A Powerful Theory and a Paradox

Abstract

is the Herman B Wells endowed professor of educational psychology at Indiana University, Bloomington. She holds a Ph.D. in psychology from Peabody College (now of Vanderbilt University) in Nashville, Tennessee. Her research interests include natural habitat research methodologies, effects of behavior settings on behavior, theories of human development, and the history of psychology. She teaches ecological psychology, human development, and the history of psychology.ABSTRACT: Roger Barker, influenced by Lewin, developed a powerful theory in psychology, behavior setting theory. Paradoxically, this theory is still not widely known or understood in mainstream American psychology. Oral histories of the core group who worked with Barker were collected and examined to determine influences on them and subsequent directions in the field of ecological psychology in an attempt to understand this paradox. Three clusters of factors emerged. Behavior setting theory has been affirmed in a number of places, including other behavioral sciences, but has not as yet moved into mainstream psychology, although there are some indications that the theory is moving in that direction. These directions as well as barriers are discussed. (1968, 1987) and his colleagues, at the Midwest Psychological Field Station in Oskaloosa, Kansas, developed what has been called by people outside that group a powerful theory in psychology, behavior setting theory.

Effects of relative team size on teams with innovative tasks

“…This continuum ranges from “undermanned” (or understaffed) teams, that is, a team size below the minimum of team members needed to maintain the pursuit of the team task, to “overmanned” (or overstaffed) teams, that is, the condition when team size exceeds the capacity maximum of a team (Wicker, 1973, p. 191). This conceptualization of manning levels is congruent with the similar concept of inhabiting levels in ecological psychology (Wicker, 1979b), which can be defined as “the number of people in a setting for each of its ‘people positions’” (Scott, 2005, p. 299). In this paper, we focus on that part of the continuum that actually allows the team to carry out its tasks.…”

“…Such behavior settings include, but are not restricted to, teams and also include higher level entities such as organizations and communities. In behavior setting theory, Barker proposes that these behavior settings have a strong influence on human behavior, which indeed consistently materialized in following empirical studies (Scott, 2005).…”

“…By shedding conceptual light on a broad range of mechanisms triggered by varying degrees of relative team size and their consequences for teams with innovative tasks, our I-M-O model points to an influential aspect of team staffing that has gone largely unnoticed in research on team innovation so far. In this regard, it is surprising that only little research on innovation actually draws on theories and findings from ecological psychology (Barker, 1968; Scott, 2005; Wicker, 1979b) in general, and on understaffing theory (Hudson & Shen, 2015; Schoggen, 1989) in particular, as these theories focus on how the (work) environment influences human behavior and performance (Heft, 2001). By showing the explanatory potential of these theories by the example of the relationship between relative team size and team innovation, we hope to stimulate research on creativity and innovation, as well as on organizational behavior more generally, to better leverage the rich knowledge from ecological psychology.…”

“…Second, this paper contributes by tapping the literature on behavior settings from ecological psychology (Schoggen, 1989; Scott, 2005; Wicker, 1987) for the study of team innovation. This provides a theoretical foundation for deriving new propositions on how a team’s environment might influence team members’ creative behavior and innovation performance.…”

Perceived Availability of Office Shared Spaces and Workplace Sitting: Moderation by Organizational Norms and Behavioral Autonomy

“…Key principles of the ecological model of health behavior are (a) factors at multiple levels (intrapersonal, interpersonal, environmental, and policy) can influence behaviors, (b) these factors at different levels interact, and (c) interventions that involve multilevel influences are more effective (Sallis & Owen, 2015). These principles are underpinned by the behavior settings construct, which emphasizes the place-specific nature of human behaviors that are affected by the physical and social characteristics of the settings (Barker, 1968; Scott, 2005). It is now widely recognized that educational or motivational approaches alone are not sufficient for public health initiatives such as physical activity promotion (Schilling, Giles-Corti, & Sallis, 2009), and that addressing knowledge and motivation will have limited success in promoting long-term behavioral changes (Marcus et al, 2000).…”