Psychological and contextual determinants of clean energy technology adoption
Ivanova, D. et al. Environmental impact assessment of household consumption. J. Ind. Ecol. 20, 526–536 (2016).
Google Scholar
Ivanova, D. et al. Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 093001 (2020).
Google Scholar
Creutzig, F. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Ch. 5 (eds. Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
International Energy Agency. World energy outlook 2024 (IEA, 2024).
Côté, E. & Pons-Seres de Brauwer, C. Preferences of homeowners for heat-pump leasing: evidence from a choice experiment in France, Germany, and Switzerland. Energy Policy 183, 113779 (2023).
Google Scholar
Wolske, K. S., Todd-Blick, A. & Tome, E. Increasing the reach of low-income energy programmes through behaviourally informed peer referral. Nat. Energy 8, 850–858 (2023).
Google Scholar
International Energy Agency. Technology and innovation pathways for zero-carbon-ready buildings by 2030 (IEA, 2022).
Rosenow, J., Gibb, D., Nowak, T. & Lowes, R. Heating up the global heat pump market. Nat. Energy 7, 901–904 (2022).
Google Scholar
International Energy Agency. Global EV outlook 2024 (IEA, 2024).
Burgess, M. G. et al. Supply, demand and polarization challenges facing US climate policies. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 134–142 (2024).
Google Scholar
McCollum, D. L. et al. Improving the behavioral realism of global integrated assessment models: an application to consumers’ vehicle choices. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 55, 322–342 (2017).
Google Scholar
Chater, N. & Loewenstein, G. The i-frame and the s-frame: how focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behav. Brain Sci. 46, e147 (2023).
Google Scholar
Nielsen, K. S. et al. Realizing the full potential of behavioural science for climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 322–330 (2024).
Google Scholar
Edelenbosch, O. Y., McCollum, D. L., Pettifor, H., Wilson, C. & van Vuuren, D. P. Interactions between social learning and technological learning in electric vehicle futures. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 124004 (2018).
Google Scholar
McCollum, D. L. et al. Interaction of consumer preferences and climate policies in the global transition to low-carbon vehicles. Nat. Energy 3, 664–673 (2018).
Google Scholar
Steg, L. & Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 309–317 (2009).
Google Scholar
van Valkengoed, A. M., Abrahamse, W. & Steg, L. To select effective interventions for pro-environmental behaviour change, we need to consider determinants of behaviour. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1482–1492 (2022).
Google Scholar
Stern, P. C. A reexamination on how behavioral interventions can promote household action to limit climate change. Nat. Commun. 11, 918 (2020).
Google Scholar
Gravert, C. & Shreedhar, G. Effective carbon taxes need green nudges. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 1073–1074 (2022).
Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) 3–48 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
Lagomarsino, M., Kam, M., van der, Azad, Z. R., Parra, D. & Hahnel, U. J. J. Co-adoption pathways toward a low-carbon energy system. iScience 26, 107815 (2023).
Google Scholar
Pasaoglu, G., Honselaar, M. & Thiel, C. Potential vehicle fleet CO2 reductions and cost implications for various vehicle technology deployment scenarios in Europe. Energy Policy 40, 404–421 (2012).
Google Scholar
Davis, L. W. The economic determinants of heat pump adoption. Environ. Energy Policy Econ. 5, 162–199 (2024).
Friedman, M. & Savage, L. J. The utility analysis of choices involving risk. J. Polit. Econ. 56, 279–304 (1948).
Google Scholar
Von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior 2nd edn (Princeton Univ. Press, 1947).
Keppo, I. et al. Exploring the possibility space: taking stock of the diverse capabilities and gaps in integrated assessment models. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 053006 (2021).
Google Scholar
Exadaktylos, F. & van den Bergh, J. Energy-related behaviour and rebound when rationality, self-interest and willpower are limited. Nat. Energy 6, 1104–1113 (2021). A review and overview of how psychological factors and related psychological interventions can affect clean energy technology adoption, usage and expenditure of monetary savings after adoption.
Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, D. M. & Kelso, E. Information processing as a paradigm for decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 277–294 (2015).
Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. in Utility and Probability (eds Eatwell, J., Milgate, M. & Newman, P.) 15–18 (Palgrave Macmillan, 1990).
Kahneman, D. Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 93, 1449–1475 (2003).
Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. & Gaissmaier, W. Heuristic decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62, 451–482 (2011).
Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124–1131 (1974).
Google Scholar
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. & Johnson, S. M. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 13, 1–17 (2000).
Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. & Bolsen, T. Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. J. Commun. 61, 659–688 (2011).
Google Scholar
Gillingham, K. & Palmer, K. Bridging the energy efficiency gap: policy insights from economic theory and empirical evidence. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 8, 18–38 (2014).
Google Scholar
Burlinson, A., Giulietti, M. & Battisti, G. Technology adoption, consumer inattention and heuristic decision-making: evidence from a UK district heating scheme. Res. Policy 47, 1873–1886 (2018).
Google Scholar
Mahmoodi, J., Hille, S., Patel, M. K. & Brosch, T. Using rewards and penalties to promote sustainability: who chooses incentive‐based electricity products and why? J. Consum. Behav. 20, 381–398 (2021).
Google Scholar
Schleich, J., Gassmann, X., Meissner, T. & Faure, C. A large-scale test of the effects of time discounting, risk aversion, loss aversion, and present bias on household adoption of energy-efficient technologies. Energy Econ. 80, 377–393 (2019).
Google Scholar
Greene, D. L. Uncertainty, loss aversion, and markets for energy efficiency. Energy Econ. 33, 608–616 (2011).
Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–292 (1979).
Google Scholar
Bär, D., Feuerriegel, S., Li, T. & Weinmann, M. Message framing to promote solar panels. Nat. Commun. 14, 7187 (2023). A large-scale field study with an online retailer in the Netherlands examining how different message-framing strategies affect customers’ commitment to adopting solar panels, finding that framing the decision in terms of cost savings is most effective.
Google Scholar
Neumann, O., Gonin, A., Pfalzgraf, M. & Patt, A. Governments can nudge household solar energy adoption: evidence from a field experiment in Switzerland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 105, 103293 (2023).
Google Scholar
Heutel, G. Prospect theory and energy efficiency. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 96, 236–254 (2019).
Google Scholar
Knobloch, F., Huijbregts, M. A. J. & Mercure, J.-F. Modelling the effectiveness of climate policies: how important is loss aversion by consumers? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 116, 109419 (2019).
Google Scholar
Turrentine, T. S. & Kurani, K. S. Car buyers and fuel economy? Energy Policy 35, 1213–1223 (2007).
