Behavior settings

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (September 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article cites its sources but does not provide page references. You can help providing page numbers for existing citations. (March 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (September 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Behavior settings are theorized entities that help explain the relationship between individuals and the environment - particularly the social environment. This topic is typically indexed under the larger rubric of ecological (or environmental) psychology. However, the notion of behavior setting is offered here in more detail and with more specificity than is found in the larger entry under ecological psychology or environmental psychology.

There has been a tendency in the social sciences generally to polarize arguments about consciousness, identity, behavior, and culture around either the mind existing 'in the head' or the mind being an artifact of social interaction. Mind—in the sense used here—is understood as the motivation for behavior. Evidence indicates that both of these 'facts' are accurate. One of the problems social scientists have is understanding this paradox. Behavior settings are mediating structures that help explain the relationship between the dynamic behavior of individuals and stable social structure. Social scientist Roger Barker first developed this theoretical framework in the late 1940s.

Behavior settings also may serve as a bridge between the foundational work of Humberto Maturana & Francisco Varela on Autopoiesis^[1] and the insights developed in American pragmatism and Continental activity theory.

A behavior setting exists at the interface between the standing patterns of behavior and the milieu (environment), wherein the behavior is happening in the milieu, and the milieu in some sense matches the behavior. In technical parlance, the "behavior-milieu interface" is called the synomorph, and the milieu is said to be circumjacent and synomorphic to the behavior.

In a dentist's office, for example, "patients get their cavities filled". This is the standing pattern (the behavior/milieu part or synomorph) because we are in the office (the milieu surrounds us, i.e., it is circumjacent) and the pieces of the milieu fit the standing pattern (the drill is meant to fit in my mouth and drill my tooth, i.e. synomorphic with the behavior). Further, to be considered a behavior setting, these behavior/milieu parts or synomorphs must have a specific degree of interdependence that is greater than their interdependence with other parts of other settings.

There is an empirical test that can determine the relative robustness of behavior settings, depending on the index of interdependence between and among specific standing patterns of behavior. By itself, a standing pattern of behavior is meaningless; it would be like watching a person pretending to go to the dentist's office and having a cavity filled. Also, a dentist's office without patients (or the possibility of patients) would be a meaningless artifact.

So, a behavior setting is a self-referenced (internally interdependent and self-defined) entity that consists of one or more standing patterns of behavior. Just as the standing pattern is synomorphic with the artifacts in the milieu, so are standing patterns synomorphic with other standing patterns in the behavior setting. We see in the eminent ecological psychologist, Roger G. Barker's conception, an elegant and stable view of the nested interrelationships that exist within our common experience. The pieces fit, and in their fitting we see the larger structure-in-a-context that is necessary for making claims about development, causality, or purpose.