Essay: Improving energy consumption and energy saving behavior

i. Project brief
Energy waste is an issue of considerable size. Not only at home, but more increasingly so in public spaces. The TU Delft has set itself a number of sizable energy saving goals for the near future, but with current initiatives focusing mostly on efficiency and responsible sourcing, not much is being done about altering the demand for energy. In this thesis I will set out to design a solution that targets the energy problem from a behavior change perspective.
The project brief of this graduation thesis comes forth from a design challenge formulated by Gert Jan de Werk for students participating in the D-exto summer programme. The assignment was to create an iconic, TU Delft relevant installation
that could show occupants of a building the current state of energy use in a supply and demand form. The goal of this installation is to create an awareness of the amount of energy that is being used and the portion that is used efficiently. The ICON, as it was called was meant to communicate the goals of the TU Delft with respect to sustainability and energy use while simultaneously showcasing the state of the art in technology.
The project was picked up as a part of Jantien Doolaard’s (former IDE student) work on improving energy behavior at IDE. In collaboration with a group of students from the “Sustainable Innovation in Practice” course at TPM (faculty of Technology, Policy and Management), first steps were made towards realizing this “energy icon”. However, being part of a much larger, mainly research based project, the final deliverable was far from production-ready. A demand remained for the further development of the installation and this is where my project took off.
In my research I will explore how tangible and non tangible interactions with an installation can be used to alter people’s energy saving behavior. Contextual research provided by Doolaard provides a solid base for a complete redesign of the ICON using social and persuasive design.
ii. D-exto
This project has two stakeholders, the first of which being D-exto. D-exto is short for “Delft experience tomorrow” and is a joint venture between the TU Delft, inHolland and the Haagsche hogeschool that aims to promote sustainable technology that is being developed at both schools. Each year a group of HBO, WO bachelor, master and PhD students are given the opportunity to present their work in a zero-footprint pavilion that was specifically designed for this purpose. Initially designed for the Mekelpark at TU Delft, the pavilion now also travels to a number of summer festivals hoping to reach a larger audience. Through this showcase, D-exto hopes to show that sustainability is easy, fun and pragmatic.
D-exto believes that festivals are the ideal playground for product and service development since they represent a complete self sufficient mini society. Examples of projects currently included in the showcase include Kartent (a fully recyclable cardboard tent), the energy playground (playground apparatus that converts play into mechanical energy) and Blenderbikes (bikes that power a smoothie blender). (D-exto, 2015)
D-exto gave me the opportunity to present my project at a twofold of festivals (A Day of Wonder and Welcome to the village) where co-creation, prototyping and user testing was done. As mentioned, the ICON project was kicked off as a D-exto project and an interest for showcasing it as a part of the pavilion still remains.
iii. IDStudioLab
The second stakeholder in this project is IDStudioLab at IDE. IDStudiolab is a design- research community located in the IDE building consisting of a mix between PhD researchers, graduate students, professors and other staff. The main focus of research that takes place in IDStudioLab is experience centered design and design driven research and education. IDStudiolab has provided me with the guidance team for this project in the form of Tomasz Jaskiewicz and Aadjan van der Helm and holds an interest in the outcome of the project hoping to implement the solution that comes forth.
IDStudioLab kindly provided me with a workplace in one of the studios, exposing me to
a wealth of interesting research directions, methodologies and people. The studio also houses a maker lab which I used to my advantage while prototyping electronics and other designs. (IDStudiolab, 2015)
The IDStudiolab has greatly shaped me as a designer throughout my education at IDE, with courses like Interactive Technology Design, Interaction and Electronics and the interactive Environments minor being counted among my most influential courses.
I strongly believe in the added value of rapid prototyping and user testing through experiential prototypes.
iv. The ICON
The ICON installation is an installation that will to be placed at the entrance of the IDE building. The ICON is intended to replace the Lampan92 installation created by Walter Aprile, Aadjan van der Helm and Rob Luxen, that currently resides in this location. The ICON, as is, is a concept presented by Jantien Doolaard in her graduation thesis.
The interactive installation that Doolaard designed consists of a large suspended lamp made up of different “icicle” elements. These icicle shaped plexiglass objects refer metaphorically to the torch in the TU Delft logo. Each icicle is lit up by an addressable RGB LED strip that reacts to the current state of energy use in the IDE building.
