————————————————- A Look at of Components Influencing Energy Conservation Habits Richard Semenik, School of Utah Russell Belk, School of Utah John Painter, School of Utah ABSTRACT – Earlier evaluation on parts that have an effect on vitality conservation habits have just about with out exception been restricted to demographic investigations using bivariate analyses. The present analysis makes an try and transcend prior evaluation by using a richer set of non-demographic predictors throughout the context of gasoline conservation.
Multivariate analysis of the predictors implies that increased understanding of conserver and non-conserver groups could also be achieved with a broader set of predictor variables. [ to cite ]: Richard Semenik, Russell Belk, and John Painter (1982) ,”A Look at of Components Influencing Energy Conservation Habits”, in NA – Advances in Shopper Evaluation Amount 09, eds. Andrew Mitchell, Ann Abor, MI : Affiliation for Shopper Evaluation, Pages: 306-312. Advances in Shopper Evaluation Amount 9, 1982 Pages 306-312 A STUDY OF FACTORS INFLUENCING ENERGY CONSERVATION BEHAVIOR Richard Semenik, School of Utah
Russell Belk, School of Utah John Painter, School of Utah ABSTRACT – Earlier evaluation on parts that have an effect on vitality conservation habits have just about with out exception been restricted to demographic investigations using bivariate analyses. The present analysis makes an try and transcend prior evaluation by using a richer set of non-demographic predictors throughout the context of gasoline conservation. Multivariate analysis of the predictors implies that increased understanding of conserver and non-conserver groups could also be achieved with a broader set of predictor variables.
INTRODUCTION The vitality points first highlighted by the 1973-74 gasoline and gasoline oil shortages have spawned a considerable number of evaluation efforts with regards to vitality conservation. Critiques by Anderson and Cullen (1979), Farhar, et al. (1979), Frankena, Buttell, and Morrison (1977), and Joerges (1979) classify over 300 vitality consumption analysis carried out by way of the Seventies. A critical thrust in a number of of these analysis has been the detection of issues affecting vitality conservation.
Such a take care of understanding who conserves and why they obtain this, is of obvious concern for formulating smart public insurance coverage insurance policies, efficiently encouraging vitality conservation, and recognizing points in operationalizing vitality conservation plans. Nonetheless, though varied analysis have been directed at discovering correlates of vitality conservation attitudes and habits their findings have often been weak and often contradictory. The following sections analysis the findings for the important thing lessons of predictors which have been examined and discusses causes for the inconsistencies.
FACTORS RELATED TO INDIVIDUAL ENERGY CONSERVATION Earnings The one challenge most studied for its relationship to vitality conservation has been earnings. Earnings-related influences on conservation or non-conservation of vitality look like ample to have created a sophisticated set of findings. Based totally on regular indices or questions on vitality conservation habits some analysis have found optimistic associations between vitality conservation and earnings (Grier, 1976; Talarzyk and Omura, 1974) and between vitality conservation and social class (Bultena, 1976).
Nonetheless totally different analysis have found damaging associations between vitality conservation and earnings (Cunningham and Lopreato, 1977; Opinion Evaluation Firm, 1975c) along with between vitality conservation and social class (Gottlieb and Matre, 1975)o Nonetheless totally different analysis have found that the middle earnings programs report the perfect diploma of vitality conservation (Warren and Cliffords 1975; Kilkeary, 1975).
And nonetheless totally different analysis report no important relationship between vitality conservation and earnings (Hogan, 1976; Bartel, 1974). The an identical inconsistent pattern of findings has emerged when conservation of specific sort of vitality have been examined individually. For home heating conservation, the largest number of analysis have found a optimistic affiliation between earnings and conservation behaviors (Morrison and Gladhart, 1976; Murray et al. , 1974; Perlman and Warren, 1975a, 1975b; Reizenstein and Barnaby, 1976).
Nonetheless, there are as soon as extra exceptions with some analysis exhibiting lower earnings households conserving additional heating gasoline (Newman and Day, 1975; WaLker and Draper, 1975) and some exhibiting heart earnings households conserving additional (Warkov, 1976), or that some heating conservation actions are additional likely in low earnings households, whereas totally different heating conservation actions are additional likely in extreme earnings households (Opinion Evaluation Firm, 1974b).
