343
Consumer Energy Research: A Review
T he social significance of consumer energy research can
be established by observing the importance of con-
sumer energy conservation in the quest for long-run energy
security, and by recognizing the role of consumer research
in the identification of effective conservation initiatives.
The importance of consumer energy conservation is obvious
when, for example, estimates for the United States indicate
that consumers' in-home and automobile energy account
for up to 40 percent of national energy demand (Energy
Information Administration 1980), and that conservation
efforts could reduce consumer consumption by as much as
40 percent (Gray and von Hippel 1981; Sawhill 1979; Stem
and Gardner 1981).
Efforts to capitalize on this conser\'ation potential are in
evidence in the wide range of organizations that have es-
tablished conservation departments and in the variety of
conservation programs that have been implemented. Fur-
ther, these efforts are meeting with some success. For ex-
ample, a recent review by the Chase Manhattan Bank in-
dicated an average of two percent reduction in oil demand
between 1973 and 1980 across ten major oil-consuming,
noncommunist countries. On the other hand, much of the
conservation potential remains untapped. The expectation
is that consumer energy research can make an important
contribution to capturing this potential.
Having noted the increasing attention to conservation, it
is also important to recognize the growth in conservation-
related consumer research. One bibliography of this re-
search indicated seven studies in 1972, 86 in 1976, and 150
in 1980, with the total studies to date in excess of 600
(McDougall and Anderson 1981). This growth plus events
such as this special issue of The Journal of Consumer Re-
search demonstrate that consumer energy research is rap-
Gordon H. G. McDougall is Professor, School of Business and Eco-
nomics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada, N2L 3C5. John
D. Claxton is Associate Professor, Faculty of Commerce and Business
Administration, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, V6T
1W5. J. R. Brent Ritchie is Professor, Faculty of Management, University
of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 1N4. C. Dennis Anderson is Associate
Professor, Faculty of Administrative Studies, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Canada, R3T 2N2. Financial support for this study was re-
ceived from The Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Can-
ada.
GORDON H. G. McDOUGALL
JOHN D. CLAXTON
J. R. BRENT RITCHIE
C. DENNIS ANDERSON*
idly emerging as an area of extreme social and economic
significancean area in which behavioral researchers can
assume a leading and influential role.
With this background in mind, the purpose of this paper
is to review the evolution of consumer energy research over
the past decade. This is done by (1) categorizing consumer
energy research and looking at trends by category, (2) re-
viewing the more theoretical research that has attempted to
understand consumer energy consumption and conservation
pattems, (3) reviewing the more applied research that has
evaluated the impact of various conservation initiatives, and
(4) discussing directions for future consumer energy re-
search.
OVERVIEW
Consumer energy research can be segmented into two
general categories: first, research that focuses primarily on
understanding consumers, that is, what consumers are
thinking and doing about energy conser%ation; and second,
research that focuses primarily on the impact of energy-
conservation initiatives, that is, what actions consumers
have taken in response to conservation programs (Table 1).
Research included in the first category' tends to be based on
survey methods, while research included in the second
tends to utilize experimental manipulation. It should be
noted that individual studies may not fit exclusively in one
of these categories. For example, a study that centers on
the relationship between consumer life styles and energy
consumption can also provide insight into the probable im-
pact of altemative conser\ation incentives.
As indicated in Table 1, each of the major research cat-
egories has several subcategories. Research that has focused
on understanding consumers has been of four general types:
(1) opinion research, such as asking consumers what they
think about the energy situation, (2) self-reported energy-
conserving-behavior surveys, such as asking consumers
what they have been doing to conserve energy, (3) adop-
tion/diffusion research, such as comparing adopters and
nonadopters of energy conserving behaviors or technolo-
gies, and (4) modeling energy consumption, such as ob-
taining actual energy consumed in-home and attempting to
explain variations in consumption with various predictor
variables.
C JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH Vol. 8 December 1981
344 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE 1
CONSUMER ENERGY RESEARCH TRENDS: NUMBER OF STUDIES BY YEAR"

Pre-
1974 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Total
Consumer energy research (total) 11 27 60 86 95 83 133 150 645
1.0 Understanding consumers 8 18 37 50 53 46 75 74 361
1.1 Opinion research 11 14 27 25 24 46 23 170
1.2 Self-reported conservation 2 4 14 11 15 11 17 13 87
,1.3 Adoption/diffusion 1 2 1 2 6 12
1.4 Modeling actual consumption 6 3 9 11 11 10 10 32 92
2.0 Impact of conservation initiatives" 3 6 14 24 34 27 36 64 208
2.1 Information initiatives 1 2 8 18 17 18 29 93
2.2 Incentive initiatives 1 2 4 6 3 6 16 38
2.3 Disincentive Initiatives' 2 4 8 12 6 7 10 13 62
2.4 Restrictions 1 2 4 2 6 15
3.0 Overview/discussion papers 3 9 12 8 10 22 12 76
T h e studies calogofized in this Table were based on two annotated biblcgraphies: Anderson and McOougall 1980. and McOougall and Anderson 1981. Each subtype may address any
ot three major application areas: (1) home heating and cooling. (2) home appl>arxs and lightir^, and (3) personal transponation. Funhef. each subtype may (ocus on any ot several energy
types: electricity, natural gas. fuel oil. gasoline, wood, solar, wind. etc.
I t should be emphasized that the entries represent the number ot consumer research studies about conservation initiatives-no( the number ot conservation initiatives, which would be
much greater.
The studies reviewed were restricted to consumer-level studies. Studies of aggregate impact of prices have been reviewed by Nemetz. Hankey. and Zethoff 1980.

Table 1 also shows that research dealing with conser-
vation initiatives impact has centered on four major areas:
(1) information initiatives, such as pamphlets enclosed in
utility bills, advertising campaigns, house efficiency eval-
uations done by professional auditors, and appliance en-
ergy-consumption labels, (2) incentive initiatives, such as
grants for purchase of insulation, tax credits for installation
of solar equipment, and low interest loans for the purchase
of heat pumps, (3) disincentive initiatives, such as gasoline
taxes, surcharge on energy inefficient automobiles, and
price rates that penalize consumption during peak periods,
and (4) restriction initiatives, such as energy efficiency
standards, eliminating the use of automobiles on specified
days, and devices on air conditioners that allow direct con-
trol by the electrical utility.
An overview of existing consumer energy research was
provided by analyzing two annotated bibliographies (An-
derson and McDougall 1980; McDougall and Anderson
1981) using the Table 1 subcategories. The bibliographies
included 645 consumer-energy-research annotations and the
Table 1 classification indicated several interesting trends.
First, it is clear that interest in consumer energy research
has developed rapidly and continues to expand. Second,
research dealing with understanding consumers has been
more prevalent than research on conservation initiatives
(361 versus 208 studies), although this trend was less evi-
dent in 1980. Third, research focused on understanding
consumers has been primarily opinion research. This ap-
pears to be changing, with consumption modeling domi-
nating in 1980.
These trends also suggest a maturing of the field.
AMiereas earlier studies were primarily concemed with as-
sessing consumer reactions to "the energy issue," recent
research has become more focused and reflects recognition
of the complexity of this area of study. This is illustrated
by recent increases in consumption modeling and conser-
vation-initiative experiments.
Continuing with the structure provided by Table 1, the
next sections discuss the various categories of consumer
energy research in greater detail.
UNDERSTANDING CONSUMERS
Prior to considering the studies in each of the Table 1
subcategories, it is important to reference several over\'iew
papers that enhance an understanding of consumers and
energy. In one of the first reviews of the jirea, Ellis and
Gaskell (1978) developed a conceptual model of consumer
conservation activities. They suggested that information re-
garding the amount of household energy consumed will not
be sufficient to change consumption pattems; rather, con-
sumers must have a combination of timely consumption
information together with a clear understanding of the ef-
fectiveness of altemative conservation actions.
