Behaviour as a Result of Learning - Essay Example

Behaviour as a Result of Learning Human behaviour has been explored from multiple scientific perspectives, so scientists are still arguing what are the most influential stimuli in terms of human behaviour. Though, most of scientific psychological researches show that one of the most significant factors in formation of behavioural patterns is human ability to imitate behaviour of other people in order to accord with social norms and standards. Taking into consideration multiple scientific evidences, from perspectives of personality and social psychology and biology, this assertion definitely makes sense. The most common kind of behavioural patterns that people learn from early childhood is prosocial behaviour. This kind of behaviour is engaged with decency in actions that are supposed to be approved by society because they benefit other people or society in general (Malti et.al. 2009). Prosocial behaviour can be based on two aspects which are actions motivated by empathy towards others and their interests, or actions motivated by selfish mercantile concerns. Even though scientists claim that the reason for the behaviour that benefits others is human empathy, still biological researches reveal that prosocial behavior is an instinctive kind of acting that protects species from extinction. That’s why younger members of society are supposed to learn how to act accordingly to the norms of decency accepted in the particular society. The evidence for such practical biological approach can be retrieved from analogy with animals that, as well as people, have certain attributes of prosocial behaviour, because it maintains their organization which holds animals together (in herds, bands etc.) for survival. Thus prosocial behaviour contributes formation of human organizations and provides people with peaceful coexistence, because in fact it is necessary for efficient organizational functioning to follow the same decent social norms (Brief & Motowidlo 1986). It appears from this that prosocial behaviour is supposed to be learned since early childhood in order to be accepted in society and survive there. The first steps of learning prosocial behaviour are being made when a child learns from family environment only. Psychological studies on children (of 4 to 5 years old) revealed that in young age children identify themselves with their families and consider themselves not as separate parts of society or a group but as inherent parts of their families (Abrams 2011). As far as this proves that human self identity is based on observations, the behaviour it produces must result from observations as well. If parents demonstrate their children how to act morally, children will eventually associate such behaviour with social acceptance, so prosocial behaviour will become a part of their self identification. Furthermore, if decent behaviour is being rewarded by adults, children note it and will use the prosocial pattern later in their lives (Wittmer & Sterling Honig 1994). However, not only children learn prosocial behaviour from environment. With the growth of intellectual development people start realizing what actions are considered to be moral and how prosocial behavior benefits not only other people but their own position in society. Doing decent things brings unconscious rewards from others, so people learn that being decent means being accepted by society (Mills & Grusec 1989). Although, the learning of being accepted not only works in a good way, because when people face an emergency condition happening to somebody else they often can chose not to help the person in trouble because they consider the benefit from helping as less than from avoidance of help. The bystander effect is the eloquent evidence of such behaviour. Experiments on the matter reveal that noticing that someone is in trouble people choose to stand by watching somebody else’s helping the person than rendering assistance (Darley & Latane 1968). This happens because a bystander is happened to be among other people, so one relies that there would be somebody else among that people to help the one that needs help. Thus being in public under such circumstances allows people to share their responsibility and conscience with others. Although, researches show that when a person is happened to be up against such circumstances all alone, one is more likely to help the person in trouble (Latane & Darley 1968). Another aspect of prosocial behaviour is empathy; though, psychologists have different opinions about the nature of this human capacity. Some of them claim that level of empathy is defined by natural capabilities of human intelligence to perceive others’ feelings; others argue that empathy can be developed through long time observations of oneself. The point is that empathy is based on realization that other people are alike to us. Concerning prosocial behaviour empathy can impact person’s willingness to help others if the person has already been under the same circumstances and is aware of how it feels being in trouble (Snow 2000). As far as people judge others’ personalities and situational decisions according to their own experience they often tend to make attributions to others’ characteristics in reliance on their own behavioural patterns using the principle of analogy between people. People’s habit to make inferences about others is based on their faith that other people act predictably because their actions are motivated (Heider 1958). It happens because people unconsciously understand that behaviour