The an identical inconsistency occurs for analysis inspecting various options of gasoline vitality conservation, in addition to that on this case the preponderance of proof reveals a harmful affiliation between earnings and conservation (Gallup, 1977a; Opinion Evaluation Firm, 1976b; Roper, 1977a; Barnaby and Reizenstein, 1977; Newman and Day, 1975). The contradictory proof each reveals a optimistic affiliation (Roper, 1977b; Murray, et al. 1974; Perlman and Warren, 1975a; Reizenstein and Barnaby 1976), a curvilinear affiliation (Warkov, 1976), or no important affiliation between earnings and automobile-related vitality conservation (Opinion Evaluation Firm. 1974c). Education The ultimate expectation proper right here could be that coaching and conservation could be positively associated. Nonetheless a critical complicating challenge usually is the optimistic affiliation between coaching and earnings.
Whether or not or not on account of this affiliation or to a similarity of vitality conservation attitudes all through coaching ranges, the analysis inspecting this variable as soon as extra current mixed outcomes As anticipated the largest number of analysis have obtained a optimistic affiliation between coaching and conservation actions (Roper, 1977b; Survey Evaluation Laboratory,1977; Reizenstein and Barnaby, 1976; Thompson and MacTavish, 1976; Gallup, 1977a).
The exceptions embody findings of a curvilinear relationship between coaching and vitality conservation (Cunningham and Lopreato, 1977), findings of a harmful relationship (Opinion Evaluation Firm, 1974a, 1975a, 1975c), and findings of no important coaching/ conservation relationship (Murray, et al. , 1974; Hogan, 1976) e Occupation Occupation has been studied a lot much less repeatedly and one trigger may be that there is a lot much less of an intuitive basis for hypothesizing a relationship between occupation and vitality conservation. The analysis which have obtained a ignificant relationship between occupation and vitality conservation practices and attitudes have found increased conservation by these with elevated standing occupations (Thompson and MacTavish, 1976; Opinion Evaluation Firm, 1975d). Completely different analysis have found no variations in vitality conservation by fully totally different occupational groups (Lowry and Good, 1977; Gallup 1974, 1977a). Some evaluation has found little distinction in complete conservation tendencies between occupational groups, nevertheless has found the character of their conservation efforts to differ.
As an example, one analysis found that these in enterprise occupations reported a better tendency to point out down home thermostats in chilly local weather, whereas clerical, product sales and information labor workers reported a better tendency to point out off unused lights at home (Gallup, 1977b); Whole nonetheless, occupation would not appear to be an important predictor of vitality conservation. Age Given the connection between age and earnings, it might be anticipated that the youthful and former would uncover the perfect monetary incentive for vitality conservation, with a lot much less of this motivation amongst heart ages. Nonetheless given that many energy-conserving behaviors (e. . strolling, bicycling, turning down winter thermostats and turning up summer season thermostats) may be a lot much less attainable for these unwell, there are increased constraints acting on older customers who might in another case be additional inclined to protect via such behaviors. In terms of baseline expenses of vitality utilization, evidently middle-aged households (notably with youngsters) have the perfect ranges of vitality consumption, and as a result of this truth the perfect different to protect (Morrison and Gladhart, 1976). These mixed expectations are borne out by mixed findings relating vitality conservation and age.
For instance, Talarzyk and Omura (1974) report the least resistance to the idea of vitality conservation by older customers, nevertheless the perfect number of vitality conservation actions by heart age customers. Cunningham and Lopreato (1977) found the oldest and youngest customers nearly actually to protect, however as well as found that for some conservation behaviors there was a optimistic affiliation with age and for others there was a harmful age affiliation. Whereas such mixed findings are typical (e. g. Roper, 1977b), totally different analysis report discovering no important relationship between age and vitality conservation (Hogan, 1976; KiLkeary, 1975; Bartel, 1974).