In the middle of the suspended elements, a projector is hidden. This projector is used to make the installation informative and interactive. A memory game is projected on the floor beneath the installation with which users can interact by motion sensing (using
a Kinect camera). The game is meant to encourage multiple player participation and social engagement while informing the user about sustainability issues. In addition to the projector, the installation also makes use of a screen that displays an after message about the TU Delft’s energy saving goals once the game is complete. (Doolaard, 2015)
We, humans, use incredible amounts of energy. We need it to drive everything from the lights that guide us at night to the cars we drive to the computers we use to work on daily. Energy provides us with comfort and luxury, it makes life easier and more efficient, it drives our entire society. But our consumption of energy has adverse effects on our living environment. With the expansion of world population and the demand for energy increasing every instant, our environment is paying the price. We need to start acting upon this unsustainable growth, and do something about our energy problem!
This section of my paper will explore what energy is, how we are using it and how we can diminish our consumption of it or reduce harmful consequences. After this, I will take a specific look at what the TU Delft is currently doing to decrease their energy footprint and what are future possibilities for doing this. This section aims to form an image of the current state of energy consumption
ii. What is energy?
Electrical energy (which is what I will be focusing on in this thesis) is an invisible good that is generated from a fuel source (think fossil fuel combustion) or transformed from a renewable source (think solar power generation). This generated energy can be transferred or stored to do work for us when needed. At current, the vast majority of the world’s energy is being generated from non renewable resources like coal or oil (See fig4).
Figure 4: Graph showing world energy consumption per fuel source over time
Generation from non renew-ables implies a twofold of consequences. Firstly, these sources are exhaustible, meaning that over time the stockpile of these fuels will deplete. Secondly, non renewable energy sources require a transformation in order to generate electricity. Byproducts of the transformation include greenhouse gases and other harmful residue that cause harm to health and environment. Sea level rise and climate shift are two examples of environmental consequences of pollution.
Following this, it is logical that we need to look for energy alternatives in the future, whether it be to avoid an energy crisis when fuels deplete or, for the more altruistic people among us, to save ourselves, our planet and environment. We must start thinking about our own future and that of generations to come, as we are worsening the energy problem an alarming rate.
iii. How can we save energy?
There are three main ways to realize energy savings according to the Trias energitica model proposed by Duijvesteijn (Duijvesteijn, 1996) First and foremost efficiency is
an important focus in reducing the amount of energy we consume. With the evolution of technology we are able to accomplish more with less, appliances we use consume less and less energy. As an example: “cars made today go a lot more miles on the same amount of gas than they did 20 years ago. When more useful energy is extracted from
a system, less waste results. From the first steam engines to today’s best gas turbines, efficiency in energy use has increased 50 fold, while the amount of carbon in the world’s energy mix has declined at an average annual rate of 0.3 percent” (Classroom Energy, 2015)
The second point in the model focuses on responsible generation and the sources of energy. Instead of extracting power from harmful and depletable sources, renewable or green energy is created from sources that are not damaging to the environment. These energy sources often take advantage of natural energy streams like heat radiation, wind or water flow. Using a turbine ,for example, we can harness this power and use it as an alternative to fossil fuels.
However, the simplest and least taxing way to save energy, is to alter human behaviour. One of the best ways to accomplish savings is simply by consuming less. According to research done by (WBCSD ,2009) wasteful behavior accounts for 30% of total usage. In an ideal situation this would be our margin for improvement if targeting behavior solely. Simply getting people to switch off lights, unplug appliances and not open windows while the air conditioning is running can have a drastic effect on consumption
iv. How do we consume energy?
Energy consumption can be generalized into two situations of use: domestic use and public use. However, it is important to realize that the two situations entail an entirely different form of “problem ownership” and direct concequences for the user.
How do we use energy in domestic spaces?
An average 1 person home in the Netherlands consumes 30 Euros worth of electricity per month or 2.010kWh per year according to Nibud (Nibud, 2015). Trends show that energy use at home in the Netherlands has been declining since 2008. Consumers are paying more attention to their behavior and using more energy efficient appliances than they were in the past, this is also true for the rest of Europe (Gerdes et al., 2014). Overall, this provides a very positive outlook for the future.
So why is this declining?
