The Socio-Demographic and Psychological Predictors of Residential Energy Consumption: A Comprehensive Review

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical Background: Conceptualizing Energy Consumption and Conservation

Figure 1. Integrative conceptualization of the various individual (socio-demographic and psychological) and situational (contextual and structural) factors that may influence household energy consumption and conservation.

Figure 1. Integrative conceptualization of the various individual (socio-demographic and psychological) and situational (contextual and structural) factors that may influence household energy consumption and conservation.

3. The Current Review

4. Overview of Key Findings

4.1. Socio-Demographic Predictors

As evident in the top portion of Table 1, household energy consumption and conservation are associated with a wide range of socio-demographic variables. The relatively unchanging opportunities and constraints that people confront when seeking to engage in certain activities may significantly influence how much energy a particular consumer or household can use at any moment in time. Socio-demographic factors such as household income, dwelling type and size, home ownership, family size and composition, and life cycle stage are just some of the many factors that may influence these opportunities and constraints, and thereby indelibly shape the amount, frequency and duration of a household’s energy use. Our review of the literature reveals a good number of sources examining the effects of standard socio-demographic factors like age, gender, income, home ownership and household size, but comparatively little assessment of variables such as householders’ technical expertise and ownership of home technology. Despite considerable uncertainty introduced by the complex interactions that can occur between multiple factors over time (see the diversity of results evident in Table 1), some general findings to emerge regarding the socio-demographic predictors of energy usage include the following:

• There is inconsistent empirical support for age and gender differences in energy consumption, with any effects tending to be rather small and/or statistically insignificant.
• Education tends to be associated with increased knowledge, awareness and concern regarding environmental issues (such as energy efficiency), however, higher levels of education generally do not lead certainly and directly to pro-environmental behavior (e.g., saving energy).
• Employment status of household occupants (e.g., full-time, part-time, retired or unemployed) may indirectly impact energy consumption, by influencing household income and socio-economic status, which in turn can constrain the household’s financial capacity to invest in efficiency measures. Links between occupational status and acceptance of energy-saving strategies have also been examined, but there is limited and inconsistent evidence that this strongly influences energy consumption.
• Household income tends to be positively related to residential energy consumption, but may also enhance household capacity to invest in products and improvements that increase energy efficiency (e.g., to purchase new appliances and more energy-efficient technology).
• Household size (number of people per residence) tends to be positively associated with energy consumption, such that larger families generally consume more energy overall. However, energy usage per capita tends to be lower in larger households, presumably due to the sharing of energy services among multiple residents.
• Dwelling size (floor space, number of rooms/floors, etc.) appears to be positively related to household energy consumption, with larger dwellings typically using more energy. Additionally, people residing in detached dwellings (free-standing homes and townhouses) tend to consume more energy than those in multi-unit dwellings (apartments and units).
• Homeowners tend to make larger capital investments in energy conservation measures (e.g., household improvements to increase energy efficiency, purchase of new technology and energy-saving devices) than those living in rental housing.
• Stage of family life cycle appears to be an important predictor of household energy use, with energy consumption typically peaking during the child-rearing years, presumably due to associated changes in household work (e.g., cleaning, cooking, laundry), childcare, and family activities (e.g., in-home entertainment, recreation). The presence or absence of family members—including changes in family composition over time (e.g., the birth of a baby, an older child leaving home)—may also influence levels and patterns of household energy consumption.

Table 1. Socio-demographic and psychological factors associated with household energy consumption and conservation.

Table 1. Socio-demographic and psychological factors associated with household energy consumption and conservation.