Thus age has moreover did not act as a persistently good predictor of vitality conservation. Family Life Cycle As instructed throughout the suggestions relating to the related variable of age, greater households with heart aged dad and mother are more likely to eat greater portions of vitality (Morrison and Gladhart 1976). Whereas this argument suggests increased options for vitality conservation by such households, there are moreover some countervailing forces. One is that a greater, a lot much less gasoline setting pleasant car may be additional of a necessity for greater households.
Equally, to the extent that vitality conservation requires some sacrifice, it may very well be more durable in our society to deprive youngsters of some energy-consuming train than it is to deprive self or self and associate alone. Nonetheless one different countervailing stress within the different method may be that children acquire additional conservation data in school than their dad and mother did and produce this data and related conservation attitudes home (Opinion Evaluation Firm, 1976b). As quickly as as soon as extra we’re left with unclear expectations in regards to the relationship of the family life cycle variable and vitality conservation.
Even all through the area of gasoline conservation, some analysis have found conservation additional likely amongst married people (Burdge, 1975) whereas others have found conservation additional likely amongst singles (Roper, 1977b). Equally, some analysis have found increased (gasoline) conservation by households with fewer youngsters (Roper, 1977b), whereas totally different analysis have found increased (regular vitality) conservation by households with additional youngsters (Kilkearny, 1975). Nonetheless totally different analysis have found no important relationship between vitality conservation and family composition or dimension (Hogan, 1976: Morrison 19775.
Gender Expectations for the impression of gender on attitudes in direction of various conservation practices are troublesome to formulate. Farhar et al. , (1979) speculate that home-related vitality conservation in heating and gear use might threaten the usual place of the girl in providing family comfort. Nonetheless, plenty of analysis current women additional favorable in direction of vitality conservation inside the home than males (Opinion Evaluation Firm, 1975b, 1976a; Cunningham and Lopreato, 1977). Completely different analysis uncover no variations in such attitudes (Bartel, 1974). Inside the realm of gasoline-conserving ehaviors, some analysis current males to be a lot much less favorable (Opinion Evaluation Firm, 1976a) whereas others current females to be a lot much less favorable (Gallup, 1977a). As soon as extra the literature fails to uncover fixed relationships between vitality conservation and a attainable predictor variable. Completely different Components Related to Energy Conservation To a lesser extent, totally different demographic variables have been examined as predictors of vitality conservation habits Race has been examined with some kind of inconsistencies or no distinction in habits finish consequence between blacks and whites (Newman and Day, 1975; Cunningham and Lopreato, 1977).
Political social gathering affiliation has moreover been examined and in some circumstances Democrats appear additional conserving (Opinion Evaluation Firm, 1975c) and in numerous circumstances Republicans appear additional conserving (Gallup, 1977a). Metropolis versus rural area of residence has been examined with little consistency in outcomes. In some analysis, rural residents are additional conserving (Blakely, 1976; Morrison, 1977), in others metropolis residents are additional conserving (Opinion Evaluation Firm, 1975d, 1976a), and in others no distinction was found (Hogan, 1976).
Some analysis have gone previous demographic variables in look for predictors of conservation. One analysis (Reizenstein and Barnaby, 1976) found media publicity and personal sources of knowledge increased predictors of conservation attitudes than demographics. Quite a few analysis have used train, curiosity, and opinion (AIO) variables to predict vitality conservation (Morrison, 1977; Barnaby and Reizenstein, 1977; Talarzyk, 1974). Although the outcomes of these analysis have found some important relationships, the substantial variations in AIO devices used preclude any generalization of outcomes of lifestyle on conservation.
REASONS FOR INCONSISTENT FINDINGS Quite a few explanations are attainable for the contradictory and inconsistent findings of analysis looking for parts related to vitality conservation. Two explanations equipped by every Farhar et al. , (1979) and Anderson and Cullen (1979), are that there are fairly just a few measures and categorizations of unbiased variables in these analysis and that the dependent variable (vitality conservation) has moreover been operationalized in varied strategies. These do not look like passable to make clear all of the anomalies found throughout the literature.
