Energy Economics 118 (2023) 106515

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Economics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eneeco

How social interaction induce energy-saving behaviors in buildings:

Interpersonal & passive interactions v.s. public & active interactions
Hao Li a, Zhao-Hua Wang a, b, *, Bin Zhang a, b, c, *
a
School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Haidian, Beijing 100081, China
b
Center for Sustainable Development and Smart Decision, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
c
Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Programs and policies that reduce energy consumption take the home, workplaces, and communities as the unit
Individual energy-saving behavior of analysis, with little consideration of the social interactions among people. Based on social interaction theory
Interpersonal relationship and behavioral decision-making theory, this paper conducted a questionnaire study and collected >1000 samples
Public relationship
to analyze the effects of social relationships, active or passive interaction, and individual characteristics on
Active interaction
Passive interaction
energy-saving behaviors at different levels of difficulty, such as habit adjustments, equipment upgrades, and
housing retrofits. The results show that social interactions positively contribute to individual energy-saving
behaviors, but there are significant differences in the effects on different behaviors. Low-difficulty energy-
saving behaviors are susceptible to interpersonal and passive interactions, while high-difficulty energy-saving
behaviors are susceptible to public relations and active interactions. In addition, individual perceived value and
information processing depth play a mediating and moderating role, respectively, in the impact of social in­
teractions on energy-saving behaviors. Based on a new social interaction perspective, the findings of this paper
can provide scientific support for the formulation of differentiated, non-economically motivated energy-saving
policies.

1. Introduction
Current efforts to change energy demand patterns tend to target
people as discrete and isolated individuals. In so doing, they ignore the
fact that individual energy needs are characterized by social interaction,
i.e., no one consumes energy in isolation, and most energy decisions are
influenced by social interactions (Crossley, 2010). When using air con­
ditioners for cooling or heating, setting a reasonable temperature to
coordinate the comfort needs of different individuals depends on
communication and interaction (Sintov et al., 2019). Social interactions
also drive various energy-saving behavior, and many people will do the
same when they see their neighbors install solar systems (Bollinger and
Gillingham, 2012). And comparing neighbors’ electricity bills has also
been shown to promote energy-saving behaviors (Allcott, 2011). Social
interactions shape individual experiences, choices, and behaviors in
socialized groups, fundamentally influencing all aspects of daily life,
including energy needs.
Social interactions characterize how people act as structured by their
situations, others involved in those situations, and their relations with
those others (Burkitt, 2014). Social relationships and interaction styles
are two critical dimensions for evaluating social interactions (Har­
greaves and Middlemiss, 2020; Wolske et al., 2020). The two central
social relations types are interpersonal and public (Hargreaves and
Middlemiss, 2020). Interpersonal relationships are between individuals,
such as family, friends, and colleagues. Public relationships exist be­
tween individuals and organizations, such as government departments,
community properties, housing agencies, energy supply, and service
companies. There is a clear difference between interpersonal relation­
ships and public relationships. Interpersonal relationships are built at
the individual level, they are based on common interests, common
values, common experiences, etc. Public relationships are built at the
organizational level, and they are based on the common goals, common
interests, and common moral principles of individuals and organiza­
tions. In addition to that, the relationship between people is more per­
sonal, while the relationship between people and organizations is more
public. Individuals use interpersonal relationships to learn and adjust
energy-use behavior, share energy-saving information and technology,
and use public relationships to obtain energy-use advice, energy-saving

