The professor takes great care in how he speaks. He knows when to talk and when to smile, when a laugh can disarm his listeners and draw them into his point. When answering questions, he'll pause mid-sentence to repeat the questioner's name, then continue.

Lately he has been pondering this question: For decades, advocates have tried the emotional and rational sells for saving energy. Turn off the lights, program the air-conditioner, unplug idle appliances, and it'll either benefit the planet or save piles of cash. While these tactics have picked up some steam, millions of Americans remain unmoved.

Influencing what people do is Robert Cialdini's business. Formerly of Arizona State University's psychology department, he wrote one of the best-selling books on persuasion of all time. "Influence" came out in 1984, and it's reached five editions since. Legions of college students and CEOs have pored over it; Cialdini presents its still-salient findings at motivational talks.

What made "Influence" so compelling was its simple distillation of decades of research into six principles, or "weapons," of persuasion.

For example, people are swayed by authority: They are more apt to jaywalk if a fellow in a well-tailored suit leads the way. People find more appeal in things that seem scarce: They say a cookie tastes better if it comes from a near-empty jar rather than a full one.

Now, the professor has trained his "weapons of influence" on how people use energy. For two years, he's been "chief scientist" at OPOWER, a firm that studies utility customers, then advises the utility on how to save energy. Currently, 30 utilities have managed to cut energy use by at least 1.5 percent; some regions lead at 3.5 percent.

Compared with other strategies -- efficient appliances, upgraded power plants, new grid technology -- it has cost them next to nothing.

The key, according to Cialdini, has been reframing the pitch behind energy efficiency.

Savings and moral approaches fizzle
According to some researchers, the things people do every day -- driving, showering, mowing the lawn -- cause 33 to 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Experts say these actions are packed with cheap ways to cut waste, but mysteriously, people just aren't doing them.

Cialdini thinks this is because the campaign has focused on money and moral appeals -- things that motivate less than the weapons of influence.

The professor began studying environmental behavior in the 1980s, when the 1970s' energy crisis loomed large in the public memory. Over the decades, his research would include work on recycling, littering, energy use -- even "environmental crimes" like stealing mementos from a petrified forest.

Late last decade, as he contemplated retirement, national governments had approached him with questions about energy. They had tried subsidies, incentives, educational campaigns and more -- Could there be a cheaper way to persuade people?

In other words, Cialdini says, they sought the "sweet spot": where a tiny nudge could do what millions of dollars could not.

"It's easy to produce benefits by throwing huge amounts of money at them, or resources, but we don't have limitless resources or pots of money," he says. "That place, big change for small levels of effort, is the sweet spot."

Then, two and a half years ago, the founders of OPOWER shared their goal: to understand people, and to help a utility find its "sweet spot."

8 Comments

1. 1. JamesDavis 09:22 PM 6/21/10

   Professor, the utility companies have already got wise to your gimic. "Conserve power...save a ton of cash!" The utility companies just raise their rates. In the last three years, the utility companies requested and got nearly 150% rate increase. So, whose saving the bundle of cash...certainly not the customer.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. ormondotvos 08:14 PM 6/22/10

   You're naive and unobservant if you think energy is going to be cheap forever. The power companies are desperately trying to avoid building more capacity, which is very expensive. They would much rather talk you into using less, which is NECESSARY for economic and ecological strong reasons.
   
   I tend to regard people who argue against conservation as uninformed thoughtless energy hogs, but hey, that's just my opinion.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. kristi276 10:47 PM 6/23/10

   In the glitter of the ivory halls of academia where the might of the professor rules the rust and the lowly peons are just mere mortal students who are to listen, absorb, and regurgitate on command, it is easy to view life through the lens of a college professor. But how much creditability is there for a man of persuasion in the grit of the Urban jungle and the malls of Suburbia? We want to "persuade" the population to become energy wise; and all they need is a little Pavlov incentive in order to elicit a positive response. The need for energy conservation is a real issue for the industrialized nations of the world, and the up and coming "third world" nations that are now becoming industrialized power houses in their own right. I am totally in favor of energy conservation and the wise use of land and mineral resources, but who is really the bigger energy hogs when it comes to its use. In an average apartment complex lights in the hallways are kept on 24/7 days a week, even when I go to work my lights in my apartment is not on 24/7. When you have a hot water tank that is heating and reheating the same water 24/7, even if it is being used or not, is not energy wise. When buildings are not insulated and leak energy into the surrounding area, is that energy wise? When most apartment buildings in the urban area is in need of upgrade and is literally outdated, how can a system that is old be energy wise? Is is easy to blame the individual for the problem of "over-consumption", although in the 70's and 80's there was a big push for getting buildings insulated and upgraded, dropped in the roaring 90's. Now you want people to bark on command to the drum beat of energy conservation, with no clear incentive of doing so, just because you say so and they are to do so. To me if the great leaders of energy conservation want people to adhere to the teachings of the noble energy gurus, then they should give people a real reason to be energy wise and not pound foolish; and not another version of Pavlov's dog.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. ormondotvos in reply to kristi276 02:12 AM 6/24/10

   The reality of temperature leash is tugging, and it ain't professors pulling it.
   
   The Gulf of Mexico is over 90 degrees, and 93L is moving...

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. akmangalick 08:24 PM 6/27/10

   Immediately upon finishing this article, I thought to myself, "I bet someone's going to pounce on these findings and bring defeatism to the conversation." Unfortunately, I was right.
   
   I don't see the consumers in the San Diego as being Pavlovian at all. In fact, they are making their own choices, based on factual information provided to them about the actions of others around them. A Pavlovian response is non-cognitive and non-social in nature.
   
   Moreover, if the figures in the article are correct, then the answer to the question, "Who are the biggest energy hogs?" is a matter of frame of reference or context. When asking "Whose actions (as a group) contribute the most to greenhouse gas emissions?", the answer could be very different than from asking "Whose actions (as a group) use the most watt-hours of energy per day/week/month/year?"
   
   Come on people, if someone is doing solid research on what affects energy usage in a positive way, then what's the issue?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. eco-steve 05:21 PM 6/28/10

   National policy would be completely different if only people with appropriate qualifications could vote on relevant subjects, (such as climate change). Democracy as we know it is totally inadequate to ensure effective government.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. intotech 11:50 PM 7/4/10

   With a Facebook plug-in or iPhone app, you could compare your consumption not just with your physical neighbours, but with your peers to see who earns the smiley face.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. csnyder 12:19 PM 7/13/10

   One of the things I've learned from the work of BJ Fogg is that behavior change requires 3 things: motivation, ability, and a trigger. Cialdini is focusing on the motivation, which is necessary but perhaps not sufficient. I suspect that most of us can't deconstruct our daily behavior to identify the actions that would do the most good (ability) or remember to do them consistently (trigger). I also wonder if these studies have been done over a long enough period of time to get past the novelty effect - does the 10th monthly smiley face still motivate me? Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of Cialdini's work and it's extremely important. We just need to recognize that behavior change is a truly difficult problem and we're only starting to get some clues about what works.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this