Google Scholar
Andor, M. A., Gerster, A., Gillingham, K. T. & Horvath, M. Running a car costs much more than people think — stalling the uptake of green travel. Nature 580, 453–455 (2020).
Google Scholar
DellaValle, N. & Zubaryeva, A. Can we hope for a collective shift in electric vehicle adoption? Testing salience and norm-based interventions in South Tyrol, Italy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 55, 46–61 (2019).
Google Scholar
De Groote, O. & Verboven, F. Subsidies and time discounting in new technology adoption: evidence from solar photovoltaic systems. Am. Econ. Rev. 109, 2137–2172 (2019).
Google Scholar
Wu, T., Shang, Z., Tian, X. & Wang, S. How hyperbolic discounting preference affects Chinese consumers’ consumption choice between conventional and electric vehicles. Energy Policy 97, 400–413 (2016).
Google Scholar
Wu, H., Ge, Y. & Li, J. Uncertainty, time preference and households’ adoption of rooftop photovoltaic technology. Energy 276, 127468 (2023).
Google Scholar
Colasante, A., D’Adamo, I. & Morone, P. What drives the solar energy transition? The effect of policies, incentives and behavior in a cross-country comparison. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 85, 102405 (2022).
Google Scholar
Hafner, R. J., Elmes, D. & Read, D. Promoting behavioural change to reduce thermal energy demand in households: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 102, 205–214 (2019).
Google Scholar
Allcott, H. & Wozny, N. Gasoline prices, fuel economy, and the energy paradox. Rev. Econ. Stat. 96, 779–795 (2014).
Google Scholar
Allcott, H. Consumers’ perceptions and misperceptions of energy costs. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 98–104 (2011).
Google Scholar
Bushnell, J. B., Muehlegger, E. & Rapson, D. S. Energy prices and electric vehicle adoption. NBER (2022).
Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J. J. & Brosch, T. Counteracting electric vehicle range concern with a scalable behavioural intervention. Nat. Energy 7, 503–510 (2022). Experimental study demonstrating the mechanisms of how misperceptions of EV characteristics hinder adoption and how tailored informational interventions can effectively target misperceptions.
Google Scholar
Needell, Z. A., McNerney, J., Chang, M. T. & Trancik, J. E. Potential for widespread electrification of personal vehicle travel in the United States. Nat. Energy 1, 1–7 (2016).
Google Scholar
Hu, X., Zhou, R., Wang, S., Gao, L. & Zhu, Z. Consumers’ value perception and intention to purchase electric vehicles: a benefit–risk analysis. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 49, 101004 (2023).
Bretter, C. et al. Mapping, understanding and reducing belief in misinformation about electric vehicles. Nat. Energy (2025).
Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P. & Kassam, K. S. Emotion and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 799–823 (2015).
Google Scholar
Lerner, J. S. & Keltner, D. Beyond valence: toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cogn. Emot. 14, 473–493 (2000).
Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S. in Risk Evaluation and Management (eds Covello, V. T., Menkes, J. & Mumpower, J.) 3–24 (Springer, 1986).
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. & Welch, N. Risk as feelings. Psychol. Bull. 127, 267–286 (2001).
Google Scholar
He, X. & Hu, Y. Understanding the role of emotions in consumer adoption of electric vehicles: the mediating effect of perceived value. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 65, 84–104 (2022).
Google Scholar
He, Z. et al. Influence of emotion on purchase intention of electric vehicles: a comparative study of consumers with different income levels. Curr. Psychol. 42, 21704–21719 (2023).
Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L. & Thaler, R. H. Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J. Econ. Perspect. 5, 193–206 (1991).
Google Scholar
Kim, J., Seung, H., Lee, J. & Ahn, J. Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: the reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions. Energy Econ. 86, 104666 (2020).
Google Scholar
Schuitema, G., Steg, L. & Forward, S. Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 44, 99–109 (2010).
Google Scholar
Blasch, J. & Daminato, C. Behavioral anomalies and energy-related individual choices: the role of status-quo bias. Energy J. 41, 181–214 (2020).
Google Scholar
Frederiks, E. R., Stenner, K. & Hobman, E. V. Household energy use: applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41, 1385–1394 (2015).
Google Scholar
Lillemo, S. C., Alfnes, F., Halvorsen, B. & Wik, M. Households’ heating investments: the effect of motives and attitudes on choice of equipment. Biomass Bioenergy 57, 4–12 (2013).
Google Scholar
Skippon, S. M., Kinnear, N., Lloyd, L. & Stannard, J. How experience of use influences mass-market drivers’ willingness to consider a battery electric vehicle: a randomised controlled trial. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 92, 26–42 (2016).
Google Scholar
Jensen, A. F., Cherchi, E. & Mabit, S. L. On the stability of preferences and attitudes before and after experiencing an electric vehicle. Transp. Res. Part A Transp. Environ. 25, 24–32 (2013).
Google Scholar
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. in Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change (eds Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T.) 1–24 (Springer, 1986).
Sallee, J. M. Rational inattention and energy efficiency. J. Law Econ. 57, 781–820 (2014).
Google Scholar
Stern, P. C. & Dietz, T. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues 50, 65–84 (1994).
Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. & McGrath, M. C. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 111–119 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins‐Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147–174 (2011).
Google Scholar
Baierl, T.-M., Kaiser, F. G. & Bogner, F. X. The supportive role of environmental attitude for learning about environmental issues. J. Environ. Psychol. 81, 101799 (2022).
Google Scholar
Frings, N. L., Helm, J. F. & Hahnel, U. J. J. The energy crisis differentially impacted Swiss and German citizens’ energy literacy and efficiency preferences but not their support for climate policies. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 544 (2024).
Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 25 (ed. Zanna, M. P.) 1–65 (Academic, 1992).
Steg, L. & de Groot, J. I. M. in The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology Ch. 5 (ed. Clayton, S. D.) 81–92 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).
Steg, L. Psychology of climate change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 74, 391–421 (2023).
Google Scholar
Higueras-Castillo, E., Singh, V., Singh, V. & Liébana-Cabanillas, F. Factors affecting adoption intention of electric vehicle: a cross-cultural study. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 26, 29293–29329 (2023).
Google Scholar
Poier, S., Nikodemska-Wołowik, A. M. & Suchanek, M. How higher-order personal values affect the purchase of electricity storage — evidence from the German photovoltaic market. J. Consum. Behav. 21, 909–926 (2022).
Google Scholar
Corbett, M., Rhodes, E., Pardy, A. & Long, Z. Pumping up adoption: the role of policy awareness in explaining willingness to adopt heat pumps in Canada. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 96, 102926 (2023).
Google Scholar
Wolske, K. S., Stern, P. C. & Dietz, T. Explaining interest in adopting residential solar photovoltaic systems in the United States: toward an integration of behavioral theories. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 25, 134–151 (2017).
Google Scholar
Legault, L., Bird, S. & Heintzelman, M. D. Pro-environmental, prosocial, pro-self, or does it depend? A more nuanced understanding of the motivations underlying residential solar panel adoption. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 111, 103481 (2024).
Google Scholar
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A. & Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6, 81–97 (1999).
Lee, S. S., Kim, Y. & Roh, T. Pro-environmental behavior on electric vehicle use intention: integrating value-belief-norm theory and theory of planned behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 418, 103481 (2023).
Google Scholar
Bockarjova, M. & Steg, L. Can protection motivation theory predict pro-environmental behavior? Explaining the adoption of electric vehicles in the Netherlands. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 276–288 (2014).
Google Scholar
Van Der Werff, E., Steg, L. & Keizer, K. The value of environmental self-identity: the relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 55–63 (2013).
Google Scholar
McCarthy, B. & Liu, H. It starts at home: non-economic factors influencing consumer acceptance of battery storage in Australia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 31, 57129–57145 (2024).
Google Scholar
Neves, J. & Oliveira, T. Understanding energy-efficient heating appliance behavior change: the moderating impact of the green self-identity. Energy 225, 120169 (2021).
Google Scholar
Barbarossa, C., De Pelsmacker, P. & Moons, I. Personal values, green self-identity and electric car adoption. Ecol. Econ. 140, 190–200 (2017).
Google Scholar
Badole, S. B., Bird, S., Heintzelman, M. D. & Legault, L. Willingness to pay for solar adoption: economic, ideological, motivational, and demographic factors. Energy Econ. 136, 107703 (2024).
Google Scholar
Dokshin, F. A. & Gherghina, M. Party affiliation predicts homeowners’ decisions to install solar PV, but partisan gap wanes with improved economics of solar. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2303519121 (2024).
Google Scholar
Mildenberger, M., Howe, P. D. & Miljanich, C. Households with solar installations are ideologically diverse and more politically active than their neighbours. Nat. Energy 4, 1033–1039 (2019). A study linking satellite images and voting data showing that residential PV adopters cover the political spectrum from republicans to democrats.
Google Scholar
Chuang, F., Manley, E. & Petersen, A. The role of worldviews in the governance of sustainable mobility. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 4034–4042 (2020).
Google Scholar
Priessner, A., Sposato, R. & Hampl, N. Predictors of electric vehicle adoption: an analysis of potential electric vehicle drivers in Austria. Energy Policy 122, 701–714 (2018).
Google Scholar
Hazboun, S., Stelmach, G. & Cox, P. M. Who will ‘go electric’? American homeowners’ perceptions of home energy sources and home electrification. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 113, 103575 (2024).
Google Scholar
Driscoll, D. Assessing sociodemographic predictors of climate change concern, 1994–2016. Soc. Sci. Q. 100, 1699–1708 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bergquist, M., Nilsson, A., Harring, N. & Jagers, S. C. Meta-analyses of fifteen determinants of public opinion about climate change taxes and laws. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 235–240 (2022).
Google Scholar
Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G. & Fielding, K. S. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 622–626 (2016).
Google Scholar
Hornsey, M. J. The role of worldviews in shaping how people appraise climate change. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42, 36–41 (2021).
Google Scholar
Stanley, S. K. & Wilson, M. S. Meta-analysing the association between social dominance orientation, authoritarianism, and attitudes on the environment and climate change. J. Environ. Psychol. 61, 46–56 (2019).
Google Scholar
Winter, K., Hornsey, M. J., Pummerer, L. & Sassenberg, K. Public agreement with misinformation about wind farms. Nat. Commun. 15, 8888 (2024).
Google Scholar
Winter, K., Hornsey, M. J., Pummerer, L. & Sassenberg, K. Anticipating and defusing the role of conspiracy beliefs in shaping opposition to wind farms. Nat. Energy 7, 1200–1207 (2022).
Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (eds Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S.) 33–47 (Brooks/Cole, 1979).
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R. & Kallgren, C. A. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 1015–1026 (1990).
Google Scholar
Wolske, K. S., Gillingham, K. T. & Schultz, P. W. Peer influence on household energy behaviours. Nat. Energy 5, 202–212 (2020). A review of the effects and mechanisms of social influence in the domain of household energy behaviour.
Google Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M. & Van den Bergh, B. Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98, 392–404 (2010).
Google Scholar
Korcaj, L., Hahnel, U. J. J. & Spada, H. Intentions to adopt photovoltaic systems depend on homeowners’ expected personal gains and behavior of peers. Renew. Energy 75, 407–415 (2015).
Google Scholar
Pettifor, H., Wilson, C., Axsen, J., Abrahamse, W. & Anable, J. Social influence in the global diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles — a meta-analysis. J. Transp. Geogr. 62, 247–261 (2017).
Google Scholar
Axsen, J., Orlebar, C. & Skippon, S. Social influence and consumer preference formation for pro-environmental technology: the case of a U.K. workplace electric-vehicle study. Ecol. Econ. 95, 96–107 (2013).
Google Scholar
Bollinger, B. & Gillingham, K. Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Mark. Sci. 31, 900–912 (2012). A study using real longitudinal PV adoption data that shows causal peer effects on technology adoption.
Google Scholar
Rode, J. & Weber, A. Does localized imitation drive technology adoption? A case study on rooftop photovoltaic systems in Germany. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 78, 38–48 (2016).
Google Scholar
Heutel, G. & Muehlegger, E. Consumer learning and hybrid vehicle adoption. Environ. Resour. Econ. 62, 125–161 (2015).
Google Scholar
Zhu, X. & Liu, C. Investigating the neighborhood effect on hybrid vehicle adoption. Transp. Res. Rec. 2385, 37–44 (2013).
Google Scholar
McShane, B. B., Bradlow, E. T. & Berger, J. Visual influence and social groups. J. Mark. Res. 49, 854–871 (2012).
Google Scholar
Bollinger, B., Gillingham, K. T. & Ovaere, M. Field experimental evidence shows that self-interest attracts more sunlight. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 20503–20510 (2020).
Google Scholar
Rode, J. & Müller, S. I spot, I adopt! Peer effects and visibility in solar photovoltaic system adoption of households. In Annu. Conf. Vereins Socialpolitik (Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, 2020).
Sparkman, G. & Walton, G. M. Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1663–1674 (2017).
Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J., Gavrilets, S. & Nunn, N. Norm dynamics: interdisciplinary perspectives on social norm emergence, persistence, and change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 75, 341–378 (2024).
Google Scholar
Noppers, E., Keizer, K., Milovanovic, M. & Steg, L. The role of adoption norms and perceived product attributes in the adoption of Dutch electric vehicles and smart energy systems. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 57, 101237 (2019).
Google Scholar
Palm, A. Peer effects in residential solar photovoltaics adoption — a mixed methods study of Swedish users. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 26, 1–10 (2017).
Google Scholar
Rai, V. & Robinson, S. A. Effective information channels for reducing costs of environmentally-friendly technologies: evidence from residential PV markets. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 014044 (2013).
Google Scholar
Yang, J. & Chen, F. How are social-psychological factors related to consumer preferences for plug-in electric vehicles? Case studies from two cities in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 149, 111325 (2021).
Google Scholar
Herziger, A. & Sintov, N. D. Give it a Try! How electric vehicle test drives influence symbolism perceptions and adoption intent. J. Environ. Psychol. 85, 101907 (2023).
Google Scholar
Sintov, N. D., Abou-Ghalioum, V. & White, L. V. The partisan politics of low-carbon transport: why democrats are more likely to adopt electric vehicles than Republicans in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 68, 101576 (2020).
Google Scholar
Uren, H. V., Roberts, L. D., Dzidic, P. L. & Leviston, Z. High-status pro-environmental behaviors: costly, effortful, and visible. Environ. Behav. 53, 455–484 (2021).
Google Scholar
Carattini, S., Gillingham, K., Meng, X. & Yoeli, E. Peer-to-peer solar and social rewards: evidence from a field experiment. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 219, 340–370 (2024).
Google Scholar
Bollinger, B., Gillingham, K., Kirkpatrick, A. J. & Sexton, S. Visibility and peer influence in durable good adoption. Mark. Sci. 41, 453–476 (2022).
Google Scholar
Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211 (1991).
Google Scholar
Soltani-Sobh, A., Heaslip, K., Stevanovic, A., Bosworth, R. & Radivojevic, D. Analysis of the electric vehicles adoption over the United States. Transp. Res. Proc. 22, 203–212 (2017).
Corradi, C., Sica, E. & Morone, P. What drives electric vehicle adoption? Insights from a systematic review on European transport actors and behaviours. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 95, 102908 (2023).
Google Scholar
O’Shaughnessy, E., Barbose, G., Wiser, R., Forrester, S. & Darghouth, N. The impact of policies and business models on income equity in rooftop solar adoption. Nat. Energy 6, 84–91 (2021).
Google Scholar
Stewart, F. Friends with benefits: how income and peer diffusion combine to create an inequality ‘trap’ in the uptake of low-carbon technologies. Energy Policy 163, 112832 (2022).
Google Scholar
Andrew, K., Pardy, A. & Rhodes, E. The landscape of heat pump adoption in Canada: a market segments approach. Front. Energy Effic. 2, 1376070 (2024).
Google Scholar
Min, Y. & Mayfield, E. Rooftop solar, electric vehicle, and heat pump adoption in rural areas in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 105, 103292 (2023).
Google Scholar
Westin, K., Jansson, J. & Nordlund, A. The importance of socio-demographic characteristics, geographic setting, and attitudes for adoption of electric vehicles in Sweden. Travel. Behav. Soc. 13, 118–127 (2018).
Google Scholar
Alipour, M., Salim, H., Stewart, R. A. & Sahin, O. Predictors, taxonomy of predictors, and correlations of predictors with the decision behaviour of residential solar photovoltaics adoption: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 123, 109749 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hajhashemi, E., Sauri Lavieri, P. & Nassir, N. Modelling interest in co-adoption of electric vehicles and solar photovoltaics in Australia to identify tailored policy needs. Sci. Rep. 14, 9422 (2024).
Google Scholar
Spurlock, C. A. et al. Describing the users: understanding adoption of and interest in shared, electrified, and automated transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 71, 283–301 (2019).
Google Scholar
Wang, Y. et al. How family structure type affects household energy consumption: a heterogeneous study based on Chinese household evidence. Energy 284, 129313 (2023).
Google Scholar
Plötz, P., Schneider, U., Globisch, J. & Dütschke, E. Who will buy electric vehicles? Identifying early adopters in Germany. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 67, 96–109 (2014).
Google Scholar
Nayum, A., Klöckner, C. A. & Mehmetoglu, M. Comparison of socio-psychological characteristics of conventional and battery electric car buyers. Travel. Behav. Soc. 3, 8–20 (2016).
Google Scholar
Carley, S. & Konisky, D. M. The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition. Nat. Energy 5, 569–577 (2020).
Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, C. K. B. & Kriström, B. How large is the owner–renter divide in energy efficient technology? Evidence from an OECD cross-section. Energy J. 36, 85–104 (2015).
Google Scholar
Hsu, C.-W. & Fingerman, K. Public electric vehicle charger access disparities across race and income in California. Transp. Policy 100, 59–67 (2021).
Google Scholar
Cai, D. W. H., Adlakha, S., Low, S. H., De Martini, P. & Mani Chandy, K. Impact of residential PV adoption on retail electricity rates. Energy Policy 62, 830–843 (2013).
Google Scholar
Chesser, M., Hanly, J., Cassells, D. & Apergis, N. The positive feedback cycle in the electricity market: residential solar PV adoption, electricity demand and prices. Energy Policy 122, 36–44 (2018).
Google Scholar
Ruggeri, K. et al. The globalizability of temporal discounting. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1386–1397 (2022).
Google Scholar
Grandin, A., Guillou, L., Abdel Sater, R., Foucault, M. & Chevallier, C. Socioeconomic status, time preferences and pro-environmentalism. J. Environ. Psychol. 79, 101720 (2022).
Google Scholar
Wolske, K. S. More alike than different: profiles of high-income and low-income rooftop solar adopters in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 63, 101399 (2020).
Google Scholar
Poblete-Cazenave, M. & Rao, N. D. Social and contextual determinants of heat pump adoption in the US: implications for subsidy policy design. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 104, 103255 (2023).
Google Scholar
Egnér, F. & Trosvik, L. Electric vehicle adoption in Sweden and the impact of local policy instruments. Energy Policy 121, 584–596 (2018).
Google Scholar
Wicki, M., Brückmann, G. & Bernauer, T. How to accelerate the uptake of electric cars? Insights from a choice experiment. J. Clean. Prod. 355, 131774 (2022).
Google Scholar
Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K. & Van Wee, B. The influence of financial incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Policy 68, 183–194 (2014).
