Download Crossing Over: The Interdisciplinary Meaning of Behavior Setting Theory and more Papers Sociology in PDF only on Docsity!
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 19 [Special Issue – October 2012]
Crossing Over: The Interdisciplinary Meaning of Behavior Setting Theory
Dr. Lubomir Popov
Associate Professor
School of Family and Consumer Sciences, Bowling Green State University
309 Johnston Hall
Bowling Green, OH 43403-0059, USA.
Dr. Ivan Chompalov
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology, Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
295 Meadville Street, 342 Centennial Hall
Edinboro, PA 16444, USA.
Abstract
Behavior setting theory was developed by Roger Barker to explain small-scale social systems, as well as the study of behavior in its natural environment. It is somewhat unusual in being both a big-T theory (its abstract superstructure) and a grounded theory (its research guiding part). Among its advantages are conceptual integrity and well defined terminology, readily available empirical confirmation and intertheory connections. We trace its historical origins and evaluate behavior setting theory in terms of its breadth and scope, internal consistency, intertheory connections, and empirical support. We emphasize the fact that, although behavior setting theory has not been widely accepted and implemented in mainstream psychology, it has become a cornerstone of a number of research areas and disciplines like ecological psychology, environment and behavior studies, behavioral ecology, environmental psychology, and sociological social psychology.
Keywords: Behavior setting, theory applications, social design, environmental psychology
1. Introduction
It is not very common for a theoretical framework to span different levels of abstraction and run the gamut from a concrete research guide all the way to the highest level of generality, associated with big-T theory. Such examples in the social sciences are extremely rare and prone to generate a lot of criticism and resistance in their main discipline. This is indeed the case with behavior setting theory, developed by Roger Barker (1968). It has positively influenced a number of subareas within psychology and even outside of the discipline but has not been widely accepted within mainstream psychology. One reason is probably the breadth and wide scope of the theory. Another, according to psychologist Richard Price (1990) is the fact that ecological psychology, which behavior setting theory is a part of, does not have a lot to say about motives, personality, or emotion, and these have, after all, been the chief arenas for current theory and research in psychology. The recent tilt towards the study of cognition has rendered the idea of a "behavior setting," which assumes fixed patterns of behaviors, somewhat suspect and out of step (Price, 1990). A third plausible explanation of the tepid welcome of behavior setting theory in psychology could be its inherent interdisciplinary nature—it contains elements and ideas from psychology, ecology, sociology, and design.
Given the lukewarm reception of behavior setting theory in mainstream psychology then, the question arises: Why has it been instrumental in spurring a variety of subfields such as environmental psychology, environment and behavior studies, ecological psychology, community psychology, and even sociological social psychology?
The Special Issue on Business and Social Science © Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com
While there is no simple answer to this question, it is our contention that its broad appeal outside of mainstream psychology is primarily due to its being more pragmatically oriented towards the study of human behavior and to its more pronounced applied focus. Such qualities of behavior setting theory appear to be very attractive to comparatively new areas, such as environmental design research, behavior modification, assessment, and counseling, which stress the solution of practical problems in real-life situations instead of exploring behavior responses in tightly controlled and artificially manipulated laboratory experiments that are the mainstay of much of traditional psychology. Thus, behavior setting theory fills the need for conceptualization and streamlining of the promising ideas in these fields, stimulating both theoretical reasoning and empirical research (Schoggen, 1989; Stokols, 2000; Wicker, 1987, 2002). Despite its impact on these emerging subfields, however, the verdict about behavior setting theory’s real value and the practical effectiveness it can provide is still out there, mainly because albeit its promise, the concept is still mostly a fascinating label, or at best an inspiration that prepares the state of mind to delve into the intricacies of explaining behavior as it occurs in its natural habitat; however, it does not go far beyond this stage.
We aim in the present paper to evaluate the formal characteristics of behavior setting theory, which will allow a glimpse into some of the reasons for its controversial reputation and the relatively low interest in it in the psychological community.
