120 EVALU.
l\TIOS REVIEW ' FEBRl' ARY 19110
Eltctririty cons,,votion prorrams _,., lmpltmtnttd in sprinr 1977 in/our matchtd pairJ
of Univn1i1y u/ C oloraJo nffic"'<lanroom-lahoratnry buildinv and thru pairJ ofdum11-
turits. Rtdul'tions in rlf'(tricity ust ,..,,, sirnific'antl.1· rualtr in IJ of tht' U npnimtntol
f>uildinf!. .< than in the ''"o cunrrol buildintJ. Thnt rnu/tJ art supportrd hy thr rnults r>f
dirtct ohurvotions of wostt f1ithll in unoaupitd rooms) in t'xptrimtntol and control
huildinrs. 171,. mrthudolnrirol probltms of prrtlictint consumption lt'vrls. intnprt'linr
..·hy chanfl.t'.t in consumption oauTrrd. and rstima1infl. initial ..-astt ltwls art discussed
alonr ..·ith 1htir implications for tht conduct of bthavioral rntarch on tntrfl.Y consnva·
tion.
ENERGY CONSERVATION IN
UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS
Encouraging and Evaluating
Reductions in Occupants'
Electricity Use
LOU McCLELLAND and STUART W. COOK
lnstitutr of Btha••iorol Sciencr.
Unfrf'Tsity of Colorado
q n 1976 the University of Colorado faced steeply rising energy
costs and an order from the governor to prepare a conservation
plan. Most low-cost, yquick fix .. technological conservation measures
(such as light bulb removal) had already been implemented. The uni-
versity's Vice Chancellor for Administration and Planning asked the
AUTHORS' NOTE:· Thu work was eo11dwttd undrr eontroc/ #EC-77-S-01-4/6j.A{)()()
M'ith 1ht !Xpartmrnt of En"KY· D/v(sion of Buildinf(J and Communi/)' SyJl"ms. T11t help
of Gorr Anduw. laura Btlsien. Lynn Collins. Dtlort'S Gu/ft)'. and Gan· Mc Clelland ;5
aclcno ,.·ltdf(tcl. Thu orticlt is publkation No. 178 of the lns1i1u1t of &ha~iora/ Scima of
1ht' L'nfrtrJilJ' of Colurado. CoTrespondena should be addrt'Sud 10 the /nJ111utt of
lkhovioral Scitnct. Cam11u1 Bux 468. Unfrnsity o_f Coloro1lo. &111/d~r. CO f\(1)(19.
EVALUATION REVIEW. Vol. 4 No. I. February 1980 119- IJJ
C 1980 Sa,c Publica1ioru. Inc.
119
Institute of Behavioral Science to recommend a conser\'ation program
aimed at the faculty, students. and staff who occupy campus bu ildings.
Programs utili7.ing two well-known approaches to motivating members
of large groups were implemented in eight classroom-office-laboratory
buildings and six dormitories on the Boulder campus. The method and
results of the programs' e\·aluation and their implications for the con-
duct of behavioral research on energy consen·ation are reported here.
BACKGROUND AND DESIGN
The basic design of the study was 10 contrast the effectiveness of two
methods of encouraging conserva tion in matched pairs of buildings and
dormitories. Both methods are used frequently in businesses and other
large organizations to bring about changes in employee practices. The
first . a traditional "manaKemem" method. emphasi7.ed organizational
efficiency and use of existing hierarchical lines of communication.
Persuasive written communications from building authorities (for
e~ample, department heads and deans) urging consen·ation were cen-
tral to this method . In the second "user participation" method. the
building head delegated responsibility for development and implemen-
tation of energy conservation plans to small groups of occupants. The
groups discussed use and waste of energy in their sections of the build ing
and then devised their own conservation plans. This method is deri,·ed
from research on small groups (Bennett. 1955: Coch and French. 19..t8:
Levine and Butler, 1952: Lewin. 1953) and on participatory manage-
ment systems in business (see Brower. 1975. for a rev it:\\ of the method' s
success). These methods were selected because at the time no studies of
behavioral means of encouraging energy conservation in institutions
had been performed . Even now almost all conservation research focuses
on residential settings in which the homeowner already has some finan-
cial incentive 10 conserve (see Seligman et al.. 1977, and Winett and
Neale, in press, for reviews).