Whereas fully totally different categorizations and measures of unbiased variables might make clear why a variable is a serious predictor of conservation in some analysis nevertheless not in others, it would not make clear why the an identical relationships are optimistic in related analysis and damaging in others. One different clarification which can be instructed is that the samples and time durations of the numerous analysis had been fully totally different. Nonetheless, there are moreover shortcomings to this clarification. The analysis by Farhar et al. , (1979) finds little in the easiest way of regional variations in vitality conservation findings.
Though all associated analysis have been carried out by way of the 1970’s, there may be enough volatility in attitudes and habits all through this period that analysis of plenty of fully totally different years could pay money for fully totally different findings. Nonetheless, the gathering of longitudinal analysis reviewed by Murray et al. , (1974) would seem to low price this argument since numerous the variables remained relativelY safe. The foregoing explanations might go half method in direction of explaining the variations in findings obtained, nevertheless there’s one different additional compelling clarification.
In nearly every event there are opposing conceptual expectations relating to the character of the connection between the predictor variable and conservation of vitality. It may very well be that the combination of these opposing forces has been ample to set off fully totally different and even reverse findings in analysis with significantly fully totally different samples. Since just a few of the opposing expectations come up from the correlations between a predictor variable and one different variable, a sample which is additional homogeneous in such a third variable (e. g. earnings) than one different sample might set off an apparent reversal of the connection between the predictor variable (e. . coaching) and vitality conservation. With just a few exceptions (e. g. Reizenstein and Barnaby, 1976), earlier analysis have used bivariate considerably than multivariate methods with the intention to check the relationships of curiosity. Certainly one of many enhancements equipped throughout the present paper is to utilize a multivariate approach with the intention to transcend the restrictions of the largely bivariate prior analysis. In addition to, the present paper seeks a richer set of predictor variables than the largely demographic variables employed in prior evaluation.
The primary non-demographic items of variables added had been (1) beliefs in regards to the nature and causes of the vitality catastrophe (usually investigated as dependent variables, nevertheless not as unbiased variables), (2) preferences for varied energy-related actions, and (three) media publicity variables. No earlier analysis has concurrently investigated a majority of those variables. METHODOLOGY In an effort to analysis every kind of variables and their impression on gasoline consumption, a sample of 253 heads of households who journey over 150 miles per 30 days was chosen using a cluster sampling method.
The data had been collected in Salt Lake Metropolis, Utah throughout the spring and summer season of 1979 all through a interval of pronounced shortages and value will enhance. A structured questionnaire administered by expert interviewers was used to assemble data on numerous potential predictor variables and demographic data. Questions had been rigorously worded to avoid potential demand traits which may finish consequence from “socially acceptable” response decisions. As talked about above, three fundamental non-demographic items of variables had been included throughout the data assortment.
In addition to, current gasoline consumption behaviors and demographic variables had been moreover acknowledged. The 5 complete lessons of variables and the dimensions for data gathered in each class are displayed in Desk 1. The rationale for choosing to analysis variables in these lessons stem from plenty of influences. First, the sooner evaluation, talked about on the outset of this paper, tented to narrowly define the potential influences on consumption habits. The lessons used on this analysis attempt to broaden the underside of investigation of potential influences.
Second, the sorts of variables examined in earlier works supplied a foundation for the lessons of variables used proper right here. Earlier analysis had been relied on for choosing variables to take a look at inside lessons. Lastly, since there’s a matter related to using demographics versus totally different sorts of variables to predict energy-related behaviors, demographics had been moreover included throughout the investigation. RESULTS The precept purpose of data analysis was to find out parts that have an effect on gasoline conservation habits. The preliminary step on this course of was to classify respondents as each conservers or non-conservers of gasoline by benefit of varied behaviors.
The behaviors used to classify respondents had been: 1. estimated mpg of the auto being pushed 2. consuming a lot much less gasoline than six months up to now three. consuming a lot much less gasoline than 5 years up to now 4. presently driving in a automotive pool 5. transferring to a residence nearer to work to help protect gasoline 6. improve in bus utilization TABLE 1 NEANS AND UNIVARIATE F SCORES FOR VARIABLES CONSIDERED AS PREDICTORS If a respondent was collaborating in two or additional conservation behaviors with regard to the above set of variables, the selection rule was to classify this respondent as a conserver.
