Page 1

This report has been commissioned by Vision 21 at the behest of the Low Carbon Partnership
(LCP) in Cheltenham, UK. For readers unfamiliar with the LCP, this is a subgroup of the Local
Strategic Partnership charged with coordinating efforts across the borough to reduce carbon emissions in the public and private sector. The partnership concentrates primarily on the two biggest contributors to carbon emissions, energy use and transport. Further information on the
LCP can be obtained from Gill Morris, Climate Change and Sustainability Officer, Cheltenham
Borough Council and Chris Hickey at Vision 21 – please see contact details below.
Over the past five years, members of the LCP have undertaken a range of staff-engagement exercises to help disseminate the carbon-reducing message within their organisations. While there have been some successes, the partnership believe employees are suffering from ‘energysaving fatigue.’ Accordingly the purpose of this report is to provide an overview of behavioural theory that can inform the messages and message strategies of the partnership to help them to engender more carbon-reducing behaviour in their employees. It gives particular reference to their efforts to encourage employees to reduce their energy consumption in the workplace.
Accordingly the current energy-saving messages generated and used by the partnership are also discussed.
The authors of this report are two academics within the Faculty of Business at the University of
Gloucestershire. Dr Janine Dermody is a Reader in Consumer Psychology and Dr Stuart Hanmer-
Lloyd is a Reader in Marketing. Both have established research reputations in the domains of sustainable behaviour and political behaviour.
In the discussions and presentations leading up to our writing of this report, it became very apparent that the level of commitment of those individuals involved in this partnership is very high, and the messages already created are making a difference to the way in which employees across Cheltenham engage with the energy saving and low-carbon emission messages. The authors hope that this report will contribute to future successes of the partnership.
The authors would like to thank Vision 21 and the low carbon partners for inviting us to write this report; and Abigail Porter from Vision 21 for organising us and compiling the messages that accompany this report. We would also like to thank our Head of Department at the University,
David Dawson, for his support on this project. Finally, and not least, we would like to thank our families for their forbearance in our ‘borrowing’ of personal time to complete this report.
Dr Janine Dermody, Reader in Consumer Psychology, Faculty of Business, University of Gloucestershire,
Broadlands Villa, The Park, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire. GL50 2RH. Email: jdermody@glos.ac.uk
Tel: 01242 714066. (Please contact this author). www.glos.ac.uk
Dr Stuart Hanmer-Lloyd, Reader in Marketing, (address as above).
Gill Morris, Climate Change and Sustainability Officer, Cheltenham Borough Council. Email: gill.morris@cheltenham.gov.uk
www.cheltenham.gov.uk
Mr Chris Hickey, Vision 21, Chair, Cheltenham Low Carbon Partnership, 30 St George’s Place, Cheltenham,
Gloucestershire. GL50 3JZ. Email: jpchickey1@mac.com
Tel: 01242 254466. www.vision21.org.uk
Page 2

2.
Within this review we examine four broad areas of theory that can help explain the (non)energysaving behaviour of employees. We remind readers that this is an overview of theory, as required by the low carbon partnership. Even so, this overview is based on an extensive knowledge base of the authors, who are actively-engaged scholars within the discipline of sustainability-oriented behaviour.
This knowledge is fed from a number of scholarship domains including psychology, sociology, consumer behaviour, sustainable consumption, marketing, persuasion, marketing communications, ethics and politics. Firstly, we appraise theories on morals, values and norms to illustrate how morality can form the basis of individuals’ behaviour and how it can become normalised into the choices they make. Secondly, we consider attitudes and behaviour, identifying when there is a direct relationship between individuals evaluations of saving energy (their attitudes) and their behavioural intention to reduce their energy consumption, and when this is influenced by social factors and the degree of control they have over our own behaviour. Thirdly we assess theories on cognitive deliberation to explain how individuals process energy-saving messages and how they learn to behave in an energy-saving way. Finally we explore theories of identity, specifically self-concept and social identity to show how the way individuals perceive themselves has a significant impact on whether they do or do not behave in an energy-saving manner. Throughout we relate the theory to saving energy and on occasions to broader sustainability-orientated and pro-environmental behaviours. At times we also make reference to ‘green’ segments and communications issues, which appear in sections 3 and 4 of this report.
(i).
Evidence indicates that morality has a significant role in explaining why people engage in sustainability-orientated behaviour, through their personal values, and how this results in behavioural norms. Personal values are central to much of the explanatory evidence on proenvironmental behaviour, particularly those values akin to altruism. Hence they guide individuals’ decisions to ‘do good’. This values-based decision-making is part of a self-reflective process rather than a quick assessment, where the issue’s morals and merits are appraised. Accordingly, values can be defined as judgements about the ‘worth’ of things and generalised evaluations of right and wrong that we learn from our micro and macro culture, which we use to judge the behaviour of ourselves and others. They are desirable behaviours, enabling us to choose ‘good’ from ‘bad’ within all situations (they are not context specific). While emotions underlie values, norms are expressions of rule-based behaviour – what behaviour is appropriate in a specific situation. Morality, then, is the overarching trigger in engendering behavioural decisions and rules that facilitate normative sustainability-orientated behaviour. We will briefly examine four theories that explain this relationship further. These are: a) Ecological values theory b) Norm activation theory c) Value, belief, norm theory d) Theory of normative conduct
Page 3

As discussed above, researchers maintain that sustainability-orientated behaviour originates from specific values-orientations, specifically those that are moral. Empirical support for this resides within the work of Schwartz in the 1970s 1 , who contrasted the value-orientations of selfenhancement (focus on self) with self-transcendence (focus on others) in order to explain those who do and do not engage in pro-environmental behaviours - figure 3.
Figure 3: Schwartz Motivational Domains
Those individuals motivated by self-transcendence, principally the values of universalism and benevolence, are more likely to behave in a sustainability-orientated manner than those guided by their own self-interest (self-enhancement) in pursuing pleasure, achievement and power.
Descriptions of each of these values in presented in table 1.
Table 1: Schwartz’s 10 Motivational Values Domains
1.
Power The attainment of social status and prestige, and the control or dominance over people and resources.
2.
Achievement Personal success through demonstrated competence. Competence is evaluated in terms of what is valued by the system or organization in which the individual is located.
3.
Hedonism
The pursuit and satisfaction of pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself.
4.
Stimulation Excitement, novelty, and challenges in life, derived from the need for variety and stimulation (e.g. thrill-seeking) in order to maintain an optimal level of activation.
5.
Self-direction Independent thought and action originating from the need for control and mastery alongside the need for autonomy and independence.
1
Schwartz, S (1970). Elicitation of moral obligation and self- sacrificing behavior, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 15, 283-293. Schwartz, Shalom 1977. Normative Influences on Altruism, Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology 10, 222-279. Schwartz, S and J Fleishman 1978. Personal Norms and the Mediation of Legitimacy Effects on
Helping. Social Psychology 41, 306-315.
Page 4

6.
Universalism The understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection of the welfare for all people and for nature.
7.
Benevolence To preserve and enhance the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact.
(This is more narrowly defined than Universalism).
8.
Tradition Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that one's culture or religion imposes on the individual. A traditional mode of behavior becomes a symbol of the group's solidarity and an expression of its unique worth and, hopefully, its survival.
9.
Conformity Restraint of action, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms. Individuals inhibit inclinations that might be socially disruptive in order for personal interaction and group functioning to run smoothly.
10.
Security Safety, harmony and stability of society or relationships, and of self.
A third biospheric value-orientation has also been proposed, which revolves around valuing the environment. This arose from research studies that suggested that the environmental problems we are facing stem from the embedded values, attitudes and beliefs in contemporary society – the dominant social paradigm (DSP). Inherent within the DSP is the commitment to economic growth, the pursuit of prosperity, and the assumption that science and technology can fix all our environmental problems. With the recognition of the biospheric value-orientation, combined with self- transcendence, some researchers suggest the DSP is under threat from the new environmental paradigm (NEP) (Dunlap and van Liere 1978), 2 which respects the earth’s natural limits, all its inhabitants and recognises the need to safeguard its natural balance.
The relationship between these three value-orientations is complex. However evidence does indicate that those with self-enhancement values tend to be less sustainability-orientated than those with self- transcendence or biospheric values. Hence employees who possess the values of benevolence and universalism, and the biospheric value are more likely to proactively adopt the sentiment of saving energy within the workplace, than those who do not. This values-driven behaviour is very evident in the segments ‘positive greens’ and ‘waste watchers’ presented in section 4 of this report.
Related to values research is the theory of cultural types. Evidence suggests that there are distinct psychological (cultural) types resident within society, each with a specific worldview (belief system) that influences their perceptions of nature, that, in turn, corresponds with self-transcendence, selfenhancement and biospheric value-orientations.
Four cultural types have been identified: hierarchist, individualist, egalitarian and fatalist. A brief description of each can be found in table 2.
Table 2: Cultural Types
1.
Hierarchist Conforms to customary traditions and institutions. Social relationships managed via clearly demarcated networks of family and established friends. Resistant to social change.
2.
Individualist Relishes open networks. Values competition, innovation, individual choice and personal freedom.
3.
Egalitarian Rejects formality and authoritarianism. Favours simplicity, honesty, close friendships and spiritual values.
2
Dunlap, Riley and Kent van Liere (1978). The New Environmental Paradigm – a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education 9, 10-19.
Page 5

4.
Fatalist Withdraws from social organisations, preferring to rely on their own resources instead of friends or the offerings from commerce.
Thus, with respect to beliefs about nature, studies indicate that individualists perceive nature as durable, as do hierarachists (but within limits), fatalists perceive it to be unpredictable, and egalitarians see it as fragile. Hence egalitarians are likely to be closely affiliated with biospheric values. Accordingly, different approaches would be needed to encourage sustainability-orientated behaviour. This would involve rules for the hierarachists, market-solutions (maximising benefits, reducing costs) for the individualists and community-based initiatives for the egalitarians. Given the market-driven nature of British society and its inherent dominant social paradigm that favours economic growth, the majority of British individuals can be classified as individualists, with selfenhancement value-orientations. These individualists are likely to be mirrored within the partnership’s employees, offering some useful insight into the kinds of messages that might appeal to this cultural type; namely those that emphasise the benefits of saving energy, for them personally in their pursuit of self-enhancement, rather than messages that focus on ‘saving the planet’.
Developed by Shalom Schwartz (1977), 3 this remains one of the most frequently used models to explain moral behaviour – figure 3. Inherent within this model is the assertion that only personal norms can directly determine sustainability-orientated behaviour. Hence this model is attempting to establish causality. Schwartz defined personal norms as an individual’s personal, strong moral obligation to participate in behaviours that nurture sustainable ways of living. Embedded within this is an individual’s awareness of the consequences of their actions and their willingness to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Figure 3: Norm Activation Theory
(Schwartz 1977)
According to this theory, the relationship between personal norms and behaviour is strongest when individuals are aware of the problems caused by not saving energy, and they accept responsibility for their actions, and weakest when they neither recognise nor accept responsibility for their behavioural choices. However, a major failing of this model is its lack of recognition of the impact of external and organizational constraints on personal norms.
3
Schwartz, Shalom (1977). Normative Influences on Altruism, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 10, 222-279.
Page 6