Category	Predictor	Impact on household energy consumption and conservation behavior
Socio-demographic factors	Age	Overall, age does not consistently emerge as a statistically significant predictor of household energy use. Some research supports a positive association between age and energy consumption, such that energy usage increases as the household head grows older. This may be because older people are less likely to adopt energy efficiency measures (given more negative perceptions of the likely cost/benefit ratio and return on investment), possess less knowledge of energy problems and solutions, have lower income and/or poorer home conditions, or require more cooling/heating than younger people to be comfortable [6,46,47,48,49,50,51]. However, this positive association is far from consistent, with many studies failing to detect any statistically significant effects of age [7,21,27,52,53] or even suggesting that older people are actually more likely to be energy-savers and committed to sustainable energy use (e.g., [1,43,54]). Some studies have even proposed a curvilinear relationship with age, in various forms, where energy consumption peaks either (a) during the middle stages of the life cycle, perhaps with the larger households typical of mid-life having higher energy requirements [50,55], or conversely (b) for younger and older households, perhaps because both tend to live in smaller households with higher per capita consumption, and take fewer energy-saving actions than those in middle-age [56].
	Gender	The effects of gender on household energy usage seem to be inconsistent, minimal or statistically insignificant. Some research seems to indicate that women exhibit more pro-environmental attitudes and behavior than men [20,43,57,58], while others find no significant relationship [6,21,27,51,59,60]. It may be that gender differences in socio-economic conditions and lifestyles (e.g., exposure to poverty, child rearing responsibilities, etc.) sometimes constrain the ability of women to conserve energy [61,62]. However, gender-based differences tend to dissipate once one controls for the effects of confounding variables such as household size, income and even age [58].
	Education	Some studies have reported significant effects of education on pro-environmental behavior and/or energy usage [7,46,63]. But increased education does not typically translate directly into more pro-environmental behavior per se [20]. Rather, across many domains of human behaviour there is often a “knowledge-action gap” [43,64,65,66], not only in terms of general pro-environmental behavior but also (more specifically) in regard to household energy consumption. For example, several studies have found that education level has no significant impact on either the number of conservation activities [52,67] or household energy consumption [53,54]. While others have found more educated people are slightly more likely to display pro-environmental behavior, these effects are either statistically insignificant [21] or far weaker than the impact of socio-demographic, psychological and motivational factors that are more proximal to actual behavior [56].
	Employment status	Type of employment (full-time, part-time, retired or unemployed) of household members—particularly the head of the household—may indirectly impact energy consumption by influencing the household’s socio-economic status, confidence in income security and/or financial capability to invest in efficiency measures (e.g., new energy-saving technology).
Socio-demographic factors	Employment status	Consumers in full-time employment tend to have more disposable income to spend on day-to-day energy use and energy-intensive appliances, but also more money to invest in one-off energy-saving measures (e.g., solar panels, insulation, energy-efficient light bulbs). They also tend to spend fewer hours per day at home compared to part-time, retired or unemployed consumers, which may contribute toward less household consumption. Indeed, some research suggests that full-time employment is significantly related to making home improvements to conserve energy [47]. It has been proposed that compared to being retired, unemployed or even in part-time employment, full-time employment of the head-of-household may raise consumers’ confidence in their capacity to undertake home improvements. Some research has also found that people with higher-status occupations may be slightly more accepting of certain energy conservation strategies [60]; however, these effects have not been consistently observed (e.g., [67,68]) and as such, the influence of occupational status is unlikely to be strong and/or explain substantial variability in household energy consumption.
	Income	Household income appears to be one of the strongest socio-demographic predictors of residential energy use and conservation. Most studies have found positive associations between household income and residential energy consumption, suggesting that higher-income households tend to consume more energy than lower-income households [6,7,27,53,54,69,70,71,72]. At the same time, however, there is also evidence that higher-income households may be more willing and/or able to conserve energy because they can afford the financial costs of energy-saving investments, such as purchasing new efficient technology [59]. The effects of socio-economic factors may differ for day-to-day energy usage as opposed to the one-off adoption of energy efficiency measures. Household income is closely linked with factors such as employment status, education and household size—all of which reflect situational characteristics that may facilitate or constrain energy-related behavior by providing the means by which people can perform everyday actions and take one-off steps to save energy. For example, higher-income households typically own and use more electrical appliances than lower-income households, which may lead to differences in energy use [53,71]. At the same time, a higher total income may also increase a household’s capability to invest in one-off energy efficiency measures (e.g., solar panels, insulation, energy-saving devices) that serve to conserve energy. While most research supports a positive relationship between income and household energy consumption, findings are variable across studies—for example, some studies report weak to insignificant effects [46]. Some researchers have even concluded that middle-income households may be the most likely income group to save energy because low-income consumers are unable to reduce their energy use, while high-income consumers are unwilling to reduce their energy use [52,73].
Socio-demographic factors	Household size	Total household energy consumption is positively related to family or household size and composition (i.e., number of persons per residence), such that larger families/households typically consume more energy compared to smaller families/households [6,27,53,69,74]. This may be because larger households generally: (a) possess and/or use more energy-intensive appliances; (b) have more disposable income to spend on energy; and (c) have greater energy demands and requirements (i.e., more cooking, cleaning, washing, heating/cooling, etc.). The presence or absence of family members from a household, as well as changes in family composition over time (i.e., new-born baby, older child leaving home, etc.) may also influence household energy consumption [8,68]. However, the relationship between household size and energy use is not perfectly linear and may actually differ when energy consumption is measured per capita as opposed to per household. The sharing of energy services among multiple household members generally leads to lower energy use per capita in larger households, all else being equal [72,75]. That is, the association between household size and energy use is reversed when consumption is measured on a per capita basis. For example, while the highest consuming households tend to be larger families (i.e., couples with children), single-person households actually use the highest amount of energy per capita followed by couple-only, single-parent and two-parent families, respectively [71]. One study has found that two-person households consume around 17% less energy per person for residential and transportation activities than single-person households, with three-person households using more than one-third less energy per person [72]. The impact of household size may also differ for energy consumption as opposed to conservation. While larger households tend to consume more energy overall, they may also make greater investments in energy efficiency measures. Some research suggests that household size may even have a curvilinear relationship with energy conservation (see Curtain 1976, cited in [50]), with three to four-person households reporting a greater history of past conservation efforts and less expected difficulty in future conservation.
	Dwelling type and size	Dwelling type (e.g., free-standing houses, townhouses/duplexes, residential units, apartments, etc.) appears to directly influence energy consumption because different dwellings vary in important characteristics such as the number of rooms/floors, amount of floor space, degree of insulation, sun and wind exposure, the attributes of energy-using equipment, the number and kind of household appliances, and other critical design features such as wall-cavity insulation, double glazing, energy-efficient heating, ventilation and cooling systems (e.g., [8,68,76]). Some early research has estimated that considering all factors, as much as half of total household energy use depends on the characteristics of existing equipment and the dwelling, with the remainder determined by the features and behavior of occupants [75].
Socio-demographic factors	Dwelling type and size	Households residing in larger dwellings, as indexed by number of rooms and floor space (e.g., freestanding homes) typically consume more energy than households residing in smaller dwellings (e.g., units or apartments) [54]. Some research has found that households living in detached houses, townhouses and semi-detached dwellings consumed 74% more electricity than those living in multi-unit dwellings [71]. At the same time, some research has also found that households residing in detached houses are actually more willing to engage in energy conservation activities than those residing in apartment blocks [59]. Some evidence also indicates that dwelling characteristics can influence the behavior of household members themselves, thereby impacting energy use indirectly. For example, residing in a larger dwelling may signal to consumers that their household uses considerable electricity/gas and that energy-savings and home improvements are therefore more desirable or necessary [47].
