Research suggests that vivid and personalized interventions influence proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. Through the use of immersive virtual environment technology, people can experience vivid environmental scenarios that are personalized to the individual. An experiment was conducted to investigate the impact of vivid and/or personal messages on energy savings behavior related to hot water use. Participants experienced a virtual shower in which they received feedback (varying in vividness and/or personalization) on the amount of energy used to heat and transport the virtual water. Participants’ hot water use during hand washing in the physical world was tracked before and after treatment. Participants exposed to vivid messages used cooler water compared with not vivid messages. There was no significant effect for personal messages and no interaction effect. The results suggest that technology that leverages vividness may be effective in promoting proenvironmental behaviors.
AbrahamseW.StegL.VlekC.RothengatterT. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 273-291. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.002
2.
AhnS. J.BailensonJ. N. (2011). Self-endorsing versus other-endorsing in virtual environments: The effect of brand attitudes and purchase intention. The Journal of Advertising, 40, 93-106. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367400207
3.
AhnS. J.FoxJ.DaleK. R.AvantJ. A. (2014). Framing virtual experiences: Effects on environmental efficacy and behavior over time. Communication Research, 1-25. doi:10.1177/0093650214534973
4.
AllcottH. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 1082-1095. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003
AttariS. Z.DeKayM. L.DavidsonC. I.de BruinW. B. (2010). Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 16054-16059. doi:10.1073/pnas.1001509107
7.
BailensonJ. N.BeallA. C.BlascovichJ.RexC. (2004). Examining virtual busts: Are photogrammetrically generated head models effective for person identification?Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13, 416-427. doi:10.1162/1054746041944858
8.
BailensonJ. N.YeeN. (2007). Virtual interpersonal touch and digital chameleons. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31, 225-242. doi:10.1007/s10919-007-0034-6
9.
BainbridgeW. S. (2007). The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. Science, 317, 472-476. doi:10.1126/science.1146930
10.
BanduraA. (2004). Social cognitive theory for personal and social change by enabling media. In SinghalA.CodyM. J.RogersE. M.SabidoM. (Eds.), Entertainment-education and social change: History, research, and practice (pp. 75-96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
BarsalouL. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
12.
BinS.DowlatabadiH. (2005). Consumer lifestyle approach to U.S. energy use and the related CO2 emissions. Energy Policy, 33, 197-208. doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00210-6
13.
BlascovichJ.LoomisJ.BeallA. C.SwinthK. R.HoytC. L.BailensonJ. N. (2002). Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 103-124. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1302_01
14.
BlühdornI. (2011). The politics of unsustainability: COP15, post-ecologism, and the ecological paradox. Organization & Environment, 24, 34-53. doi:10.1177/1086026611402008
15.
CostanzoM.ArcherD.AronsonE.PettigrewT. (1986). Energy conservation behavior: The difficult path from information to action. American Psychologist, 41, 521-528. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.5.521
16.
DietzT.GardnerG. T.GilliganJ.SternP. C.VandenberghM. P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce U.S. carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 18452-18456. doi:10.1073/pnas.0908738106
17.
DijkstraA. (2008). The psychology of tailoring-ingredients in computer-tailored persuasion. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 765-784. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00081.x
18.
DillardA. J.MainJ. L. (2013). Using a health message with a testimonial to motivate colon cancer screening: Associations with perceived identification and vividness. Health Education & Behavior, 40, 673-682. doi:10.1177/1090198112473111
19.
FoggB. J. (1999). Persuasive technologies. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 42, 26-29. doi:10.1145/301353.301396
20.
FoggB. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
21.
GardnerG. T.SternP. C. (2008). The short list: The most effective actions U.S. households can take to curb climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50, 12-25. doi:10.3200/envt.50.5.12-25
22.
GiffordR. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290-302. doi:10.1037/a0023566
23.
GöckeritzS.SchultzP. W.RendónT.CialdiniR. B.GoldesteinN. J.GŕiskeviciusV. (2010). Descriptive normative beliefs and conservation behavior: The moderating roles of personal involvement and injunctive normative beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 514-523. doi:10.1002/ejsp.643
24.
GolanA.FenkoA. (2013). Toward a sustainable faucet design: Effects of sound and vision on perception of running water. Environment and Behavior, 1-17. doi:10.1177/0013916513493908
25.
GonzalesM. H.AronsonE.CostanzoM. A. (1988). Using social cognition and persuasion to promote energy conservation: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1049-1066. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb01192.x
26.
GreenbergM. (2009). Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of U.S. national and site-specific data. Energy Policy, 37, 3242-3249. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.04.020
27.
GriffinE. (2009). A first look at communication theory (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
28.
GuadagnoR. E.RhoadsK. v. L.SagarinB. J. (2011). Figural vividness and persuasion: Capturing the “elusive” vividness effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 626-638. doi:10.1177/0146167211399585
29.
HamJ.MiddenC. J. H. (2010). Ambient persuasive technology needs little cognitive effort: The differential effects of cognitive load on lighting feedback versus factual feedback. In PlougT.HasleP.Oinas-KukkonenH. (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science. Persuasive technology (pp. 132-142). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13226-1_14
30.