Proposed by Stern et al (1999), 4 this theory integrates ecological values theory with norm activation theory – figure 4.
Figure 4: Value-Belief-Norm Model
(Stern et al 1999)
Stern et al proposed that in order for individuals to understand and accept responsibility for their behaviour, they must first accept the NEP, which itself is positively correlated with selftranscendence and biospheric values-orientations, particularly those aligned with altruism, and negatively correlated with a self-enhancement orientation. Hence they must value nature.
Accordingly, employees must believe that the consequences of them saving energy within the workplace will result in protecting nature, which they believe is worth saving and they have a moral duty to protect. Again, with reference to the segments, this may be more likely with employees who reflect the profiles of ‘positive greens’, ‘waste watchers’ and possibly ‘concerned consumers’.
This theory addresses the social context that influences individual behaviour, which is missing from the previous theories. Hence it examines social norms. Cialdini et al (1990) 5 maintain there are two types of norms. The first – descriptive social norm – is what most people do; i.e. normal behaviour in a given situation, or copying the behaviour of others around us. The second – injunctive social norm
– overtly represents the moral rules and guidelines of the group. Hence injunctive social norms motivate and constrain our behaviour as they result in rewards for compliance and punishment for breaches. Consequently social norms are an important construct because they provide heuristics to guide individuals’ behaviour (without the need for constant cognitive evaluation) and they allow individuals to understand the social outcomes associated with the adoption of energy-saving
4
Stern, P, T Dietz, T Abel, G Guagnano and L Kalof (1999). A Value-Belief Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: the case of environmental concern. Human Ecology Review 6, 81-97.
5
Cialdini, Robert, R Reno and C Kallgren (1990). A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: recycling the concept of norms to littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58, 749-758.
Page 7

behaviour – particularly acceptance by their peer group and their achievements within the norms of the group.
Descriptive and injunctive social norms will sometimes operate in harmony and sometimes conflict.
Cialdini et al argue we respond to conflicts in a relatively flexible way, depending on a number of factors, including: the context we are in, the group we are with and the importance of the behaviour, and which norm is more ‘top-of-mind’. For example, in the work environment, in the absence of our energy-saving peer group, we resort to leaving lights and computers on because everyone else in the office is behaving in this way. However, we revert back to energy-saving behaviour as soon as our ‘normal’ peers return (and we are also likely to feel more psychologically comfortable as we reduce dissonance). This reinforces the idea that while social norms can moderate our behaviour, they can also create psychological tensions if we act in a way that opposes our morals and personal values. This will be discussed further within ‘cognitive deliberation’ in section 2(iii) of this report.
(ii).
Attitudes are essentially learnt evaluations. They are judgements we make about saving energy and our assessment of the outcome of our (non)energy-saving behavioural choices. They enable us to accept or reject energy-saving arguments.
Attitudes have been classically defined as:
“When we talk about attitudes, we are talking about what a person has learned in the process of becoming a member of a group, and of a society that makes him react to his social world in a consistent and characteristic way, instead of a transitory and haphazard way. We are talking about the fact that he is no longer neutral in sizing up the world around him: he is attracted or
repelled, for or against, favourable or unfavourable.” (Sherif 1967)
Within the context of saving energy, this can be mapped as:
Employees overall attitudes towards saving energy = their beliefs about the characteristics of energy saving initiatives (expectations) + their evaluation of those characteristics (e.g. good vs. bad).
As we illustrate in part four of this report, segmenting energy conscious individuals, much of this attitudinal evaluation of characteristics focuses on individuals assessing their own expectations and the impact of pro-environmental choices on their existing lifestyles.
Extensive research indicates that attitudes are a reliable indicator of behavioural intention; hence they are a very tangible and readily measurable variable in helping to explain why employees do and do not adopt energy saving behaviour in the workplace. However, as with all theories of human behaviour, it is not quite as simple as this, particularly if we reject the notion of mankind as little more than biological machine! In ideal conditions, there may well be a direct relationship between attitudes and behavioural intention. In most normal situations, however, there will be the mediating variables of subjective norm and/or perceived behavioural control. Hence people do not always
Page 8

behave in ways consistent with their attitudes. This attitude behaviour gap has been explained by two prominent theories. The theory of reasoned action integrates subjective norm into the attitudebehaviour relationship. The theory of planned behaviour integrates both subjective norm and perceived behavioural control to explain the attitude-behaviour relationship. Both have been used successfully in a wide range of contexts to explain the presence or absence of a relationship between attitudes and behavioural intentions.
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) recognised the importance of social influence on an individuals’ behaviour. Their theory of reasoned action acknowledges this through the inclusion of subjective norms in the attitude behaviour relationship – figure 5. Subjective norm refers to an individuals’ belief about what other people who are important to them think about the proposed behaviour, rather than their own personal beliefs about the potential behaviour.
Figure 5: The Theory of Reasoned Action
(Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) 6
Accordingly, an individual’s energy saving behaviour will be influenced by the interrelationship between their attitudes (beliefs and evaluation of outcomes about energy saving initiatives) and their subjective norm (what significant others think about energy saving initiatives). The dominance of either personal attitudes or subjective norm forms part of the complex interweaving of a multitude of attributes influencing behaviour; however at a simple level it will be determined by the extent to which we are guided by others and the extent to which we rely on our own judgements.
The centrality of pertinent personal values and personality traits and identity will influence this level of dominance. This notion of subjective norm links very closely with our discussion of normative behaviour earlier in this report.
6
Fishbein, M and I Ajzen (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: an introduction to theory and research, Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA.
Page 9