* Corresponding authors at: School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Haidian, Beijing 100081, China.
E-mail addresses: wangzhaohua@bit.edu.cn (Z.-H. Wang), zhangbin8706@163.com (B. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106515
Received 19 September 2022; Received in revised form 31 December 2022; Accepted 6 January 2023
Available online 10 January 2023
0140-9883/© 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V.
H. Li et al.
products, and energy-saving retrofit services.
The main types of interaction include active and passive interactions
(Wolske et al., 2020). Active interaction is the communication between
different subjects, including impromptu face-to-face conversations,
organized group meetings, and online community discussions. Passive
interaction is when people observe and think about the characteristics of
their surroundings and the behavior of other individuals. Active inter­
action is when a person actively engages in communication and actively
expresses his or her thoughts or feelings. This type of communication
involves interaction between two people and can facilitate mutual un­
derstanding and communication between people. Conversely, passive
interaction refers to a person not actively participating in the commu­
nication, but rather observing and recording what is happening around
them. This type of observation usually does not involve interaction be­
tween two people, but simply observes and records. Active interactions
help individuals deepen their knowledge of new technologies or new
sources of energy or gain important procedural information (Berger,
2014; Lane et al., 2018). In the absence of an objective basis, individuals
can use passive interactions to form subjective evaluations of certain
behaviors by comparing and referring to the behaviors of others.
Social interactions are conducive to enhancing individual energy-
saving behaviors. However, there is a lack of clear conclusions about
what role different social interaction factors play in the process of in­
dividual energy-saving behavior elicitation. A research study on resi­
dential solar systems applications in the United States shows that both
active and passive interactions can shorten the decision period for in­
dividuals considering the application of solar systems, with active in­
teractions being more effective. (Rai and Robinson, 2013). But another
study suggests active interactions do not necessarily trigger more sig­
nificant interest in solar systems than passive interactions. The key is
whether individuals promote reduced uncertainty about how solar sys­
tems and available subsidies work through social interactions (Palm,
2017). Further research is needed to answer the debate about how social
interactions affect individual energy-saving behavior.
In addition, there is a clear typology of individual energy-saving
behaviors. Synthesizing the existing literature on the typology (Van
Raaij and Verhallen, 1983; Parker et al., 2003; Barr et al., 2005; Wang
et al., 2022) and further considering the behavioral difficulty, individual
energy-saving behaviors can be classified into three types: habit ad­
justments, equipment upgrades, and housing retrofits. Habit adjust­
ments reduce energy waste by changing one’s energy use habits while
meeting primary energy demand. Equipment upgrades mean choosing
products with higher energy efficiency when purchasing energy-using
equipment to reduce energy consumption. Housing retrofits refer to
larger-scale energy-saving retrofitting actions such as installing insu­
lated facades and rooftop solar systems to reduce energy consumption in
building operations. The above three individual energy-saving behav­
iors are progressively more challenging to implement. Among them,
habit adjustments do not require the additional monetary investment
and have the lowest energy-saving threshold. Equipment upgrades and
housing retrofits are investment behaviors. The highest threshold for
energy saving is for a house renovation, which requires more time and
money and objective conditions but also has the best energy-saving
effect.
Based on different social relationships and interaction styles, various
social interaction paths can be combined to influence individual energy-
saving behaviors. And different paths may apply to behaviors of
different difficulties. Clarifying the above matching relationships is of
great value in developing differentiated, precise, and sustainable
energy-saving programs. However, most studies on individual energy-
saving behaviors have focused on attributes such as attitudes, subjec­
tive norms, and behavioral intentions. The role of social interaction in
shaping individual energy-saving behaviors has been neglected. For
these reasons, there is a lack of systematic research that integrates
multiple social interaction factors. This study aims to explore the non-
economic incentives of individual energy-saving behaviors from the
2
Energy Economics 118 (2023) 106515
perspective of social interaction processes, incorporate various di­
mensions of social interactions (e.g., interpersonal relationships, public
relationships, active interactions, and passive interactions) into a unified
analytical model, and systematically investigate the roles played by
different social interaction factors in motivating different types of in­
dividual energy-saving behaviors, to fill the research gap and provide
new ideas for building a more flexible, low-carbon, and sustainable
energy demand model.
The remainder of this paper will be presented as follows. Section 2
describes the research model and hypotheses of this paper. Section 3
presents the research methods and data of this paper. Section 4 presents
the research results. Section 5 gives the conclusions. Finally, Section 6 is
a discussion related to the study of this paper.
2. Theoretical foundation and hypothesis development
2.1. Theoretical foundation
Social interaction theory suggests that individuals are embedded in
social networks, that group behavior influences individual behavior, and
that individual behavior becomes the driving force behind the emer­
gence of group behavior (Manski, 2000). Veblen, the founder of insti­
tutional economics, was one of the first scholars to study social
interaction theory. His conspicuous consumption theory reflected social
factors’ significant influence on individual behavior (Veblen, 1899).
Duesenberry (1949) and Leibenstein (1950) proposed the relative in­
come hypothesis that underpins the theory of social interaction,
following Veblen. They argued that individuals are willing to imitate
others and compare themselves with each other and that the share of
one’s consumption expenditure in total income depends on the payment
of those in the same class around him. Based on the above scholars’
research, many sociological and psychological researchers have
explored the influence of social interaction in the form of the reference
effect, social learning, word-of-mouth effect, and network externalities
(Inhoffen et al., 2019; Guo et al., 2021).
Considering that no one consumes energy in isolation, most energy
decisions are influenced by social interactions (Crossley, 2010). There­
fore, social interactions are also considered a critical factor in the gen­
eration and development of individual energy-saving behaviors (Yin and
Shi, 2021), which provides an essential theoretical model for the
ongoing interactions between various social factors and individual
energy-saving behaviors. Through the process of social interactions
influencing individual energy-saving behaviors outlined in Section 1, we
first identified four key explanatory variables that contribute to the
emergence and consolidation of individual energy-saving behaviors,
namely interpersonal relationships, public relationships, active in­
teractions, and passive interactions, and developed our conceptual
model, as shown in Fig. 1.
At the same time, considering that individual energy-saving behavior
is essentially a behavioral decision, the individual’s decision charac­
teristics should also be critical factors influencing their energy-saving
behavior (Allen et al., 2015). Based on decision theory (Simon, 1977)
and perceived value theory (Zeithaml, 1988; Woodruff, 1997), how an
individual chooses between multiple behaviors depends on the overall
perception and evaluation of the utility of the behavior, i.e., perceived
value. Perceived value is a crucial reference factor for individual
behavioral decisions (Neumann and Morgenstern, 1944). Studies on
behaviors such as online shopping (Zhang et al., 2015), knowledge
payment (Sánchez et al., 2021), electric car purchases (He and Hu,
2021), and online healthcare (Sun et al., 2022) have demonstrated that
perceived value can positively influence individuals’ behavioral ten­
dencies. External stimuli are critical in forming perceived value (Keller
et al., 1982). Social interactions are full of various types of information
and environmental stimuli. Individuals involved in social interactions
receive many stimuli that create new perceptions and feelings about
something, changing its perceived value. In energy decisions, rational
H. Li et al.
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
individuals decide whether to implement energy-saving behaviors based
on the perceived value level to maximize utility. In other words,
perceived value is a crucial decision basis for individual energy-saving
behavior.
In addition, different ways of processing available information may
result in individuals acquiring different perceived values for the same
behavior (Ren and Huang, 2018). In behavioral decision-making, some
individuals may process information rather superficially, reacting
quickly to interactions based on intuition. In contrast, others analyze the
acquired information in depth, weighing the pros and cons as much as
possible before forming a judgment to make unbiased decisions. Evi­
dence from outside the energy domain suggests that attitudes formed
through this deliberate information processing pathway are more du­
rable and likely to translate into behavior (Stiff and Mongeau, 2016). In
social interactions, how individuals process the information they obtain
in different depths also affects their behavioral choices.
The perceived value and depth of information processing play an
essential role in the path of social interactions on individual energy-
saving behavior. Therefore, we added perceived value and informa­
tion processing depth to the hypothesized model (as shown in Fig. 1),
which is essential to refine the relationship between individual energy-
saving behavior and the four explanatory variables mentioned above.
The conceptual model in Fig. 1 contains three separate analytical
models for three different types of energy-saving behaviors. In these
models, individual social relationships and interaction styles share
explanatory variables, while perceived value and information process­
ing depth are measured separately in the three types of energy-saving
behaviors.
2.2. Hypothesis development
2.2.1. Social relationships and individual energy-saving behaviors
Individuals’ energy needs are shaped by their relationships with
other subjects regarding consensus, conflict, cooperation, and compe­
tition. In communications involving energy use, people also tend to talk
about relationships with other people or organizations to explain how
and why they use energy in the way they do (Hargreaves and Mid­
dlemiss, 2020). This information about energy use and management is
exchanged through extensive social interactions, but the exchange is
based on mutual trust (Granovetter, 1973). Based on trust theory,
relationship strength determines individuals’ trust level (Wang et al.,
2007). And social interactions with high trust can give individuals more
access to high-quality resources, and social interactions with low trust
will limit the availability of resources (Yang et al., 2018). In social in­
teractions, social relationships can influence the quality of resources
3
Energy Economics 118 (2023) 106515
individuals obtain through trust mechanisms (Luo and Xi, 2012) and
further influence individuals’ behavioral decisions (Yin and Shi, 2021).
The complexity of social relations increases the difficulty of subdi­
vision. Different social relations can also be transformed into each other.
Based on the research demand, this paper mainly studies interpersonal
and public relationships in social relations, which are also the most
important social relations. When defining individual relationships, we
give priority to whether they can be divided into interpersonal re­
lationships. For example, the relationship between individuals and the
enterprises they work for can be regarded as the relationship between
individuals and colleagues in energy behavior research. The workplace
is the scene of energy use, and individuals and their colleagues are the
main body of energy use.
Close interpersonal relationships with family and friends shape
when, where, and to what extent individuals use energy. That is, in­
dividuals’ energy needs and energy-saving decisions are not only
dependent on their preferences but are also influenced by the needs and
behaviors of others (Burningham and Venn, 2017). These relations with
family and friends are often based on strong emotional bonds around
care, intimacy, love, and friendship. These relationships are achieved
through a range of interpersonal practices, including the practices of
parenting, friendship, and intimacy (Jamieson, 2016). It is through the
regular implementation of these practices that social relationships with
family and friends have a significant impact on energy demand (Har­
greaves and Middlemiss, 2020). There are more restrictions on energy
demand when living with a family than when living alone. In households
with infants and young children, there is a non-negotiable need for naps,
feedings, or bedtimes (Burningham and Venn, 2017; Nicholls and
Strengers, 2015). In households with school-age or adolescent children,
such concerns have gradually evolved to include regular schedules for
school hours, homework, and after-school activities (Powells et al.,
2014). Such relations are not exclusive to the home either. At work too,
people must negotiate with their co-workers about thermostat settings in
public offices, as well as communicate about whether lights or other
equipment should be turned on or off.
A community study from the Netherlands showed that good inter­
personal networks contribute to spreading energy efficiency information
and intentions and ultimately drive the popularity of housing energy
efficiency retrofits in the community (Wilde, 2019). And a growing body
of research shows that children who are well-educated about energy
efficiency become effective drivers of household energy efficiency
(Boudet et al., 2016). However, when good interpersonal relationships
are lacking, and consensus cannot be formed among individuals
regarding the use of shared equipment (e.g., air conditioning), it may
result in energy waste or additional energy demand (Sintov et al., 2019).
H. Li et al.
The role played by interpersonal relationships varies in the energy-
saving behavior of individuals with different difficulty levels. An
essential use of relational networks is to link different individuals into a
group and pursue common goals through collective action (Savelli and
Morstyn, 2021). In this process, individuals can receive appropriate
support from interpersonal networks (Turner and Turner, 2013; Carlsen
et al., 2020). In individual energy-saving scenarios, individuals can learn
and adjust their energy use behavior, obtain energy-saving information
and technical advice, etc., through interpersonal relationships. This
provides favorable conditions for the smooth implementation of energy-
saving behaviors. However, as the difficulty of implementing energy-
saving behaviors increases, individuals’ needs for resources such as in­
formation, technology, and capital also increase. The support that in­
