Supplemental Material
Advertising Energy Saving Programs: The Potential Environmental Cost of Emphasizing Monetary
Savings
by D. Schwartz et al., 2015, JEP: Applied
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xap0000042
I. List of questions, explanations of experimental design, and additional analyses.
II. Supportive tables
III. Supportive figures
I. The following is a list of the questions asked in the experiment (in the order shown in the study). (*) indicates a question used in the
analysis. Several questions were added to measure potential problems with the study, to characterize the sample, as manipulation
checks for our main DV’s (willingness to enroll and reasons), or as preliminary tests of additional research questions.
1. After reading an energy-saving program, participants saw a list of 10 actions for reducing electricity usage: “Please select the
actions you would take to reduce your electricity bill [environmental impact / electricity bill and environmental impact].”
These questions sought to make the effort needed to save electricity more concrete, and avoid ceiling effects in decisions about
enrolling in the energy-saving programs.
Participants who read the advertisements that emphasized monetary benefits, checked fewer actions than those who read
programs emphasizing environmental benefits or both (ps < 0.01), and there were no significant difference between these latter. Main
results reported in the paper do not change when controlling for the number of actions checked.
Actions:
[For Energy conservation Programs]
 Turn up my household's air conditioner thermostat in the summer to 78°F or more. Check in the display how this action
decreases my electricity usage.
 Replace or clean my window or central air conditioner filters once a month or as directed by the manufacturer. Dirty filters
restrict air flow and increase energy use.
 Use fans as a supplement or replacement for my air conditioner to make my home feel cooler. Check in the display how fans
use far less electricity than air conditioners.
 Turn up my refrigerator thermostat to 29°F and the freezer thermostat to 0°F.
 Cut my electricity use by hanging laundry to air dry rather than using the dryer.
 Wash only full loads of dishes and clothes.
 Watch 25 percent less TV. Check in the display how this action decreases my electricity usage.
 Unplug cell phone chargers and other rechargeable devices, or use a power strip to shut off the flow of electricity.
 Replace incandescent bulbs with equally bright compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs). CFLs use less electricity, produce less
heat, and last up to 10 times longer.
 Perform other energy savings actions, such as: [open-ended]
[For Peak Shaving Programs]
 Turn up my household's air conditioner thermostat in the summer to 78°F or more, especially when electricity prices are high.
 Replace or clean my window or central air conditioner filters once a month or as directed by the manufacturer. Dirty filters
restrict air flow and increase energy use.








Use fans along with, or instead of, air conditioner to make my home feel cooler, especially when electricity prices are high.
Fans use far less electricity than air conditioners.
Turn up my refrigerator thermostat to 29°F and the freezer thermostat to 0°F.
Wait to run my major appliances, as a dishwasher or a dryer, at night when electricity prices are low. Cut my electricity use
by hanging things up to air dry rather than using the dryer.
Wash only full loads of dishes and clothes.
Watch 25 percent less TV, especially when electricity prices are high.
When electricity prices are high, unplug cell phone chargers and other rechargeable devices, or use a power strip to shut off
the flow of electricity. Recharge devices such as MP3 players, cell phones and cordless tools at night when electricity prices
are low.
Replace incandescent bulbs with equally bright compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs). CFLs use less electricity, produce less
heat, and last up to 10 times longer.
Perform other energy savings actions, such as: [open-ended]
2. (*) Willingness to enroll: “Would you enroll in the [name of the program] in the next month?” [from 1 = “definitely not” to 8 =
“definitely yes]1
3. (*) Reasons about enrollment: “Please explain why you selected [participant’s answer] in your decision to enroll in the [name of the
program] next month” [Open ended].
Table S1 details each reason.
4. After providing the reason about enrollment, two additional questions were asked: (4a) “Would you like to receive information
about the [name of program] if it becomes available?” [yes/no], and (4b) “What if the display were not free. How much would you
pay per year for the display if you were to enroll in the [name of program]? [Participants entered willingness to pay].