The theory of planned behaviour has been applied extensively to explain pro-environmental behaviour, for example recycling, energy consumption and water conservation as well as other types of behaviour.
It advances the theory of reasoned action by considering the extent to which people have control over their own behaviour. The theory of reasoned action assumes that individuals have volitional control. However the theory of planned behaviour assumes that individuals may only have partial control. Consequently, the variable ‘perceived behavioural control’ was introduced as an additional indicator of behavioural intention and action - figure 6.
Figure 6: The Theory of Planned Behaviour
(Ajzen 1991) 7
Perceived behavioural control (PBC) refers to an individuals’ belief about how easy or difficult it will be to perform the behaviour. There is synergy here with the concept of self-efficacy – our evaluation of how well we can perform a behaviour to satisfy overall goals, such as saving energy, and the extent of our determination to see this through faced with difficulties. It is worth noting that these beliefs – whether expressed as PBC or self-efficacy - are learnt, typically from personal experiences and observing the behaviour of others.
Hence, within the context of saving energy, individuals’ successful engagement with this issue will depend on the strength of their belief that they can actually carry out the behaviour. Individuals who are more confident in this will be more successful in adopting energy saving behaviours than those who are not, and hence regard themselves as having limited volitional control. This highlights how important it is for the workplace to facilitate energy saving and other sustainability-orientated behaviours, for example a range of lighting options to enable employees to reduce lighting levels as well as to switch the lights off; and for the organisation itself to demonstrate, through example, its commitment to reducing its carbon footprint.
In conclusion there will be a relationship between an individual’s attitudes and behavioural intention when they comply with the perceived expectations of significant others and where the individual feels they have sufficient volitional control.
7
Ajzen, I (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, 179-211.
Page 10

(iii).
Why do some employees think about and ‘buy into’ the partnerships energy saving campaign, whilst others reject it? We have discussed the influence of values and attitudes on this behaviour; however they are also a major influence on whether or not we process information in the first place, and what sense we make of it. Motivated reasoning, or ‘hot cognition theory’ maintains we do not respond to messages in a fair and open-way, instead we judge them, often at the subconscious level, to evaluate whether they confirm or undermine our existing, internalised attitudes, values and normative behaviour. Indeed we often seek out information to support and strengthen the choices we have made, based on our internal, mental constructs. The theory of Social Judgement, within the persuasion scholarship, maintains we are more likely to accept messages that concur with our existing attitudes – our latitudes of acceptance and reject those that do not – our latitudes of rejection. This helps us to understand those employees who do and do not accept the energy-saving messages. It also helps us to understand those who are less certain and who may need further convincing – since the latitudes allow us to consider some prospective behaviours that might not undermine our existing attitudes too much. With reference to the segments in section 4, this might include groups like the ‘sideline supporters’ and the ‘cautious participants’.
Consequently, we do not engage in full-scale cognitive deliberation every time we need to make a decision. Instead we employ heuristics (cues, e.g our attitudes) to inform our behaviour. This is particularly so for low involvement and simple decisions. Hence fuller cognitive reasoning is reserved for those decisions the individual judges to be important, and those which are judged to be more complex. Our degree of cognitive effort is also influenced by the time we have available to make the decision, our cognitive ability and our access to knowledge. As the pace of life increases, (often contradictory) information about environmental issues, e.g. climate change increases and competing messages about how we should spend our time and money increases, so cognitive reasoning to adopt more energy-saving behaviours becomes more difficult. In this situation individuals are more likely to revert to heuristics and habit. Habits lie very close to automatic behaviour. They are learnt behavioural responses derived from our experiences of our own behaviour and from observing the behaviour of others. In normal, everyday decision-making, habitual responses will be entirely appropriate. However, when circumstances change, for example the drive to reduce energy consumption, habits can become highly problematic in blocking efforts to change individuals’ behaviour, even when they can see the longer-term benefits.
The way in which energy-saving messages are framed will also influence the degree to which employees adopt energy-saving behaviours. By framing we mean the way in which the message is presented, for example the words of a scientist may carry more credence than those of a celebrity.
In addition it may be possible to prime individuals to respond to a message or situation in a particular way, through the use of particular stimuli. For example research has shown that exposing respondents to images of nature significantly influenced their value orientations and their intentions to recycle. However priming needs to be treated with caution, since it implies a level of passivity that, at best, will only relate to routine, habitual behaviour and it assumes we will all respond to the same cues in the same way. Clearly we will not.
How, then, do we learn about the merits and disadvantages of thinking and behaving in a particular way? The concepts of punishment and reward are pertinent here; although assuming learning is a
Page 11

product of conditioning (classical and operant) is a far too simplistic way of understanding individuals’ learning and subsequent behavioural responses. Instead Cognitive Learning Theory (CLT) maintains individuals should be viewed more as actively engaged problem-solvers who ardently use information around them to help them make judgements and choices and expect there to be an outcome from the choices they make. So if they ‘buy’ the idea of saving-energy, they would expect to witness or receive tangible outcomes as a result. These might be directly related to the financial savings of reduced energy consumption and job security, and they might also be related to a sense of camaraderie and esteem as colleagues work together to try to reduce the carbon footprint of the organisation they work for. Another dimension of CLT - modelling theory – maintains that individuals observe the behaviour of others and the consequences of their behaviour, which they then store in memory to imitate later for their own problem-solving behaviour. This aspect of learning reinforces the importance of role models within organisations, potentially ‘energy-saving champions’, upon whom others can model their own behaviour.
Lastly, there are some interesting developments within cognitive anthropology, which conclude that individuals ‘learn by doing’. This means that individuals learn how to behave to solve problems – in this case reducing energy consumption – by actively engaging in behaviours that save energy, e.g. switching off lights and computers, turning down heating thermostats, etc. In so doing, they work out the practicalities, benefits and ‘costs’ of behaving in this way, and consequently energy-saving and other related messages become much more meaningful to them – they are no longer abstract concepts. Accordingly, their knowledge of saving energy and potentially broader sustainability issues is enhanced considerably. This has some interesting implications for communication, since there then needs to be a careful balance between giving too much information, which will lead to information overload, and giving sufficient to enable people to actual practice what the messages are telling them. Once their ‘expertise’ increases then the messages can become less instructional as they build on their knowledge to begin to move individuals to more complex sustainabilityorientated behaviours.
(iv).
The way in which we perceive ourselves has a significant impact on the way we behave. Indeed studies have shown that identity, like values, offers a major explanatory factor in understanding proenvironmental behaviours. There are a multitude of theories on self. Here we will focus on the theories of self-concept and social identity. a) Self-Concept
Our self consists of actual self, ideal self and social self. Hence our self-concept is determined from our own viewpoint of ourselves and also how we think others perceive us. Actual self is essentially who we think we are and ideal self is what we or others wish us to be. Social self is discussed in section iv(b) below. Extending this concept, there is also ‘ought’ self – what we or others think we ought to be. This results in multiple self-constructs:
Page 12

