Social bases of material consumption: The relationship between social groups and possession of household appliances in Denmark

Abstract

In this article, possession of household appliances in Denmark is used to address the role of social groups in reproducing social norms of material consumption practices. This has been down-played in studies engaging with the ‘practice turn’, especially within the sociology of sustainable consumption. Using latent class analysis, four distinct latent subgroups with similar patterns of material consumption are identified and analysed. On the basis of the possession of appliances, these groups are characterised and labelled unlimited, outdated, limited and updated. After assigning the households to the latent group to which they have the highest probability of belonging, the social character of these groups is examined using logit models, thus making explanations of differences in material consumption practices possible. As identified in other domains of consumption, this study found that patterns of material consumption are socially structured. Researchers within the sociology of sustainable consumption have been particularly interested in studying the role of material arrangements and infrastructures in reproducing shared understandings and common procedures. This article argues that, in order to fully understand the dynamic mechanisms of consumption patterns and the possibilities for sustainable development, the field should equally engage with shared understandings generated and reproduced by social groups.

Keywords

Practice social differentiation material consumption household appliances latent class analysis

Introduction

Most psychological and economic theories often assume that adoption of household appliances is a consequence of individual personalities and values or of deliberate and economically rational choices.¹ One of the major contributions of sociological and anthropological studies of consumption has been to challenge these models of the consumer by emphasising the social, cultural and historical processes related to consumption. Since the founding of the discipline, a significant part of sociological research has tried to understand the role of consumption patterns in establishing, expressing and reproducing social relationships (Simmel, 1990 [1978]; Veblen, 1994 [1899]; Weber, 1978 [1922]). Following this lead, important empirical and theoretical arguments have suggested that social groups² continue both to structure and to be structured by consumption practices (e.g. Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]; Holt, 1997b; Miller, 1987; Warde, 2005).

Over the past decade, the sociology of what can be termed sustainable consumption has shown great interest in exploring and conceptualising the material and functional properties of things (e.g. Christensen and Røpke, 2010; Gram-Hanssen, 2011; Shove, 2003; Shove et al., 2014, 2015). Grounded in theories of practices, and partly derived from STS³ and ANT,⁴ much of this (mostly qualitative) research studies how consumption practices of, for example, cleaning, washing and entertainment are dependent upon (resource-intensive) goods and technological systems. This research is important and sociologically interesting because it has provided a counterpoint, with Elizabeth Shove and her colleagues as central protagonists, to the hegemonic ‘portfolio model’ of the actor⁵ by emphasising the role of habits and routines, organised around shared understandings of good and appropriate conduct. However, when exploring the dynamic mechanisms behind shared understandings – which are often referred to as unwritten rules of conduct, conventions or social norms – and their continuing reproduction in everyday practices, the above-mentioned studies have paid great attention to the role of the material environment in shaping forms and levels of consumption. Consequently, little empirical attention has been given to the social differentiation of consumption practices and the role of social groups in maintaining and reproducing social norms of conduct (also pointed out by Warde (2014)).

In this article, some of the concepts derived from theories of practice are applied on quantitative data, and an empirical approach is presented, capable of capturing the complexity of consumption practices, thereby highlighting nuanced differences in material consumption patterns. By identifying latent subgroups, characterised by their patterns of material consumption, the approach jointly models the composition and the volume of material consumption practices measured by possession of household appliances in Denmark. After assigning all households to the latent subgroup to which they have the highest probability of belonging to, the likelihood of belonging to each of the subgroups as a function of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics is modelled.

The social differentiation of consumption practices is a key process for sustainable development and a challenge for sustainable policy, but such differentiation is usually concealed in most existing practice theoretical approaches, especially within the sociology of sustainable consumption. This article sheds light on the role of social groups in reproducing common understandings of what is good and desirable. Thereby, the article offers an analysis of the social differentiation of material consumption practices to a body of research that is dominated by studies that emphasise the role of artefacts and the material layout. This argument will be elaborated further in the following sections.

In the following sections, some of the theoretical concepts associated with theories of practice are presented, and specifically Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is introduced as a way to understand the relationship between social groups and differentiation of consumption practices. Section ‘Data, Variables and Methods’ presents the method, and in section ‘Results and Analysis’, the theory is evaluated within the results of the analysis. Section ‘Conclusion’ summarises the conclusion.

Theoretical background

Social practices as arrays of human activities and the role of social groups

Practices have increasingly become the primary object of social science analysis, and the concept of practice has been applied in various empirical studies. Within the sociology of consumption, engagement with ‘the practice turn’ (Schatzki et al., 2001) has especially drawn attention towards the mundane activities of everyday life and the ordinary and inconspicuous aspects of consumption (for a review, see Warde, 2015).

There is no unified theoretical approach to practices, but prominent sociologists such as Pierre Bourdieu (1977 [1972]) and Anthony Giddens (1984) are often associated with practice theory. They were especially interested in reconciling individual agency and social structures (Ortner, 1984). More recently, empirical sociology has especially drawn on the work of Judith Butler (1989), as well as on ethnomethodology and science and technology studies (e.g. the work of Callon and Latour (1992), Pickering (1995) and Latour (2005)).