In their review, Carlyle and Geller (1978) identified the
lack of research evidence indicating a link between con-
ser\'ation attitudes and energy-consumption behaviors.
They concluded that attempts to change specific energy-
related behaviors may be more successful than approaches
that focus on attitude change and assume that behavioral
change will follow.
Stem and Gardner (1981) focused on the psychological
aspects of energy research and observed that conservation
activities are of two types: efficiency and curtailment. The
former usually involves one-time actions, whereas the latter
involves repetitive behaviors. The importance of this dis-
tinction is that one-time actions may bie more conducive to
CONSUMER ENERGY RESEARCH
behavior change than repetitive actions. A later section of
this paper will expand on this.
The final review to be mentioned is an article by Katz
(1980). This work illustrated the interdisciplinary nature of
consuniier energy research by including an examination of
psychological models of behavior, economic perspectives,
attitudes, intentions, lifestyle theory, sociological theory,
diffusion of innovation, group-influence models, and family
decision making. While this interdisciplinary characteristic
indicates a breadth of interest in consumer energy research,
it also suggests the somewhat fragmented nature of the
field.
In summary, each of these efforts offered useful insights
for various subsets of consumer energy research. The pur-
pose of this paper is to provide a broader perspective of
this area of study.
An overview of the energy studies focused on under-
standing consumers is provided by Exhibit 1. The studies
included in this exhibit were selected with three general
criteria in mind: typical of the category, sample design, and
strength of measurement approach.
Opinion Research
As noted, opinion research has been prevalent since the
initial disruption in oil supplies. These studies have asked
for consumers' views on such issues as the seriousness of
the oil problem (Farhar, Weir, Unseld, and Bums 1979;
Opinion Research Corporation 1974), importance of con-
servation (Milstein 1977), acceptability of nuclear power
(Melber 1977), role of solar energy (Warkov 1981), and
willingness to change commuting habits (Meyers 1979).
Exhibit 1 provides a listing of examples of these studies.
In general, studies have found consumers to express ver>'
proconservation views. For example, over 90 percent of
Canadian consumers said that individual efforts to conser\'e
energy were very important (Keller and McDougall 1981).
These highly favorable opinions must be suspect given the
likelihood of response bias reflecting social desirability.
Opinion questions have also been used as predictor vari-
ables in consumption-modeling studies (McDougall and
Munro 1980). In essence, the findings have indicated a lack
of association between energy consumption and consumers'
conservation-related views. The hope has been that opinion
items would reflect life styles and, as a result, provide a
potential explanation of energy consumption. This has been
largely unsuccessful, which brings into question the dom-
inance of opinion research in the consumer energy research
field.
Self-Reported Conservation Behaviors
Consumers have been asked to report on a range of con-
servation activities, such as thermostat setting (Perlman and
Warren 1977), addition of weatherstripping or insulation
(Keller and McDougall 1981), car maintenance habits
(Hartgen and Neveu 1980), and use of carpools or public
345
EXHIBIT 1
ENERGY STUDIES FOCUSED ON UNDERSTANDING
CONSUMERS
Opinion Research
General attitudes .
Fusso 1978; Farhar, Weir, Unseld, and Burns 1979'; Richman
1979
Nuclear
Melber 1977'; De Boer 1977
Solar
Warkov 1981
SeH-Reported Energy Conserving Behaviors
Becker, Brown, and Scharif 1976; Cunningham and Lopreato
1977"; Perlman and Warren 1977; Miistein 1978'; Olsen 1978';
Behavior Research Center 1979; Beck 1980; Hartgen and Neveu
1980; Monroe and Haivorson 1980; Plum and Edwards 1980;
Keller and McDougali 1981.
Adoption and Diffusion Research
Darley 1978; Leonard-Barton 1981; Warkov 1981.
Modeling Actual Energy Consumption
Household energy consumption
Newman and Day 1975; Gladhart, Zuiches, and Morrison 1978;
Hirst. Goeltz, and Camey 1981; McDougail. Ritchie, and Claxton
1981.
Heating/cooling
Seiigman, Kriss, Darley, Fazio, Becker, and Pryor 1979; Verhalien
and van Raaij 1981.
Electricity
Sonderegger 1978; Electric Power Research Institute 1979; Craig
1980; Hassoun and Hunt 1980; Lundstrom 1980; Spencer 1981;
Warriner 1981.
Automobile
McDougall. Ritchie, and Claxton 1981; Sorrenti and Petherick
1981; U.S. DOE 1980a.
'Review article.
transit (Monroe and Halvorson 1980; Plum and Edwards
1980). These studies have reported high levels of partici-
pation in a wide range of conser\'ation activities. As in the
case of opinion research, consumer-response style would
be expected to exaggerate self-reports of conservation ac-
tivity. For example, Geller's research (1981) indicated ma-
jor discrepancies between subjects' reports and inter\'iew-
ers' observations of conservation actions. A second
problem that has become clear is that the items used to
measure conservation activities tend to be imprecise. For
example, "added insulation" could mean anything from
replacing the insulation in part of the attic to adding insu-
lation to all extemal walls.
The issue of self-reports is particularly acute in the case
of private transportation research. While accurate measures
of heating fuel and electricity consumption can be obtained
from energy suppliers, no parallel data is available for gas-
oline consumption. In other words, although self-reports
are viewed with suspicion, there appears to be no satisfac-
tory altemative when addressing private transportation is-
346
sues. These measurement concems will be discussed further
in the final section.
Adoption and Diffusion Research
The newness of the conservation concems, together with
technical developments, such as solar collectors and heat
pumps, have resulted in the linking of adoption/diffusion
research with consumer energy research. Studies of this
type have assessed the role of interpersonal communication
in solar adoption (Leonard-Barton 1981). assessed differ-
ences between adopters and nonadopters (Labay and Kin-
near 1981). and studied the relationship between solar
adoption and other conservation activities (Warkov 1981).
As indicated by Table 1. an adoption/diffusion focus has
been only a minor component of consumer energy research.
However, it seems apparent that a clear understanding of
adoption/diffusion processes can have important implica-
tions for conservation-program formulation.
Modeling Energy Consumption
There has been considerable research effort focused on
explanatory models of energy consumption. The range of
predictor variables has included attitudes, demographics,
climate, and structural characteristics of houses, appliances,
and automobiles. The energy consumption of interest has
included total in-home energy (Hirst, Goeltz, and Camey
1981; McDougall, Ritchie, and Claxton 1981; Newman and
Day 1975), natural gas consumption (Verhallen and van
Raaij 1981), electricity consumption (Electric Power Re-
search Institute 1979; Seligman, Kriss, Darley, Fazio,
Becker, and Pryor 1979; Spencer 1981; Warriner 1981),
and gasoline consumption (McDougall. Ritchie, and Clax-
ton 1981; U.S. Department of Energy 1980a).
Since this research has been reviewed elsewhere (Mc-
Dougall, Ritchie, and Claxton 1981), the discussion here
is limited to the following general conclusions. First, good
progress has been made in terms of linking energy con-
sumption with climate and structure variables. Although
there remains room for improvements in the measures used,
the degree of explanation provided by this group of vari-
ables has frequently been 40 percent or better. Second,
demographic variables, such as income and family size,
have also indicated a consistent association with energy
consumption. However, the strength of the relationship has
not been as strong as that provided by structure and climate
variables, and improved formulations of life-cycle variables
seem possible. Finally, attitudinal variables have indicated
little association with energy consumption. Although Selig-
man, Kriss, Darley, Fazio, Becker, and Pryor (1979) ex-
plained a high portion of summer electricity consumption
using attitudinal variables, it has been noted that their ex-
planatory variables appeared to reflect self-reported behav-
iors rather than conser\'ation attitudes (Carlyle and Geller
1978). There appears to be no other study in which attitudes
and energy consumption have been closely linked.
