Chenhao Deng
Zhiyi Zhao
Nur maizura Ahmad Noorhani3
Arniatul Aiza Mustapha- 1College of Built Environment, Universiti of Technologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
- 2Department of Interior Design, College of Art and Design, Jiangxi Institution of Fashion Technology, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China
- 3Center of Studies for Interior Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, Universiti of Technologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
Ecological psychology is an approach focused on the perception and behavior of organisms and environments, offering psychological insights for research on children. This study primarily explored the concepts of affordance and behavior setting based on an eco-psychological perspective concerning children’s behaviors and environment. Through a review of previous studies, we differentiated that affordance theory emphasizes children’s direct perceptions of environmental functions, whereas the concept of behavior setting highlights the dyadic relationship between long-term behaviors and environmental material features. However, existing studies on child–environment interactions often overlook children’s immediate actions in the context of affordance theory and fail to account for the dynamic nature of behavior settings. By integrating the distinctive traits of both theories, this study proposes an anticipatory framework based on ecological psychology to guide research on children’s environments, particularly within the indoor spaces of childcare facilities. Future studies should investigate the connections within this framework through field studies of childcare center environments and observations of children’s actions and behaviors during free play to assess congruence with environmental affordances.
1 Introduction
Ecological psychology examines the study of perception, cognition, and behavior, emphasizing the intricate relationship between organisms and their environment, pioneered by J. J. Gibson in the realm of perceptual research and E. J. Gibson in the domain of developmental psychology in the 1950s. This theory presents an alternative viewpoint to cognitivism and behaviorism and provides a third way to understand cognition (Lobo et al., 2018). Gibson rejected the mainstream theories of perception based on the premise of stimulus poverty, subsequent physicalist stimulus conceptualization, and the passivity of the perceiver (Lombardo, 2017). Unlike environmental psychology, which emphasizes the multiple temporal scales of human–environment transactions (Gatersleben, 2018; Gifford, 2014; Stokols, 1978), ecological psychology emphasizes the real time and continuity of perception and action (Gibson, 1979; Raymond et al., 2017), treats the environment–organism system as a unit of analysis, and regards affordance as the main object for studying perception (Michaels and Palatinus, 2014). Correspondingly, this approach considers embodied, situated, and non-representational characteristics of perception (Lobo et al., 2018). Based on this, ecological psychology not only considers organisms and environments as separate entities but also sees them as inherently coupled and interdependent. Thus, perception is a meaningful environmental attribute or affordance unique to a perceiver’s capabilities and needs.
One of Gibson’s posits in ecological psychology is direct perception, meaning that an organism’s perception is a direct process of collecting information from the surroundings, which, in turn, governs actions. This perception does not involve complex calculations or mental representations; rather, it is shaped by the cognition, intentions, and physical capabilities of the perceiver (Raymond et al., 2017). When children interact with the environment, the distinctive characteristics of the physical environment instantly affect children’s direct perception. For example, 3-year-old children perceive marked boundaries in their surroundings such as lines, and they may utilize them as a basis for chasing games. On the other hand, if they encounter an immovable boundary, like a wall, they might lean against it to rest (Huang, 2017). Thus, children’s direct perceptions of environments guide their subsequent actions, while the movement creates new opportunities to detect information (Sadler and Given, 2007; Wicker, 1979); therefore, perception and action are functionally inseparable. Interaction with the environment during movement generates new environmental information, ultimately forming a perception–action loop (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Mutual nexus between the perception and action of the organism which forms the perception–action loop.
Another core of Gibson’s ecological psychology theory is the concept of affordance, which refers to the opportunities for action that the environment offers to an organism with specific physical abilities (Heft, 2001). For example, a horizontally rigid surface provides support (walkability) for most animals and humans. Affordance is neither a subjective quality nor an objective physical property, but it is a relationship arising from the mutual adaptation between an organism and its environment (Chemero and Turvey, 2007). In Gibson’s theory, affordance is also viewed as information provided by the environment that children directly perceive (Heft, 1989). Fundamentally, the environment provides ecological information in terms of ambient energy arrays, which specify the availability of affordances (i.e., potential affordance). An organism’s capabilities, properties, and ecological niche determine which affordance it perceives and, consequently, acts upon. Organisms thus access ecological information through direct perception and act based on perceived affordances. These interactions between action and ambiance alter affordances and ecological information, forming a reciprocal loop. In essence, Gibson’s ecological theory presents a mutualistic relationship between perception and action in which affordance serves as a bridge connecting the organism and its surroundings.
The ecological psychology approach has been applied to studying the child–environment relationship. For instance, based on Heft’s (1988) functional taxonomy of affordances, van Liempd (2018) developed a specific tool, the SACID tool, to identify potential affordances in the classroom. This tool allows observers to record children’s momentary actions at the spatial level (e.g., table, chair, and floor) in preschool classrooms. The SACID tool has proven useful in Dutch kindergarten classrooms and may be applicable in other European contexts. Nevertheless, it poses challenges for measuring affordances in Chinese preschool classrooms. For example, in the SACID, an adult-height table affords stabilization and climbing opportunities. However, in Chinese kindergartens, children rarely have access to teachers’ areas, making it unlikely they would climb on such tables. From an ecological perspective, the preschool environment offers opportunities for actions related to children’s physical abilities and needs, emerging apparent developmental discrepancies from adults (Sando and Sandseter, 2022). For instance, in China, a low chair provides a surface on which 3-year-old children can sit or move, whereas, for older children aged 5 years, it might serve as a tool for stacking or constructing. Therefore, ecological psychology provides a valuable framework for understanding how preschool children perceive and engage with their environments. Compared to traditional research approaches, studying how children interpret their environments based on affordances holds greater psychological significance (Morgenthaler et al., 2024; van Liempd, 2018). While the immediate perception–action loop is helpful in understanding children’s momentary performances and the environmental features that afford them, it remains challenging to explore the formation and evolution of long-term behavioral patterns in children.