2. Origin and Basic Tenets of Behavior Setting Theory
Like any complex theoretical system, behavior setting theory has been influenced by many ideas in the past but we will just focus on the most important ones. Perhaps the most salient precursor of the theory is Kurt Lewin’s field theory. He was convinced that in order to explain human behavior we need to look at the environment where this behavior unfolds. Lewin believed that the "stream of activity" that we call human behavior results from the continuing interaction of factors within the person with external factors, coming from the environment. He tried to capture this belief in the concept of "life space," which he defined in terms of behavior, personality and environment and proposed the basic formula of "B = f (PE)," or behavior (B) being a function (f) of the interaction of personality and other individual factors (P), and the perceived environment of the individual (E) (Ittelson et al., 1974, p. 69). According to Lewin, there are a number of environmental determinants of human behavior and the physical environment is only one group of these environmental factors, although a significant one. Thus, he utilized in his descriptions of the environment concepts such as "locomotion," object "valences," "barriers," and frequently made use of objects and space characteristics in the description of the person's "life space."
Such ideas appealed to Lewin’s student Roger Barker who was not happy with the dominant tradition of laboratory research with its focus on artificially controlling and isolating the parameters of behavior. Barker was rather keen on studying behavior "in situ," or in real situations, with all the complexity of factors that shaped it. In some sense Baker superseded Lewin who was mainly interested in studying personality with the "life space" concept being just an instrument to attain this goal. Barker went beyond this understanding in observing that in many cases the behavior outcomes of individuals can be predicted more accurately on the basis of the situation in which they are located, rather than on the grounds of their personality. Furthermore, Barker (although well versed in the Gestalt tradition of German psychology, as was Lewin) was not so much interested in the secrets of the personality but rather embraced the more positivistic and situational postulates of the prevailing American behaviorist tradition.
What are the philosophical assumptions behind behavior setting theory? The short answer is systems view and positivism. At the most basic level, a major implicit assumption of the behavior setting theory is that the world has a systematic and holistic nature and the different parts of each system can be viewed as sub-systems, too. Both Lewin and Barker adopt a kind of a systems or organismic worldview at least according to the terminology used by Altman and Rogoff (1987), Wapner (1987), and Wapner and Kaplan (1983). That entails corresponding systems images of social groups and individuals, as well as their behavior and the social and physical environments in which this behavior unfolds. Barker's theory, and this is valid to a great extent for his followers, views the individual as a purposefully functioning organism, with salient and observable performance outcomes, but with quite fuzzy and hidden feelings, perceptions, and cognitions.
The Special Issue on Business and Social Science © Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com
The mechanisms for reaching such states are goal circuits, program circuits, deviation countering circuits, and vetoing circuits. Taken together, the above circuits comprise the so-called maintenance circuits, which are complementary to the basic, operational circuit. In essence, these circuits serve to join participants and environment. Barker also referred to the behavior setting as "habitat."
Several additional changes were introduced later on such as a more pronounced emphasis on the social environment. Some of his most prominent followers such as Allan Wicker (1987, 2002), Phil Schoggen (1989), and the German ecological psychologists Gerhard Kaminski (1986) and Urs Fuhrer (1990, 1993) also made significant modifications to the theory. Allan Wicker (1987, 2002), who was one of the proponents of ecological psychology, early on criticized the one-sided considerations of the concepts of stability and homeostasis and introduced the notions of dynamics and life-cycle of the setting. Moreover, Wicker made substantial changes in the conceptual language and the terminology of the theory. He clearly stressed that behavior settings are social constructions—the result of sense-making and interactive behavior of participants (Wicker, 1987, p. 616) and in that sense introduced a more cognitive interpretation of behavior settings. In addition he deemphasized the empirical origin of behavior setting theory and proposed a more abstract version of the grounded component of the theory. Two major aspects characterize his version: setting facets and temporal stages. These are further broken down in the following way. The facets are resources (people, behavior objects, space, information, reserves); internal dynamics (personal cognitions and motives, functional activities, social processes, growth and differentiation, stability and flexibility, and decline); and context (general contextual factors: cultural, economy, legal system, etc.; setting history; and setting network, or the higher-level entity in which the setting niche is embedded). Similarly, the temporal stages break down into preconvergence, convergence, continued existence, and divergence.