dividuals receive from interpersonal relationships may not be able to
meet the corresponding needs. For example, professional advice from
energy service companies and community property companies may have
a greater impact on individuals’ behavioral decisions for housing
retrofits.
As a result, the following hypothesis is proposed in this paper:
H1. Interpersonal relationships have a significant positive effect on
individual energy-saving behaviors, but the effect of interpersonal re­
lationships decreased sequentially as the difficulty of energy-saving
behaviors increased.
Extensive public relationships with institutions and communities
shape how much energy individuals use and what can be done to
manage or reduce energy demand.
These relations may be formal (legal, contractual) or informal and
are based on the provision, management, and receipt of energy and
energy services as a customer or user, or as a member of a community of
place or practice. For example, good public relationships structured by
housing leases can encourage landlords to improve the energy efficiency
of appliances to reduce tenants’ energy bills (Hoppe, 2012). If tenants
are reluctant to raise energy costs with landlords for fear of eviction,
then landlords may also have no incentive to make energy efficiency
investments. Similarly, implementing smart meter penetration or other
energy efficiency intervention programs in numerous countries faces
significant barriers due to the lack of trust between customers and en­
ergy suppliers (Darby, 2010; Hess, 2014; Rosenow and Eyre, 2016;
Sovacool et al., 2017). Under current energy efficiency policies, home­
owners are not subject to strict requirements from rental agents, energy
providers, or utilities. The lack of trust and incentives prevents most
homeowners from accepting smart meters or outlets, resulting in low
participation rates in energy efficiency interventions.
Public relationships with institutions and communities play a critical
role in whether individuals adopt energy recommendations and how
they use them.
Public relationships may play a different role in individual energy-
saving behaviors of varying difficulty. Habit adjustments are simple to
implement, do not involve additional purchases, and are rarely con­
strained by organizations such as government agencies, community
properties, and energy service companies, resulting in a limited role for
public relations in such behaviors. But equipment upgrades and housing
retrofits are investment behaviors in which public relations between
individuals and energy-efficiency product manufacturers can play an
important role (Wade et al., 2016). Especially in the case of housing
renovation, which involves multiple parties such as homeowners,
property owners, and service providers, complex public relationships
are essential to successful implementation (Aiken et al., 2017).
As a result, the following hypothesis is proposed in this paper:
H2. Public relationships have a significant positive effect on individual
energy-saving behaviors, and the effect of public relationships increased
sequentially as the difficulty of energy-saving behaviors increased.
4
Energy Economics 118 (2023) 106515
2.2.2. Interaction styles and individual energy-saving behaviors
Social interaction is a meaningful way for individuals to become
embedded in social groups and an essential medium for macro-groups to
influence micro-individuals (Granovetter, 1985). Based on norm acti­
vation theory, individuals are motivated to engage in pro-social
behavior not only by their interests and intentions but also by beliefs
about morality, i.e., personal norms (Schwartz, 1977). Further, ac­
cording to the stimulus-organism-response theory (Mehrabian and
Russell, 1974), all behavior of an individual is the formation of an as­
sociation between stimulus and response. Social interactions are
necessary scenarios for activating personal norms, and activated per­
sonal norms can influence individuals’ pro-social behaviors (Donald
et al., 2014), such as energy-saving behaviors.
Active interactions mean that people actively engage in communi­
cation and actively express their thoughts and feelings. This type of
interaction usually involves interaction between multiple people and
can facilitate mutual understanding and communication between peo­
ple. Active interaction is important for building and maintaining social
relationships and is an important way for people to gain information and
learn new knowledge. And active interactions can facilitate the rapid
dissemination of energy information in social networks and give in­
dividuals rich information stimulation. For example, it may help deepen
an individual’s knowledge of new technologies or new sources of en­
ergy, reduce uncertainty when adopting new products and services, or
convey crucial procedural information (Berger, 2014; Lane et al., 2018).
Word-of-mouth effects created by active interactions have been shown
to play a positive role in energy-saving acts such as new energy vehicle
purchases (Osei-Frimpong and McLean, 2018) and rooftop solar appli­
cations (Bollinger et al., 2019). Adopters of energy-efficient technolo­
gies often perceive that effective proactive interaction improves the
quality of available information (Rai and Robinson, 2013). Numerous
studies have also shown that if a new energy technology is discussed
more frequently in social circles, it is more likely to be accepted and
adopted (Wolske et al., 2020).
The effect of active interactions on energy-saving behaviors may
vary across difficulties. Simple habit-adjusting behaviors require mini­
mal cost and cognitive analysis and are more likely to be directly
motivated by the external environment (Allen et al., 2015; Truelove and
Gillis, 2018). In contrast, highly challenging energy-saving behaviors
require significant time and money and involve multiple decision stages.
Individuals need to acquire sufficient information through active social
interactions to support their energy-saving decisions (Klöckner, 2014;
Klöckner and Nayum, 2016).
As a result, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3. Active interactions have a significant positive effect on individual
energy-saving behaviors, and the effect of active interactions increased
sequentially as the difficulty of energy-saving behaviors increased.
Passive interactions based on observational thinking about the
behavior of others and the surrounding environment also have signifi­
cant behavioral influence effects. For example, observers are likelier to
act the same if they see others comply with message signs encouraging
water conservation (Aronson and O’Leary, 1983). This effect has been
demonstrated in other scenarios (Sussman et al., 2013). According to the
social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), individuals form evalua­
tions or decisions by comparing and referring to the behavior of others in
the absence of an objective basis. Social learning theory (Bandura and
Walters, 1977) also states that individuals learn new behaviors and
form, reinforce, or change their attitudes toward these behaviors
through observation and imitation of others’ behaviors, propaganda
models, and social norms (Wang et al., 2022). Social identity theory also
reveals similar insights (Hogg, 2016). These sociological theories help
explain why adopting rooftop solar systems and new energy vehicles
spreads gradually from sporadic households to surrounding
communities.
Like active interactions, passive interactions may also exert different
H. Li et al.
influential effects on energy-saving behaviors of different difficulties.
Passive interactions are the acquisition of information by observing the
external environment or the behavior of others and do not affect or
interfere with the external environment or others. In social interactions,
passive interactions can help people better understand the emotions,
attitudes, and intentions of others. And passive interactions help people
improve their communication skills and be better able to cope with
different social situations. In addition, passive interactions can enhance
people’s observation skills and help them better analyze and understand
their surroundings. Observations and reflections on the behavioral and
environmental characteristics of individuals around them can influence
individual energy-saving behaviors through social norms. Social norms
are more conducive to motivating low-efficacy energy-saving behaviors
(Schultz et al., 2007; Ayres et al., 2013), such as habit adjustments. In
contrast, the influence of social norms is often very limited in high-
energy efficiency behaviors (Wolske et al., 2020). This is not to say
that passive interactions cannot play a role in large-scale energy in­
vestments. The standard view is that passive interactions stimulate an
individual’s initial awareness of and interest in investment-based energy
conservation.
As a result, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4. Passive interactions have a significant positive effect on individual
energy-saving behaviors, but the effect of passive interactions decreased
sequentially as the difficulty of energy-saving behaviors increased.
2.2.3. The mediating role of perceived value
In social interactions, information dissemination and word-of-mouth
effects are influenced by the strength of relationships between subjects
in social networks (Eric and Kevin, 2014). Individuals may react and
evaluate other individuals or organizations with different relationship
strengths differently. For example, when the relationship is close,
greater trust reduces risk and uncertainty in the decision-making process
(Dodds et al., 1991), and the perceived value of the behavior is higher
(Zeithaml, 1988), which is more conducive to the individual’s energy-
saving behavior. Conversely, when the relationship is weak, in­
dividuals may question the reliability of the information they receive,
which increases the uncertainty they perceive in the decision-making
process (Osgood and Tannenbaum, 1955) and does not contribute to
energy-efficient decisions. Therefore, different relationship strengths in
social interactions can affect individuals’ perceptions of energy-saving
behaviors and impact perceived value, influencing energy-saving
decisions.
Further, according to stimulus-organism-response theory (Mehra­
bian and Russell, 1974), external stimuli affect an individual’s final
behavioral decision by triggering an internal organism response. In so­
cial interactions, individuals receive information or environmental
stimuli from external sources, either actively or passively, and expand
their perceptions from multiple perspectives, which provides more basis
for assessing perceived value (Cui et al., 2022). A large amount of pos­
itive energy-saving evaluation information will increase individuals’
perceived value of energy-saving from several levels, leading them to
form a more vital willingness to save energy. When a large amount of
information stimulates an individual, it will first trigger changes in the
individual’s perception of the feasibility, economy, and social evalua­
tion of energy-saving behavior, i.e., affect the individual’s perceived
value and eventually stimulate different behavioral responses.
As a result, the following hypothesis is proposed in this paper:
H5. Perceived value plays a mediating role in the pathway of social
interactions on individual energy-saving behaviors.
2.2.4. The moderating effect of information processing depth
Information is an essential resource that individuals obtain from
social interactions and is a crucial basis for individuals’ value analysis.
Information stimuli can influence individuals’ beliefs or attitudes in
social interactions, and the ability of information stimuli to have a
5
Energy Economics 118 (2023) 106515
lasting impact depends on individuals’ motivation to engage in social
interactions and the depth to which they process the interaction infor­
mation (Wolske et al., 2020). Based on heuristic and analytical dual-
system information processing theory (Kahneman, 2011), some in­
dividuals may process information rather superficially, reacting quickly
to interactions based on intuition, while others analyze the acquired
information in depth, weighing the pros and cons as much as possible
before forming a judgment, to make unbiased decisions. In short, in­
dividuals obtain much information from effective social interactions and
process it at different depths based on their interaction motivations and
decision-making styles, influencing their behavioral choices. Based on
the above analysis and considering the critical influence of information
in decision theory for value calculation, this paper focuses on the
moderating role of the depth of information processing in the pathway
of active and passive interactions acting on perceived value and pro­
poses the following hypothesis.:
H6. The information processing depth moderates the paths through
which active and passive interactions act on perceived value.
It is important to note that this paper does not consider the possible
moderating role of information processing depth in the paths through
which interpersonal and public relations act on perceived value. This is
because information processing depth can be significantly influenced by
social relationships. People usually judge the credibility and importance
of information based on their relationships with others and will tend to
pay more attention to the information provided by people with whom
they have close relationships. In addition, social relationships may affect
the way people understand and interpret information, leading to
different reactions to the same information. When processing informa­
tion, people are influenced by their relationships with other people or
organizations, which in turn may have an impact on the processing of
information. In conclusion, the depth of information processing does not
fit to be considered as a moderating factor in the path through which
interpersonal and public relations act on perceived value.
3. Data and methods
3.1. Data collection
This paper is based on a quantitative study to analyze the influence of
individuals’ social interaction activities on their energy-saving behav­
iors utilizing a questionnaire. The scales used in this paper refer to
existing mature scales. Some scales are modified with expert opinions
for oral and localization to help respondents better understand the
contents of the questionnaire. Before the official questionnaire was
distributed, a small-scale pre-survey was conducted in February–March
2022. Specifically, university students were recruited as volunteers and
used the opportunity to return home during the holidays to distribute
electronic questionnaires in large communities and supermarkets. An
online system automatically tallied the answers. Based on the pre-survey
results, the reliability and validity of the questionnaire were initially
tested, and further adjustments were made to the questions to form the
official questionnaire.
Considering the questionnaire collection period and sample
coverage, we chose to cooperate with the professional data collection
platform “Wenjuanxing” in the formal survey stage. This platform has a
sample base of millions of members, covering people of different ages,
professions, and communities, and has collected >10 billion question­
naires. In this study, 1300 questionnaires were distributed through the
platform in May 2022. Invalid questionnaires that were not logical or
had the same evaluation value for six consecutive options were deleted,
and finally, 1019 valid questionnaires were obtained, with a valid re­
covery rate of 78.4%. The ratio of male to female respondents is close to
1:1. The distribution of demographic variables such as age, education,
income, and residential attribute variables is more reasonable, as shown
in Table 1. The sample characteristics are consistent with reality. The
H. Li et al. Energy Economics 118 (2023) 106515