In comparison, Barker (1968) concept of behavior setting further converges on the involvement of individuals and their behavior, generating the operations of behavior settings (Heft, 2018). Behavior setting, introduced as a high-level eco-behavioral unit encompassing joint behaviors, has spatiotemporal characteristics that emphasize enduring behavior patterns. Based on the features of behavior setting, Moore et al. (1996) recommended that well-defined center-based childcare facilities should have environmental attributes such as a modified open plan with several distinct “activity pockets.” In a later study, Moore grouped 14 childcare centers into three types based on spatial definition: well-defined, moderately defined, and poorly defined. The findings indicated that spatially well-defined classrooms, with flexible boundaries, adaptable layouts, and varied levels, offered children ample opportunities for exploratory behaviors, cooperation, and social interaction (Moore, 1986). Subsequent empirical studies confirmed that the classroom spatial components enhance functionality, promoting cooperative and social communication among children (Abbas et al., 2016; Maxwell, 2007; Zimmons, 1997). These studies exploited the nested structure of behavior settings to highlight how eco-behavioral units support positive child behaviors—specifically, how certain behavior settings benefit children’s positive comportment. While subsequent research has continued within this paradigm (e.g., Cosco, 2006; Jafari et al., 2020), it has often overlooked the internal dynamics within behavior settings. Researchers have focused on beneficial behavior settings from the perspective of physical environments, leaving open questions about how behavioral patterns form and engage within these settings.
In summary, both affordance and behavior-setting theories focus on the human–environment relationships. However, a transparent distinction between these two theories is that affordance emphasizes immediate perceptions (Chemero, 2018), whereas behavior setting highlights long-term behavior patterns (Heft, 2018). At first glance, these concepts appear contradictory regarding temporal focus. Nevertheless, in the context of Chinese kindergartens, classrooms are used for both teaching and indoor play, unlike in Western contexts such as Britain (Huang, 2017) and the Netherlands (van Liempd et al., 2018). This dual function, combined with flexible layouts and relatively stable peer groups, creates abundant opportunities for children to interact and develop diverse play patterns (Lerstrup and Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2017). In other words, children’s intricate momentary actions (i.e., affordances) contribute to long-standing patterns of behaviors (i.e., behavior setting) during play sessions in classroom settings. Thus, from an ecological perspective, children’s performances in the classroom serve as a bridge interlinking affordance and behavior-setting concepts. This connection is the primary motivation of the current study. Therefore, the study aimed to explore the feasibility of integrating affordance and behavior-setting theories within an eco-psychological framework, developing a theoretical model for studying the physical environment and children’s behavior in childcare settings. Admittedly, various factors constrain children’s classroom behavior, such as teacher’s strategies of classroom management (Korpershoek et al., 2016) and material placement (Nordtømme, 2012), teacher–child relationship (Mortensen and Barnett, 2015), peer relationships (Karaca et al., 2020), and individual personality differences (van der Graaf et al., 2018). However, there remains a need to examine the role of the physical environment in shaping children’s dynamic behavioral patterns, especially in China’s socio-cultural context. The following section begins with an example and discussion of affordance, focusing on its application in children’s environments.
2 Affordance as an ecological approach in children’s environments
From the perspective of the perception–action loop, the affordances of the physical environment in childcare spaces are theoretically ongoing and diverse. Similar to perception guides action, in turn, actions proffers new environmental information to the perception system (Kyttä, 2002). The internal dynamics of affordance specifically interpret the perception–action loop, emphasizing both perception and utilization (Sando and Sandseter, 2022). Furthermore, kindergarten-aged children are selected as the study’s subjects because socio-cultural factors have not yet fully shaped their behavior (Koch et al., 2011). In other words, their imagination and creativity drive them to explore their surroundings, offering numerous opportunities for engaging with the environment (Karaca et al., 2020). For instance, an empty zip-top might be seen by adults as recyclable waste or a component for making handicrafts. However, for a kindergarten child, it could become a football in a game or an evil monster in a fantasy play session. Thus, from a child’s perspective, interaction with physical environments involves exploiting material elements in their surroundings to realize their actions (Bateman and Church, 2017). In this process, children experience the process of direct perception, utilization, and shaping of objects through their actions.
Kyttä (2003) conceptualized this process as the dynamics of affordances: perceived, utilized, and shaped affordances. In her model, three levels of affordances and potential affordances within the environment are in constant interchange and circulation. However, the levels of affordances used in later studies have shown significant socio-cultural attributes (e.g., Aziz and Said, 2016; Sando and Sandseter, 2022; Sandseter et al., 2022), leading to the dilemma of replicating within the Chinese kindergarten context. The layer of socio-culturally preferred affordances (Loveland, 1991), meanwhile, highlights the limitations imposed by social and cultural factors on affordance theory. Therefore, exploring how children perceive their surroundings and communicate within different socio-cultural settings is both rational and necessary. The following sections will discuss research on affordances from the perspectives of the dynamics and functional properties of affordances in the context of Chinese kindergarten indoor environments.
2.1 Dynamics of affordances
The notion of layers of affordances (Loveland, 1991), introduced from a macro perspective, theoretically aids researchers in distinguishing the effects of various environmental affordances on human behavior. However, kindergarten classrooms, as concrete environments, afford children’s curiosity-driven exploration, creativity, and imagination in relation to their surroundings (Barnikis, 2015; van Liempd et al., 2018), resulting in unpredictable behaviors in real-world scenarios. Hence, considering only the perspective of affordances layers to analyze a childcare classroom environment neglects the fluidity and interconnectivity among children, peers, and surroundings.
In line with the framework refined by Kyttä (2003), which builds on Heft’s (1988) original model, affordances can be separated into two facets. The first aspect, potential affordances, refers to environmental qualities, while the second is the relationship between individuals and the environment. Specifically, the affordances actualized by individuals through perception, utilization, and shaping. Potential affordances, defined as the functional properties provided by the environment, are theoretically infinite (McLaren et al., 2011), as individuals only use a subset of these affordances within one object (Kyttä, 2003). In other words, potential affordances and actualized affordances represented environmental and human factors, respectively, in the organism–environment system. However, in contemporary early education settings in China, several influential factors constrain potential affordances, such as teacher’s philosophy (Li et al., 2014; Li et al., 2019), same-age classroom strategies (Wu et al., 2022), and spatial components in the classrooms (Acer et al., 2016; van Liempd et al., 2018).