Respondents collaborating in decrease than two conservation behaviors or behaving in a method that indicated elevated consumption of gasoline had been categorized as non-conservers. On the premise of reported habits, 83 respondents had been categorized as conservers and 75 as non-conservers. The remaining 95 respondents had been unclassified by benefit of demonstrating contradictory conservation and non-conservation behaviors. In an effort to verify this grouping course of and thereby arrange that legitimately fully totally different groups had been customary by the tactic 9 a discriminant analysis was carried out on the newly customary conserver and non-conserver groups.
The discriminant analysis indicated that each of the variables talked about earlier which had been used throughout the group forming course of produced important (p;. 01) variations between conservers and non-conservers. A really highly effective variables in distinguishing the two groups had been customers’ use of a additional gasoline setting pleasant auto and consuming a lot much less gasoline than 5 years up to now. Extra verification of the grouping was supplied by the classification matrix on this analysis by which a 90. 5% proper prediction was achieved in classifying respondents as conservers or non-conservers versus most chance share of 52. %. The establishment of groups which had been legitimately fully totally different in vitality related behaviors supplied a foundation for investigating a broad set of potential predictor variables. Desk 1 reveals the means and univariate F-Scores for your complete set of variables thought-about. The variables in Desk 1 had been then analyzed using discriminant analysis for his or her price in predicting the conserver and non-conserver groups. From the distinctive set of 32 variables thought-about as most likely useful predictors, Desk 2 reveals the outcomes of people that had been important in forming the discriminant carry out.
On a univariate basis, a number of the variables distinguish between the conserver and non-conserver groups. Furthermore, on a multivariate basis this group of variables supplied a extraordinarily important (p< . zero01) discriminant carry out. Extra proof of the final power of the variable set is obtainable in Desk three by the classification matrix. Predicted group membership had a 76. 58% accuracy primarily based totally on the discriminant carry out customary from the group of predictor variables (as soon as extra versus a 52. 5% diploma by the utmost chance criterion, (Morrison, 1969). TABLE 2 SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES IN DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS OF CONSERVER GROUPS
TABLE three CLASSIFICATION MATRIX FOP CONSERVER GROUPS In gentle of the variables’ power in distinguishing between conservers and non-conservers, a dialogue of the contribution made by each variable set is price it Beliefs In regards to the Gasoline Shortage This set of predictors indicated persistently fully totally different views between conservers and non-conservers. Non-conservers had been additional susceptible to think about that no precise gasoline shortage existed, that there was a lot much less of a necessity for the nation to decrease its consumption of gasoline, and that the gasoline availability draw back was on account of authorities bungling of the state of affairs.
The conserver group tended in direction of reverse beliefs in each of these areas. The federal authorities downside is probably going one of many strongest contributors to the multivariate prediction of group membership. Evaluation of Potential Choices Univariate comparisons of the two groups on this set of variables level out that important variations exist between the groups on two of six dimensions (closing gasoline stations on positive days as an applicable reply and higher prices as a best reply).
One attainable trigger increased variations weren’t present in univariate analysis of these parts is that non-conservers weren’t glad a shortage of gasoline really existed. On this context, non-conservers might have found it troublesome to evaluate potential choices to a hypothetical draw back. As soon as extra, on a multivariate basis, each of the variables on this set contributed significantly to the excellence between the groups. Gasoline Consumption Behaviors This set of variables identifies variations in the easiest way conservers and non-conservers use their non-public automobiles.
Non-conservers tented to drive a better number of miles in a 12 months and had a significantly elevated share of labor related use of the auto. Given the have an effect on of using the auto for work related capabilities, possibly non-conservers preserve a view that there is a element of inflexibility of their potential to protect gasoline. This proposition, nonetheless, must be evaluated throughout the context of the non-conservers’ stronger notion that a shortage of petroleum doesn’t really exist anyway. Media Habits
The one media habits that was fully totally different between the groups was ratio listening habits and that’s solely important throughout the context of the multivariate analysis. Data had been gathered on television viewing habits and time frame spent finding out the newspaper. As the data in Desk 2 signifies, non-conservers spent additional time listening to the radio (possibly as part of work related journey). Demographics The demographic analysis on this current analysis provides a basis for comparability with earlier vitality conservation evaluation.
