Amos Rapoport (1982) refers to this "reminding" as the mnemonic function of the environment.
"The environment thus communicates, through a whole set of cues, the most appropriate choices to be made: the cues are meant to elicit appropriate emotions, interpretations, behaviors, and transactions by _ setting up the appropriate situations and contexts. The environment can thus be said to act as a mnemonic... It takes the remembering from the person and places the reminding in the environment." Rapoport (1982, pp. 80-81)
The built environments on our campuses were constructed with encoded messages. When they are decoded through student behavior, a reminding or mnemonic function has occurred. By analyzing the built environments, a more complete understanding can be provided of the student behavior that occurs in these settings as well as a greater understanding of the contribution that environments make to student behavior.
In fact, an analysis of the "reminding" given by built environments often produces a different and useful perspective. For example, the growing problem of "rowdy student behavior" at commencement ceremonies can be studied by such an analysis.
Student Commencement Behavior
Over the past few years, there has been an increasing concern expressed by the faculty and administration over the ever increasing incidents of inappropriate behavior at commencement ceremonies. It is common to hear graduation referred to as the "college circus".
Recently, one institution asked a faculty committee to review the deterioration of student commencement behavior and to make recommendations for improvement. During one of the work sessions, one faculty member asked an interesting question. He wondered how each new graduating class could pick up on the previous student commencement behavior, since few undergraduates ever attended a graduation prior to their own.
The answer to this question, in part, is that the cues for the inappropriate behavior is in the built environment. The setting "reminds" the student of certain behavior.
It works this way!
The commencement exercises for this particular institution (as for most others) are held in the basketball fieldhouse. Students are seated, by colleges, on fold-out bleachers next to the court floor. (Same seating as at basketball games.) The physical setting (backboards and scoreboards are still visible) and the seating arrangement cues "sporting behavior" not "graduation behavior". In fact, at one recent commencement ceremony, the students on the south side of the court yelled to their counterparts sitting on the north side: "We've got spirit, how about you?" The students on the north replied in a louder voice: "We've got spirit, HOW ABOUT YOU?" This back and forth volley continued with ever increasing volume for several minutes.
The above behavior is appropriate for a sporting event, but not for commencement exercises. However, the encoded messages of the "built environment" remind students of the yelling and cheering associated with competitive sporting events. In fact, by arranging students by colleges, each with their own banner, "competitive teams" are formed to enhance the rowdiness called for by the fieldhouse environment.
Institutions which are small enough to still hold commencement in the college chapel probably do not have the severe rowdy behavior problem. The encoded messages in that setting elicit behavior more compatible to the behavior that faculty and administrators are seeking for graduation ceremonies.
Intervention Strategy
By taking into account the mnemonic function, the faculty committee recommended that students should not be seated in the bleachers, but that chairs be placed on the floor. Such an arrangement should cue behaviors that are more "church or meeting" like in nature rather than the "sporting event" behavior. Obviously, many other factors go into student commencement behavior than just the physical setting and the seating arrangement. However, these built environmental factors may be far more important than previously thought.
Ivy Walls: A final thought
Bloom (1977) suggests that the upper limit on the ability to predict human behavior solely on the basis of personal characteristics is relatively low. He further suggests that person-only conceptualizations leave perhaps three-quarters of the variation in human behavior unexplained. How much of the variation can be explained by the mnemonic function of the built environment?
Perhaps the counselors and student personnel workers in the future will be replaced by the architects and carpenters! Probably not, but the possibility has some merit! Are we not, now, attending to the many problems produced by earlier architects and carpenters?
References:
Bloom, B.L. Community Mental Health. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1977.
Rapoport, Amos. The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1982.
Persons are often described by the demographic variables of age, race, and gender. In addition there is an abundance of "personality" variables such as attitudes, values, and traits. On the other hand, we are much less accustomed to describing environments. What are the variables or the ways to conceptualize environments? Do taxonomies for campus environments exist?
A number of conceptual frameworks from which to view campus environments do exist. A brief description along with the basic references for each approach will be given.