Within most practice theoretical accounts, practice is understood as organised bodily activity, and the bodily conduct plays a central role. Human bodies are socially constrained and at the same time the locus for agency. The ambition of reconciling agency and social structures was an important rationale for the early practice theorists to focus on bodily conduct. Arrays of human activities become intelligible practices, both for the individuals participating in the practice and for potential future practitioners. They are performed without much reflection and without the need to articulate them (for further reading on theories of practice, see, for example, Reckwitz (2002b) or Rouse (2007)).

In this process, practical understanding becomes important: knowing how to do something, and knowing what things to desire and what to avoid. This is an important theme for sociological studies drawing on theories of practice, and is variously described as practical sense (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]), practical consciousness (Giddens, 1984), practical understandings (Schatzki, 1996), and more recently as understandings (Warde, 2005) and competences (Shove et al., 2012). The locus of such practical understanding, however, varies across scholars. While Pierre Bourdieu examines practical understandings as embodied in humans, Bruno Latour, centred in science and technology studies and actor–network theory, studies practical understandings as embedded in material objects. In this perspective, the material objects become sites of understanding, a materialised understanding, where objects act as resources that enable and constrain the characteristic of a practice (for a more comprehensive theoretical articulation of this, see Reckwitz (2002a)). Within the last decade, the second perspective has received increasing exposure and further development within the sociology of consumption and the sociology of sustainable consumption. For example, Shove (2003) fills in a gap within studies of science and technology by studying conduct arising not just from individual devices but also from interdependent systems of materials. She demonstrates how shared understandings of good and appropriate conduct and their reproduction through practices reflect the external affordance and constraints of material arrangements. In similar ways, Shove et al. (2014) show how escalating energy demand is generally rooted in material systems. In this perspective, regularities in, and reproduction of, practices are, to a large extent, conceived and analysed as properties of the material layout over which people have limited control (see Warde (2014), for a similar discussion). The first perspective, that of Bourdieu, which emphasises the embodiment of practical understandings, has, however, received much less attention within practice theoretical accounts in general and within the sociology of sustainable consumption in particular.

According to Bourdieu (1984 [1979], 1990 [1980]), particular constellations of practical understandings are reflected by specific social trajectories and particular types of social environment. These different life experiences become embodied in the individual and constitute a stock of resources with which individuals, families or social groups act in the pursuit of establishing and reproducing social relationships. These resources provide the individual with the capability to decipher ‘cultural codes’ and behave accordingly. This is captured by Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, a complex historical system of dispositions, which both generates and structures practices (Bourdieu, 1990 [1980]: 53). Habitus then becomes a routinised way of knowing how to act when appropriate circumstances arise, a practical understanding which is embedded in the body and acquired through experience. The experience is not solely individually stored but also collectively. The practices become identifiable to the agents participating in the specific practice as well as to observers who have been exposed to similar social trajectories and hence socialised in similar conditions. This creates homogeneity across social groups, where similar practical understanding of what constitutes competent conduct is applied in the field of practices or in its subdomains (e.g. consumption). Participation in, and performance of, practices then becomes signs of group affiliation united by individuals with similar social trajectories. Empirical research within the sociology of consumption has shown social differences in the interpretation of practices and the use of goods. For example, Holt (1997b) demonstrates how different social trajectories, that is, different cultural frameworks, influence patterns of conduct and orientation towards specific activities and specific material objects.

Empirical studies within the sociology of sustainable consumption often assume that practices and their social meaning are changed and reproduced through infrastructures and different constellations of material objects. When exploring the production and reproduction of conventionally shared understandings and common procedures, focus has, to a large extent, been on how infrastructures and systems of technologies co-evolve with understandings of appropriate conduct. In this sense, infrastructures and systems of materials get a background role in shaping the characteristics of a practice and in explaining the social processes that generate patterns of consumption⁶ (see e.g. Shove et al., 2015). In this context, past experience is materially stored, and systems of material objects compose a knowledge depot that is prepared to travel between individuals (this has been theoretically conceptualised by Shove et al. (2012, 2015)). To Bourdieu, meanings and practical understandings are ‘objectified’ in relational differences in the ways in which people act and are embodied in humans as different constellations of dispositions. Consequently, the engagement in, and performance of, practices are in this perspective interpreted as properties of social groups as opposed to material arrangements. Furthermore, regularities in practices and common procedures are conceived as a consequence of embodied systems of dispositions that vary across social groups, not a consequence of systems of technologies and material arrangements.

Possession of household appliances as an indicator for regularities in practice

From the point of a theory of practice, moments of consumption occur within socially meaningful practices (Warde, 2005). Most, if not all, practices entail consumption and require goods and services in order to be performed in a satisfactory fashion. Observed patterns of consumption can be interpreted as a result of the total amount of the practices, in which a person or household engages (Warde, 2005). From a practice theoretical perspective, patterns of consumption thus provide a good indication of regularities in consumption practices.