The domestic situation of use implies direct energy ownership. At home, we pay the bills for the energy we use in our appliances and devices and are ultimately responsible for what we consume. Monetary incentive is highly motivational in the home situation, and users are generally very willing to invest time and money into reduction of energy use and energy efficiency.
How do we use energy in public spaces?
75% of total building stock in Europe is defined as residential, leaving the other 25% classified as non-residential according to the BPIE. Contrary to what we are seeing in the domestic market, consumption in the non residential sector is sustaining growth (as can be seen in fig. 7). The non residential sector uses up to 40% more energy per square meter as compared to the residential sector. (Economidou et al. ,2011)
So why is this growing?
In public space there is no such thing as ownership of energy. Energy consumed is generally paid for by the owner of the space. Funding through grants, membership fees, earnings or tuition fees takes care of costs, regardless of how much energy any individual uses. This generally results in careless consumption. In addition to this, a higher demand for flexible working hours has contributed to longer opening hours and increased demands for comfort (Pérez-Lombard et al. , 2008)
How is energy consumed?
Independent of sector, energy is mostly used to create comfortable working and living spaces. Climate control and lighting take up the largest part of consumption in both cases. The rest is divided up between use of appliances and other destinations (see fig. 8&9).
5% Dishwasher
5% Washing machine
7% Tumble dryer 3% Vacuum cleaner
3% Fridge
5% Freezer
9% TV
6% Audio/video
Figure 8&9: (Left) Chart showing breakdown of energy use in Dutch homes (Right) Chart showing breakdown of energy use in public sector buildings
What are we doing about it now?
Domestic
Users in the home have access to a number of relatively low investment solutions
to target their high energy consumption. Energy management kits are becoming more common as smart meters are being installed by a growing number of energy suppliers. Smart thermostats, plugs, sensor switches are almost ubiquitous nowadays. (Rijksoverheid, 2013)
Public space
Traditionally, savings in the public space were very focused on efficiency. Owner driven changes like switching an entire building to incandescent light are means to make the overall functioning of a building cheaper. Lately, monitoring systems are becoming more and more common, but represent a significant investment and upgrade to the available energy grid. Smart systems like automatic shutoffs and sensing equipment is also being put into place more and more often but, like monitoring systems require alterations to existing grid and investments.(Energy star, 2015) Little is being done to target the users of the buildings directly, which is why this project was started.
v. Energy at TU Delft
The TU Delft has an estimated yearly energy consumption of 70,000 MWh (Energy monitor, 2013), part of which is generated by the CHP plant in gas generators, the rest is purchased from external suppliers. According to Sander Snelleman (Snelleman, 2015) at the TU Delft CHP plant, the university uses mainly non renewable power to drive facilities across campus. This will remain this way until new contracts are negotiated in 2017.
There are a number of initiatives working on increasing the amount of renewable energy that powers the University. Recent Investments in solar panels are expected to lead to
a 2% increase in self sufficiency. Also, projects were introduced to generate energy by wind power (Energy monitor, 2013). A number of programs are currently running that target light saving and computer management. These have been introduced to decrease the energy waste of idle devices. New hibernation algorithms, for example, implemented in 2015 have led to incredible energy savings already. (Dronkers, 2015)
The university has set itself a number of long term goals in becoming more sustainable. The first of which is known under the code MJA3. This goal states that “the primary energy used by TU Delft, should be decreased with 30% in 2020 with 2005 as a baseline.” Also, TU Delft aims to produce 25% of its energy using renewable sources
in 2020. 20% of its heat production and 5% of the electricity production should be renewable (Smart campus, 2014). In 2013 the University signed an additional deal stating that the University should be energy neutral by 2050. This deal was made in conjunction with local authorities and also applies to the rest of Delft. (Gemeente Delft 2050, 2013)
At current, these goals are being pursued, but are far from complete.
At current:
• TU Delft produces 6.3 out of 30% of heat by renewable energy
• 5 out of 5% of the electricity is produced by renewable energy but is immediately used for the production of new energy
• 5.7 out of 30% of the total production of energy is produced by renewable energy (Smart campus, 2014)
vi. Energy monitoring at TU Delft
The TU Delft campus is built up of a number of different buildings dating from different years and eras. IDE was built in 2000 and is relatively young as compared to other buildings such as 3ME (Architectuurgids Delft, 2015). The energy network currently installed and used at IDE is an “old fashioned” AC network. This type of network is the most common around the world as AC traditionally had clear advantages over DC power distribution in terms of energy losses over long distances (Faulkner, 2013). Monitoring of energy use is currently only being done at the transformers entering the building. Specifications per space or group are not currently being made. So how do we currently gather data about energy usage and who is doing it ?