Actual self (own viewpoint)
Ideal-self (own viewpoint)
Ought self (own viewpoint)
Actual self (others viewpoint)
Ideal-self (others viewpoint)
Ought self (others viewpoint)
Hence the theory of self-concept is inherently complex, particularly when tensions arise between these different facets of self. These tensions, or cognitive discomfort, create different kinds of emotional responses in individuals. For example tension between own actual self and own ideal self will create feelings of unhappiness including disappointment and dissatisfaction. Conflict between own actual self and ideal self (others) will result in feelings of shame and embarrassment. While feelings of guilt will arise from friction between own actual self and own ought self. The motivation to resist or become more energy conscious is therefore determined by the pressures revolving around social and individual identity. Whether we see ourselves, or not, as an energy-conscious person, whether we feel we ought to be an energy-conscious person, whether we believe others think we should be an energy conscious person – all need to be addressed and managed by the individual striving for psychological harmony and acceptance from their peer groups. This is because, according to Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance, we cannot live easily with an ongoing condition of psychological tension. Whether this arises from a clash of identities, values or attitudes, we must resolve it. This underlies the importance of using sustainability-committed and active employees as champions (opinion formers) to influence the ought self of those employees who are not energy conscious, who are more ambivalent towards saving energy rather than opposed to it, and who strive to be compliant to the norms of their peer group. We will discuss segments more fully later in this report.
It is also interesting to note that those employees, who are energy conscious, are also more likely to engage in other forms of sustainability-orientated behaviour such as recycling, buying organic food, curtailing the use of their car, etc. This ‘spillover’ effect is well documented in studies on proenvironmental behaviour and illustrates the synergy between values, attitudes, self and behaviour.
Again we see the influence of cognitive dissonance here, as individuals seek harmony between their repertoires of sustainability-orientated behaviour. However, a note of caution; motives to reduce energy consumption may significantly contradict other behaviours that are not concerned with sustainability. If these are more dominant, then the individual will reject efforts to save energy in order to uphold harmony within their self-concept – a ‘negative spillover ‘effect. Nevertheless, it is interesting to speculate on how one initiative within the workplace can be compounded to encourage a broader adoption of sustainability-orientated behaviours both at work, home and in the community. b) Social Identity Theory
This theory examines the social dimensions of identity – the influence of others, particularly within the context of competitive inter-group behaviour, on identity formation and behavioural choice.
Accordingly, our identity is significantly influenced by our social identification with a reference group. By this we mean our knowledge that we belong to a particular group, and thus our identity is subsumed within it and so we behave according to its norms in order to protect the group’s
Page 13

cohesiveness and strengthen its position. Evidence suggests that there is a virtually unanimous human desire for positive social identity; hence we are motivated to be affirmative about the group we belong to and to favour our group peers over those outside the group. Hence, social identity is derived from a cognitive awareness of belonging to a group, an evaluation (positive or negative) of this membership (group esteem), and the degree of emotional involvement with the group. The theory of social identity therefore helps to explain the theory of normative conduct discussed in section 2(i)(d) above.
This need to belong to a group is very interesting for employee behaviour. Like societies, organisations can also have two distinct groups – the favoured ‘in-group’ (those who belong to the reference group) and the ‘out-group’ (those who do not belong and who are rejected). Applying this to organisations within the LCP it becomes interesting to speculate whether the energy-saving and non-energy saving employees are members of the in or out-group. Clearly this will, in part, depend on the strength of commitment and activity from employees that normalises, or not, energy saving behaviour. This, in part, will explain acceptance or rejection or the messages being communicated by the partners to their employees. Do these messages resonate with a strongly sustainabilityorientated ‘out group’ that the majority of employees do not and would not want to belong to?
Whereby employees don’t save energy, not because they consider the costs to be too high, but because people like themselves do not save energy – it conflicts with the norms of the group they belong to. This creates some serious challenges for any organisation attempting to convert members of this reference group, since an abundance of information on why they should save energy is unlikely to work. Further illustration on the impact of social identity on pro-environmental behaviour can be found in section five – segmenting energy conscious individuals – with segments like the cautious participants maintaining pro-environmental behaviour does not fit their identity and is embarrassing.
Page 14