Table 1
Control variables of the sample (N = 1019).
Variable Category Frequency Proportion Variable Category Frequency Proportion
(%) (%)

18–25 167 16.4 ≤70 150 14.7

26–30 363 35.6 71–90 237 23.3
Age 31–35 372 36.5 Housing area (m2) 91–110 315 30.9
36–40 91 8.9 111–130 220 21.6
>40 26 2.6 >130 97 9.5
Junior high school and
5 0.5 Before 1995 41 4.0
below
High school/technical
41 4.0 Years of residential 1995–2005 191 18.7
Educational background school
construction
Junior college 273 26.8 2006–2010 317 31.1
Undergraduate 647 63.5 2011–2015 271 26.6
Graduate and above 53 5.2 After 2015 199 19.5
≤2000 93 9.1 1 60 5.9
2001–5000 108 10.6 2 148 14.5
Monthly household income
5001–8000 284 27.9 Family resident population 3 384 37.7
(yuan)
8001–15,000 342 33.6 4 295 28.9
>15,000 191 18.7 ≥5 132 13.0
Female 519 50.9
Gender
Male 500 49.1

minimum age of the research sample in this paper was set at 18 years
old, which is the mark of adulthood. Adults are considered to be capable
of engaging in different types of energy-saving behaviors.
3.2. Measurement method
In this paper, we use the main variables in a multi-item scale mea­
surement model, including the Individual Energy-saving Behavior Scale
(referenced from Allen et al., 2015), Interpersonal Relationships Scale
(referenced from Lechner et al., 2010), Public Relationships Scale
(referenced from Bohner et al., 2003), Active Interactions Scale (refer­
enced from Sussman et al., 2013), Passive Interactions Scale (referenced
from Ou et al., 2014), Perceived Value Scale (referenced from Park and
Kwon, 2017), and Information Processing Depth Scale (referenced from
Truelove and Gillis, 2018), all in the form of a 5-point Likert scale.
The habit-adjusted energy-saving subscales ranged from 1 (never) to
5 (always), indicating low to high frequency of the behavior, and the
remaining scales ranged from 1 (not at all compliant) to 5 (very
compliant), representing low to high levels of compliance. The scale and
question settings are shown in Supplementary Table 1.
3.3. Descriptive analysis and heterogeneity analysis
The means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum values of
all critical variables involved in this paper are presented in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, the respondent group has good interpersonal
and public relationships. However, the mean value of public relation­
ship strength is lower than that of interpersonal relationship strength.
This indicates that it is easier to establish high trust social relationships
between individuals than asymmetric relationships between individuals
and organizations. Regarding social interactions, the mean active
interaction validity for the respondent group is lower than the mean
passive interaction validity. For different energy-saving behaviors, the
frequency and perceived value of the behaviors continue to decrease
with increasing difficulty while the depth of information processing
continues to grow. It is assumed that for simple energy-saving behaviors
such as habit adjustment, individuals can make quick decisions based on
their intuition or a small amount of rational deduction to perceive the
behavior’s benefits. Individuals need to think carefully about
investment-oriented energy-saving behaviors, such as equipment up­
grade and housing renovation. In particular, housing renovation is likely
to be abandoned because of the high cost of money and time.
Next, this paper conducts a heterogeneity analysis using the three
types of energy-saving behaviors as the dependent variables and the
control variables in Table 1 as the independent variables to investigate
the effect of each type of resident attributes on energy-saving behaviors.
The results of the analysis are shown in Table 3. The grouping of each
independent variable was kept in the same way as in Table 1.
As shown in Table 3, with the increase of residents’ age, the fre­
quency of ESA and ESB showed an M-shaped trend, and the highest
frequency was above 40 years old. With the increase of residents’
educational background, the frequencies of ESA and ESC show an
increasing trend, and the frequency of ESB shows an inverted U-shaped
trend, with the highest educational background being Junior college.
With the increase of monthly household income, the frequencies of ESA
and ESB show an N-shaped trend, and the frequency of ESC shows an

Table 2
Descriptive statistics of variables.
Variables Abbreviations Means SD Min Max

Interpersonal Relationships IRS 4.13 0.484 1.00 5.00

Public Relationships PRS 3.86 0.742 1.00 5.00
Active Interactions ACI 3.92 0.783 1.00 5.00
Passive Interactions PAI 4.34 0.522 1.00 5.00
Habit Adjustments ESA 4.34 0.596 1.00 5.00
Energy-saving Behaviors Equipment Upgrades ESB 4.08 0.764 1.00 5.00
Housing Retrofits ESC 3.44 0.969 1.00 5.00
For ESA PVA 4.22 0.527 1.00 5.00
Perceived Value For ESB PVB 4.00 0.442 2.67 5.00
For ESC PVC 3.59 0.543 2.00 5.00
For ESA IDA 3.08 0.992 1.00 5.00
Information Processing Depth For ESB IDB 3.45 1.002 1.33 5.00
For ESC IDC 4.16 0.566 2.33 5.00

6
H. Li et al. Energy Economics 118 (2023) 106515

Table 3
Heterogeneity analysis of control variables.
Dependent variable Group Age Educational background Monthly household income

Mean F Mean F Mean F

1 4.269 3.733 4.229

2 4.347 4.244 4.361
ESA 3 4.377 3.312** 4.286 2.874** 4.265 3.683***
4 4.249 4.375 4.386
5 4.654 4.409 4.434
1 3.888 2.800 3.778
2 4.075 4.016 4.065
ESB 3 4.140 6.227*** 4.199 6.694*** 4.052 4.725***
4 4.018 4.056 4.139
5 4.577 3.855 4.149
1 3.337 2.200 3.183
2 3.455 3.057 3.222
ESC 3 3.444 1.408 3.454 4.077*** 3.394 7.523***
4 3.484 3.461 3.466
5 3.795 3.585 3.724

Housing area Years of residential construction Family resident population

Dependent variable group
Mean F Mean F Mean F
1 4.240 4.065 4.178
2 4.338 4.330 4.331
ESA 3 4.367 1.907 4.341 2.947** 4.336 1.611
4 4.348 4.402 4.384
5 4.440 4.343 4.371
1 3.918 3.984 3.822
2 4.031 4.044 4.016
ESB 3 4.119 2.678** 4.104 0.360 4.063 2.986**
4 4.147 4.070 4.121
5 4.131 4.089 4.194
1 3.162 3.528 3.006
2 3.367 3.286 3.223
ESC 3 3.438 6.861*** 3.496 1.671 3.502 6.581***
4 3.629 3.480 3.563
5 3.656 3.441 3.449

Notes: significant at * p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

increasing trend. With the increase of housing area, the frequency of ESB
shows an inverted U-shaped trend, and the frequency of ESC showed an
increasing trend. With the year of housing construction advances, the
frequency of ESA shows an inverted U-shaped trend. With the increase of
family resident population, the frequency of ESB generation shows an
increasing trend, and the frequency of ESC generation shows an inverted
U-shaped trend.
4. Results
4.1. Reliability and validity of the measurement model
In the pre-study stage, the reliability and validity of the question­
naire, scale composition, and dimensional division were initially
analyzed. The modified formal scale passed the reliability test in the
pretest stage. To ensure the validity of the formal questionnaire data, we
further tested the reliability and validity of the formal questionnaire
quantity, and the test results are shown in Table 4. The Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient for each subscale was above 0.6, indicating the scale has good
reliability (Wu et al., 2021).
In this paper, we used the mature scale as a template when designing
the scale and combined the suggestions of several experts. After the
adjustment and modification in the pretesting stage, it can be considered
that the scales in this paper have good content validity. Regarding
construct validity, all three energy-saving behavior scales pass Bartlett’s
test (p < 0.001) with a high KMO value of 0.800, 0.821, and 0.842,
respectively. It indicates a correlation between the different topics and is
suitable for factor analysis. The factor loading matrix is obtained by
orthogonal rotation using principal component analysis and the
maximum variance method, as shown in Supplementary Table 2.
All three types of energy-saving behavior scales have seven compo­
nents drawn based on eigenvalues >1. The loading values of each
component on the corresponding factor are >0.5, and the factor distri­
bution structure is consistent with the expected scale design dimensions.