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Given this lack of success in relating energy consumption
to attitudes and life styles, a major question could be raised
regarding the value of future pursuits in this area. Two
factors indicate the value of continued effons. First, two
studies (Lundstrom 1980; Sonderegger 1978) analyzed
dwellings in which there had been a change in occupancy,
and found substantial changes in energy consumption. In
other words, the view that structural characteristics are the
only important detenninant of energy consumption was not
supponed. This suggests that funher conceptualization of
family life cycle and life style is clearly warranted.
Second, the cross-sectional nature of most consumption
modeling may have limited the impact of attitudinal vari-
ables. Although there have been two studies that were based
on longitudinal data (Gladhan, Zuiches, and Morrison
1978; Maricet Facts 1981), they did not pursue multivariate
analysis of consumption. However, they do serve to suggest
the prospect of linking attitudes in one period with energy
consumption in future periods, clearly an imponant avenue
for future effons.
In addition, three methodological concems are common
to in-home energy-modeling studies. First, the variables
used to measure dwelling integrity have been crude ap-
proximations of the technical characteristics of the home.
Second, the regression approach that has been used for
modeling may not reflect the complexity of energy con-
sumption. For example, structural models that incorporate
intervening variables may be more suitable (Verhallen and
van Raaij 1981). Third, the dependent variable most fre-
quently used has been annual energy consumption. This
formulation masks the seasonal nature of consumption and
may reduce the predictive power of the model.
One final imponant observation is that very little con-
sumption modeling has focused on gasoline consumption.
Preliminary modeling has indicated that number of vehicles
owned, degree of commuting, vehicle size and age, family
employment pattems, and number of drivers in the family
are significant predictors of gasoline consumption (Mc-
Dougall, Ritchie, and Claxton 1981). Given the signifi-
cance of this type of energy, much greater attention to this
area must be a priority.
IMPACT OF CONSERVATION
INITIATIVES
The Policy Imperative
While conceptual research developments are essential,
consumer energy research is clearly an applied area of
study. The current interest and imponance of this field is
undoubtable due to the significance of energy-related de-
cisions in all aspects of society. Researchers working in the
area quickly become aware of the need to integrate their
work with the concems of policy makers who formulate
and implement expensive and far-reaching programs.
Before reviewing research that has evaluated the impact
of specific conservation initiatives, two dimensions of the
CONSUMER ENERGY RESEARCH 347

TABLE 2
ESTIMATED ENERGY SAVINGS THROUGH CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES IN THE CONSUMER SECTOR"

Percent Percent Percent

Target Efficiency saving Curtailment saving Demand shift saving"

Appliances Purchase energy 2(15) Do not use oven 0.2 (1) Convert electric n.a.
efficient self-cleaning appliances to
refrigerator option natural gas
Heating/cooling Insulate and 10 (90) Set back 4(8) Install solar n.a.
weatherize thermostat to panels to heat
home 68F days and home
65F nights
Water heater Install more 2(12) Set back n.a. Install solar n.a.
,efflcient unit thermostat by panels to heat
20F water
Transportation Purchase smaller 20 (50) Reduce driving by 10(10) Purchase electric n.a.
car 10 percent car
Percentage ol household consumption. Estimates provided by Stem and Gardner 1981, Numt)ers in brackets represent maximum estimates based on a variety ot other sources including:
Energy. Mines and Resources (1978), Gray and von Hippel (1981), and Loltness (1978),
Estimates tor demand shift initiatives do not appear to have been documented.

policy perspective neeti to be considered: probable energy
savings and cost-effectiveness issues.
Probable Energy Savings. A major criterion in the pro-
cess of selecting energy-conser\'ation initiatives must be the
expected resultant savings. The intention here is to recog-
nize that probable energy savings represents a net impact
based on potenlial savings in a technical sense, reduced to
allow for imperfect behavioral response. For example, the
potential energy savings if all households reduced their
thermostat settings from 72T to 68F might be four percent
of total in-home energy consumption. However, a particular
initiative might be expected to influence only 25 percent of
all households, so that probable energy savings would be
only one percent.
Stem and Gardner (1981) provided estimates of potential
energy savings for a variety of conser\ation initiatives. Ta-
ble 2, an adaptation of their work, categorizes initiatives
by area of application. This is important in that it helps to
highlight applications in which the energy type is oil, the
area of most critical supply concem. The Stem and Gardner
categorization also highlights the intended impact on en-
ergy-consuming behaviors. Some initiatives intend to en-
able the same behaviors with greater energy efficiency,
while others intend to foster curtailment of these behaviors.
Stimulating vehicle tune-ups would be an example of an
efficiency initiative, since consumers could drive as many
miles but use less gasoline. Stimulating reduced driving
would be an example of curtailment.
Table 2 adds a third type of impact to the categorization,
" namely demand shift. Examples include initiatives to shift
consumers to an energy type that is more readily available
than the one they currently use (from oil to natural gas or
solar), and initiatives to shift the time of day when energy
is consumed (to reduce utility peak-load shortages).
The rationale for the efficiency-curtailment-demand shift
distinction is twofold. First, the Stem and Gardner esti-
mates indicate that efficiency initiatives tend to offer greater
potential energy savings than curtailment initiatives. This
is particularly significant when it is noted (in the next sec-
tion) that a substantial majority of impact research has fo-
cused on curtailment initiatives. Second, it has been sug-
gested that efficiency is easier to influence than curtailment,
in that the former tends to involve one-time behaviors,
whereas the latter tends to involve continuous behaviors
(McDougall and Ritchie 1979; McNeill and Hutton 1981;
Stem and Gardner 1981). In other words, categorizing ini-
tiatives as efficiency versus curtailment versus demand shift
can help to direct attention to expected behavioral response
and, in tum. help to assess the level of potential and prob-
able energy savings.
Cost-Effectiveness Issues. The second policy consid-
eration to be introduced is the issue of cost effectiveness.
In addition to assessing probable energy savings, cost ef-
fectiveness requires the evaluation of altemative program-
delivery' approaches. Should a new initiative attempt to in-
fluence all households or target on a particular heavy-user
group? What will be the relative impact of altemative in-
centive levels? Should consumers be informed about a new
program through utilities, retailers, or newspaper adver-
tisements? Delivery-approach questions such as these are
clearly of concern to policy makers and, accordingly,
should be considered by consumer energy researchers.
Conservation Initiative Impact Research
With policy considerations as background, this section
provides an overview of research that has assessed the im-
pact of conservation initiatives. Exhibit 2 categorizes alter-
native initiatives and identifies research that has addressed
each. Although the research listed is not exhaustive, it is
representative in terms of indicating areas that have and
have not received emphasis.
Prior to discussing studies of specific conser\'ation ini-
348 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

EXHIBIT 2 (1981) surveyed a panel of energy-conservation profession-

CONSERVATION INITIATIVES IMPACT RESEARCH
Information Initiatives
Curtailment
Feedback
Seaver and Patterson 1976; Seligman et al, 1976; Russo 1977;
Becker 1978; Blakeley 1978; Runnion, Watson, and McWhorter
1978; Bittie, Valesano, and Thaler 1978; McClelland and Cook
1979; Katzev, Cooper, and Fisher 1980; Gaskell, Ellis, and Pike
1981.
