Time-of-use flexible rate plans charge varying prices for electricity use by hour of day to discourage on-peak use and encourage off-peak use. Residential uptake of these plans may benefit themselves and contribute to the transition to low-carbon economy. The current take-up rate in Chinese households remains suboptimal. Setting defaults and framing messages are popular low-cost strategies informed by behavioral economics to promote consumer behavior change. However, little existing literature examines their effectiveness in enhancing the plans acceptance in Chinese residents. Using an online survey data over 2,860 respondents, this paper finds that, setting the default choice to enroll in the TOU plans noticeably increases willingness to adopt. Moreover, people’s intention to participate grow remarkably after receiving information on the potential economic benefits of uptake. Furthermore, economically-loss framing (describing missed potential savings if not involved) is discovered to be more effective than gain-framing. Implications for designing better promotional information are discussed.
ArañaJ. E.LeónC. J.2013. “Can Defaults Save the Climate? Evidence from a Field Experiment on Carbon Offsetting Programs.”Environmental and Resource Economics54: 613–26.
2.
AvineriE.WaygoodE. O. D.2013. “Applying Valence Framing to Enhance the Effect of Information on Transport-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions.”Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice48: 31–8.
3.
BenartziS.ThalerR. H.2013. “Behavioral Economics and the Retirement Savings Crisis.”Science339: 1152–3.
4.
BlaschJ.DaminatoC.2020. “Behavioral Anomalies and Energy-Related Individual Choices: The Role of Status-Quo Bias.”The Energy Journal41 (6): 181–214.
5.
CardellaE.EwingB. T.WilliamsR. B.2022. “Green is Good—The Impact of Information Nudges on the Selection of Voluntary Green-Power Plans.”The Energy Journal43 (1): 1–42.
6.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ. N.Leth-PetersenS.NielsenT. H.OlsenT.2014. “Active vs. Passive Decisions and Crowd-Out in Retirement Savings Accounts: Evidence from Denmark.”The Quarterly Journal of Economics129: 1141–219.
7.
CostaD. L.KahnM. E.2013. “Energy Conservation “Nudges” and Environmentalist Ideology: Evidence from a Randomized Residential Electricity Field Experiment.”Journal of the European Economic Association11: 680–702.
8.
DharshingS.HilleS. L.2017. “The Energy Paradox Revisited: Analyzing the Role of Individual Differences and Framing Effects in Information Perception.”Journal of Consumer Policy40: 485–508.
9.
DinnerI.JohnsonE. J.GoldsteinD. G.LiuK.2011. “Partitioning Default Effects: Why People Choose Not to Choose.”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied17: 332.
10.
DuK.LinB.2015. “Understanding the Rapid Growth of China’s Energy Consumption: A Comprehensive Decomposition Framework.”Energy90: 570–7.
11.
DufloE.GaleW.LiebmanJ.OrszagP.SaezE.2006. “Saving Incentives for Low-and Middle-Income Families: Evidence from a Field Experiment with H&R Block.”The Quarterly Journal of Economics121: 1311–46.
12.
EbelingF.LotzS.2015. “Domestic Uptake of Green Energy Promoted by Opt-Out Tariffs.”Nature Climate Change5: 868–71.
13.
FeinbergM.WillerR.2011. “Apocalypse Soon? Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs.”Psychological Science22: 34–38.
14.
FrederiksE. R.StennerK.HobmanE. V.2015. “Household Energy Use: Applying Behavioural Economics to Understand Consumer Decision-Making and Behaviour.”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews41: 1385–94.
15.
FryerR. G.Jr.LevittS. D.ListJ.SadoffS.2022. “Enhancing the Efficacy of Teacher Incentives through Framing: A Field Experiment.”American Economic Journal: Economic Policy14: 269–99.
16.
FuX.QianQ. K.LiuG.ZhuangT.VisscherH. J.HuangR.2023. “Overcoming Inertia for Sustainable Urban Development: Understanding the Role of Stimuli in Shaping Residents’ Participation Behaviors in Neighborhood Regeneration Projects in China.”Environmental Impact Assessment Review103: 107252.
17.
GheslaC.GriederM.SchubertR.2020. “Nudging the Poor and the Rich–A Field Study on the Distributional Effects of Green Electricity Defaults.”Energy Economics86: 104616.
18.
HardistyD. J.JohnsonE. J.WeberE. U.2010. “A Dirty Word or a Dirty World? Attribute Framing, Political Affiliation, and Query Theory.”Psychological Science21: 86–92.
19.
HarrisonG. W.ListJ. A.2004. “Field Experiments.”Journal of Economic Literature42: 1009–55.
20.
HomarA. R.CvelbarL. K.2021. “The Effects of Framing on Environmental Decisions: A Systematic Literature Review.”Ecological Economics183: 106950.
21.
ImbensG. W.RubinD. B.2015. Causal Inference in Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
22.
JohnsonE. J.GoldsteinD.2003. “Do Defaults Save Lives?”Science302: 1338–9.
23.
KahnemanD.KnetschJ. L.ThalerR. H.1991. “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias.”Journal of Economic Perspectives5: 193–206.
24.
KaiserM.BernauerM.SunsteinC. R.ReischL. A.2020. “The Power of Green Defaults: The Impact of Regional Variation of Opt-Out Tariffs on Green Energy Demand in Germany.”Ecological Economics174: 106685.
