Comparative Methods of Explaining Social Behaviour - Essay Example

Comparative methods of explaining social behaviour Number Department Comparative methods of explaining social behaviour Social behaviour involves how an individual conducts himself or herself in the society. The subject matter therefore explores human behaviour as shaped by other individuals and the social environment in which this happens. There has been a significant evolution of explanations of social psychology, with many theories being developed to explain why humans have certain feelings, thought processes, morals, intentions and objectives and their development as well as how such inner factors eventually, shape human social behaviour. The evolutionary explanations of social behaviour have centred on issues such as; self-concept, attribution theory, social cognition, social influence, social processes, prejudice and bias, aggression, beliefs and stereotypes. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how comparative methods can be used to provide evolutionary explanations of social behaviour. Natural influences of social behaviour In the earliest explanations of social behaviour, Aristotle suggested that people were born to be social, adding that it is a necessity which enables humans to stay together. In contrast to this individual-based approach, Plato believed that government had immense powers over the social behaviour (Hsien-Tung, & Bagozzi, 2014). He pointed out institutions of responsibility like schools as the avenue through which the state could influence social behaviour. In the 18th-19th century, Hegel developed the theory that every society has inexorable connections with the building of social behaviour. As such, Plato’s concept was similar in structure to Hagel’s in the sense that they tended to support the power of a collective thought as being the key facet in the understanding of social behaviour. Nonetheless, during the second half of the 19th century, the Anglo-European influences on social behaviour were discovered by the social psychologist fraternity (Elster, 2007). The approach concentrated on the power of collective mind as having a tremendous impact on individual behaviour. It underscored the idea that individuality develops along the dictates of cultural and social factors, especially through communication. Language and communication are regarded as product of social development of the community and as a key factor in encouraging or discouraging certain social thought processes in the human being in question. As such, Wundt (1900–1920) narrowed down the wider role of the state and or the society to language as an explanation behind social behaviour. As Hsien-Tung and Bagozzi (2014) noted, texts concentrating on social psychology came up for the first time in the early 20th century. The seminal works focused on the role of emotion and feelings, morality, human character and the influence of religion. These factors however evolved into smaller, more specific fields by the late 20th century through to the 21st century. The primary explanations of the early 20th century psychology supported the theory that social behaviour was natural or instinctive and thus, individual, hence the major focus on natural influences. This concept is different from the modern principles of social psychology which focus on artificial, social stimuli as the primary explanations of social behaviour. According to Elster (2007), Allport’s concept of social behaviour is an important part of the foundation of the neo-modern thinking, due to his acknowledgment that social factors have a tremendous impact on social behaviour. Allport is also credited for taking a procedural approach to the issue, assessing the validity of real research and underscoring the fact that the discipline was supported by the outcomes of scientific processes which examine the conduct of humans in as much as his or her habits influence those who are within their social networks (Clarke, 2003). Allport explored important factors that are still relevant in today’s more science-based explanations of social behaviour such conformity, sentiments and the behavioural effects of an audience on members who share social relationships. Early Experiments Despite the fact that various outcomes of early scientific experiments on the principles behind social behaviour are somehow different from the current ones, the latter have largely perfected the former by sealing the loopholes which may have compromised the science behind the studies (Elster, 2007). Triplett in the late 19th century did an experiment on the influence of cyclists and children on each other’s overall performance. His primary aim was to investigate how the activities of each side affected the behaviour of the other in the social environment. He subsequently established that performance of the parties reduced in a social context due to distractions and influence by the other side (Clarke, 2003). By mid-1930s research on social beliefs had developed, with the focus being based on examining how people behave based on the doctrines of society. The research conducted by Sherif, established that despite the existence of individual beliefs, people tend to be influenced in one way or another by the common societal interests (Elster, 2007). By contrast, experimental research studies conducted in the late 1930s to establish social behaviour in leadership and social processes showed that individuals as likely to adopt ethical behaviour in social contexts, especially where the individual in question has leadership obligations (Clarke, 2003). Ethical behaviour was increasingly becoming popular by virtue of pressures requiring the people, especially leaders to behave in ways that were favourable to the majority. Later social theories and experiments Hsien-Tung and Bagozzi (2014) noted that the bulk of vital