The former (4a) was added after the study started (N = 965), and those who said "yes" received a standard email providing
information about energy conservation and peak-shaving programs. In particular, emphasizing monetary benefits (alone or in
combination with environmental benefits) reduced the likelihood of requesting more information compared to programs emphasizing
only environmental benefits (both ps = 0.02), and more participants were willing to pay for an energy-saving device when programs
emphasized only environmental benefits (p = 0.06), although there was no significant difference between emphasizing environmental
vs. both benefits (no significant differences were found when using a continuous variable for willingness to pay). These questions also
helped to examine ‘willingness to enroll’ robustness and limitation for future studies.
5. Questions about the programs: “Please rate the following features [‘reduce my environmental impact’ / ‘reduce my electricity bill]
that an energy program should have to be attractive to you” [from 1=“Not at all important” to 6=“Extremely important”], and "Please
rate the following features of the [name] program” [from 1=“It makes me to really dislike the program” to 7=“It makes me to really
like the program”], using the following features: “Amount of savings,” “price change [for peak-shaving program],” and “amount of
information.”
Across all conditions, participants’ ratings suggested that they preferred an energy-saving program that helps them to reduce
their bill (ps < 0.01).
Across conditions, less than 2% of participants disliked in some degree that the amount of savings was 5%. In fact, 79.8%
liked very much or extremely liked the 5% of saving in their electricity bill, and 72.2% for savings in electricity use. In addition,
73.4% liked very much or extremely liked the amount of information that they can check in the display, and 43.7% that the price of
electricity may change (only for the peak shaving program).
We tested (N = 235) and found that the emphasis “save energy” (without emphasizing environmental benefits) may be perceived similarly to a
monetary emphasis. Willingness to enroll: M = 5.89 (SD = 1.67) when programs emphasized “save energy,” with no significant differences
compared to programs emphasizing monetary or both benefits (all ps > 0.10), but significantly different to willingness to enroll when programs
emphasized environmental benefits (p = 0.04).
1
6. (*) Participants responded "How well the program is explained?" [from 1=“very badly” to 6=“very well”].
7. Then, we presented to participants the same previous questions after reading the same program with different emphasis (e.g. if a
participant read an energy conservation program with environmental emphasis, now read an energy conservation program with
monetary emphases; those who read a program with both emphases didn’t read another program): “Your electric company has another
way to present the same program. Please read it carefully. You will be asked again whether you would be willing to enroll in the
program. Feel free to change your mind or make the same choice again.”
We did not find differences in our main analysis between their first or second answer. This method should have reduced the
chances of participants reporting differences in environmental attitudes, but it did not as shown in (9).
8. (*) True or false questionnaire about the programs: “The following questions will measure your understanding of the program
(presented as EITHER money or energy saving). Based on the information described in the program, please indicate whether the
following statements are true or false. You must answer each question.”
[Energy Conservation]
 To save money and energy, households need to increase their electricity use.
 Higher electricity use leads to less pollution.
 Enrolled households typically save more electricity.
 Enrolled households will reduce their electricity use, even if they continue using their electricity in the same way.
 Without this program or a similar program, people cannot figure out how much electricity they use in the morning
compared to the afternoon.
 Enrolled households can figure out how much their electricity use increases when they use their dishwasher.
 Enrolled households will save money if they use their air conditioner instead of their fan.
 Hanging clothes instead of using the dryer will help enrolled households to reduce their electricity bill.
 More electricity will probably be used on hot summer afternoons.
[Peak Shaving]
 To save money and energy, households need to increase their electricity use.
 Higher electricity use leads to less pollution.
 Enrolled households typically save more electricity.
 Households will reduce their electricity use, even if they continue using their electricity in the same way.
 Without this program or a similar program, people cannot figure out how much electricity households in their region are
using at the same time.
 Enrolled households can figure out how much their electricity price changes when they use their dishwasher at 6pm
instead of at 11 pm.