of other people, as well as their own, is being learned from commonly acceptable (or not acceptable) behavioural patterns (Ross, Greene & House 1976). Making internal attributions allows people to create attitudes towards others and interpret their choices and behavior according to their own characteristics and judgments about themselves (Forsyth 1980). Even though often the process of attribution can lead to creation of biases and wrong interpretation of events, still in many cases people manage to characterize others, explain their behaviour, and even predict certain human choices truthfully, using attribution. However, it wouldn’t be possible if there were no universal human qualities and recognizable behavioural patterns. Thus if people recognize themselves in others and are able to be in somebody’s shoes, then typical human behaviour is a result of learning. In fact it is impossible to avoid the negative aspect of human behaviour in consideration of the reasoning of people’s actions. Anti-social behaviour is the actions that work conversely the prosocial behaviour and are aimed to harm others. The nature of anti-social behaviour is multiple. Researches on patients with anti-social behaviour disorders show that the diagnosis often results from a vast stress a person goes through. Thus the model of such behaviour is a kind of way for the person to counter aggression of environment. Still the condition is rather abnormal for both human social life and psychical equilibrium (“Anti-Social Behaviour Disorders” 1943). Notwithstanding that anti-social behaviour can be a result of stress, scientists claim that often people start acting anti-socially because they either want to contradict social norms (which they’ve learned) (Millie 2008) or they have seen such behaviour somewhere and started imitating it. Thus observations on kids revealed that watching violence on TV in early childhood affects the children’s aggressiveness and violent behaviour in early adulthood (Huesmann et.a. 2003). The studies were conducted among children with different levels of initial aggressiveness. Other observations of relation between children’s aggression level and observation of others’ behaviour reveal that watching movies with high rates of aggression makes children imitate aggressive behavioural models and force them into application of it towards others in real life situations (Bandura, Ross & Ross 1963). The evidences show that people are disposed to learn certain behavioural patterns in order to use them because sometimes such behaviour can be interpreted as a right one. Although, such passive aggressive anti-social behaviour as biases intended against others also can be a result of nurture. Researches on children’s disposition to racism, cultural and ethnical discrimination prove that children learn their attitude to those who are different from them according to their parents’ behaviour with such people. For instance, psychological observations denoted that 4 to 5 years old children racial prejudice attitudes were predicted by their mothers’ cross-race friendship. Even though the parents of the children were trying to teach them in “color-blinded” atmosphere of tolerance, when the kids started attending kindergarten they either had or didn’t have racist attitude to others depending on whether their parents had made friendship with cross-race people (Pahlke 2012). Thus it turns out that many kinds of anti-social behaviour are learned from other people by means of observation and close interaction. The reason why people tend to imitate somebody else’s behaviour, even anti-social one, can be explained through many psychological theories. Sigmund Freud suggests the concept of identification explains the roots of human aspiration to imitate somebody’s actions. Freud claims that identification is a process of mimicking someone’s actions and behavioural patterns in order to draw on the features of another person for personal application (Diamond 1993). Explorations on celebrity fans revealed that often people start mimicking celebrities’ behaviour ether in real life or movies because they want, at least in some way, to be attached to celebrity social status or strive to arise their self-esteem by looking alike to the people they admire (Kurzman et.al. 2007). Another kind of learning of behaviour can be observed in mass movements where people are inclined to have the same behavioural responses to events, copying each other’s actions. Social psychologists define several theories that explain the tendency. The sociologic contagion theory explains why it happens that people take the same behavioral line in a crowd, as the main noticeable attribute of collective behavior is fast widespread and transmissibility of common actions. In general the contagion theory claims that crowd affects its members in a specific hypnotizing way, so the same moods and behaviors rapidly spread within a crowd (Levy & Nail 1993). The main point why people tend to fall under collective influence is that they give up their personal and social responsibility and share it with the rest of the participants of a crowd. Interesting is that the same tendency can be noticed within consideration of bystander apathy because in both cases a person would rather do what everybody else is does in order not to differentiate from common activity. Although the inner stimuli that influence such reaction in both of situations are different. Bystander effect is based on human unwillingness to differentiate oneself from others even for somebody else’s rescuing; contagion