Behavior Setting Theory: Understanding the Relationship Between Environment and Action

In a world increasingly aware of the profound impact that environments have on our behaviors, Behavior Setting Theory (BST) emerges as a pivotal framework for understanding this intricate relationship. Developed by Roger G. Barker in the mid-twentieth century, BST posits that human actions are not merely driven by individual traits. They are significantly shaped by the physical and social contexts in which they occur. This theory shifts the focus from an interior perspective of psychology to one where behavior settings serve as powerful determinants of human conduct. Imagine walking into a bustling grocery store; every aisle is designed not just for convenience but also to guide your choices and interactions—each product placement subtly nudging you toward certain decisions.

As we delve deeper into Behavior Setting Theory, it becomes clear that these environment-behavior dynamics extend beyond everyday experiences to influence broader domains such as education, urban planning, and health care. The standing patterns established within specific settings create predictable behavior norms that can enhance or hinder personal growth and community well-being. By looking at how these factors intersect, we gain valuable insights into why some settings foster engagement. Other settings may lead to disengagement or alienation. In doing so, BST invites us to rethink how we design our spaces—not only for aesthetic appeal but with an intentional focus on shaping positive human interactions and outcomes in various aspects of life.

Introduction: The Role of Environments in Motivating Behaviors

Behavior Setting Theory (BST), developed by Roger Barker, proposes that specific, identifiable units of the environment, called behavior settings, exert powerful influences on human behavior. Unlike other psychological approaches that primarily study individuals, BST focuses on the environment itself as an independent, objective entity. Each behavior setting is a naturally occurring, molar unit recognized by its inhabitants in their everyday lives.

We see shadows of BST in an observation by Carl Jung. He wrote that early in life he discovered that “in the course of associating with my rustic schoolmates…I found that they alienated me from myself. When I was with them I became different from the way I was at home” (Jung, 2011).

Throughout psychology, we see references to the profound impact of environment on development and behavior. Behavior Setting Theory provides a framework for examining this intricate and powerful relationship.

Behavior settings maintain their integrity through homeostatic mechanisms, including “program circuits” (agenda for required behaviors), “goal circuits” (aligning participant needs with setting outputs), “deviation-countering circuits” (correcting off-program behavior), and “veto circuits” (removing disruptive components). This dynamic relationship is often described using Heider’s “thing” and “medium” analogy, where the setting is the “thing” that impresses its form, and the inhabitants are the “medium” that takes on that form, enabling predictable behavior (Barker & Gump, 1964).

The Origins and Foundations of Behavior Setting Theory

BST originated from Barker’s empirical studies in the small town of Oskaloosa, Kansas, beginning in the 1940s, a research enterprise known as the Midwest Psychological Field Station (Schoggen, 1989). Barker and his colleagues were dissatisfied with laboratory-based research. It isolated individuals from their natural environments. They sought to observe and understand behavior as it unfolded in everyday contexts. Their central insight was that much of what people do is structured not solely by internal psychological processes, but by stable patterns of activity that recur in specific environmental contexts—what Barker dubbed “behavior settings” (Barker, 1968).

A behavior setting is defined as a particular place, at a particular time, characterized by specific patterns of behavior and a milieu of physical and social features. Examples include classrooms, basketball games, church services, or board meetings. Each setting has a “standing pattern” of behavior generally expected from its participants, as well as a physical milieu that supports and signals those expected actions (Wicker, 1979).

What is a Behavior Setting?

At its core, Behavior Setting Theory proposes that specific, identifiable units called behavior settings make up the the environment. These settings uniquely combine both physical and social elements into a single unit that powerfully influences human behavior. A behavior setting is a naturally occurring unit at a “molar level,” meaning it’s recognized by ordinary people in their everyday lives as places where they conduct their activities (Scott, 2005).