Every individual engages in a considerable number of practices, each with its own required equipment, and that number is increasing (Warde, 2005: 141). This is echoed in the prevalence of household appliances. Figure 1 shows that the prevalence of different appliances in Danish households has increased significantly within the last 20 years, with the invention of many new technologies with new and often multiple applications. These changes have made practices increasingly subtle, advanced and complexly intertwined.

Figure 1.

Distribution of a selection of appliances in Danish households 1994–2014.

The supply and diffusion of consumer goods have made them accessible to a wide segment of the population, and in today’s Western societies, the consumption of material goods plays a large role in people’s daily life. Notwithstanding these trends, differences in social groups can have an impact on the type and amount of goods one can consume. Inspired by STS, human use of machines and artefacts has become fundamental for many scholars within the sociology of sustainable consumption when exploring practices and their performance. However, in this article, patterns of possession of household appliances are seen as an indicator of a set of social practices, organised around shared understandings of appropriate conduct. It is the differentiation of these practices that this article endeavours to depict, categorise and understand.

Data, variables and methods

Data

The analysis is based on a survey on possession of household appliances in Danish households, carried out in 2014 by Statistics Denmark as part of their annual omnibus survey. This survey includes a randomly selected, national representative sample.⁷ A household is defined as one or more persons over 20 years old who are related and live together with their children.

The 20 household appliances selected from the survey reflect different practices and cover a wide range of what have been characterised by marketing writers as time-using appliances (e.g. e-book readers and Blu Ray players) and time-consuming appliances (e.g. tumble dryers). Some of the appliances are easy to group; for example, tumble dryer, dishwasher, microwave and robot vacuum cleaner are related to housework practices, telephones are related to communication and videogame consoles to entertainment.⁸ Other appliances, like desktop computers, tablets and smartphones, reflect more than one practice. These appliances reflect practices of entertainment and information acquisition and processing as well as communication. Smartphones also reflect the practice of photography, like digital video cameras and digital cameras, and global positioning system (GPS) watches reflect navigation and sports activities. A broad range of indicators are of great importance in order to capture both the plurality of material consumption practices (not being concentrated within a particular field) and the potential mechanisms of differentiation that exist in society (not over-emphasising minority participation). Table 1 presents the 20 variables used to measure material consumption practices. The indicators are dichotomous and the households are classified as having or not having the appliances.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics, means and standard deviation.

Tumble dryer	0.65 (0.48)
Dishwasher	0.82 (0.39)
Microwave	0.80 (0.40)
Robotic vacuum cleaner	0.08 (0.27)
Digital video camera	0.31 (0.46)
Digital camera	0.80 (0.40)
CD player	0.83 (0.38)
DVD player	0.63 (0.48)
Blu Ray player	0.31 (0.46)
Smart TV	0.16 (0.36)
Desktop computer	0.48 (0.50)
Tablet, mini computer	0.51 (0.50)
Smartphone	0.74 (0.44)
Telephone	0.53 (0.50)
MP3 player	0.43 (0.50)
DAB radio	0.43 (0.50)
GPS navigation	0.66 (0.47)
GPS watch	0.16 (0.36)
Videogame console	0.45 (0.50)
E-book reader	0.07 (0.26)

DAB: digital audio broadcasting; GPS: global positioning system.

The table displays the mean and in brackets the standard deviation.

Explanatory variables

A substantial amount of socioeconomic and demographic information is included by combining the sample with information from the administrative registers in Denmark. The descriptive statistics for these variables are shown in Table 2. The socioeconomic variables include occupational status, education, family income, assets, building ownership and living space. Occupational status is measured by four occupational categories using the head of the household⁹ as the basis for constructing the categories. The classification of occupational status is inspired by the Erikson–Goldthorp–Portocarero (EGP, see Erikson and Goldthorpe (1992)) social class scheme. In addition, I include a fifth category that contains the unemployed and those outside the labour market (e.g. the retired and students). Education is measured using the highest education in the household and contains three categories. Family income is measured by the logarithm of disposable household income. Assets are measured by the value of the property, bank deposits and stocks, bonds and mortgages. As socioeconomic variables, building ownership is also included, measured as a dummy variable with two categories (owner-occupied/cooperative-occupied is coded 0, and rented housing is coded 1), and living space is measured by the logarithm of square metres.¹⁰

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics, means and standard deviation.

Occupational status
Workers (unskilled/skilled)	0.23 (0.42)
Self-employed worker	0.06 (0.24)
Routine non-manual	0.19 (0.39)
Managers	0.25 (0.44)
Not in labour market	0.27 (0.44)
Education
Primary/lower secondary	0.11 (0.61)
Upper secondary	0.41 (0.49)
Higher	0.48 (0.50)
Family income	12.86 (0.62)
Assets	12.72 (1.86)
Ownership (=tenant)	0.25 (0.43)
Size of house (no. of m²)	4.81 (0.41)
Age of adults (average), years
20–29	0.09 (0.29)
30–39	0.12 (0.32)
40–49	0.24 (0.43)
50–64	0.35 (0.48)
65+	0.20 (0.40)
Ethnicity (=immigrated)	0.06 (0.25)
No. of persons in the household	2.49 (1.24)
Children (=yes)	0.41 (0.49)
Apartment building (=yes)	0.23 (0.42)

The demographic variables include age of the adults living in the household, measured by the average age, and ethnicity, measured by a dummy variable (coded 1 if a person in the family immigrated¹¹ to Denmark from another country and 0 otherwise).

