006)
249–268, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249.
[8] S. Bamberg, Changing environmentally harmful behaviors: a stage model of self-
regulated behavioral change, J. Environ. Psychol. 34 (2013) 151–159, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.002.
[9] S. Bamberg, G. Möser, Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new
meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour, J.
Environ. Psychol. 27 (1) (2007) 14–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.
002.
[10] P.M. Gollwitzer, P. Sheeran, Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a
meta‐analysis of effects and processes, Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38 (2006) 69–119,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1.
[11] B. Harkin, T.L. Webb, B.P. Chang, A. Prestwich, M. Conner, I. Kellar, et al., Does
monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experi-
mental evidence, Psychol. Bull. 142 (2) (2016) 198–229, https://doi.org/10.1037/
bul0000025.
[12] P. Sheeran, T.L. Webb, The intention–behavior gap, Soc. Personal. Psychol.
Compass 10 (9) (2016) 503–518, https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265.
[13] T. Fu, N. Mundorf, C. Redding, A. Paiva, J.O. Prochaska, Promoting behavior
change among campus commuters, March, 53rd Annual Transportation Research
Forum, (2012).
[14] P.M. Gollwitzer, Action phases and mind-sets, in: E.T. Higgins, R.M. Sorrentino
(Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, Vol.
2 Guilford, New York, 1990, pp. 53–92.
[15] H. Heckhausen, P.M. Gollwitzer, Thought contents and cognitive functioning in
motivational versus volitional states of mind, Motiv. Emot. 11 (2) (1987) 101–120,
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992338.
[16] J.O. Prochaska, W.F. Velicer, The transtheoretical model of health behavior change,
Am. J. Health Promot. 12 (1) (1997) 38–48, https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-
12.1.38.
[17] R. Schwarzer, Modeling health behavior change: how to predict and modify the
adoption and maintenance of health behaviors, Appl. Psychol. 57 (1) (2008) 1–29,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00325.x.
[18] S.H. Schwartz, J.A. Howard, A normative decision-making model of altruism, in:
J.P. Rushton, R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and Helping Behavior, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, MA, 1981, pp. 189–211.
[19] E. van der Werff, L. Steg, One model to predict them all: predicting energy beha-
viours with the norm activation model, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 6 (2015) 8–14, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.11.002.
[20] I. Ajzen, The theory of planned behavior, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 (2)
(1991) 179–211, https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
[21] C. Chen, X. Xu, S. Frey, Who wants solar water heaters and alternative fuel vehicles?
Assessing social–psychological predictors of adoption intention and policy support
in China, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 15 (2016) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.
2016.02.006.
[22] I. Ajzen, C. Czasch, M.G. Flood, From intentions to behavior: implementation in-
tention, commitment, and conscientiousness, J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 39 (6) (2009)
1356–1372, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00485.x.
[23] European Parliament, Directive 2012/27/EU Retrieved December 13, 2017, from:
(2012) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=
CELEX:32012L0027&from=EN.
[24] S. Bager, L. Mundaca, Making ‘Smart Meters’ smarter? Insights from a behavioural
economics pilot field experiment in Copenhagen, Denmark, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 28
(2017) 68–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.04.008.
[25] S. D’Oca, S.P. Corgnati, T. Buso, Smart meters and energy savings in Italy: de-
termining the effectiveness of persuasive communication in dwellings, Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 3 (2014) 131–142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.015.
[26] B. Mack, K. Tampe-Mai, An action theory-based electricity saving web portal for
households with an interface to smart meters, Util. Policy 42 (2016) 51–63, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2016.05.003.
[27] M. Nachreiner, B. Mack, E. Matthies, K. Tampe-Mai, An analysis of smart metering
information systems from the perspective of a psychological model of self-regulated
behavioural change, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 9 (2015) 85–97, https://doi.org/10.
1016/ j.erss.2015.08.016.
[28] S. Bamberg, Applying the stage model of self-regulated behavioral change in a car
use reduction intervention, J. Environ. Psychol. 33 (2013) 68–75, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.10.001.
[29] C.A. Klöckner, The dynamics of purchasing an electric vehicle–A prospective
46
Energy Research & Social Science 53 (2019) 34–46
longitudinal study of the decision-making process, Transp. Res. Part F Traffic
Psychol. Behav. 24 (2014) 103–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.04.015.
[30] T. Ohnmacht, D. Schaffner, Ch. Weibel, H. Schad, Rethinking social psychology and
intervention design: a model of energy savings and human behavior, Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 26 (2017) 40–53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.01.017.
[31] S. Bamberg, Processes of change, in: A.L. Steg, V.D. Berg, J.D. Groot (Eds.),
Environmental Psychology: An Introduction, Wiley, Southern Gate, Chichester,
2012, pp. 267–280.
[32] J.O. Prochaska, C.A. Redding, K.E. Evers, The transtheoretical model and stages of
change, in: K. Glanz, C.E. Lewis, B.K. Rimer (Eds.), Health Behavior and Health
Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2002,
pp. 99–120.
