Alternative views of behavior settings: A response to Schoggen

Abstract

The methods used and the meanings attached to phenomena in the social sciences are never investigator‐free, and our grasp of the methods and objects of scientific study is extended through critical debate. To illustrate, this rejoinder defends several alternative interpretations regarding important aspects of Barker and Schoggen's behavior setting theory. For example, the incommensurateness of person and environment is most usefully understood as a dialectical kind of problem, valid in some respects but not in others. Similarly, whether settings are better understood as pre‐existing contours in the stream of behavior, or as tools that are constantly invented and reinvented by humans to meet specific needs, is not an “either/or” question. Like behavior setting theory itself, the empirical findings of such landmark work as the Big School, Small School study (Barker, 1964) are open to multiple interpretations. Consideration of a range of alternative approaches and interpretations has a heuristic effect on behavior setting theory and on its implications for community psychology.

“Out of Place” in the City: Development of Sociospatial Disorder Sensitivity Scale in Urban Settings

“…In an almost similar vein, the concept of behavioral settings was discussed by Perkins () in a way contrary to Barker's concept of behavioral settings, which is considered as focusing on characteristics that are relatively stable and obscuring the importance of characteristics that are relatively unstable. Perkins () described settings as tools used to satisfy people's needs, indicating the possibility of its change through processes such as inventing, refining, and borrowing. Behavioral settings are much more than patterns determined by existing objective features of an environment; other patterns of behavior may also be useful for some purposes.…”

Aging on the Old Frontier and the New

“…As vital person components of the behavior settings of the community, the focus of older residents' immediate individual concern seems to be on the maintenance and survival of individual settings as opposed to the larger community. However, the questions surrounding whether changes in settings can be intentional and whether participants (rather than expert outsiders) can succeed in such interventions, especially in periods of crisis, elicit differing opinions among environment-behavior researchers (Barker, 1987;Perkins, 1988;Wicker, 1987Wicker, , 1992. Within the three towns, threats to the survival of the community seem to be recognized when key settings are threatened, such as when the post office in Kaw Rapids was in danger of being closed.…”

Reclaiming behaviour settings: reviewing empirical applications of Barker’s behaviour settings theory

“…The 64 theoretical papers appeared in journals related to Psychology (30), Education (5), Health (5), Business (3), Social Issues (3), Technology (3), Architecture (3) and Geography (1), as well as those classified as Multidisciplinary (7) and Other (4). Overall, most of the theoretical papers fell into five broad categories: (i) informational and/or critical papers that examined behaviour settings as a theory and/or method [43][44][45][46][47][48], often contextualizing it within a broader discussion of ecological psychology [3,[49][50][51][52][53] or environmental psychology [54,55]; (ii) papers by Barker himself [4,56], or by researchers interested in the history and development of behaviour settings theory [57]; (iii) papers concerned with the state of behaviour settings research, such as its application in the twenty-first century [58], or its apparent failure to enter mainstream psychology [59]; (iv) papers that proposed ways in which behaviour settings theory might be useful for specific areas of study, including leadership assessment [60], discipline in schools [61], education administration [62], sexual violence [63], crime more generally [64], urbanism [65], tourism [66], virtual communities [67,68] and the study of non-human species [69]; (v) papers that developed or applied mathematical models to behaviour settings theory [70][71][72].…”

“…The 27 papers that met our criteria are presented in electronic supplementary material, table S3. Of these-though we may not necessarily agree with all their points-we particularly recommend the following: (i) Bechtel [43], which covers behaviour settings theory as both theory and method, informationally and critically, and was one of the closest papers we found to a how-to guide for behaviour settings; (ii) Heft [3] and (iii) McGann [50], which contextualize behaviour settings theory within the theoretical landscape and ethos of ecological psychology as a whole; (iv) Perkins et al [47], which offers a thorough overview and critique of behaviour settings theory and its descendent, manning theory; (v) Popov & Chompalov [59], which includes both an overview of the theory and a discussion of its surprising lack of impact; and finally, (vi) Scott [57], which presents an excellent historical approach to behaviour settings research, based upon interviews with the founders and/or key disseminators of the theory.…”