Table 4
Reliability test of the measurement model.
Variables α coefficient Number of items Variables α coefficient Number of items

IRS 0.611 3 PRS 0.799 4

ACI 0.744 3 PAI 0.820 3
ESA 0.638 3 ESB 0.782 3
IDA 0.838 3 IDB 0.820 3
PVA 0.702 3 PVB 0.706 3
ESC 0.796 3 ES 0.728 9
IDC 0.710 3 PV 0.788 9
PVC 0.837 3 ID 0.695 9
All Variables 0.871 40

Note: ES denotes the set of question items containing ESA, ESB, and ESC. PV and ID are defined in the same way.

7
H. Li et al. Energy Economics 118 (2023) 106515

This indicates that the scales designed in this paper have good construct Table 5
validity (Henseler et al., 2015). Results of the mediation effect test.
Total Direct Indirect Proportion of Type of
4.2. Direct and mediating effect tests of the measurement model effect effect effect mediating effect mediating
in total effect effect

This paper hypothesizes that the four types of social interaction IRS →
factors (IRS, PRS, ACI, and PAI) directly affect the promotion of indi­ PVA
19.80% 18.10% 1.70% 8.60%
Partial
mediation
vidual energy-saving behaviors and also hypothesizes that perceived →
ESA
value plays a mediating role in this. This paper uses stepwise regression PRS →
to test whether the above hypotheses hold for each of the three types of PVA Partial
13.40% 12.20% 1.20% 8.96%
energy-saving behaviors. → mediation
Stepwise regression is one of the currently accepted methods used to ESA
ACI →
test the mediating effect. This study constructs five regression models to
PVA Partial
test the mediating effect. Taking habit-adjusted energy efficiency as an 9.50% 8.00% 1.50% 15.79%
→ mediation
example, the specific test procedure is as follows. ESA
Model 1 is first constructed with ESA as the explanatory variable, and PAI →
PVA Partial
only the control variables (demographic and residential characteristics 22.20% 19.60% 2.60% 11.71%
→ mediation
variables) are added as references. Model 2 adds the explanatory vari­ ESA
ables (IRS, PRS, ACI, PAI) to be validated based on Model 1 to determine IRS →
the main effects. Model 3 adds the mediating variable (PVA) based on PVB
16.10% 14.10% 2.00% 12.42%
Partial
Model 1 to determine the relationship between the mediating variable → mediation
ESB
and the explanatory variable. Model 4 adds the mediating variable
PRS →
(PVA) based on Model 2 to determine the relationship between the PVB Partial
20.50% 18.00% 2.50% 12.20%
explanatory variable and the explanatory variable in the context of → mediation
controlling for the mediating variable. Finally, Model 5 is constructed to ESB
ACI →
determine the relationship between the explanatory variable and the
PVB Partial
explanatory variable. The detailed analysis results are shown in Sup­ →
23.40% 20.60% 2.80% 11.97%
mediation
plementary Table 3. ESB
The regression results for the three types of energy-saving behaviors PAI →
exhibit many common features. Taking habit-adjusted energy savings as PVB Partial
14.90% 12.40% 2.50% 16.78%
mediation
an example, the adjusted R2 is only 0.014 considering only the effect of
→
ESB
control variables on energy-saving behavior. After adding four explan­ IRS →
atory variables, including IRS (b = 0.198, p < 0.001), PRS (b = 0.134, p PVC Partial
13.40% 11.70% 1.70% 12.69%
< 0.001), ACI (b = 0.095, p < 0.001), and PAI (b = 0.222, p < 0.001), → mediation
the adjusted R2 improved to 0.189 and the coefficient of each explana­ ESC
PRS →
tory variable passed the significance test. PVC Partial
Further, comparing models 2 and 4, the inclusion of the mediating 23.60% 19.40% 4.20% 17.80%
→ mediation
variable PVA (b = 0.150, p < 0.001) further increases the adjusted R2 to ESC
0.204 and the coefficients of the explanatory variables IRS (b = 0.191, p ACI →
PVC Partial
< 0.001), PRS (b = 0.122, p < 0.001), ACI (b = 0.080, p < 0.01), and PAI 40.60% 32.50% 8.10% 19.95%
→ mediation
(b = 0.196, p < 0.001) all decrease and remain significant. Combined ESC
with other model results, it is clear that perceived value partially me­ PAI →
diates social interactions and individual energy-saving behavior. The PVC
12.60% 10.00% 2.60% 20.63%
Partial
complete results of the mediating effect test are shown in Table 5. → mediation
ESC
As shown from Model 4 in Supplementary Table 3, the effects of
social relationships, interaction styles, and perceived value on different
types of individual energy-saving behaviors show some variability and
regularity. 0.279, respectively). This may be because as difficulty increases, in­
Regarding social relationships, habit adjustments are more likely to dividuals become more sensitive to the benefits of energy savings (Chen
be influenced by interpersonal relationships, while equipment upgrades et al., 2020). This reinforces the effect of perceived value on energy-
and housing retrofits are more likely to be influenced by public re­ saving behavior. Thus, hypothesis H5 is supported.
lationships. Moreover, the influence coefficient of interpersonal re­
lationships on the three types of energy-saving behaviors decreases in 4.3. Moderating effect test of the measurement model
order (0.181, 0.141, and 0.117, respectively), and the influence coeffi­
cient of public relationships on the three types of energy-saving be­ Based on James and Brett (1984) and Baron and Kenny (1986) tests
haviors increases in order (0.122, 0.180, and 0.194, respectively). of moderating effects, this paper uses multiple regression analysis to test
Regarding interaction styles, habit adjustments are more likely to be the moderating effect of information processing depth in the path of
influenced by passive interaction, while equipment upgrades and social interaction validity on perceived value. The multiple regression
housing retrofits are more likely to be influenced by active interaction. analysis contains a total of three levels: the first level is the explanatory
Moreover, the influence coefficient of passive interaction on the three variable level, which is the social interaction validity; the second level is
types of energy-saving behaviors decreases in order (0.196, 0.124, and the moderating variable level, which is the information processing
0.100, respectively), and the influence coefficient of active interaction depth; and the third level is the interaction term between the explana­
on the three types of energy-saving behaviors increases in order (0.080, tory and moderating variables. From this, three regression models can
0.206, and 0.325, respectively). Thus, hypotheses H1-H4 are supported. be constructed. Specifically, Model 1 is a regression model of social in­
In terms of perceived value, the coefficients of the three energy- teractions on perceived value. Model 2 adds the information processing
saving behaviors are affected in increasing order (0.150, 0.219, and depth to Model 1, and Model 3 adds the interaction term of social