Life-stage variables include number of people living in the household and children, measured by a dummy variable (coded 1 for having children living in the household and 0 otherwise). In addition, information on whether or not the household lives in an apartment building is included. Together, these variables measure how different patterns of consumption relate to different household characteristics.

Methods

This section presents the empirical approach used to answer the research questions. This involves finding distinct patterns of consumption and analysing the socioeconomic and demographic correlates. Latent class analysis (LCA) is introduced as an approach to capturing an organising principle, latent subgroups, in rather complex response patterns. The LCA is combined with a range of logit models to estimate the relationship between the latent subgroups and explanatory variables. This empirical approach has been applied in different domains of consumption, for example, in studies of cultural consumption practices (e.g. Katz-Gerro and Jæger, 2013; López Sintas and García Álvarez, 2002).

LCA is a subset of structural equation modelling and can be categorised as the categorical counterpart to factor analysis, in the sense that LCA aims to identify a limited number of distinct latent subgroups, or classes, with similar response patterns, that is, in this case similar patterns of material consumption practices (measured by possession of household appliances). In other words, LCA is a method that constructs statistically independent and mutually exclusive subgroups, which can be characterised on the basis of the possession of household appliances and to which the households have a certain probability of belonging. This is in contrast to factor analysis that characterises the latent variable as continuous and is used to cluster practices or products together.

If we let j (j = 1, … , J) be the items included in the model and r_j (r_j = 1, … , R_j) the response categories, then the latent class model with C classes can be expressed as

P (Y = y) = \sum_{c = 1}^{C} γ_{c} Π_{j = 1}^{J} Π_{r_{j} = 1}^{R_{j}} ρ_{(j, r_{j} | c)}^{I (y_{j} = r_{j})}

In the model, the γ parameters are the probabilities of latent class membership and the ρ parameters are the conditional probabilities of having each of the appliances given latent class membership. Consequently, the model shows the conditional probability of a particular response as a function of the probability of membership of each subgroup (Collins and Lanza, 2010).¹² Given their patterns of possession, all households are assigned to the latent subgroup that they have the highest probability of belonging to.¹³ In order to model demographic and socioeconomic differences across latent subgroups, the approach is extended with logit models of the form:

Logit [P (c = 1)] = α + β_{k}^{c} x_{1} + \dots + β_{k}^{c} x_{k}; c = 1, \dots, C

In the model, the parameter β indicates the probability of group membership controlling for socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Consequently, the model examines the extent to which the exhibition of distinct patterns of consumption can be accounted for by relevant explanatory variables.

Denmark is a small and relatively socially and ethnically homogenous country, which is why I expect that the macro context in which I interpret the results will have less impact compared with larger countries with a more diverse national context. Denmark is a comprehensive welfare state, with the explicit aim of promoting equality both economically and educationally by means of its state-financed post-compulsory education system and redistributive policies. This makes Denmark a good case for studying social bases of consumption practices.

Results and analysis

The following presents the results of the analysis. This part begins with an analysis of the number of latent subgroups required to establish patterns of possession. Once the number of groups is estimated, I turn to the results of the LCA to gain an understanding of the response patterns. Finally, a range of logit models are applied in order to analyse the association with different socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Table 3 shows values of −2 Log-Likelihood (−2LogL), Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) as well as changes in BIC when adding one more latent class.

Table 3.

Model fit for the estimated latent class models.

Classes	−2LogL	AIC	BIC	Changes in BIC
2	−7830.47	6000.99	6191.20
3	−7702.63	5787.31	6073.42	118
4	−7627.06	5678.18	6061.20	12
5	−7568.55	5603.15	6083.08	−22
6	−7524.20	5556.45	6133.29	−50

LogL: Log-Likelihood; AIC: Akaike information criterion; BIC: Bayesian information criterion.

Generally, models with four latent classes show clear improvements and appear to be better than those with only two or three latent classes. When using a fifth class, changes in BIC turn negative, suggesting an over-fitting of the data. Improvements in AIC when using five classes instead of four are not negative but indicate only a modestly better fit of the data. The BIC fit statistics take the number of parameters into account, where smaller numbers indicate better fit of the data and hence a better model (Raftery, 1995). This, combined with the fact that the improvements in AIC are smaller than those when using four classes instead of three, indicates that four latent classes fit the data adequately. Consequently, the results from a four-class LCA model are shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

Four-latent-class model with item-response probability.