Google Scholar
White, L. V., Carrel, A. L., Shi, W. & Sintov, N. D. Why are charging stations associated with electric vehicle adoption? Untangling effects in three United States metropolitan areas. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 89, 102663 (2022).
Google Scholar
Abreu, J., Wingartz, N. & Hardy, N. New trends in solar: a comparative study assessing the attitudes towards the adoption of rooftop PV. Energy Policy 128, 347–363 (2019).
Google Scholar
Yadav, P., Davies, P. J. & Khan, S. Breaking into the photovoltaic energy transition for rural and remote communities: challenging the impact of awareness norms and subsidy schemes. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 22, 817–834 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kurdgelashvili, L., Shih, C.-H., Yang, F. & Garg, M. An empirical analysis of county-level residential PV adoption in California. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 139, 321–333 (2019).
Google Scholar
Graziano, M. & Gillingham, K. Spatial patterns of solar photovoltaic system adoption: the influence of neighbors and the built environment. J. Econ. Geogr. 15, 815–839 (2015).
Google Scholar
Graziano, M., Fiaschetti, M. & Atkinson-Palombo, C. Peer effects in the adoption of solar energy technologies in the United States: an urban case study. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 48, 75–84 (2019).
Google Scholar
Singh, V., Singh, V. & Vaibhav, S. A review and simple meta-analysis of factors influencing adoption of electric vehicles. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 86, 102436 (2020).
Google Scholar
Vasseur, V. & Kemp, R. The adoption of PV in the Netherlands: a statistical analysis of adoption factors. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41, 483–494 (2015).
Google Scholar
Wolske, K. S., Todd, A., Rossol, M., McCall, J. & Sigrin, B. Accelerating demand for residential solar photovoltaics: can simple framing strategies increase consumer interest? Glob. Environ. Change 53, 68–77 (2018).
Google Scholar
Lades, L. K., Peter Clinch, J. & Kelly, J. A. Maybe tomorrow: how burdens and biases impede energy-efficiency investments. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 78, 102154 (2021).
Google Scholar
Gross, R. & Hanna, R. Path dependency in provision of domestic heating. Nat. Energy 4, 358–364 (2019).
Google Scholar
Li, X., Zhao, X., Xue, D. & Tian, Q. Impact of regional temperature on the adoption of electric vehicles: an empirical study based on 20 provinces in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 30, 11443–11457 (2023).
Google Scholar
Lamp, S. Sunspots that matter: the effect of weather on solar technology adoption. Environ. Resour. Econ. 84, 1179–1219 (2023).
Google Scholar
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H. & Dasen, P. R. Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications 2nd edn (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).
Sovacool, B. K. & Griffiths, S. Culture and low-carbon energy transitions. Nat. Sustain. 3, 685–693 (2020).
Google Scholar
Goggins, G., Rau, H., Moran, P., Fahy, F. & Goggins, J. The role of culture in advancing sustainable energy policy and practice. Energy Policy 167, 113055 (2022).
Google Scholar
Tam, K.-P. & Milfont, T. L. Towards cross-cultural environmental psychology: a state-of-the-art review and recommendations. J. Environ. Psychol. 71, 101474 (2020).
Google Scholar
Khatua, A., Ranjan Kumar, R. & Kumar De, S. Institutional enablers of electric vehicle market: evidence from 30 countries. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 170, 103612 (2023).
Google Scholar
Novotny, A., Szeberin, I., Kovács, S. & Máté, D. National culture and the market development of battery electric vehicles in 21 countries. Energies 15, 1539 (2022).
Google Scholar
Ang, J. B., Fredriksson, P. G. & Sharma, S. Individualism and the adoption of clean energy technology. Resour. Energy Econ. 61, 101180 (2020).
Google Scholar
Song, M. R., Chu, W. & Im, M. The effect of cultural and psychological characteristics on the purchase behavior and satisfaction of electric vehicles: a comparative study of US and China. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 46, 345–364 (2022).
Google Scholar
Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J. & Bodin, J. Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption research: a review and research agenda. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 34, 122–136 (2015).
Google Scholar
Sovacool, B. K., D’Agostino, A. L. & Jain Bambawale, M. The socio-technical barriers to solar home systems (SHS) in Papua New Guinea: ‘Choosing pigs, prostitutes, and poker chips over panels’. Energy Policy 39, 1532–1542 (2011).
Google Scholar
Urmee, T. & Harries, D. Determinants of the success and sustainability of Bangladesh’s SHS program. Renew. Energy 36, 2822–2830 (2011).
Google Scholar
Mondal, A. H. & Klein, D. Impacts of solar home systems on social development in rural Bangladesh. Energy Sustain. Dev. 15, 17–20 (2011).
Google Scholar
Kumar, S., Giridhar, V. & Sadarangani, P. A cross-national study of environmental performance and culture: implications of the findings and strategies. Glob. Bus. Rev. 20, 1051–1068 (2019).
Google Scholar
Lahuerta-Otero, E. & González-Bravo, M. I. Can national culture affect the implementation of common sustainable policies? A European response. Cross Cult. Res. 52, 468–495 (2018).
Google Scholar
Schaeffer, R. et al. Comparing transformation pathways across major economies. Clim. Change 162, 1787–1803 (2020).
Google Scholar
Martinopoulos, G. Are rooftop photovoltaic systems a sustainable solution for Europe? A life cycle impact assessment and cost analysis. Appl. Energy 257, 114035 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hirsch, K. C. P., Wong-Parodi, G. & Statler, A. Integrating norms into the logic of energy and environmental policymaking. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 93, 102828 (2022).
Google Scholar
Kinzig, A. P. et al. Social norms and global environmental challenges: the complex interaction of behaviors, values, and policy. Bioscience 63, 164–175 (2013).
Google Scholar
Kemp, R. & Volpi, M. The diffusion of clean technologies: a review with suggestions for future diffusion analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 103376-S21 (2008).
Google Scholar
Wicki, M., Fesenfeld, L. & Bernauer, T. In search of politically feasible policy-packages for sustainable passenger transport: insights from choice experiments in China, Germany, and the USA. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 084048 (2019).
Google Scholar
Composto, J. W. & Weber, E. U. Effectiveness of behavioural interventions to reduce household energy demand: a scoping review. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 102004 (2022).
Google Scholar
Bryan, C. J., Tipton, E. & Yeager, D. S. Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 980–989 (2021).
Google Scholar
Nisa, C. F., Bélanger, J. J., Schumpe, B. M. & Faller, D. G. Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change. Nat. Commun. 10, 4545 (2019).