Communications
Heberlein 1975; Craig and McCann 1978; Cambridge System-
atics 1979; Olsen and Cluett 1979; Hirst, Maier, and Patton
1980;Geller1981.
Efficiency
Home audits
Webber 1979; U.S. DOE 1980b; Hirst and Lazare 1981.
Labels
Response Analysis 1977; McNeill and Wilkie 1979; Anderson
and Ciaxton 1981; Redinger and Staelin 1981.
Demand shift
Solar communications
Anderson and Lloyd 1978.
Incentive Initiatives
Curtailment
Rebates and gifts for in-home conservation
Winnett, Kazel, Battalio, and Winkler 1978; Battalio. Kazel,
Winkler, and Winnett 1979; Walker 1979; McClelland and Cook
1979; McNeill and Hutton 1981.
Rebates and gifts for busing and carpooling
Federal Energy Administration 1976; Katzev and Bachman
1980; McClelland et al. 1980
Efficiency
Tax credits
Behavior Research Center 1979; Hannon and Herendeen 1980;
Pitts and Wittenbach 1981.
Demand shift
Solar grants
Warkov 1981.
Disincentive Initiatives
Curtailment
Price increases
Nemetz, Hankey, and Zenthoff 1980; Pitts, Willenborg, and
Sherrell 1981; van Helden and Weistra 1981.
Demand shift
Time^3f-day rates
Wenders and Taylor 1976; Mitchell and Acton 1977; Caves and
Christenson 1979; Het>erlein, Linz, and Ortiz 1981.
Restrictions
Demand shift
Direct controls by utilities
Comey, Nixon, and Yantis 1981; Dyer 1981.
tiatives, it is important to recognize works that have pro-
vided overviews of the area. For example. Cannon (1981)
provided a description of conservation programs in the
United States; Gradin and Anderson (1981) described con-
servation programs in 21 International Energy Agency
member countries; the Environmental Research Center
(1977) provided one of the earliest attempts to document
the potential energy savings associated with various con-
servation programs; Ritchie, Claxton, and McDougall
als and 1,400 households to determine the acceptability of
a range of program options; and Claxton, McDougall, and
Ritchie (1980) reviewed energy initiatives that were based
on a variety of conservation approaches. These studies in-
dicate a cross-section of overview works. The remaining
discussion centers on research concemed with each of four
major types of conservation initiatives; infonnation, incen-
tives, disincentives, and restrictions.
Information Initiatives. Impact research has been dom-
inated by investigations dealing with information incen-
tives, in particular, communications, feedback, home audit,
and labeling programs. In the area of conservation com-
munications, a general conclusion has been that commu-
nications have had little impact on energy savings. Both
Heberlein (1975) and Craig and McCann (1978) found that
conservation messages sent through the mail had little im-
pact on energy consumption. Hirst, Maier, and Patton
(1980) indicated similar results when studying a conser-
vation "hot line." Analysis of the impact of community
workshops (Geller 1981) showed pxisitive impact as indi-
cated by the number of self-reported conservation actions,
but no impact as indicated by observation of actual behav-
iors. Although others have suggested some limited impact
of consen'ation communication programs, for example Ol-
sen and Cluett (1979), in general this type of initiative
appears to have been of limited value in stimulating con-
servation.
The impact of energy-consumption feedback has been
mixed. Most work in this area has indicated that feedback
by itself has little effect on consumption (Becker 1978;
Blakely 1978; Katzev, Cooper, and Fisher 1980; Russo
1977). Feedback in conjunction with conservation goals
(Becker, Seligman, and Darley 1979), in conjunction with
conser\ation instructions (Gaskell, Ellis, and Pike 1981;
Seligman et al. 1976), and provided by an in-home moni-
toring device (McClelland and Cook 1979) has resulted in
energy savings of ten to 15 percent. However, the cost
effectiveness of these initiatives remains of concem when,
for example, research by Gaskell, Ellis, and Pike (1981)
indicated that conservation instruction alone was almost as
effective as feedback and instruction combined.
The impact of home audits has not been extensively re-
searched. The research task is complicated by the wide
variety of approaches to implementing audit programs. Au-
dits can vary in terms of the degree of subsidy, expertise
of the auditor, range and extent of post-audit advice, and
range of follow-up services (Deutscher and Munro 1980;
Meier 1979; U.S. DOE 1980b). Webber (1979) reviewed
the audit program of the Tennessee Energy Authority, and
Hirst and Lazare (1981) reviewed a Minnesota program.
Both studies were based on self-reported conservation ac-
tions, and as concluded by Hirst and Lazare, there remained
uncertainty as to whether the actions taken by participants
and credited to the audit program would have been taken
even without participation in the prograhi.
Research on energy-efficiency labels for major appli-
CONSUMER ENERGY RESEARCH
ances has indicated marginal impact on consumer purchase
decisions (McNeill and Wilkie 1980), except for consumers
buying lower-priced models (Anderson and Claxton 1981).
However, recent research suggests the importance of as-
sessing the indirect effect of labeling programs in terms of
manufacturer improvements in the appliances offered for
sale (Claxton and Anderson 1981).
In summary, information initiatives appear to have only
limited impact on energy conservation. In particular, com-
munication programs and consumption feedback have in-
dicated doubtful cost effectiveness. On the other hand,
home audits and efficiency labeling apjjear more likely to
offer energy-saving opportunities.
Incentive Initiatives. The most common conservation
initiatives to date probably have been the range of grants,
tax credits, and low-interest loans available to stimulate
household retrofit measures. Although this type of program
has been implemented by govemment agencies and utilities
in many jurisdictions, corresponding research efforts have
not followed.
For the most part, incentives research has focused on
rebates related to in-home energy-consumption feedback
and incentives for bus riding and carpooling. The rebate
research has indicated little impact in master-metered apart-
ments (McClelland and Cook 1980; Walker 1979), but pos-
itive impact in individual-metered dwellings (Winett,
Kazel, Battalio, and Winkler 1978). A variety of carpooling
initiatives have been tested [Federal Energy Administration
(FEA) 1976]. Research has indicated the positive effect of
incentives on both bus riding (Katzev and Bachman 1980)
and carpooling (McClelland et al. 1980).
Although the major thrust in conservation initiatives has
been in the area of grants, tax credits, and low-interest
loans, research on these initiatives has been sparse. Re-
search to date has been based on self-reports (Behavioral
Research Center 1979; Pitts and Wittenbach 1981) and of
limited scope. Because of the many possible variations in
this type of initiative, future research must assess impact
on actual energy consumption via experimentation with al-
temative program-delivery systems, and must have closer
ties with existing or contemplated programs.
Disincentive Initiatives. There has been considerable
research attention to the effect of rising energy prices in
which the approach has been econometric analysis of ag-
gregate data. Nemetz, Hankey, and Zethoff (1980) provides
a review. In contrast, analysis of household price sensitivity
has been extremely limited. Data from a South Carolina
consumer panel indicated a significant drop in miles driven
between 1978 and 1979 (Pitts, Willenborg, and Sherrell
1981). A Canadian panel indicated a significant increase
during the same period (Claxton, McDougall, and Ritchie
1981). Both studies suggested efficiency improvements in
the automobiles owned, but could not attribute this finding
to consumer price sensitivity rather than changes in industry'
vehicle standards. In short, consumer response to energy
price increases remains ill-defined.
349
A price-related initiative that has received considerable
research attention is time-of-day utility rates. Because the
energy problem for many electric utilities is a peak-load
problem, several careful experiments have evaluated con-
sumer reaction to peak-period pricing. The findings have
indicated that these rates have reduced peak-load demand
(Caves and Christenson 1979), and that consumer accep-
tance has been favorable (Heberlein, Linz, and Ortiz 1981).
