Conceptualizing the context of environment and behavior

Rapid technological change, global environmental concerns, and other dramatic ecological and societal changes are rendering previous conceptualizations of environments, and the relationships between environment and behavior, inadequate. Following a brief review of earlier conceptualizations of environments, distinctions between the terms context, environment, behavior setting and situation are drawn. A contextual model that focuses on the behaviors of individuals or groups in response to a prompt, and the personal, social or physical factors that might affect them, is developed. Two types of contextual change are explored: gradual, evolutionary contextualshifts, and sudden or dramatic contextualtransformations. Application of a more fully contextual approach to the field of creativity is considered, and an example of organizational creativity focusing on developing and implementing customer service recommendations is used to illustrate the model. A concluding section considers the research implications of a more fully contextual approach to conceptualizing environments.@ 1998 Academic Press

reflect a progression toward more integrative, com-cation of time and place are required to define a situation: general and momentary. Magnusson also plex, and dynamic perspectives on the transactions between people and their everyday settings. A start-defined hierarchical sub-units of Lewin's (1936) concept of lifespace: behavioral settings, organizations, ing point for many of these analyses is Lewin's (1936) conceptualization of the psychological life and institutions. Last, Magnusson proposed lists of situational properties (complexity, clarity, strength, space, or the psychological situation as perceived by the individual. This is a highly subjectivist view of promotion versus restriction, tasks, rules, roles, physical settings, and other persons) and person-people-environment relationships which proposes that the aspects of context that are most influential bound properties (goals, perceived control, expectancies, needs and motivations, and affective tones as determinants of human behavior are those that are consciously perceived and interpreted by or emotions). Magnusson concludes that his discussion reveals: individuals. Barker (1968)  the head' (Wohlwill, 1973) and that subjectivist views of people-environment relationships are The conceptualizations of environment-behavior psychologically 'encapsulated' (Brunswik, relationships presented by Lewin, Barker, Wicker 1943) -that is, the environment is defined in the and Magnusson incorporate diverse units of analysame subjective terms as are the self-report meassis and contrasting theoretical approaches. For ures used to assess subjective reactions to that instance, Lewin emphasizes the behavioral signifienvironment.
cance of the subjective (perceived) environment Wicker (1987) contributed a theoretical analysis whereas Barker underscores the direct links focusing on the lifecycles of behavior settings that between the objective (observable) environment and effectively integrated subjectivist and objectivist behavior. The units of environmental analysis views of people-environment transactions. Wicker's emphasized in each conceptualization also vary contheory places equal emphasis on both the subjective siderably, ranging from Lewin's psychological lifesgoals and motivations of setting founders and mempace and Barker's behavior setting to Wicker's bers as they consciously decide to establish, particilifecycle of behavior settings and Magnusson's conpate in, or withdraw from environmental settings, cepts of general and momentary situations. The as well as more objective forces (for example, undertheoretical and methodological diversity reflected in and overstaffing of settings), which govern the these analyses suggests that future efforts to relationships between the environmental and develop more comprehensive models of people-envihuman resources available within particular ronment transactions must not only encompass, but settings.
also successfully integrate, a wide array of environ-Magnusson (1981) dealt directly with the problem mental and behavioral units of analysis. of defining and describing environmental contexts.
Furthermore, dynamic models of environment He argues strongly for an 'ongoing, reciprocal perand behavior should identify those personal factors son-situation interaction process' (p. 10) as the most descriptive of the individual or group, and their appropriate basis for understanding behavior (cf. interaction, relevant to the context under consideralso Stokols, 1981). Magnusson proposes several ation. In addition, potentially relevant factors taxonomic distinctions for situations, such as the affecting the behavior(s) of interest must be actual situation (as opposed to the perceived explicitly considered by the model. And a temporal situation), which can be further described as stimuli dimension should be included as an essential (signals to situational participants) and events element of the model, even if the time period is of an (specific parts of a total situation delimited by cause unknown duration and can only be defined by recogand effect occurrences). Magnusson described two nizable beginning and ending points. types of situations, depending on whether specifi-

Theoretical Starting Points
According to the principles of contextual analysis outlined by Stokols (1982Stokols ( , 1987, the relationships among focal variables in a particular To facilitate the development of more comprehensive, integrative models of contextual influences on environment -for example, the effects of group size and spatial density on the productivity of a behavior, it is essential to differentiate between the terms context, environment, behavior setting, and work team -are assumed to be qualified or moderated by contextual factors that are also situation. Whereas some degree of conceptual overlap exists among these terms, we propose the fol-present -for example, the degree to which the physical features of an office enable work team lowing definitional distinctions.