Google Scholar
van der Linden, S. & Goldberg, M. H. Alternative meta-analysis of behavioral interventions to promote action on climate change yields different conclusions. Nat. Commun. 11, 3915 (2020).
Google Scholar
Bergquist, M., Nilsson, A. & Schultz, W. P. A meta-analysis of field-experiments using social norms to promote pro-environmental behaviors. Glob. Environ. Change 59, 101941 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bailey, D. H. et al. Causal inference on human behaviour. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8, 1448–1459 (2024).
Google Scholar
Eronen, M. I. Causal discovery and the problem of psychological interventions. N. Ideas Psychol. 59, 100785 (2020).
Google Scholar
List, J. A. Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling. Nature 626, 491–499 (2024).
Google Scholar
Nielsen, K. S., Van Der Linden, S. & Stern, P. C. How behavioral interventions can reduce the climate impact of energy use. Joule 4, 1613–1616 (2020).
Google Scholar
Šćepanović, S., Warnier, M. & Nurminen, J. K. The role of context in residential energy interventions: a meta review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 77, 1146–1168 (2017).
Google Scholar
Rietmann, N. & Lieven, T. How policy measures succeeded to promote electric mobility — worldwide review and outlook. J. Clean. Prod. 206, 66–75 (2019).
Google Scholar
Langbroek, J. H. M., Franklin, J. P. & Susilo, Y. O. The effect of policy incentives on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Policy 94, 94–103 (2016).
Google Scholar
Zhang, X., Bai, X. & Zhong, H. Electric vehicle adoption in license plate-controlled big cities: evidence from Beijing. J. Clean. Prod. 202, 191–196 (2018).
Google Scholar
Zhu, L., Wang, J., Farnoosh, A. & Pan, X. A game-theory analysis of electric vehicle adoption in Beijing under license plate control policy. Energy 244, 122628 (2022).
Google Scholar
Philip, T., Whitehead, J. & Prato, C. G. Adoption of electric vehicles in a laggard, car-dependent nation: investigating the potential influence of V2G and broader energy benefits on adoption. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 167, 103555 (2023).
Google Scholar
Brockway, A. M., Conde, J. & Callaway, D. Inequitable access to distributed energy resources due to grid infrastructure limits in California. Nat. Energy 6, 892–903 (2021).
Google Scholar
O’Shaughnessy, E., Barbose, G., Kannan, S. & Sumner, J. Evaluating community solar as a measure to promote equitable clean energy access. Nat. Energy 9, 955–963 (2024). A study that finds that community solar expands access to renters, multifamily housing occupants and low-income households.
Google Scholar
van der Kam, M., Lagomarsino, M., Azar, E., Hahnel, U. J. J. & Parra, D. An empirical agent-based model of consumer co-adoption of low-carbon technologies to inform energy policy. Cell Rep. Sustain. 1, 100268 (2024).
Rai, V., Reeves, D. C. & Margolis, R. Overcoming barriers and uncertainties in the adoption of residential solar PV. Renew. Energy 89, 498–505 (2016).
Google Scholar
Drury, E. et al. The transformation of southern California’s residential photovoltaics market through third-party ownership. Energy Policy 42, 681–690 (2012).
Google Scholar
Schleich, J., Tu, G., Faure, C. & Guetlein, M.-C. Would you prefer to rent rather than own your new heating system? Insights from a discrete choice experiment among owner-occupiers in the UK. Energy Policy 158, 112523 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kircher, K. J. & Zhang, K. M. Heat purchase agreements could lower barriers to heat pump adoption. Appl. Energy 286, 116489 (2021).
Google Scholar
Balcombe, P., Rigby, D. & Azapagic, A. Investigating the importance of motivations and barriers related to microgeneration uptake in the UK. Appl. Energy 130, 403–418 (2014).
Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Song, J. & Hamori, S. Impact of subsidy policies on diffusion of photovoltaic power generation. Energy Policy 39, 1958–1964 (2011).
Google Scholar
Nicolini, M. & Tavoni, M. Are renewable energy subsidies effective? Evidence from Europe. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 74, 412–423 (2017).
Google Scholar
Roberson, L. & Helveston, J. P. Not all subsidies are equal: measuring preferences for electric vehicle financial incentives. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 084003 (2022).
Google Scholar
Shen, X., Qiu, Y. L., Liu, P. & Patwardhan, A. The effect of rebate and loan incentives on residential heat pump adoption: evidence from north Carolina. Environ. Resour. Econ. 82, 741–789 (2022).
Google Scholar
Hlavinka, A. N., Mjelde, J. W., Dharmasena, S. & Holland, C. Forecasting the adoption of residential ductless heat pumps. Energy Econ. 54, 60–67 (2016).
Google Scholar
Zimny, J., Michalak, P. & Szczotka, K. Polish heat pump market between 2000 and 2013: European background, current state and development prospects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 48, 791–812 (2015).
Google Scholar
Kumar Sahu, B. A study on global solar PV energy developments and policies with special focus on the top ten solar PV power producing countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 43, 621–634 (2015).
Google Scholar
Stern, P. C. Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior. J. Consum. Policy 22, 461–478 (1999).
Google Scholar
Kunreuther, H. & Weber, E. U. Aiding decision making to reduce the impacts of climate change. J. Consum. Policy 37, 397–411 (2014).
Google Scholar
Clinton, B. C. & Steinberg, D. C. Providing the spark: impact of financial incentives on battery electric vehicle adoption. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 98, 60–70 (2019).
Hardman, S., Chandan, A., Tal, G. & Turrentine, T. The effectiveness of financial purchase incentives for battery electric vehicles — a review of the evidence. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 80, 1100–1111 (2017).
Google Scholar
Correia Sinézio Martins, E., Lépine, J. & Corbett, J. Assessing the effectiveness of financial incentives on electric vehicle adoption in Europe: multi-period difference-in-difference approach. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 189, 104217 (2024).
Google Scholar
van Valkengoed, A. M. & van der Werff, E. Are subsidies for climate action effective? Two case studies in the Netherlands. Environ. Sci. Policy 127, 137–145 (2022).
Google Scholar
Trotta, G. & Sommer, S. The effect of changing registration taxes on electric vehicle adoption in Denmark. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 185, 104117 (2024).
Google Scholar
Borenstein, S. & Davis, L. W. The distributional effects of US clean energy tax credits. Tax. Policy Econ. 30, 191–234 (2016).
Google Scholar
Borenstein, S. & Davis, L. W. The distributional effects of US tax credits for heat pumps, solar panels, and electric vehicles. Natl. Tax J. 78, 263–288 (2025).