The results in Desk 2 level out that conservers are youthful, and have elevated coaching and earnings standing than non-conservers. The age relationship is additional easy than instructed by prior evaluation. The significance of the coaching variable contributes to the physique of proof which suggests a optimistic affiliation between conservation and coaching diploma (Roper, 1976b; Survey Evaluation Laboratory; Reizenstein and Barnaby, 1976; Thompson and MacTavish, 1976; Gallup, 1977a). Conservers had been moreover found to have the subsequent earnings than non-conservers.
Whereas the excellence between groups is not going to be important on a univariate basis, that’s one different variable that contributes to the final variations between the groups on a multivariate basis. On the entire, the optimistic affiliation of earnings to conserver standing joins a relatively few earlier efforts discovering the an identical finish consequence (Roper 1977b. , Murray et al. ; 1974; Perlman and Warren, 1975a; and Reizenstein and Barnaby, 1976). DISCUSSION First, it may very well be well-known just a few of the notion, attitudinal, and behavioral predictors are stronger predictors of conserver standing than any of the demographic variables.
It as a result of this truth appears that the inclusion of this enriched set of predictors paid off and that prior analysis have been restricted by proscribing themselves to demographic variables. From a public protection standpoint, the current outcomes level out that non-conservers merely shouldn’t glad that an vitality draw back exists. They’re clearly additional susceptible to think about that the federal authorities is accountable for shortages in petroleum and that decreasing consumption of gasoline will not eradicate the provision of the difficulty.
This mentality on the part of non-conservers manifests itself in plenty of strategies. The non-conserver group drives a lot much less gasoline setting pleasant autos and makes use of automotive pooling and public transportation far decrease than conservers. Extra, the non-conserving group has confirmed little effort over the earlier six months or 5 years to eat a lot much less gasoline. The dearth of notion throughout the actuality of a gasoline shortage moreover results in lack of enthusiasm by non-conservers for any potential choices.
Admittedly, the conservers weren’t overly favorable in direction of most choices, nevertheless non-conservers did not cost a single potential reply positively as a bunch. Since not one in every of 75 respondents categorized as non-conservers cited elevated gasoline prices as among the finest reply to the difficulty, possibly this tactic would have the perfect have an effect on on the group. Apart from any attempt to make investments regarding specific protection strategies though, the precept conclusion is that this group should be glad of the existence of any vitality draw back.
It might even be acknowledged that non-conservers drive additional miles and drive additional for work related causes than conservers. The implication proper right here might presumably be that non-conservers consider the consumption of gasoline a necessity and as a result of this truth do not actually really feel they’ve the flexibleness to interact in conservation behaviors. Demographically conservers are youthful, additional extraordinarily educated and higher in earnings than non-conservers. Perhaps, these demographic parts have contributed to their potential to amass and comprehend particulars in regards to the vitality state of affairs, hereby influencing their beliefs about its existence. This in flip might have influenced conservers to automotive pool, use public transportation, drive additional gasoline setting pleasant autos, and typically reduce consumption of gasoline. A minimal of this cognitive-behavioral chain of events is the one we would anticipate for a extreme involvement choice like gasoline conservation. The distinctions between conservers and non-conservers Merely talked about had been, to an enormous diploma, discovered via utilizing a multivariate methodology to the predictor variables.
Many parts that weren’t important on a bivariate basis, nonetheless, had been important throughout the context of a multivariate analysis of the two groups. To the extent that parts are working together with one another to have an effect on conservation habits such a simultaneous investigation appears to have promise in untangling the contradictory findings produced by earlier bivariate analyses The responsibility of future evaluation investigating vitality conservation habits is to extra enhance and enrich the set of predictor variables by contemplating longitudinal modifications throughout the beliefs and attitudes found to be needed on this analysis.