Material consumption group	Unlimited	Outdated	Limited	Updated
Group size (%)	0.34	0.32	0.19	0.15
Tumble dryer	0.85	0.76	0.32	0.41
Dishwasher	0.98	0.96	0.42	0.65
Microwave	0.93	0.85	0.57	0.71
Robotic vacuum cleaner	0.16	0.07	0.00	0.02
Digital video camera	0.55	0.28	0.06	0.16
Digital camera	0.95	0.88	0.44	0.73
CD player	0.92	0.89	0.79	0.51
DVD player	0.72	0.70	0.55	0.38
Blu Ray player	0.56	0.17	0.03	0.45
Smart TV	0.30	0.11	0.01	0.13
Desktop computer	0.64	0.56	0.29	0.19
Tablet, mini computer	0.84	0.43	0.11	0.49
Smartphone	0.98	0.65	0.30	0.98
Telephone	0.61	0.68	0.46	0.08
MP3 player	0.76	0.24	0.07	0.57
DAB radio	0.60	0.40	0.31	0.28
GPS navigation	0.91	0.80	0.21	0.36
GPS watch	0.29	0.09	0.02	0.17
Videogame console	0.76	0.26	0.05	0.67
E-book reader	0.16	0.06	0.02	0.00

DAB: digital audio broadcasting; GPS: global positioning system.

Four latent subgroups and their patterns of material consumption

The previous fit statistics in Table 3 indicate that there are underlying subgroups of households with similar response patterns and hence, similar understandings of material consumption practices. Table 4 presents the conditional probability of having the different appliances.

On the basis of the patterns of possession, I have labelled the subgroups Unlimited, Outdated, Limited and Updated. The estimated sizes of the latent subgroups show that the largest group, the unlimited, represents 33% of the households. The smallest group is the updated, representing 15% of the households. The outdated represents 32% and the limited group 19% of the households. The first latent group (33%), labelled unlimited, possesses a variety of appliances. The members of this group are distinguished from the other subgroups by their relatively high probability of possessing a broad range of appliances and a higher-than-average probability of possessing all types of appliances. Derived from the conditional probabilities, the unlimited group is characterised by its members having a high probability of possessing appliances related to activities of entertainment and acquisition of information, such as e-book readers and tablets. Furthermore, the unlimited group is characterised by its relatively high probability of engaging in what can be characterised as housework activities, reflected by the possession of, for example, a tumble dryer. For this group, a normal and decent life seems to include an abundance of household appliances that reflect housework practices as well as state-of-the art equipment. Whether the appliances are more or less sustainable is not possible to comment on; however, it is well-established that overall levels of consumption are generally unsustainable and transition towards more sustainable forms of consumption is about more than just efficiency gains (Munasinghe et al., 2009).

The second latent group (32%), the outdated, differs from the unlimited, given their generally lower probability of possessing the different types of appliances and especially their relatively low probability of possessing the newest state-of-the-art equipment. Presumably, they have neither the competences nor the need to keep up, but they still maintain what can be considered as an adequate amount of appliances to meet their demands and wishes, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

The third latent group (19%) is labelled limited because its members possess only a limited number of the goods from the analysed list. Households that exhibit this pattern are characterised by having a relatively low probability of possessing any of the appliances, and particularly of possessing state-of-the-art equipment and goods that reflect entertainment. Finally, the fourth latent group (15%) is labelled updated, as members of this group differ from the other groups by exhibiting a consumption pattern characterised by decidedly state-of-the-art goods and to a lesser extent possess the goods that reflect housework. They tend to have ‘updated’ practices compared with the outdated group and have a higher probability of possessing state-of-the-art equipment, for example, a Blu Ray player, MP3 player and smartphone, and a lower probability of possessing DVD players, CD players and digital cameras. This group seems to pursue relatively advanced and new technologies with multiple applications.

Social bases of material consumption

The different patterns of possession of household appliances identified and described above involve certain and different understandings of material consumption practices. In this second part of the analysis, I take a closer look at the subgroups and examine the extent to which belonging to a certain latent group can be accounted for by socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, and whether different consumption practices are socially exclusive or inclusive. My analytical strategy is to examine the relationship between group membership and a number of socioeconomic and demographic variables using logit models. The estimates presented in Table 5 show the odds ratio of belonging to each of the four groups: unlimited, outdated, limited and updated, relative to the probability of belonging to the other groups, conditioned by the selected socioeconomic and demographic characteristics.

Table 5.

Results from the four logit models.