Energy monitor
The energy monitor gives an overview of the total energy that is being used by each building on the TU Delft campus. Energy monitor is an initiative by FMVG, better known as facility management. This system is updated monthly and gives a good overall view
of the amount of energy that is consumed throughout the TU Delft campus with a specification per building. The system is very basic and relies on manual recording and entry of meters. (Energy monitor, 2013)
SusLab
SusLab is a research group spread over four countries. The goal of suslab is to “test methodologies that aim to promote sustainability and quality of living. The focus is on the underlying energy consumption and indoor climate regulation influenced by the behaviour of people.” SusLab has developed the sensor-kit that can monitor energy
use of specific appliances in the form of plugs. Also SusLab developed the comfort dial,
a device which aims to gather subjective data in the same areas the sensor-kit is used. The combination of these two technologies should give insights into the optimal balance between comfort and energy use required to create a climate. (SusLab, 2015)
Metrics using sensors
For testing the new hibernation algorithms implemented on TU Delft PCs, energy use was monitored in a number of the CTRL ALT DELETE computer labs at IDE. This survey was carried out by the Delft Energy Club as a request from the Sustainable campus direction. A number of non intrusive current sensors were placed on power wires so that the energy use of the labs could be measured. These sensors, connected to data loggers provide an easy way to gather local usage data with minimum alteration to the existing grid. (Dronkers, 2015)
DC network vision
In the future, it might be possible to monitor energy with more precision once DC networks are implemented. These direct current networks allow for the use of the full bandwidth of copper wire and can send data simultaneously while delivering power. The TU Delft is currently planning to run pilots to test the implementation and applicability of this technology (Dronkers, 2015).
vii. Specific energy use at IDE
We now have a clear image of what energy is, how we use it in general, how we use it at Home and in public space, what is happening to both situations, what the TU Delft is doing about it specifically and what means we have to monitor it. I would now like to zoom in on specific energy behavior at IDE. Doolaard spent her graduation project investigating this phenomenon and drew a number of very interesting and relevant conclusions.
In her graduation work, a number of experiments were carried out to investigate specific energy use at IDE. Through internal and external research Doolard was able to sketch an image of the current state and distill actionable points that can be targeted in order to reduce the wasteful behavior of building occupants.
Using the comfort dial and sensor kit equipment developed by SusLab a number of students and employees were monitored in their daily energy use behavior. Social research was carried out using questionnaires and interviews, in which behavioral patterns were explored and causes for behavior were investigated.
A specific break down of energy use within the IDE building was attempted, however, it was found that without proper measuring systems implemented in the power network, this is very hard to achieve. An estimation based on research was made as can be seen below.
Following these activities a number of wasteful behaviors became apparent, and reasons for energy wasting behavior or carelessness emerged. The following list describes the main target behaviors that cause energy waste according to Doolaard’s thesis:
1. Energy is an intangible good, users don’t notice it
2. Occupants don’t pay the bills, there is no ownership
3. People are too lazy to do something about energy waste
4. People feel the need for energy waste to sustain productivity
5. People don’t know what to improve on to waste less energy
6. People are completely unaware of the TUDelft’s saving goals
7. There is no energy saving culture
Found behaviors resulted in the creation of the “Delft Energy Network”. The Delft Energy Network consists of five separate solutions and an implementation scheme. All solutions were tested and evaluated and presented as a complete package to reduce the energy footprint of the IDE building. Low tech “Nudges” were used to target specific wasteful behaviors, the “energy icon” functioned as an installation that raised awareness about TU Delft goals and current situation, an interactive cube that translated CO2 to daily practices and a social glue was meant to engage users socially in order to create an energy culture. (Doolaard, 2015)
viii. Conclusion
While our home energy situation is currently improving tremendously, our public
spaces are really lagging behind in terms of improving energy consumption awareness There really is only so much we can do through advances in efficiency and better
energy sourcing. Behavior is a very serious third factor in consumption that we must begin to target in this public space context. With increasing flexibility of working hours and a higher demand for productivity than ever, behavior will become an increasingly important factor in achieving energy savings. But it is a difficult target, as incentives are hard to find and people generally do not feel responsible for their use… If they notice it at all.