8
H. Li et al. Energy Economics 118 (2023) 106515

interactions and information processing depth to Model 2. Based on the
results of the multiple regressions, if the interaction coefficient is sig­
nificant, the moderating effect is substantial. The results of the moder­
ation effect test for the three types of energy-saving behavior models are
shown in Table 6.
As shown in Table 6, the effect of information processing depth on
PVA is not significant (b = 0.005, p = 0.744) and its interaction term
coefficient with ACI (b = 0.021, p = 0.289) and PAI (b = 0.046, p =
0.131) are also not significant. It can be seen that there is no significant
moderating effect of information processing depth on the “ACI to PVA”
and “PAI to PVA” paths. As for investment-based energy savings, in­
formation processing depth has a significant positive effect on PVB (b =
0.031, p < 0.05) and PVC (b = 0.065, p < 0.05). This indicates that
individuals will enhance their feelings and evaluate investment-based
energy-saving behavior after deep consideration. Further, the interac­
tion term coefficient between IDB and ACI is significantly positive (b =
0.052, p < 0.01) for the equipment upgrade. The interaction term co­
efficient between IDC and PAI for housing renovation is significantly
positive (b = 0.115, p < 0.05). This indicates a significant positive
moderating effect of information processing depth on the “ACI to PVB”
and “PAI to PVC” paths. Thus, hypothesis H6 is partially supported.
The results show that information processing depth plays different
roles in different pathways. First, information processing depth does not
exert a direct or moderating effect on the perceived value of habit-
adjusted energy savings. Possible reasons for this are that habit-
adjusted energy conservation requires no economic investment, the
threshold for entry into the behavior is shallow, and the perceived value
of such behavior is formed by individuals based on intuition, without the
need for extensive information to support decision-making and without
the need for in-depth information processing (Wolske et al., 2020). On
the other hand, investment-based energy efficiency requires a certain
level of investment cost, especially in the case of housing renovation,
which can impose a significant financial burden on individuals. As a
result, individuals need to gather a wealth of information through social
interactions or other means before deciding whether or not to imple­
ment such energy-saving behaviors and make a well-thought-out deci­
sion (Klöckner and Nayum, 2016).
Further, information processing depth moderates in the “ACI to PVB”
path but not in the “ACI to PVC” path. As shown in Model 1 in Table 6,
the influence coefficient of active interaction on PVB is 0.178 (p <
0.001), while this coefficient is as high as 0.351 (p < 0.001) in PVC. This
suggests that individuals may have formed strong beliefs and perceived
values about housing renovation during active interactions and that the
influence of information processing is greatly diminished (Kumkale
et al., 2010; Stiff and Mongeau, 2016). In contrast, for equipment up­
grades, the initially formed perceived value can be reinforced by in-
depth information processing.
On the other hand, the moderating effect of information processing
depth in the influence path of passive interaction showed the opposite
result. That is, information processing depth does not play a moderating
role in the “PAI to PVB” path but plays a moderating role in the “PAI to
PVC” path. In passive interactions, individuals are more likely to observe
people around them buying or using energy-saving devices or making
energy-saving improvements. Based on this information, individuals can
only make a vague judgment about the perceived value of energy-saving
behaviors. Compared to retrofitting, purchasing is less complex and less
involved, and deep processing of the limited information may not
significantly change the individual’s judgment of its value. In contrast,
in-depth information processing can reduce the uncertainty of a prob­
lematic, high-input behavior such as housing renovation (Palm, 2017),
reinforcing individuals’ perceived value.
In summary, based on the results of this paper, Hypothesis 1- Hy­
pothesis 5 are wholly supported, and Hypothesis 6 is only partially
supported.
5. Conclusions
Social interaction is a critical factor in influencing and shaping in­
dividual energy-saving behavior. No one consumes energy in isolation,
and most energy decisions occur in social interaction. However, existing
studies have mainly focused on the psychological and situational factors
influencing individual energy-saving behavior. Little has been done to
explore the social interaction factors and their influence mechanisms. In
this study, we systematically investigated the role played by four cate­
gories of social interaction factors - interpersonal relationships, public
relationships, active interactions, and passive interactions - and two
categories of individual decision characteristics - perceived value and
depth of information processing - in motivating different energy-saving
behaviors. This study provides a new theoretical perspective to explain
how social interactions shape individual energy-saving behaviors and
explore the non-economic incentives for energy conservation and
emission reduction. The following main findings are obtained from this
study.
1) Interpersonal relationships and public relationships have a signifi­
cant positive effect on individual energy-saving behaviors. Specif­
ically, interpersonal relationships are more likely to influence habit
adjustments, while equipment upgrades and housing retrofits are
more likely to affect public relationships. And as the difficulty of
implementing energy-saving behaviors increases, interpersonal re­
lationships’ influence decreases, and public relationships’ influence
increases in that order.

Table 6
Results of the multiple regression analysis.
Variables PVA PVB PVC

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

0.144*** 0.143*** 0.080 0.178*** 0.176*** − 0.005 0.351*** 0.347*** 0.424***

ACI
(0.000) (0.000) (0.210) (0.000) (0.000) (0.936) (0.000) (0.000) (0.001)
0.207*** 0.207*** 0.065 0.148*** 0.147*** 0.210** 0.123*** 0.110*** − 0.357*
PAI
(0.000) (0.000) (0.508) (0.000) (0.000) (0.021) (0.001) (0.003) (0.060)
0.005 − 0282** 0.031** − 0.108 0.065** − 0.361*
IDX
(0.744) (0.042) (0.017) (0.348) (0.010) (0.078)
0.021 0.052*** − 0.018
ACI × IDX
(0.289) (0.003) (0.536)
0.046 − 0.016 0.115**
PAI × IDX
(0.131) (0.532) (0.013)
2.712*** 2.693*** 3.567*** 2.347*** 2.258*** 2.722*** 1.836*** 1.645*** 3.348***
Constant
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.002)
2
R 0.116 0.116 0.120 0.198 0.202 0.209 0.337 0.342 0.346
Adjusted R2 0.108 0.107 0.109 0.191 0.194 0.200 0.331 0.335 0.338
F 14.665*** 13.198*** 11.397*** 27.621*** 25.544*** 22.170*** 57.047*** 52.302*** 44.282***

Note: *P < 0.1, **P < 0.05, ***P < 0.01. IDX represents IDA, IDB, and IDC in the PVA, PVB, and PVC models.