effect in crowd works because of certain deindividuation of participants of the mass movement. Deindividuation emphasizes on anonymity of people in crowd and is defined as a “condition of relative anonymity in which group members do not feel single out of identifiable” (Vander Zanden 1981, p. 290). Thus it turns out that people in crowd do not intentionally learn each other’s behaviour, they automatically accept common behavioural tendency right after observing that all people around are acting the same way. Another social psychological theory that explains the reasons why people tend to imitate mass behaviour while being in crowd is social identity theory. It claims that any person has a need to be identified with some social group or category, where people are connected by the same social identification or consider themselves as members of the specific group (Stets & Burke 2000, p. 225). In order to be accepted by a social group or simply to be able to identify oneself with this group sometimes a person also needs to follow certain behavioural patterns acceptable in the group. For instance, being a part of mass movement means following the common model of actions, which can be moving to the same place all together, screaming the similar slogans etc. Furthermore, evolutional theory developed by Richard Dawkins in his popular book “The Selfish Gene” asserts that learning behavioural patterns from other people is not only an adaptation for survival but also a way of human evolution (1976). The point is that with intellectual development human behaviour goes through certain changes, so every next generation of humans creates some new behavioural models. These models get transferred to next generations through observation and adoption. Thus the same developmental tendency works from generation to generation and this is how people learn to adapt to the newest environmental conditions. It turns out that observation and learning of others’ behaviour is one of the most significant factors of evolution. Cognitive approach in explaining of human behaviour is one of the most reasonable and evidentially proved. People tend to learn how to behave from other people and this process works through their entire lives. First a person learns from ones’ parents, then, with intellectual development, one starts imitating behavioural patterns that seem the most convenient for living. Such tendency can be explained in multiple ways and from different perspectives, as people have this natural disposition to identify themselves with others and borrow some behavioural patterns to own application. From biological point of view this happens instinctively and is supposed to help people to survive within society and also the tendency maintains human evolution in general. References Malti, T., Keller, M., Gummerum, M., and Buchmann, M. (2009). “Childrens Moral Motivation, Sympathy, and Prosocial Behavior”. Child Development, 80(2), 442-460. Brief, A.P. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1986). “Prosocial Organizational Behaviors”. The Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710-725. Wittmer, D.S. and Sterling Honig, A. (1994). “Encouraging Positive Social Development in Young Children”. Young Children, 49(5), 4-12. Mills, R.S.L. and Grusec, J.E. (1989). “Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Consequences of Praising Altruism”. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35(3), 299-326. Snow, N.E. (2000). “Empathy”. American Philosophical Quarterly, 37(1), 65-78. Forsyth, D.R. (1980). “The Functions of Attributions”. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(2), 184-189. “Anti-Social Behaviour Disorders”. The British Medical Journal, 1(4284), 195-196. Millie, A. (2008). “Anti-social Behaviour, Behavioural Expectations and an Urban Aesthetic”. The British Journal of Criminology, 48(3), 379-394. Diamond, E. (1993). “Rethinking Identification: Kennedy, Freud, Brecht”. The Kenyon Review, 15(2), 86-99. Dawkins, Richard (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pahlke,E., Bigler, R.S., and Suizzo, M. (2012). “Relations Between Colorblind Socialization and Childrens Racial Bias: Evidence From European American Mothers and Their Preschool Children”. Child Development, 83(4), 1164-1179. Abrams, D. (2011). “Wherein Lies Childrens Intergroup Bias? Egocentrism, Social Understanding, and Social Projection”. Child Development, 82(5),1579-1593. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Latane, B. and Darley, J.M. (1968). “Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention in Emergencies”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215-221. Bandura, A., Ross, D., and Ross, S.A. (1963). “Imitation of Film-Mediated Aggressive Models”. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(1), 3-11. Rowell Huesmann, L., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C-L., and Eron, L.D. (2003). “Longitudinal Relations Between Children’s Exposure to TV Violence and Their Aggressive and Violent Behavior in Young Adulthood: 1977–1992”. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 201-221. Ross, L., Greene, D., and House, P. (1976). “The “False Consensus Effect”: An Egocentric Bias in Social Perception and Attribution Processes”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301. Darley, J.M., and Latane, B. (1968). “Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377-383. Kurzman, C., Anderson, C., Key, C., Lee, Y.O., Moloney, M., Silver, A., and Van Ryn, M.W. (2007). “Celebrity Status”, Sociological Theory, 25(4), 347-367. Read More