What used to be believed about energy-saving information
Older approaches often assumed that simply providing households with detailed energy facts, tips, or environmental warnings would be enough to change behavior. The idea was that if people just understood the problem, they would act. But recent evidence overturns that assumption: information alone has only a small effect. The 2025 living systematic review of 192 studies covering 6.5 million households found that information-only interventions produce an average effect size of Cohen's d = 0.13 after adjusting for publication bias, which translates to roughly a 4%–6% reduction in energy consumption [1]. That is modest, not transformative.
Another previously common belief was that one-size-fits-all campaigns would work equally well for everyone. The systematic review by McAndrew et al. (2021) found mixed evidence for specific single interventions and concluded that success was more likely when multiple techniques and activities were used together [3]. This means that a single flyer or a one-time energy audit is unlikely to overcome the hesitation and misunderstanding that keep households from making efficient choices.
What actually works: combining money, social proof, and motivation
The strongest evidence now points to a combination of approaches. Monetary incentives—such as rebates, time-of-use pricing, or direct payments—have the largest average effect on reducing household energy consumption [1]. But they work even better when paired with behavioral interventions like social comparison (showing how your usage compares to neighbors) and motivational feedback (e.g., goal-setting or rewards for progress). The 2025 review found that combining information, social, and motivational interventions yields substantially larger impacts than any single intervention alone [1]. For a household, this means seeing both a clear financial benefit and a social nudge—like a monthly report that says "You used 10% less than your efficient neighbors, saving $15 this month."
This finding is reinforced by the systematic review from Stankuniene (2021), which concluded that financial incentives and education together can help change consumer behavior, but that behavioral barriers remain significant [4]. The practical takeaway: the best information package addresses both the wallet and the social context, not just the environment.
Why combining interventions reduces hesitation and misunderstanding
Hesitation often comes from uncertainty about whether a change is worth the effort or cost. Misunderstanding arises when people don't see how their actions connect to outcomes. Combining interventions tackles both problems at once. Monetary incentives reduce the financial risk, making the decision feel safer. Social comparison provides a clear, relatable benchmark—"people like me are doing this"—which reduces uncertainty about what is normal or expected. Motivational feedback (e.g., progress tracking or goal-setting) turns abstract energy savings into a tangible, rewarding experience. The 2025 review's network meta-analysis shows that these combined approaches have high average effects, and the authors note that the practical consequences depend on how often a person makes decisions that could be influenced, the scalability and cost of interventions, and the welfare consequences [1]. For a household, this means that a program offering a rebate (monetary) plus a monthly comparison chart (social) plus a goal to beat last year's usage (motivation) is far more likely to overcome hesitation than any one of those alone.
The McAndrew et al. review (2021) also found that when multiple techniques and activities were used, the intervention's success was more likely [3]. This convergence across two large reviews—one covering 192 studies [1] and another covering literature from 1990 to 2019 [3]—strengthens the conclusion that a multi-pronged information strategy is key.
About These Sources
This answer is built on 4 peer-reviewed studies — published from 2021 to 2025, 2 from 2024 or later, 3 in Q1 journals, collectively cited 82 times — selected as the most relevant from 4 studies that passed quality screening, drawn from 39 papers retrieved from a database of over 500 million.
Sources used in this answer
Behavioral, Information, and Monetary Interventions to Reduce Energy Consumption in Households: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis
In a living systematic review and network meta-analysis of 192 studies (6.5 million households across 40 countries), monetary incentives had the largest average effect on reducing household energy consumption, followed by behavioral (motivation) and information interventions; combining information, social, and motivational interventions yielded substantially larger impacts than any single intervention alone, with an overall average effect of Cohen's d = 0.22 (0.13 after adjusting for small-study bias), corresponding to a 4%–6% reduction in energy consumption.
PROTOCOL: Behavioral, information and monetary interventions to reduce energy consumption in households: A “living” systematic review
This protocol paper outlines the objectives of the living systematic review: to determine the extent to which information, behavioral, and monetary interventions reduce household energy consumption, their relative effectiveness, and the effectiveness of combinations of interventions.
Household energy efficiency interventions: A systematic literature review
This systematic literature review of energy efficiency interventions in advanced economies (1990–2019) found mixed evidence for specific single interventions, but concluded that when multiple techniques and activities were used together, the intervention's success was more likely.
Energy Saving in Households: A Systematic Literature Review
This systematic review on household energy saving concludes that financial incentives and education can help change consumer behavior to reduce energy consumption, but highlights significant behavioral barriers to implementation and discusses policy measures to overcome these barriers.