 Enrolled households will save money if they shift part of their electricity use to hours when prices are higher.
 Hanging clothes instead of using the dryer will help enrolled households to reduce their electricity bill.
 Extra power plants will probably be needed on hot summer afternoons.
The question “If a household uses 5% less electricity in a month, then their electricity bill will be reduced by 5%,” was
excluded because it can differently interpreted for peak shaving programs; this may differ between expectations and potential
savings (in a post-experiment this was actually examined).
9. Participants responded three scales: (9a) New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale by Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, and Jones (2000),
(9b) Frugality scale by Lastovicka, Bettencourt, Hughner, and Kuntze (1999), and (9c) Tightwad-spendthrift scale by Rick, Cryder,
and Loewenstein (2008).
People with greater pro-environmental attitudes (r = 0.17, p < 0.01), more frugal (r = 0.27, p < 0.01), and tightwads (r = 0.06,
p = 0.06) were more prone to be willing to enroll in the energy-saving programs (across conditions).
Participants who read the advertisement emphasizing environmental benefits reported greater pro-environmental attitudes
(NEP) than those who read the advertisement emphasizing ‘both’ benefits, suggesting that their environmental attitudes were affected
by the experimental manipulation (β = -0.10, p = 0.04). There was no significant difference with those who read the advertisement
emphasizing monetary benefits (β = -0.04, p = 0.34).2
NEP scores (M = 3.65 SD = 0.65) were significantly above the scale-midpoint (= 3.00) (t (1171) = 29.37, p <
0.01). Figure S1 shows willingness to enroll by level of environmental attitudes as measured by the NEP. Pairwise
comparisons indicate that there were no differences in willingness to enroll across participants with ‘low’ environmental
attitudes (NEP lower than 3), all ps > 0.10. For those with ‘high’ environmental attitudes (NEP above 4), we found greater
willingness to enroll when advertisements emphasized environmental benefits instead of monetary, F(1, 321) = 8.51, p <
0.01, or both benefits, F(1, 321) = 3.97, p = 0.05. For those who on average agreed with most of the pro-environmental
statements of the NEP scale (‘medium’ environmental attitudes), there was only a significant difference between those
participants who read the advertisement emphasizing environmental benefits and those who read it emphasizing monetary
benefits, F(1, 657) = 7.81, p < 0.01.
10. Demographics (Table S2 shows the sample characteristics):










How old are you?
Your gender?
Where do you currently live? [State] 3
Who is the primary responsible for paying the electric bill where you currently live? [I am responsible / Another member
of my household is responsible / A third party, such as a landlord or a relative that doesn’t live in the house, is
responsible]
How much is your typical monthly electricity bill? [Winter monthly electricity bill (in US $) / Summer monthly
electricity bill (in US $) / If you do not know, please explain why]
Please select your annual household’s income range (in US $) [ $0 to $20,000 per year / $20,000 to $39,999 / $40,000 to
$59,999 / $60,000 to $79,999 / $80,000 to $99,999/ $100,000 to $199,999 / $200,000 or more]
What is your educational background? [Some high school, incomplete / High school diploma / Some college,
incomplete / Undergraduate college degree (BS, BA) / Graduate degree (MA, PhD, MBA, etc)]
What is your current occupation? [ Paid employed, full or part time / Out of work and looking for work / Out of work
but not currently looking for work / A homemaker/ A student / Retired/ Unable to work ]
Your race? [White/ Black or African American/ Asian/ Hispanic/ American Indian or Alaska Native/ Native Hawaiian
or Other Pacific Islander]10) In terms of politics, what do you currently consider yourself?
How many people live in your home? (Household size) [1/…/5/ More than 5 people]
11. Political ideology: “In terms of politics, what do you currently consider yourself?” [Democrat/ Independent/ Republican/ Other],
and (*) political view: “In general, how would you describe your political views?” [Liberal/ Moderate/ Conservative].
