Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/21421
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTARANU, Victoria-
dc.contributor.authorVERBEECK, Griet-
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-06T11:57:22Z-
dc.date.available2016-06-06T11:57:22Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationPrins, Matthijs; Wamelink, Hans; Giddings, Bob; Ku, Kihong; Feenstra, Manon (Ed.). WBC16 Proceedings : Volume II Environmental Opportunities and challenges Constructing Commitment and Acknowledging Human Experiences, p. 591-603-
dc.identifier.isbn978-952-15-3742-4-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1942/21421-
dc.description.abstractUnderstanding both rational and heuristic thinking is important for explaining proenvironmental behaviour. Theoretical findings regarding dual process models can be useful to explain and influence decisions of private owners in the context of energy renovation. The existing building stock has a big potential in contributing to the reduction of energy consumption. Even though surveys show that dwellers acknowledge the importance of energy efficient buildings and the technologies to achieve nearly zero energy buildings (nZEBs) are accessible, many dwellers prefer minor interventions or the status-quo rather than a deep energy renovation of their dwelling. The present paper will explain the gap between intention and action with the use of dual process models (DPMs), consisting of a rational, central processing of the information (System 2) and a heuristic, peripheral one (System 1). We will focus on the peripheral System 1 that represents the heuristic, intuitive, fast and not so rational thinking that works as a shortcut for the rational processing of information. Dual process behavioural models will be classified according to the triggers of the heuristic shortcuts. An important aspect is the fragile balance between the two systems that is influenced by the need for cognition and need for affect. An overview of behavioural insights in heuristic thinking that might influence decisions regarding house renovation will be presented. The hypothesis verified with the use of a questionnaire is that positive arguments of the house owners in favour to renovate are mostly rational and the negative arguments are mostly heuristic. Based on theoretical and empirical findings on dual process models, implications for policy making and informational campaigns concerning deep energy renovation will be proposed.-
dc.description.sponsorshipALPI Project, Belspo-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherTUT – Tampere University of Technology-
dc.subject.otherenergy renovation; behavioural change; heuristic thinking; nudges; energy efficiency-
dc.titleOverview of dual process behavioural models and their implications on decision-making of private dwellers regarding deep energy renovation-
dc.typeProceedings Paper-
local.bibliographicCitation.authorsPrins, Matthijs-
local.bibliographicCitation.authorsWamelink, Hans-
local.bibliographicCitation.authorsGiddings, Bob-
local.bibliographicCitation.authorsKu, Kihong-
local.bibliographicCitation.authorsFeenstra, Manon-
local.bibliographicCitation.conferencedate30/05/2016-03/06/2016-
local.bibliographicCitation.conferencenameCIB World Building Congress 2016-
local.bibliographicCitation.conferenceplaceTampere, Finland-
dc.identifier.epage603-
dc.identifier.spage591-
local.bibliographicCitation.jcatC1-
local.publisher.placeTampere-
dc.relation.referencesAriely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. Baldwin, R. (2014). From Regulation to Behaviour Change: Giving Nudge the Third Degree. The Modern Law Review. Bartiaux, F., Vekemans, G., Gram-Hanssen, K., Maes, D., Cantaert, M., Spies, B., & Desmedt, J. (2006). Socio-technical factors influencing Residential Energy Consumption SEREC. Behavioral Insights Team, t. C. (2011). Behaviour Change and Energy Use. UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. BPIE. (2011). Europe’s buildings under the microscope. Cacioppo, J., & Petty, R. (1983). Social Psychophysiology. The Guilford Press. Cacioppo, J., Petty, R., & Kao, C. (1984). The efficient assessment of Need for Cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment. Ceulemans , W., & Verbeeck, G. (2015). GROTE WOONONDERZOEK 2013 Deel 6. Energie. Chatterton, T. (2011). An Introduction to Thinking About ‘Energy Behaviour’: a multi-model approach. Department of Energy and Climate Change. Darnton, A. (2008). Reference report: an overview of behaviour change models and their uses. GSR. 601 Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., & Vlaev , I. (n.d.). MINDSPACE Influencing behaviour through public policy. Finucane, M., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Frederiks, E. R., Stenner, K., & Hobman, E. V. (2014). Household energy use: Applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Hallsworth, M., Service, O., Halpern, D., Algate, F., Gallagher, R., Nguyen, S., . . . Sanders, M. (2014). EAST Four simple ways to apply behavioural insights. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press. Kruglanski, A., Mannetti, L., & Pierro, A. (2006). Who regrets more after choosing a nonstatus- quo option? Post decisional regret under need for cognitive closure. Journal of Economic Pshychology. Maio, G., & Esses, V. (2001). The Need for Affect: Individual Differences in the Motivation to Approach or Avoid Emotions. Journal of Personality. Momsen, K., & Stoerk, T. (2014). From intention to action: Can nudges help consumers to choose renewable energy? Energy Policy. Owens, S., & Driffill, L. (2008). How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy. Energy policy. Perlaviciute, G., & Steg, L. (2014). The influence of values on evaluetions of energy alternatives. Renewable energy. Simon, H. (2000). Bounded rationality in social science: today and tomorrow. Mind & Society. Stanovich, K., & West, R. (2000). Individual difference in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? Behavioural and Brain Sciences. Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Nudges VS Shoves. Five reasons for choice-preserving approaches. Harvard Law Review Forum, 210-217. Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. 602 Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science. VEA. (2013). Het energiebewustzijn en -gedrag van de Vlaamse huishoudens 2013.-
local.type.refereedRefereed-
local.type.specifiedProceedings Paper-
local.identifier.vabbc:vabb:414823-
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.wbc16.com/-
local.bibliographicCitation.btitleWBC16 Proceedings : Volume II Environmental Opportunities and challenges Constructing Commitment and Acknowledging Human Experiences-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.accessRightsOpen Access-
item.validationvabb 2019-
item.contributorTARANU, Victoria-
item.contributorVERBEECK, Griet-
item.fullcitationTARANU, Victoria & VERBEECK, Griet (2016) Overview of dual process behavioural models and their implications on decision-making of private dwellers regarding deep energy renovation. In: Prins, Matthijs; Wamelink, Hans; Giddings, Bob; Ku, Kihong; Feenstra, Manon (Ed.). WBC16 Proceedings : Volume II Environmental Opportunities and challenges Constructing Commitment and Acknowledging Human Experiences, p. 591-603.-
Appears in Collections:Research publications
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Taranu Verbeeck WBC16.pdfPeer-reviewed author version875.09 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

18
checked on Sep 6, 2022

Download(s)

4
checked on Sep 6, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.