Restrictions. In a political climate that favors reduced
govemment involvement and deregulation, it is not sur-
prising to find little consumer research that deals with con-
servation initiatives based on direct interventions. An ex-
ception is the research done by electric utilities to assess
the viability of controls that cycle supply to specific high
consumption applications. For example, Comey, Nixon,
and Yantis (1981) and Dyer (1981) found little consumer
resistance to centralized control of air-conditioning units.
At a more general level, opinion research has evaluated
consumer preferences for a range of conservation initia-
tives, including restrictions. Consumers have stated a clear
preference for restrictions, such as product standards, that
have indirect impact on their lives, rather than the direct
impact of price increases (Ritchie, Claxton, and McDougall
1981). The same study suggested a consumer preference
for energy rationing over major price increases.
Initiative Research Concems
In assessing the research dealing with the various con-
servation initiatives, several concems can be identified. The
most serious weakness in evidence is the lack of attention
to issues of cost effectiveness. While levels of participation
have been counted, relating program costs to energy savings
has been neglected.
A second concem is the short time horizon used when
assessing conser\'ation initiatives. This is particularly crit-
ical in the evaluation of programs designed to encourage
curtailment. Though consumers might be willing to reduce
their energy consumption for a short period, at issue is
whether these curtailments will remain in effect over time.
Finally, two problems common to many of these inves-
tigations have been the use of restricted samples and self-
reports as a surrogate for actual behavior. These problems
affect both the intemal and extemal validity of the findings.
CONSUMER ENERGY RESEARCH: THE
PAST AND THE FUTURE
The foregoing discussion has linked the importance of
energy conservation with the implementation of a wide va-
riety of conservation programs and the growing interest in
consumer energy research. A review of this research re-
vealed the following;
Consumers have expressed strong conservation views
(opinion research) and have claimed to have done a wide
range of conservation actions (self-reported behaviors).
350
Even a cursory analysis of aggregate energy-consumption
data indicates that these statements must reflect consider-
able exaggeration.
Attitudes and life-style variables have contributed little in
models of in-home energy consumption. This is not sur-
prising in light of the response-style bias suggested above.
Structural and climatic variables have consistently pro-
vided strong explanations of in-home energy consumption.
This implies that conservation programs emphasizing ef-
ficiency hold more promise than curtailment-oriented ap-
proaches. In contrast, family-related variables have proven
important in explaining gasoline consumption. In this case,
curtailment programs may assume greater significance.
Review of research dealing with conservation initiatives
reveals no easy answers. Researchers have prodded con-
sumers with direct-mail campaigns, telephone hot-lines,
mass media advertising, appliance energy labels, con-
sumption feedback, computerized home audits, time-of-
day rates, and direct load controls. None of these studies
have indicated substantial long-term energy savings.
A wide range of energy-conservation programs have been
implemented. The effectiveness of many of these programs
has not been analyzed. For example, extensive investments
have been made for loan/grant programs to stimulate home
retrofitting, yet no reponed research has addressed this
type of initiative.
The review also revealed that consumer energy research,
although well established, has a number of shoncomings
to be kept in mind as future research is initiated. These
shortcomings are the focus of the remainder of this paper.
Mismatch Between Conservation Initiatives and
Research Directions
It could be argued that conservation initiatives have been
reasonably well directed in terms of emphasizing altema-
tives that offer high potential energy savings: for example,
incentives for home retrofits and automobile efficiency stan-
dards. However, a major shortcoming of consumer energy
research is that it has not had the same emphasis. In terms
of future priorities, researchers would do well to reduce
emphasis on initiatives such as communications and feed-
back and increase emphasis on initiatives of concern to
conserx'ation-program managers.
Gaps in Understanding Consumers
Though considerable satisfaction can be derived from the
progress made in a relatively short time, several important
issues remain unresolved. First, strong evidence exists that
life-style factors account for 20 to 30 percent of the variance
in consumption (Lundstrom 1980; Sonderegger 1978), but
researchers have been unable to identify these life-style ef-
fects. Second, although research has identified major op-
portunities for energy conservation, little attention has been
given to identifying and evaluating the importance of bar-
riers that hinder energy-conserving behaviors. Third, a
somewhat related area of concem is assessment of conser-
vation-decision processes and the role of family members.
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Although some research has pursued this in terms of ap-
pliance purchases, many other conservation decisions, such
as home retrofits and automobile maintenance, remain in
need of attention.
Gaps in Assessment of Conservation Initiatives
The earlier discussion indicated the general discrepancy
between conservation initiatives and research emphasis.
The purpose here is to identify specific initiatives that ap-
pear to wanant more careful analysis. Little research has
evaluated the impact of various forms of home audits, par-
ticularly those done by professionals. With home retrofits
offering significant energy-saving potential and a range of
home audit programs in existence, it seems particularly use-
ful to attempt to identify the program characteristics that
increase householders' conservation actions in a cost-effec-
tive manner.
Little research has been done on consumer reaction to
price increases. As indicated earlier, aggregate models of
price elasticity have been developed, but the efficiencies,
curtailments, and substitutions that householders might
make in reaction to price changes has had little attention.
Finally, a major shortcoming in existing consumer en-
ergy research is the lack of attention to travel and trans-
portation. Because conservation of petroleum supplies is
particularly vital, it is surprising that the use of the auto-
mobile has not been extensively examined. Purchase of
energy-efficient automobiles, careful auto maintenance, and
good driving habits all offer substantial savings to the con-
sumer. A fruitful area of investigation would be an evalu-
ation of altemative initiatives intended to encourage these
behaviors.
Research Method Concems
The literature review served to highlight three major
areas of concem regarding research methods. The first con-
cem is self-repons versus actual conser%ation/consumption
data, A large majority of consumer energy studies have
been based on self-repons of conservation actions or self-
repons of energy consumption. These must be viewed with
caution in light of the studies that indicated major discrep-
ancies in this type of measurement. Although the collection
of consumption data from energy suppliers is painstaking
and costly, this approach is viewed as a cornerstone of
future energy-research effons.
The second concem is cross-sectional versus longitudinal
monitoring. Although longitudinal research is desirable in
many areas of study, it appears to be panicularly useful for
consumer energy research. Because this research empha-
sizes changing pattems of behavior that are influenced by
both human and institutional rigidities, it is imponant to
monitor behaviors and consumption over an extended pe-
riod. As noted earlier, this may also prove useful in de-
veloping a better understanding of the linkages between
conservation attitudes and consumption-related behaviors.
A final method concem centers on analytical approach.

CONSUMER ENERGY RESEARCH
particularly in the area of energy-consumption modeling.
VkTiile regression analysis has been the mainstay of research
in this area, other approaches deserve careful attention.
Structural models that allow for better identification of in-
tervening variables, or for explanation of multiple depen-
dent variables, might well provide a richer understanding
of the consumption process. Further, creative approaches
that allow for the influences of various family members is
clearly an area that merits attention.
Finally, it seems important to restate the social signifi-
cance of the consumer energy research field. Behavioral
researchers are seldom faced with an area of study with
implications that are as clear and as far-reaching. The re-
search reviewed in this paper represents an encouraging
beginning. The challenge is to make meaningful additions
through research endeavors that are both thoughtfully de-
signed and carefully executed.