From a physical perspective, the design and layout of space (Chawla et al., 2011), including the availability of activity areas (Cosco, 2006; McKenzie et al., 2000) and the amount of open space (Benchekroun et al., 2020; Huang, 2017), offer spatial affordances that provide varied opportunities for children’s movement and activities (Cosco, 2006; Fusco, 2016). For example, in a study examining the play preferences of Chinese kindergarten children, 60% spent no more than 15 min in the role-playing area, while 66.9% stayed over 30 min in the operating area (Ma and Hao, 2024). Moreover, boys tend to be more active in open spaces, while girls prefer to play in corners (Luo, 2023). Even in open spaces without designated play areas, children, particularly those aged 3–4 years, engage in free play (Huang, 2021). Furthermore, the arrangement of different types of play materials also influences children’s play preferences. For instance, high-structured play materials enhance the constructive intent of 5–6-year-old children, while low-structured toys offer flexibility for creativity (Dong, 2007). Thus, the potential affordances in China’s kindergarten classrooms exist in both teacher-organized activity areas and open spaces without play materials. However, these studies overlooked affordances related to other functional components (e.g., table, chair, and floor) within the classroom environment. Research by van Liempd et al. (2018) indicates that the depth of children’s spatial exploration is positively correlated with table use. While this study focuses on Dutch children aged 1–4, its findings still provide valuable insights for this study. Consequently, examining the influence of stationary or ambulatory compositions in classrooms on children’s actions, particularly for those in the 4–6 age range, may reveal differences in potential affordances between Western and non-Western kindergarten environments regarding spatial components.
Furthermore, when children engage in the childcare environment, the dynamic process of perception and action actualizes affordances (Kyttä, 2003). Similarly, in the perception–action loop of ecological psychology, children utilize their environment by perceiving its potential affordances and shaping them into distinctive ones. This process of perceiving, utilizing, and shaping the environment comprises the three levels of actualized affordances (Kyttä, 2002). From their perspectives, children may alter the intended functions of certain objects or environments through interactions (e.g., using a crayon as a sword). In this context, they interact with peers and unintentionally develop social skills and competencies (Huang, 2017; van Liempd, 2018). As Kyttä introduced the dynamics of affordances, researchers have exploited this concept to examine children’s indoor play behavior in childcare settings. Sando and Sandseter (2022) conducted structured interviews with 71 Norwegian children aged 3–6 years to explore how early childhood education and care (ECEC) environments afford construction, pretend, and physical play. Their study found that loose materials provided children with more play options, aligning with Heft (2003) and Nicholson (1971) views. Sandseter et al. (2022) further identified a strong correlation between children’s construction play and tables sized for both children and adults. However, these studies focus primarily on objects as affordances for play behavior, with limited attention to children’s direct perceptions of their environment (e.g., tables) and immediate actions on these elements. In other words, constructive play as an outcome has been extensively discussed in studies of China (e.g., Ma and Hao, 2024; Luo, 2023) and other countries (e.g., Sandseter et al., 2022; Storli and Hansen Sandseter, 2019) Nevertheless, the transactional process between children and spatial components remains underexplored. This omission indicates that many studies applying affordance theory have focused on interpreting children’s environmental engagement through play behaviors, rather than examining direct perception of environmental factors to assess environmental influence on their behavior.
Additionally, interviewing children relies heavily on the interviewer’s experience and judgment, which may affect the reliability and validity of responses from kindergarten-aged children compared to direct observation. As such, the majority of studies on children’s behavior employ field observation methods (e.g., van Dijk-Wesselius et al., 2022; van Liempd et al., 2018; Sandseter et al., 2021). Furthermore, adult-imposed rules also influence children’s behaviors in actualizing affordances (Sando and Sandseter, 2022). Hence, when analyzing Chinese kindergarten children’s actions, it is essential to consider whether teachers or caregivers impose restrictions on children’s free play. In ecological psychology, analyzing children’s actualized affordances requires examining their immediate actions, rather than long-term play behaviors, to capture the perception–action loop (Raymond et al., 2017). The taxonomy of functional properties of environmental affordances offers a framework to summarize the relationship between children’s real-time actions and environmental features.
2.2 Functional taxonomy of affordances
The hierarchy of affordances provides a breadth dimension for related studies, while the functional taxonomy of affordances delves into depth. In 1988, Heft reviewed several studies on children’s outdoor activities through the lens of affordances, identifying various functional properties linked to outdoor environments. He introduced a preliminary functional taxonomy of children’s outdoor environments through descriptive analysis, categorizing affordances into 10 subsets. Briefly, Heft’s taxonomy encompasses four main themes: body-scale affordances, surface affordances, object affordances, and environmental affordances. Body-scale affordances pertain to competencies and dimensions directly related to an individual’s body, such as jumping, climbing, or reaching. Surface affordances relate to the properties of a surface, such as whether it can be walked or slid upon. Object affordances concern traits and functions, such as throwing or grabbing, while environmental affordances relate to overall layouts or attributes, such as shelter, exploration, and navigation. These affordances represent potential functions offered by the environment, constrained by socio-cultural factors, the material environment, and individual attributes (Lobo et al., 2018). However, Heft (1988) functional taxonomy, rooted in children’s outdoor activities, emphasizes a strong reliance on natural environments and elements. In Chinese kindergarten classrooms, which largely consist of artificial objects, some affordances are less applicable. For instance, smooth slopes or climbing structures are uncommon in classroom spaces. Therefore, subsequent researchers developed more refined taxonomies to capture diverse affordances across different environments (Huang, 2017; Kyttä, 2003; McLaren et al., 2011; Rietveld and Kiverstein, 2014; Morgenthaler et al., 2024).
Kyttä (2002) conducted a survey on children’s outdoor environments across urban, suburban, town, and rural areas in Finland and Belarus, using interviews to explore children’s activities, play experiences, and environmental affordances. Building on Heft (1988) work, Kyttä expanded the functional taxonomy by incorporating social affordances. Huang (2017) further refined this approach within British kindergarten contexts, distinguishing between environmental factors and affordances for individual and social behaviors. Additionally, van Liempd (2018) developed a detailed classification of indoor furniture, flooring, decorations, fences, and activity areas in childcare centers, with spatial components as a focal point. However, Kyttä’s taxonomy touches only briefly on “environmental opportunities for sociality,” without detailing the connection between social affordances and environmental functions. While Huang’s research differentiates between affordances for solitary and social behaviors, it lacks a comprehensive categorization for indoor environments, limiting social behavior affordances to shared use and conflict. Although van Liempd’s tools specifically target childcare center interiors, he overlooks how social interactions between children and play materials influence affordances.