research into the explanations of social behaviour was manifested in the mid-20th century when the academic focus shifted to unearth factors behind the behaviour of persons in social contexts. Vital research studies were undertaken in a number of areas including; how individual or social beliefs and belief systems were developed and or influenced by the social environment and gauged to determine whether measurable influence had taken place. Cognitive dissonance theory by Festinger (1950) provides some of the most important answers to social behaviour as having little to do with nature. The theory posits that when an individual is exposed to diverse beliefs, perceptions or cognitions, then he or she would exhibit dissonance – which is variation that triggers discomfort. As such, the individual would be motivated to limit this by either altering his or her thoughts, perceptions or cognition; or consume the information in a selective manner based on those which are more favourable to them (Clarke, 2003). The selective consuming and ignoring of information that is pleasant and or unpleasant respectively is at the core of selective exposure theory and modern social tolerance where there is cultural diversity. Dissonance happens when one is in a dilemma or when the individual participates in an activity that is against his or her attitude. As such, dissonance is occasioned by justification of one’s attempt at a meekest goal; prompted compliance against one’s attitude; and freedom when choosing one thing over another. By contrast, despite Milgram Experiment drawing some similarities from the cognitive dissonance theory of social behaviour, the main difference lies in the prompting of an individual to act against his or her beliefs and attitudes (Elster, 2007). Milgram’s Experiment is amongst the most iconic works in social behaviour which were developed during the second-half of the 20th century, positing that individuals are bound to be submissive to authority when administering punishment by perceived electric shock, irrespective of the perpetrator’s beliefs or attitude. The Milgram experiment supports Plato’s theory that states have massive influence on social behaviour, irrespective of whether the behaviour in question has positive or negative impacts (Clarke, 2003). Correspondingly, Zimbardo’s findings on social behaviour research in his prison simulation experiment clearly shows that conformity to particular duties in the social environment has immense influence on individual behaviour (Elster, 2007). Owing to the validity of these 20th century findings in the current situation, it can be inferred that social behaviour, whether positive or negative, is normally subject to some conditioning along a specific path. Modern theories of social behaviour Other important theories providing more scientific explanations of social behaviour and which have been part and parcel of the current scholarship are Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (1963), Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory (1971), and Weiner’s Attribution Theory (1986). First, Bandura developed the concept that human social behaviour could be modelled, hence changeable based on environmental factors. In an empirical experiment, Bandura discovered that aggressive behaviour that is rewarded is likely to promote aggression among those witnessing the practice. Secondly, Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory posits that when small groups are split artificially, discrimination results just from the knowledge that there are members ‘who do not belong’ in the group (Clarke, 2003). The psychologist studied the behaviour of boys who were asked to reward members of their small groups and established that the participants were less likely to award points to individuals who they believed were members of the out-group. As such, the theory of social identity states that people often perceive, in good light, individuals with who they share social identity (Hsien-Tung, & Bagozzi, 2014). Tajfel argues that this is partly realized by underscoring the allure of the social group in which one belongs and looking down upon individuals with “lesser” social qualities. Lastly, Weiner’s Attribution theory introduced the concept that human beings assess the implications of particular conduct in social contexts in order to behave in certain ways. The theory posits that social behaviour is dependent on three factors: internal or social locus; controllability; and stability or the likelihood of a behaviour retaining or altering the status quo (Elster, 2007). As such, Weiner argued that human social behaviour is based on experiences of achievement or failure. Conclusion Different theories have been developed to explain social behaviour. The pillars of each of them have been evolving since the early 1900s when focus shifted to and introduced science in the field. Early works placed more significance on the impact of social control on behaviour. However, as power devolved and people became more civilized, social behaviour is today being influenced by interpersonal interactions and the smallest social units in society such as family, social class and social groups. Milgram’s experiment best explains the behaviour of agents of formal organizations. Social learning theory, cognitive dissonance theory, attribution theory and social identity theory are modern theories supporting the influence of the smallest social units in society on human cognitions and individual behaviour. References Clarke, D., 2003. Pro-social and Anti-social Behaviour. New York: Psychology Press. Elster, J., 2007. Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hsien-Tung T., & Bagozzi, R.P., 2014. Contribution behavior in virtual communities: cognitive, emotional, and social influences. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), pp.143-A3. Read More