As discussed above, the term environment has members to regulate their privacy over the course of the work day, or the extent to which the day-to-day been used to refer to both objective and perceived relatively stable qualities of an individual's or social climate of a company or organization is either clearly positive or negative. A contextual theory group's physical and/or social surroundings. The terms behavior setting and situation refer to might propose that a work team composed of six members will be more productive than a team of dynamic relationships that exist among contextual participants, for example, the understaffing of wor-three members attempting to complete the same tasks in the same organization, provided individual kers in a factory or office, or the interpersonal conflicts that arise among students in a particular workers have opportunities to regulate their privacy, or as long as the social climate of the workplace classroom or on the playground. Dynamic relationships may also exist between participants and non-is positive rather than negative.
Thus, a contextual theory specifies a pattern of human components of a particular setting, for example musculoskeletal problems caused by ergo-variation in the relationships among selected focal variables, behaviors, and related contextual factors. nomically inappropriate furnishings, or increased stress due to noise or temperature levels. In the fol-For any given environment, behavior setting or situation, an unlimited array of contextual factors lowing discussion, the term 'environment' will be used to refer to the larger milieu which envelopes that might influence the relationships among focal variables could be identified. The key challenge in human behavior, the term 'behavior setting' will be used to indicate highly organized, consistent peo-developing comprehensive yet powerful and parsimonious theories of environment and behavior is to ple-environment interaction regularly occurring at one or more specific locations, and the term 'situ-identify, from among the myriad of potentially relevant contextual factors, those that are most crucial ation' will be used to refer to less structured people-environment interaction that occurs in a given for understanding the form and occurrence of a target behavioral phenomenon. This subset of highly place for a given period of time, and which has definable and natural beginning and ending points. influential contextual factors is referred to as the effective context of the target phenomenon (Stokols, Thus in this discussion, 'behavior settings' are considered sub-sets of larger, less well-defined 'environ-1987). ments', and 'situations' are considered more time delimited sub-sets of 'behavior settings'.
A model of context Context is different from these other terms in that it refers to a particular kind of interdependence The contextual model proposed here is consistent with the preceding definitional discussion, and that exists between selected aspects of a given environment, setting, or situation. Context is used describes the interaction of individual or group behaviors with the socio-physical-temporal settings here to refer to a specific set of personal, physical and social aspects of environments, behavior set-in which they occur.
We propose that a useful model of context begins tings and/or situations selected for consideration by a researcher or designer, and the relationships with one or more 'prompts' that initiate a response by an individual or group. The model assumes that between them. These aspects can be generally referred to as contextual factors and focal (or target) prompts are the starting point of an intentional or unintentional psychological and/or behavioral pro-variables. Focal variables directly affect the behaviors assumed to occur within the context, and cess. Prompts may come from social or physical features of the context; from individuals participating include independent, dependent and mediating or moderating variables. Contextual factors are in the context; or from a wide array of extra-contextual sources such as published research results, aspects of the surrounding environment that might significantly affect one or more focal variables. news media, or the internet. The process may be rooms, temperature, and locations or objects deemed 'sacred'.
Three attributes of outcomes can be defined. First, Intended Outcomes are those results of the behaviors engaged in by the individual or group that are intentional responses to the prompt that initiated action. Unintended Outcomes are results of behaviors that are not intentionally related to the prompts, or to the intended outcomes, but which nevertheless may occur during the process. Second, Reciprocal Outcomes are results that affect or they relate to the original prompts and the purpose of the individual or group in responding to the prompts, or Intermediate Outcomes if they rep-guided by an unstated sense of purpose, or by explicit goals, objectives and timelines. The process resent results that occur before the process of responding to the prompts is completed. Specifi-may be successfully completed -that is, an appropriate response to the prompts is developed and cation of each of these attributes of outcomes contributes to a more completely understood context, implemented -or it may be terminated before completion. The process occurs over a specific time and more effective and efficient research. interval and involves interaction between personal, social and physical aspects of the context relevant to Contextual change the behaviors exhibited by context participants. During this period of time, the context may change, The model of context proposed here assumes that contexts are constantly changing (Stokols, 1987). either subtly or dramatically.