Examples of behavior settings include a tenure committee meeting, a grocery store, a worship service, or a sandlot baseball game. Each setting has two crucial characteristics:

• Specific time, place, and object props: This refers to the physical environment and objects within it, such as “Bryan Hall 108” or “the Kroger building”.
• Specific attached, standing behavior patterns: This refers to the typical activities that happen there, like “reading documents, discussing, voting” in a committee meeting, or “getting a basket, selecting foods, visiting with people, paying” in a grocery store. Both of these elements are essential for a behavior setting to exist; neither is sufficient on its own. This combination of physical and social elements within a single unit makes behavior settings unique in psychology (Scott, 2005).

The Power of Behavior Settings

The significant influence of a behavior setting comes from several sources:

• Extraindividual Nature: A behavior setting “exists independent of any particular person’s perception of it” (Scott, 2005). It is an objective, naturally occurring phenomenon with a specific time-space location that exists outside the individual (Schoggen-1989).
• Direction of Molar Behavior: Once people enter a setting, the setting itself largely directs their “molar behavior” (goal-directed, purposive actions), rather than their individual personalities or differences. While participants can play roles in changing settings over time, they do so as components of the setting, not primarily as independent individuals. Behavior settings do not determine individual behavior but rather constrain it, creating opportunities for individual choice within their framework (Scott, 2005; Heft, 2001, p. 256).
• Distinct Roles of People: Behavior Setting Theory recognizes that people play two separate and distinct roles in a setting. They are individuals responding to environmental cues (as studied in many other psychological approaches), but they also function as a component of the environment, emitting cues that influence the behavior of others. This distinction is crucial to avoid circular reasoning (Wicker, 1979).

Key Concepts of Behavior Setting Theory

The Synomorphy of Behavior and Milieu

One core tenet of Behavior Setting Theory (BST) is synomorphy, which describes the close fitting together of behavior patterns and environmental features. This means there is a similarity in structure, form, or shape between the typical activities (standing patterns of behavior) that occur in a place and the characteristics and arrangement of its physical components (milieu) (Schoggen, 1989, p. 32). It’s an essential feature of behavior settings. Both the physical and social elements are crucial. Neither is sufficient on its own for the setting to exist. This congruence extends from the boundaries of a setting, where the edge of a football field defines the limits of the game, to its fine, interior structure, like how the specific design of a basketball requires its own peculiarly shaped ball for the game to be played.

The milieu is often circumjacent to the behavior, meaning it surrounds or encloses the activity, as seen in a store opening and closing, or the walls of a barbershop defining the hairdressing behavior pattern. Behavior settings themselves are considered synomorphs, representing this combination of coordinated behaviors and objects into a unified entity (Wicker-1979, p. 33).

Synomorphic Relationship

The power and influence of a behavior setting stem from this synomorphic relationship, demonstrating that the design of physical spaces and their associated social expectations are deeply intertwined to facilitate certain behaviors and discourage others. This means that designed environments are not merely aesthetic creations, but places that must facilitate the actions of people. Consequently, the “programs” – the ordered sequence of events and activities – of behavior settings should be a central concern for designers and planners (Wickers, 1979, p. 49). Synomorphy arises from various sources, including:

• Physical forces: The arrangement of a milieu can enforce or prevent behaviors, such as narrow school corridors preventing circle games or the physical properties of objects like a ball eliciting throwing behavior .
• Physiological processes: Innate human mechanisms respond to milieu features, like cold wind inducing brisk movement or an overheated room causing lethargy.
• Physiognomic perception: Certain configurations of stimuli in the physical milieu appear to “demand” specific behaviors, like a smooth, open field eliciting running and romping (Schoggen, 1989, p. 44).
• Learning: People learn behaviors suitable for particular settings, constantly conforming to expectations like being quiet in church or sitting still in school (Barker, 1968, p. 30).

---

Furthermore, individuals actively contribute to synomorphy by creating new milieu arrangements to support novel behaviors or altering existing features to conform to changes in old behavior patterns, highlighting a continuous interplay between people and their environment. This coerciveness of behavior settings, inherent in their synomorphic structure, ensures that the behavior of inhabitants conforms to the setting’s standing patterns.