From the other contributors the one that stands out is Urs Fuhrer (1990). While agreeing with and reinforcing Wicker's definition of behavior settings as small-scale social systems composed of people and physical objects that are configured in such a way as to carry out a routine program of actions within specifiable time and space boundaries, he elaborates a more abstract conceptual language. Thus, Fuhrer views the behavior setting as consisting of several basic facets like rule-guided action structures of setting programs; social representations as socioculturally shared conventions, norms, and values; social penetration; physical objects and their denotative and connotative meanings; architecture and typography of milieu; and schedule and life cycle of the behavior settings.
To recapitulate the evolution of behavior setting theory, there is a marked shift in conceptual understanding, which starts with the emphasis on simple units derived by convenience sampling everyday behavior of children, then continues with an accent on internal dynamics and evolution, and finally progresses towards the study of subjective experience. This is accompanied by an obvious switch from the emphasis on stability to interest in internal dynamics, development, and evolution. Although there is an apparent increase in the abstractness of the concept, it is hard to establish whether every subsequent version surpasses the previous one in sophistication and development, mostly because each of the versions is a product of some shift in ontological or methodological directions despite the presence of obvious continuity.
3. Conceptual Framework
The articulation of behavior setting theory led to a sophisticated and complex conceptual structure that is somewhat peculiar, namely it is an example of a two-layer conceptual development. The first layer can be described as abstract, similar to Talcott Parsons’ theories of society and social action. Inductive reasoning constitutes the second layer whose language emerged from observations and therefore is quite prone to operationalization. In some sense it can be labeled "grounded," although the process of its development differs significantly from the well-known approach proposed by Glaser and Strauss (1969). The philosophical assumptions discussed earlier and upon which the theory is built account for its implicit "inductive-deductive" nature (stemming from the adoption of both systems and empiricists principles). The theory presented here has a hierarchical structure, with a single most important construct at the top (behavior setting) and several levels of constructs that interface with one or two levels of observable features. These constitute the empirical base of the theory.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 19 [Special Issue – October 2012]
Barker's version of the theory is selected for conceptual assessment, because of several reasons: it is the original formulation; it is the most structured and not as abstract; and finally, it has also emerged directly from empirical research and was used most extensively in field studies. Barker’s formulation of behavior setting theory has several conceptual levels in terms of their degree of abstractness. The top level is comprised of the most abstract concepts that describe the most basic dimensions of the phenomena and are called fundamental constructs. They are explained by a second level of constructs (called just constructs here) that can be viewed both as descriptors of the fundamental constructs and as abstractions that summarize a number of empirical qualities. These constructs are the bridge between abstract theory and empirical meaning, which is revealed when observational terms are designated to them. The observational terms refer to properties that are directly observable through our senses. The group of observational terms includes direct and indirect observable terms. The latter refer to properties that must be inferred (although that process often involves several steps).
The chief fundamental construct of the theory is “behavior setting,” while other fundamental concepts include "standing patterns of behavior," "milieu," "behavior-milieu patterns,” "interdependence," "synomorphs," "synomorphy," "synomorphic," and "circumjacent." (Barker, 1968, pp. 18-25). The notable feature of the above constructs is that they describe the essential, unvarying structural and dynamic attributes of behavior settings. In addition to these basic features, settings have other salient properties that constitute another level of constructs, such as “temporal locus,” “geographical locus,” “social occurrence,” “duration,” “population,” “occupancy time,” “functional positions of inhabitants,” “action patterns,” “behavior mechanisms,” “pressure,” “autonomy,” and “welfare” (Barker, 1968, pp. 18-25).
This conceptual layer consists of a set of terms that are specific enough to be labeled as "observational terms." These terms are explicitly operationalized by Barker, which renders them as measurable during behavior observations. Thus, the concept of “occurrence” is specified in terms of number of days. Duration, on the other hand, is measured in hours. Another observational term, population is measured regarding the total number of persons who inhabit the setting for any length of time during a year. The construct "functional position" evolved to "penetration in the behavior settings" with six distinct zones: onlooker, audience or invited guest, member or customer, active functioning, joint leaders, and single leader. Each of these is further defined in observable or indirect observable terms, too. For example, the onlooker is located within the behavior setting, but takes no active part in the standing pattern of behavior. He/she is tolerated, but not welcomed, and has no power.