Google Scholar
O’Shaughnessy, E. Rooftop solar incentives remain effective for low- and moderate-income adoption. Energy Policy 163, 112881 (2022).
Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 215–294 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2023).
Wolfram, P., Weber, S., Gillingham, K. & Hertwich, E. G. Pricing indirect emissions accelerates low — carbon transition of US light vehicle sector. Nat. Commun. 12, 7121 (2021).
Google Scholar
Lilliestam, J., Patt, A. & Bersalli, G. The effect of carbon pricing on technological change for full energy decarbonization: a review of empirical ex-post evidence. WIREs Clim. Change 12, e681 (2021).
Google Scholar
Godek, J. & Murray, K. B. Effects of spikes in the price of gasoline on behavioral intentions: a mental accounting explanation. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 25, 295–302 (2012).
Google Scholar
Yadav, P., Kanjilal, K., Dutta, A. & Ghosh, S. Fuel demand, carbon tax and electric vehicle adoption in India’s road transport. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 127, 104010 (2024).
Google Scholar
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M. & West, R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement. Sci. 6, 42 (2011).
Google Scholar
Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J. J. & Brosch, T. The effectiveness of nudging: a meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2107346118 (2022).
Google Scholar
Andor, M. A. & Fels, K. M. Behavioral economics and energy conservation — a systematic review of non-price interventions and their causal effects. Ecol. Econ. 148, 178–210 (2018).
Google Scholar
Priessner, A. & Hampl, N. Can product bundling increase the joint adoption of electric vehicles, solar panels and battery storage? Explorative evidence from a choice-based conjoint study in Austria. Ecol. Econ. 167, 5694–5702 (2020).
Google Scholar
Plananska, J. & Gamma, K. Product bundling for accelerating electric vehicle adoption: a mixed-method empirical analysis of Swiss customers. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 154, 111760 (2022).
Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. in Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making Vol. 4 (eds MacLean, L. C. & Ziemba, W. T.) 99–127 (World Scientific, 2013).
Bollinger, B., Darghouth, N., Gillingham, K. & Gonzalez-Lira, A. Valuing technology complementarities: rooftop solar and energy storage. NBER (2023).
Decrinis, L., Freibichler, W., Kaiser, M., Sunstein, C. R. & Reisch, L. A. Sustainable behaviour at work: how message framing encourages employees to choose electric vehicles. Bus. Strategy Environ. 32, 5650–5668 (2023).
Google Scholar
Filippini, M., Kumar, N. & Srinivasan, S. Nudging adoption of electric vehicles: evidence from an information-based intervention in Nepal. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 97, 102951 (2021).
Google Scholar
Camilleri, A. R. & Larrick, R. P. Metric and scale design as choice architecture tools. J. Public Policy Mark. 33, 108–125 (2014).
Google Scholar
Filippini, M., Kumar, N. & Srinivasan, S. The Impact of personalised digital information on the efficiency of vehicle choices in developing countries. ETH Z. (2024).
Andor, M. A., Gerster, A. & Sommer, S. Consumer inattention, heuristic thinking and the role of energy labels. Energy J. 41, 83–455 (2020).
Google Scholar
Ungemach, C., Camilleri, A. R., Johnson, E. J., Larrick, R. P. & Weber, E. U. Translated attributes as choice architecture: aligning objectives and choices through decision signposts. Manag. Sci. 64, 2445–2459 (2018).
Google Scholar
Banerjee, A. & Solomon, B. D. Eco-labeling for energy efficiency and sustainability: a meta-evaluation of US programs. Energy Policy 31, 109–123 (2003).
Google Scholar
Allcott, H. & Knittel, C. Are consumers poorly informed about fuel economy? Evidence from two experiments. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 11, 1–37 (2019).
Google Scholar
Lagomarsino, M., van der Kam, M., Parra, D. & Hahnel, U. J. J. Do I need to charge right now? Tailored choice architecture design can increase preferences for electric vehicle smart charging. Energy Policy 162, 112818 (2022).
Google Scholar
Bernardic, U., Cerruti, D., Filippini, M., Savelsberg, J. & Ugazio, G. De-biasing electric vehicle adoption with personalized nudging. ETH Z. (2024).
Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H. & Seiden, J. Red, white, and blue enough to be green: effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 65, 7–19 (2016).
Google Scholar
van den Broek, K., Bolderdijk, J. W. & Steg, L. Individual differences in values determine the relative persuasiveness of biospheric, economic and combined appeals. J. Environ. Psychol. 53, 145–156 (2017).
Google Scholar
Endrejat, P. C., Güntner, A. V., Ehrenholz, S. & Kauffeld, S. Tailored communication increases the perceived benefits of solar energy. Energy Policy 144, 111714 (2020).
Google Scholar
Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. Moral reframing: a technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 13, e12501 (2019).
Google Scholar
Hurst, K. & Stern, M. J. Messaging for environmental action: the role of moral framing and message source. J. Environ. Psychol. 68, 101394 (2020).
Google Scholar
Fielding, K. S., Hornsey, M. J., Thai, H. A. & Toh, L. L. Using ingroup messengers and ingroup values to promote climate change policy. Clim. Change 158, 181–199 (2020).
Google Scholar
Goldberg, M. H., Gustafson, A., Rosenthal, S. A. & Leiserowitz, A. Shifting Republican views on climate change through targeted advertising. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 573–577 (2021).
Google Scholar
Diamond, E. & Zhou, J. Whose policy is it anyway? Public support for clean energy policy depends on the message and the messenger. Environ. Polit. 31, 991–1015 (2022).
Google Scholar
Asensio, O. I. & Delmas, M. A. Nonprice incentives and energy conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 510–515 (2015).
Google Scholar
Bobeth, S. & Matthies, E. New opportunities for electric car adoption: the case of range myths, new forms of subsidies, and social norms. Energy Effic. 11, 1763–1782 (2018).
Google Scholar
Gillingham, K. T. & Bollinger, B. Social learning and solar photovoltaic adoption. Manag. Sci. 67, 7091–7112 (2021).
Google Scholar
Bollinger, B., Gillingham, K., Lamp, S. & Tsvetanov, T. Promotional campaign duration and word of mouth in solar panel adoption. Mark. Sci. 43, 1132–1148 (2024).
Google Scholar
Kraft-Todd, G. T., Bollinger, B., Gillingham, K., Lamp, S. & Rand, D. G. Credibility-enhancing displays promote the provision of non-normative public goods. Nature 563, 245–248 (2018). A field study of a residential solar panel installation programme in 58 Connecticut towns, which finds that community organizers who install solar panels themselves recruit 62.8% more residents than those who do not, an effect driven by people’s beliefs about the organizers’ beliefs regarding solar panels.