HamJ.MiddenC. J. H. (2014). A persuasive robot to simulate energy conservation: The influence of positive and negative social feedback and task similarity on energy-consumption behavior. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6, 163-171. doi:10.1007/s12369-013-0205-z
31.
HargreavesT.NyeM.BurgessJ. (2010). Making energy visible: A qualitative field study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors. Energy Policy, 38, 6111-6119. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.068
32.
HawkinsR. P.KreuterM.ResnicowK.FishbeinM.DijkstraA. (2008). Understanding tailoring in communicating about health. Health Education Research, 23, 454-466. doi:10.1093/her/cyn004
33.
HornikR.YanovitzkyI. (2003). Using theory to design evaluations of communication campaigns: The case of the national youth anti-drug media campaign. Communication Theory, 13, 204-224. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00289.x
JamiesonD. (2006). An American paradox. Climatic Change, 77, 97-102. doi:10.1007/s10584-005-9044-8
36.
JensenJ. D.KingA. J.CarcioppoloN.DavisL. (2012). Why are tailored messages more effective? A multiple mediation analysis of a breast cancer screening intervention. Journal of Communication, 62, 851-868. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01668.x
37.
KalyanaramanS.SundarS. S. (2006). The psychological appeal of personalized content in web portals: Does customization affect attitudes and behavior?Journal of Communication, 56, 110-132. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00006.x
38.
KennedyE. H.BeckleyT. M.McFarlaneB. L.NadeauS. (2009). Why we don’t “walk the talk”: Understanding the environmental values/behaviour gap in Canada. Human Ecology Review, 16, 151-160. Available from http://www.humanecologyreview.org/
39.
KingP.TesterJ. (1999). The landscape of persuasive technologies. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 42, 31-38. doi:10.1145/301353.301398
40.
Le QuéréC.PetersG. P.AndresR. J.AndrewR. M.BodenT.CiaisP.ZaehleS. (2013). Global carbon budget 2013. Earth System Science Data Discussion, 6, 689-760. doi:10.5194/essdd-6-689-2013
41.
LopesM. A. R.AntunesC. H.MartinsN. (2012). Energy behaviours as promoters of energy efficiency: A 21st century review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16, 4095-4104. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.034
42.
MaitenyP. T. (2002). Mind in the gap: Summary of research exploring “inner” influences on pro-sustainability learning and behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 8, 299-306. doi:10.1080/13504620220145447
McKenzie-MohrD. (2011). Step 3: Developing strategies. Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing (3rd ed., pp. 41-128). Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society.
45.
MiddenC.HamJ. (2014). The power of negative feedback from an artificial agent to promote energy saving. In MarcusA. (Ed.), Lecture notes in computer science: Design, user experience, and usability (pp. 328-338). Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07638-6_32
46.
NisbettR.RossL. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
47.
NoarS. M.BenacC. N.HarrisM. S. (2007). Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 673-693. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673
48.
NowakK. L.BioccaF. (2003). The effect of agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12, 481-494. doi:10.1162/105474603322761289
ReevesB.CummingsJ. J.ScarboroughJ. K.YeykelisL. (2013). Increasing energy efficiency with entertainment media: An experimental and field test of the influence of a social game on performance of energy behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 1-14. doi:0013916513506442
51.
RhodeD. L.RossL. D. (2008). Environmental values and behaviors: Strategies to encourage public support for initiatives to combat global warming. Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 26, 161-187. Available from http://www.velj.org/
SchultzP. W. (2011). Conservation means behavior. Conservation Biology, 25, 1080-1083. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01766.x
54.
SemenzaJ. C.HallD. E.WilsonD. J.BontempoB. D.SailorD. J.GeorgeL. A. (2008). Public perception of climate change: Voluntary mitigation and barriers to behavior change. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 479-487. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.020
55.
SheppardS. R. J. (2005). Landscape visualisation and climate change: The potential for influencing perceptions and behaviour. Environmental Science & Policy, 8, 637-654. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2005.08.002
SteptoeW.SteedA.SlaterM. (2013). Human tails: Ownership and control of extended humanoid avatars. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19, 583-590. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2013.32
van VugtM.GriskeviciusV.SchultzP. W. (2014). Naturally green: Harnessing stone age psychological biases to foster environmental behavior. Social Issues and Policy Review, 8, 1-32. doi:10.1111/sipr.12000
61.
VogeleyK.MayM.RitzlA.FalkaiP.ZillesK.FinkG. (2004). Neural correlates of first-person perspective as one constituent of human self-consciousness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 817-827. doi:10.1162/089892904970799
62.
WeberE. U. (2006). Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 77, 103-120. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3
63.
WeberE. U.SternP. C. (2011). Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American Psychologist, 66, 315-328. doi:10.1037/a0023253
64.
WhitmarshL. (2009). Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 13-23. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.003
65.
WillisR. M.StewartR. A.PanuwatwanichK.JonesS.KyriakidesA. (2010). Alarming visual display monitors affecting shower end use water and energy conservation in Australian residential households. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, 54, 1117-1127. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.03.004
66.
WilsonM. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625-636. doi:10.3758/BF03196322
67.
ZaalbergR.MiddenC. (2010). Enhancing human responses to climate change risks through simulated flooding experiences. In PlougT.HasleP.Oinas-KukkonenH. (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 6137. Persuasive technology (pp. 205-210). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13226-1_21
