CatXiang
2026-02-10
[Part 1: Title]
[Part 2: The Problem - Water Scarcity]
Freshwater scarcity is one of the definitive environmental challenges of our century. While we often think of climate change in terms of temperature, the immediate impact is frequently felt through water.
Projections estimate that within the next two decades, we may exceed the global warming threshold of 2 degrees Celsius, potentially pushing 40% of the world’s population into extreme water scarcity.
But this isn’t just a future problem. In the United States—specifically in places like California’s Central Valley—we are already over-pumping groundwater faster than nature can replenish it.
[Part 3: Behavior Change]
Historically, we have tried to solve this with technology and policy—better irrigation, low-flow toilets, and water restrictions. While these are necessary, they are insufficient.
The average American lifestyle still requires nearly 2,000 gallons of water per day when accounting for the production of food, clothing, and energy. Reducing this footprint requires a fundamental shift in human behavior.
This brings us to the core of his research: How do we effectively use behavioral science tools to bridge the gap between “caring” about water and actually “saving” it?
[Part 4: Online Commitments & The Gap]
Currently, one of the most popular tools used by NGOs, governments, and corporations is the online commitment or pledge. Organizations like the EPA, the City of Phoenix, and Nestlé use digital pledges to engage the public.
However, despite their popularity, a significant gap exists in the literature. We know a lot about traditional, face-to-face commitments—written signatures and public promises work. But we know very little about the efficacy of a click.
Does clicking “I Pledge” on a website actually change behavior, or is it just “slacktivism”?
[Part 5: Theoretical Framework]
To answer this, his study relies on two foundational psychological theories.
First, Self-Perception Theory. This theory suggests that we infer our own attitudes by observing our behavior. If I voluntarily sign a pledge to save water, I will subconsciously tell myself, “I must be the kind of person who cares about water conservation.” This creates a pressure to act consistently with that new self-image.
Second, Expectancy-Value Theory. This helps us understand motivation. It posits that motivation is the product of two factors: 1. Expectancy (Feasibility): Can the person actually do this? 2. Value (Desirability): Is this important to the person?
[Part 6: The Pilot Study - Objective]
Before launching a full experiment, He needed to understand which water behaviors people actually find feasible and desirable.
He conducted a pilot study with 118 participants. He presented them with 12 specific water conservation behaviors—such as fixing leaks, taking 5-minute showers, or turning off the tap while brushing teeth.
[Part 7: Pilot Results - The Mapping]
Using the data from the pilot, He mapped these behaviors onto a barrier-benefit grid. This allowed me to calculate the Motivational Strength of each behavior.
He identified behaviors for four distinct quadrants:
1. High Feasibility / High Value: Turning off the tap while brushing. (An “easy win”).
2. Low Feasibility / High Value: Fixing household leaks. (People want to do it, but it’s hard).
3. High Feasibility / Low Value: Installing low-flow showerheads.
4. Low Feasibility / Low Value: Limiting showers to exactly 5 minutes.
This mapping provides the empirical foundation for his experimental manipulation.
[Part 8: Proposed Experiment - Overview]
Moving to the proposed experiment. This study serves as a conceptual replication of the classic Pallak et al. (1980) study on energy conservation, updated for the digital age and water crisis.
The objective is to test two things:
[Part 9: Methodology - Participants & Design]
He will recruit 340 participants via Prolific to ensure a robust sample size. The study utilizes a between-subjects experimental design with two measurement points, separated by one week.
[Part 10: The Procedure - Time 1]
At Time 1, participants will be randomly assigned to one of five conditions. Four of these are Experimental Commitment Conditions corresponding to the quadrants He found in the pilot (High/High, Low/High, etc.).
Participants in these groups will see a conservation message and be asked to pledge to that specific behavior. They will also be told their pledge initials might be displayed publicly, increasing the sense of accountability.
The fifth group is a Control Condition, which will engage in an unrelated task with no commitment opportunity.
[Part 11: The Procedure - Time 2]
One week later, at Time 2, all participants will return to complete a survey measuring:
This time-lag is crucial. He isn’t just measuring immediate reaction; he is measuring the enduring impact of the commitment on their mindset.
[Part 12: Hypotheses]
He is testing two specific hypotheses:
H1: Participation rates will vary by motivational strength. He expect behaviors that are both highly feasible and highly desirable to garner the most pledges.
H2: This is the critical behavioral science question. He hypothesize that participants who make a commitment at Time 1 will report stronger pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral intent at Time 2 compared to the control group and those who declined the pledge.
If supported, this confirms that the online pledge acts as a psychological lever, activating Self-Perception Theory.
[Part 13: Analysis Plan]
To test these, He will use:
* Chi-square tests to compare commitment rates across the varying difficulty levels.
* One-way ANOVAs to compare Time 2 attitudes between committers, non-committers, and the control group.
[Part 14: Implications & Contribution]
This research matters because online commitments are everywhere, yet we rarely test them rigorously.
From a theoretical standpoint, this bridges the gap between classic 1980s commitment research and modern digital interfaces.
From an applied standpoint, if we confirm that online pledges shift attitudes, organizations can use his behavioral map to choose the right behaviors to target—maximizing participation and actual water savings. It moves us from guessing what works to evidence-based intervention design.
In conclusion, fixing the water crisis requires more than just fixing pipes; it requires fixing our relationship with consumption. By understanding the mechanics of online commitment, we can design better tools to help individuals curb consumerism and preserve our most vital resource.