Overall, factors shaping affordances include animate and inanimate elements (Aziz, 2014), natural (Herrington and Brussoni, 2015; Prins et al., 2022; Rietveld and Kiverstein, 2014), artificial (Fusco, 2016; Atmodiwirjo, 2014; Yusof et al., 2022), physical (Heft, 1988; van Liempd, 2018; Sando and Sandseter, 2020), and social (Huang, 2017; Kyttä, 2002) factors. Although artificial materials dominate indoor kindergarten environments, previous research primarily classifies affordances based on outdoor contexts, supporting the argument for children’s independent mobilities (Kyttä, 2003) and natural elements (Laaksoharju et al., 2012; Zwierzchowska and Lupa, 2021; Zamani, 2017). While natural elements offer developmental benefits, indoor activities remain crucial in the Chinese pedagogical context, where outdoor activities are limited by seasonal and climatic conditions. Consequently, affordance taxonomies for Chinese kindergarten classrooms should consider not only basic physical components (e.g., tables, chairs, shelves, and floors) but also differences in children’s use of play materials. For example, Huang (2021) found through a survey of Shanghai kindergartens that children aged 3–4 prefer manipulating objects, while those aged 4–5 focus more on constructing objects. Thus, differentiating play materials is essential in developing an affordance taxonomy suited to China. Additionally, movable and stationary objects or boundaries should be separately addressed.
To this extent, this section discusses the dynamics and functional taxonomy of affordance theory based on empirical studies of children’s environments and behaviors. From the perspective of ecological psychology, children’s instantaneous actions reflect their direct perception of their surroundings. However, as Chinese kindergartens represent a continuous 3-year stage, immediate actions alone cannot fully capture the development of children’s play patterns. The concept of behavior settings offers insight into the progression of collective behaviors and long-term behavior patterns in specific spaces, complementing the perception–action loop in affordance theory. The following section will inquire into behavioral setting theories related to children’s environments.
3 Behavior setting theory in children’s environments
Although behavior setting theory does not prioritize direct perception, certain elements intersect with key principles of ecological psychology. Originally introduced and defined by Barker et al. in research conducted from 1947 to 1972 (e.g., Barker, 19431968), behavior setting theory has since been widely applied in subsequent studies on human–environment relationships across the world (Heft, 2018; Keshmiri and Nikounam Nezami, 2023; Wicker, 1979, 2012). By observing children’s behaviors at various locations within communities, Barker discovered that their actions were closely linked to specific places, a phenomenon central to the behavior-setting concept (Barker, 1978). In the initial formulation of the theory (Barker, 1963), a behavior setting was characterized as a spatiotemporal locus with clear boundaries. It is a nested structure that arranges various fixed entities and events and is independent of subjective perception. In particular, individuals’ actions in a peculiar behavior setting seem predictable based on these features. Barker (1968) later elaborated that a behavior setting possesses not only temporal and spatial dimensions but also includes at least one consistent pattern of behavior and a milieu, which are structurally synomorphic. Within this embedded structure, the milieu objectively surrounds behavior, remaining independent of individual perceptions. Additionally, milieu and behavior are integrated within the behavior setting, exhibiting a high degree of interdependence.
A behavior setting, composed of the milieu and a standing pattern of behavior with attributes of synapomorphy, interdependence, and circumjacency, formally emerged as a concept in psychology. Wicker (1987) labeled behavior settings as socially constructed entities, analyzing them in terms of resources, internal dynamics, and context. Fuhrer (1990) reinforced Wicker’s definition and further provided abstract descriptions of behavior settings in the dimension of social psychology. Hence, a behavior setting encompasses not only individual actions but also collective behaviors, reflecting dynamic internal structures. In summary, the concept of behavior setting begins with the study of simple units of everyday behavior in a sample of children, followed by an interest in accenting its internal dynamics and evolution, ultimately shifting toward the realm of subjective experience. Therefore, overall, behavior setting has two core properties, namely, structural and internal dynamics, and is compounded by the milieu and standing pattern of behaviors. The content of the following subsections will be encircled with these attributes.
3.1 Nested structure of behavior setting
From a constitutive sight, a behavior setting is similar to a genotype, which is a high-level dynamic environmental unit or an eco-behavioral unit comprising individuals’ joint actions and material features of the location (i.e., milieu; Heft, 2018). The physical elements within the environment offer opportunities for both solitary and collective action patterns, largely aligning with Gibson’s concept of affordances. In this study, “milieu” refers to items such as desks, chairs, foam pads, decorations, walls, floors, and stairs in kindergarten classrooms, which collectively provide opportunities for various behaviors among children. The milieu exists objectively, as a subordinate component distinct from the broader material environment, and provides potential ecological resources for individuals’ actions (Giusti et al., 2014). This concept aligns closely with potential affordances, forming part of the rationale for integrating behavior setting and affordance theories in this study.
While the milieu emphasizes spatial attributes within behavior settings, the standing pattern of behavior highlights temporal attributes. For instance, when individuals enter a behavior setting and engage in a series of actions, these behaviors are not considered a standing pattern, unless they are sustained over time. Only when individuals’ joint actions persist does a behavioral pattern become established (Heft, 2001). This assertion contrasts with the immediate focus on individual actions in affordance theory. Many studies on behavior settings, however, have emphasized spatial features over temporal continuity. For example, Cosco (2006) identified sand pits, triangular areas, and grassy spaces in children’s outdoor environments as behavior settings. Similarly, Refshauge et al. (2013) classified settings such as slides, playrooms, and volleyball courts. These studies often overlook the standing pattern of behavior—ongoing, collective actions within the milieu. The formation of a standing pattern relies on repetitive behaviors, sustained duration, and steady frequency as participants interact with physical entities. Thus, a behavior setting comprises both a milieu, rich in material attributes, and standing patterns of behavior, which are consistent and sustained episodes. Consequently, behavior setting, milieu, and standing behavior patterns are structurally synomorphic.