9
H. Li et al.
2) Active interactions and passive interactions have a significant posi­
tive effect on individual energy-saving behaviors. Specifically, habit
adjustments are more likely to be influenced by passive interactions,
while equipment upgrades and housing retrofits are more likely to be
affected by active interactions. As the difficulty of implementing
energy saving-behavior increases, the influence of passive interac­
tion decreases, and the influence of active interaction increases.
3) Perceived value has a significant positive effect on individual energy-
saving behavior, and the impact of perceived value deepens as the
difficulty of implementing energy-saving behavior increases. At the
same time, perceived value plays a mediating role in the influence
path of social interactions on individual energy-saving behaviors.
4) There is a significant positive moderating effect of information pro­
cessing depth on two paths: the path of active interactions on the
perceived value of equipment upgrades and the way of passive in­
teractions on the perceived value of housing retrofits.
6. Discussions
6.1. Practical implications
Social interaction has a significant role in promoting individual en­
ergy saving. Building positive and effective social interaction requires
individuals to expand the breadth and depth of their social interaction
and the government, communities, and enterprises to participate in it
actively and serve and guide the public’s social interaction. The impact
of social interactions on individual energy savings outweighs economic
and technological factors in many scenarios (Nolan et al., 2008; Hand­
graaf et al., 2013). Efforts to improve particular energy demands and
stimulate individual energy-saving potential rely on the role of social
interactions in shaping individual energy-saving behaviors. In­
terventions to promote energy savings may be ineffective if the complex
social interactions behind individual energy use behaviors are not
considered (Outcault et al., 2018). Economic incentives such as time-of-
use tariffs (Yang et al., 2022), tiered tariffs (Sun et al., 2020), demand
response (Stoll et al., 2014), and energy efficiency subsidies (Dong et al.,
2020) have been a meaningful way to promote energy efficiency at this
stage. But these approaches have apparent shortcomings in applicability
and sustainability (Yin and Shi, 2021). Policymakers and researchers
have been working to find social interaction mechanisms influencing
individual energy savings to build more flexible, low-carbon, and sus­
tainable unique energy demand patterns (Stern et al., 2016).
Effective and frequent social interactions between individuals
depend on an extensive and stable social interaction network. An
interpersonal network based on daily life obviously cannot achieve
efficient diffusion of energy-saving intentions and behaviors. Strong ties
account for a large proportion of interpersonal networks based on daily
life, while weak ties account for a small proportion. The heterogeneous
information brought by weak ties contains a lot of knowledge that can
help individuals practice energy-saving behaviors, and can help in­
dividuals cross social structure and class boundaries to obtain more
effective information. So that individuals can transmit important in­
formation from other groups to individuals outside the group. In
contrast, strong ties among individuals imply a greater degree of overlap
in social circles and a higher degree of similarity and overlap in the
information and resources available to individuals within the group.
Therefore, the heterogeneity of information resources obtained through
strong ties is low (Yin and Shi, 2021; Fronczak et al., 2022).
Government departments should build various online or face-to-face
social interaction platforms to guide the public to actively and proac­
tively discuss energy-saving policies and programs. It also gives full play
to the critical role of opinion leaders in information dissemination (Kraf-
Todd et al., 2018) to help the public access energy efficiency information
in a timely and effective manner and shorten the energy efficiency
decision-making cycle. Specifically, government departments can
establish official websites and social media accounts to interact socially
10
Energy Economics 118 (2023) 106515
and promote energy conservation. Through official websites, govern­
ment departments can post information and policies about energy con­
servation and provide the public with knowledge and methods of energy
conservation. Social media accounts can be used to interact with
Internet users, answer their questions about energy efficiency, and post
the latest energy efficiency policies and information. In addition, gov­
ernment departments can organize online activities, such as organizing
online lectures and online competitions, to attract more public partici­
pation in energy efficiency promotion activities.
Managers should be aware that social interaction is not limited to
individuals. The connection of individuals with various organizations
and institutions is also an essential element of social interaction. Public
relationships are crucial to the dissemination of energy-saving in­
tentions and behaviors. At the macro level, building a good government
image and credibility is the most fundamental guarantee of enhancing
the willingness of the whole society to save energy and reduce emis­
sions. At the mesoscopic level, enhancing consumer trust in energy
supply and service companies relies on continuous optimization of the
business environment. At the micro level, the role of the community as
an intermediary between the government and individuals can be
leveraged to implement energy interventions in a more targeted and
embedded manner (Aiken et al., 2017).
6.2. Limitations and future research directions
This study focuses on the effects of various social interaction factors
on individual energy-saving behavior. These factors become essential
for building a more flexible, low-carbon, sustainable energy demand
model. However, the effect of individual-level influencing factors at the
group level needs further investigation.
When rising from the individual microscopic level to the macro­
scopic group level, the effect of social interaction is not a simple linear
superposition. Adding some incentives may improve individual energy-
saving levels, but whether it will also positively impact the group level
needs further verification. A study based on the dynamics of opinion
transmission found that the impact of social interactions will fail when
the behavior or willingness differs too much between individuals (Zheng
et al., 2019). The same phenomenon may exist in the field of individual
energy saving. That is, after a significant increase in the level of energy
savings of one individual, other individuals who were initially influ­
enced by it may engage in social interactions negatively due to the in­
crease in behavioral differences between them.
So far, there is a paucity of studies focusing on the influence of in­
dividual energy-saving motivation on the emergence of group energy-
saving. In future research, we will build a social interaction network
model of macro groups based on micro-level individual energy-saving
influencing factors. In turn, we will explore how changes in local indi­
vidual behavior affect the overall network status and identify the social
network’s key individuals and relationship structures that influence the
propagation of energy-saving intentions. The above efforts are crucial
for precisely implementing energy-saving programs and policies.
In addition, the specific performance of groups with illnesses and
disabilities in terms of energy use is often overlooked. Limited by the
research method of the online questionnaire survey, this paper is unable
to investigate the special groups with diseases or disabilities. It is
necessary to design surveys to understand the energy behavior of this
special group with illnesses and disabilities and to help them use energy
more equitably.
Credit author statement
Mr. Hao Li designed the methodology and wrote the manuscript.
Prof. Wang Zhaohua reviewed and edited the manuscript. Dr. Zhang Bin
conceived and designed the study. All authors read and approved the
manuscript.
H. Li et al.
Acknowledgment
This study is supported by National Natural Science Fund of China
(Reference No. 72222017, 72174023, 72141302, 71774014, 72140002,
91746208), Key Research Projects of Philosophy and Social Sciences of
China Ministry of Education (Reference No. 21JZD027), Beijing Social
Science Foundation Project (Reference No. 20JCC108, 20JJC023), Na­
tional Social Science Fund of China (Reference No. 17ZDA065), Science
and Technology Innovation Program for Innovative Talents in Beijing
Institute of Technology (Reference No. 2021CX0125), Joint Develop­
ment Program of Beijing Municipal Commission of Education, and Sci­
ence and Technology Project of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-
Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China (Reference No.
2021-K-106).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106515.
References
Aiken, G.T., Middlemiss, L., Sallu, S., Hauxwell-Baldwin, R., 2017. Researching climate
change and community in neoliberal contexts: an emerging critical approach. Wiley
Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 8 (4), e463.
Allcott, H., 2011. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 95 (9–10),
1082–1095.
Allen, S., Dietz, T., McCright, A.M., 2015. Measuring household energy efficiency
behaviors with attention to behavioral plasticity in the United States. Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 10, 133–140.
Aronson, E., O’Leary, M., 1983. The relative effectiveness of models and prompts on
energy conservation: a field experiment in a shower room. J. Environ. Syst. 12,
219–224.
Ayres, I., Raseman, S., Shih, A., 2013. Evidence from two large field experiments that
peer comparison feedback can reduce residential energy usage. J. Law Econ. Org. 29,
992–1022.
Bandura, A., Walters, R.H., 1977. Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research:conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 6, 1173–1182.
Barr, S., Gilg, A.W., Ford, N., 2005. The household energy gap: examining the divide
between habitual-and purchase-related conservation behaviours. Energy Policy 33
(11), 1425–1444.
Berger, J., 2014. Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: a review and
directions for future research. J. Consum. Psychol. 24, 586–607.
Bohner, G., et al., 2003. When small means comfortable: relations between product
attributes in two-sided advertising. J. Consum. Psychol. 13 (4), 454–463.
Bollinger, B., Gillingham, K., 2012. Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic
panels. Mark. Sci. 31 (6), 900–912.
Bollinger, B., Gillingham, K., Lamp, S., Tsvetanov, T., 2019. Promotional Campaign
Duration and Word-of-Mouth in Durable Good Adoption. NYU Stern School of
Business, SSRN.
Boudet, N.M., Ardoin, J., Flora, K.C., Armel, M., Desai, T.N., 2016. Robinson, effects of a
behaviour change intervention for girl scouts on child and parent energy-saving
behaviours. Nat. Energy 1, 16091.
Burkitt, I., 2014. Emotions and Social Relations. SAGE.
Burningham, K., Venn, S., 2017. Are lifecourse transitions opportunities for moving to
more sustainable consumption? J. Consum. Cult. 20, 102–121.
Carlsen, H.B., Toubl, J., Brincker, B., 2020. On solidarity and volunteering during the
COVID-19 crisis in Denmark: the impact of social networks and social media groups
on the distribution of support. Eur. Soc. 23, 122–140.
Chen, B., Xie, W., Huang, F., et al., 2020. Energy-saving and pricing decisions in a
sustainable supply chain considering behavioral concerns. PLoS One 15 (8),
e0236354.
Crossley, N., 2010. Towards Relational Sociology. Routledge.
Cui, Y., Li, J., Zhang, Y., et al., 2022. The impacts of game experience and fanwork
creation on game loyalty: mediation effect of perceived value. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Chang. 176.
Darby, S., 2010. Smart metering: what potential for householder engagement? Build.
Res. Inf. 38, 442–457.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B., Grewal, D., 1991. Effects of price, brand, and store