The personal, social, and physical factors that are Contextual change can be initiated by prompts from the environment, by an individual's or group's own relevant to a specific application of the model are suggested by the prompts and the individual's or behavior, or by the outcomes of that behavior.
Change may be subtle and slow or sudden and dra-group's response to them. Personal Factors relevant to a particular situation could include personality matic. Contextual changes that do not substantially inhibit the behavior of an individual or group may traits, interpersonal dynamics, attitudes, and communication processes. Formal Social Factors rel-be considered 'evolutionary'. Changes that significantly alter one or more personal, social, or physical evant to a particular situation could include relatively stable relationships between individuals or contextual factors, or changes that significantly inhibit or facilitate individual or group behavior groups (such as those described by a company's operational policies), a group's standard approach to may be considered 'transformative'. Generally, an evolving context is more constant, enduring, stable, solving problems, or a hierarchical authority structure. Informal Social Factors, such as relationships and predictable, whereas contextual transformation results in a significantly different or 'new' context. between individuals or groups (for example, family, friends, and community) are often subtle, but can also affect contextual behavior. Examples of Infor-Contextual shift. We define contextual 'shift' as the subtle evolutionary contextual change that mal Social Factors include the status of each individual's relationships with spouse, family or occurs when personal, social, or physical contextual factors incrementally change in predictable or friends, the local community's economy as it impacts each individual's financial stability, and understandable ways that do not significantly disrupt the context (the relationships between focal minor or major health concerns of contextual participants. Physical Factors could include aspects of variables and contextual factors) under consideration. Contextual shifts can be the result of individ-the natural setting, manmade structures, objects, surfaces, materials, and ambient conditions that ual or group adaptation to, or adjustment of, specific aspects of the context. Contextual shifts also can are presumed to affect the focal variables of interest, and their inherent symbolic meanings to the result from the growth of individuals or groups due to increasing experience, education, insight, or per-individuals participating in the context. Examples include general site characteristics, dimensions of sonal abilities, or decline due to decreasing mental, intellectual, perceptual, or physical abilities. Minor gnizing a need to adjust working relationships or procedures (behavior); and receipt by an individual temporary or permanent changes due to personal health or stress, fluctuation in a larger organiz-or group of expected bonuses based on performance (reciprocality of outcomes). ational context (for example, political, economic, or ecological changes on a neighborhood, community, regional or societal scale), or environmental conditions (seasons, climatic events) also can cause con-Contextual transformation. Contextual transformation, that is, sudden and/or dramatic contextual textual shifts.
During contextual shifts, the same or very similar change, is the result of significant change in one or more personal, social or physical factors comprising behaviors remain appropriate responses to the prompts that initiated individual or collective the context, or in the individual's or group's behavior (Stokols, 1988). Contextual transform-action. Contextual shifts in a work context might be caused by a routine job task assignment (prompt); ations can be caused by significant change in one or more personal, social or physical factors; unique or an individual or group attending a relevant training session (personal factor); normal cost-of-living pay unexpected prompts that elicit dramatically different individual or group behavior; or a creative increases or scheduled vacations (formal social factor); marriage or divorce of a setting participant insight during the process that leads to significant changes in the relationships between contextual (informal social factor); the acquisition of updated equipment or furnishings (physical factor); reco-factors and focal variables that must be accommo-dated before the process of responding to the orig-tors affecting creativity (Eysenck, 1994), including organization-social factors such as supervision inal prompts can continue.
Contextual transformation involves a funda-style and compensation (Amabile, 1988), organizational climate (Bunce & West, 1995; Stokols et al., mental change in the behavior of participants, either self-initiated or in reaction to changes in the 1996), and larger cultural conditions (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). Similarly, factors affect-context. In terms of self-initiated behavior changes, participants may decide that the behaviors they are ing the successful adoption of technological, management, process, and other innovations in organiz-presently engaged in are not likely to be an effective response to the prompts that initiated them, and ational settings are the focus of a growing number of studies (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; may adopt very different behaviors. Or the individual or group may decide that the only realistic Sternberg & Lubart, 1996;West & Farr, 1989).