Administrators of the eight buildings and six dormitories se lected
were invited to participate in the stud y hy the Vice Chancellor. All
agreed (a) to accept random assignmen t to the user or management con-
dition: (b) to implement th e assigned method according to written in-
structions; (c) not to publicize thei r participation in the experiment. but
rather to present the program to building occupants as a normal part of
 McClelland, Cook I ENERGY CONSERVATIO:"\ 1~I
the universiiy's efforts to conserve: and (d) to monitor rrogram events
in their buildings. Program implementation began February I, 1977.
Bl'll.DING SEl.ECTION
Pair members were matched on several dimensions related lo energy
use-si1.c, age (and associated construction tyre), number and type of
occupants, functions (office,_library.13boratory, classrooms)-to maxi-
mi7.e similarity in the proportion of electricity use controlled by occu-
pants. This was done so that the conservation programs would have
equal "opportunity.. to reduce consumption in pair members. Whereas
the dormitory matches are excellent, those for the classroom buildings
are not as good. Si1.e, age. and amount of research equipment vary
somewhat within building pairs; furthermore, measurement of conser-
vation .. opportunity" is impossible and may vary with factors other than
those used for matching. The pairs can be characterized as small. older
classroom (Education. Economics): large. new classroom (Business.
Law): small. old laboratory (Geology. Biology); and large, new labora-
tory (Psychology, Microbiology). Two control buildings-a large. new
laboratory (Physics) and an older, large classroom (Liberal Arts)-were
also monitored. Of the six dormitories, four (A, D, C, and D) are virtu-
ally identical in size, construction type. and class mix: two of these house
females, two house males . The remaining two dormitories (X and Y) arc
older, coed and very similar to one another in age, size, and construct ion
tyre. No separately metered dormitories were available to serve a~ a
control.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The building heads or their representatives met with the Vice Chan-
cellor and with program staff early in the fall ( 1976) term. At this time
they heard about the university's need to conserve, received information
about the experiment and the two methods, and were asked 10 partici-
pate. Instructions on program implementation were sent to building
heads in early December and reviewed with them shortly before the
programs began. In the dormitories, elected student government groups
and resident advisors on each floor helped the administration plan and
implement the conservation programs.
The programs began February I, 1977. with a memo from the Chan-
cellor to all university faculty, staff, and students. This memo empha-
122 EVALU,\TION REVIEW/ FEUIWARY 1980
sized the need for conservation and included a page of how-to-save-
encrgy information. Its purpose was to pince the e~perimcntal conser-
vation programs in the context of a university-wide effort and, in so
doing, to mask their "experimental" character.
Immediately after the memo. posters (yellow on black "Turn out
lights and equipment") and labels for light switches were delivered to
each building head. Thereafter, program implementation and mainte-
nance were left lo the building heads, although the program staff did
issue periodic rcminde1s lo them about previously scheduled activities
and monthly reports on their building's consumption. These reports.
henceforth called "feedback,';' included expected a·nd actual electricity
use and percentage of savings for the first and last two-week periods of
the month.
ACTUAi. rROGHA!\1 orEHATION
The programs in all buildings and dormitories 'operated as normal
university or departmental activities, not as experiments; this was done
to maximize the generalirnbility of the results. lkcausc actual impk-
mentation of the programs-posting of notices, memo distribution,
section meetings, and so on-was administered by building heads and
occupants, program details varied considerably across buildings. Inter-
views with building and section heads were conducted at the end of the
ter m to determine how and when the prescribed programs had been
implemented in each building.
The four "management" condition buildings represented that meth-
od very well: All communication was from the building head to individ-
ual residents, most communications were written, and little or no discu s-
sion of the program among building occupants occurred. The amount·
of small group interaction, discussion, and delegation of responsibility
varied within the four " user-participation.. condition buildings from
very low (only one section met, one time) to very high (all sections met
at least once and developed explicit conservation plans).
