THE EFFECTS OF VIDEOTAPE MODELING AND DAILY FEEDBACK ON RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY CONSERVATION, HOME TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY, PERCEIVED COMFORT, AND CLOTHING WORN: WINTER AND SUMMER

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Two studies were conducted in all‐electric townhouses and apartments in the winter (N = 83) and summer (N = 54) to ascertain how energy conservation strategies focusing on thermostat change and set‐backs and other low‐cost/no‐cost approaches would affect overall electricity use and electricity used for heating and cooling, the home thermal environment, the perceived comfort of participants, and clothing that was worn. The studies assessed the effectiveness of videotape modeling programs that demonstrated these conservation strategies when used alone or combined with daily feedback on electricity use. In the winter, the results indicated that videotape modeling and/or feedback were effective relative to baseline and to a control group in reducing overall electricity use by about 15% and electricity used for heating by about 25%. Hygrothermographs, which accurately and continuously recorded temperature and humidity in the homes, indicated that participants were able to live with no reported loss in comfort and no change in attire at a mean temperature of about 62°F when home and about 59°F when asleep. The results were highly discrepant with prior laboratory studies indicating comfort at 75°F with the insulation value of the clothing worn by participants in this study. In the summer, a combination of strategies designed to keep a home cool with minimal or no air conditioning, in conjunction with videotape modeling and/or daily feedback, resulted in overall electricity reductions of about 15% with reductions on electricity for cooling of about 34%, but with feedback, and feedback and modeling more effective than modeling alone. Despite these electricity savings, hygrothermograph recordings indicated minimal temperature change in the homes, with no change in perceived comfort or clothing worn. The results are discussed in terms of discrepancies with laboratory studies, optimal combinations of video‐media and personal contact to promote behavior change, and energy policies that may be mislabeled as sacrificial and underestimate the effectiveness of conservation strategies such as those investigated in these studies.