An Integrative Methodology for Investigating Lived Experience and the Psychosocial Factors Influencing Environmental Cognition and Behaviour

  • Nadine Andrews
Part of the Studies in the Psychosocial book series (STIP)


This chapter describes a methodology for investigating lived experience, and explains the underlying philosophy and procedures for generating, analysing and interpreting data. This methodology was used to research psychosocial factors affecting enactment of pro-environmental values by sustainability managers. The study situated the research subjects in the dynamics of their work settings and the socio-cultural context in which they and their organisations are embedded. The methodology is transdisciplinary, integrating Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis with frame and metaphor analysis, and draws upon systems thinking concepts as well as theories of psychological threat and coping, needs, emotion and embodied cognition. The methodology enabled the identification and modelling of multiple cross-level factors. An example of analytic commentary is included, demonstrating the nuanced in-depth insights that can be generated with this approach.


  1. Andrews, N. (2017a). Psychosocial factors affecting enactment of pro-environmental values by individuals in their work to influence organizational practices. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, N. (2017b). Psychosocial factors influencing the experience of sustainability professionals. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8(4), 445–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews, N. (2018). How cognitive frames about nature may affect felt sense of nature connectedness. Ecopsychology Journal, 10(1), 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bion, W. (1962). Learning from experience. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, S., & Hoggett, P. (2009). Researching beneath the surface: Psycho-social research methods in practice. London: Karnac.Google Scholar
  6. Clayton, S., Swim, J., Steg, J., Devine-Wright, P., Bonnes, M., & Whitmarsh, L. (2016). Expanding the role for psychology in addressing environmental challenges. American Psychologist, 71(3), 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crompton, T., & Kasser, T. (2009). Meeting environmental challenges: The role of human identity. Godalming, UK: WWF-UK.Google Scholar
  8. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Schultz, P. P., & Niemiec, C. P. (2015). Being aware and functioning fully. In K. W. Brown, J. D. Creswell, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness: Theory, research and practice (pp. 112–129). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  10. Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eatough, V., & Smith, J. (2010). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 179–195). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Hasbach, P. H. (2012). Ecotherapy. In P. H. Kahn & P. H. Hasbach (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Science, totems, and the technological species (pp. 115–140). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, M., & Lakoff, G. (2002). Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(3), 245–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kidner, D. W. (2001). Nature and psyche: Radical environmentalism and the politics of subjectivity. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication, 4, 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lakoff, G., & Johnson M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Larkin, M., Watts, S., & Clifton, E. (2006). Giving voice and making sense in interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 102–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lertzman, R. (2015). Environmental melancholia: Psychoanalytic dimensions of engagement. Hove, East Sussex: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lülfs, R., & Hahn, R. (2014). Sustainable behaviour in the business sphere: A comprehensive overview of the explanatory power of psychological models. Organization & Environment, 27, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Macy, J. (1993). World as lover, world as self. Berkeley: Parallax Press.Google Scholar
  24. Merchant, C. (1983). The death of nature. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  25. Meyerson, D. E., & Scully, M. A. (1995). Tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6, 585–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Midgley, M. (2003). Myths we live by. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery of nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Pryzbylski, A. K., Deci, E. L., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Competence-impeding electronic games and players’ aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 441–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rogelberg, S. G. (Ed.). (2006). Encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Rust, M. (2008). Climate on the couch. Psychotherapy and Politics International, 6, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). From ego depletion to vitality: Theory and findings concerning the facilitation of energy available to the self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 702–717.Google Scholar
  32. Smith, J., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Stangor, C. (2010). Introduction to psychology (1st Canadian ed.). Accessed 18 July 2018.
  34. Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Totton, N. (2011). Wild therapy: Undomesticating inner and outer worlds. Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.Google Scholar
  36. Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1993). The embodied mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Vignoles, V. L. (2011). Identity motives. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2011). A self-determination theory approach to understanding stress incursion and responses. Stress and Health, 27(1), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weintrobe, S. (Ed.). (2013). Engaging with climate change: Psychoanalytic and interdisciplinary perspectives. Hove, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science, 155(3767), 1203–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Willig, C., & Stainton-Rogers, W. (2010). Introduction. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 1–13). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Woodward, K. (2015). Psychosocial studies: An introduction. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wright, C., Nyberg, D., & Grant, D. (2012). Hippies on the third floor. Organization Studies, 33(11), 1451–1475.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadine Andrews
    • 1
  1. 1.The Pentland Centre for Sustainability in Business, Lancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations