Key concepts in ‘control’

Control is defined by Merriam-Webster (2015c) as ‘to direct the actions or function of (something) : to cause (something) to act or function in a certain way’. The idea of ‘control’ has been widely studied in both technical and social disciplines. Whether people feel ‘in control’ or not has been shown to play a role in a range of areas, such as mental and physical wellbeing (e.g. see reviews in Thompson & Spacapan (1991), Strickland (1989) and – most relevant for the current research – product/service acceptance (see section 2.3 below)). This section considers the different ways in which it has been conceptualized, relating this to the context of domestic DSR. In doing so it is largely guided by a framework proposed by Skinner (1996). Although situated largely in social psychology, the framework provides a useful way of classifying different theoretical approaches to the idea of control from a range of disciplines. Skinner argues for the importance of being explicit about construct definitions if there are to be properly operationalized and ultimately ‘help investigators make decisions about which control constructs are most likely to predict specific consequences’ (p562). Hers is the only work which assembles and gives order to so many interpretations of control constructs, or attempts to provide a framework for their study, and it is described in a commentary by Hagger (2014: 1) in the journal Frontiers in Psychology as follows:

As a journal editor, I am frequently asked what constitutes an exceptional research article … I usually respond by recommending Skinner’s (1996) seminal guide to constructs of control as a prototypical example. … Skinner’s article was extremely influential to my work. It not only helped me make sense of the myriad of constructs and terms used to describe and define the control construct, but also how I approached other constructs in social psychology.

Skinner’s primary distinction is between objective (actual) and subjective (perceived) control. How might objective control be understood in the context of domestic DSR? Firstly, it is important to establish who or what are the agents, means and ends of control. According to Skinner: ‘Ends refer to the desired and undesired outcomes over which control is exerted, agents refer to the individuals or groups who exert control, and means refer to the pathways through which control is exerted.’ (p552). There are many possible ways of ascribing each of these in relation to DSR, but for the purposes of this discussion let us consider the two simple models represented in Figure 2-1.

32 (a)

Agent

Consumer

Means

Electric heating system in consumer’s home

Desired temperature

Ends

(b)

Agent

DSR operator

Means

Electric heating system in consumer’s home

Demand-side response

Ends

Figure 2-1: A DSR scenario with (a) consumer as agent, and (b) on the introduction of direct load control, the DSR operator as agent.

In Figure 2-1 (a) the agent of control is a consumer, their end is to attain a desired temperature and the means by which they do this is by directing the action of an electric heating system in their home (this simplified model omits other actions such as window opening). In Figure 2-1 (b) when direct load control (DLC) capability is

33

introduced, the agent is a DSR operator with the end of achieving a demand-side response with certain characteristics (i.e. magnitude, speed, duration, reliability), and the means by which they aim to achieve this is by directing the action (through DLC signals) of the same electric heating system in the home of the original consumer. In each case the agent affects the means, which in turn affects the end.

When the DSR operator is the agent, they could objectively be said to have full control over their ‘end’ if a certain demand-side response can be achieved at 100%

guaranteed reliability with the intended speed, size and duration. Likewise, the consumer could be considered objectively to have full control if they are always able to achieve their desired temperature. However, once DLC has been introduced, both the consumer and DSR operator share the ability to direct the action of (i.e.

have some objective control over) the heating system. The situation where both agents have full control over their ends while sharing control of the means is not unattainable – it would be possible to achieve operator’s desired response while staying within the bounds of the occupant’s desired temperature. However, in reality it is likely that some compromise will have to be reached.

Subjective (or perceived) control is defined by Skinner (1996: 551) as ‘an individual's beliefs about how much control is available’. The same agents/means/ends schema can be usefully applied here as for objective control.

Agent-means relationships have been widely studied though the lens of perceived self-efficacy, defined as ‘people’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over their own level of functioning and over events that affect their lives’ (Bandura, 1991: 257) – or more simply put, the ‘ease or difficulty of performing a behavior’

(Ajzen, 2002: 665). Means-ends relationships ‘refer to the [perceived] connection between particular classes of potential causes and desired and undesired outcomes’ (Skinner, 1996: 552) – or the extent to which employing a certain means may lead to a desired end. Finally, the connection between the agent and ends describes the overall perception of control, or ‘generalised expectancies about the extent to which an agent (e.g. the self) can produce desired outcomes without explicit reference to the means involved’ (Skinner et al., 1988: 371).