The Social Ecology Approach
The social ecology approach is best illustrated by the work of Moos (1974) in the chapter entitled "Systems for the Assessment and Classification of Human Environments: An Overview". In this chapter, Moos suggests the environment could be viewed in terms of the following six dimensions:
1. Ecological Dimensions
Banning and McKinley (1980) have applied these dimensions directly to the everyday working environment of the student development professional.
Basic references are:
Moos, R.H. "Systems for the Assessment and Classification of Human Environments: An Overview." In R.H. Moos and P.M. Inset, Eds. Issues in Social Ecology. Palo Alto, California: National Press Books, 1974.
Banning, J.H. and McKinley, D. "Conceptions of the Campus Environment." In W. Morrill, J. Hurst, and E. Oetting, eds. Dimensions of Intervention for Student Development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980.
The Physical Setting Approach
Steele's (1973) approach focuses on the role that the dimensions of the physical setting play in organization development. Every physical setting can be viewed in terms of the relationship between and among the elements of the setting and the functions performed by the elements. Elements are those aspects of the physical setting that are likely to influence the functioning of individuals or groups in the setting. For example an element could be a particular thing (a piece of furniture) or a pattern of things (the arrangement of furniture). Steele's taxonomy for the dimensions of the physical setting is as follows:
"1. Security and Shelter refer to protection from harmful or unwanted stimuli in one's surroundings . . .
2. Social Contact refers to the arrangements of facilities and spaces that permit or promote social interaction . . .
3. Symbolic Identification refers to the messages sent by settings which tell someone what a person, group, or organization is like . . .
4. Task Instrumentality refers to the facilities and layouts appropriate for carrying out tasks in a particular setting...
5. Pleasure refers to the pleasure or gratification the place gives to those who use it . . .
6. Growth refers to the stimulus for growth the setting gives the user . . ."
(Steele, page 25)
Basic reference for Steele is:
Steele, Fred 1973. Physical Settings and Organization Development. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley Publishing Company.
Ecology of Student Development Approach
Blocker's work (1974, 1978) best exemplifies an ecology approach to student development. He conceptualizes the environment that is necessary for the development of students as containing three basic subsystems along with each subsystem containing specific conditions.
Blocher's taxonomy is as follows:
1. Opportunity subsystem refers to the problems or situations available in the environment that stimulate the person to address a particular task. The opportunity subsystem includes the conditions of involvement, challenge and integration.
2. Support subsystem refers to the pattern of resources available to the person for coping with the tasks or problems in the opportunity structure of the environment. The support subsystem includes the conditions of structure and support.
3. Reward subsystem refers to the "reinforcers for effort expended" that are contained in the environment. The reward subsystem includes the conditions of feedback and application.
Basic references for Blocher are:
Blocher, D.H. "Toward an Ecology of Student Development." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 52 (1974): 360-365.
Blocher, D.H. "Campus Learning Environment and the Ecology of Student Development." In Banning, J.H., ed. Campus Ecology: A Perspective for Student Affairs. Cincinnati, Ohio NASPA Monograph, 1978.
Summary
The above conceptual systems or taxonomies of the environment are "samplers" of ways to view campus environments. By exploring the utility of these and other approaches, not only may a more useful taxonomy emerge, but we may also gain a better understanding of the role the campus environment plays in student development.
Link to Part II
One of the most puzzling aspects of the ideological revolution taking place in the social sciences is the intermixing of the conflicting intrapsychic and interactional models. This is nowhere more present than in counseling centers which have traditionally viewed themselves as leading the way in the use of new concepts. Perhaps the best illustration of this is treatment approaches. How many counselors and psychologists do we know who champion ecological thinking when it is "out there" on the campus but inconsistently utilize the intrapsychic paradigm for their actual consultation work with clients?
There are some key issues which highlight reliance on intrapsychic concepts at a time when increasing emphasis is being placed on the interactional, ecological perspective. A favorite is "resistance." After a diagnosis (another intrapsychically focused concept) is arrived at and often presented, the client is engaged in a process called psychotherapy with the purpose of lossening crystallized inner states, confronting ego dystonic activities, or otherwise getting the client to act, talk, or think differently. Often, emphasis is on the latter.