Most democrats identified themselves as liberate (62.3%), most independents identified themselves as moderate (52.4%),
most republicans identified themselves as conservatives (65.7%), and those who in term of politics are “others,” identified themselves
as liberates (36.5%) or moderates (48.3%).
12. Comments about the study: “Please give us any general comment about the survey” [open-ended].
References
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442.
2
This result may be due to the procedure indicated in (7).
hundred twenty-six participants did not answer this question or the question about whether they pay their bill. Main results are almost exactly
the same to the ones presented in the manuscript when these participants are included.
3One
Lastovicka, J. L., Bettencourt, L. A., Hughner, R. S., & Kuntze, R. J. (1999). Lifestyle of the tight and frugal: Theory and
measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 85-98.
Rick, S. I., Cryder, C. E., & Loewenstein, G. (2008). Tightwads and spendthrifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 767-782.
II. Supportive tables
Table S1
Reasons for enrollment decisions for programs emphasizing environmental, monetary, or both benefits
Environmental
Monetary
Both
Reason about…
emphasis
emphasis
emphases
Monetary savings
41.3%
43.1%
43.5%
The environment
24.2%
12.2%
16.7%
Energy or electricity savingsa
15.1%
7.7%
10.9%
Program providing more energy information
20.3%
19.4%
19.7%
Need more time or information to make decision
10.6%
12.0%
11.4%
Otherb
21.8%
27.6%
26.3%
Reason not provided
3.6%
4.6%
4.6%
a
"Saving energy" may have multiple interpretations. When context was missing, coders left this as a different
category.
b
Some categories included in "other": "Already enrolled in similar program," and "other person makes the final
decision."
Note: : Out of the 24.2% of participants who provided environmental reasons after seeing the advertisement
emphasizing only environmental benefits, 70% also provided a monetary reason. For those in the ‘monetary
benefit’ condition (‘both’ condition), 69% (79%) provided a duo of monetary and environmental reasons, out
of the 12.2% (16.7%) who provided environmental reasons.
Table S2
Sample characteristics
Variable
Age
Gender
Female
Male
Race
American Indian/native American
Black/African American
Asian
Hispanic/Latino
White/Caucasian
Income (Household) in US$
0 - <20k
20k - <40k
40k - <60k
60k - <80k
80k - <100k
100k - <200k
200k or more
Education
Some high school, incomplete
High school diploma
Mean (SD) /
Frequency
33.2 (11.9)
63.7%
36.3%
1.3%
6.1%
10.1%
6.5%
76.0%
16.8%
24.3%
21.4%
14.2%
10.9%
10.0%
2.4%
1.7%
11.1%
Some college, incomplete
Undergraduate college degree (BS, BA)
Graduate degree (MA, PhD, MBA, etc)
Occupation
Paid employed, full or part time
Out of work and looking for work
Out of work but not currently looking…
A homemaker
A student
Retired
Unable to work
Household size
1
2
3
4
5
More than 5 people
Political view
Liberate
Moderate
Conservative
Political identification
Democrat
Independent
Republican
Other
Reported summer bill
Reported winter bill
33.6%
35.3%
18.3%
51.8%
13.3%
2.5%
10.3%
17.6%
2.7%
1.9%
12.1%
32.0%
22.9%
19.1%
8.7%
5.2%
39.1%
41.0%
19.9%
38.1%
30.3%
17.8%
13.8%
129.4 (116.7)
139.8 (122.7)
III. Supportive figures
Emphasis on environmental benefits
Emphasis on monetary benefits
Emphasis on both benefits
Willingness to enroll
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
NEP: 1-3
(N = 180)
NEP: 3-4
(N = 661)
NEP: 4-5
(N = 325)
Figure S1. Mean reported willingness to enroll across different levels of the NEP Scale (1: low environmental attitudes to 5: high
environmental attitudes). Error bars represent ± one standard error.