The Standing Pattern

According to Behavior Setting Theory (BST), a standing pattern of behavior is a bounded pattern in the behavior of persons, en masse. It represents the molar behavior that is associated with or expected in a given environment. A crucial characteristic is that it is an extra-individual behavior phenomenon, possessing unique and stable characteristics that persist even when current inhabitants of the setting are replaced by others.

For instance, the standing pattern of a high school basketball game includes the game-playing of the team members, the refereeing of officials, the time-keeping, cheerleader actions, and spectator behaviors like sitting, standing, and cheering (Schoggen, 1989, p. 385). Similarly, a church worship service involves standing patterns such as the pastor’s preaching, the congregation’s sitting, listening, standing, and hymn singing, the choir’s anthem singing, and ushers collecting offerings. Each standing pattern is a discrete behavior entity with specific temporal-spatial coordinates. It means it has a precise and delimited position (location) in time and space. This is distinct from a sociological “role,” which defines a person’s position within a social structure but lacks a specific temporal-geographical locus.

Boundary

According to Behavior Setting Theory, a boundary is a fundamental, defining characteristic of a behavior setting, marking it as a bounded unit of the environment. These boundaries are real and tangible, possessing precise time and place coordinates that can be pointed out. They are considered self-generated and maintained by the dynamics of the setting’s occupants, meaning they are not arbitrarily imposed but emerge from the coordinated behavior and milieu (Wicker, 1979; Barker, 1968; Heft, 2001).

The physical-geographical-temporal milieu (physical environment) is circumjacent to the behavior pattern, meaning its boundaries surround or enclose the behavior, typically without a break. For example, the boundary of a football field serves as the boundary of the game, and the walls and operating hours of a barbershop define the limits of the hairdressing behavior pattern within that setting. These boundaries are discriminable, and individuals are generally aware of entering or leaving a behavior setting (Schoggen, 1989, p. 32).

The theory posits that the boundary of an entity is the point where the concepts and theories that account for the phenomenon cease to apply, but where linked (interdependent) phenomena still exist beyond it. This conceptualization highlights the importance of precise boundaries for functional operation, as illustrated by “boundary problems” in hospital nursing stations affecting patient and staff interaction (Wicker, 1979, p. 48). In contrast, something like a brick-paved area without a corresponding, self-generated behavior pattern boundary would not qualify as a behavior setting.

Staffing Theory

The concept of “staffing” within Behavior Setting Theory (BST) refers specifically to the adequacy of the number of “operatives” or “workers” within a behavior setting. This term was adopted to provide more precise assessments, particularly in service behavior settings, where staff (employees or owners providing a service) and clients (non-workers receiving a service) have distinct roles and differing potential for participation (Stokols, 1977). It differentiates the adequacy of personnel responsible for maintaining the setting’s program. This context is distinct from the overall “population” of all inhabitants. These inhabitants include non-operatives like customers or audience members. For example, in an underpopulated school, a single child might be responsible for a variety of roles across different settings, potentially impacting both the child’s development and the functioning of those settings (Barker & Gump, 1964).

The Continuum of Staffing Levels

Staffing levels are defined along a continuum, based on the relationship between “applicants” (those willing and eligible to participate), the “maintenance minimum” (the smallest number of persons necessary to sustain the setting program), and “capacity” (the largest number of persons the setting can accommodate): understaffing (applicants are fewer than the maintenance minimum), adequate staffing (applicants meet or exceed the maintenance minimum but not the capacity), and overstaffing (applicants exceed the setting’s capacity). In service settings, these staffing conditions often have an inverse relationship with client population (e.g., an understaffed setting is typically overpopulated with clients) (Wicker, 1979, p. 165).

This framework helps explain how varying numbers of available workers influence their behaviors and subjective experiences. Under understaffing, workers may feel increased feelings of importance, involvement, and responsibility. Conversely, overstaffing can lead to increased task specialization and lower self-esteem. The theory also suggests that settings actively respond to deviations from adequate staffing to maintain their program, often through mechanisms like recruitment, altering eligibility standards, or adjusting the setting’s capacity.