Viewing a classroom or playground as a behavior setting oversimplifies the concept, as true behavior settings involve enduring interaction among individuals within the environment. For example, a football field is not a behavior setting on its own; it becomes one through the continuous actions of players, referees, coaches, and spectators interacting with the stadium’s physical elements. Similarly, childcare classrooms, as environments with multiple behavioral settings, are expected to facilitate encounters among children and interactions with material surroundings, allowing children to shape these settings over time.
3.2 Internal dynamics of behavior setting
A behavior setting operates as a dynamic mechanism with a life cycle, arising, developing, and sometimes dissipating (Luke et al., 1991). Its internal dynamic cycle is driven by the interplay between milieu and standing behavior patterns. The milieu, whether natural or artificial (Popov and Chompalov, 2012), provides objective material features, but without participant interaction, it remains inactive (Heft, 2018). The reciprocal engagement between participants and the physical environment forms standing behavior patterns, which, in turn, shape or self-regulate the milieu (Wicker, 1987). While both behavior setting and affordance theories discuss human–environment interactions, behavior setting theory emphasizes continuous interaction between behavior and environmental factors, treating human and environmental components as equally significant (Heft, 2018). In contrast, affordance theory prioritizes human perception and action, placing less emphasis on environmental factors (Raymond et al., 2017). This discrepancy explains why studies on early childhood environments often focus on children’s behaviors and perceptions, rather than on design criteria for physical environments. This study aimed to integrate behavior setting and affordance theories to address this gap.
Furthermore, the dynamics of affordance suggest a continuous cycle, implying that as long as organisms and environments coexist, the environment theoretically provides perpetual support for human actions. For instance, even when someone sits on a sofa and enters a trance, the sofa affords the possibility of sitting and trancing. However, this scenario does not constitute a behavior setting, as it lacks the joint behaviors of multiple individuals, and momentary actions cannot establish long-term behavioral patterns. Unlike the theoretically infinite cycle of affordances, the dynamics of a behavior setting begin with the interaction between milieu and behavior and evolve through ongoing exchanges. Over time, some behavioral patterns may diminish, leading to the decline of the setting. The primary criterion for a behavior setting is the threshold of interdependence between its elements (Barker, 1968).
In kindergarten classrooms, more specifically, determining the interdependence between children’s behaviors and the classroom milieu involves examining their mutual influence. Environmental factors, such as size, noise, and temperature, along with spatial features and components, affect behavior. Children’s actions can be synthesized through video recording (Huang, 2017), interval sampling (Jin, 2018; Rubin, 2001), and behavior mapping (Cosco et al., 2010; Cox et al., 2018). The predictability of the environment’s impact on behavior reflects this interdependence. Therefore, in this study, classrooms are seen as clusters of sub-settings, such as teacher-directed settings for instruction, dining, and resting, and partially child-directed areas for flexible play. The interaction among material elements, children, peers, and the locale generates social events, play behaviors, and episodes of social play, shaping both the cluster setting and its sub-settings. Empirically, this leads to the emergent process of a dynamic, collective inter-individual unit—what is known as a behavior setting.
In Chinese kindergartens, spatial settings are more flexible than in Western playrooms, often adapting to teacher-directed resource allocation (Ma and Hao, 2024; Dong, 2007). Chinese children also tend to exhibit collective behaviors, differing from Western social patterns. Current research on Chinese kindergarten environments has primarily examined children’s play behavior patterns (Han et al., 2023), layout (Cai et al., 2024), and play materials (Ye, 2015), revealing a significant gap in studies on dynamic behavior settings in classrooms. Similarly, this phenomenon occurs in Western studies, where behavior settings are often treated as static, neglecting their internal dynamics (e.g., Refshauge et al., 2013). Thus, investigating dynamic behavior settings in children’s indoor environments through empirical research is essential.
4 Findings and conclusion
The current theoretical framework delineates approaches to affordance and behavior setting within ecological psychological sight. Both frameworks fundamentally explore the dynamic relationship between individuals and the environment, though their focuses differ. Affordance theory emphasizes individual perceptions and uses of the environment, whereas behavior setting theory highlights enduring interactions between individuals and the milieu. Ecological psychology, as informed by previous studies, offers a people-centered perspective for researching children’s environments and behaviors. However, recent studies tend to concentrate on either the affordance side, focusing on children’s perception–action loop (Barrable and Barrable, 2024; Sando and Sandseter, 2022), or on the synomorphy between individuals and their surroundings, related to human wellbeing (Jafari et al., 2020; Keshmiri and Nikounam Nezami, 2023). Consequently, there is a lack of studies that integrate the primary components of affordance and behavior setting within ecological psychology to examine children’s actions and their contexts.
Following a review of previous studies within ecological psychology, this research integrates affordance and behavior-setting traits to construct a theoretical framework (see Figure 2). Behaviorally, this framework examines children’s immediate actions as responses to perceived environmental features, explores correlations between actions and behavior segments, and identifies the transition from behavior episodes to behavior patterns. Environmentally, it investigates the support provided by technological norms, spatial characteristics, and physical components in classrooms for children’s actions, play, and social interactions. Methodologically, participatory and non-participatory systematic observation, interval sampling (e.g., 5-s interval, 5-min episode), and behavior mapping facilitate effective data collection and analysis of children’s actions. Additionally, spatial deconstructing (Huang, 2017) and rating scales (Harms et al., 2014; Moore, 1994; Moore and Sugiyama, 2007) (e.g., Moore’s CPERS/ECPES, Maxwell’s ICRS, and ECERS) aid in gathering data on the physical classroom environment. This framework helps explore how physical environmental factors influence the formation and modification of children’s play behavior patterns in classrooms. However, its limitation lies in the predominant focus on physical environmental factors on children’s autonomous play behavior, potentially overlooking the impact of teachers, caregivers, and parents on children’s behavior.
Figure 2. Integrating the conception of affordance and behavior setting into a theoretical framework for the research on the physical environment of preschool classrooms and children’s behavior.
Theoretically, the classroom environment offers potential functions and elements that form the classroom’s cluster setting and sub-settings. Children, as participants, perceive these functions and convert them into perpetual actions with peers and material properties, thereby actualizing these affordances to maintain the operation of the sub-settings. Meanwhile, as children use and shape their environment, a standing pattern of behavior—comprising play and social interactions—emerges. In this sense, children’s behavior patterns are expected to be highly interdependent with material environmental elements, fostering synapomorphy between participants and the physical environment. Ultimately, the attainment of the synapomorphy of children and the environment has led to a child-friendly atmosphere in the classroom.
This theoretical framework offers guidance for future research on children’s indoor environments, especially within China’s Early Childhood Education and Care context. Thus, future studies should examine the nexus within this framework through a field investigation of the physical environments of childcare facilities and observation of children’s actual behaviors in their free play sessions to ascertain whether their involvement is congruent. In addition, this framework considers utilized and shaped affordances as the process of actualized affordance. Further studies should converge on children’s perceptual progress in environmental attributes and the nexus of their play preferences and actions.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were Ethics Committee, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin.
Author contributions
CD: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ZZ: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. AN: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. AM: Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the support of the Center of Studies for Interior Architecture and Online Database provided by the Universiti of Technologi MARA.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abbas, M. Y., Othman, M., and Rahman, P. Z. M. A. (2016). Pre-school Children's play behaviour influenced by Classroom's spatial definitions? Asian J. Environ. Behav. Stud. 1, 49–65. doi: 10.21834/aje-bs.v1i1.167
Acer, D., Gözen, G., Fırat, Z. S., Kefeli, H., and Aslan, B. (2016). Effects of a redesigned classroom on play behaviour among preschool children. Early Child Dev. Care 186, 1907–1925. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2015.1136999
Atmodiwirjo, P. (2014). Space affordances, adaptive responses and sensory integration by autistic children. Int. J. Des. 8, P35–47.
Aziz, N. F. (2014).Affordances of School Grounds for Children’s Outdoor Play and Environmental Learning (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia).
Aziz, N. F., and Said, I. (2016). Outdoor environments as children’s play spaces: playground affordances. Play and recreation, health and wellbeing 9, 87–108. doi: 10.1007/978-981-4585-96-5_7-1
Barker, R. G. (1943). Psychological aspects of rehabilitation.Psychological Bulletin, 40, 451–453. doi: 10.1037/h0063025
Barker, R. G. (ed.). (1963). The Stream of Behavior as an Empirical Problem. The stream of behavior: Explorations of its structure & content (pp. 1–22). Appleton-Century-Crofts. doi: 10.1037/11177-001
Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Barker, R. G., and Station, U. o. K. M. P. F. (1978). Habitats, Environments, and Human Behavior. Jossey-Bass. Available at: https://books.google.com.my/books?id=HdZOAAAAMAAJ
Barnikis, T. (2015). Children’s perceptions of their experiences in early learning environments: an exploration of power and hierarchy. Global Stud. Childhood 5, 291–304. doi: 10.1177/2043610615597148
Barrable, D., and Barrable, A. (2024). Affordances of coastal environments to support teaching and learning: outdoor learning at the beach in Scotland. Education 52, 416–427. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2022.2100440
Bateman, A., and Church, A. (2017). Children’s use of objects in an early years playground. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 25, 55–71. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2016.1266221
Benchekroun, R., Cameron, C., and Marmot, A. (2020). Practitioner wellbeing and the physical environment in early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings: Literature review. Available at: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10109905
Cai, Y., Cui, C., Zi, M., and Zhang, C. (2024). Woguo chengshi youeryuan kongjian buju shipeixing de xianzhuang, chengyin yu youhua jianyi [situation, reasons and optimization suggestions of spatial layout suitability of urban kindergartens in China]. Stud. Early Childhood Educ. 1, 24–37. doi: 10.13861/j.cnki.sece.2024.01.006
Chawla, L., Cushing, D., Malinin, L. H., Pevec, I., vanVliet, W., and Zuniga, K. (2011). Children and the environment. Oxford University Press.
Chemero, A. (2018). “An outline of a theory of affordances” in S. J. Keith. (Ed.) How shall affordances be refined? (New York: Routledge), 181–195.
Chemero, A., and Turvey, M. T. (2007). Gibsonian affordances for roboticists. Adapt. Behav. 15, 473–480. doi: 10.1177/1059712307085098
Cosco. (2006). Motivation to move: Physical activity affordances in preschool play areas. [doctoral dissertation, heriot watt university].
Cosco, N. G., Moore, R. C., and Islam, M. Z. (2010). Behavior mapping: a method for linking preschool physical activity and outdoor design. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 42, 513–519. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181cea27a
Cox, A., Loebach, J., and Little, S. (2018). Understanding the nature play milieu: using behavior mapping to investigate children's activities in outdoor play spaces. Child. Youth Environ. 28, 232–261. doi: 10.1353/cye.2018.0018
Dong, S. (2007). Jiegou youxi cailiao toufang fangshi dui ertong jiegou youxi xingwei yingxiang de yanjiu [research on children’s constructive play behavior effected by giving ways of constructive play materials] [master dissertation, East China Normal University].
Fuhrer, U. (1990). Bridging the ecological-psychological gap: Behavior settings as interfaces. Environment and Behavior, 22, 518–537. doi: 10.1177/0013916590224009
Fusco, G. (2016). Beyond the built-up form/mobility relationship: Spatial affordance and lifestyles. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 60, 50–66. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.07.011
Gatersleben, B. (2018). Measuring environmental behaviour. Environmental psychology: An introduction. S. Linda and J. I. M. de Groot. 155–166. Wiley-Blackwell.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. classic Edn. New York: Psychology press.
Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65, 541–579. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048
Giusti, M., Barthel, S., and Marcus, L. (2014). Nature routines and affinity with the biosphere: A case study of preschool children in Stockholm. Children, Youth and Environments, 24, 16–42. doi: 10.1353/cye.2014.0019
Han, Y., Yang, X., and Tong, L. (2023). Xueqian ertong shehui pianhao dui youxi xingwei de yingxiang [research on the effect of preschool children′s social preference on play behavior]. Educ. Teach. Res. 38, 103–115. doi: 10.13627/j.cnki.cdjy.20231103.003
Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., and Cryer, D. (2014). Early childhood environment rating scale, third edition (ECERS-3). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Heft, H. (1988). Affordances of children's environments: a functional approach to environmental description. Children's Environ. Q. 5, 29–37.