3.
The preceding discussion has highlighted the complexity of influences on behaviour, where human beings will be influenced by their own, internal psychology and by external social factors. Hence understanding why employees do and do not engage in energy saving behaviour is a challenging task.
How, then, might the theories we have reviewed be brought together to help to explain the adoption, or not, of energy saving and other pro-environmental behaviours? We will conclude our examination of theory by considering how morals, attitudes, reasoning, habits and identity can be integrated. We make no apologies for the complex model presented in figure 7. It illustrates that behaviour is an intricate interweaving of many factors. Inherent within the model is the assertion that behaviour is goal directed, where individuals are trying to act. Whether or not they actually succeed depends on how their moral values, attitudes, subjective norms, emotions, brain activity, personal efficacy, situational forces, etc interact, and whether some are stronger than others in particular circumstances. And, of course the nature of these interactions will vary by type of person,
(illustrated by the segments in section 4 of this report) and the type of goals being sought from the behaviour.
Focusing on behavioural desire, the model indicates that this desire is directly influenced by social identity, outcome expectations, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control
(reflecting the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour), and indirectly influenced by normative beliefs, behavioural evaluations, moral values and brain activity. Goal desire is directly influenced by a mix of emotional and cognitive evaluation, and by social identity. The act of trying within the model comes from Bagozzi and Warshaw’s (1990) 8 theory of trying. They argue that much human behaviour can be explained from studying individuals’ endeavours to act, where their behaviour has purpose and requires effort and forethought.
8 Bagozzi, R and P Warshaw (1990). Trying to Consume. Journal of Consumer Research 17, 127-140.
Page 15

Figure 7: Comprehensive Model of Consumer Action
Source: Bagozzi et al (2002) 9
While this model is daunting, and because of this, to date, it has not been empirically tested, it should be remembered that its constituent elements have all been rigorously researched and found to be useful explanations of human behaviour. Thus, overall, it provides a useful, integrative framework for considering the major behavioural theories that help to explain why employees do and do not engage in energy saving and carbon-reducing behaviour.
We will now move on to consider different types of (non)energy saving employees.
9
Bagozzi, R, Z Gürnao-Canli and J Priester (2002). The Social Psychology of Consumer Behaviour. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Page 16

4.
The preceding discussion has highlighted a myriad of ways by which (non)energy saving behaviour can be explained. Integrating these different explanations enables a psychographic profile of groups of employees to be created. These classifications represent the different mixes of attitudes, values, identity, knowledge, etc that influence our behaviour. Segmentation is of value because it enables messages to be targeted at specific groups, and adapted according to their profile.
Different segmentation classifications exist, 10 however we will focus on one, generated from research commissioned by DEFRA. An overview of their seven segments in presented in table 3.
11
Across the sustainability-orientated spectrum, segment one, the ‘positive greens’ are the most committed and segment seven, the ‘honestly disengaged’ are the least committed to pursuing sustainabilityorientated behaviour. The contradictions inherent within human behaviour are also readily apparent.
Table 3: ‘Green’ Segments
1.
Positive
greens (18%)
‘I do what I can and feel bad about the rest.’
Highly environmentally concerned and active in their pro-environmental behaviour.
Believe ecological crisis is imminent and is man’s fault.
Least motivated by saving money.
Very knowledgeable about environmental issues, less so for carbon footprints and offsetting. Would like more information on what they can do.
Will aim to influence friends, family, workplace to become greener.
Most likely to be involved in environmental and community organisations, but levels are still low.
AB socioeconomic group.
Highest level household income (£40k+).
Degree educated.
Middle-aged (41-64).
Owner-occupier.
Read Guardian, Times, Independent newspapers.
2.
Waste watchers
(12%)
‘Waste not, want
not...’
Very concerned about waste rather than trying to reduce their environmental impact.
Likely to rate their behaviour as environmentally-responsible as the positive greens.
Content with their efforts to help environment.
More pro-environmental than average, but also more sceptical than average about scale and urgency of environmental problems.
Concerned about changes to UK countryside and loss of biodiversity.
Claim environment is a high priority for them, but least likely (with honestly disengaged) to feel guilty about their environmental impact.
10
Please note that most segmentation relates to consumer behaviour. While much of it can relate to employees too, the typologies should be used with this in mind. In our searching we did not find any published employee-based sustainabilityorientated segmentation classifications.
11 For a full description of the segments please go to the defra report: ‘A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours’, available from www.defra.gov.uk
Page 17

3.
Concerned
Consumers
(14%)
‘I do more than a lot of people...’
Pro-environmental behaviour focuses on the home (saving energy/water), driving a fuelefficient vehicle, buying ethical and local products. Very committed recyclers.
Biased towards middle-age, retired and/or on low incomes.
More than half own their own homes.
Read Daily Mail and/or Telegraph newspapers.
Possess broadly pro-environmental attitudes, but with less conviction than segments 1 and 2.
Relate to the concept of climate change, recognising their personal impact on it and their need to act. But strongly reject argument that mankind is reaching limits to growth and doubt that ecological crisis is imminent.
Consider themselves to be environmentally-friendly, with desire to do more.
Main pro-environmental behaviour focuses on their home and shopping. While they have greenest attitudes to travel (compared with the other segments), they are still car dependent and take greatest number of flights each year.
Barriers do not inhibit their pro-environmental behaviour and they feel guilty about harm they cause to the environment. A tendency to exaggerate – doing less than they claim.
Their pro-environmental behaviour matches their self-identity.
Mixed age span – third 30-40, with lowest levels of 65+ represented.
ABC1 socioeconomic group.
High household income levels.
Likely to have dependent children.
Degree educated.
Owner-occupiers with a mortgage.
4.
Sideline supporters
(14%)
‘I don’t think about it... I’d like to do a bit more.’
5.
Cautious participants
(14%)
‘I’d like to do more ... but others must too...’
Care about environmental issues, but their beliefs are weak.
Believe ecological crisis is imminent but humans will find a solution.
Green attitudes but not green behaviours.
Limited behaviour, low knowledge.
Would like to be more green but not at expense of existing lifestyle.
High ownership of cars, hate buses!
Their non-green behaviour causes them guilt.
Recognise environmental issues and willing to learn more – but need to be ‘pushed.’
C2DE socioeconomic group.
Wide age span, but a lot under 30.
Average levels of household income.
Fewer educated to degree level.
Read Daily Mirror or the Sun newspapers.
Agree there is a pressing crisis and limits to growth.
Pessimistic about humans’ ability to tackle climate change.
Environmental behaviour focuses on the home – e.g. saving energy and water.
Strongly believe own actions negated by behaviour of others.
Behaviour must fit existing lifestyle and they find it difficult to change their habits.
Feel guilty about harming the planet.
Being green does not fit their identity – embarrassing.
Do little but would like to do more.
Youngest age profile.
Likely to have children.
Page 18