A more fully contextual approach to organiz-option is to cease attempts to respond to the prompts, resulting in a premature termination of ational creativity would consider both generation of a creative product and its application within an the context. Continuing to respond to the prompts at a later time would constitute a 'new' organizational setting. 1 At least four distinct phases or steps of a creativity-innovation process can be context -that is, a different time period, possibly a different set of participants, probably altered identified: (1) recognition of and initial response to prompts; (2) generation of a creative product behaviors, and probably one or more significantly different contextual factors. Contextual transform-(process, idea, object, etc.); (3) adoption of the product by organizational decision-makers; and (4) oper-ation also can result from a reciprocal change induced by the intermediate success or failure of ational diffusion of the product throughout the organization. Different sets of personal, social or individual or group behavior.
Contextual transformations can be caused by an physical contextual factors might be emphasized at each phase, and the outcomes of a particular phase unusual job task assignment (prompt); an individual unable to complete an important task, or a may influence behaviors and outcomes during subsequent phases. change in group leadership (personal factors); changes in an organization's operating policies A contextual approach to organizational creativity would lead to an expanded focus on the prompts (formal social factor) or significant intra-group conflict caused by a local ethnic or political situation that initiate creative behavior, including the role of prompts in suggesting appropriate goals and poten-(informal social factor); office or home relocation (physical factor); a new task process, or a signifi-tial outcomes, and prompts as the basis for judgments about the creativeness of outcomes of the cre-cantly shortened or lengthened project timeline (behavior); or the promotion or termination of one or ative process. A contextual approach also would lead to awareness that organizational conditions more group members based on the group's performance (reciprocality of outcomes).
change during the process of generating creative products and implementing innovations, and the need to understand the effect of these organizational changes on the creativity-innovation pro-Conceptual Application: Organizational Creativity cess. This approach also suggests an expanded and more realistic consideration of outcomes of the creative process, such as unintended outcomes, and the Since its inception, the field of creativity has focused almost exclusively on understanding the potential for outcomes to effect the contexts that generate them. individual as the sole determinant of creativity (Amabile, 1983;Woodman et al., 1993). Although extensive bodies of research on intelligence, person-An example: customer service recommendations ality, developmental conditions, and the life histories of geniuses have been developed, these do not The following example of organizational creativity begins with a prompt common to many organiza-provide an adequate basis for predicting creative performance (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Treff-tions: the need to re-think their approach to customer service. 2 The precursors of this specific inger, 1987). Several authors have called for broader theoretical approaches to guide more prompt may have included an industry-wide customer satisfaction survey, the recommendation of inclusive and realistic future research efforts (Clitheroe, 1995;Ford, 1996;Isaksen, 1987). Recent an external consultant, publication of an important book or article about customer service, or the con-research has begun to explore extra-individual fac-  clusion of an internal organizational planning vice could result in understandable 'shifts' in an organization's context. Or the process could provoke effort. The following example assumes that one of these environmental factors led to the decision by a more dramatic contextual 'transformation' (see Figure 5) -for example, the task group could dis-senior management to study possible revisions in the organization's approach to customer service. cover that a key service demanded by customers is not offered, and recommend that the organization The example assumes that the responsibility for developing specific recommendations has been del-develop or acquire this service, significantly changing the way the organization does business, and the egated to a team composed of representatives of the marketing, sales, operations, and administration way it is perceived by customers and staff. Or the task group could decide that customer service departments, and that part of their charge is to develop 'new and better' (that is novel and appropri-should be the responsibility of the operations department, rather than the sales department, ate, or by definition creative) suggestions.