	Unlimited	Outdated	Limited	Updated
Occupational status
Workers (unskilled/skilled)	–	–	–	–
Self-employed	−0.430 (0.397)	0.048 (0.375)	0.098 (0.573)	−0.142 (0.749)
Routine non-manual	0.426 (0.296)	−0.669 (0.297)*	−0,956 (0.526)	0.901 (0.403)*
Managers	0.238 (0.289)	−0.588 (0.299)*	−0.853 (0.467)	0.589 (0.461)
Not in labour market	0.032 (0.394)	−0.498 (0.352)	0.021 (0.366)	−0.271 (0.450)
Education
Primary/lower secondary	–	–	–	–
Upper secondary	−0.053 (0.395)	0.385 (0.314)	−0.740 (0.326)*	1.254 (0.611)*
Higher	−0.427 (0.421)	0.756 (0.341)*	−0.620 (0.380)	0.846 (0.666)
Family income	1.250 (0.319)***	−0.235 (0.258)	−1.067 (0.416)*	0.234 (0348)
Assets	0.091 (0.078)	0.007 (0.077)	−0.096 (0.088)	−0.161 (0.090)
Ownership (=tenant)	0,262 (0.350)	−0.238 (0.325)	−0.213 (0.352)	0.175 (0.357)
Size of house (no. of m²)	0.880 (0.328)**	0.446 (0.276)	−1.432 (0.409)***	−0.815 (0.496)
Age of adults (average), years
20–29	–	–	–	–
30–39	0.407 (0.531)	0.071 (0.515)	2.207 (0.738)**	−1.261 (0.456)**
40–49	0.040 (0.499)	0.548 (0.475)	2.357 (0.783)**	−1.412 (0.475)**
50–64	−0.535 (0.482)	1.193 (0.434)**	3.292 (0.628)***	−2.347 (0.420)***
65+	−1.721 (0.683)**	1.505 (0.493)**	3.847 (0.677)***	−4.470 (1.057)***
Ethnicity (=immigrated)	−0.137 (0.375)	0.114 (0.342)	1.020 (0.516)*	−0.281 (0.497)
No. of persons in household	−0.039 (0.141)	0.083 (0.149)	−0.270 (0.308)	−0.063 (0.193)
Children (=yes)	0.789 (0.323)*	−0.595 (0.532)	−0.658 (0.597)	−0.076 (0.462)
Apartment building (=yes)	−0.074 (0.294)	−0.838 (0.314)**	0.272 (0.330)	0.885 (0.331)**
Constant	−21.907 (4.047)***	0.029 (3.172)	18.206 (4.856)***	0.432 (4.552)
Pseudo R²	0.2483	0.105	0.352	0.288

The table states the beta coefficient, the significance level indicated by * and standard errors in brackets *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

Table 5 shows a highly significant relationship between variables that relate to the economic capital of the unlimited. Households that are likely to exhibit unlimited consumption patterns have higher incomes and live in bigger houses¹⁴ than those that are likely to exhibit the other consumption patterns. On the other hand, family income has a negative effect on the probability of belonging to the limited group, which means that members of this group have a lower income compared with those of the other subgroups. This group also tends to live in smaller houses.

Both households exhibiting outdated and households exhibiting updated consumption patterns differentiate from the other subgroups on the basis of educational level. The probability of exhibiting outdated or updated consumption patterns increases with higher levels of education, whereas the probability of exhibiting limited consumption patterns decreases with higher levels of education. The observed patterns show a significant relationship between material abundance and economic capital and a significant relationship between less-materialistic consumption patterns and cultural capital (measured by educational level). This resembles other studies of consumption (e.g. Holt, 1997b). In this sense, a key theoretical approach taken by Bourdieu in Distinction is to disaggregate culturally oriented patterns consumed by cultural elites versus economically oriented patterns consumed by economic elites. With a bigger sample size, it would be very interesting to explore how combinations of high income and high levels of cultural capital would fit into the models. It would also be interesting to explore how material consumption patterns relate to groups of people with high income and low cultural capital and the opposite, how material consumption patterns relate to groups of people with low income and high cultural capital.

Some of the household durables are technically advanced, and the competences required to use them include up-to-date knowledge. Ilmonen (2004: 32) argues that in these cases, it takes longer to learn to use them, to embody the knowledge and to transform it into routine practices. It appears from Table 5 that younger generations are more likely to exhibit updated and unlimited consumption patterns, while older generations are more likely to exhibit outdated and limited consumption patterns. It would be interesting to explore the relationship between consumption patterns and age in-depth. For example, it would be interesting to explore the relationship between consumption patterns and age groups with different levels of income or education. However due to the sample size, this was not possible.

Conclusion

The sociology of consumption has a long history of studying how patterns of consumption are expressed, reproduced and changed within social groups defined by class, ethnicity, age or other social categories. However, recent applications of theories of practice, especially within the sociology of sustainable consumption, have almost exclusively emphasised material arrangements and infrastructures as the dynamic mechanisms behind types and levels of consumption and hence consumption practices. Unlike most practice theoretical approaches and studies within the sociology of sustainable consumption, this article addresses the social differentiation of material consumption. By applying some of the theoretical concepts associated with theories of practice in general, and Bourdieu’s concept of habitus in particular, this article sheds light on the role of social groups in maintaining and reproducing shared understandings of appropriate conduct. In addition, this article introduces LCA, a relatively new approach that in other domains of consumption has shown the capability of capturing the complexity of consumption practices. This approach may be useful to other scholars of (consumption) practices to inform theoretical models of the development and reproduction of specific practices and the role of different participants (e.g. enthusiasts or elites).

First, my analysis portrays four distinct subgroups with similar patterns of possession of household appliances. I find a large group that captures households exhibiting unlimited consumption patterns by being oriented towards a variety of goods. For this group, understandings of a normal and decent life seem to include an abundance of household appliances, reflected by its higher-than-average probability of possessing both state-of-the-art equipment and appliances that reflect housework activities. Furthermore, I find a large group of households exhibiting outdated consumption patterns by possessing a lower level of goods compared with the unlimited and a relatively low probability of possessing the newest state-of-the-art equipment. I find a group of limited that captures households that possess a limited amount of appliances and a group of updated, characterised by possessing decidedly up-to-date technologies and a relatively low probability of possessing goods, which reflect housework activities. With more appropriate data, the consumption patterns could very well be refined. However, given the wide range of indicators, there is reason to believe that a good deal of variation in material consumption practices has been identified by the LCA. Therefore, there is little reason to suppose that the overall characteristics of the established subgroups in my analysis would be compromised. As identified in other domains of consumption, patterns of material consumption are associated with indicators of social grouping. The results from the logit models show that the unlimited group has significantly higher income, whereas the probability of exhibiting a limited consumption pattern decreases with higher levels of income. The probability of exhibiting outdated or updated consumption patterns increases with higher levels of education, whereas the probability of exhibiting limited consumption patterns decreases with higher levels of education. Furthermore, younger generations are more likely to exhibit updated and unlimited consumption patterns, while older generations are more likely to exhibit outdated and limited consumption patterns.

Consumption of household appliances appears in my analysis to be quite simple, yet strongly patterned, which indicates that types and levels of material consumption are determined by conventionally shared understandings of material consumption practices. This leaves little significance to the reflexive, rational consumer and behaviour change policies targeted at influencing individual choice. Instead, as pointed out by several researchers within the sociology of sustainable consumption, the source of changed behaviour lies in understanding the dynamic mechanisms behind consumption patterns. Furthermore, as a contribution to studies within the sociology of sustainable consumption, this article shows that understandings of consumption practices vary across social groups. Consequently, the required goods and services vary across social groups.

According to Bourdieu, the relationships between social groups can be seen as dynamic mechanisms behind reproduction and change, and his notion of habitus and dispositions as generating mechanisms behind practices is one way to grasp this. The field of consumption is a place where social structures are played out and hence reproduced. Regularities in consumption practices then occur because people exposed to similar social trajectories acquire similar practical understandings and dispositions to act. This structures their everyday conduct and hence their patterns of consumption. Habitus (practical understanding) not only structures the performance of a practice but also what practices we engage in (and what we avoid or do not understand), and this is reflected in the possession of goods. These social structures are important to emphasise when understanding forms and levels of consumption, but has been down-played in studies engaging with the ‘practice turn’, especially within the sociology of sustainable consumption. Hence, studies within the sociology of sustainable consumption have offered limited conceptual and theoretical explanations for the role of social groups in generating and maintaining social norms of conduct. However, in order to fully understand the possibilities for sustainable development, attention to the social dynamics between different groups is required.

This article suggests that different groups can be identified in accordance with their material consumption patterns and hence understandings of appropriate conduct. These particular groups could perhaps be targeted in order to facilitate sustainability transitions. For example, the article shows that for some groups, more income would lead to more resource-intensive consumption patterns. Consequently, financial resources and hence capability to buy (more expensive) environmentally friendly products and technologies do not necessarily lead to more sustainable consumption patterns. Furthermore, different age groups show different consumption patterns. Age is hence a structuring factor when it comes to material consumption practices. This can be due to different life experience, related to growing up under different conditions. Whether material consumption patterns are related to age or to generation calls for further exploration, but the results show that different age groups conform to different norms and should be targeted differently in order to facilitate sustainability transition. To fully understand the complexity of consumption patterns, more conceptually and theoretically systematic explanations of the diffusion of goods are needed. This could provide an account to identify and may target particular social groups in order to facilitate transition towards more sustainable forms of consumption. For example, more studies should be conducted within ‘the elites’ (high economic capital and high cultural capital) and within different social groups in general. This is not just a matter of understanding the social stratification of goods and services. It is also important to understand the reasons why different groups of people engage in practices differently, thus providing conceptual clarity regarding the diffusion of technologies.

Overall, the results of the article elucidate the social differentiation of material consumption and how social groups serve to reproduce different understandings of consumption practices – and vice versa. Thereby, the article emphasises the importance of social groups in practice theoretical approaches in general, and the sociology of sustainable consumption in particular. Researchers within this field have been particularly interested in studying the role of material arrangements and infrastructures in reproducing shared understandings and common procedures, but in order to fully understand the complexity of consumption patterns and the possibilities for sustainable development, researchers within the sociology of sustainable consumption should equally engage with and shed light on shared understandings and common procedures generated and reproduced by social groups.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

The research presented in the article is part of the author s PhD dissertation with Professor Kirsten Gram-Hanssen as supervisor and Professor Anders Holm as co-supervisor. The data has been provided by Statistics Denmark. As part of the PhD, the author visited the Sustainable Consumption Institute at the University of Manchester. The author would like to thank the Institute for the opportunity, and particularly Professor Alan Warde for supervision and fruitful conversations during the visit. The results and interpretation presented are the sole responsibility of the author of the article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research presented in the article is supported by the Innovation Fund Denmark through the research project UserTEC. UserTEC is a strategic research project led by Kirsten Gram-Hanssen, Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University. It is conducted in cooperation with the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, Linköping University, Delft University of Technology and the Technical University of Denmark, as well as in cooperation with major Danish and international companies.

