Conceptual and Theoretical Aspects of Lifestyle

Lifestyle has been an area of interest to scholars in numerous disciplines, such as sociology, cultural anthropology, psychology, philosophy, marketing, and human geography. As a result, definitions of lifestyle differ between disciplines. However, the definition of lifestyle also differs within disciplines. Describing the similarities and differences between the various definitions of lifestyle is beyond the scope of this chapter. More information on the concept of lifestyle is provided in, for exam-ple, Michelson and Reed (1974), Wells (1974), Zablocki and Kanter (1976), Anderson and Golden (1984), Veal (2000), Ganzeboom (1988), Vyncke (2002), Pinkster and van Kempen (2002), van Diepen and Arnoldus (2003) and Heijs et al. (2005). Veal (2000) searched for a definition of lifestyle that is precise, unique, and efficient (i.e., including only those elements necessary for a precise definition). While developing this definition, he took account of the following topics: activities versus behavior, values and attitudes, individuals versus groups, group interaction, coherence, recog-nizability, and freedom of choice. I will not describe his search in detail but the wide range of topics he examined provides an indication of the difficulty of the concept of lifestyle. Ultimately, Veal (2000) proposes the following definition of lifestyle:

“Lifestyle is the pattern of individual and social behavior characteristic of an indi-vidual or group.” Note that a particular lifestyle is usually shared by a reasonable number of people, or else it would be idiosyncrasy or eccentricity (Chaney 1996, p. 11). Furthermore, lifestyle is usually expressed in behavior, but need not be.

8.2.1 Sociology

One of the first researchers who introduced the concept of lifestyle in 1922 was the sociologist Weber. He makes a distinction between class and status groups. Within classes, which are based on the way in which social groups are involved in the

production process, Weber discerns status groups. These are groups of people who share the same standing and characterize themselves by expressing the same life-style through specific behavioral patterns. In this way, they can identify themselves with people of the same standing and differentiate themselves from groups with a different standing. The whole range of observable behaviors with this communica-tive and symbolic function is termed lifestyle by Weber (Pinkster and van Kempen 2002; Van Diepen and Arnoldus 2003).

Following this approach, some sociologists argue that lifestyles are a key factor in the definition of social status and can communicate social inequality (Felson 1976). Hamilton-Smith (2000) refers to Weberian theory by arguing that lifestyle is the summation of our response to the social world and portrays very clearly our place in the system of social prestige. Besides other factors, material consumption may offer a practical way of communicating social distinctions in everyday life. As an example of this field of research, a review of the relevance of consumer behavior, called material lifestyles, to social differentiation is provided by the sociologist Felson (1976). His review is directed at household consumer traits that can be found in living rooms, thus, that are visible to friends and acquaintances. The soci-ologists Zablocki and Kanter (1976) argued that lifestyles can no longer be deter-mined by the economic system location alone but are also deterdeter-mined by factors outside the economic system. The authors assumed that the power of the economic and status systems in society was declining. They argued that when wealth and prestige markets fail to impose standards of taste and valuation in terms of relative position in these markets, individuals would seek other means of attaining value coherence. Thus, alternative lifestyles will not be formed at random, but rather in terms of shared strategies for regaining value coherence. See the Appendix for an overview of the various lifestyles as distinguished by Zablocki and Kanter.

Some sociologists involved residential preferences in their lifestyle research.

Wirth (1938) established a theoretical model for exploring urbanism as a way of life. He argued that features of cities such as large numbers, high density and ethnic heterogeneity were related to the relative absence of intimate personal acquain-tanceships, to anonymous, superficial, and transient relationships and to increased mobility and insecurity. Merton (1957) introduced the terms cosmopolitans and locals. Residents who are oriented to the world outside the local community were classified as cosmopolitans whereas those oriented toward the community were termed locals. Bell (1958) made a distinction between Familism (a high valuation on family living), Career (upward vertical mobility), and Consumership (striving for a high standard of living in the present). He observed that child and family orientations rather than career considerations were the prime motives for respon-dents with a middle-class status to move to the suburbs (described in Tallman and Morgner 1970). Furthermore, households with a lifestyle that is directed to making a career can usually be found in close proximity of urban facilities as these house-holds want to spend their spare free time as efficiently as possible.