The temporal dimension of this example can be resulting in major organizational restructuring. Either of these major contextual shifts would defined as four phases which sequentially respond to the prompt: (1) the task team's initial response to result in an interrupted process of responding to the initial prompt (that is, while the additional service the prompt; (2) generation of one or more creative recommendations concerning customer service; (3) is developed or the organization is re-structured). adoption of these recommendations, with possible revisions, by senior management; and (4) the operational diffusion (implementation) of recommen-Research Implications dations throughout the organization, again with possible revisions. Figure 4 defines the context at The preceding discussion suggests an important researcher responsibility: clearly specifying, in as the beginning of the process, as the task group begins to work on the assignment, and sche-much detail as possible, the context being considered. We recognize that all contexts are 'nested' matically indicates the following three phases of the process.
in more macro contexts, and probably subsume more micro contexts. Research contexts also can be The process of responding to the need to reconsider an organization's approach to customer ser-located along a continuum ranging from those that  require broadly exploratory research to those that research, lack of available funding or personnel, unavailable or inaccessible information or people, are able to accommodate focused empirical studies. Similarly, contexts that are in part defined by the and a lack of appropriate research instruments or methods can all preclude a fully contextual research prompts that initiate specific behaviors, and by the behaviors themselves, cannot be precisely circum-approach.
There are several things researchers can do to scribed in an a priori fashion. Contexts also may be changed by the outcomes of behaviors, and may support more fully contextual research. Perhaps the most important contribution is to fully concep-change either subtly or dramatically during the course of research. It thus becomes the researcher's tualize and report all those factors that might influence the behaviors that are the focus of their responsibility to specify as clearly as possible each focal variable and contextual factor, and the research, whether or not they are able to investigate them. This would permit a more effective inte-relationships between and among those variables and factors, that have been or will be considered in gration and comparison of research results within and across fields (Altman, 1997). Researchers also the research program being undertaken or reported.
Two other considerations, in addition to ident-can incorporate an explicitly temporal dimension in their work. Measurements taken at the beginning ifying all those focal variables and contextual factors that may be relevant to the behaviors of inter-and end of a research program, and at various appropriate time points in between, can help define est, affect research design and analysis. First, the researchers' goals (exploratory, empirical, etc.) may contextual shifts and/or transformations that may have occurred, and which may have affected the suggest very different levels of detail in data collection, measurement, and analysis. The nature of the relationships between focal variables and contextual factors, and hence the outcomes observed by prompts may also suggest appropriate and realistic goals for the research program. And second, practi-the research team. Researchers also can consider investigating contextual factors at multiple levels, cal research limitations need to be considered, especially available resources. While proposing fully combining data and analyses of individual, group, organization, institutional, community, and larger contextual research as a goal, we recognize that this is not always possible (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996; socio-cultural units to understand better the personal, social, and physical factors affecting target Van de Ven & Rogers, 1988). An inability to fully conceptualize a context due to gaps in prior variables in a particular context. In terms of research design, an expanded use of time series Notes analysis will more fully describe temporal and dynamic aspects of the contexts being considered, (1) Two distinct and separate research 'camps' that focus on different pieces of the creativity puzzle have emerged: and appropriate use of compatible qualitative and psychologists, who concentrate their efforts on the generquantitative methods and the use of more complex ation of creative products (idea, process, object), and analytic methods, whether for exploratory or more organizational behaviorists, who focus on the adoption or definitive purposes, will result in a more complete implementation of organizational innovations (West & Farr, 1989;Sternberg & Lubart, 1996;Wehner et al., and insightful description of the relationships that 1991). Psychologists tend to be more interested in creexist among the specified contextual factors. ative process, products and people; conducting studies at an individual level of analysis; and publishing results in psychological journals. Organizational behaviorists seem to be more interested in the selection, adoption, and effective implementation of organizational innovations; Conclusion conducting studies at an organizational level of analysis; and publishing results in management and organiz-A contextual approach to the conceptualization of ational journals. environments requires clear delineation of: (1) the prompts that initiate the (2) behaviors that are the (2) We recognize that not all responses to the need to rethink customer service will be 'creative', that is both novel focus of the context under study; all those relevant and functional. Some responses may simply reinforce (3) personal factors of the individual or group partexisting customer service guidelines, or be incremental icipating in the context, and if a group, the interextensions of current practices and operations. action of group members; all those (4) formal or (5) informal social factors and (6) physical factors that are relevant to the context; the presumed (7)  fully contextual research will enable environmental Barron, F. & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intellidesigners and facility managers to make better use array of environments that effectively support an Brunswik, E. (1943). Organismic achievement and increasingly complex range of human behaviors.