	Dwelling age	The age of a house/dwelling is often expected to be positively associated with household energy consumption, primarily due to the lower energy efficiency standards of older dwellings (e.g., less efficient heating/cooling, poor insulation, energy wasting appliances, etc.). However, some studies have failed to detect statistically significant effects of dwelling age on consumer participation in energy conservation activities such as home energy audits [56], with more recent research also suggesting that newer homes with more energy efficiency appliances do not necessarily reduce a household’s overall energy expenditure. In fact, homeowners residing in older dwellings may even be more inclined to adopt energy-efficient measures than those residing in newer dwellings, particularly if older dwellings are in physically or aesthetically in poor condition and require the installation of new appliances or building components [46].
	Home ownership	Home ownership (e.g., rented vs. owner-occupied) appears to indirectly impact energy consumption by way of influencing household investment in energy efficiency measures [10,77,78]. Sardianou [59] summarises key findings from a number of studies (e.g., [43,67,70,77,79,80]) to demonstrate why home ownership is often associated with greater availability of, and access to, energy efficiency measures. Compared to renters, homeowners are more likely to invest in energy efficiency measures because they tend to be wealthier and have greater financial security, hold longer tenure, and receive greater return on energy efficiency investments. Conversely, renters tend to be poorer, more transient, and less willing and/or capable of making home improvements (either due to limited financial resources, lack of control and/or fewer incentives), thereby leading to less financial investment in energy-efficient devices and new technology. Some early research on the determinants of gasoline and home heating energy conservation found that home ownership was among the most powerful socio-demographic factors distinguishing conservers from non-conservers [1], with subsequent research revealing that it is also one of the most important factors explaining large capital investment in household energy-saving measures [77]. Barr et al. [43] have also recently suggested that home ownership may provide consumers with a sense of personal control and belonging that encourages them to focus more conscious attention toward saving energy.
Socio-demographic factors	Home ownership	However, other studies have found that homeowners consume more energy than tenants (for a list of studies, see [78]). For example, a recent Australian study found that households who rent their homes actually consumed less energy than homeowners [71].
	Stage of family life cycle	Many researchers have investigated how household life cycle relates to consumer’s economic behavior (e.g., [81,82]). The stage of a family’s life cycle—typically defined as a combination of criteria such as family members’ age, marital status, and family size/type—appears to be one of the strongest predictors of household energy consumption (for reviews, see [50,55,75]). This is because family life cycle stages are linked with differences in household needs, priorities, and activities—all of which can help explain variability in household energy demands and usage levels. Families in different stages of the life cycle have vastly different attributes in terms of household work (e.g., cleaning, cooking, laundry), childcare, and in-home entertainment (e.g., TV/computer, visits of friends/family, hobbies and recreation, sleeping and resting/relaxation), all of which may influence patterns of energy consumption and conservation. A reasonable body of research has supported a curvilinear pattern whereby household energy consumption peaks during the child-rearing years. For example, studies have found that families with children typically use more energy than families without children (at either earlier or later stages of the life cycle) or families with children who have left home [50]. According to Lutzenhiser [83], household life cycle (i.e., family age and composition) differences have been reported across a range of criteria including areas such as heating, electricity use, housing needs, overall energy efficiency, building/appliance characteristics, and levels of carbon dioxide pollution. These differences in household energy consumption across the lifespan may arise from concurrent changes in some of the socio-demographic predictors of energy use, particularly factors such as employment, income, house type/size, and household composition. Because household characteristics may influence the behavior, activities and lifestyles of occupants, any changes in these characteristics over time may subsequently change the energy usage of the household [75].
	Geographical location	Regional differences in climate, temperature and geography are key determinants of household energy use, with studies in the northern hemisphere finding that households located in more southern regions (i.e., warmer temperatures) tend to consume less energy than households in more northern regions (i.e., colder temperatures) [6,8]. Rural areas have also been found to have higher levels of energy use than urban areas [8], with these regional differences purportedly arising due to variability in types of houses (e.g., freestanding dwellings vs. apartments), life-style characteristics, and house orientation to sunlight and wind. Geographical location may also impact homeowners’ attitudes and preferences toward energy conservation—for example, due to the effects of the local governments’ actions to encourage and reward energy efficiency measures and behavior [46].
Socio-demographic factors	Ownership of home technology & technical expertise	Some researchers have suggested that householders who possess “high-tech” consumer products (e.g., electrical goods, computers, etc.) may be attracted toward all types of technical innovation (including energy-saving devices), alongside having more disposable income to invest in such products (i.e., greater financial capacity to purchase new technology); thus, ownership of general (non-energy) home technology may be associated with ownership of more specific energy-saving devices, systems and equipment (e.g., energy efficient appliances, solar power) that assist with energy conservation [10]. Some research also suggests that the presence of a household member with technical knowledge and skills in home repairs (e.g., home appliance and automotive repairs)—that is, a “handyperson”—is positively related to energy conservation, presumably because such people may have a better understanding of new technology [10] and be more capable of performing installation and ongoing maintenance tasks for energy-saving technology [40,46]. However, “do-it-yourself” consumers may also be less inclined to purchase unfamiliar energy efficiency equipment and appliances if they perceive the installation and maintenance of these items to be complicated, burdensome or requiring expert skills [84]. Indeed, Kollmuss and Agyeman [20] have cited some research showing that very detailed technical knowledge does not inherently facilitate or increase pro-environmental behavior.
Psychological factors	Knowledge & problem awareness	In the context of energy consumption, energy-related knowledge reflects one’s level of knowledge, awareness and understanding of energy costs, energy-saving behavior, and the consequences of such behavior [8]. While greater knowledge, awareness and understanding of environmental issues such as energy conservation tend to be positively associated with pro-environmental behavior (e.g., saving energy) [70,85], greater knowledge and/or awareness does not directly and automatically lead to more pro-environmental behavior per se—that is, there is often a “knowledge-action gap” [14,43,64,65,86]. Empirical evidence shows that only a small portion of pro-environmental behavior can be directly linked to environmental knowledge and awareness, with Kollmuss and Agyeman [20] citing some research to suggest that at least 80% of the motives for pro-environmental action are other internal and situational factors. While there are exceptions, most studies have failed to consistently detect statistically significant relationships between knowledge and problem awareness and pro-environmental behavior such as energy conservation [14,87,88]. Thus, while greater knowledge and problem awareness is generally positively related to energy savings (and negatively related to energy usage), this relationship is likely to be weak and/or insignificant.
Psychological factors	Values, attitudes & beliefs	Values reflect a global, abstract and relatively enduring set of beliefs, ideals and standards that serve as guiding principles in life (e.g., a person’s general sense of right vs. wrong), whereas attitudes reflect more specific positive or negative evaluations of a particular idea, object, person, situation or activity [89,90,91,92]. Many scholars have examined the role of values, attitudes and beliefs in the context of pro-environmental behavior and, more specifically, residential energy usage [6,8,27,93,94,95,96,97]. Some early studies found support for the notion that holding more pro-environmental values, attitudes and beliefs will lead to more pro-environmental behavior [21,93,98]. For example, an early meta-analysis by Hines et al. [21] reported a positive relationship between attitudes and pro-environmental behavior, suggesting that people with more positive attitudes were more likely to report engaging in environmentally responsible behavior than those with less positive attitudes. In terms of the specific pro-environmental behavior of sustainable energy use, Becker et al. [93] found that householder’s attitudes toward thermal comfort and convenience were the most powerful predictors of household energy use; and Seligman et al. [98] reported a relatively strong positive association between personal values and residential electricity consumption. Nevertheless, most empirical evidence indicates that the strength of these associations is often inconsistent, weak and/or insignificant [6,27,53,54,70,99], especially when compared to the effects of socio-demographic factors [7]. It appears that positive values, attitudes and beliefs toward the environment may encourage sustainable behavior (e.g., energy savings, adoption of efficiency measures, etc.), but they do not inherently lead to actual reductions in energy use per se [46,53,54,100]. This discrepancy has been referred to as a “value-action gap” and/or “attitude-action gap”, and has been observed across many domains of human behavior [26,101,102,103]. Consistent with this notion, daily life illustrates many situations where people express strong beliefs about the negative consequences of environmental problems (e.g., global warming, climate change, reliance on fossil fuels), or positive evaluations of sustainability and “green” technologies (e.g., renewable energy sources), but fail to translate those beliefs, values and attitudes into practical actions to limit household energy use. Several scholars have offered useful explanations for how and why environmental attitudes have varying, and typically very small, impacts on pro-environmental behavior (e.g., [8,20,68,102,104]). For example, people typically make choices and behave in ways that minimize costs and maximise benefits to themselves (in terms of time, effort, money, comfort, etc.) rather than based on what is “best” for others and the environment [93,94]. Moreover, while attitudes may lead to positive intentions to save energy, various intervening factors (e.g., lack of knowledge about effective actions, social norms, perceived personal responsibility, self-efficacy, anticipated cost-benefit trade-offs, situational and institutional factors, etc.) may block this intention from being realised into actual behavior [8,68].