Inconsistency reaches its height with use of the term resistance. When the person does not change it is because he she is resistant. Notice the utter disavowal of influencing the environment or even studying the transaction. The client was resistant.
A recent client offered the opportunity for implementing a more ecologically sound approach. The student's grades had suffered due to excessive marijuana smoking, and he described himself as low in motivation, guilty, and discouraged (note the intrapsychic focus). Several approaches were taken, all designed to change his relationship to his environment.
1. He was asked to thank fellow smokers for the chance to get high with them.
2. His relationship to the troubled marriage of his parents was investigated (his mother was found to be a marijuana smoker).
3. His closest marijuana smoking friend was invited to attend a session with him where the ecology of marijuana smoking was discussed with special emphasis on where, when, what type of music and lighting and with what other friends present.
In essence, the focus was on the context which supported his marijuana smoking and interventions aimed at confusing and otherwise changing his style of relating to the marijuana using context. He has since been able to regularly turn down offers to smoke and has invested in new friends and exercise as alternatives.
The paradigm shifting is only beginning and will not become credible until consistency is common enough to rule out or at least strongly call into question carryovers from early psychodynamic thought. These habits are not only unhelpful but they handicap clear thinking about ecologically sound approaches. Sensitivity to how we conceptualize issues is the first step to be able to choose the newer paradigm.
Books
Ardrey, R. The Territorial Imperative. New York: Antheneum 1966.
Barker, R.G. Ecological Psychology. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1968.
Barker, Roger and Associates. Habitats, Environments, and Human Behavior. San Francisco, California: Jossey Bass, 1978.
Craik. K.H. and et al, eds. New Directions in Pyschology, Vol. 4. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.
Friedman, Stephen and Juhasz, Joseph B., eds. Environments: Notes and Selections on Objects, Spaces, and Behavior. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1974.
Goffman, E. Behavior in Public Places. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1963.
Hall, Edward T. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1969.
Leff, Herbert. Experience, Environment, and Human Potentials. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Levy-Leboyer, Claude. Psychology and Environment. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1982.
Michelson, William, ed. Behavioral Research Methods in Environmental Design. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., 1975.
Moos, R.H. and Inset, P.M. Issues in Social Ecology. Palo Alto, California: National Press Books, 1974.
Rapoport, Amos. The Meaning of the Built Environment. A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1982.
Sommer, Robert. Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969.
Sommer, Robert. Design Awareness. San Francisco: Rinehart Press, 1972.
Steele, Fred 1. Physical Settings and Organization Development. Reading, Massachusetts: AddisonWeseley Publishing Company, 1973.
Wohlwill, Joachim F. and Carson, Daniel H., eds. Environment and the Social Sciences: Perspectives and Applications. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1972.
Zeisel, John. Sociology and Architectural Design. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1975.
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR
SAGE Publications, Inc.
275 South Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90212
Environment and Behavior is an interdisciplinary journal designed to report rigorous experimental and theoretical work focusing on the influence of the physical environment on human behavior at the individual, group, and institutional levels.
Environment and Behavior is published six times annually.
Robert Bechtel, Environmental Psychology Program, University of Arizona, Tucson, 85721, is the editor.
For subscription information, write to SAGE Publications at the above address.
edra
Environmental Design Research Association, lnc.
L'Enfant Plaza Station
P.O. Box 23129
Washington, D.C. 20024
edra began in 1966 and is now recognized as the leading association in the United States and Canada representing the concerns of designers and social scientists interested in the interrelationship of the built and natural environment and the human environment. edra organizes an annual conference and publishes a bimonthly newsletter, Design Research News. SAGE's journal Environment and Behavior is sponsored by edra. For more information on edra, write to Willo P. White, Executive Officer, at the above address.
This material resides is maintained by Will Barratt. Please forward any problems and comments to him.