To the extent that evolving shopper beliefs about vitality points and shopper consumption behaviors related to these beliefs could also be acknowledged, a better understanding of issues influencing conservation habits could be attained. REFERENCES Anderson, Dennis and Cullen, Carman (1979), Energy Evaluation from a Shopper Perspective: An Annotated Bibliography, (Ottawa: Shopper and Firm Affairs Canada). Barnaby, David J. and Reizenstein, Richard to (1977), “Shopper Attitudes and Gasoline Utilization: A Market Segmentation Look at,” Proceedings of the ninth Annual Conference of American Institute for Decision Sciences, eds.
Justin D. Stolen and James J. Conway, 230-232. Bartel, Ted (1974), “The Outcomes of the Energy Catastrophe on Attitudes and Life Sorts of Los Angeles Residents,” launched on the 69th annual meeting of the American Sociological Affiliation, Montreal. Blakely, Edward J. (1976), “Energy, Public Opinion and the 1976 Public Protection,” California Agriculture, 30, 4-5. Bultena, Gordon L. (1976), Public Response to the Energy Catastrophe: A Look at of Residents’ Attitudes and Adaptive Behaviors, (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State School). Burdge, Rabel J. et al. , (1975), “Public Opinion on Energy,” Factors Going by way of Kentucky, (Lexington,
Kentucky: School of Kentucky). R Cunningham, William R. and Lopreato, Sally Prepare dinner dinner (1977), Energy Use and Conservation Incentives, (New York: Praeger Publishers). Farhar, Barbara C. , Wells, Patricia, Unseld, Charles T. and Burns, Barbara A. (1979), Public Opinion About Energy: A Literature Evaluation, (Golden, Colorado: Photograph voltaic Energy Evaluation Institute). Frankena, Frederick, Buttell, Frederick H. and Morrison, Denton E. (1977), Energy/Society Annotations, (Ann Arbor: School of Michigan). Gallup, George (1974), “Energy Curbs Utilization,” The Gallup Opinion Index, (Report No. 04, Princeton: American Institute of Public Opinion). Gallup, George (1977a), “Energy,” The Gallup Opinion Index, (Report No. 142, Princeton: American Institute of Public Opinion). Gallup, George (1977b), “Public Stays Unconvinced of Energy Draw back,” The Gallup Opinion Index, (Report No. 149, Princeton: American Institute of Public Opinion). Gottlieb, David and Matre, Marc (1975), “Conceptions of Energy Shortages and Energy Conserving Habits,” (launched at 70th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Affiliation, San Francisco).
Grier, Eunice S. (1976), “Altering Patterns of Energy Consumption and Costs in U. S. Households,” launched at Allied Social Science Affiliation Meeting, (Atlantic Metropolis). Hogan, Janice M. (1976), Energy Conservation: Family Values, Household Practices, and Contextual Variables, Ph. D. dissertation, East Lansing: Michigan State School). Joerges, Bernard (1979), Shopper Energy Evaluation: An Worldwide Bibliography, Berlin: The Worldwide Institute for Ambiance and Society.
Kilkeary, Rovena (1975), The Energy Catastrophe and Decision-Making throughout the Family, NTIS Report No. NSF-SOS GY-11543, (Springfield Virginia: Nationwide Technical Information Service. Lowry, D. J. and Good, W. S. (1977), “The Energy Conscious Shopper: Implications for Promoting and advertising and marketing,” working paper, (Winnipeg: School of Manitoba). Morrison, Bonnie M. (1977), “Presidential Energy Consumption: Socio-Bodily Determinants of Energy Use in Single Family Dwellings,” in The Behavioral Basis of Design. E-book 2, eds. Peter Suedfeld, James A. Russell, Lawrence M.
Ward, Francoise Szigeti, and Gerald Davis, (Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden Hutchinson and Ross, 314-320. Morrison, Bonnie Maas and Gladhart, Peter (1976), “Energy and Households: The Catastrophe and Response,” Journal of Residence Economics, 68, 15-18. Morrison, Donald G. (1969), “On the Interpretation of Discriminant Analysis,” Journal of Promoting and advertising and marketing Evaluation, 6, 156-163. Murray, James R. , Minor, Michael J. , Bradburn, Norman M. , Cotterman, Robert G. , Frankel, Martin and Pisarski, Alan E. (1974), “Evolution of Public Response to the Energy Catastrophe,” Science, 19, 257-263.