Currently the TU Delft is working hard at completing a set of ambitious energy reduction goals, but is still very far from accomplishing them. Now roughly a quarter of the way towards completing any which one, the university needs to shift into a higher gear to reach their goals in the allotted time. The main focus of efforts are currently on efficiency and sourcing, but behavior falls out of the picture almost entirely. While there are many sustainability initiatives campus-wide, the TU Delft remains very tech focused. Perhaps a good time to shift focus?
There are many other opportunities that present themselves from this research. Developments in clean technology, power grids and sensing technology can all be harnessed to accelerate the improvements the TU Delft wants to make. However, It was found that getting a good personal specification in measuring power will be very hard in the current situation, and is maybe something that is not worth pursuing for this project. The AC network will require an immense amount of alteration and investment to be able to get information about energy use on a personal level.
But one should not underestimate the power of more basic solutions. We need to raise awareness, we need to let people realize that their attitude is wrong and that they CAN actually make a difference together. We need to stimulate the energy culture at IDE.
The term behavior is used to describe how a person, or even more generally, an animal acts. Some behavior is linear and easily explained, other behavior is random and completely inexplicable. Behavior is what makes us individuals, it is the way we express ourselves. But where does behavior come from, and how do we influence it (especially in relation to eco-friendliness) ? These are questions I will try to answer in the coming section.
Why do some people seem to care for the environment, while others can assume a completely careless attitude? Is sustainability in our nature? Or do we need an alternate drive to perform these types of activities? Are there differences in types of motivation related to the subject? In order to find the answers to these questions, I researched altruistic behavior and how it relates to sustainability, as well as motivation, how it manifests itself and where it comes from.
Having found answers concerning the nature of our acts, I then explored literature about influencing behavior through design. Two main models were used in this thesis to guide behavior change: social design framework by Nynke Tromp, which gave general direction and BJ Fogg’s Persuasive technology / behavior model which detailed the selected persuasive design strategies. Simultaneously I looked into more general publications about behavior change with respect to eco-friendliness to see how non design related instances were dealing with the matter.
Lastly, I examined specific persuasive methods: gamification and product attachment as a means to generate intrinsic motivation.
ii. Altruism
How do we come to perform sustainable actions and what motivates us to take care of the environment? Evolutionary biologist Dawkins argues that sustainability goes against human nature, and is in essence non Darwinian behavior. He states that our brains are programmed to seek short term rewards and that the sole reason we are capable of
long term oriented, “sustainable” acts is the incredible intelligence we have developed over time (Dawkins, 2001) We have grown to understand the future implications of our current actions.
It is a lively debate in the world of evolutionary biology, selfless acts goes against what we assume to be true about evolution. Some researchers even go as far as suggesting that pure altruism may be a simple flaw in evolution. “Pure altruism may be an accident of evolution, researchers suggest. A vampire bat that feeds an unrelated roost mate is, in effect, mistaking it for a sister. A bird that adopts another animal’s chick does so because it’s compelled to feed every hungry mouth in its nest.” Altruism is nature’s insurance policy, the effort one puts into performing selfless acts will be repaid by peers later. This is visible in many animals and humans. (Dingfelder, 2006)
So if sustainability does not come naturally and pure altruism does not exist, can we be motivated purely by earning karma points? Engaging users in an act of kindness, altruism, selflessness will most probably require an external source of motivation or longterm vision of gain.
iii. Motivation
“The term motivation refers to factors that activate, direct, and sustain goal-directed behavior… Motives are the “whys” of behavior – the needs or wants that drive behavior and explain what we do. We don’t actually observe a motive; rather, we infer that one exists based on the behavior we observe.” (Nevid, 2013)
There are three main theories that explain the origins of motivation. Firstly, instinct theory, a theory that was favored by famous psychologists such as Sigmund Freud. Instinct theory explains motivation as being a result of instinctive urges. Needs and drives theory explains motivation as being a reaction to biological processes like for example thirst or hunger. And lastly Arousal theory states that motivation is fueled by the quest for a person’s optimal level of arousal.
