Individual Behavior - Essay Example

?Individual Behavior “Whilst individuals may believe they choose their behavior, they do so within the limits set by their place and time” Individuals are self-reflecting self-organizing and self-regulating organisms with a capability to respond to different environments at different times. Place and time are seemingly inseparable from individual behavior choices. People can influence their own actions. This helps them in achieving the intended results. The capacity to control the thought process and motivation occurs through personal agency (Borgatta & Montgomery 2000). However, people’s behaviors are contained within the limits of time and place. There have been constant reviews of genetic and environmental programs that affect individual cognitive personality and interests. Environment is thought to have significant psychopathologic influence on the choice of individual behavior (Austin et al 2004). However, research on choice of individual behavior indicates that besides genetic and environmental factors, time plays a substantive role. Time suggests possible solutions by associating certain behaviors with age and understanding the reason for occurrence of the behavior. The place or environment creates signals that can reward or discourage some behaviors (Stone 2004). This means the theory of behavior choice is intertwined with time and environmental factors. Learners are known to observe behaviors and develop self efficacies. Environment can be used to define place. Learners understand the need to adopt some of the behaviors from the environment in order to survive. This leads to self regulation in the process of learning from the environment (Borgatta & Montgomery 2000). The notion that individuals choose behaviors should be seen in the context of why they choose certain behaviors over others (Hawkins 2002). Research shows that the choices are deliberate responses to the environmental pressure and stage of growth. Individuals struggle to gain mastery in proactivity and behavior choice (Akhtar et al 2011). This makes the individuals get integrated into their social environment which is necessary for survival. Research shows that individuals possess an internal self-system. The systems empower them to have measured control over their thoughts. However, the process of control in tempered with environmental factors and time. Feelings and actions change depending on the environmental situations and the level of development (Akhtar et al 2011). Most young people become vulnerable to the process of transition. This is attributed to strict environments, minimal self-reliant and life experiences (Mathew & Bankston 1999). The change comes with different expectations, environmental demands and uncertainties as evidenced in the case of Chelsea. The changes happen at different stages of life (Borgatta & Montgomery 2000). The self-reliant system contains effective and cognitive structures. These structures make it easy to learn from others and regulate one’s behavior (Hawkins 2002). Individuals engage in self reflection through the use of structured strategies and abilities (Borgatta & Montgomery 2000). The self reflection system is attributed to individual choices in some aspects (Sampson et al 2002). The systems are responsible for interplay between external environment and self-system (Akhtar et al 2011). The self system gives individuals the capability to change their environment and in the process alter their own actions (Akhtar et al 2011). Different environments have different demands. Case study Chelsea Chaplin had been a good and lively student. She was liked by both peers and teachers. She registered good GCSE results at the age of 17. However, after commencing Sixth form, she began to disengage from school. She started to drink and was brought home by police who found her drunk at a local park. In addition, her behavior showed substantial changes at home. This was evidenced by throwing a cup of hot coffee over her step father besides violently pushing her mother out of the way six months ago. Three months later, she was arrested for taking a car without consent from the owner. One month later, she was charged with common assault for threatening a family member with a baseball bat. According to the postulation by Bandura, behavior is inseparably intertwined to environment. This means that the internal and external stimuli interact interchangeably (Bless & Forgas 2000). This leads to a triad of reciprocity. Chelsea’s change can be traced to an environmental change. The sudden change of attitude and choice of behavior can be attributed to her ability to interpret the results of triad reciprocity (Akhtar et al 2011). This might have informed her self-beliefs and subsequent actions. This is because individual agency is rooted into socio-cultural influences. Individuals are products of their own social systems and environment. However, the theory of self determination of individual choices can be perceived through self-efficacy (Bless & Forgas 2000). The capability to do something is different from the knowledge to do it. Self-reflection is the most unique human capability (Brewer & Hewstone 2004). It has the capability to alter individual thoughts and behavior (Akhtar et al 2011). However, self-efficacy is subject to time and place factors. This can be explained in terms of primary strategies for developing efficacies. Individual choice of behaviors is subject to social persuasion and imitation (Borgatta & Montgomery 2000). Imitation is aimed at achieving mastery. Inactive learning helps in solidifying observational learning. Chelsea is likely to have imitated. Besides, she is might have been bound by the pressure from her social system. This happens through social modeling. The essence of modeling is to accelerate mastery through provision of an environment-friendly imitation model (Akhtar et al 2011). This means individual behavior choices are formed through environmental participation (Kunda 1999). This means that time and place play a central role in the decisions and choices (Brewer & Hewstone 2004). Research shows that most people learn through observational learning. The place factor can determine the kind of response expected from certain behaviors (Borgatta & Montgomery 2000). Some environments reward certain behaviors and punish others. This can make individuals to place more emphasis on the rewarded behaviors. Individual choice of behavior occurs ignorantly or intentionally (Hawkins 2002). The intentional choices involve goal setting and planning (Brewer & Hewstone 2004). This is followed by persistence. Personal competencies influence the course of actions individuals take. Individual choice of behaviors is tested through efficacy beliefs (Kunda 1999). Individual determination and self efficacy affects the perseverance and resilience of a person. Students like Chelsea are known to set new goals while modifying engagements. This