[33] N.J. Goldstein, R.B. Cialdini, Using social norms as a lever of social influence, in:
A.R. Pratkanis (Ed.), The Science of Social Influence, Psychology Press, New York,
NY, 2007, pp. 167–192.
[34] W. Abrahamse, L. Steg, C. Vlek, T. Rothengatter, A review of intervention studies
aimed at household energy conservation, J. Environ. Psychol. 25 (3) (2005)
273–291, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.002.
[35] B. Mack, Energiesparen fördern durch psychologische Intervention [Encouraging
energy saving by psychological interventions], Münster: Waxmann (2007).
[36] L. McCalley, C.J. Midden, Energy conservation through product-integrated feed-
back: the roles of goal-setting and social orientation, J. Econ. Psychol. 23 (5) (2002)
589–603 DOI: 1016/S0167-4870(02)00119-8.
[37] A.M. Lokhorst, C. Werner, H. Staats, E. van Dijk, J. Gale, Commitment and behavior
change: A meta-analysis and critical review of commitment-making strategies in
environmental research, Environ. Behav. 45 (1) (2013) 3–34, https://doi.org/10.
1177/0013916511411477.
[38] T. Gärling, S. Fujii, Structural equation modeling of determinants of planning,
Scand. J. Psychol. 43 (1) (2002) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00263.
[39] P.C. Stern, Individual and household interactions with energy systems: toward in-
tegrated understanding, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1 (2014) 41–48, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.erss.2014.03.003.
[40] J.A. Bargh, Conditional automaticity: varieties of automatic influence in social
perception and cognition, in: J.S. Uleman, J.A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended Thought,
Guilford, New York, 1989, pp. 3–51.
[41] J.A. Bargh, Automaticity in social psychology, in: E.T. Higgins, A.W. Kruglanski
(Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, Guilford, New York, 1996,
pp. 169–183.
[42] M.A. Delmas, M. Fischlein, O.I. Asensio, Information strategies and energy con-
servation behavior. A meta-analysis of experimental studies from 1975 to 2012,
Energy Policy 61 (2013) 729–739, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.109.
[43] K. Ehrhardt-Martinez, K.A. Donnelly, J.A. Laitner, Advanced Metering Initiatives
and Residential Feedback Programs: a Meta-review for Household Electricity-saving
Opportunities, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington,
DC, 2010.
[44] C. Fischer, Feedback on household electricity consumption: a tool for saving en-
ergy? Energy Effic. 1 (1) (2008) 79–104, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-008-
9009-7.
[45] B. Karlin, J.F. Zinger, R. Ford, The effects of feedback on energy conservation: a
meta-analysis, Psychol. Bull. 141 (6) (2015) S. 1205–S. 1227, https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0039650.
[46] A. Bandura, Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales, in: F. Pajares, T.C. Urdan
(Eds.), Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, IAP, Greenwich, CT, 2006, pp. 307–337.
[47] F.G. Kaiser, K. Byrka, T. Hartig, Reviving Campbell’s paradigm for attitude research,
Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 14 (2010) 351–367, https://doi.org/10.1177/
1088868310366452.
[48] F.G. Kaiser, M.R. Wilson, Goal-directed conservation behavior: the specific com-
position of a general performance, Pers. Individ. Dif. 36 (2004) 1531–1544, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.06.003.
[49] Statista GmbH (2018). Retrieved November 22, 2018 from https://de.statista.com/
statistik/daten/studie/167169/umfrage/entwicklung-der-haushaltsgroessen-in-
deutschland-seit-2000/.
[50] D. Hengstenberg, Stromspiegel für Deutschland - Die Stromsparinitiative. [Energy
level comparison for Germany - the energy saving initiative], Retrieved January 16,
2016, from (2015) https://www.die-stromsparinitiative.de/stromspiegel/index.
html.
[51] MATLAB Documentation: Silhouette Plot, MATLAB Documentation: Silhouette Plot,
(2017) https://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/silhouette.html.
[52] S.H. Schwartz, Words, deeds, and the perception of consequences and responsibility
in action situations, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 10 (1968) 232–242 DOI:
10.1037%2Fh0026569.
[53] S.H. Schwartz, Normative influences on altruism, in: L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10 Academic Press, New York, NY, 1977,
pp. 221–279.
[54] S. Gölz, U.J.J. Hahnel, What motivates people to use energy feedback systems? A
multiple goal approach to predict long-term usage behaviour in daily life, Energy
Res. Soc. Sci. 21 (2016) 155–166, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.07.006.
[55] P.M. Gollwitzer, Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans, Am.
Psychol. 54 (7) (1999) 493–503, https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493.
[56] D. Bugdenn, R. Stedmann, A synthetic view of acceptance and engagement with
smart meters in the United States, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 47 (2019) 137–145, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.08.025.
[57] A. Biel, J. Thøgersen, Activation of social norms in social dilemmas: a review of the
evidence and reflections on the implications for environmental behaviour, J. Econ.
Psychol. 28 (2007) 93–112, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2006.03.003.