One important fundamental construct is "standing pattern of behavior," which is an abstraction that stands for the persistent reoccurrence of a behavioral phenomenon. In order to transcend this abstractness, the construct "action pattern" is introduced. The action pattern still represents several phenomena. It is operationalized in terms of particular variables and degrees of occurrence. The variables are aesthetics, business, education, government, nutrition, personal appearance, physical health, professionalism, recreation, religion, and social contact. The degree of occurrence is operationalized in terms of participation, supply, evaluation and appreciation, teaching, and learning. Each of these is additionally operationalized so that a measurement scale is developed. For example, Barker developed a participation scale with six levels, from 0 to 5, where 0 stands for no occurrences of the action pattern and 5 stands for multiple occurrences in the range of 80 to 100 percent of the setting occupancy time.
Since the derivation of the theory is based on inductive reasoning and because of its sound empirical base, behavior setting theory can aptly be described as "grounded." It not only was constructed through empirical observations and research but it is also quite capable of guiding research and evolving through a feedback loop process. Just like any other grounded theory, it emphasizes description rather than explanation and forms a methodological foundation of the behavior setting survey. In that sense it can fittingly be described as a sort of "grounded theory of behavior settings" and as such has an abstract superstructure that Barker lays out in Ecological Psychology (1968).
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 19 [Special Issue – October 2012]
Its concepts are easily operationalized and can be measured with observable data; its propositions easily lend themselves to empirical testing; and the theory can effectively guide empirical research without using intermediate conceptualizations. Therefore, behavior setting theory is quite different from Parsons’ “Grand Theory” of the social system, which can hardly be operationalized and its application in research is not very common. On the contrary, behavior setting theory can readily be applied in research and its fundamental propositions can serve as a starting point for theory-building in environment and behavior studies, as well as in social psychology. In that sense it both transcends the standard typology of theories and crosses over into a more interdisciplinary realm of theoretical development and application.
4.2. Internal Consistency
Behavior setting theory exhibits a high degree of internal consistency, since it is based on a kind of a systems world view, and that makes it explicitly logical and clear. There is a salient hierarchical structure of both its concepts and its core propositions. The concepts of the behavior setting theory are explicitly and clearly defined, and higher-order concepts are followed by less abstract empirical indicators. The levels are fairly well interconnected and consistency is a hallmark particularly for the grounded part of the theory. The two major factors that contribute to that consistency are the system framework of thinking of the authors and the empirical "embeddedness" of the resulting research.
Nevertheless, some minor hitches and discrepancies can be pinpointed after careful examination, but these are due to the continuous development of the theory and the difficulties stemming from the dynamics of an evolving language. One example is the almost synonymous use of the terms "behavior setting" and "habitat," but this is pretty rare. The reason for this might be the intention of the author to introduce different connotations and switch from a highly technical language to a more layman’s one. Another source of minor discrepancies is that the theory underwent several iterations in the first decade after its initial formulation. For instance, the shift in focus in the Wicker’s and Fuhrer’s versions of the theory is followed by a limited modification of the language. There are some new concepts added, and some of the original concepts are not used. Wicker, and particularly Fuhrer, developed somewhat more abstract versions of the grounded theory, although they did not consciously attempt to revise the abstract superstructure. This part of the theory obviously remained overlooked after the decline of the quest for Grand Theories in the late 1970’s and 1980’s.
4.3. Intertheory Support
This criterion is often used to assess how a theory fits in the existing accepted set of other theories. Thus, intertheory support is defined as the “communication” of the theory with other theories, its noncontradictory relations and exchanges with them, and the degree to which it can import explanatory concepts from them. We can determine solid intertheory support if a theory can “borrow” from another theory or if it is equifinal with some other theory from a different domain that is structurally and functionally similar to the domain of the evaluated one. It can also satisfy this test if the theory is capable of importing and assimilating concepts and explanatory structures from other theories.
