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

Abstract

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.

Reorienting psychological science

“…Barker and the rest of the Midwest team (e.g. [3]) therefore demonstrate an explicit awareness of the issue of scale and the complexities that different scales introduce, which is uncommon in psychological science.…”

Alternative views of behavior settings: A response to Schoggen

“…My general response is that it is inappropriate to view either perspective on behavior settings, theirs or ours, as "absolute" in its truthfulness or superiority, and that our suggestions can be usefully understood as extending the pioneering efforts of Barker's group to encompass new issues and questions about community settings. Schoggen (1988) and Barker (1987) have long maintained that while extraindividual, "eco-behavioral" environments intersect the psychological "life spaces" of their human occupants, these two fundamental sectors of behavior are governed by incommensurate kinds of laws. As scientists, however, we are free to understand the phenomena we study in any number of ways.…”

“…Schoggen (1988) and Barker (1987Barker ( , p. 1424) have long maintained that such extraindividual factors as the degree of underpopulation present and the occupant's position in a setting affect his or her personal experiences of satisfaction and responsibility. I do not see how Schoggen's (1988) qualification that these relationships are only "probabilistic" rather than "direct" (p. 376) seriously diminishes their relevance to behavior setting theory.…”

“…Phil Schoggen's (1988) commentary on the article "Behavior Setting Theory and Community Psychology: An Analysis and Critique" (Perkins, Burns, Perry, & Nielsen, 1988) is a welcome response raising many useful issues. My plan is to respond only to the points of disagreement identified by Schoggen as distinguishing the views presented by Perkins et al (1988) from those held by him and by Roger Barker.…”

“…The Incommensurateness of Persons and Settings Schoggen (1988) and Barker (1987) have long maintained that while extraindividual, "eco-behavioral" environments intersect the psychological "life spaces" of their human occupants, these two fundamental sectors of behavior are governed by incommensurate kinds of laws. As scientists, however, we are free to understand the phenomena we study in any number of ways.…”