Degree qualification probable.
Renting not owning home.
6.
Stalled starters
(10%)
‘I don’t know much...’
Confused and contradictory environmental views: strong negative opinions that climate change is too far into future to be concerned about and the environmental crisis is being exaggerated, contrasting with the segment most likely to believe there are limits to growth and humans are damaging the planet. While they have these strong opinions, they do not act on them.
Lowest knowledge about environmental issues, but most wanting more environmental information.
The environment is a low personal priority for them; many life priorities to deal with.
Strongly believe their behaviour does not add to climate change, partly because of their limited finances.
Improbable they undertake pro-environmental behaviours; least likely to recycle (with segment 7), or to reduce household energy usage. Majority are satisfied with this level of activity and do not want to do more.
Unlikely to own a car or to travel by plane – but aspire to do both.
Major barriers cited for lack of pro-environmental behaviour are: inconvenience, difficulty, cost, others behaviour and ensuring behaviour matches their lifestyle. See being green as embarrassing, and/or an alternative way of living.
Lowest socioeconomic profile – over half are DE – and income – half under £20k.
Reside within younger and older age segments (not middle-aged).
Lowest qualified of all the segments.
Majority will not be working.
Likely to read the Sun, Mirror and News of the Word newspapers.
7.
Honestly disengaged
(18%)
‘I’m living life the way I want to.’
Lack environmental interest or concern.
Cynical about current environmental crisis, denying their behaviour contributes to climate change (like segment 6).
Believe any problems will be solved without individuals needing to change their current non-environmental lifestyles.
Ambivalent about environmental issues – appear to be completely irrelevant to their lives.
Do not perceive their identity as ‘green’.
Locked within their behavioural habits and lifestyle hence lowest levels of proenvironmental behaviour of all the segments, with many doing nothing, and very content to stay this way.
Others must act first, and then they may consider reviewing their own behaviour, but no guarantee they will.
Least likely to feel guilty about harming the environment.
Represented by all age groups, with a bias towards under 30’s.
Socioeconomic groups C12DE.
Less likely to be degree educated.
Income below average.
Full-time employees.
Renting home.
Read the Sun, News of the World and the Star newspapers.
These seven segments have been plotted against two dimensions – willingness to act and willingness to do more – figure 9.
Page 19

Figure 9: Willingness to Act, Willingness to do More
Source: DEFRA
As can be seen from figure 9, segments 1, 3 and 4 are relatively willing to act in a pro-environmental way and are willing to do more. Of these, the positive greens (1) are the most committed and thus the most active. The conviction of the sideline supporters (4) is equal to that of the positive greens; however they are the least behaviourally experienced of the three segments. The concerned consumers (3) are less committed and less active, but see themselves as ‘green’. Consequently employees who fall within these segments will respond best to employer initiatives that engage them and enable them to adopt pro-environmental behaviours within the workplace. Role models in the form of environmental champions will work well for these segments.
Segments 2 and 5 will need an alternative approach. While the waste watchers (2) are already very active, they are driven by the desire to reduce waste rather than wider environmental concerns.
Meanwhile the cautious participants are not so active, as they wait for pro-environmental behaviour to become normalised, but are very willing to do more to act in a pro-environmental way.
Employees residing within these segments are more likely to be motivated by employer initiatives that enable, encourage and exemplify. Organisations who lead by example will be very important to them, as will financial rewards.
Segments 6 and 7 are the most difficult to influence. It will be very difficult to convince employees residing within these segments, although employer initiatives that focus on encouraging and enabling their employees may have some success. Ultimately, though, it may be a case of editing the choices available to these employees, for example automatic switch-off for energy appliances, nonmanual temperature increases to thermostat controls, and fines for repeating offenders! These may be viewed as extreme and outside the ethos of sustaining ways of living. However, they may be the only short-term effective measures to change the behaviour of employees, who fall within the stalled starters and honestly disengaged – who just want to live their lives the way they want to.
We conclude this report by considering the messages used by the low carbon partnership in their energy saving campaign.
Page 20

