| Course | PS 303 Social Psychology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Attitudes and persuasion paper |
| Length | About 960 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 303 Unit 3
"You Used 23% More Than Your Efficient Neighbors": An Attitudes and Persuasion Paper Analyzing One Utility's Home Energy Report, Technique by Technique, Against What the Research Established
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 303: Social Psychology
Instructor Name
May 26, 2026
"You Used 23% More Than Your Efficient Neighbors": An Attitudes and Persuasion Paper Analyzing One Utility's Home Energy Report, Technique by Technique, Against What the Research Established
The Persuasion Attempt
The object of analysis is a home energy report, a single-page letter that some electric utilities mail to customers every month or two. The version described here is a composite of the kind many households receive, but its elements are standard. It shows a bar chart comparing the household's electricity use last month with two groups of nearby homes of similar size: all neighbors and efficient neighbors, the most efficient fifth. Below the chart a line reads, "You used 23% more than your efficient neighbors." Beside it is a rating, here a single smiling face labeled "Good," where households using less than average receive two smiles and "Great." The second page offers three tips, such as setting the thermostat back two degrees at night, each with an estimated annual saving. The letter comes from the utility and is signed by its customer service manager.
The goal of the report is not to change an attitude toward energy in the abstract but to change behavior: to get the household to use less electricity.
The Route
The elaboration likelihood model of Petty and Cacioppo (1986) distinguishes two routes to persuasion. When processing runs through the central route, the audience weighs the message's arguments, so their quality decides whether attitudes shift. On the peripheral route, people pay less attention and respond to cues, such as who the source is or what others do. Which route operates depends on motivation and ability to process. A household skimming mail at the kitchen counter has low motivation to study an energy report closely.
The report is designed for that reader. Its most prominent elements, the bar chart, the percentage and the smiling face, can be taken in within seconds, without weighing any argument, which suggests the report relies mainly on the peripheral route. The tips on the second page are the exception. They offer reasons and specific actions that a motivated reader could evaluate, a central-route element for the minority who turn the page.
The Techniques, Tested One at a Time
Descriptive norm: the neighbor comparison
The bar chart and the percentage communicate a descriptive norm, information about what others actually do. Schultz et al. (2007) tested exactly this technique with households in California. Households received feedback on their energy use compared with the neighborhood average. Those above average reduced their consumption afterward. But households below average increased theirs, moving toward the norm, a boomerang effect. The identification therefore holds, with a warning: a descriptive norm pulls people toward the average from both directions. The report's choice of comparison group is worth noticing in this light. By featuring efficient neighbors rather than only the average, it sets the reference point at the most efficient fifth of homes, so that most households will appear above the norm and only a few will see themselves as already doing better than it. That design reduces the number of households for whom the boomerang could occur, though the studies reviewed here do not test the efficient-neighbor comparison separately, so this reading is an inference from the mechanism rather than a reported result.
Injunctive norm: the smiling face
The rating adds an injunctive norm, a signal of what is approved. In the same study, Schultz et al. (2007) found that adding a smiling face for below-average households, and a frowning face for above-average ones, prevented the boomerang: low users kept their consumption low. The report's smiles therefore have a specific function the research identified, protecting against the backfire of the comparison. Notably, the composite report gives a smile even to households above average; it never shows a frown, which may reduce the injunctive message for heavy users.
Self-efficacy cues: the tips
The tips address whether the household knows what to do. The research reviewed here does not test this element separately, so its contribution is not established by these sources, though it is plausible that comparisons alone change behavior less when people do not know how to respond.
Source: the utility
The letter comes from the utility, a source that benefits from reduced demand in some regulatory settings and from sales in others. Under the elaboration likelihood model, source characteristics act mainly as peripheral cues, and a source seen as self-interested could weaken the message. The research reviewed here does not measure this effect for energy reports.
What the Field Evidence Shows Overall
Allcott (2011) analyzed randomized evaluations of home energy reports sent to roughly 600,000 households by one provider across multiple utilities. The reports reduced energy use by about 2 percent on average, with larger reductions among households that had used the most energy before the program. That result is modest per household but large in aggregate, and it was produced under randomized conditions in real homes rather than in a laboratory. It also matches the pattern Schultz et al. would predict: the heaviest users, furthest above the norm, changed most.
Summary of the Identifications
| Element of the report | Technique | What the research established |
|---|---|---|
| Bar chart and percentage | Descriptive norm | Reduces use above the norm; can raise use below it (Schultz et al., 2007) |
| Smiling-face rating | Injunctive norm | Prevents the boomerang among low users (Schultz et al., 2007) |
| Tips with savings | Efficacy information | Not tested separately in these sources |
| Utility as sender | Source cue | Not measured for energy reports in these sources |
| The report as a whole | Peripheral route mainly | About 2% average reduction in randomized field trials (Allcott, 2011) |
What the Analysis Shows
The report is a well-built example of persuasion through social norms rather than argument. Its main techniques are supported by experimental and field evidence, and its design reflects a specific finding about how to prevent a known backfire. The analysis also shows where identification outruns evidence: the tips and the source are plausible elements whose effects these studies did not isolate. A persuasion analysis is strongest when it says which parts of an appeal are backed by research and which are merely reasonable. For a reader who receives such a report, the analysis also explains a familiar reaction: the brief sting of seeing one's bar above the neighbors' is the technique working as designed.