Methodology: Studying Behavior Settings

To investigate behavior settings, researchers typically employ systematic observation techniques that allow for a detailed examination of both the physical features of an environment and the behavioral patterns exhibited by participants within it. This multifaceted approach often includes time-sampling and event-recording methods. In time-sampling, researchers record specific behaviors at predetermined intervals. In event-recording, they capture instances of particular actions or interactions as they occur. Behavior mapping processes are also utilized to visually represent how individuals move through and interact with different environments, providing a spatial context to their activities. These methodologies enable researchers to identify consistent patterns in behavior across various settings and times, offering insights into how environmental factors influence human actions (Wicker, 1979).

Barker and his colleagues were pioneers in this field, developing an ethnographic and field-based approach to observe naturalistic settings rather than relying solely on controlled laboratory conditions. Their work involved careful cataloging of recurring behavioral patterns. They quantified these patterns observed in everyday life situations. This emphasized the importance of context in understanding human behavior. By focusing on real-world environments—such as schools, parks, or community centers—they highlighted how these locations shape social interactions and individual experiences. This emphasis on ecological validity has laid the groundwork for subsequent research efforts that continue to explore the dynamic interplay between people and their surrounding environments while advancing our understanding of Behavior Setting Theory (BST).

Evolution and Extensions of the Theory

Behavior Setting Theory has expanded since Barker’s early work. Initially focused on identifying settings as objective, extraindividual forces, it later incorporated the concept of inhabiting level. More recent extensions include:

• An expanded view of the interior of settings, including individual differences (resources) and social phenomena (internal dynamics).
• A larger context view, examining networks between settings and their place in the broader social world.
• A temporal view of settings, considering their initiation, working phases, and decline (life cycles) (Scott, 2005).

---

These extensions reflect ongoing dialogue within the field, distinguishing “classicists” who advocate for continuing Barker’s direct work, and “extenders” who believe the theory can be strengthened by adding new dimensions.

The Paradox: Why Isn’t It Mainstream?

Despite its recognized power and empirical support, Behavior Setting Theory faces a paradox: it’s not widely known or understood by mainstream American psychologists. Several factors contribute to this:

• Individualistic Focus: American psychology is strongly attached to an individualistic view of behavior, often defining psychology as the study of behavior or mind lodged within individuals. Behavior Setting Theory, conversely, focuses on the environment qua environment as a powerful controller of behavior, which is a difficult conceptual shift for many (Scott, 2005).
• Laboratory Experimental Paradigm: Mainstream American psychology has long been dominated by a laboratory experimental model, which often involves bringing people into artificial settings to test hypotheses. Ecological psychology, however, developed in resistance to this, advocating for studying human behavior in naturalistic, real-life settings, which can be difficult to grasp with traditional laboratory science canons (Stokols, 1977).
• Communication Style: Barker’s own writings have been described as “dense,” and his attempt to avoid “psychological jargon” sometimes made his language harder to understand for some readers (Scott, 2005).
• Conceptual and Geographic Isolation: The Midwest Psychological Field Station, where much of the early work took place, experienced both conceptual and geographic isolation from the rest of psychology, which hindered wider dissemination. Some critics even considered the behavior setting concept “pre-psychological,” contributing to its isolation from mainstream psychology (Schoggen, 1989, p. 255).

Behavior Setting Theory in Practice

Applications in Educational Environments

One of the most influential applications of Behavior Setting Theory (BST) has been in the field of education, particularly through Roger Barker and Paul Gump’s landmark 1964 book, Big School, Small School: High School Size and Student Behavior. This foundational work moved away from studying individual child behavior to examining the environment on its own terms. The researchers were impressed by the clustered nature of environments and how their structure influenced behavior and development. They identified that while large high schools certainly had a greater number of behavior settings and a wider variety of nonclass activities available, this increase was not proportional to their significantly larger student populations (Barker & Gump, 1964).