Abigail Porter, from Vision 21, has assembled the wide range of energy saving messages that accompany this report. These messages represent a range of approaches used by members of the partnership (in differing degrees). We conclude this report by considering some of these messages, alongside some core observations from the theory we have reviewed, combined with some commentary on styles of communication. We believe this will be helpful for the partnership in planning their future campaigns. Readers should also refer back to the review of behavioural theory for further annotations on message-related issues.
As we have illustrated above, changing behaviour is extremely difficult. It is neither easy nor quick.
Communication can only ever be part of this change-process, and there will never be a ‘one size fits all’ message solution. Having said this, it can be incredibly influential, with careful thought and planning. This requires knowledge of the target audience, for example their values, attitudes and identity regarding saving energy and sustainability, and using message styles that will motivate them to review and move towards changing their behaviour or strengthen their existing sustainabilityorientated behaviour. Hence communication can inform, reinforce, persuade, etc, or, in the words of
DEFRA, ‘encourage’, exemplify’, ‘enable’ – as discussed in figure 9 above. Accordingly, message styles can be classified as emotional or cognitive. Their appropriateness depends on the campaign objectives and nature of the target group. Needless to say the distinctions between them are not always clear cut, since an informative campaign can trigger both thinking and emotions and an emotional campaign can trigger reflexive thinking.
Emotional messages are persuasive in nature, typically manipulating the emotions of happiness, fear, guilt, and shock to trigger (further) behavioural change. Happiness can be affected via positive messages that praise employees for their existing sustainability-oriented behaviours and the difference this can/will make, coupled with the need to do more. The negative emotion of fear can involve the threat of punishment (for example fines for leaving computers switched on at work overnight) and social rejection (for example rejection by our work peers as we fail to comply with the norms of energy-saving behaviour of the colleagues we work with) and the risk associated with modifying or radically changing our behaviour (for example ‘what will people say about me? I do not want to be thought of as ‘green’). Messages involving guilt typically emphasise the negative consequences of our failure to act to change our behaviour, for example, assuming current predictions about climate change and finite resources are reasonably accurate, telling our grandchildren why we did not think saving energy was very important and hence did not act. While shock techniques tend to give stark warnings of what will happen – often via emotional images such as the extinction of the Polar bear – if we do not change our behaviour. The library of environmental films complied by Vision 21 with Transition Town are likely to trigger a range of emotions – positive and negative – and to provoke thought as they tell their stories of human suffering and triumph, climate change, peak oil, community, the climate talks in Copenhagen, etc. The posters highlighting the imminent threat of the mass extinction of wild animals is likely to stimulate negative emotions, principally guilt and shock. While activating emotions can lead to long-term behavioural change, it is more likely to result in short-term behavioural change unless the message stimulates cognitive
Page 21

deliberation or alters the ranking of values within an individual’s value-system. There is also a risk of message rejection because individuals are unable to deal with the emotions produced.
Cognitive messages tend to be informative; typically presenting information that reinforces existing knowledge, beliefs and attitudes, creates new knowledge, or challenges existing knowledge, beliefs and attitudes, which, in turn, may help employees to reconsider their behavioural habits, for example leaving lights switched on, electrical appliances on standby, etc. Informative messages, then, can encourage employees to think about energy-saving, and they can also be enabling if they also include feasible actions they can achieve. Indeed this is the bedrock to attitude change and thus reformed behavioural intention. We can see this in many public health campaigns that not only warn of the dangers of drinking, smoking, etc, but also provide advice and help via helplines, medics, etc. Examples of these more cognitively-orientated messages include the myth busting which aims to dispel the myths about energy use by challenging employees (convenient) pre-conceived ideas and the Carbon Trust ‘act of CO
2
’ campaign which also aims to dispel these misperceptions. The detailed information on alternative green energy suppliers, for example Ecotricity and Good Energy, allow employers and employees to consider the arguments for switching their supply to reduce their carbon footprint. Information on the web links provides ‘helplines’ for employees. While the competitions offer a fun and friendly way to enable employees to engage with a range of environmental issues to test their knowledge and to learn. Initiatives like the competitions, and the green event days are important, because sometimes intense cognitive deliberation on all the different problems facing the human race and the planet, and the sheer enormity of the challenge of living in a far more sustainable way, can lead to a sense of powerlessness and failure. Accordingly while informative messages have many benefits, there is a risk of information-overload. In this situation, employees may reject all new information and even revert back to the safety of their higher energy consumption. Consequently, organisations must consider the quantity of information they are communicating to their employees, as well as the quality, balancing this against media and other externally communicated sustainability-relevant stories.
Finally, not all employees will process these messages with the same level of intensity. As we discussed in our explanation of motivated reasoning, and social judgement theory in particular, individuals accept and reject messages based on their pre-existing attitudes, originating from their values. Somehow then, messages that challenge employees existing attitudes, as many sustainability-orientated messages do, need to break through the barriers of selective awareness and perception. Fortunately there are ‘tricks’ available once we understand that messages are processed in two ways – centrally and peripherally – as represented by the elaboration likelihood model – figure 10.
Central processing involves employees reflexively evaluating the messages being presented to them, and thus arguing for and against them. This evaluation involves them referring back to their values and norms, attitudes, and self-identity and considering these against the new information being presented to them. Central processing requires employees to both be motivated to think about the issues and to have the cognitive ability to understand and evaluate them. Messages that can engage in this way often lead to long-term behavioural change.
Page 22

Figure 10: The Elaboration Likelihood Model
(Petty and Cacioppo 1981) 12
With peripheral processing, employees will not be particularly motivated to consider the core tenets of the energy-saving message. Instead they will be persuaded by other cues, for example if they consider the speaker to be an expert or they judge them to be physically attractive. Popular music tracks have also been used as peripheral cues. What is happening here is that employees have determined that they probably should comply with the message request, but they do not really want to think about what it is telling them. Hence the peripheral cues enable them to pay sufficient attention to ‘act as directed’ without a need for cognitive deliberation. Messages that rely on peripheral cues will typically result in short-term behavioural change, unless continuously reinforced until more central processing occurs. In this instance the outcomes of behaving in an energy-saving way will create sufficient learning for employees to adjust attitudes in favour of saving energy in the future, or it will confirm that saving energy is not something they wish to do.
In our earlier discussion we stressed the importance of creating actively-engaged problem solvers who ‘learn by doing’ – through a mix of informative and emotional messages, presented in a variety of ways, that facilitate central processing, thereby engaging and enabling employees to act. This, ultimately, should be the ambition of the partnerships future campaigns to reduce their carbon footprint, since it encourages a chain reaction through employees’ norms, values, habits, attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, understanding, identity – the very essence that affects the way they respond to the environmental challenges ahead.
12
Petty, R and J Cacioppo (1981). Attitudes and Persuasion: classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C
Brown.
Page 23