Different subdisciplines within psychology and neighboring disciplines look at different aspects, when analyzing and identifying relations between humans and other parts of environment. Some look for biological and genetic features of organisms to give an account of their behavior, some look strictly to social factors outside the organism, some focus on building internal models and test them against overt behavior, some look for functional relations in the interaction between behavior and features of its environment. Due to the scope of the applied problem of integrating VRE, many disciplines give accounts for explaining energy behaviors.

1. 1.

   From a behavior analysis point of view the category of habitual behavior is unnecessary because no sperate process is assumed to underlie this “type of” behavior as it is assumed within an intentional perspective of behavior. Skinner made this point when describing a shaping procedure for a pigeon with the target of stretching the head to larger heights than before starting the shaping procedure: “To say that it has acquired the “habit” of stretching its neck is merely to resort to an explanatory fiction, since our only evidence of the habit is the acquired tendency to perform the act. The barest possible statement of the process is this: we make a given consequence contingent upon certain physical properties of behavior (the upward movement of the head), and the behavior is then observed to increase in frequency.” (Skinner, 1953, p. 64). Even though the intentional perspective assumes automated cognitive and goal-based processes to underlie “habitual” behavior, thus necessitating an additional category of behavior on top of motivational and contextual behavior, habitual behavior is linked to context in this perspective as well. For example, van den Broek et al. (2019, p. 817) make the connection between habit as a descriptive term for frequent and regularly occurring behavior by writing: “Most energy behaviour takes place in stable contexts (homes) where strong energy habits can be formed and this study suggests that these habits may override people’s intentions. Indeed, habits have consistently been found to be relevant to energy use (Macey & Brown, 1983; Maréchal, 2010) as energy behaviour is context dependent, automatic and frequent (Verplanken and Aarts, 1999).” While one conclusion within the intentional perspective from this observed relation between context, habitual behavior and importance of intentions in influencing behavior is to focus intentional interventions on living situations with changing contexts, e.g., when people are moving to a different place, another conclusion would be to focus changing the context by interventions in order to firstly shape a targeted behavior and secondly in order to increase opportunities for intentional interventions.

2. 2.

   This is not to say that approaches focusing on internal constructs and motivational behavior have no merit or are unimportant for describing behavior in general or even energy using behavior in particular, even though there appear to be some empirical findings pointing in this direction (e.g., van den Broek et al., 2019). It is just to say that given the admittedly skewed overview of (environmental psychology) energy research the identified drawbacks in describing energy using behavior could be improved upon by applying a behavior analysis perspective.

3. 3.

   Within the field of behavior analysis theory exist as in any scientific community ongoing discussions on concepts, methodology and terminology. In regards to response rate for example Baum (2002) and Baum and Rachlin (1969) proposed to think of the dependent variable as proportion of time spent responding and to think of behavior as divided among activities that last for periods of time. Baum (2002) argues this to be an important part of a paradigm shift in analyzing behavior from a molecular to a molar view, while others argue against the point of a paradigm shift but acknowledge other aspects of such a molar or multiscale view on behavior as being a helpful perspective on behavior (e.g., Pitts, 2013). This example is meant to point out that the way behavior analysis theory is presented here is one way to describe behavior in a behavior analysis theory approach and discussions within behavior analysis theory are neglected as this is not necessary for applying the principles as they are described here.

4. 4.

   Emphasis are as they are in original text.

5. 5.

   When talking about “unchanging context structure” this is a simplified approximation meaning that no relevant, i.e., with selecting effect, changes in the three-term-contingency occurred. As at least time always changes in human perception context structure cannot be unchanging.

6. 6.

   In the following empirical analysis of observational data, it will not be possible to differentiate between the different connotations of behavioral flexibility.

Authors and Affiliations

1. Braunschweig, Germany

   Farina Wille

Corresponding author

Correspondence toFarina Wille.

Reprints and permissions

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

Policies and ethics