information on buyers’ product evaluations. J. Mark. Res. 28 (3), 307–319.
Donald, I.J., Cooper, S.R., Conchie, S.M., 2014. An extended theory of planned behavior
model of the psychological factors affecting commuters’ transport mode use.
J. Environ. Psychol. 40, 39–48.
Dong, X., Zhang, B., Wang, B., et al., 2020. Urban households’ purchase intentions for
pure electric vehicles under subsidy contexts in China: do cost factors matter?
Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 135, 183–197.
11
Energy Economics 118 (2023) 106515
Duesenberry, J.S., 1949. Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior. Harvard
University Press.
Eric, W.K. See-To, Kevin, K.W. Ho, 2014. Value co-creation and purchase intention in
social network sites: the role of electronic word-of-mouth and trust-a theoretical
analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 31, 182–189.
Festinger, L.A., 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7 (2),
117–140.
Fronczak, A., Mrowinski, M.J., Fronczak, P., 2022. Scientific success from the perspective
of the strength of weak ties. Sci. Rep. 12, 5074.
Granovetter, M., 1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78 (6), 1360–1380.
Granovetter, M., 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of
embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 91 (3), 481–510.
Guo, M., Yang, N., Wang, J., et al., 2021. How do structural holes promote network
expansion? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 173.
Handgraaf, M.J.J., et al., 2013. Public praise vs. private pay: effects of rewards on energy
conservation in the workplace. Ecol. Econ. 86, 86–92.
Hargreaves, T., Middlemiss, L., 2020. The importance of social relations in shaping
energy demand. Nat. Energy 5 (3), 195–201.
He, X., Hu, Y., 2021. Understanding the role of emotions in consumer adoption of electric
vehicles: the mediating effect of perceived value. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 18, 1–21.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43 (1),
115–135.
Hess, D.J., 2014. Smart meters and public acceptance: comparative analysis and
governance implications. Health Risk Soc. 16, 243–258.
Hogg, M.A., 2016. Social identity theory. In: McKeown, S., Haji, R., Ferguson, N. (Eds.),
Understanding Peace and Conflict through Social Identity Theory. Peace Psychology
Book Series, Springer, Cham.
Hoppe, T., 2012. Adoption of innovative energy systems in social housing: lessons from
eight large-scale renovation projects in Te Netherlands. Energy Policy 51, 791–801.
Inhoffen, J., Siemroth, C., Zahn, P., 2019. Minimum prices and social interactions:
evidence from the German renewable energy program. Energy Econ. 78 (FEB),
350–364.
James, L.R., Brett, J.M., 1984. Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. J. Appl.
Psychol. 2, 307–321.
Jamieson, L., 2016. Families, relationships and environment: (un)sustainability, climate
change and biodiversity loss. Fam. Relatsh. Soc. 5, 335–355.
Kahneman, D., 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.
Keller, R.R., Mckean, J.R., Peterson, R.D., 1982. Preference and value formation: a
convergence of enlightened orthodox and institutional analysis? J. Econ. Issues 16
(4), 941–954.
Klöckner, C.A., 2014. The dynamics of purchasing an electric vehicle–a prospective
longitudinal study of the decision-making process. Transport. Res. F: Traffic Psychol.
Behav. 24, 103–116.
Klöckner, C.A., Nayum, A., 2016. Specific barriers and drivers in different stages of
decision-making about energy efficiency upgrades in private homes. Front. Psychol.
7, 1362.
Kraf-Todd, G.T., Bollinger, B., Gillingham, K., et al., 2018. Credibility-enhancing displays
promote the provision of non-normative public goods. Nature 563, 245–248.
Kumkale, G.T., Albarracín, D., Seignourel, P.J., 2010. The effects of source credibility in
the presence or absence of prior attitudes: implications for the design of persuasive
communication campaigns. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 40 (6), 1325–1356.
Lane, B.W., et al., 2018. All plug-in electric vehicles are not the same: predictors of
preference for a plug-in hybrid versus a battery-electric vehicle. Transp. Res. D.
Transp. Environ. 65, 1–13.
Lechner, C., Frankenberger, K., Floyd, S.W., 2010. Task contingencies in the curvilinear
relationships between intergroup networks and initiative performance. Acad.
Manag. J. 53, 865–889.
Leibenstein, H., 1950. Bandwagon, snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of consumers’
demand. Q. J. Econ. 64 (2), 183–207.
Luo, X., Xi, L., 2012. On the opinion leader of customer word-of-mouth communication
network based on the social network analysis approach. Manag. Rev. 24 (1), 75–81.
Manski, C.F., 2000. Economic analysis of social interactions. J. Econ. Perspect. 14 (3),
115–136.
Mehrabian, A., Russell, J.A., 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. MIT
Press, Cambridge.
Neumann, J.V., Morgenstern, O., 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Nicholls, L., Strengers, Y., 2015. Peak demand and the ‘family peak’ period in Australia:
understanding practice (in) flexibility in households with children. Energy Res. Soc.
Sci. 9, 116–124.
Nolan, J.M., et al., 2008. Normative social influence is underdetected. Personal. Soc.
Psychol. Bull. 34 (7), 913–923.
Osei-Frimpong, K., McLean, G., 2018. Examining online social brand engagement: a
social presence theory perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 128, 10–21.
Osgood, C.E., Tannenbaum, P.H., 1955. The principle of congruity in the prediction of
attitude change. Psychol. Rev. 62 (1), 42–55.
Ou, X.C., Pavlou, P.A., Davison, R.M., 2014. Swift guanxi in online marketplaces: the role
of computer-mediated communication technologies. MIS Q. 38 (1), 209–230.
Outcault, S., Sanguinetti, A., Pritoni, M., 2018. Using social dynamics to explain uptake
in energy saving measures: lessons from space conditioning interventions in Japan
and California. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45, 276–286.
Palm, A., 2017. Peer effects in residential solar photovoltaics adoption—a mixed
methods study of Swedish users. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 26, 1–10.
Park, E., Kwon, S.J., 2017. What motivations drive sustainable energy-saving behavior?
An examination in South Korea. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 79 (11), 494–502.
H. Li et al.
Parker, P., Rowlands, I.H., Scott, D., 2003. Innovations to reduce residential energy use
and carbon emissions: an integrated approach[J]. Canad. Geogr./Le Géographe
canadien 47 (2), 169–184.
Powells, G., Bulkeley, H., Bell, S., Judson, E., 2014. Peak electricity demand and the
flexibility of everyday life. Geoforum 55, 43–52.
Rai, V., Robinson, S.A., 2013. Effective information channels for reducing costs of
environmentally friendly technologies: evidence from residential PV markets.
Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (1), 014044.
Ren, H., Huang, T., 2018. Modeling customer bounded rationality in operations
management: a review and research opportunities. Comput. Oper. Res. 91, 48–58.
Rosenow, J., Eyre, N., 2016. A postmortem of the green deal: austerity, energy efficiency,
and failure in British energy policy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 21, 141–144.
Sánchez, C.G., De-Pablos-Heredero, C., Medina-Merodio, J.A., et al., 2021. Relationships
among relational coordination dimensions: impact on the quality of education online
with a structural equations model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 166 (1), 120608.
Savelli, I., Morstyn, T., 2021. Better together: harnessing social relationships in smart
energy communities. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 78 (3–4), 102125.
Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., Griskevicius, V., 2007. The
constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18,
429–434.
Schwartz, S.H., 1977. Normative influences on altruism. In: Berkowitz, L. (Ed.),
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, San Diego,
pp. 221–279.
Simon, H.A., 1977. The New Science of Management Decision. Prentice Hall PTR.
Sintov, N.D., White, L.V., Walpole, H., 2019. Thermostat wars? The roles of gender and
thermal comfort negotiations in household energy use behavior. PLoS One 14 (11),
e0224198.
Sovacool, B.K., Kivimaa, P., Hielscher, S., Jenkins, K.E.H., 2017. Vulnerability and
resistance in the United Kingdom’s smart meter transition. Energy Policy 109,
767–781.
Stern, P.C., et al., 2016. Opportunities and insights for reducing fossil fuel consumption
by households and organizations. Nat. Energy 1, 16043.
Stiff, J.B., Mongeau, P.A., 2016. Persuasive communication. Guilford Press, New York.
Stoll, P., Brandt, N., Nordström, L., 2014. Including dynamic CO2 intensity with demand
response. Energy Policy 65, 490–500.
Sun, Y., Wang, Z., Zhang, B., et al., 2020. Residents’ sentiments towards electricity price
policy: evidence from text mining in social media. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 160,
104903.
Sun, S., Zhang, J., Zhu, Y., et al., 2022. Exploring users’ willingness to disclose personal
information in online healthcare communities: the role of satisfaction. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 178.
Sussman, R., et al., 2013. The effectiveness of models and prompts on waste diversion: a
field experiment on composting by cafeteria patrons. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 43,
24–34.
12
Energy Economics 118 (2023) 106515
Truelove, H.B., Gillis, A.G., 2018. Perception of pro-environmental behavior. Glob.
Environ. Chang. 49, 175–185.
Turner, J.B., Turner, R.J., 2013. Social Relations, Social Integration, and Social Support.
Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 341–356.
Van Raaij, W.F., Verhallen, T.M.M., 1983. A behavioral model of residential energy use.
J. Econ. Psychol. 3, 39–63.
Veblen, T., 1899. The Theory of the Leisure Class. Macmillan, George Allen and Unwin,
London.
Wade, F., Shipworth, M., Hitchings, R., 2016. Influencing the central heating
technologies installed in homes: the role of social capital in supply chain networks.
Energy Policy 95, 52–60.
Wang, J., Liu, B., Tao, H., 2007. Evolution of entrepreneur social networks in industrial
clusters. Sci. Sci. Manag. S.&.T. 28 (4), 169–174.
Wang, J.Q., Long, R.Y., Chen, H., et al., 2022. How do parents and children promote each
other? The impact of intergenerational learning on willingness to save energy.
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 87, 102465.
Wilde, M.D., 2019. The sustainable housing question: on the role of interpersonal,
impersonal and professional trust in low-carbon retrofit decisions by homeowners.
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 51, 138–147.
Wolske, K.S., Gillingham, K.T., Schultz, P., 2020. Peer influence on household energy
behaviours. Nat. Energy 5 (3), 202–212.
Woodruff, R.B., 1997. Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage.
J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 25 (2), 139–153.
Wu, C., Yao, H., Ning, X., et al., 2021. Emergence of informal safety leadership: a
social–cognitive process for accident prevention. Prod. Oper. Manag. 30 (11),
4288–4305.
Yang, T., Zhao, W., Zhou, M., 2018. The impact of network size on access to
entrepreneurial resources: moderating role of entrepreneurs’ previous experience.
Sci. Technol. Progr. Pol. 35 (2), 1–9.
Yang, S.X., Nie, T., Li, C.C., et al., 2022. Research on the contribution of regional energy
internet emission reduction considering time-of-use tariff. Energy 239, 122170.
Yin, J., Shi, S., 2021. Social interaction and the formation of residents’ low-carbon
consumption behaviors: an embeddedness perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 164
(1), 105116.
Zeithaml, V.A., 1988. Consumer perception of price, quality and value: a means-end
model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 52 (3), 2–22.
Zhang, W., Yang, X., Wang, Q., et al., 2015. Investigation on the factors determining
consumers’ use of online intermediated shopping (OIS): a behavioral intention
perspective. J. Organiz. End User Comp. (JOEUC) 27 (1), 77–97.
Zheng, J.J., Zhang, B., Cheng, Y., et al., 2019. Group choice behavior in green travel
based on scale-free network. Chin. J. Manag. Sci. 27 (10), 198–208.