Google Scholar
Li, W., Long, R., Chen, H. & Geng, J. A review of factors influencing consumer intentions to adopt battery electric vehicles. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78, 318–328 (2017).
Google Scholar
Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C. & Vandenbergh, M. P. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 18452–18456 (2009).
Google Scholar
Iweka, O., Liu, S., Shukla, A. & Yan, D. Energy and behaviour at home: a review of intervention methods and practices. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 57, 101238 (2019).
Google Scholar
Stechemesser, A. et al. Climate policies that achieved major emission reductions: global evidence from two decades. Science 385, 884–892 (2024). A global study that analyses policy interventions that achieved substantial GHG emission reductions, showing the importance of combining policies and tailoring them to specific sectors and countries.
Google Scholar
Fowlie, M., Greenstone, M. & Wolfram, C. Are the non-monetary costs of energy efficiency investments large? Understanding low take-up of a free energy efficiency program. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 201–204 (2015).
Google Scholar
Grier, S. & Bryant, C. A. Social marketing in public health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 26, 319–339 (2005).
Google Scholar
McKenzie-Mohr, D., Lee, N., Schultz, P. & Kotler, P. Social Marketing to Protect the Environment: What Works (Sage, 2012).
Mahapatra, K. & Gustavsson, L. Influencing Swedish homeowners to adopt district heating system. Appl. Energy 86, 144–154 (2009).
Google Scholar
Khanna, T. M. et al. A multi-country meta-analysis on the role of behavioural change in reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions in residential buildings. Nat. Energy 6, 925–932 (2021).
Google Scholar
van den Bergh, J. et al. Designing an effective climate–policy mix: accounting for instrument synergy. Clim. Policy 21, 745–764 (2021).
Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83 (2010).
Google Scholar
Khavari, B., Ramirez, C., Jeuland, M. & Fuso Nerini, F. A geospatial approach to understanding clean cooking challenges in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat. Sustain. 6, 447–457 (2023).
Google Scholar
Niamir, L., Mastrucci, A. & van Ruijven, B. Energizing building renovation: unraveling the dynamic interplay of building stock evolution, individual behaviour, and social norms. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 110, 103445 (2024).
Google Scholar
Beckage, B., Moore, F. C. & Lacasse, K. Incorporating human behaviour into Earth system modelling. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1493–1502 (2022).
Google Scholar
Trutnevyte, E. et al. Societal transformations in models for energy and climate policy: the ambitious next step. One Earth 1, 423–433 (2019).
Google Scholar
Alt, M., Bruns, H., DellaValle, N. & Murauskaite-Bull, I. Synergies of interventions to promote pro-environmental behaviors — a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Glob. Environ. Change 84, 102776 (2024).
Google Scholar
Balmford, A. et al. Making more effective use of human behavioural science in conservation interventions. Biol. Conserv. 261, 109256 (2021).
Google Scholar
Elliott, J. et al. Decision makers need constantly updated evidence synthesis. Nature 600, 383–385 (2021).
Google Scholar
Jager, W. Stimulating the diffusion of photovoltaic systems: a behavioural perspective. Energy Policy 34, 1935–1943 (2006).
Google Scholar
Niamir, L., Ivanova, O., Filatova, T., Voinov, A. & Bressers, H. Demand-side solutions for climate mitigation: bottom-up drivers of household energy behavior change in the Netherlands and Spain. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 62, 101356 (2020).
Google Scholar
Vibrans, L., Schulte, E., Morrissey, K., Bruckner, T. & Scheller, F. Same same, but different: explaining heterogeneity among potential photovoltaic adopters in Germany using milieu segmentation. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 103, 103212 (2023).
Google Scholar
Davis, F. D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989).
Google Scholar
Sniehotta, F. F., Presseau, J. & Araújo-Soares, V. Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychol. Rev. 8, 1–7 (2014).
Google Scholar
Maul, A. Rethinking traditional methods of survey validation. Meas. Interdiscip. Res. Perspect. 15, 51–69 (2017).
Google Scholar
Hornsey, M. J. & Fielding, K. S. Attitude roots and Jiu Jitsu persuasion: understanding and overcoming the motivated rejection of science. Am. Psychol. 72, 459–473 (2017).
Google Scholar
Ecker, U. K. H. et al. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 13–29 (2022).
Google Scholar
Brulle, R. J. The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016. Clim. Change 149, 289–303 (2018).
Google Scholar
Franta, B. Early oil industry knowledge of CO2 and global warming. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 1024–1025 (2018).
Google Scholar
Supran, G. & Oreskes, N. Rhetoric and frame analysis of ExxonMobil’s climate change communications. One Earth 4, 696–719 (2021).
Google Scholar
Bak-Coleman, J. B. et al. Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1372–1380 (2022).
Google Scholar
Chan, M. S. & Albarracín, D. A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 1514–1525 (2023).
Google Scholar
Spampatti, T., Hahnel, U. J. J., Trutnevyte, E. & Brosch, T. Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8, 380–398 (2024).
Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations (Free Press, 2003).
Nemet, G., Greene, J., Müller-Hansen, F. & Minx, J. C. Dataset on the adoption of historical technologies informs the scale-up of emerging carbon dioxide removal measures. Commun. Earth Environ. 4, 397 (2023).
Google Scholar
Schelly, C. Residential solar electricity adoption: what motivates, and what matters? A case study of early adopters. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2, 183–191 (2014).
Google Scholar
Bolderdijk, J. W. & Jans, L. Minority influence in climate change mitigation. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 42, 25–30 (2021).
Google Scholar
Judge, M., Bouman, T., Steg, L. & Bolderdijk, J. W. Accelerating social tipping points in sustainable behaviors: insights from a dynamic model of moralized social change. One Earth 7, 759–770 (2024). A perspective proposing a dynamic model of moralized social change to explain how innovative sustainable behaviours spread and how to accelerate social tipping points with system-level policies.
Google Scholar
Eker, S. et al. Harnessing social tipping dynamics: a systems approach for accelerating decarbonization. One Earth 7, 976–988 (2024).
Google Scholar
Milkoreit, M. et al. Defining tipping points for social-ecological systems scholarship — an interdisciplinary literature review. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 033005 (2018).
Google Scholar
Milkoreit, M. Social tipping points everywhere? — Patterns and risks of overuse. WIREs Clim. Change 14, e813 (2023).
Google Scholar
De Groot, J. I. M. & Steg, L. Morality and prosocial behavior: the role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. J. Soc. Psychol. 149, 425–449 (2009).
Google Scholar
link