For example, the largest school in their study had 65 times as many students as the smallest, but only 8 times as many settings and a mere 1.5 times as many varieties of settings. This discrepancy meant that large schools experienced a greater average density of students per setting, a condition often described as overpopulation. Conversely, smaller schools, despite their outwardly modest appearance, were found to have a higher ratio of behavior settings to students, leading to conditions of underpopulation or undermanning. This revealed an “inside-outside perceptual paradox” or a “school size illusion,” where small schools, though less impressive from an external view, were not nearly as “small on the inside” in terms of behaviorally significant parts (Barker & Gump, 1964, p. 195).

Impact of Inadequate Staffing Settings

Undermanned Settings

These varying staffing levels—from undermanned in small schools to optimally manned or overmanned in large ones—produced significant and predictable behavioral and psychological consequences for students. In understaffed settings prevalent in small schools, students experienced:

• Stronger and more varied pressures to participate in activities. This was so pronounced that even “marginal students”—those typically less qualified or at risk of dropping out—were actively sought out and experienced nearly as many pressures to participate as “regular students”.
• Greater functional importance, responsibility, and obligation. This meant occupying more central and leadership roles.
• Increased effort and a wider variety of activities. Students became more “generalists” than “specialists,” exposed to a broader range of activities (Barker & Gump, 1964)
• More satisfactions related to developing competence, being challenged, engaging in important actions, group involvement, being valued, and gaining moral and cultural values. These satisfactions were often tied to their responsible positions within the settings (Wicker, 1979, p. 196).

Overmanned Settings

In contrast, in the optimally manned or overmanned settings of large schools, many students lacked responsible jobs and experienced less involvement and challenge, often becoming “outsiders” with fewer pressures or attractions to participate. Findings from Big School, Small School have been affirmed and replicated in studies of churches. They have also been affirmed in whole communities. These studies reinforce BST’s predictive power regarding environmental effects on behavior. The research highlights that a school’s size impacts the quality and extent of student participation in extracurricular activities, suggesting that smaller schools promote a wider range of skills and a deeper sense of involvement for more students, including those of modest ability.

Urban Planning and Environmental Design

Behavior Setting Theory (BST) has significantly informed urban planning and environmental psychology by underscoring the crucial role of designing environments that actively promote and channel desired behaviors (Stokols, 1977). A core tenet of BST is the idea of a behavior setting as a synomorphic combination of physical milieu and attached standing patterns of behavior. The physical environment (milieu) is specifically designed to contain, facilitate, and channel the behaviors required by the setting’s program.

Features like the layout of a physical space, the placement of objects, and the physical barriers are integral components. They are not passive backdrops. These components coerce and shape the actions of inhabitants. For instance, Bechtel’s work, drawing on BST, has demonstrated how careful planning and design can create “behavioral focal points” in buildings or facilities – central, easily accessible areas with comfortable seating – that promote informal communication and a sense of community among diverse occupants (Wicker, 1979, p. 48).

The theory explicitly suggests that designers and planners should prioritize the “program” of behavior settings when creating spaces, ensuring they facilitate intended actions rather than merely evoke a mood. This understanding has led to the development of a “behavior-setting technology” focused on intervening in settings to improve their functional programs, often by modifying physical elements and behavioral patterns.

Conversely, the theory warns against the creation of “unifunctional spaces” that can lead to boredom, sterility, and even antisocial behaviors by excessively compartmentalizing activities and restricting natural social interactions (Oldenburg, 1999, p. 214). The power of behavior settings is in their self-regulating nature. This ensures people conform to their established standing patterns. Designing these environmental units is critical for shaping collective behavior and enhancing human well-being.

Health and Community Psychology

Behavior Setting Theory (BST) has profoundly influenced health and community psychology. It shows how the structural organization of environments directly impacts human well-being and participation. Examples of such environments include addiction treatment clinics (Bromet et al., 1976), hospitals, and community centers. A behavior setting, defined by its physical milieu and standing patterns of behavior, coerces and channels the actions of its inhabitants.

For example, in rehabilitation hospitals, research by LeCompte and Willems revealed that a significant portion of hospital activities occurred in settings from which patients were excluded, like staff meetings and offices.