Psychological factors	Motives, intentions & goals	Motives are the driving forces or impulses that initiate, guide and maintain goal-directed behavior; that is, the specific reasons why a person acts in a certain way at any given time. Most modern theories define motivation as the process that shapes the intensity, direction and persistence of effort that a person allocates toward achieving a particular goal or desired end state [105,106,107,108,109,110,111]. A range of theoretical models have been proposed to explain the various motivations that underpin different types of pro-environmental behavior, including sustainable use of energy [17,44]. Some scholars have drawn on the theory of planned behavior [23] to argue that people make reasoned choices and behave in a way that yields “optimal” outcomes in terms of minimising costs and maximising benefits (in terms of time, effort, money, social approval, etc.). Others have focused more heavily on moral and normative concerns by arguing that pro-environmental behavior is positively associated with specific motives related to altruistic, biospheric, prosocial and self-transcendent value orientations (i.e., values beyond one’s immediate self-interests), environmental concern, and a sense of moral obligation (see [17,44,63,96,112,113,114]). Distinctions have also been made between self-transcendent and self-enhancing goals (for more information, see [89,90]). Some research suggests that whereas self-transcendence goals (e.g., promoting the interests of others and the external world) are positively related to a range of pro-environmental behaviors, the relationship between self-enhancement goals (e.g., focusing on oneself and one’s interests) and action is either negative or non-significant. Indeed, Schultz and Zelezny [97] have concluded that people who place a higher value in self-transcendent life goals typically express greater care and concern for environmental issues, as well as exhibiting more pro-environmental behavior. Conversely, those who place higher value in self-enhancing life goals typically have more egotistical concerns about environmental issues and display less pro-environmental behavior. Intrinsic motives—that is, motivation that stems from personal interest, enjoyment or satisfaction in an activity itself, regardless of external pressures or rewards—have also been associated with pro-environmental behavior [115]. De Young [116] proposed four different intrinsic satisfactions and associated motives that may underpin environmental sustainability: satisfaction from striving for behavioral competence (e.g., enjoyment from solving problems and completing tasks); satisfaction from frugal, thoughtful consumption (e.g., enjoyment from survival based on careful management of finite resources); satisfaction from participating in the community (e.g., enjoyment from being involved in community activities); and satisfaction from luxuries (e.g., enjoyment from convenience and access to new/novel products). Research suggests that individuals who possess intrinsic motivation tend to engage in more durable, sustainable behavior [116,117,118]. Researchers have also distinguished between primary and specific motives, with Kollmuss and Agyeman [20] suggesting that the larger primary motives that influence a wide range of behavior (i.e., altruistic and social values around living a pro-environmental lifestyle) are often surpassed or overridden by more immediate, selective motives (i.e., specific motives that influence particular actions and often evolve around one’s own needs, such as being comfortable, saving money/time, reducing effort, etc.).
Psychological factors	Motives, intentions & goals	Goal framing theory [119,120,121] has been offered as a framework for integrating diverse concepts from the above theoretical perspectives. This theory proposes that at any given moment, human behavior arises from multiple motivations, and goals guide or “frame” how people think, feel and act. Three main motives or “goal frames” have been identified as relevant for predicting pro-environmental behavior: gain goal frames (i.e., a desire to protect and improve one’s resources or possessions, such as to save money, protect financial security, etc.); normative goal frames (i.e., a desire to act appropriately in line with social and moral standards, that is, to behave in the “right” way); and hedonic goal frames (i.e., a desire to achieve positive self-esteem and improve how one feels at a particular moment, such as to seek pleasure and avoid pain) (for a comprehensive review, see [122]). While motivations are rarely homogeneous and multiple goals can influence behavior, hedonic goal frames are assumed to exert the strongest effects. However, little empirical research exists to support this model, as it has yet to be scientifically tested in the environmental or residential energy usage domains. In the general psychology literature, many studies also reveal a discrepancy between intentions and behavior, i.e., an “intentions-action gap” [123,124]. For example, a meta-analysis by Sheeran [124] estimated that intentions explain only about 28% of the variance in future behavior, with a more recent mega-analysis finding weak support for the overall impact of changing behavioral intentions on subsequent change in behavior—in fact, it was concluded that a medium-to-large sized change in intention leads to only a small-to-medium change in behavior [125]. Thus, while people driven by certain intentions may be more inclined to engage in energy-saving behavior, simply possessing these intentions does not automatically translate to behavior.
	Personal norms	It has been suggested that altruistic behavior is activated by personal norms, and acting in manner that is consistent with one’s personal norms may lead to positive feelings of pride and self-satisfaction whereas acting in a manner inconsistent with personal norms may lead to negative feelings of guilt and regret. According to the norm activation model [126], pro-social behavior is influenced by moral or personal norms—i.e., feelings of strong moral obligation to perform certain types of pro-social behavior, including pro-environmental actions such as energy conservation (for reviews, see [6,16,27]). For personal norms to be activated, however, a person must first be aware that their behavior has an impact on others and/or the environment (i.e., there must be awareness of consequences), and also feel a sense of personal responsibility for such impacts (i.e., termed “ascription of responsibility”). Consistent with this notion, Abrahamse and Steg [27] have suggested that consumers are likely to feel a stronger obligation to save energy if they believe that energy consumption negatively impacts the environment, and that they are personally responsible. Evidence from several studies supports the role of moral norms and personal responsibility in explaining individual differences pro-environmental behavior [17,21,77,127,128]. However, the strength of this effect of personal norms is questionable, with some research suggesting that personal norms only guide behavior when they are focal [129]. Thus, while it may be assumed that personal norms will influence household energy usage, simply possessing more positive personal norms is unlikely to directly translate to changes in energy consumption or conservation.
Psychological factors	Perceived responsibility	Perceived responsibility reflects the attribution of responsibility (i.e., self-blame, accountability, liability, obligation, etc.) for energy conservation to oneself rather than away from oneself to other people, the government, industry bodies, environmental groups, or other external entities [8]. It is often argued that feeling personally responsible for environmental problems (e.g., accepting blame for ecological damage caused by excessive energy use) and for protecting the environment (e.g., feeling obligated to combat climate change by reducing carbon emissions) is positively associated with pro-environmental behavior. A number of researchers have proposed that people who feel personally responsible for environmental problems tend to feel a stronger obligation to help minimise or mitigate them, thereby activating personal norms (e.g., moral obligation to act) and increasing one’s willingness to act pro-environmentally (e.g., [6,27]). Denying one’s own responsibility, on the other hand, may diffuse blame to an external entity and indicate that there is no need to change one’s behavior or lifestyle [8]. Accepting personal responsibility for sustainable energy use is therefore hypothesized to be a positive predictor of energy-saving behavior [43,94,95,130]. However, the strength of this relationship may be weak due to the same processes implicated in the aforementioned “value-action gap” [26,101,102,103]. In terms of empirical evidence, Hummel et al. [131] (cited in Van Raaij & Verhallen, 1983a) found that perceived self-blame of energy consumers was related to a greater willingness to save energy, whereas diffusing blame for the energy crisis was related to less willingness to conserve. In subsequent research, Hines et al. [21] proposed that personal responsibility may be expressed in various ways, for example in terms of the environment as a whole (e.g., personal responsibility to protect the environment, social responsibility to the community) and/or in terms of only one facet of the environment (e.g., personal responsibility felt for reducing energy). Based on a meta-analysis, these authors concluded that those who feel some degree of personal responsibility toward the environment are more likely to display responsible environmental behavior than those who do not feel personally responsible. Given that other research from the general psychological literature shows there is often a discrepancy between intentions and action, however, the strength of the relationship between perceived responsibility and the specific pro-environmental behavior of energy conservation may not always be consistent or reliable.
