Abstract
An argument is presented against the generic use of the term “behavior” in characterizing the entire range of human activity. Historical variations in the use of “behavior” are mentioned, and a terminology is suggested based on part-whole rather than class-inclusion relations and incorporating distinctions based on function and intention. Support for an emergence-holist approach to distinct levels of observed human activity is drawn from the literature on event perception and on the perceptual segmentation of behavior. Finally, an emergent-unit vocabulary is put forth to distinguish between action, behavior, and movement. Further extensions are suggested with an aim toward bridging the person-behavior gap.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