EPILOGUE
As this paper was being finalized, we received the sad
news of the death of Robert Ferber. Because of his exem-
plary record in the field of consumer research, his col-
leagues will remember him for many different contribu-
tions. Our special memories relate to the topic of this
special issue, consumer energy research. In the fall of 1978,
we talked with Bob about ways of drawing together the
rather fragmented research dealing with consumer energy
consumption and conservation. With his encouragement we
focused our attention on the 1980 Banff Consumer Energy
Conference, while his personal energy resulted in this im-
portant issue of The Journal of Consumer Research. His
support was a critical ingredient in our efforts, and. al-
though we shared with him the satisfaction of completing
the Banff Conference, we have deep regrets when we view
this special issue of JCR without him. He made an impor-
tant contribution to consumer energy research.
[Received September 1981, Revised October 1981.]
REFERENCES
Anderson, C, Dennis, and Claxton. John D . (1981). "Energy
Labels for Appliances." in Consumers and Energy Conser-
vation, eds. John D. Claxton. C. Dennis Anderson. J. R.
Brent Ritchie, and Gordon H, G. McDougall, New York:
Praeger Publishers, pp, 243-50.
, and Lloyd, Robert (1978), "The Effects of Altemative
Appeals on Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions for
Solar Home Heating Products," working paper. University
of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
, and McDougall. Gordon H . G . (1980). Consumer Energy
Research: An Annotated Bibliography, Behavioral Energy
Research Group, 203-2053 Main Mall, University of British
Columbia.
Battalio, Raymond C , Kazel, J, H,, Winkler, R, C , and Winnett.
R. A. (1979). "Residential Electricity Demand: An Experi-
mental S t u d v , " Review of Economics and Statistics,
180-9.
351
Beck, Paul Allen (1980). "Correlates of Energy Conser\'ation,"
/'uWicPo/icy. 28, 4 5 1 - 7 1 .
Becker, B. W., Brown, Daniel, and Scharif, Philip B. (1976).
"Behavior of Car Owners During the Gasoline Shortage,"
Traffic Quarterly, 3 , 469-83.
Becker, Lawrence J. (1978), "Joint Effect of Feedback and Goal
Setting on Perfonnance: A Field Study of Residential Energy
Conservation," Journal of Applied Psychology, 63. 428-33.
, Seligman, Clive, and Darley, John M. (1979). Psycho-
logical Strategies to Reduce Energy Consumption: Project
Summary Report, Princeton. N.J.: Center for Energy and
Environmental Studies, Princeton University.
Behavior Research Center, Inc. (1979), Suney of Current and
Potential Home Energy Management Activities Among Urban
Homeowners in Arizona, prepared for the Arizona Office of
Energy Programs.
Bittie, Ronald G., Valesano, Robert M., and Thaler, Greg A.
(1978), "Energy Conservation in a Large Mental Hospital."
Administration in Mental Health, 5, 154-61,
Blakely, Elben (1978), "The Effect of Feedback on Residential
Electrical Peaking and Hourly Kilowatt Consumption," the-
sis presented to the School of Graduate Studies, Drake Uni-
versity.
Cambridge Systematics Inc. (1979). "Interim Evaluation of the
Minneapolis Ridesharing Commuter Services Demonstra-
tion." National Technical Information Service. Springfield.
VA.
Cannon, Lisa (1981), " U . S , Energy Conservation: Federal and
Community Actions," in Consumers and Energy Conser-
vation, eds, John D. Claxton. C. Dennis Anderson. J. R,
Brent Ritchie, and Gordon H. G, McDougall, New York:
Praeger Publishers, pp, 170-79,
Carlyle, Jamie J,, and Geller, E, Scott (1978). "Behavioral Ap-
proaches to Reducing Residential Energy Consumption: A
Critical Review." working paper. Department of Psychol-
ogy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Caves, Douglas W,. and Christenson, Laurits R, (1979). Resi-
dential Substitution of Off-Peak for Peak Electricity Usage
Under Time-of-Use Pricing: An Analysis of 1976 and 1977
Summer Data from the Wisconsin Experiment, Social Sys-
tems Research Institute. University of Wisconsin. .Madison,
Claxton, John D,, and Anderson. Dennis C . (1981). "Encrguide
Evaluation," repon prepared for Consumer and Corporate
Affairs, Ottawa. Canada.
, McDougall. Gordon H. G. and Ritchie. J, R, Brent
(1980). "Annotated Directory of Energy Consenation Pro-
grams," Behavioral Energy Research Group, University of
British Columbia,
, McDougall, Gordon. H, G, and Ritchie. J. R, Brent
(1981), "Private Automobile Consumption," The Logi.'^tics
and Transportation Review, 17, 221-29.
Comey. William J., Nixon, John E., and Yantis. Betty (1981),
"Centralized Electricity Control," in Consumers and Energy
Consen'ation, eds, John D, Claxton, C. Dennis Anderson,
J. R. Brent Ritchie, and Gordon H. G. McDougall, New
York: Praeger Publishers, pp, 224-30.
Craig, C. Samuel (1980), "Assessing the Role of Predispositions
and Discretion in Detennining Energy Consumption." work-
ing paper. Graduate School of Business Administration. New
York L'niversity.
. and McCann, John M, (1978), "Assessing Communi-
cation Effects on Energy Conservation." Journal of Con-
61, sumer Research, 5, 8 2 - 9 .
352
Cunningham, William H., and Lopreato, Sally C. (1977), Energy
Use and Conservation Incentives: A Study of the Southwest-
ern United States, New York: Praeger Publishers,
Darley. John M. (1978), "Energy Conservation Techniques as
Innovations and Their Diffusion," Energy and Buildings, 1.
339^3.
De Boer, Connie (1977), "The Polls: Nuclear Energy," Public
Opinion Quarterly, 41, 402-11.
Deutscher, Terr>', and Munro. Hugh (1980), The Role of Home
Energy Audits in Facilitating Residential Retrofits, Consumer
and Corporate Affairs, Ottawa. Canada.
Dyer, Robert F. (1981), "Direct Control of Household Electric-
ity," in Consumers and Energy Conservation, eds. John D.
Claxton. C. Dennis Anderson. J. R. Brent Ritchie, and Gor-
don H. G. McDougall, New York: Praeger Publishers, pp.
231-41.
Electric Power Research Institute (1979), Patterns of Energy Use
by Electrical Appliances, prepared by Midwest Research In-
stitute, Kansas City, MO,
Ellis, Peter, and Gaskell, George (1978). "A Review of Social
Research on the Individual Energy Consumer," working pa-
per. Department of Social Psychology, The London School
of Economics and Political Science, England,
Energy Information Administration (1980), Annual Report to
Congress, 1979 Vol. 3: Synopsis, U.S. Department of En-
ergy.
Energy, Mines and Resources (1978). Keeping The Heat tn, Ot-
tawa, Canada.
Environmental Research Center (1977). Northwest Energy Policy
Project: Energy Conser\'ation Policy Evaluation, submitted
to NEPP by ERC, Washington State University. Pullman
WA.
Farhar, Barbara, Weir, Patricia, Unseld. Charles, and Bums, Bar-
bara (1979). Public Opinion About Energy: A Literature Re-
view, Solar Energy Research Institute. Golden. CO.
Federal Energy Administration (1976). CarpooUncentives: Anal-
ysis of Transportation and Energy tmpacts. Office of Energy
Conservation and Environment. Washington. DC.
Fusso. Thomas E. (1978). "The Polls: The Energy Crisis in Per-
spective." Public Opinion Quarterly, 42. 127-36.
Gaskell. George. Ellis. Peter, and Pike. R, (I98I). "Effects of
Consumption Feedback," in Consumers and Energy Con-
servation, eds. John D. Claxton. C. Dennis Anderson. J. R.