	Locus of control, self-efficacy, and perceived behavioral control	Locus of control reflects a person’s perception of whether they have the capability to enact change and/or control events that impact them. Individuals with a strong internal locus of control believe that they can exercise personal control over their own decisions, life circumstances and outcomes (i.e., belief that events arise primarily from internal factors, such as one’s own motivation and actions), whereas those with a strong external locus of control believe that decisions, life circumstances and outcomes are controlled by environmental factors outside their influence (i.e., belief that events arise primarily from external factors, such as other people, the government, socio-economic influences, etc.). This factor is similar to perceived instrumentality, self-efficacy, perceived behavioral control [27,123,124].
Psychological factors	Locus of control, self-efficacy, and perceived behavioral control	A large body of literature suggests that locus of control is associated with a person’s values, attitudes and intentions to engage in pro-environmental behavior such as energy conservation (for a recent empirical analysis of the various linkages between perceived behavioural control and constructs such as attitudes, social and moral norms, feelings of guilt, and intentions to engage in pro-environmental behaviour, see [16]); however, the extent to which this then translates to action is highly questionable, with behavioral effects sometimes very weak and/or insignificant. Compared to individuals with a strong internal locus of control, those with an external locus of control may be less likely to behave in a pro-environmental way because they perceive that such behavior is inefficacious and “doesn’t make a difference” [20]. In the context of energy consumption, for example, householders may be more likely to conserve energy if they believe that reducing consumption will be effective in yielding valued outcomes, such as reducing costs and/or increasing benefits (i.e., protecting the environment, saving money, etc.); but less likely to conserve energy if they believe that their personal contributions are marginal and ineffective. Consistent with this notion, an early meta-analysis by Hines et al. [21] revealed a strong positive association between locus of control and pro-environmental behavior, such that individuals with an internal locus of control were more likely to report engaging in environmentally responsible behavior than those with a more external locus of control. However, subsequent empirical studies have revealed mixed findings. Sheeran et al. [123,124] have reported that individuals with equivalent perceived behavioral control may oftentimes differ in their subsequent behavior.
	Perceived cost: benefit ratio	People are often motivated by self-interest and try to select alternatives that yield the highest benefit for the lowest cost—where “benefits” and “costs” may include scarce or valued resources such as time, effort, money, social status/acceptance, convenience, comfort, and so forth. Both economic and behavioral cost-benefit tradeoffs may influence pro-environmental behavior such as household energy consumption and conservation (for further details, see [8,122]). For example, Midden and Ritsema [130] explored several categories of perceived advantages and disadvantages of energy conservation that may be important: personal disadvantages (e.g., beliefs regarding loss of comfort, coldness, unhealthiness, behavioral constraints, etc. imposed by an energy-saving lifestyle), societal advantages (e.g., beliefs regarding less environmental pollution, more energy for future generations, world energy supplies, etc.) and personal responsibility (e.g., beliefs regarding a sense of duty/responsibility).
Psychological factors	Perceived cost: benefit ratio	From an economic perspective, financial costs (or benefits) include the monetary expenses (or potential savings) that households incur from consuming and/or conserving energy [43,76,95]. The high financial costs of adopting one-off efficiency measures may decrease the likelihood of engaging in conservation initiatives, with long-term monetary payoffs also playing an important role. While people may be keen to purchase new appliances and undertake house improvements to optimise energy efficiency (e.g., installing solar panels, insulation, low-energy appliances), the immediate financial costs incurred by such activities may constrain them from doing so, or otherwise act as a disincentive (particularly if there are no immediate benefits). At the same time, energy usage costs may impact homeowners’ choice of efficiency measures in the opposite direction: that is, consumers who perceive the costs of consumption or inefficiency to be high might be more motivated to take extra steps to reduce consumption (and thus utility bill expenses), particularly if they believe that non-investment in energy-saving measures is unlikely to reduce costs, or potentially make existing costs even worse [46,77]. Indeed, a recent study by Nair et al. [46] found that individuals who perceived their household energy costs to be high were more likely to adopt investment measures compared to those who perceived their costs to be low, which suggest that increases in energy prices may actually encourage consumers to actively search for, and invest in measures that will yield energy savings. The concept of time inconsistency—that is, the tendency for people to be very short-sighted when some costs or benefits are immediate, but more farsighted when all costs and benefits are in the future—is also relevant for understanding the potential impact of cost: benefit appraisals. In daily life, there are countless situations where people procrastinate, postpone decisions, or delay actions because they are viewed as costly in the short-term, despite offering long-term benefits. In the context of energy usage, consumers may be reluctant to outlay the high monetary costs of investing in one-off efficiency measures today even if it leads to substantial monetary savings on energy bills (and environmental benefits, such as reduced carbon emissions) in a few years. Considerable evidence supports this tendency for people to value immediate rewards (and dislike immediate costs) far more than they value future rewards (and dislike future costs) [132,133,134].
	Need for personal comfort	Personal comfort, particularly the perceived loss of comfort that any energy-saving measure might impose, may have a sizeable impact on household energy consumption [43,76,94,95,130]. Any decrease in personal comfort, or perceived threat to lifestyle quality, may reduce the likelihood of engaging in conservation behavior. Empirical research has found that consumers’ perceptions of comfort and health are related to energy consumption in both summer and winter seasons [55,93,98]. Some early research found that the combined effect of comfort and health was a significant predictor, accounting for 30% of the variability in a household’s actual electric consumption. Results revealed that the more a household perceived energy-saving behavior as leading to discomfort and ill-health, the more energy that particular household consumed [98].
Psychological factors	Need for personal comfort	More recently, Barr et al. [43] examined the level of comfort that people with different characteristics are willing to accept in relation to energy-saving behavior. Results revealed that while over 60% of “committed environmentalists” were willing to sacrifice some comfort in order to save energy, less than 25% of “non-environmentalists” were willing to do so. Furthermore, while less than 20% of “committed environmentalists” rated “feeling comfortable around the home” to be an important issue to them, this factor was considered important for almost 60% of “non-environmentalists”.
	Normative social influence	It is well established that human beings make social comparisons, follow the behavior of other people, conform to social norms—i.e., the explicit and/or implicit rules, guidelines or behavioral expectations within a group or society that guide what is considered normal and/or desirable [135,136,137,138,139]. Two distinct types of social influence can motivate human action to conform: injunctive norms, which raise a person’s awareness of the attitudes and/or behavior that are typically approved or disapproved by a social group (i.e., what people should think or do); and descriptive norms, which raise a person’s awareness of the attitudes and/or behavior that are typically adopted, supported or performed by a social group (i.e., what people actually think or do). Various factors can strengthen or weaken normative influence (e.g., group cohesion, group size, social support), but the final result—conformity—tends to be consistent and pervasive [140]. Considerable research has identified group membership and normative social influences as having significant impacts on energy consumption and conservation [10,12,130]. In early work, Costanzo et al. [10] proposed a social-psychological model of energy conservation that highlighted the importance of social influence, diffusion and reference groups (i.e., friends, family, other social networks) in promoting and maintaining energy conservation. This model proposes that information transmitted via social diffusion is more likely to influence behavior because it tends to be more easily perceived, favourably evaluated, and better understood and remembered than information transmitted via traditional means of education, marketing and advertising. As such, interpersonal sources of information may be more influential than media appeals in eliciting and sustaining reductions in energy use. Other researchers have made similar arguments, with Stern ([11], p. 1229) suggesting that the personal opinions and actions of one’s friends may have a more powerful influence over household energy choices than expert advice, even if the latter is better informed.
Psychological factors	Normative social influence	Extensive evidence from the behavioral economics and behavior change literatures supports the impact of normative information on residential energy usage (for an overview, see [141]). Many studies have examined the behavioral effects of providing consumers with information about descriptive norms—i.e., personalised messages or communication containing details of one’s energy consumption relative to a neighbourhood norm—with extensive evidence supporting the behavioral impact of this comparative information (e.g., [141,142,143,144,145,146]). For example, Nolan et al. [146] found that delivering a descriptive normative message (i.e., information about the conservation behavior of one’s neighbours) motivated consumers to save more energy than a control message or any other messages that included appeals traditionally accorded motivational power (e.g., protecting environment, saving money, being socially responsible). Ayres et al. [144] found similar support for the effectiveness of descriptive norms, with two experiments revealing that normative social information can lead to energy savings of between 1.2% and 2.1%. More recently, Allcott [141] found that providing descriptive normative information led to an average residential energy saving of 2.0%. However, these effects were heterogeneous, with above-average consumers saving far more energy than below-average users.

• Ownership of non-energy technology (e.g., “high-tech” products like computers and gadgets) is often related to greater use of energy-saving devices and systems (e.g., energy efficient appliances). The presence of “handy” household members with technical knowledge and skills in home repairs (e.g., home appliance and automotive repairs) has also been linked with energy conservation. However, very detailed technical knowledge does not consistently promote pro-environmental behavior.
• Regional differences in climate, temperature and geography are closely related to energy use, with households located in colder zones typically consuming more energy than households in warmer zones. Households in rural regions also tend to have higher levels of energy use than those in urban areas, other things being equal.

5. Practical Implications and Directions for Future Research

6. Conclusions

References

1. Painter, J.; Semenik, R.; Belk, R. Is there a generalized energy conservation ethic? A comparison of the determinants of gasoline and home heating energy conservation. J. Econ. Psychol. 1983, 3, 317–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Rosson, P.J.; Sweitzer, R.W. Home heating oil consumption: Profiling ‘efficient’ and ‘inefficient’ households. Energy Policy 1981, 9, 216–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Guerra Santin, O. Behavioural patterns and user profiles related to energy consumption for heating. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 2662–2672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Gaspar, R.; Antunes, D. Energy efficiency and appliance purchases in europe: Consumer profiles and choice determinants. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 7335–7346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Pedersen, M. Segmenting residential customers: energy and conservation behaviours. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 17–22 August 2008; Volume 7, pp. 229–241.
6. Abrahamse, W.; Steg, L. Factors related to household energy use and intention to reduce it: The role of psychological and socio-demographic variables. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2011, 18, 30–40. [Google Scholar]
7. Poortinga, W.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Values, environmental concern and environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 70–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Van Raaij, W.F.; Verhallen, T.M.M. A behavioral model of residential energy usage. J. Econ. Psychol. 1983, 3, 39–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Wilson, C.; Dowlatabadi, H. Models of decision making and residential energy use. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2007, 32, 169–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Costanzo, M.; Archer, D.; Aronson, E.; Pettigrew, T. Energy conservation behavior: The difficult path from information to action. Am. Psychol. 1986, 41, 521–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Stern, P. What psychology knows about energy conservation. Am. Psychol. 1992, 47, 1224–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Stern, P. Psychological dimensions of global environmental change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1992, 43, 269–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Gardner, G.; Stern, P. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
14. Abrahamse, W.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C.; Rothengatter, T. A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 273–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Sovacool, B.K. Diversity: Energy studies need social science. Nature 2014, 511, 529–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty years after hines, hungerford, and tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Vining, J.; Ebreo, A. Emerging theoretical and methodological perspectives on conservation behavior. In Handbook of Environmental Psychology; Bechtel, R.B., Churchman, A., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 541–558. [Google Scholar]
18. Wapner, S.; Demick, J.; Yamamoto, T.; Minami, H. Theoretical Perspectives in Environment-Behavior Research: Underlying Assumptions, Research Problems, and Methodologies; Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
19. Stern, P. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1987, 18, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Ajzen, I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior; Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar]
23. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Guagnano, G.A.; Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ. Behav. 1995, 27, 699–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Stern, P.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.; Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6, 81–97. [Google Scholar]
26. Blake, J. Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Int. J. Justice Sustain. 1999, 4, 257–278. [Google Scholar]
27. Abrahamse, W.; Steg, L. How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings? J. Econ. Psychol. 2009, 30, 711–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Stern, P.C.; Oskamp, S. Managing Scarce Environmental Resources. In Handbook of Environmental Psychology; Stokols, D., Altman, I., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1987; pp. 1043–1088. [Google Scholar]
29. Hägerstrand, T. What about people in regional science? Pap. Reg. Sci. Assoc. 1970, 24, 6–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Hägerstrand, T. Geography and the study of interaction between nature and society. Geoforum 1976, 7, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Palm, J.; Ellegård, K. Visualizing energy consumption activities as a tool for developing effective policy. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2011, 35, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Ellegård, K.; Palm, J. Visualizing energy consumption activities as a tool for making everyday life more sustainable. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 1920–1926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Schatzki, T.R. Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
34. Gram-Hanssen, K. Residential heat comfort practices: Understanding users. Buildi. Res. Inf. 2010, 38, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Gram-Hanssen, K. New needs for better understanding of household’s energy consumption—behaviour, lifestyle or practices? Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2014, 10, 91–107. [Google Scholar]
36. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 1st ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
37. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
38. Darley, J.M.; Beniger, J.R. Diffusion of energy-conserving innovations. J. Soc. Issues 1981, 37, 150–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. Faiers, A.; Cook, M.; Neame, C. Towards a contemporary approach for understanding consumer behaviour in the context of domestic energy use. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 4381–4390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
40. Darley, J.M. Energy conservation techniques as innovations, and their diffusion. Energy Build. 1978, 1, 339–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. Mahapatra, K.; Gustavsson, L. An adopter-centric approach to analyze the diffusion patterns of innovative residential heating systems in sweden. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 577–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
42. Dieperink, C.; Brand, I.; Vermeulen, W. Diffusion of energy-saving innovations in industry and the built environment: Dutch studies as inputs for a more integrated analytical framework. Energy Policy 2004, 32, 773–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Barr, S.; Gilg, A.W.; Ford, N. The household energy gap: Examining the divide between habitual- and purchase-related conservation behaviours. Energy Policy 2005, 33, 1425–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. Environmental regulation of households: An empirical review of economic and psychological factors. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 559–574. [Google Scholar]
46. Nair, G.; Gustavsson, L.; Mahapatra, K. Factors influencing energy efficiency investments in existing swedish residential buildings. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 2956–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
47. Powers, T.L.; Swan, J.E.; Lee, S.-D. Identifying and understanding the energy conservation consumer: A macromarketing systems approach. J. Macromarket. 1992, 12, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
48. Hartman, R.S.; Doane, M.J. The estimation of the effects of utility-sponsored conservation programmes. Appl. Econ. 1986, 18, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
49. Curtin, R.T. Consumer adaptation to energy shortages. J. Energy Dev. 1976, 2, 38–59. [Google Scholar]
50. Frey, C.J.; LaBay, D.G. A comparative study of energy consumption and conservation across family life cycle. Adv. Consum. Res. 1983, 10, 641–646. [Google Scholar]
51. Poortinga, W.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C.; Wiersma, G. Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis. J. Econ. Psychol. 2003, 24, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
52. Verhage, B.J. Stimulating energy conservation: Applying the business heritage of marketing. Eur. J. Market. 1980, 14, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Gatersleben, B.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environ. Behavi. 2002, 34, 335–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
54. Ritchie, B.; McDougall, G.; Claxton, J. Complexities of household energy consumption and conservation. J. Consum. Res. 1981, 8, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
55. Fritzsche, D.J. An analysis of energy consumption patterns by stage of family life cycle. J. Market. Res. 1981, 18, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