Within motivation we can differentiate between two types: intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Extrinsic motivation is the type of motivation that comes from external sources, often a type of reward is expected or involved in this situation. Intrinsic motivation is motivation that comes purely from personal gratification, like the satisfaction of solving a complex problem. (Cherry, 2015)
In order to allow behavior change, motivation needs to be provided. I would enjoy designing a solution that motivates “selfless acts” with non monetary or authoritative gain as a result. My ethical concerns play a leading role in this selection since I do not want to force sustainable acts on anyone.
iv. Social design
Social design is a design method that focuses on tackling social issues by designed solutions. Because creative professionals can provide interesting perspectives and solutions, it is seen by some that designers have a responsibility to use their influence for the good of society. This can be done by functional design, but more interestingly through applying knowledge from behavioral psychology. Using different types of influence designers can steer actions or encourage behavior, altering existing (problematic) social situations. Social design can be applied in a wide range of contexts, and is very interesting in the context of encouraging social behavior.
Tromp states that there are four approaches possible to altering behavior through design. Using either Persuasion, Decision, Coercion and Seduction, a designer can attempt to nudge (or push) a user in the desired direction. Each strategy has its implications in terms of experience and effect. As an example, a design employing
the coercive strategy (making a choice for a user) might possibly be experienced as frustrating or constraining. Careful consideration must be put into selecting the right approach for the intended effect and overall feel of the intervention.
To do this, Tromp distilled two variables that can be used to determine positioning
of a design solution within her framework: the salience of influence and the force of influence. Force determining the strength and Salience defining the explicitness of the desired intervention. From an analysis of 68 existing products, Tromp then generates 12 common strategies employed. Examining these I was able to define a desired approach for my own design explorations. (Tromp, 2013)
v. Persuasive technology
Persuasive technology is broadly defined as technology that is designed to change attitudes or behaviors of the users through persuasion and social influence, but not through coercion (Fogg, 2002). A non forcing approach that seemingly fits my ethical considerations on creating a motivation to perform sustainable actions. Persuasive design focuses very much on human-computer interaction and is commonly applied in the fields of web design, game design and design in general. Persuasive design leans heavily on theories put forward by Standford professor BJ fogg.
Fogg’s behavioral model enables designers to evaluate designed solutions and find what psychological triggers are missing, inhibiting them from performing desired actions. It also organizes a large number of psychological theories into a clear and straightforward framework for achieving behavior change. By selecting core motivators, simplifying factors and triggers a designer can easily select a fitting approach towards achieving desired behaviors (Fogg, 2015)
Fogg proposed the functional triad, a framework for thinking about the roles computers play in persuasion of a user (Fogg ,2003) This framework highlights the fact that computers can work persuasively in three main ways: as a social actor, a tool or a medium. A Social actor creates a relationship with the user which leverages persuasion. A tool increases capability and persuades by facilitation, and lastly a medium provides experience allowing people to explore pro’s and con’s of a specific behavior.
vi. Gamification
“Gamification is a persuasive approach. It is the application of game design elements to help achieve a particular designed agenda or goal: for example, to increase user interest, sustain attention, or provoke specific behaviors.” (Froelich, 2015)
Gamification is a concept that can be applied to many different fields and situations and is also often employed to provide existing systems with a more engaging user experience. (Deterding et al, 2011) Gamification focuses for the largest part on extrinsic motivators in the form of virtual money, badges and other rewards… However it can be argued that partaking in the act of a game can also be considered as intrinsic. After all, games are gratifying because the act of partaking is fun. (Deterding 2010)”play is its own reward” (Sawyer,2010)
Gamification of sustainability is already widespread (as can be seen in my analysis of existing solutions later in this report). Jon Froelich, assistant professor at the university of Maryland, examined how gamifying activities surrounding eco-friendlyness could help enthuse people to change their energy consumption in his paper “Gamifying green”. A lengthy inspection of current designs followed by an evaluation concludes that gamification is effective, but seems like a “short term fix” due to the mentioned high reliance on extrinsic motivators. (Froelich, 2015)
vii. Product attachment
By making a connection between product attachment and the creation of empathy
and altruism, it can be argued that this is also a suitable motivator for stimulation of sustainable behavior. “Recent studies based on J. Bowlby’s (1969/1982) attachment theory reveal that both dispositional and experimentally enhanced attachment security facilitate cognitive openness and empathy, strengthen self-transcendent values, and foster tolerance of out-group members.” (Mikulincer et al. ,2005)