25.
KellerP. A.HarlamB.LoewensteinG.VolppK. G.2011. “Enhanced Active Choice: A New Method to Motivate Behavior Change.”Journal of Consumer Psychology21: 376–83.
26.
KhedhaouriaA.ThurikR.GurauC.van HeckE.2016. “Customers’ Continuance Intention Regarding Mobile Service Providers: A Status Quo Bias Perspective.”Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM)24: 1–21.
27.
KleinS. A.HorstenL. K.HilbigB. E., 2022. “The Effect of Environmental Versus Social Framing on Pro-Environmental Behavior.”Journal of Environmental Psychology84: 101897.
28.
KuhnS.ThøgersenJ.KutznerF.2023. “No Trust in the Choice Architect? No Problem! On the Minor Role of Trust for the Effectiveness of Default Interventions Promoting the Choice of Energy-Efficient Appliances.”Journal of Environmental Psychology91: 102115.
29.
LevinI. P.SchneiderS. L.GaethG. J.1998. “All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes76: 149–188.
30.
LiangJ.LiuP.QiuY.WangY. D.XingB.2020. “Time-of-Use Electricity Pricing and Residential Low-Carbon Energy Technology Adoption.”The Energy Journal41 (3): 1–38.
31.
LinB.LiuC.2016. “Why is Electricity Consumption Inconsistent with Economic Growth in China?”Energy Policy88: 310–6.
32.
MadrianB. C.SheaD. F.2001. “The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401 (k) Participation and Savings Behavior.”The Quarterly Journal of Economics116: 1149–87.
33.
NeumannR.MehlkopG.2020. “Framing Electricity Plan Choices to Enhance Green Energy Usage: A Choice Experiment with Panel Data from Germany.”Energy Research & Social Science70: 101741.
34.
NicolsonM.HuebnerG.ShipworthD.2017. “Are Consumers Willing to Switch to Smart Time of Use Electricity Tariffs? The Importance of Loss-Aversion and Electric Vehicle Ownership.”Energy Research & Social Science23: 82–96.
35.
ÖlanderF.ThøgersenJ.2014. “Informing Versus Nudging in Environmental Policy.”Journal of Consumer Policy37: 341–56.
36.
ParkJ.SonW.MoonH.WooJ.2023. “Nudging Energy Efficiency Behavior: The Effect of Message Framing on Implicit Discount Rate.”Energy Economics117: 106485.
37.
PoortingaW.WhitakerL.2018. “Promoting the Use of Reusable Coffee Cups through Environmental Messaging, the Provision of Alternatives and Financial Incentives.”Sustainability10: 873.
38.
SamuelsonW.ZeckhauserR.1988. “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making.”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty1: 7–59.
39.
SpenceA.PidgeonN.2010. “Framing and Communicating Climate Change: The Effects of Distance and Outcome Frame Manipulations.”Global Environmental Change20: 656–67.
40.
SteinhorstJ.KlöcknerC. A.MatthiesE.2015. “Saving Electricity–For the Money or the Environment? Risks of Limiting Pro-Environmental Spillover When Using Monetary Framing.”Journal of Environmental Psychology43: 125–35.
41.
SunsteinC. R.ReischL. A.2014. “Automatically Green: Behavioral Economics and Environmental Protection.”Harvard Environmental Law Review38: 127.
42.
SunsteinC. R.ThalerR. H.2003. “Libertarian Paternalism is Not an Oxymoron.”The University of Chicago Law Review70 (4): 1159–202.
43.
TverskyA.KahnemanD.1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.”Science211: 453–8.
44.
Van de VeldeL.VerbekeW.PoppM.Van HuylenbroeckG.2010. “The Importance of Message Framing for Providing Information about Sustainability and Environmental Aspects of Energy.”Energy Policy38: 5541–9.
45.
WhillansA. V.DunnE. W.2015. “Thinking about Time as Money Decreases Environmental Behavior.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes127: 44–52.
46.
WhiteL. V.SintovN. D.2018. “Inaccurate Consumer Perceptions of Monetary Savings in a Demand-Side Response Programme Predict Programme Acceptance.”Nature Energy3: 1101–108.
47.
WyssA. M.KnochD.BergerS.2022. “When and How Pro-Environmental Attitudes Turn into Behavior: The Role of Costs, Benefits, and Self-Control.”Journal of Environmental Psychology79: 101748.
48.
XuX.ArpanL. M.ChenC.-f.2015. “The Moderating Role of Individual Differences in Responses to Benefit and Temporal Framing of Messages Promoting Residential Energy Saving.”Journal of Environmental Psychology44: 95–108.
49.
YeX.ZhangZ.QiuY. L.2023. “Review of Application of High Frequency Smart Meter Data in Energy Economics and Policy Research.”Frontiers in Sustainable Energy Policy2: 1171093.
50.
ZhaiH.GuB.ZhuK.HuangC.2023. “Feasibility Analysis of Achieving Net-Zero Emissions in China’s Power Sector before 2050 Based on Ideal Available Pathways.”Environmental Impact Assessment Review98: 106948.
51.
ZhuR.ChenY.LinB.2022. “How “Informing Consumers” Impacts Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy Electricity in China.”Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM)30: 1–23.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
