• About
    • About
    • What is Public Interest Communications?
    • Our Team
    • Theories We Use
    • What We’ve Shared
    • Center Updates
    • Programs & Affiliates
      • frank gathering
      • The Research Prize in Public Interest Communications
      • Journal of Public Interest Communications
      • UF Programs
    • Contact Us
  • Our Services
    • Strategy Consulting
    • Issue Research
    • Training – Frameworks and Custom
  • Frameworks & Resources
  • Training
  • Case Studies
Center for Public Interest Communications
Support
  • About
    • About
    • What is Public Interest Communications?
    • Our Team
    • Theories We Use
    • What We’ve Shared
    • Center Updates
    • Programs & Affiliates
      • frank gathering
      • The Research Prize in Public Interest Communications
      • Journal of Public Interest Communications
      • UF Programs
    • Contact Us
  • Our Services
    • Strategy Consulting
    • Issue Research
    • Training – Frameworks and Custom
  • Frameworks & Resources
  • Training
  • Case Studies
  • Research & Insights

Science suggests your water conservation messages are all wet

  • May 13, 2015
  • 2 minute read
Total
0
Shares
0
0
0
0

As California imposes its first ever mandatory water restrictions to deal with a historic drought, water conservation is on everyone’s mind. But it turns out that when it comes to conserving water, people are a lot different than horses: when you lead them to water, you can’t make them stop drinking. A new study out of California State Polytechnic University and the University of Southern California suggests that simply providing information about how to save water to high-consuming households is unlikely to get them to change, and may even be counterproductive.

The study, conducted by social psychologist and 2015 frank prize winner Viviane Seyranian, psychology and education researcher Gale M. Sinatra, and education researcher Morgan S. Polikoff, examined the water usage patterns of 374 Los Angeles County households and compared the effectiveness of various conservation messages. All households were given information on how to save water, encouraging residents to “[r]un only full loads in the dishwasher and washing machine,” for instance.

While some households only received the conservation information, others were given additional messages aimed at encouraging them to conserve. Some people, for example, received a message comparing their water usage to their neighbors. It had a happy face if they used less and a sad face if they used more. Others received a message about the severity of the drought and how conservation was part of “what we stand for’ as a city.” Finally, a message sent to other residents emphasized a personal commitment to use less water: “Starting today, do your absolute best to conserve your precious water resources!”

Researchers found that water use went up for people who received only the conservation tips. Households that received the other messages – comparison with neighbors, or the message about city and personal conservation values – neither increased nor decreased their consumption.

Seyranian, Sinatra, and Polikoff suspect that part of these findings may be related to the study’s timing. Because the study occurred in the summer – a time when people usually ramp up their water usage – it’s possible that the conservation messages encouraged some people to avoid this increase. That is, people who would normally be increasing their consumption of water during the summer managed to hold steady after receiving the call to conservation.

Importantly, though, the study shows that simply telling people how to conserve natural resources isn’t enough to get them to change their behavior. In fact, it may even be encouraging people to use more water because they feel that the tips “threaten…their freedom to consume as much water as they please…”

“[M]any water conservation campaigns spearheaded by water management companies and municipalities are still employing the knowledge deficient approach [of only providing conservation tips],” Seyranian, Sinatra, and Polikoff note. “Our results suggest that the knowledge deficient approach may not only be an inefficient strategy, but it may even be counterproductive.”

Journal of Environmental Psychology

Researchers:
Viviane Seyranian, California State Polytechnic University
Gale M. Sinatra and Morgan S. Polikoff, University of Southern California

0
0
0
Total
0
Shares
Share 0
Tweet 0
Share 0
Related Topics
  • frankology
Previous Article
  • Research & Insights

Where does your compass point? Toward science or religion?

  • May 8, 2015
View Post
Next Article
  • Research & Insights

Study Shows That Facebook Users Have a Lot of Heart

  • May 27, 2015
View Post
Think we can help with your goals? Read about our services and how we work.
Or reach out today to tell us a bit about your project and inquire how we might help.

 
 

Join our network

We'll send insights and opportunities when you least expect

More of our work
  • Changing Mindsets, Changing the Rules
  • The Science of What Makes People Care
  • The Secret to Better Storytelling for Social Change: Better Partnerships
  • Can #MeToo Have Lasting Influence?
Latest from the Center
  • Teresa Gonzales and Nicole Bronzan
    Paper exploring local discursive frames of poverty and race wins 2023 research prize
  • Center welcomes two collaborators in research and strategy
  • 2023 Research Prize Finalists
    Center announces three finalists for the $10,000 public interest communications research prize
  • Rakeem Robinson
    Center honors the memory of colleague Rakeem Robinson
How We Help – Case Studies
  • gloved hand holding vial
    Science-based communication strategy on COVID for the UN Verified Initiative
  • BROKE project screenshot
    Re-examining narratives on poverty and wealth — the BROKE project
  • illustration of hand holding United States flag
    Covering immigration in local news—an exploration by Define American

Subscribe

Keep up with our latest; request our periodic newsletter.

UF Logo

Center for Public Interest Communications
PO Box 118400
Gainesville, FL 32611-8400

An auxiliary unit of the College of Journalism and Communications

Copyright © 2022

Contact Us

We are eager to chat with you about your project or training need.

Send us a note

The Center for Public Interest Communications, the first of its kind in the nation, is designed to study, test and apply the science of strategic communication for social change. We are based at the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications.

  • Social Change Communication
  • Science Communication
  • Strategic Communication
  • Broader Impacts
  • Public Interest Communication
  • Narrative Change
  • Leadership Development
  • Strategy Development
  • Effective Presentations
  • Research Translation & Insights

Input your search keywords and press Enter.