In the dormitories, responsibility for the consen•ation programs fell
primarily to members of student government. Evidently. because of
their enthusiastic support of the need for energy conservation, these
students held group meetings (and sometimes even spoke individually
with all section occupants about the program) regardless of whether
they were in the management or user condition . Thus, there were essen-
tially no program differences among the six dormitories corresponding
 McClelland, Cook I E:--:ERGY CO:\'SERVATION
to the user-management distinction. The programs did, however, differ
somewhat in level of activity and enthusiasm. In all dormitories many
physical changes (light bulbs removed in halls and common areas,
installment of lower-wattage bulbs in restrooms) were made, some by
department staff, some at the direction of the dormitory manager, and
some on the initiative of students.
PROGRAM EVALUATION MF.TllODS
Two types of data were collected to evaluate program effects-elec-
tricity consumption and observations of waste. Although the explicit
goal of the conservation programs was reduced electricity consumption.
consumption is determined by so many factors other than the actions of
occupa nts that it is inadequate as the sole measure of program effective-
ness. A substantial portion of the electricity used in university buildings
is n ot under the direct control of occupants; examples include elect ricit ,.
used for mechanical equipment distributing conditioned air, fixed hall
and stair lights, laboratory frcc7.crs, and some experimental equipment.
Another portion of electricity use is under occupant control, but this is
necessary, not wasteful, and varies with changes in class schedules,
experimental demands, ~nd even custodians' schedules. The con serva-
tion programs were designed to reduce only a third portion of elcctricitv
use: unnecessary use of lights and appliances under direct control o.f
building occupants. Because this third portion is smaller than and inde-
pendent of the first two, actual electricity consumption is far less than
perfect as a measure of program effectiveness.
Therefore, systematic observations were made of electricity waste-
unnecessary lighting-in the lounges, restrooms, classrooms, and
offices of each experimental building and in the lounges, baths, and
laundries in each dormitory. Lighting in unoccupied rooms was defined
as "waste"; lighting in occupied rooms was arbitrarily defined as neces-
sary even though some of it is certainly not strictly necessary. Because
occ~pants of all the experimental and control buildings and dormitories
had essentially the snmc opportunities to reduce observed lighting
waste, the u ser-management and e xperimental-control pair matchings
could be considered excellent for this measure.
Both observational data and electricity consumption data were
collected throughout the fall (1976) term so that waste and consumption
levels during the program could be contra sted with those in the p rior
"baseline" period . The two control buildings were also monitored so
12J
124 EVALUATION REVIEW/ FEBRUARY 1980
that the effects of the Chancellor's memo and other unanticipated innu-
ences on consumption and waste could be assessed.
The data on consumption and waste reported in the next section were
used to answer three qucstioM: Did consumption and waste drop during
th~ p~ogram? Were the reductions greater in experimental than control
bu~lcl ~ngs? Were reduct ions greater in user or management eond it ion
builcl1ngs?
RESULTS
[LECTl{l('ITY USE
Electricity meters for each experimental and control b:.iilding were
read weekly fron~ Septem?cr· 20, 1976, to May 9, 1977. c:<ccpting that
meters were not installed m Economics or dormitories X and y until
sem.estcr break and the meter in Education was permanentlv removed
during the week of April 11-18. Because university holidays. ·finals . and
other unusual events (such as equipment malfunctions and occupations
by studen t demon st rators) have a significant impact on electricitv use
weeks including such events were c:<cluded from the analvsis. Th.is lef~
a n:axim um of 14 baseline and 10 program weeks per bi;ilding. The
entire fall term was excl uded for Education because past r.ionthlv rec-
ords indicated consistently different use in fall and spring term~. Be-
~:ius_e new air condi_tioning equipment was installed during the program
1n Biology, evaluation of program effects in Biology was impossible. In
all results reported below, "consumption" is average daily consumption
in kilowatt hours (Kwh).
Predicting consumption. Although none of the I 6 buildings is heated
or cooled by electricity, some do have electric air circulation equipment.
