scholarly journals Social Norms and Energy Conservation Beyond the US

2020 ◽  
Vol 103 ◽  
pp. 102351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Andor ◽  
Andreas Gerster ◽  
Jörg Peters ◽  
Christoph M. Schmidt
Author(s):  
Mark Andor ◽  
Andreas Gerster ◽  
Jörg Peters ◽  
Christoph M. Schmidt

2016 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 413-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
José A. Pellerano ◽  
Michael K. Price ◽  
Steven L. Puller ◽  
Gonzalo E. Sánchez

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Starke ◽  
Martijn Willemsen ◽  
Chris Snijders

How can recommender interfaces help users to adopt new behaviors? In the behavioral change literature, nudges and norms are studied to understand how to convince people to take action (e.g. towel re-use is boosted when stating that ‘75% of hotel guests’ do so), but what is advised is typically not personalized. Most recommender systems know what to recommend in a personalized way, but not much research has considered how to present such advice to help users to change their current habits. We examine the value of presenting normative messages (e.g. ‘75% of users do X’) based on actual user data in a personalized energy recommender interface called ‘Saving Aid’. In a study among 207 smart thermostat owners, we compared three different normative explanations (‘Global’, ‘Similar’, and ‘Expert’ norm rates) to a non-social baseline (‘kWh savings’). Although none of the norms increased the total number of chosen measures directly, we show evidence that the effect of norms seems to be mediated by the perceived feasibility of the measures. Moreover, how norms were presented (i.e. specific source, adoption rate) affected what measures were chosen within our Saving Aid interface.


Author(s):  
John Eekelaar

This chapter will be about family law and legal theory. Understandably, Brian Bix baulked at the idea that a single theory of family law could be constructed, at least for the US. Given the scope of its subject matter, I also think a quest for one overarching theory for family law will prove elusive. But I will argue that there is a pervasive feature about family law which is central to understanding both how family law operates and how it should operate. It will be argued that understanding the way legal and social norms interact should be central to theorizing about family law. In fact, there may need to be a number of theories explaining, or justifying, the specific interactions in the various circumstances in which they occur. It will be seen that these invariably revolve around the issue of power: who has it and how it can be controlled.


Author(s):  
Stephanie M. Stern ◽  
Daphna Lewinsohn-Zamir

This chapter reconsiders the persistent problems of discrimination and exclusion in light of psychology research on prejudice and bias. It focuses on three important topics in housing and land use law. First, it examines whether disparate impact claims (i.e., discrimination claims against facially neutral housing policies that have discriminatory effects but lack evidence of discriminatory intent) have the potential to redress implicit, largely unconscious bias. Second, it describes how psychology research on the effect of perceived social norms on prejudice lends support to a controversial provision of the US Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discriminatory housing advertisements and statements. Third, the chapter discusses how psychology research can inform, and ameliorate, exclusion and discrimination in neighborhood and block associations charged with budgeting, zoning, or spending powers.


2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 35-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven N Kaplan ◽  
Joshua Rauh

One explanation that has been proposed for rising inequality is that technical change allows highly talented individuals, or “superstars” to manage or perform on a larger scale, applying their talent to greater pools of resources and reaching larger numbers of people, thus becoming more productive and higher paid. Others argue that managerial power has increased in a way that allows those at the top to receive higher pay, that social norms against higher pay levels have broken down, or that tax policy affects the distribution of surpluses between employers and employees. We offer evidence bearing on the different theories explaining the rise in inequality in the United States over recent decades. First we look the increase in pay at the highest income levels across occupations. We consider the income share of the top 1 percent over time. And we turn to evidence on inequality of wealth at the top. In looking at the wealthiest Americans, we find that those in the Forbes 400 are less likely to have inherited their wealth or to have grown up wealthy. The Forbes 400 of today also are those who were able to access education while young and apply their skills to the most scalable industries: technology, finance, and mass retail. We believe that the US evidence on income and wealth shares for the top 1 percent is most consistent with a “superstar”-style explanation rooted in the importance of scale and skill-biased technological change. It is less consistent with an argument that the gains to the top 1 percent are rooted in greater managerial power or changes in social norms about what managers should earn.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document