Behavior settings and the quality of life

Schoggen, Phil

doi:10.1002/1520-6629(198304)11:2<144::aid-jcop2290110208>3.0.co;2-e

Cited by 13 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our critical review of behavior setting theory suggests a significant discrepancy between the broad expectations engendered by some of its proponents (e.g., Bechtel, 1974;Schoggen, 1983) and the current usefulness of the theory with respect to important problems in community psychology. As it stands, behavior setting theory resembles a systematic mefhod for obtaining concrete descriptions of regular human events rather than a heuristic psychological theory.…”

Section: Implications and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In summary, given the implications drawn regarding behavior setting theory's potential applications to large-scale preventive and therapeutic behavior change (cf. Schoggen, 1983), more attention should be directed to the relationship between setting characteristics and the specific quantity and quality of occupants' behavioral responses.…”

Section: What "Quantity" Of Behavior Does a Setting Produce?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Behavior setting theory and community psychology: An analysis and critique

Perkins¹,

Burns²,

Perry³

et al. 1988

J. Community Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although Barker's “behavior setting theory” (Barker, 1968; Price, 1976) is widely cited for its potential applications to community psychology, critical examination of this conception reveals significant limitations in its operational definition of “community” and in the extent to which predictions regarding direct influences on behavior have been validated in natural settings. From the perspective of community psychology there is also reason to question behavior setting theory's fundamental emphasis on the structural form of settings rather than on the functions they fulfill for their participants. Adopting new units of analysis and placing greater emphasis on the intended and unintended satisfactions that settings produce will make behavior setting theory more relevant to several problems in community psychology, including community assessment, person‐environment interaction, and community change.

show abstract

Section: Implications and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What "Quantity" Of Behavior Does a Setting Produce?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavior setting theory and community psychology: An analysis and critique

Perkins¹,

Burns²,

Perry³

et al. 1988

J. Community Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Together, these findings indicate that those who see the small firm as a road to economic salvation, or as a solution to Britain's industrial relations problems, have confused their stereotype of the small firm with reality. (p. 629) Perkins et al give no recognition to the careful review of the scientific literature on the effects of organization size that is included in several of the reports from the Barker group and elsewhere (Barker, 1960(Barker, , 1968Bechtel, 1977Bechtel, , 1982Greenberg, 1979;Price, 1976;Schoggen, 1983;Stokols, 1978;Wicker, 1973Wicker, , 1979aWicker, , 1979bWicker & Kirmeyer, 1977;Willems, 1964).…”

Section: Barker Concludes From His Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a onetime student and long-time colleague of Barker and as one who has advocated in this journal greater utilization of behavior settings in the work of community psychologists (Schoggen, 1983), I welcome the interest of others, especially those not directly associated with the Barker group, in exploring the utility of behavior setting theory and method in addressing new problems. Perkins and colleagues have made a useful contribution to the important task of creating a wider base of understanding of the strengths and limitations of the behavior setting approach.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Commentary on Perkins, Burns, Perry, and Nielsen's “behavior setting theory and community psychology: An analysis and critique”

Schoggen¹

1988

J. Community Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This commentary on the accompanying article by Perkins, Burns, Perry, and Nielsen (1988) recognizes it as an important contribution in developing a better awareness and understanding of the usefulness of Barker's behavior setting theory (Barker, 1968; Price, 1976; Wicker, 1979a) in addressing problems in community psychology. Issue is taken with the authors' person‐centered, heavily psychological orientation, which appears to have interfered with their understanding of behavior setting theory and research not concerned with the behavior or experience of the individual but rather with understanding the structure and functioning of the preperceptual, ecological environment of molar behavior. The laws governing the operation of the ecological environment are fundamentally different from and incommensurate with the psychological laws that govern individual behavior. Barker places behavior setting theory and research outside the domain of psychology and within the realm of eco‐behavioral science. Other issues considered in the commentary include the authors' criticism of the definition of community in behavior setting work, the crudeness of measures of behavior in standard behavior setting procedures, the claim that behavior setting research is concerned only with influences from settings to behavior and not the reverse, the inadequacy of behavior settings in understanding community change, and the dominance of form over function in behavior setting research.

show abstract

“…These settings essentially set the stage for the natural subdivisions of community life. Aspects of these environments of concern in evaluating the community status of population subgroups have received considerable attention (Schoggen, 1983). Key areas include the normative expectations regarding interactions among people, the range of leadership roles available in the setting, the extent to which settings have developed to serve particular groups or have rules to encourage or exclude people from membership.…”

Section: The Utilisation Of Community Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%