56. Tonn, B.; Berry, L. Determinants of participation in home energy audit/loan programs: Discrete choice model results. Energy 1986, 11, 785–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
57. Zelezny, L.C.; Chua, P.-P.; Aldrich, C. Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 443–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
58. Clark, C.F.; Kotchen, M.J.; Moore, M.R. Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
59. Sardianou, E. Estimating energy conservation patterns of greek households. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 3778–3791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
60. Olsen, M.E. Public acceptance of consumer energy conservation strategies. J. Econ.Psychol. 1983, 4, 183–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
61. Clancy, J.; Roehr, U. Gender and energy: Is there a northern perspective? Energy Sustain. Dev. 2003, 7, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
62. Oparaocha, S.; Dutta, S. Gender and energy for sustainable development. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2011, 3, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
63. Semenza, J.C.; Hall, D.E.; Wilson, D.J.; Bontempo, B.D.; Sailor, D.J.; George, L.A. Public perception of climate change: Voluntary mitigation and barriers to behavior change. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 35, 479–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Kennedy, T.; Regehr, G.; Rosenfield, J.; Roberts, S.W.; Lingard, L. Exploring the gap between knowledge and behavior: A qualitative study of clinician action following an educational intervention. Acad. Med. 2004, 79, 386–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Courtenay-Hall, P.; Rogers, L. Gaps in mind: Problems in environmental knowledge-behaviour modelling research. Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
66. Katzev, R.D.; Johnson, T.R. Promoting Energy Conservation: An Analysis of Behavioral Research; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
67. Curtis, F.A.; Simpson-Housley, P.; Drever, S. Communications on energy: Household energy conservation. Energy Policy 1984, 12, 452–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
68. Van Raaij, W.F.; Verhallen, T.M.M. Patterns of residential energy behavior. J. Econ. Psychol. 1983, 4, 85–106. [Google Scholar]
69. Biesiot, W.; Noorman, K.J. Energy requirements of household consumption: A case study of The Netherlands. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 28, 367–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
70. Brandon, G.; Lewis, A. Reducing household energy consumption: A qualitative and quantitative field study. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
71. Holloway, D.; Bunker, R. Planning, housing and energy use: A review, urban policy and research. Urban Policy Res. 2006, 24, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
72. O’Neill, B.C.; Chen, B.S. Demographic determinants of household energy use in the United States. Popul. Dev. Rev. 2002, 28, 53–88. [Google Scholar]
73. Cunningham, W.H.; Joseph, B. Energy conservation, price increases and payback periods. In Advances in Consumer Research; Hunt, H.K., Ed.; Association for Consumer Research: Ann Abor, MI, USA, 1978; Volume 5, pp. 201–205. [Google Scholar]
74. Benders, R.M.J.; Kok, R.; Moll, H.C.; Wiersma, G.; Noorman, K.J. New approaches for household energy conservation-in search of personal household energy budgets and energy reduction options. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 3612–3622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
75. Schipper, L.; Bartlett, S.; Hawk, D.; Vine, E. Linking life-styles and energy use: A matter of time? Annu. Rev. Energy 1989, 14, 273–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
76. Verhallen, M.M.; van Raaij, W.F. Household behavior and the use of natural gas for home heating. J. Consum. Res. 1981, 8, 253–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
77. Black, J.S.; Stern, P.C.; Elworth, J.T. Personal and contextual influences on household energy adaptations. J. Appl. Psychol. 1985, 70, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
78. Rehdanz, K. Determinants of residential space heating expenditures in Germany. Energy Econ. 2007, 29, 167–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
79. Stern, P.; Gardner, G. Psychological research and energy policy. Am. Psychol. 1981, 36, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
80. Walsh, M. Energy tax credits and housing improvement. Energy Econ. 1989, 11, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
81. Murphy, P.E.; Staples, W.A. A modernized family life cycle. J. Consum. Res. 1979, 6, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
82. Wells, W.; Gubar, G. Life cycle concept in marketing research. J. Market. Res. 1966, 3, 355–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
83. Lutzenhiser, L. Social and behavioral aspects of energy use. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 1993, 18, 247–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
84. Mayer, P.C. Do-it-yourself and energy conservation. Contemp. Econ. Policy 1996, 14, 116–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
85. Herberlein, T.A.; Warriner, G.K. The influence of price and attitude on shifting residential electricity consumption from on- to off-peak periods. J. Econ. Psychol. 1983, 4, 107–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
86. Sligo, F.X.; Jameson, A.M. The knowledge-behavior gap in use of health information. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 2000, 51, 858–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
87. Staats, H.J.; Wit, A.P.; Midden, C.Y.H. Communicating the greenhouse effect to the public: Evaluation of a mass media campaign from a social dilemma perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 1996, 46, 189–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
88. Geller, E.S. Evaluating energy conservation programs: Is verbal report enough? J. Consum. Res. 1981, 8, 331–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
89. Schwartz, S.H. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries; Academic Press: Orlando, FL, USA, 1992; Volume 25. [Google Scholar]
90. Schwartz, S.H. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 19–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
91. Schwartz, S.H.; Bilsky, W. Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 53, 550–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
92. Eagly, A.H.; Chaiken, S. Attitude structure and function. In Handbook of Social Psychology; Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T., Lindzey, G., Eds.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 269–322. [Google Scholar]
93. Becker, L.J.; Seligman, C.; Fazio, R.H.; Darley, J.M. Relating attitudes to residential energy use. Environ. Behav. 1981, 13, 590–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
94. Samuelson, C.D.; Biek, M. Attitudes toward energy conservation: A confirmatory factor analysis. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 21, 549–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
95. Seligman, C.; Kriss, M.; Darley, J.M.; Fazio, R.H.; Becker, L.J.; Pryor, J.B. Predicting summer energy consumption from homeowners’ attitudes. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1979, 9, 70–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
96. Schultz, P.W. New environmental theories: Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 391–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
97. Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L.C. Reframing environmental messages to be congruent with American values. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2003, 10, 126–136. [Google Scholar]
98. Seligman, C.; Darley, J.M.; Becker, L.J. Behavioral approaches to residential energy conservation. Energy Build. 1978, 1, 325–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
99. Cook, S.W.; Berrenberg, J.L. Approaches to encouraging conservation behavior: A review and conceptual framework. J. Soc. Issues 1981, 37, 73–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
100. Anker-Nilssen, P. Household energy use and the environment—A conflicting issue. Appl. Energy 2003, 76, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
101. Boulstridge, E.; Carrigan, M. Do consumers really care about corporate responsibility? Highlighting the attitude-behaviour gap. J. Commun. Manag. 2000, 4, 355–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
102. Flynn, R.; Bellaby, P.; Ricci, M. The ‘value-action gap’ in public attitudes towards sustainable energy: The case of hydrogen energy. Sociol. Rev. 2010, 57, 159–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
103. Huddart-Kennedy, E.; Beckley, T.M.; McFarlane, B.L.; Nadeau, S. Why we don’t “walk the talk”: Understanding the environmental values/behaviour gap in Canada. Hum. Ecology Rev. 2009, 16, 151–160. [Google Scholar]
104. Frederiks, E.R.; Stenner, K.; Hobman, E.V. Household energy use: Applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 1385–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
105. Baumeister, R.F.; Vohs, K.D. Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
106. Carver, C.S.; Scheier, M.F. On the Self-Regulation of Behavior; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
107. Latham, G.P.; Pinder, C.C. Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2005, 56, 485–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
108. Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. New directions in goal-setting theory. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 15, 265–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
109. Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. Am. Psychol. 2002, 57, 705–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
110. Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty first century. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2004, 29, 388–403. [Google Scholar]
111. Steel, P.; König, C. Integrating theories of motivation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2006, 31, 889–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
112. Stern, P.; Dietz, T. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
113. Stern, P.; Dietz, T.; Kalof, L. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 1993, 25, 322–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
114. Schultz, P.W. The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
115. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
116. De Young, R. Expanding and evaluating motives for envrionmentally responsible behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 509–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
117. Pelletier, L.G. A Motivational analysis of self-determination for pro-environmental behaviors. In Handbook of Self-Determination Research; Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., Eds.; University of Rochester Press: Rochester, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 205–232. [Google Scholar]
118. Pelletier, L.G.; Sharp, E. Persuasive communication and proenvironmental behaviours: How message tailoring and message framing can improve the integration of behaviours through self-determined motivation. Can. Psychol. 2008, 49, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
119. Lindenberg, S. Intrinsic motivation in a new light. Kyklos 2001, 54, 317–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
120. Lindenberg, S. Social rationality versus rational egoism. In Handbook of Sociological Theory; Turner, J.H., Ed.; Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 635–668. [Google Scholar]
121. Lindenberg, S. Prosocial Behavior, Solidarity and Goal-Framing Processes. In Solidarity and Prosocial Behavior; Fetchenhauer, D., Flache, A., Buunk, B., Lindenber, S., Eds.; Kluwer: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 23–44. [Google Scholar]
122. Lindenberg, S.; Steg, L. Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2007, 63, 117–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
123. Sheeran, P.; Abraham, C. Mediator of moderators: Temporal stability of intention and the intention-behavior relation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2003, 29, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
124. Sheeran, P. Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 12, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
125. Webb, T.L.; Sheeran, P. Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol. Bull. 2006, 132, 249–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
126. Schwartz, S.H. Normative influences on altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Berkowitz, L., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977; Volume 10, pp. 221–279. [Google Scholar]
127. Wiidegren, O. The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environ. Behav. 1998, 30, 75–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
128. Harland, P.; Staats, H.; Wilke, H.A.M. Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 29, 2505–2528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
129. Kallgren, C.A.; Reno, R.R.; Cialdini, R.B. Focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2000, 26, 1002–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
130. Midden, C.J.H.; Ritsema, B.S.M. The meaning of normative processes for energy conservation. J. Econ. Psychol. 1983, 4, 37–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
131. Hummel, C.F.; Levitt, L.; Loomis, R.J. Perceptions of the energy crisis who is blamed and how do citizens react to environment-lifestyle trade-offs? Environ. Behav. 1978, 10, 37–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
132. Loewenstein, G.; Thaler, R.H. Anomalies: Intertemporal choice. J. Econ. Perspect. 1989, 3, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
133. Thaler, R.H. Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. Econ. Lett. 1981, 8, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
134. Thaler, R.H. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1980, 1, 39–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
135. Cialdini, R.B.; Trost, M.R. Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed.; Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T., Lindzey, G., Eds.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1998; Volumes 1 and 2, pp. 151–192. [Google Scholar]
136. Feldman, D.C. The development and enforcement of group norms. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1984, 9, 47–55. [Google Scholar]
137. Cialdini, R.B. Influence: Science and Practice, 5th ed.; Pearson Educational Incorporated: Upper Saddke River, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
138. Cialdini, R.B.; Kallgren, C.A.; Reno, R.R. A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 24, 201–234. [Google Scholar]
139. Turner, J.C. Social Influence; Brooks/Cole: Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
140. Cialdini, R.B. Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2003, 12, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
141. Allcott, H. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 2011, 95, 1082–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
142. Allcott, H.; Mullainathan, S. Behavioral Science and Energy Policy; Ideas42: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
143. Allcott, H.; Mullainathan, S. External Validity and Partner Selection Bias; NBER Working Paper No. 18373; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER): Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
144. Ayres, I.; Raseman, S.; Shih, A. Evidence from Two Large Field Experiments that Peer Comparison Feedback Can Reduce Residential Energy Usage; NBER Working Paper No. 15386; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER): Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
145. Costa, D.L.; Kahn, M.E. Energy Conservation “Nudges” and Environmentalist Ideology: Evidence from a Randomized Residential Electricity Field Experiment; NBER Working Paper No. 15939; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER): Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
146. Nolan, J.M.; Schultz, P.W.; Cialdini, R.B.; Goldstein, N.J.; Griskevicius, V. Normative social influence is underdetected. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 34, 913–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
147. Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Choices, values and frames. Am. Psychol. 1984, 39, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
148. Eccles, J.S.; Wigfield, A. Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002, 53, 109–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
149. Latham, G.P. Work Motivation: History, Theory, Research, and Practice; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
150. Weiner, B. Human Motivation: Metaphors, Theories, and Research; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
151. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
152. De Groot, J.I.M. Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ. Behav. 2007, 40, 330–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
153. Bruni, C.M.; Schultz, P.W. Implicit beliefs about self and nature: Evidence from an IAT game. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
154. Splash, C. Non-economic motivation for contingent values: Rights and attitudinal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements. Land Econ. 2006, 82, 602–622. [Google Scholar]
155. Camerer, C.F.; Loewenstein, G.; Rabin, M. Advances in Behavioral Economics; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
156. Kahneman, D. Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 2003, 93, 1449–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
157. Pesendorfer, W. Behavioral economics comes of age: A review essay on advances in behavioral economics. J. Econ. Lit. 2006, 44, 712–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
158. Pollitt, M.G.; Shaorshadze, I. The role of behavioural economics in energy and climate policy. In Handbook on Energy and Climate Change; Fouquet, R., Ed.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2013; pp. 523–546. [Google Scholar]
159. McMakin, A.H.; Malone, E.L.; Lundgren, R.E. Motivating residents to conserve energy without financial incentives. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 848–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
160. Geller, E.S. The challenge of increasing proenvironmental behavior. In Handbook of Environmental Psychology; Bechtel, R.B., Churchman, A., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 525–540. [Google Scholar]
161. Osbaldiston, R.; Schott, J.P. Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: A meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environ. Behav. 2012, 44, 257–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
162. Stern, P. Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior. J. Consum. Policy 1999, 22, 461–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
163. Winkler, R.C.; Winett, R.A. Behavioral interventions in resource conservation: A systems approach based on behavioral economics. Am. Psychol. 1982, 37, 421–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
164. Yates, S.; Aronson, E. A social psychological perspective on energy conservation in residential buildings. Am. Psychol. 1983, 38, 435–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
165. Geller, E.S.; Berry, T.D.; Ludwig, T.D.; Evans, R.E.; Gilmore, M.R.; Clarke, S.W. A conceptual framework for developing and evaluating behavior change interventions for injury control. Health Educ. Res. Theory Pract. 1990, 5, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
166. Schultz, P.W. Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior: Lots of tools but few instructions. Eur. Psychol. 2014, 19, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]