Heft, H. (1989). Affordances and the body: an intentional analysis of Gibson's ecological approach to visual perception. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 19, 1–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1989.tb00133.x
Heft, H. (2001). Ecological psychology in context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the legacy of William James's radical empiricism. New York: Psychology Press.
Heft, H. (2003). Affordances, dynamic experience, and the challenge of reification. Ecol. Psychol. 15, 149–180. doi: 10.1207/S15326969ECO1502_4
Heft, H. (2018). Places: widening the scope of an ecological approach to perception–action with an emphasis on child development. Ecol. Psychol. 30, 99–123. doi: 10.1080/10407413.2018.1410045
Herrington, S., and Brussoni, M. (2015). Beyond physical activity: The importance of play and nature-based play spaces for children’s health and development. Current obesity reports, 4, 477–483. doi: 10.1007/s13679-015-0179-2
Huang, J. (2017). Spatial affordances for preschool children’s social interactions in childcare environment. [doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield].
Huang, J. (2021). Cujin youeryuan ertong ziyou youxi xingwei de kongjian huan ing yanjiu [research on the spatial environment for promoting the free play behaviors of kindergarten children]. Urbanism and Architecture 22, 133–136. doi: 10.19892/j.cnki.csjz.2021.22.29
Jafari, M., Asadpour, A., and Haeri, S. (2020). Strategies to design university dormitory based on the analysis of behavioral settings (case study: female university dormitory of Shiraz University). J. Iranian Architecture & Urbanism (JIAU) 11, 167–186. doi: 10.30475/isau.2020.163681.1149
Jin, M. (2018). Preschool Children’s cooperative problem solving during play in everyday classroom contexts: China and the US. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee). Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/4940
Karaca, N. H., Uzun, H., and Metin, Ş. (2020). The relationship between the motor creativity and peer play behaviors of preschool children and the factors affecting this relationship. Think. Skills Creat. 38:100716. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100716
Keshmiri, H., and Nikounam Nezami, H. (2023). The Concept of Behavioral Setting and its Impact on Improving Environmental Quality Neighborhood Parks (Case Study: Shiraz SEKONJ Neighborhood Park). Iran University of Science \u0026amp; Technology, 33, 0-0. doi: 10.22068/ijaup.687
Koch, H., Kastner-Koller, U., Deimann, P., Kossmeier, C., Koitz, C., and Steiner, M. (2011). The development of kindergarten children as evaluated by their kindergarten teachers and mothers. Psychol. Test Assess. Model. 53:241.
Korpershoek, H., Harms, T., de Boer, H., van Kuijk, M., and Doolaard, S. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs on students’ academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 643–680. doi: 10.3102/0034654315626799
Kyttä, M. (2002). Affordances of children's environments in the context of cities, small towns, suburbs and rural villages in Finland and Belarus. J. Environ. Psychol. 22, 109–123. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2001.0249
Kyttä, M. (2003). Affordances and Independent Mobility in the Assessment of Environmental Child Friendliness. Doctoral of Philosophy dissertation. Finland: Helsinki University of Technology.
Laaksoharju, T., Rappe, E., and Kaivola, T. (2012). Garden affordances for social learning, play, and for building nature–child relationship. Urban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening, 11, 195–203. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.01.003
Lerstrup, I., and Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. (2017). Affordances of outdoor settings for children in preschool: revisiting heft’s functional taxonomy. Landsc. Res. 42, 47–62. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2016.1252039
Li, K., Hu, B. Y., Pan, Y., Qin, J., and Fan, X. (2014). Chinese early childhood environment rating scale (trial)(CECERS): a validity study. Early Child. Res. Q. 29, 268–282. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.02.007
Li, K., Zhang, P., Hu, B. Y., Burchinal, M. R., Fan, X., and Qin, J. (2019). Testing the ‘thresholds’ of preschool education quality on child outcomes in China. Early Child. Res. Q. 47, 445–456. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.08.003
Lobo, L., Heras-Escribano, M., and Travieso, D. (2018). The history and philosophy of ecological psychology. Front. Psychol. 9:403987. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02228
Lombardo, T. J. (2017). The reciprocity of perceiver and environment: the evolution of James. J. Gibson's Ecolog. Psychol. 394–418. doi: 10.4324/9781315514413
Loveland, K. A. (1991). Social affordances and interaction II: autism and the affordances of the human environment. Ecol. Psychol. 3, 99–119. doi: 10.1207/s15326969eco0302_3
Luke, D., Rappaport, J., and Seidman, E. (1991). Setting phenotypes in a mutual help organization: expanding behavior setting theory. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 147–167.
Luo, Y. (2023). Ertong youxi kongjian de jiangou yanjiu—Jiyu tongban hudong shijiao [research on the construction of Children's game space-based on the perspective of peer interaction] [master dissertation, Sichuan Normal university].
Ma, Z., and Hao, M. (2024). Zhongban youer dui quyu youxi de xuanze pianhao yanjiu—Yi a youeryuan weili [study on the choice preference of middle class children to regional games—taking kindergarten a as an example]. Advan. Educ. 14, 1111–1119. doi: 10.12677/ae.2024.144635
Maxwell, L. E. (2007). Competency in child care settings. Environ. Behav. 39, 229–245. doi: 10.1177/0013916506289976
McLaren, C., Edwards, G., Ruddick, S., Zabjek, K., and McKeever, P. (2011). Kindergarten kids in motion: Rethinking inclusive classrooms for optimal learning. Educational and Child Psychology, 28:100.
McKenzie, T. L., Marshall, S. J., Sallis, J. F., and Conway, T. L. (2000). Leisure-time physical activity in school environments: an observational study using SOPLAY. Prev. Med. 30, 70–77. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1999.0591
Michaels, C. F., and Palatinus, Z. (2014). “A ten commandments for ecological psychology” in S. Lawrence. (Ed.) The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition (London: Routledge), 19–28.
Moore, G. T. (1994). Early childhood physical environment observation schedules and rating scales. J. Environ. Psychol. 14, 335–336. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80229-4
Moore, G. T., Lane, C. G., Hill, A. B., Cohen, U., McGinty, T., Jules, F. A., et al. (1996). Recommendations for child care centers. Recommendations for child care centers. Center for Architecture and Urban Planning Research, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.