Brent Ritchie, and Gordon H. G. McDougall. New York:
Praeger Publishers, pp. 251-61.
Geller, E. Scott (1981), "Evaluating Energy Conservation Pro-
grams: Is Verbal Report Enough?" Journal of Consumer
Research, 8, 331-35.
Gladhart, Peter M., Zuiches, James J.. and Morrison, Bonnie M.
(1978), "Impacts of Rising Prices upon Residential Energy
Consumption, Attitudes and Conservation Policy Accep-
tance," in Energy Policy in the United States: Social and
Behavioral Dimensions, ed. Seymour Warkov, New York:
Praegei- Publishers, pp. 60-78.
Gradin, Rolf, and Anderson, C. Dennis (1981), "Intemational
Perspective on Energy Conservation," in Consumers and
Energy Conservation, eds. John D. Claxton, C. Dennis An-
derson, J. R. Brent Ritchie, and Gordon H. G. McDougall.
New York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 180-92.
Gray. Charles L., and von Hippel, Frank (1981), "The Fuel
Economy of Light Vehicles," Scientific American 244
48-59.
Hannon, Bruce, and Herendeen, Robert (1980), "A Rebated En-
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
ergy Conservation Tax," presented at the conference: "The
Dependence Dilemma: U.S. Gasoline Consumption and
America's Security," Harvard University.
Hartgen, David T., and Neveu, Alfred J. (1980), "The 1979
Energy Crisis: Who Conserved How Much?" State Depart-
ment of Transportation, Albany, NY.
Hassoun, Virginia S., and Hunt, Fem E. (1980), "Electric Energy
Usage in the Home: A Predictive Model," Home Economics
Research Journal, 8, 252-60.
Heberlein. Thomas A. (1975), "Conservation Information: The
Energy Crisis and Electricity Consumption in an Apartment
Compkx," Energy Systems and Policy, 1, 105-18.
, Linz. Daniel, and Ortiz, Bonnie P. (1981), "Time of
Day Electricity Pricing," in Consumers and Energy Conser-
vation, eds. John D. Claxton, C. Dennis Anderson, J. R,
Brent Ritchie, and Gordon H. G. McDougall, New York:
Praeger Publishers, pp. 194-204.
van Helden, G. Jan, and Weistra, Selie S. (1981), "Pro Rate
Structure for Household Electricity," in Consumers and En-
ergy Consenation, eds. John D. Claxton, C, Dennis Ander-
son. J, R. Brent Ritchie, and Gordon H. G. McDougall, New
York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 213-23.
Hirst, Eric, Goeltz. Richard, and Camey, Janet (1981), Residen-
tial Energy Use and Conservation Actions: Analysis of Dis-
aggregate Household Data, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge. TN.
. and Lazare. Peter (1981). "Minnesota Computerized
Home Energy Audit Program." in Consumers and Energy
Consenation, eds. John D. Claxton, C. Dennis Anderson,
J, R. Brent Ritchie, and Gordon H. G. McDougall, New
York: Praeger Publishers, pp, 262-70.
, Maier, Robert, and Panon, Michael (1980), "Evaluation
of Telephone Energy Conservation Infomiation Centers in
Minnesota," Journal of Environmental Systems, 10. 229-48.
Katz. Reinhard (1980). "Energy Conser\ation from a Consumer
Perspective: A State of the Art Review," working paper.
Institut Fur Marketing. Westfalrsche Wilhelms-Universitat
Munster, Federal Republic of Germany.
Katzev. Richard, and Bachman. Wallace (1980), "The Effects of
Deferred Payment and Fare Manipulations on Urban Bus
Ridership," Journal of Applied Psychology.
, Cooper, Laura, and Fisher. Pat (1980), "The Effect of
Feedback and Social Reinforcement on Residential Electric-
ity Consumption," Journal of Environmental Studies.
Keller, Gerald, and McDougall, Gordon H. G. (1981), A Sun^ey
of the Canadian Public's Attitudes Towards the Energy Sit-
uation, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Ottawa. Canada.
LaBay, Duncan G., and Kinnear. Thomas C. (1981), "Consumer
Adoption of Solar Energy Systems." in Consumers and En-
ergy Conservation, eds. John D. Claxton, C. Dennis Ander-
son, J. R. Brent Ritchie, and Gordon H. G. McDougall. New
York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 115-22.
Leonard-Barton, Dorothy (1981), "Diffusion of Energy Conser-
vation and Technologies," in Consumers and Energy Con-
servation, eds. John D. Claxton, C. Dennis Anderson, J. R.
Brent Ritchie, and Gordon H. G. McDougall, New York:
Praeger Publishers, pp. 97-107.
Loftness, Robert L. (1978), Energy Handbook New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co.
Lundstrom, Erik (1980), Energy Consumption in Single-Family
HousesInfluence of the Occupants. The Royal Institute of
Technology, Department of Building Economics and Orga-
nization. Stockholm, Sweden.
CONSUMER ENERGY RESEARCH
Market Facts of Canada Limited (1981), Residential Monitoring
of Energy Conservation, prepared for Ontario Hydro, To-
ronto, Ontario.
McClelland, Lou, and Cook, Stuart (1979), "Energy Consena-
tion Effects of Continuous In-Home Feedback in All-Electric
Homes," Journal of Environmental Systems, 9, 169-73.
, et al. (1980), "Evaluating Employer Programs Encour-
aging Use of Alternate Transportation Modes: Two Studies",
Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.
McDougall, Gordon H. G., and Anderson, C. Dennis (1981),
Consumer Energy Research: An Annotated Bibliography.
Report to Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Ottawa, Canada.
, and Munro, Hugh (1980), "Consumer Behavior and En-
ergy: Some Methodological Issues," in ASAC Marketing,
ed. Vemon J. Jones, University de Quebec, pp. 258-69.
, and Ritchie, J. R. Brent (1979), "Consumer Energy Con-
n: A Framework for Policy Research," in Advances
in Consumer Research, ed. Jerry C. Olson, San Francisco:
Association for Consumer Research.
Ritchie, J. R. Brent, and Claxton, John D. (1981),
"Analysis of Consumer Energy Consumption," in Con-
sumers and Energy Conservation, eds. John D. Claxton, C.
Dennis Anderson, J. R. Brent Ritchie, and Gordon H. G.
McDougall, New York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 11-22.
McNeill. Dennis L., and Hutton, R. Bruce (1981), "Marketing
Incentives and Energy Conservation," in Consumers and
Energy Conser\-ation, eds. John D. Claxton, C. Dennis An-
derson. J. R. Brent Ritchie, and Gordon H. G. McDougall.
New York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 271-79.
, and Wilkie, William L. (1979). "Public Policy and Con-
sumer Information: Impact of the New Energy Labels."
Journal of Consumer Research. 6 , 1 - 1 1 .
Meier, Alan K. (1979), "Measuring Residential Energy Conser-
vation," in Changing Energy Use Futures, eds. R.A. Faz-
zolare and C.B. Smith, New York: Pergamon Press, pp.
224-30.
Melber. Barbara D. et al. (1977), Nuclear Power and the Public:
Analysis of Collected Surxey Research. Seattle: Battelle Hu-
man Affairs Research Center.
Meyers, Catherine E. (1979). Factors Affecting Wiliingness to
Conserve Gasoline, Albany, NY: State Depanment of Trans-
portation.
Milstein, Jeffrey S. (1977), "Attitudes, Knowledge and Behavior
of American Consumers Regarding Energy Conservation
with Some Implications for Govemmental Action," paper
presented at Social and Behavioral Implications of the Energy
Crisis: A Symposium. Woodlands, T^.
