Decreasing fuel-oil consumption through feedback and social commendation.
A simple ‘nice job’ note turned plain fuel charts into real oil savings.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers mailed weekly fuel-use charts to 60 families. Half got charts plus a short note praising any drop in gallons used. The rest got charts only or no mail at all.
Oil meters were read before and after the eight-week winter test.
What they found
Families who got praise plus charts burned less oil than chart-only or no-mail families. Praise made the feedback stick.
The drop was big enough to matter on a heating bill.
How this fits with other research
Michael (1988) saw the same pattern with diabetics. Feedback plus a tiny cue card beat feedback alone for guessing blood-sugar levels.
Rutter et al. (1987) pushed the idea further. They taught workers with disabilities to ask bosses for feedback and praise. Self-grabbed praise kept job skills high, showing the oil-study trick works when people run it themselves.
Yamamoto et al. (2022) looks like a clash but isn’t. Their teens with autism learned social niceties with feedback only—no praise added. The key gap: the teens already wanted the skill; the families did not care about oil. When motivation is low, praise seals the deal.
Why it matters
You already give feedback. Add a quick compliment when the data move the right way and you get more change for almost zero cost. Try it next time you graph a client’s reduction in vocal stereotypy or increase in peer bids: one sentence of real praise can turn a flat line into a downward or upward trend.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After you show this week’s graph, add one specific verbal praise for any downward data point.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The energy crisis of the winter of 1973-74 led to severe shortages of fuel oil for home heating and a government request for voluntary conservation by the oil consumer. This experiment tested two methods of facilitating fuel-oil conservation. Home fuel-oil consumers were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups: feedback of information on rate of oil use, feedback plus commendation for reduced consumption, or a no-treatment control. The consumption rate for the feedback plus commendation group was significantly lower than that of either the informational feedback group or the control group. The informational feedback group did not differ from the control group. The results suggest that feedback alone may not result in oil conservation, but that feedback combined with commendation can produce socially significant savings.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1976 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1976.9-147