Some comparison with other theories to establish intertheory support was done by Wicker (1987) who compared the term “cognitions of the setting program” with several other terms: script (Schank & Abelson, 1977), social episode (Forgas, 1979; 1982), social maps (Van Maanen, 1977), cause maps (Weick, 1979), schemata (Weick, 1979), plans (Miller, Galanter, & Pribram, 1969), and frames (Goffman, 1974). Insofar as he is interested in bringing a cognitive and experiential stance to his version of the behavior setting theory, it is not accidental that Wicker chooses these concepts, since they all emphasize more or less the individual perception of events and action, or the perspective of a single person.
One interesting comparison here is the similarity between behavior setting and the concept of social situation (Argyle, Furnham, & Graham, 1981; Furnham & Argyle, 1981; Harre, 1977) of the ethogenic approach. Their domains are similar in scale. There is also a similarity in the emphasis on the context, although the social situation theory neglects the physical environment, and although the ingredient concepts are perhaps somewhat different, they still display a similar situation-scale focus of description. The difference is in the transactional, experiential, and interpretative stance of the "social situations" (or ethogenic) approach.
The Special Issue on Business and Social Science © Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com
Another intriguing comparison is with the conceptual structure of the dramaturgical analogy of Burke (1972) and its major concepts: agent, purpose, act, stage, and agency. We must conclude, however, that Burke’s approach is different because of its strong interpretative philosophical stance. On the other hand, we can find similar conceptual structures to behavior setting theory in the symbolic interactionism version of T. Shibutani (1969): act, meaning, role, personality, and group.
With respect to some philosophical assumptions, there is little doubt that the idea of Person-Environment System is quite similar to the concept of behavior setting, although there are some subtle differences as well: it implies a more abstract and all-inclusive conceptualization, it is not developed into a theory, and it is subjected to quite loose interpretation. Ergonomics provides another concept with system background: the Human-Machine system (formerly Man-Machine System). In this case the systems stance leads to a more mechanistic interpretation of the system. In a nutshell, we can classify all these analogous theories into two categories that occupy polar ends of the theoretical spectrum: the social situation and the dramaturgical sociology will be located at the humanist end, and human-machine systems concepts will drift towards the systems-positivist end.
4.4. Empirical Support
Empirical support involves the testing of the theory in either applications to particular problems or as a stimulus to other studies and theories. One area in which behavior setting theory is extensively analyzed, applied, evaluated, and tested is in research situations by environment and behavior researchers. A large number of papers have been published in the Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA) over a period of forty years. Some of the early papers are similar to the meta-studies by Petty (1974) and Perkins (1982) on experimental investigation of staffing theory—two of the most obvious early applications. These authors review several experimental studies based on that theory and make a statement about its appropriateness. Ledbetter (1974) offers and interesting application of behavior setting theory in a paper on “undermanning” and architectural accessibility. In his seminal book, Enclosing Behavior, Bechtel (1977) extensively uses the behavior setting concept as a research tool. Specifically, Bechtel shows application of the K-21 test for setting identity and boundaries, and proposes ways to collect design information with the help of a "setting" framework. This successful application of the theory is indicative of its adequacy. We will also mention here the work of Tisot and Thurman (2002) who used behavior setting theory to study children’s habitat and the research of Cotterell (1998) on children behavior in urban environment.
As already mentioned, one line of corroboration is offered by staffing theory (Barker, 1968), which is a derivative of behavior setting theory. Staffing theory emphasizes the study of the effect of staffing level on the behavior setting integrity and the quality of the individual performance. One example for such research is the book Big School, Small School (Barker & Gump, 1964). The “undermanning” (or understaffing) theory is used extensively in research on organizations, tackling problems such as the relations among staffing levels and workload (Mentes, 1982), utilization of personnel (Dean et al., 1979), and members’ participation.