(1978), "How Consumers Feel About Energy: Attitudes
and Behavior During the Winter and Spring 1976-77." in
Energy Policy in the United States, ed. Seymour Warkov.
New York: Ptaeger Publishers, pp. 79-89.
Mitchell, Bridger M., and Acton, Jan (1977), Peak txtad Pricing
in Selected European Electric Utilities, The Rand Corpora-
tion, Santa Monica, CA.
Monroe, Charles B., and Halvorson, Peter L. (1980), "The Im-
pact of Changes in Pricing Policy Upon Transit Riders of
Varying Ages in Chicago," Professional Geographer, 32,
335^2.
Nemetz, Peter, Hankey, Marilyn, and Zethoff, Bert (1980).
"Economic Incentives for Energy Conser\'ation at the Con-
sumer Level in Canada," prepared for Consumer Research
Branch, Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Ottawa, Canada.
Newman. Dorothy K., and Day-Wachtel, Dawn (1975), "Energy
353
in the Home," in Ford Foundation Energy Policy Project
Report: The American Energy Consumer, Washington, DC:
Ford Foundation.
Olsen, Marvin E. (1978), "Public Acceptance of Energy Con-
servation," in Energy Policy in the United States, ed. Sey-
mour Waricov, New York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 91-109.
, and Cluett, Christopher (1979), "Evaluation of the Se-
attle City Light Neighborhood Energy Conservation Pro-
gram," prepared for Seattle City Light, Battelle Human Af-
fairs Research Center, Seattle, WA.
Opinion Research Corporation (1974), Reports on Energy Polls,
Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA.
Perlman, Robert, and Warren, Roland L. (1977), Families in the
Energy Crisis: Impacts and Implications for Theory and Pol-
icy, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
Pitts, Roben E., Willenborg, John F., and Shenell, Daniel L.
(1981), "Dimensions of Consumer Response to Increasing
Gasoline PricesThe Experiences of the Seventies," in
Consumers and Energy Conservation, eds. John D. Claxton,
C. Dennis Anderson, J.R. Brent Ritchie, and Gordon H.G.
McDougall, New York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 205-12.
, and Wittenbach, James L. (1981), "U.S. Residential
Energy Tax Credit," in Consumers and Energy Consen'a-
tion. eds. John D. Claxton, C. Dennis Anderson, J. R. Brent
Ritchie, and Gordon H. G. McDougall, New York: Praeger
Publishers, pp. 280-85.
Plum, Roger A., and Edwards, Jerry L. (1980). "Attitudes To-
ward Ride-Sharing: 3 M Center Case Study." Traffic Quar-
terly. 34. 287-304.
Redinger. Roben, and Staelin. Richard (1981). "Refrigerator En-
ergy Isabels," in Consumers and Energy Conservation, eds.
John D. Claxton, C. Dennis Anderson, J. R. Brent Ritchie,
and Gordon H. G. McDougall, New York: Praeger Publish-
ers, pp. 286-92.
Response Analysis Corporation (1977), "Communications Effec-
tiveness of Energy Consumption Labels for Major Appli-
ances." Federal Trade Commission. Washington.
Richman. Al (1979), "The Polls: Public Attitudes Toward the
Energy Crisis," Public Opinion Quarterly, 43. 576-85.
Ritchie. J. R. Brent, Claxton. John D., and McDougall. Gordon
H. G. (1981), Consumer Energy Conservation Options
Professional and Consumer Perspectives, prepared for Con-
sumer and Coqjorate Affairs, Ottawa, Canada.
Runnion, Alex, Watson, Jesse, and McWhorter, John (1978),
"Energy Savings in Interstate Transfwnation Through Feed-
back and Reinforcement," Journal of Organizational Be-
havior Management. I, 189-91.
Russo. J. Edward (1977). "A Proposal to Increase Energy Con-
servation Through Provision of Consumption and Cost In-
formation to Consumers," American Marketing Association
Proceeding. 91,437-42.
Sawhill, John C. (1979), Energy Conservation and Public Policy.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Seaver, W. Burleigh, and Patterson, Anhur H. (1976), "Decreas-
ing Fuel Oil Consumption Through Feedback and Social
Commendation," Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9,
147-52.
Seligman, Clive, Kriss, M., Darley. J. M., Fazio, R. H., Becker,
L. J.. and Pryor, J. B., (1979), "Predicting Summer Energy
Consumption from Homeowners Attitudes." Journal of Ap-
plied Social Psychology. 9, 70-90.
, Kriss, M . , D a r l e y , J. M . , F a z i o , R. H . , Becker, L . J.,
and Pr>'or, J. B., (1976), Psychological Strategies to Reduce
354
Energy Consumption: First Annual Progress Report, Prin-
ceton, NJ: Princeton University Center for Environmental
Studies, November. Report No. 41.
Sonderegger, Robert C. (1978), "Movers and Stayers: The Res-
ident's Contribution to Variation Across Houses in Energy
Consumption for Space Heating," Energy and Buildings, 1,
313-24.
Sonenti, Ken, and Petherick. Terry (1981). "Report on the Pas-
senger Car Fuel Consumption," in Consumer and Energy
Conservation, eds. John D. Claxton, C. Dennis Anderson,
J. R. Brent Ritchie, and Gordon H. G. McDougall. New
York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 147-51.
Spencer. Robert H. (1981), "Policy Applications for Utility Res-
idential Consumer Surveys," in Consumers arul Energy Con-
servation, eds. John D. Claxton, C. Dennis Anderson. J. R.
Brent Ritchie, and Gordon H. G. McDougall, New York:
Praeger Publishers, pp. 23-31.
Stem. Paul C , and Gardner, Gerald T. (1981), "Psychological
Research and Energy Policy." American Psychologist, 36,
329-42.
United States Department of Energy (1980a). Consumption Pat-
terns of Household Vehicles, Washington, DC: Energy In-
formation Administration.
(1980b), "Electric and Gas Utility Marketing of Residen-
tial Energy Conservation." prepared by Booz-Allen and
Hamilton, Inc.
Veihallen. Theo M. M.. and van Raaij, W. Fred (1981), "House-
hold Behavior and Energy Use." in Consumers and Energy
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Conservation, eds. John D. Claxton, C. Dennis Anderson,
J. R. Brent Ritchie, and Gordon H. G. McDougall, New
York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 32-45.
Walker. James M. (1979), "Energy Demand Behavior in a Mas-
ter-Metered Apartment Complex: An Experimental Analy-
sis," Joumal of Applied Psychology, 64. 190-96.
Warkov, Seymour (1981). "Adopting Solar and Conservation,"
in Consumers and Energy Conservation, eds. John D. Clax-
ton, C. Dennis Anderson, J. R. Brent Ritchie, and Gordon
H. G. McDougall, New York: Praeger Publishers, pp.
123-29.
Waniner, G. Keith (1981), "Electricity Consumption by the El-
derly," in Consumers and Energy Conservation, eds. John
D. Claxton, C. Dennis Anderson, J. R. Brent Ritchie, and
Gordon H. G. McDougall, New York: Praeger Publishers,
pp. 69-80.
Webber, Robert E. (1979), "Program Evaluation of the Tennessee
Energy AuthorityEnergy Extension Service," Energy, En-
vironment, and Resources Center, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, TN.
Wenders, John T., and Taylor, Lester D. (1976), "Experiments
in Seasonal Time-of-Day Pricing of Electricity to Residential
Users," Bell Journal of Economics, 7, 531-52.
Winett, Richard A., Kazel, J. H., Battalio, R. C , and Winkler,
R. C. (1978), "Effects of Monetary Rebates and Daily Feed-
back and Infomiation on Residential Electricity Conserva-
tion," Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 73-80.