Commentary

Abstract

Can psychological and practice theory approaches to environmental sustainability be integrated? As a psychologist and a social theorist who collaborate in interdisciplinary research, we followed the debate in this journal between Shove (2010;, Whitmarsh and colleagues (2011), andWilson andChatterton (2011) with interest. The question of whether psychological and practice theory approaches to promoting sustainable behaviour and social change can be integrated for effective policy making is crucial for our work.Initiating the debate, Shove (2010) argued that current UK strategies to mitigate climate change, based in psychology and economics, are limited because they assume that an individual's behaviour is chosen and that choice is driven by attitudes. Noting that social practices are configured by institutions, she argued that contemporary 'rules of the game' must be eroded and existing institutions challenged for more sustainable practices to be established.In response, Whitmarsh et al ( 2011) argued that psychology does not view behaviour as 'chosen' or straightforwardly attitude driven, and called for an integration of practice theory and psychological approaches. This call was rejected by Shove (2011) because these approaches have incommensurable methods of enquiry, meanings of evidence, and research agendas.Finally, Wilson and Chatterton (2011) took a pragmatic approach. They argued that, because practice manifestations are behaviours, practice theory insights enhance psychological ones, providing policy makers with additional ways of thinking about environmental sustainability.We do not agree with Shove (2010; 2011) that the differences between practice theory and psychological approaches make them incommensurable. Similarly, unlike Wilson and Chatterton (2011), we believe that using multiple models is not necessary for broadening the conceptualization of issues of sustainability. Rather, like Whitmarsh et al (2011), we believe that an integrated approach is necessary to achieve environmental sustainability because both individual action and social structures must change. In this commentary we outline Binder's (2008;2012) Model of Recursive Cultural Adaptation (MORCA), an integrated model that has proved useful for understanding how unsustainable practices can be modified.The MORCA draws on a range of disciplines, including psychology, sociology, and philosophy, to explain why and when social practices are defended, modified, or transformed. These include James's (1890) theoretical work on habits, Bourdieu's concept of habitus, and Sharrock and Dennis's (2008) Wittgensteinian analysis of rules that demonstrates we do not necessarily follow them.A central proposition of the MORCA is that practices exist and are transmitted between practitioners because they are useful, allowing them to function effectively. As a result, practices are shared by a community of practitioners. Further, practices and their meanings are learned and their enactment (ie, their behavioural component) becomes habitual with time. As a ...

Climate‐relevant behavioral spillover and the potential contribution of social practice theory

“…We are not aware of any prior work that explicitly relates social practice theory to forms of spillover. To some extent, this may result from ongoing debates about potential points of synergy and divergence between psychological and sociological perspectives (e.g., Ref ) and the extent to which these competing perspectives can or should be integrated to understand and intervene in social action . Nevertheless, while recognizing the important ontological and epistemological differences between these perspectives, we are mindful that attempts to understand and tackle ‘wicked’ problems like climate change can fruitfully benefit from a wide range of different disciplines and societal perspectives .…”

Informing a social practice theory framework with social-psychological factors for analyzing routinized energy consumption: A multivariate analysis of three practices

“…Although SPT and psychology scholars share an interest in understanding "repetitive climate-relevant actions" [9], the two perspectives are often presented as contrapositions [6,10]. The epistemological differences between SPT and theories of behavior are rooted in conflicting conceptualizations of the basis of action; in theories of behavior, the basis of action is individual choice, whereas in theories of practice, it is socially shared conventions [11].…”

“…The authors suggested that changes across different practices may co-occur with changes in competences (e.g., self-efficacy and skills) and meanings (e.g., goals and values). Boldero and Binder [10] have worked on localizing norms in an SPT framework by relying not only on SPT insights but also social-psychological understandings of norms and their contribution to changing routines.…”

Household Energy and Water Practices Change Post-Occupancy in an Australian Low-Carbon Development

“…This would allow for the statistical analysis of changes in energy and water consumption to be undertaken with confidence. It may also provide an opportunity to consider other methods of analysis such as multi-criteria analysis [71,72] or the model of recursive cultural adaptation [73,74].…”