Patient behaviors, such as independence and activity levels, varied dramatically across different hospital settings. They were much higher in communal areas like cafeterias and hallways than in therapy settings. This challenged person-centered theories that attributed such traits solely to individual personality. This highlights how researchers can evaluate physical features like room layouts or furniture arrangements for their effectiveness in supporting intended activities (Wicker, 1979).

Robert Bechtel, a key proponent of BST methodology for designed environments, identified how “behavioral focal points”—central, easily accessible areas with comfortable seating—could be intentionally designed to foster informal social interaction and community among occupants, improving support and morale (Perkins et al., 1988).

Community Mental Health

In community mental health, BST concepts inform the understanding of Consumer-Run Organizations (CROs), which serve as alternative institutions to traditional mental health systems (Boyd et al., 2007). These organizations promote member empowerment. They enable individuals with mental illness to take on roles as helpers and leaders, rather than just clients. This involvement leads to increased self-confidence and mutual support. Moos’s work, which includes the Community-Oriented Programs Environment Scale (COPES), further characterizes treatment environments along dimensions like “relationship,” “personal development,” and “system maintenance,” showing how these social climates influence physiological processes and patient outcomes (Moos, 1974). Ultimately, BST emphasizes that environments are not passive backdrops but active systems that shape behavior, making their design and management critical for promoting well-being and desired social interactions.

Critiques and Limitations of Behavior Setting Theory

Although BST has been influential, it is not without its critics. Some psychologists argue that the theory underestimates the complexity of internal psychological processes—such as motivation, cognition, and emotion—by focusing primarily on observable behavior and environmental features (Stokols, 1977). Others point out that behavior settings can be fluid and overlapping, challenging the often rigid operationalization of boundaries and patterns (Wicker, 1987).

Furthermore, the theory’s emphasis on stable patterns may overlook the ways in which individuals actively shape and redefine behavior settings, especially in the context of social change and technological innovation (Heft, 2001). Nonetheless, BST remains a foundational framework for understanding the interplay between people and place.

Recent Developments and Integrations

Contemporary research has extended BST’s insights by integrating them with transactional and constructivist approaches, which recognize that people both influence and are influenced by their environments. For example, “third places”—settings outside home and work, such as coffee shops or libraries—have become focal points for modern BST research, exploring how new behavior settings emerge in response to shifting social needs (Oldenburg, 1999).

Moreover, developments in environmental psychology have expanded the concept of behavior settings to virtual environments, analyzing how online spaces create new patterns of behavior and interaction (Heft, 2001).

Associated Concepts

• Reciprocal Gene-Environment Model: This model suggests that a person’s genetic makeup can influence the likelihood of encountering certain environments. These environments can trigger mental health issues.
• Biopsychosocial Model: This model presents a holistic approach to understanding health and illness that takes into account biological, psychological, and social factors. It suggests that the interplay of these factors can significantly influence a person’s overall health and well-being.
• Reference Group Theory: This theory explores how social groups shape individual identities and behaviors through self-evaluation and attitude formation. Influencing everything from fashion to aspirations, these groups serve as benchmarks for comparison.
• Life Course Theory: This theory provides a comprehensive framework for examining how environmental, social, and historical factors over a person’s lifespan influences individual development.
• Cultural-Historical Psychology: This theory explores the interplay between culture, social interaction, and cognitive development. This theory highlights the influence of culture and society on human development. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of cognitive processes, neurological functioning, and sociocultural influences.
• Asch Conformity Experiments: These experiments revealed the power of social influence. Humans tend to conform to majority opinion, even when it’s clearly incorrect. The study highlighted individual differences in response to group pressure and emphasized the need for critical thinking and autonomy.
• The Differential Susceptibility Theory (DS): This theory explores the interplay of genes and environment, challenging fixed vulnerability notions. It highlights individual plasticity, suggesting people respond differently to positive and negative experiences.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

In conclusion, Behavior Setting Theory serves as a compelling reminder of the intricate interplay between our environments and our behaviors. As we navigate through various settings—be it a classroom bustling with eager students, a serene park inviting relaxation, or an urban space designed for community interaction—the principles of BST reveal how these physical contexts shape our actions and interactions in profound ways. By recognizing that human behavior is not merely a function of individual traits, we understand it is significantly influenced by the settings we inhabit. This understanding lets us better appreciate the role of thoughtful design in enhancing social engagement. Thoughtful design also enhances personal well-being.