Notes

Author Biography

Mette Hove Jacobsen is a PhD student at Aalborg University. She holds a Master in Sociology, specialised in methodology, from the University of Copenhagen.

References

Bourdieu

(1977 [1972]) Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu

(1984 [1979]) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, London: Routledge.

Bourdieu

(1990 [1980]) The Logic of Practice, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Butler

(1989) Gender Trouble, New York: Routledge.

Callon M and Latour B (1992) Don’t throw the baby out with the bath school! A reply to Collins and Yearley In: Pickering A (ed.) Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago, Chicago University Press, pp. 343–368.

Christensen

Røpke

(2010) Can practice theory inspire studies of ICTs in everyday life? In: Bräuchler

Postill

(eds) Theorising Media and Practice, New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 233–258.

Collins

Lanza

(2010) Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis – With Application in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Erikson

Goldthorpe

(1992) The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Giddens

(1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

10.

Gram-Hanssen

(2011) Understanding change and continuity in residential energy consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture 11(1): 61–78.

11.

Hagenaars KA and McCutcheon AL (eds) (2002) Applied Latent Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Holt

(1997a) Distinction in America? Recovering Bourdieu’s theory of taste from its critics. Poetics 25(2–3): 93–120.

13.

Holt

(1997b) Poststructuralist lifestyle analysis: Conceptualizing the social patterning of consumption in postmodernity. Journal of Consumer Research 23(4): 326–350.

14.

Ilmonen

(2004) The use of and commitment to goods. Journal of Consumer Culture 4(1): 27–50.

15.

Katz-Gerro

Jæger

(2013) Top of the pops, ascend of the omnivores, defeat of the couch potatoes: Cultural consumption profiles in Denmark 1975–2004. European Sociological Review 29(2): 243–260.

16.

Latour

(2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

17.

López Sintas

García Álvarez

(2002) Omnivores show up again: The segmentation of cultural consumers in Spanish social space. European Sociological Review 18(3): 353–368.

18.

Miller

(1987) Material Culture and Mass Consumption, Oxford: Blackwell.

19.

Munasinghe

Dasgupta

Southerton

et al. (2009) Consumers, Business and Climate Change, Manchester: Sustainable Consumption Institute.

20.

Nagin

(2005) Group-Based Modelling of Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

21.

Ortner

(1984) Theory in anthropology since the sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History 26(1): 126–166.

22.

Pickering

(1995) The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

23.

Raftery

(1995) Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology 25: 111–163.

24.

Reckwitz

(2002a) The status of the ‘material’ in theories of culture: From ‘social structure’ to ‘artifacts’. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 32(2): 195–211.

25.

Reckwitz

(2002b) Towards a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory 5(2): 243–263.

26.

Rouse

(2007) Practice theory. In: Turner

Risjrod

(eds) Handbook of the Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 639–681.

27.

Schatzki

(1996) Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social, New York: Cambridge University Press.

28.

Schatzki

Cetina

Savigny

(2001) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, London: Routledge.

29.

Shove

(2003) Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organization of Normality, Oxford: Berg Publishers.

30.

Shove

(2010) Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning 42: 1273–1285.

31.

Shove

Pantzar

Watson

(2012) The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes, London: Sage.

32.

Shove

Walker

Brown

(2014) Material culture, room temperature and the social organization of thermal energy. Journal of Material Culture 19(2): 113–124.

33.

Shove

Watson

Spurling

(2015) Conceptualizing connections: Energy demand, infrastructures and social practices. European Journal of Social Theory 1(14): 1–14.

34.

Simmel

(1990 [1978]) The Philosophy of Money, London: Routledge.

35.

Southerton D, McMeekin A and Evans D (2011) International review of behaviour change initiatives. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/02/01104638/0 (accessed 29 October 2015).

36.

Statistics Denmark (2015) Available at: http://statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=192 (VARFORBR).

37.

Tomlinson

Warde

(1993) Social class and change in eating habits. British Food Journal 95(1): 3–10.

38.

Veblen

(1994 [1899]) The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institution, New York: Penguin Books.

39.

Warde

(2005) Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture 5(2): 149–153.

40.

Warde

(2014) After taste: Culture, consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture 14(3): 279–303.

41.

Warde

(2015) The sociology of consumption: Its recent development. Annual Review of Sociology 41: 117–134.

42.

Weber

(1978 [1922]) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

43.

Whitford

(2002) Pragmatism and the untenable dualism of means and ends: Why rational choice theory does not deserve paradigmatic privilege. Theory and Society 31(3): 325–363.