4.5. Additional Criteria
Several remaining criteria for evaluation are sketched in brief. One well-known criterion is the explanatory power of a theory. According to this standard, behavior setting theory could be judged by the performance of the "understaffing" theory, which is derived on the bases of the behavior setting concepts. The understaffing concept is quite efficient in explaining variations in human behavior that are due to the number of participants in the setting. The "grounded layer" of behavior setting theory is a predominantly descriptive one. "Explanatory power" in this case can be narrowed down to "descriptive power," which turns out to be substantial in facilitating the description of various settings. Similarly, an indirect proof for behavior setting theory’s explanatory power is its use by many authors in descriptive tasks both in environment and behavior studies and environmental design.
Finally, in terms of another criterion—predictive accuracy, behavior setting theory fares extremely well and its heuristic power can be judged by the application of this theory in the field of environment and behavior studies. Many new developments and ideas about sociospatial interactions were inspired by the theory because of its explicitness and the communicability of the theoretical language, as well as the fact that in a number of cases the concepts can be readily operationalized, and reliable scales for measurement can be provided.
The Special Issue on Business and Social Science © Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com
Kaminski, G. (1986). Paradigmengebundene Behaviour Setting-Analyse [Paradigm based behaviour setting analysis]. In G. Kaminski (Hrsg.), Ordnung und Variabilität im Alltagsgeschehen [Regularity and variability in everyday happenings] (pp. 154-176). Göttingen: Hogrefe. Ledbetter, C. B. (1974). Undermanning and architectural accessibility. In Carson D. (Ed.), EDRA 5 Proceedings. Man-environment interactions: Evaluations and applications: The state of the art in environmental design research, Vol. 3 , (pp. 281-288). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row. Magnusson, D. (1981). Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Ass. Mentes, Z.D. (1982). Development of a self-report measure of staffing level. Unpublished master's thesis, Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA. Cited in: Wicker, A. (1987). Merton, R. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press. Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Moore, G. T. (1986). Effects of the spatial definition of behavior settings on children's behavior: A quasi- experimental field study. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 6, 205-233. Moore, G.T. (1987). Environment and behavior research in North America. In Stocols, D. & Altman, I. (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology. New York: John Willey. Moore, G. T., Tuttle, D., & Howel, S. (1985). Environmental design research directions. New York: Praeger. Parsons, T., & Shils, E. (Eds.) (1951). Toward a general theory of action. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Petty, R. M. (1974). Experimental investigation of undermanning theory. (Carson D. (Ed.), EDRA 5 Proceedings. Man-environment interactions: Evaluations and applications: The state of the art in environmental design research, Vol. 3 , (pp. 259-269). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. Price, R. (1990). Behavior settings: A revision and extension of Roger G. Barker's ecological psychology (book review), Environment and Behavior, 22 , 541-544. Schank, R.C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Shibutani, T. (1961). Society and personality: An interactionist approach to social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Shibutani, T. (1986). Social processes: An introduction to sociology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Stokols, D. (2000). Theory development in environmental psychology: A prospective view. In S. Wapner, et al. (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives in environment-behavior research: Underlying assumptions, research problems, and methodologies (pp. 269-276). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Tisot, C. M., & Thurman, S. K. (2002). Using behavior setting theory to define natural settings: A family- centered approach. Infants and Young Children, 14 (3), 65-71. Van Maanen, J. (1977). Experiencing organizations: Notes on the meaning of careers and socialization. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Organizational careers: Some new perspectives (pp.15-45). New York: Willey. Wapner, S. (1987). A holistic, developmental, systems-oriented environmental psychology. In D. Stocols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology, (pp. 1433-1466). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Wapner, S., & Kaplan, B. (Eds.). (1983). Toward a holistic developmental psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Weick, K.E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Wicker, A. W. (2002). Ecological psychology: Historical contexts, current conception, prospective directions. In R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman & (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 114-126). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wicker, A. (1990). The Midwest Psychological Field Station: Some reflections of one participant, Environment and Behavior, 22 , 492-498. Wicker, A. (1987). Behavior settings reconsidered: Temporal stages, resources, internal dynamics, context. In D. Stocols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology , Vol. 2, (pp. 613-653). New York: Wiley.