Thus, first step in evaluating program effects was to use regression anal-
yse~ to investig~tc the rel ationshi p between weather and consumption
during the baseline period for each building and to "correct" the weekly
totals for the effects of weather. At the same time, a svstcm:11ic search
was made for "outliers"-weeks with consumption so.far abo\·e or be-
low the mean as to suggest t he innucncc of some unknown. unusual
factor . A criterion o f 2.5 standard deviat ions (from the mean) was u ~ed
. 1c:
to identify outlie rs ; this criterio n would eliminate by chance onlv , c of ·
 McClelland . Cook J E:-.:t:RGY CO'.':SERVATlO:-.: 125
a set of points randomly drawn from a normal distribution. Two outliers
were found: Microbiology November 15, 2.9 standard deviations below
the mean. and dormitory A January 17, 2.9 standard deviations above
the mean. No explanation for these large de\'iations could be found . The
analyses reported below were all performed with these points excluded.
A variety of weather measures. including heating degree days. plus
hours of daylight and a cloudiness rating were tested in the regression
analyses. Only statistically significant predictors (p<.05) were allowed
to enter the stepwise analyses. Electricity consumption rclntes signifi-
cantly to weather (percent days over 60°) in only three of the 10 class-
room buildings: Business (R? =. 52). Law (R? =.89). and Microbiology
(R? =.58). In addition, signilieantly more electricity is used in the dorm-
itories A-Don days over 70° (R? =.61 10 .82). For these seven buildings
weekly consumption figures were "corrected" to a common basis of zero
da\'S over 600 or 70°. For no building arc hours of daylight or cloudiness
rai°ings signilicantly rebted to consumption.
Engineers from the university's physical plant d~par.tment wer_e c_on-
sulted regarding the p:lltern of electricity use over time m each build mg.
outliers. and the results of the regression analyses. They were able to
account for some outliers (for example, a week when the fan in Liberal
Arts was broken) and to confirm that the prediction equations were as
expected given the nature of the equipm~nt i~ t~e buildings_. . sumption, but those in Geology can control 15%. Geology has the ad-
Week-to-week variations in consumption w1thm the baseline pcnod
are quite small after the effects of weather have been removed. Coeffi-
cients of variation for all buildings except Geology are less than 5%.
However, there is immense variation in consumption le_vels across build-
ings. Education, Economics, Geology, Biology. and Liberal Ar~s all use
under t 000 K wh per day; Business, Law, Psychology. and Phys1_c s 3000-
4500; and Microbiology 9064 Kwh per day, probabl_y due to its larg_c
store of experimental equipment. Dormitories A-D. with ab~ut 255 rcs~­
dcnts each. use an averuge of 1150 K wh per day; X and Y. w11h 420 resi-
dents each. use about 1700 K wh per day.
Did conwmption drop? If the programs had no effect, c_onsumption
during the program period should average the same as .d~nng the ba se-
line period (barring nonprogram· effects on consumption). In oth~r
words. expected average corrected consumption during the r.rogram is
the same as that before the program . One-way analyse~ o_fvanance test-
ing this (null) hypothesis were pcrformcll for cac_h building separately:
the weather-adjusted weekly b~seline consumption ligurcs were com-
126 EVALUATION REVIEW I FtRRUARY 1960
pared with those from the 10-weclc program period . 1 In addition, the
baseline period figures were compared with those from each of three
subsets ofwceks-1(2/14 through J/ 13), II (3/28through4/17)and Ill
(4/ 18 through 5/ l); these comparisons were by means of a priori or
planned contrasts. Outliers within the program period were identilied
first; only Microbiology March 28 (2.6 standard deviations below the
mean) was climinateu . The results arc displayed in Table I; consump·
tion for each period is shown as percentage of expected consumption.
Consumption was significantly below expected levels during the
program in all experimental buildings and dormitories except Biology,
where new air conditioning equipment was installed near the beginning
of the conservation program. However, small but statistically signifi·
cant reductions also occurred in Liberal Arts and Physics. the control
buildings.
