Abstract
Barker's theory of “undermanning” has attracted interest for its potential applications to a variety of problems in community psychology, although to date little attention has been given to mediating factors such as individual differences and the organizational structure of the setting task. The present study crossed two levels each of manning, task structure, and manipulated “competence” over 56 independent replications of a laboratory-based behavior setting. Direct observations of subject behavior confirmed that participants in undermanned settings worked harder, held more different positions, performed more difficult and more important jobs, and spent more time in the task-related areas of the setting, than did subjects in overmanned groups. However, interactions with the task and competence factors attenuated several of the manning effects, and undermanning's hypothesized influences on the subjective experiences of setting occupants were not found.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barker, R. G. Ecology and motivation.Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 8). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1960.
Barker, R. G.Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1968.
Barker, R. G.Habitats, environments, and human behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978.
Barker, R. G., & Gump, P. V.Big school, small school: High school size and student behavior. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1964.
Barker, R. G., & Schoggen, P.Qualities of community life: Methods of measuring environment and behavior applied to an American and an English town. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973.
Bechtel, R. B. The undermanned environment: A universal theory? In D. H. Carson (Ed.),Man-environment interactions (Vol. 2). Milwaukee: Environmental Design Research Association, 1974.
Bechtel, R. B.Enclosing behavior. Community Development Series (Vol. 31). Stroudsburg, Penn.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1977.
Cohen, J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1960,20, 37–47.
French, J. R. P., Rodgers, W., & Cobb, S. Adjustment as person-environment-fit. In G. V. Coelho, D. A. Hamburg, & J. E. Adams (Eds.),Coping and adaptation. New York: Basic Books, 1974.
Gump, P. V., & Adelberg, B. Urbanism from the perspective of ecological psychologists.Environment and Behavior, 1978,10, 171–191.
Heller, K., & Monahan, J.Psychology and community change. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1977.
Kelly, J. G. Ecological constraints on mental health services.American Psychologist, 1966,21, 535–539.
Monahan, J., & Vaux, A. Task force report: The macroenvironment and community mental health.Community Mental Health Journal, 1980,16, 12–23.
Moos, R. H. Conceptualizations of human environments.American Psychologist, 1973,28, 652–665.
Moos, R. H.The human context: Environmental determinants of behavior. New York: Wiley, 1976.
Murrell, S. A.Community psychology and social systems: A conceptual framework and intervention guide. New York: Behavioral Publications, 1973.
Pervin, L. A. Performance and satisfaction as a function of individual-environment fit.Psychological Bulletin, 1968,69, 56–68.
Petty, R. M., & Wicker, A. W. Degree of manning and degree of success of a group as determinants of members subjective experiences and their acceptance of a new group member.JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1974,4, 43. (Ms. No. 616)
Price, R. H. Behavior setting theory and research. In R. H. Moos (Ed.),The human context: Environmental determinants of behavior. New York: Wiley, 1976.
Research Psychologists Press.Personality Research Form. Goshen, NY, 1965.
Schoggen, P. Science Research Associates.Army general classification test. Chicago, 1947.
Schoggen, P. Utility of the behavioral settings approach. In D. G. Forgays (Ed.),Primary prevention of psychopathology (Vol. 2). Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 1978.
Steiner, I. D.Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press, 1972.
Wicker, A. W. Undermanning, performances, and students' subjective experiences in behavior settings of large and small high schools.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968,10, 255–261.
Wicker, A. W. Cognitive complexity, school size, and participation in school behavior settings: A test of the frequency of interaction hypothesis.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969,60, 200–203. (a)
Wicker, A. W. Size of church membership and members' support of church behavior settings.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969,13, 278–288. (b)
Wicker, A. W. Undermanning theory and research: Implications for the study of psychological and behavioral effects of excess populations.Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1973,4, 185–206.
Wicker, A. W.An introduction to ecological psychology. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks-Cole, 1979.
Wicker, A. W., & Kauma, C. E. Effects of a merger of a small and a large organization on members' behaviors and experiences.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974,59, 24–30.
Wicker, A. W., Kirmeyer, S. L., Hanson, L., & Alexander, D. Effects of manning levels on subjective experiences, performance and verbal interaction in groups.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976,17, 251–274.
Wicker, A. W., McGrath, J. E., & Armstrong, G. E. Organization size and behavior setting capacity as determinants of member participation.Behavioral Science, 1972,17, 499–513.
Wicker, A. W., & Mehler, A. Assimilation of new members in a large and small church.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971,55, 151–156.
Willems, E. P. Sense of obligation to high school activities as related to school size and marginality of student.Child Development, 1967,38, 1247–1260.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This article is based on a doctoral dissertation submitted to the Department of Psychology, Indiana University. I would like to thank Kenneth Heller, dissertation committee Chairman, and committee members Jerome M. Chertkoff, Leon H. Levy, and Paul H. Gebhard for their comments and suggestions regarding many aspects of the study. Thanks are also due to Kenneth A. Perkins and to three anonymous reviewers for additional comments.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
PerkinS, D.V. Individual differences and task structure in the performance of a behavior setting: An experimental evaluation of Barker's manning theory. Am J Commun Psychol 10, 617–634 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01312595
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01312595