Another important researcher in the domain of lifestyle is the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. He developed a theory of cultural capital and taste, which was published in France in 1979. Based on a large amount of data collected from about 30

different surveys, Bourdieu developed a two-dimensional model of lifestyle classification. One dimension or axis is formed by social-economic status, which is based on the total level of someone’s resources: finance, level of education, stand-ing of parents, and partner. The other dimension concerns the orientation of the resources: whether people derive their status from knowledge (especially knowledge about the cultural society) or from their financial background (assets, income, and capacities to earn money). Bourdieu shows that almost all lifestyles are two- dimensional; they are the result of the combination of someone’s resources and the way in which they are employed. In the cultural hierarchy, one aims to demonstrate one’s knowledge and cognitive capacities in the context of cultural society.

Furthermore, purity and asceticism are emphasized. In the economic hierarchy, one aims to put on show income and properties, which was termed conspicuous con-sumption (Pinkster and van Kempen 2002).

8.2.2 Psychology

The psychologist Adler is also frequently mentioned as being the originator of the term lifestyle in 1929. Adler considered lifestyle to be the sum of the values, pas-sions, knowledge, meaningful deeds, and eccentricities that constitute the unique-ness of each person. Lifestyle is some kind of guiding principle that each individual develops and which serves to organize and handle impressions of life. Lifestyle is thus considered to guide behavior. According to Adler, lifestyle is developed early in life in order to overcome some feeling of inferiority and to strive for superiority.

However, Adler also believes that changes in behavior and character could take place when a person adopts new goals to strive for, indicating that lifestyle may change over time.

8.2.3 Marketing

In the domain of marketing, the lifestyle concept was introduced in the 1950s to understand, explain, and predict consumer behavior in order to focus marketing strategies (Anderson and Golden 1984). In 1963, Lazer introduced a concept of lifestyle that was based on three components (activities, interests, and opinions) (in Wedel and Kamakura 2000). Starting in the 1960s numerous lifestyle typologies were developed, as every product could have its own lifestyle typology. Typically, studies included up to 200 or 300 different items on activities, interests, and opin-ions. A data reduction technique, such as factor analysis, would then be used to obtain a smaller number of psychographic dimensions (Wedel and Kamakura 2000). In the 1970s a distinction was proposed between the term psychographics, for measures that are truly mental (attitudes, beliefs, opinions, personality traits, etc.), and lifestyle, for activities and behavioral reports (Wells 1974). However, this

distinction does not have a widespread use as both lifestyle and psychographics are usually considered a combination of behavioral and psychological factors and are used interchangeably. Furthermore, some researchers argued that values, as the innermost drivers of behavior, would be more stable and generalizable than aspects such as activities and attitudes (Wedel and Kamakura 2000). Values were consid-ered part of a value system. Such a system is defined as an enduring organization of values along a continuum of relative importance to the individual. The determi-nation of value systems and the classification of consumers according to their value systems are likely to result in homogeneous groups in terms of the main motives underlying consumers’ general behavior. Well-known instruments for measuring values and value systems are the Rokeach Value survey (Rokeach 1973), the List of Values (LOV, Kahle 1983), Values And Lifestyle Segmentation (VALS, Mitchell 1983) and the Schwartz Value list (Schwartz 1992).

8.2.4 Some Remarks Concerning the Definition of Lifestyle

Above, a number of theoretical approaches to lifestyle have been described. The approaches show important differences in their definition of lifestyle and in the fac-tors through which it is expressed and through which it can be measured. The concept of lifestyle may vary from a limited characteristic to a broad spectrum of behavior and various psychological and social variables. Unfortunately, this prob-lem is typical of the concept of lifestyle. In 1974, Michelson and Reed (p. 413) stated: “This review of the diverse definitions and applications of the notion of lifestyle makes clear, we think, the chaotic conceptual and operational state (and the consequent diminished usefulness) of lifestyle as a variable in social theory and research.” Anderson and Golden (1984) also pointed this out by stating that:

“Lifestyle is all things to all people, but this very fact that has made the concept appealing also impedes the development of further precision.” However, despite the differences between the many definitions of lifestyle, the way in which most defini-tions agree is that the purpose of lifestyle is to provide a context within which the behavior of one or more actors can be understood, especially in terms of the stabil-ity, coherence, and purposefulness of action (Michelson and Reed 1974). Chaney (1996) argues that lifestyles help to make sense of (but not necessarily justify) what people do, why they do it, and what doing it means to them and to others.