Comparison ll'ith controls. Direct comparisons across buildings of
the deviation of actual consumption from expected are meaningless: A
drop of 906 Kwh a day ·in Microbiology is only 1% of consumption.
whereas a drop of 102 Kwh in Geology is 20%! Although a percentage
reduction measure is not without its own interprctational problems (if
occupants of Microbiology can only control 5% of that building's con-
vantage in such a comparison) this measure was used to compare reduc-
tions in experimental and control buildings and within building pairs.
Weekly percentage reduction figures (the weather-adjusted deviation
of actual from e x pected consumption, divided by expected consump-
tion) were subjected to analyses of variance for each experimental-
control pair. In no case (except Biology) is the control's reduction
greater; for every building except Microbiology the total reduction is
signilicantly greater than that of either control.
/ntrapair comparisons. The same procedure used to compare reduc-
tions in experimental and control buildings wa5 used to compare user
and management buildings. In the three (testable) building pairs no
consistent superiority of either method is apparent-of the eight com-
parisons for these three pairs , seven show no significant difference.
13ccause the conditions were not actually implemented differently in the
dormitories. no user-management comparisons were made for them.
J McClelland, Coolc I ENERGY CONSERVATION 127 12R EVALUATION REVIEW f FEBRUARY 191!0

I TABLE 1
Electricity Use as Percentage of Expected Consumption
Period
experimental buildings and in all six dormitories. but that neither the
user nor management method was more effective in doing so. Savings in
the seven e xperimental buildings and six dormitories totaled over
200.000 Kwh with a value of over SJ500.
Co11dirio11 I II /fl Toto/

fl11ilcli11t ODSEHVATIONS OF W,\STE

Education u 88.5 .. s1.o• 87.9 ..
Economics M 90.4•. 81.1 •• 87.7 .. 88.8"" Each of the eight experimental and two control buildings was visited
Law u 91.7• 80.1 • 78.6 .. 84.3 .. during classroom hours twice weekly from September 27, i976, to May
Busineu M 94.3• 88.1 •• R0.3 .. 88. 3 ••
6, 1977, excluding holiday and exam weeks. The. six dormitories were
Geology u 9S .S 90.6• 90.1 • 92.4.
Biology ~I 101.J 108.o• • 109.5 105.8 °
visited four times weekly; the observers followed a set route, observing
Psychology u 95 .4 .. 94.8 .. · 93.P" 94.7 .. all lounges, halls, and restrooms (female only) and a sample of offices
Microbiolo~y M 96.S .. 94.8 .. 96.S .. 96.8°. and· classrooms in each building. All lounges and baths in each dormi-
Liberal Arts c 95.4 .. 96. 1• 98.0 96.2° tory were observed. The observers recorded both lightingstatus(on-off)
Physics c 98.7 99.0 97 .8 ° 98.5.
and occupancy status (occupied-not) for each lounge, bath, restroom,
Dormirorit'S and laundry, and counted the number of unoccupied, but open, class-
:x u 1!6.t •• 82.8 .. 82.7 .. 84. I•• rooms and offices with lights on and lights off. In Ila II ways, they counted
y M 9~.s .. 88.8 .. 86 .1°. 89.6 .. the number of controllable light switches turned on.
A u S~.4 .. 82.7 .. 85.9 .. 84.4 .. The analyses reported below arc based on percentage waste: Of the
ll ~I 78.6 .. 81.3 •• 84.8 .. 81.3 .. unoccupied (but open) lounges, restrooms, baths. laundries. class-
c u 81.8 .. 79.8 •• 83. t •• 81.6 ..
D M 93.3 •• 88.9 .. 92.0 .. 91.6*.
room s, and offices, what percentage were lighted? Of the controllable
light switches in halls, what percentage were on? Pearson chi-squared
• Significant ly different from IOO%, p <.OS. ( X~)analyses were used to compare percentage w:istc in the 14 weeks
•• p <.0 1.
before and 10 weeks during the programs.