In the context of a study on consumer acceptance of domestic DSR, the primary agent is the consumer. In the example of Figure 2-1 (a), the consumer may form beliefs about their ability to direct the action of the heating system, and of the heating system to achieve their desired temperature. Overall, this may be referred to as their perceived personal control. The consumer may also form perceptions about the ability of others (such as the DSR operator as an agent) to control the

34

means and achieve its ends. Depending on whether other agents are viewed as acting with benevolent or malign intent, perceived personal control may be augmented or diminished respectively (Skinner, 1996). People’s perceptions as to who or what controls events which affect them (i.e. themselves or external entities and circumstances) is sometimes referred to as their perceived locus of control.

Early work on the construct by Rotter (1966: 1) outlines it as follows:

When a reinforcement is perceived by the subject as following some action of his own but not being entirely contingent upon his action, then in our culture, it is typically perceived as the result of luck, chance, fate, as under the control of powerful others, or as unpredictable because of the great complexity of forces surrounding him. When the event is interpreted in this way by an individual, we have labeled this a belief in external control. If the person perceives that the event is contingent upon his own behaviour or relatively permanent characteristics, we have termed this a belief in internal control.

Also salient here is the role of automation. Merriam-Webster define automatic as:

‘of a machine or device : having controls that allow something to work or happen without being directly controlled by a person’ (Merriam-Webster, 2015a).

Automation is desirable because it allows humans to undertake tasks that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to do, or do well, or that they don’t like doing (Wickens et al., 2015). An example of this would be a thermostat for a heating system – when it detects that the temperature has dropped below a specified point it turns on the heating until such time as a pre-determined temperature threshold is crossed, at which point it turns the heating off again. In this case, is the thermostat to be considered the agent of control, or the person who set it? Or, in the case of a DSR offering with automatic response to price changes, the DSR operator? One way of resolving this is by employing the concept of ‘human supervisory control’ which, as its name suggests, requires that human operators retain the ability to oversee and affect the operation of automation rather like a manager with their staff (Sheridan, 1992). In such a case the human user may be viewed as the agent even while specific action decisions are delegated to automation.

Aside from the relations between agents, means and ends of control, other constructs need to be considered which are related to, but not part of, perceived control. The first of these is the antecedents of control, or ‘conditions that have been hypothesized to have the potential to influence experiences and perceptions of control’ (Skinner, 1996: 555). Examples include ‘information, choice, warning signals, regulated administration, help, feedback, and instructions’ (p558).

35

Secondly, it is useful to consider the possible motivations for control. Skinner (1996) defines this as ‘why people form perceptions of control’ (p557). For the purposes of this review this is interpreted as referring to reasons people feel they need control in the context of home energy use. Finally, the concept of self-determination or autonomy (‘desire to experience one's true self as the origin of one's own actions’

[p557]) is proposed by Skinner (1996) as also distinct from perceived control. It is distinct because there is no expectation of contingency between actions and outcomes; rather it refers to the general freedom to initiate behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

The next section reviews the literature as it pertains to perceptions of control – primarily in relation to DSR, but also drawing on related work in the study of smart homes and home energy use. It is structured according to Skinner’s (1996) framework. At its core is a thematic analysis of 20 recent research papers or reports which deal with perceptions of control in the context of DSR (see appendix 10.1).

The materials were selected based on a review of literature collected during the period of research for this thesis, which has included receiving alerts of any academic publications featuring the terms ‘demand-side response’, ‘demand response’ and ‘perceived control’ (as well as regular literature searches). First the different motivations for control are examined, followed by consideration of the antecedents, aspects pertaining to agents/means/ends relations, and finally other issues relating to control and acceptance of DSR. The aim is to explore the different ways in which concepts related to control are expressed in the literature in this area and to introduce the various control-related concerns that have been shown to exist in the context of DSR.