As we move forward into an era where understanding human behavior is more critical than ever, embracing the insights offered by Behavior Setting Theory will empower educators, urban planners, healthcare professionals, and community leaders alike. By prioritizing environments that align with desired patterns of action, society can cultivate spaces that facilitate positive experiences. These spaces promote connection and growth. Ultimately, as this theory underscores—we must strive to create environments not just for living but for thriving; fostering ecosystems where individuals flourish collectively while contributing to their communities’ shared vitality.

Last Update: July 28, 2025

References:

Barker, Roger G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford University Press. ISBN: 9780804706582
(Return to Main Text)

Barker, Roger G.; Gump, Paul V. (1964). Big School, Small School: High School Size and Student Behavior. Stanford University Press. ISBN: 9780804701952; APA Record: 1965-02788-000
(Return to Main Text)

Boyd, N., & Angelique, H. (2007). How settings change people: Applying behavior setting theory to consumer‐run organizations. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(3), 399-416. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.20155
(Return to Main Text)

Bromet, E., Moos, R., & Bliss, F. (1976). The Social Climate of Alcoholism Treatment Programs. Archives of General Psychiatry, 33(8), 910-916. DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.1976.01770080028002
(Return to Main Text)

Heft, H. (2001). Ecological psychology in context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the legacy of William James’s radical empiricism. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN: 9780805823509; APA Record: 2001-01729-000
(Return to Main Text)

Jung, Carl Gustav (1961/1989). Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Vintage; Reissue edition. ISBN: 9780679723950; APA Record: 1964-00022-000
(Return to Main Text)

Moos, R. (1974). Determinants of Physiological Responses to Symbolic Stimuli: The Role of the Social Environment. The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, , 5(4), 389-399. DOI: 10.2190/TQFN-CQAR-3HGR-AA9W
(Return to Main Text)

Oldenburg, R. (1999). The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community (3rd ed.). Marlowe & Company. ISBN: 9781614720973
(Return to Main Text)

Perkins, D., Burns, T., Perry, J., & Nielsen, K. (1988). Behavior setting theory and community psychology: An analysis and critique. Journal of Community Psychology, 16(4), 355-372. DOI: 10.1002/1520-6629(198810)16:4<355::AID-JCOP2290160402>3.0.CO;2-D
(Return to Main Text)

Perkins, D. (1988). Alternative views of behavior settings: A response to Schoggen. Journal of Community Psychology, 16(4), 387-391. DOI: 10.1002/1520-6629(198810)16:4%3C387::AID-JCOP2290160404%3E3.0.CO;2-Z
(Return to Main Text)

Schoggen, Phil (1989). Behavior Settings: A Revision and Extension of Roger G. Barker’s Eco-Behavioral Psychology. Stanford University Press. ISBN: 9780804715430; APA Record: 1989-98053-000
(Return to Main Text)

Spotlight Article:

Scott, M. (2005). A Powerful Theory and a Paradox. Environment and Behavior, 37(3), 295-329. DOI: 10.1177/00139165042706
(Return to Main Text)

Stokols, D. (1977). Perspectives on environment and behavior: Theory, research, and applications. Plenum Press. ISBN: 9780306309540
(Return to Main Text)

Wicker, A. W. (1979). An introduction to ecological psychology. Brooks/Cole. ISBN: 9780521319744
(Return to Main Text)

Wicker, A. W. (1987). Behavior settings reconsidered: Temporal stages, resources, internal dynamics, context. In: D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 613–653). Wiley. ISBN: 9780471866312
(Return to Main Text)

Related Articles