Cautionary nutt's. The results for Education and Economics and The initial degree of waste in the classroom-office buildings was
dormitories X and Y should be \'iewed with extreme caution because substantial ·- ovcr 50%-in all but three of the 35 sets of ba seline o bse r-
they depend on comparisons to baseline periods only three weeks long. vations. However, waste did drop during the programs: 32 of the 35
Similarly, the results for Geology depend on comparison t o a baseline changes arc waste reductions, and 21 ofthcse arc statistically significant
period containing large, unexplained week-to-week variations in con- (p<.UI). llalf of the experimental building waste levels were kss than
sumption. Finally, the rather implausible pattern of consumption dur- 50% during the program period. Reductions were largest and most often
ing the programs in Law and Business-a steep decline in use over the statistically significant for halls and classrooms, least so for restrooms,
entire program-suggests that the weather correction equations for with offices and lounges in between .
these buildings may have overadjustcd in periods of warmer weather. Waste levels did drop in the controls (Liberal Arts and Physics)
In sum, a conservative interpretation of the analyses performed would during the program, significantly so in Liberal Arts' halls, restrooms.
allow us to be entirely confident only in the results that show Psychology and classrooms. possibly because of the uni versity-wide conservation
and Microbiology to have decreased consumption during the program memo iss ued in conjunction with the progra ms ' initiatio n. Changes in
period more than did the controls, and in those showing a drop in con- waste for the e:ttpcrimcntal buildings are consiste ntly larger than those
sumption in dormitories A-D. for the control for hallw;iys and classrooms, but not for rc~trourns and
In sum, the electricity consumption results indicate that the programs offices. Neither the size nor frequency of significant reductions varied
did produce significant reductions in consumption in seven of the eight with program ml!thod. Percentage of waste dropped in both lounges and

McClell:ind. Cook I ENERGY CONSERVATION 129
baths in all six dormitories; 10 of the 12 drops were statistically signifi-
cant.
1971-1978 FOLl.OWUP
Weekly electricity consumption data were collected in the six dormi-
tories during the fall and spring terms following the initial conservation
program in order to assess the effects of a second program begun la tc
in fall term 1977 in dormitories A-D. 2 The results :ire descrihcd in
McClelland and Belsten ( 1979). Consumption (corrected for weath-
er) for the first six weeks of the fall term. when no active conservation
program was in effect. remained at essentially the same level in all six
dormitories as it had been during the conservation program of the
previous spring. This holdover effect is probably due to physical and
policy changes made at that time.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, a number of methodological problems with con-
sumption data beset program evaluation : short and unstable baseline
periods, possible biases in weather corrections. installation of new
energy-using equipment in one building, probable differences in initial
waste levels, and incomplete differentiation of the experimental con-
servation methods in the dormitories. The question of whether the
participatory or traditional management procedures were more effec-
tive in encouraging conservation is essentially unanswerable with the
data available. However, the question of whether the programs in gen-
eral led to significant reductions in encrgyeonsumption can be answered
-yes. The consistent pattern of reduced energy consumption across
seven experimental buildings and six dormitories. coupled with minimal
reductions in the two control buildings and the equally consistent pat-
tern of reduced observable waste in building hallways and classrooms
and in dormitories supr>ort this conclusion.
E\'aluating the success of conservation programs initially seems easy
because energy consumption is a perfect criterion: an error-free m1:a-
sun', on a ratio scale, corresponding exactly to the outcome of interest.
Unfortunately, in-dc:pth study shows that this is not the case. ·1 hc:sc:
results point to three obstacles to the effccti\'c evaluation of conserva-
·'
130 EVALUATION REVIEW f FEBRUARY 1980
tion programs: prediction problems, interpretation difficulties, and the
effects of initial waste levels.
Prediction problems. Energy consumption data collected during and
after conservalion programs arc useless for evalualion purposes unless
they can be compared with consumption levels expected without a pro-
gram . Expected consumption levels can he calculated directly from
baseline pcrioll use only if that use is relatively invariant over time and
thus independent of such possible innuences as temperature, hours of
daylight, holillays, and season. If baseline period consumption does
show substantial variance, it is necessary either to derive a prediction
equation specifying the relationship of consumption to the influencing
factors themselves or to consumption in a control building subject to
similar influences. In either case the derivation ~f satisfactory (that is,
stable and unbiased) prediction equations requires (a) a substantial
nu mbcr of data points. (b) a range of predictor (or control) values repre-
sentative of that which might occur during the program. and (c) no
major change in level of consumption'during the baseline period relative
to the predictors or control. Even if consumption is not affected bv ex -
ternal influences, a large number of baseline observations is nece~s:Hy
to establish the stability and level of consumption.