Moore, G. T., and Sugiyama, T. (2007). The Children's physical environment rating scale (CPERS): reliability and validity for assessing the physical environment of early childhood educational facilities. Child. Youth Environ. 17, 24–53. doi: 10.1353/cye.2007.0023
Morgenthaler, T., Lynch, H., Loebach, J., Pentland, D., and Schulze, C. (2024). Using the theory of affordances to understand environment–play transactions: environmental taxonomy of outdoor play space features—a scoping review. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 78:7804185120. doi: 10.5014/ajot.2024.050606
Mortensen, J. A., and Barnett, M. A. (2015). Teacher–child interactions in infant/toddler child care and socioemotional development. Early Educ. Dev. 26, 209–229. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2015.985878
Nicholson, S. (1971). How not to cheat children, the theory of loose parts. Landscape architecture 62, 30–34.
Nordtømme, S. (2012). Place, space and materiality for pedagogy in a kindergarten. Educ. Inq. 3, 317–333. doi: 10.3402/edui.v3i3.22037
Prins, J., van der Wilt, F., van der Veen, C., and Hovinga, D. (2022). Nature play in early childhood education: A systematic review and meta ethnography of qualitative research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13:995164. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.995164
Popov, L., and Chompalov, I. (2012). Crossing over: The interdisciplinary meaning of behavior setting theory. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2, 18–27.
Raymond, C. M., Kyttä, M., and Stedman, R. (2017). Sense of place, fast and slow: the potential contributions of affordance theory to sense of place. Front. Psychol. 8:1674. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01674
Refshauge, A. D., Stigsdotter, U. K., and Petersen, L. S. (2013). Play and behavior characteristics in relation to the design of four Danish public playgrounds. Child. Youth Environ. 23, 22–48. doi: 10.1353/cye.2013.0040
Rietveld, E., and Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26, 325–352. doi: 10.1080/10407413.2014.958035
Sadler, E., and Given, L. M. (2007). Affordance theory: a framework for graduate students' information behavior. J. Doc. 63, 115–141. doi: 10.1108/00220410710723911
Sando, O. J., and Sandseter, E. B. H. (2020). Affordances for physical activity and well-being in the ECEC outdoor environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 69:101430. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101430
Sando, O. J., and Sandseter, E. B. H. (2022). Children’s perception and utilization of ECEC physical environments. Educ. Sci. 12:88. doi: 10.3390/educsci12020088
Sandseter, H. E. B. S., Sando, R., and Johan, O. (2022). The relationship between indoor environments and children’s play–confined spaces and materials. Education 50, 551–563. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2020.1869798
Sandseter, H. E. B., Sando, J. O., and Kleppe, R. (2021). Associations between children’s risky play and ECEC outdoor play spaces and materials. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:3354. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18073354
Stokols, D. (1978). Environmental psychology. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5vz7h2nx (Accessed August 28, 2024).
Storli, R., and Hansen Sandseter, E. B. (2019). Children's play, well-being and involvement: how children play indoors and outdoors in Norwegian early childhood education and care institutions. Int. J. Play 8, 65–78. doi: 10.1080/21594937.2019.1580338
van der Graaf, J., Segers, E., and Verhoeven, L. (2018). Individual differences in the development of scientific thinking in kindergarten. Learn. Instr. 56, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.03.005
van Dijk-Wesselius, J. E., Maas, J., van Vugt, M., and van den Berg, A. E. (2022). A comparison of children's play and non-play behavior before and after schoolyard greening monitored by video observations. J. Environ. Psychol. 80:101760. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101760
van Liempd, H. (2018). Exploring childcare spaces: Young children's exploration of the indoor play space in center-based childcare. [doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University].
van Liempd, H. I. M., Oudgenoeg-Paz, O., Fukkink, R. G., and Leseman, P. P. (2018). Young children’s exploration of the indoor playroom space in center-based childcare. Early Child. Res. Q. 43, 33–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.11.005
Wicker, A. W. (1979). Ecological psychology: some recent and prospective developments. Am. Psychol. 34, 755–765. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.9.755
Wicker, A. W. (1987). Behavior settings reconsidered: Temporal stages, resources, internal dynamics, context. Handbook of environmental psychology, 1, 613–653.
Wicker, A. W. (2012). Perspectives on behavior settings: With illustrations from Allison’s ethnography of a Japanese hostess club. Environment and Behavior, 44, 474–492. doi: 10.1177/0013916511398374
Wu, J., Lin, W., and Ni, L. (2022). Peer interaction patterns in mixed-age and same-age chinese kindergarten classrooms: an observation-based analysis. Early Educ. Dev. 33, 541–553. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2021.1909262
Ye, M. (2015). Zizhuxing quyu youxi huanjing de chuangshe yu cailiao toufang celue [on the creation of autonomous regional game environment]. Stud. Early Childhood Educ. 2, 70–72. doi: 10.13861/j.cnki.sece.2015.02.013
Yusof, J. N., Said, I., Aziz, N. F., and Rusli, N. (2022). Afford to paddle, afford to swim: exploring the affordances of the outdoor environment at a coastal community in affecting young children’s play behaviour. Children's Geographies 20, 143–159. doi: 10.1080/14733285.2021.1919997
Zamani, Z. (2017). Young children’s preferences: what stimulates children’s cognitive play in outdoor preschools? J. Early Child. Res. 15, 256–274. doi: 10.1177/1476718X15616831
Zimmons,. (1997). The effects of spatial definition on preschool prosocial interaction. [doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University].
Keywords: ecological psychology, affordance, behavior setting, theoretical framework, perception-action loop, child-environment interdependence
Citation: Deng C, Zhao Z, Ahmad Noorhani Nm and Mustapha AA (2024) An eco-psychological framework for research on the physical environment of childcare classrooms and children’s play behavior. Front. Psychol. 15:1463151. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1463151
Edited by:
Yibo Wu, Peking University, ChinaReviewed by:
Graça Duarte Santos, University of Evora, PortugalRafael Robina-Ramírez, University of Extremadura, Spain
Copyright © 2024 Deng, Zhao, Ahmad Noorhani and Mustapha. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Chenhao Deng, bWFuenk5MDk0MjBAZ21haWwuY29t