Adapted from Allcott(2011), figure 8.
Figure 4.8: Heterogeneity of treatment effects in Allcott(2011).
Further, in subsequent research, Allcott(2015) reported on an additional 101 experiments
involving an additional 8 million households.
Figure 4.6: The Home Energy Reports in Allcott(2011) had a Social Comparison Module
and an Action Steps Module.
Allcott(2015) speculated that this decline happened because, over time, the
treatment was being applied to different types of participants.
These 111 experiments- 10 in Allcott(2011) and 101 in Allcott(2015)-
involved about 8.5 million households from all over the United States.
In a first set of experiments involving
600,000 households from 10 different sites, Allcott(2011) found that the Home Energy Report
lowered electricity consumption.
Together, these 111 experiments- 10 in Allcott(2011) and 101 in Allcott(2015)-
involved about 8.5 million households from all over the United States.
Allcott(2015) argues that a major source of this pattern
is that sites with more environmentally-focused customers were more likely to adopt the program earlier.
Further, in
subsequent research involving eight million additional households from 101 different sites, Allcott(2015) again found that the Home Energy
Report consistently lowered electricity consumption.
In a follow-up study, Allcott and Rogers(2014) partnered with a power company that,
through a rebate program, had acquired information about which consumers upgraded their appliances to more energy-efficient models.
The precise reason for this decline is not known, but Allcott(2015) speculated that the effectiveness of the report appeared
to be declining over time because it was actually being applied to different types of participants.