The complete satisfaction of these requirements in the present study
would have required collection of baseline data beginnin2 Januarv 1976
13 months before program implementation. Even in ;ettings ~ot af~
fected by academic schedules, baseline periods including the same sea-
son in which the program is to run arc desirable to ensure that the range
of predictors is comparable in the baseline and program periods, and
that season itself does not affect consumption. Locating buildings with
ample baseline data uncontaminated by the addition of energy-using
or energy-saving technologies, or collecting such data, is a major meth-
odological problem inherent in conservation research.
Interpretation difficulties. The primary goal of program evaluation
is the improvement of the programs tested and their eventual imple-
mentation in new settings. To this end it is essential to know not only if
but also how and why a program affects energy consumption. The
results of the interviews and observ:itions collected t.luring the current
study suggest that at least three independent types of activities prompted
by the programs affected consumption. First, physical ch:in~es-light
bulb removal, substitution of lower-wattage bulbs - wen~ made in
 McClcll:11nd, Cool: I ENERGY CONSERVATION 1)1
several buildings. Second, energy-saving actions (primarily turning off
lights) were made part of the job responsibilities of individuals in several
buildings. These might be called policy changes. Third, some building
occupants voluntarily made energy-saving changes in their daily activi-
ties, such as turning off office and restroom lights. All building occu-
pants had to accept the physical and policy changes (or their results) in
their buildings; however, such changes required no attention from or
maintenance by most building occupants. Estimating how much each
type of activity contributed to the energy reductions that did occur is
impossible; in particular, it is possible that the changes in daily energy-
using behaviors at which the programs were primarily aimed contri-
buted insignificantly to reduced consumption. If this is so. then the
programs' effectiveness might not transfer to settings in which physica l
and policy changes could not be made or already had been made.
Initial wasre levels. The criterion for program cffectiwness must be
ehangc-<lid reductions in energy consumption from prcprogram le vels
occur? Comparisons of change across buildings and experimental con-
ditions presume that equal opportunities for change were present before
program initiation. In the present study experiment~! buildings were
matched in pairs on building size, function, and age in an attempt to
ensure equal opportunity for change in the buildings being compared.
The quality of the matches was limited by the small number and great
variety of available buildings. However, matches of the si:< dormitories
were excellent. The first two dormitories. X and Y, are virtually identical
in size and construction type. both are coed, both have kitchens and
cafeterias serving equal numbers of students . The four remaining dormi-
tories are part of a .. residence complex .. ; although they have slightly
different arrangements of resident wings and lounges, they are identical
in construction type, function, and type of occupants. Nevertheless,
initial per capita consumption levels within the X- Y and C-D pairs
differed significantly. In both pairs the dormitory with higher initial
consumption achieved a significantly larger reduction; however. in
neither pair were consumption levels within pairs significantly different
during the program. These results arc consistent with the hypothesis
that the programs sim ply servcJ to move d ormito ry pair members with
different initial waste levels to the same level of waste. Comparisons
of change in energy use, even percentage change, can be as misleading as
direct comparisons of consumption level s.
EVALUATION REVIEW I FEBRUARY 1980
The preceding arguments arc not meant to suggest that energy con-
servation programs cannot or should not be evaluated . Rather. the need
for carefully planned evaluations. with ample lead time prior lo pro-
gram implementation and ample resources for collection of more than
consumption data, must be acknowledged.
NOTES
I. Baseline consumption figures for e:ich building were subjected 10 time-ser:es an:11l-
ysis with pro!!ram CORREL (Gl:iss et :ii., 1975). These :anal~·ses sho"'c:d a_ll s~ri_es 1~ be
A RI MA (0. o. 0) o r .. white: noise"; in othrr words. the successive weeks :ire 1ndu11ngu1th·
ahle from indepc:ndc:nl c:iscs. thereby meeting the cond itions for A~OVA.
