A Study of Human-Computer Interaction and Feedback Layers for Office Energy Conservation Behavior_Vol. 3 No. 4 (JIKE 2025)_Journal of Intelligence and Knowledge Engineering (ISSN: 2959-0620)

Home > Journal of Intelligence and Knowledge Engineering (ISSN: 2959-0620) > Vol. 3 No. 4 (JIKE 2025) >

A Study of Human-Computer Interaction and Feedback Layers for Office Energy Conservation Behavior

Download PDF

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jike.202504421

Author(s)

Yingting Chao

Affiliation(s)

Royal College of Art, School of Architecture, Environmental Architecture, SW7 2EU, London, United Kingdom

Abstract

Under the background of the dual carbon strategy, green office practices have become pivotal to sustainable development. However, relying solely on technological upgrades proves insufficient for effectively reducing energy consumption; stimulating and guiding employees' energy-saving behaviours is particularly crucial. Grounded in human-computer interaction perspectives and integrating cognitive ergonomics with dual-system theory, this study investigates how three types of energy consumption feedback (numerical, social comparison, and metaphorical) influence energy-saving intentions through emotional arousal (System 1) and cognitive load (System 2). A single-factor, three-level online scenario experiment (N=299) using the Hayes PROCESS macro tested dual mediation effects. Results indicate no significant mean difference in energy-saving intentions across feedback types. However, mediation analysis strongly supports the dual-system mechanism: emotional arousal significantly positively influences energy-saving intentions (b = 0.3431, p < .001), while cognitive load exhibits a significant negative inhibitory effect (b = −0.1156, p = 0.0177). Regarding specific mechanism activation, analysis revealed that only social comparison feedback significantly elevated participants' emotional arousal levels (b = 0.2923, p = 0.0224). This arousal indirectly promoted energy-saving intentions via an “intuition-emotion pathway” (Indirect Effect = 0.1003, 95% CI [0.0147, 0.1921]). This indicates that emotional motivation proves more effective in energy-saving behavior interventions, whereas merely increasing information volume does not further promote rational thinking. This study enriches the human-centered mechanism theory of energy feedback design, validates the applicability of the dual-system decision-making model in office energy-saving scenarios, and provides practical insights for green office system interface design. It suggests fully leveraging emotional motivation to activate users' intuitive engagement while controlling information complexity to avoid cognitive overload, thereby more effectively guiding energy-saving behaviors.

Keywords

Human-Computer Interaction (HCI); Ecological Feedback; Emotional Arousal; Cognitive Load; Energy-Saving Behavioural Intentions

References

[1] Li, W.-T., Iuorio, O., Fang, H., & Mak, M. W. T. (2024). Gamification Approaches and Assessment Methodologies for Occupants’ Energy Behavior Change in Buildings: A Systematic Review. Buildings, 14(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061497 [2] Berney, M., Ouaazki, A., Macko, V., Kocher, B., & Holzer, A. (2024). Care-Based Eco-Feedback Augmented with Generative AI: Fostering Pro-Environmental Behavior through Emotional Attachment. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642296 [3] Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9 [4] R, P., Sanjaya, K., Rathika, S., Alawadi, A. H., Makhzuna, K., Venkatesh, S., & Rajalakshmi, B. (2023). Human-Computer Interaction: Enhancing User Experience in Interactive Systems. E3S Web of Conferences, 399, 04037. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339904037 [5] Soares, F., Madureira, A., Pagès, A., Barbosa, A., Coelho, A., Cassola, F., Ribeiro, F., Viana, J., Andrade, J., Dorokhova, M., Morais, N., Wyrsch, N., & Sørensen, T. (2021). FEEdBACk: An ICT-Based Platform to Increase Energy Efficiency through Buildings’ Consumer Engagement. Energies, 14(6), 1524. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14061524 [6] Baedeker, C., Piwowar, J., Themann, P., Grinewitschus, V., Krisemendt, B., Lepper, K., Zimmer, C., & Von Geibler, J. (2020). Interactive Design to Encourage Energy Efficiency in Offices: Developing and Testing a User-Centered Building Management System Based on a Living Lab Approach. Sustainability, 12(17), 6956. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176956 [7] Iria J., Fonseca N., Cassola F., Barbosa A., Soares F., Coelho A., & Ozdemir A. (2020). A gamification platform to foster energy efficiency in office buildings. Energy and Buildings, 222, 110101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110101 [8] Irizar-Arrieta, A., Casado-Mansilla, D., & Retegi, A. (2018). Evaluation of a digital interface that integrates user diversity to aware individuals about energy. IADIS INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON COMPUTER SCIENCE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 13(1), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.33965/ijcsis_2018130108 [9] Sanguinetti, A., Dombrovski, K., & Sikand, S. (2018). Information, timing, and display: A design-behavior framework for improving the effectiveness of eco-feedback. Energy Research & Social Science, 39, 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.001 [10] Geng Y., Zhang Z., Yu J., Chen H., Zhou H., Lin B., & Zhuang W. (2022). An Intelligent IEQ Monitoring and Feedback System: Development and Applications. Engineering, 18, 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2021.09.017 [11] tagadmin. (2019, December 18). Social Comparison and Energy Conservation in a Collective Action Context -. CEEPR. https://ceepr.mit.edu/social-comparison-and-energy-conservation-in-a-collective-action-context/ [12] Paone, A., & Bacher, J.-P. (2018). The Impact of Building Occupant Behavior on Energy Efficiency and Methods to Influence It: A Review of the State of the Art. Energies, 11(4), 953. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11040953 [13] Kaur, S., & Sharma, P. M. (2024). Cognitive Ergonomics: A Relationship between Mind and Work. International Journal of Indian Psychology, Review. https://doi.org/10.25215/1202.057 [14] Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow (p. 499). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. [15] Chalal M. L., Medjdoub B., Bezai N., Bull R., & Zune M. (2022). Visualisation in energy eco-feedback systems: A systematic review of good practice. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 162, 112447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112447 [16] Yagasaki, M. (2019). Pride, Shame and Social Comparisons. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3414146 [17] Cassola, F., Morgado, L., Coelho, A., Paredes, H., Barbosa, A., Tavares, H., & Soares, F. (2022). Using Virtual Choreographies to Identify Office Users’ Behaviors to Target Behavior Change Based on Their Potential to Impact Energy Consumption. Energies, 15(12), 4354. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15124354 [18] Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and Decision Making. Psychological Science, 17(5), 407–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x [19] Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and Validation of an Internationally Reliable Short-Form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297301 [20] An Index and Test of Linear Moderated Mediation. (2025). ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273514788_An_Index_and_Test_of_Linear_Moderated_Mediation