Newman, Dorothy R. and Day, Dawn (1975), The American Energy Shopper, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Agency). Opinion Evaluation Firm (1974 ), Public Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Energy Conservation, Waves 12 and 13, Technical Information Service No. PB 259 342). Opinion Evaluation Firm (1974b), Primary Public Attitudes and Habits In the direction of Energy Saving, Technical Information Service No. 244 980. Opinion Evaluation Firm (1974c), Traits in Energy Consumption and Attitudes In the direction of Energy Shortage, Technical Information Service No. 244 983.
Opinion Evaluation Firm (1975A), Shopper Attitudes and Habits Ensuing from Factors Surrounding the Energy Shortage, Technical Information Service No, 244 985. Opinion Evaluation Firm (1975b), Shopper Habits and Attitudes In the direction of Energy-ReLated Factors, Technical Information Service No. 244 986 Opinion Evaluation Firm (1975c), Primary Public Attitudes and Habits In the direction of Energy Saving, Technical Information Service No. 244 989 Opinion Evaluation Firm (1975d), How the Public Views the Nation’s Dependence on Oil Imports, Technical Information Service No. 45 828. Opinion Evaluation Firm (1976a), Private Specific individual’s Willingness to Make Energy-Saving Efforts and Their Perceptions of Others Doing the Comparable, Technical Information Service No. 255 946. Opinion Evaluation Firm (1976b), Guardian’s Perceptions of their Kids’s Sources of Energy Information and Energy Related Actions, Technical Information No. 261 164. Perlman, Robert and Warren, Roland (1975a), “Outcomes of the Energy Catastrophe on Households of Fully totally different Earnings Groups,” launched on the Annual Meeting of The Society of the Look at of Social Points, San Francisco.
Perlman, Robert and Warren, Roland L. (1975b), Energy-Saving by Households of Fully totally different Incomes in Three Metropolitan Areas, (Waltham, Massachusetts: Brandeis School). Reizenstein, Rich rd C. and Barnaby, David J. (1976), “An Analysis of Chosen Shopper Energy-Ambiance Commerce-Off Segments,” in Educators Proceedings of the American Promoting and advertising and marketing Affiliation Assortment #39, (Chicago: American Promoting and advertising and marketing Affiliation, 522-526. Roper Group, Inc. (1977a), Roper Critiques, (New York: Roper Group Inc. Roper Group, Inc. (1977b), Roper Critiques, (New York: Roper Group, Inc.
Survey Evaluation Laboratory (1977), Public Reactions to Wind Energy Models, for the Nationwide Science Foundation and the Division of Energy, Washington, D. C. , (Urbana: School of Illinois. ) TaLarzyk, W. Wayne and Omura, Glenn S. , “Shopper Attitudes In the direction of and Perceptions of the Energy Catastrophe,” in 1974 Combined Proceedings, ed. Ronald C. Cruham, (Chicago: American Promoting and advertising and marketing Affiliation, 316-322. Thompson, Phyllis T. and MacTavish, John (1976), “Energy Points: Public Beliefs, Attitudes, and Behaviors,” mimeographed paper, Metropolis and Environmental Analysis Institute, Grand Valley State School, (Allendale, Michigan).
Walker, Nolan E. and Draper, E. Linn, “The Outcomes of Electrical power Value Will enhance on Residential Utilization of Three Monetary Groups: A Case Look at,” in Texas Nuclear Vitality Insurance coverage insurance policies, (Austin, Texas: School of Texas. Warkov, Seymour (1976), Energy Conservation throughout the Houston- Galveston House Superior: 1976, (Houston, Texas: School of Houston). Warren, Donald I. and Clifford, David L. (1975), Native Neighborhood Social Building and Response to the Energy Catastrophe of 1973-74. (Ann Arbor, Michigan: School of Michigan).