2. Fullow-up data for the classroom -office buildings wc:r( not collected b~causc _ '''
prohibiti ve costs. In these buildings the ckctric meters arc interior. :ind ~mHr~11y ro_l_icy
stipul:it c• that read ings c:in be made only in the prc~cncc of a fully qu:ilt ficd dcctr1c1.1n .
REFERENCES
BE~:-IETT . E. n. (1955) " D iscussion, decision. commitment. and consensus in •group
decision·.· Huma n Relat ions 8: 251-273.
HOWERS , D. G. ( 1976) Systems of Organi1ation: Management of the Human Resource.
Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press. . . . . .
BROWER. M. ( 1975) "Ellpcricnce w it h self-management and pnruc1pa11on 1n United
States industry.· Admin. and Society 7 : 65-84.
COCH , L. and J. R. r . FRENCH, Jr. ( 1948) ..O"crcomin& n:sist3nce 10 change." 11 uman
Rcl31ions I: S 12-532. . .
v v L WILLSON . and J. M. GOTTMAN (197S) Dest~n and Analysis of
GLA SS . G . ·• · · · d U · p
Time-Series Experiments. Boulder: Colondo Assoc13IC .. "'~· rcn._ . •.
LEVINE, L. and J . OUTLER ( 1952) .. Lecture \'S . group dec1s1011 in ch3ngrng behavior.
J. or Applied Psychol ogy 36: 29-33. .
LEWI N, K. [ 195)) .. St ud ies in ~roup decision." in D. Cartwright :1nd A. Zander (ed(.)
Group D ·n:imics : Resea rch and Theory. E":inston. IL:_ Row. Peterson. .
McCLELLi\~'\l>. L anti I.. flEl.STFN (1979) .. f'romut1t1i; cncri:y COJhCr\'at.'."n 1n
· · d orm1· 10 r·1 ,~s by ph)·si"cal . polic\·
university . • :ind resident bcha\IOr ch:ini;cs. J . uf
En\'ironmcnt:il Systems. .
• ., C J DARLEY and L. J. BECKER (1977) .. Hc:ha,·1or:il approachrs to
S[l1(1MA., . .. · .' •. . · . . . '5-)37
rc sidt·ntial energy c1H1serva11on . Energy and llu1ld1np L )_ · _
VROOl'-·l, \'. U. (191>9) .. lmlu>tri:il >1lCial p>y.:holOl!Y·.. in Ci . l.111tl7~y :inJ_L Ari:~""" (t•J'-1
11ie Handbook of So.:ial Psychology. Vol. S. Read ing. MA . Aod"on-\h,k) ·
 McClcll3nd, Cook I ENEl~GY CONSERVATION IJJ

WINSETI. R. A. and M. S. NEALE (in p~ss) ~Psychologic:il fr:1mcwork for energy

conserv.11ion in buildi ngs: slr.11cgies. ou1comes. direc1ions." Energy :ind Buildings.

L o 11 MrClrlland iJ Rruorrh Anvdatr 01 1/rr ln11i1u1r of Brlra1·ioral Sri1·11r1•, Unfrrt .t ity

c>/ Colorado, Bv utdrr. A U11frnsi1;- of ,\f idri,fOll Plr. D. i11 social ps n ·l1nl1•J:J'. l11•r 1·1.rr""'
rtuordr imtrrsll arr primarily in rnrrx.1· runsnvariun nnd r111·in11111u·11111l 11.1-_1.. ·lrolni;.1-.
S111ar1 IV. Cnok is Prufrssor of Psychology and AcrinR /Jiruror, lns1i11111• ·~f ll1•/1111'im11/
Sdt11u. Unil'trsiry uf Colorado. 8011/dn. llis rt.vearrlr illlntsl.f art• ;,, 1111i111clr 1111.I
lit lra1·ior cl1a11gt. primarily in thr art'as o.f c·onstrvativn 0111/ rnrr refotivll!.