References
Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9-10), 1082-1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429-434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x
Reading the PS 303 Unit 3 instructions
The third PS 303 unit asks students to analyze a real persuasion attempt in detail. Expect to describe a campaign, appeal or pitch precisely, identify the route it relies on using a named model, identify each technique it uses, and test each identification against what research actually established about that technique. Good choices are attempts with several distinct elements and published research on at least some of them. The elaboration likelihood model is a common framework, though others are acceptable if attributed. A pitch aimed at you personally is fine if described without private details. Identifications that research has not tested should be labeled as plausible rather than established.
How this PS 303 Unit 3 example is built
A description of the report opens the paper: the bar chart, the efficient-neighbor comparison, the smiling-face rating, three tips and the sender. The route section applies the elaboration likelihood model to how a typical household reads the report. Four run-in sections then test each technique: descriptive norms against the boomerang finding, the smiling face against the injunctive-norm finding, tips and source as untested elements. A field evidence section reports Allcott's randomized results and links them back to the mechanism. A summary table lists each element, its technique and what research established, and the close distinguishes supported from merely reasonable identifications. Untested elements are labeled as such rather than assumed to work.
PS 303 Unit 3 rubric: what full points look like
Herzing's rubric for the attitudes and persuasion paper usually allots points to a precise description of the attempt, a justified route classification, accurate technique identification, testing against research and recognition of untested elements, plus clear writing. Description earns credit when another reader could picture the appeal. Route classification scores when tied to motivation and ability to process. Identification earns points when each element is named. Testing usually decides the grade: reports of what the studies found, backfire effects included, earn the top band. Recognition of untested elements is credited as careful reasoning rather than penalized as a gap. A summary table matching elements to evidence is a common and effective close.
Common PS 303 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Persuasion papers lose points when they summarize persuasion theory and mention the attempt only at the end. Another frequent weakness is labeling techniques without checking whether research supports their effect. Students often classify a route without considering how the audience actually reads the message. Some report laboratory effects without field evidence when field evidence exists. Others claim every element works. Analyzing a pitch aimed at you is fine, but leave out account numbers or personal details. Ignoring the possibility of a backfire, such as a descriptive norm pulling low users upward, is a frequent oversight in analyses of norm-based appeals. Treating the sender as neutral, when the source has its own interests, is a further gap worth avoiding in any analysis of persuasion.
Get a PS 303 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Bring the Unit 3 instructions, the PS 303 rubric and the persuasion attempt your section wants examined, or leave the choice to us. The custom example describes the attempt first, defines the routes, names each technique with its evidence, and bounds what analysis alone can show. No cost on the first, 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 303 papers and psychology samples
- PS 303 Unit 1: Social cognition paper
- PS 303 Unit 2: Attribution analysis
- PS 303 Unit 4: Conformity and obedience paper
- PS 303 Unit 5: Group processes paper
- PS 303 Unit 6: Prejudice and stereotyping paper
- PS 303 Unit 7: Research ethics analysis
- PS 303 Unit 8: Applied social psychology paper
- PS 210 Unit 3: Attachment and family paper
- PS 323 Unit 3: Cognitive and ability differences paper
- PS 350 Unit 3: Working memory paper
- PS 101 Unit 3: Biological basis short paper
PS 303 Unit 3 questions, answered
What makes a good persuasion attempt to analyze?
Something you can put in front of a reader and describe exactly. A printed appeal, a public campaign or a recorded pitch gives you words to quote and structure to examine, while a remembered conversation gives you a paraphrase nobody can check. Your instructions may specify a medium, so read them first, then pick something with enough content to carry several identifications.
Which theoretical model should the analysis use?
Usually the one your readings put in front of you, and most sections name it. If more than one is available, choose by what the material demands: an appeal built on argument quality asks for a model that separates careful processing from quick response, while a short emotional pitch may fit a model of attitude change better. Say why you chose it.
Can I analyze a pitch aimed at me personally?
Only if you can strip it back to something general. A sales call you took or an appeal from your workplace carries a named company, an identifiable representative and sometimes your own financial details, none of which belong in a graded file. Public material aimed at everybody works better anyway, since a reader can look at it and judge your reading.
Where can I find a free PS 303 Unit 3 sample paper?
Read the whole PS 303 Unit 3 persuasion paper on home energy reports here without charge, with the route analysis, technique tests, field evidence and margin notes. Analyzing a different appeal? Describe the appeal and your instructions, and a technique-by-technique analysis is drafted free.
Which model should a PS 303 Unit 3 analysis use?
The elaboration likelihood model is a strong default because it predicts which elements matter for a given audience. The sample uses it to explain why the report relies on quick cues rather than arguments.