involves a re-examination of tactics and skills to generate new and acceptable procedures (Bless & Forgas 2000). This knowledge and self beliefs leads to self regulation (Bless & Forgas 2000). Individuals’ personal agency is often contained by the limits of time and place. Persons must not be perceived to be autonomous and mechanical in their ability to make determinations (Kondrat 2002). Research shows that cognitive processes come from brain activities and influence. The course of actions is strategically situated to meet the needs of individuals. People’s attributes affect the way they gain sufficient social acceptance. Individual behavior patterns are known to be altered to accommodate changing demands of life (Akhtar et al 2011). This includes their age. This process is multidirectional. Social behaviors changes over time depending on the age and expectation of individuals (Kondrat 2002). Naturally, people tend to select environments that are compatible with their desires and behavior choices. People construct social environments through actions and expectations (Bless & Forgas 2000). The challenge of continuity plays a major role in the process of behavior choice. Change of behavior from childhood to adulthood is known to tamper with continuity. This calls to distinct behavioral styles to be applied at different stages in the development process of an individual. Most environmental events tend exert pressure on the behavior (Kunda 1999). Studies show that individuals can transcend place and time in communicating and determining behavior. Human behavior is influenced through psychological stages that include cognition and perception. Perception is the process of place awareness through the use of senses (Sampson et al 2002). The lessons from the perception are processed mentally in the process of cognition (Bless & Forgas 2000). The overall results lead to spatial behavior. Time and place have mental implications to individuals (Akhtar et al 2011). However, both factors in themselves may not have a unique appeal to the individual behavior. Individuals are constantly aware of the environmental expectations (Wichers 1996). This shapes their behavior. Environmental stimuli are developed through psychological stages over time Therefore, interaction with environment and experience has a profound effect on individual behavior. The expectations developed in an environment can define the behavior of an individual (Bless & Forgas 2000). Place has an aesthetic appeal to the individual behavior and the senses of a person. Humans understand the world through senses (Akhtar et al 2011). Individuals tend to become psychologically attached to caregivers (Wichers 1996). This can easily make them develop behavior loyalty without knowledgeable intentions. The cooperation between parents and teachers can have a significant effect on student behaviors (Brewer & Hewstone 2004). Social interactions that determine behavior involve considering the nature and responsiveness of parties in the environment. Early relationships have a profound effect on children. Relationships are grouped in terms of the properties on the parties involved. In case of an adolescent, the home environment has an impact on the growing children. Personal relationships affect how people behave (Mathew & Bankston 1999). This can happen through reactions to other individuals’ misfortunes and circumstances. Patterns of relationships of mutual nature are perceived to be informative (Kondrat 2002). Some of the opinion shapers include co-workers, family friends are teachers. Most teenagers tend to change as they leave spheres of parental influence. The length of acquaintance instills a degree of control to the subjects (Akhtar et al 2011). The nature of the relationships determines the resultant behaviors especially among young people (Sampson et al 2002). There is a psychological attachment to domestic and social authorities in the early stages of life (Bless & Forgas 2000). Research shows that behavior must be instilled through personal experiences and not controlled discipline. This means that individuals must resolve to adopt or drop certain behaviors (Kay 2006). Individuals are aware that social groups judge their behavior based on conformity to societal expectations. This means the different places raise different expectations. Social judgments influence individual behavior. However, loss of confidence in societal expectations can lead to extreme behaviors. Different stages have different behavior expectations that affect the level of acceptance (Akhtar et al 2011). In the case study, family influence had a direct influence on Chelsea’s behavior (Baumeister 1999). Research indicates that the methods of training a child can mold the personality and attitudes. Family determinants include the composition, acceptance, order of birth, climate, and role played in the family. However, increase in age affects aspirations. Time and place play a significant role in the process of behavior determinant and achieving aspirations (Mathew & Bankston 1999). The ego is involved in the pursuit for goals. Comparisons between personal and peer achievements can affect behavior formation and choice. Individual characteristics must be perceived through instinctive desires and needs that require gratification (Kondrat 2002). The mental force that control behavior is influenced by the age and time. The moral standards and the voice of parents constitute the super ego of a child. Ego is known to encourage pursuit pleasure. The perception within an environment has a profound effect on an individual. School atmosphere caused Chelsea to be lively and avoid antisocial behavior (Baumeister 1999). However, a change of environment prompted a negative change into antisocial behavior. College students tend to be exploratory in their conduct. The sudden exposure to extreme lifestyles can lead to poor decision making (Mathew & Bankston 1999). Most leaders or instructors tend to get harder in order to influence the behavior of students. However, easier teachers attract cooperation and progress in the individual choices that students make. A change of place comes with a change of culture (Baumeister 1999). The appropriateness of individual behavior is subject to cultural realities and the season or stage in life. Research shows that students imitate the behaviors of their teachers and other social authorities (Akhtar et al 2011). This means that engaging students in uncivilized manner attracts the same kind of response. The influence of time and place is pegged on the nature and trust of the societal structure in which the actors participate (Baumeister 1999). The social cognitive theory suggests that individuals lack enough power to choose behaviors (Conner & Norman 1996). Rather, behavior is driven by external factors which are situational (Baumeister 1999). Instincts and traits are not convincing enough to determine individual behavior authoritatively. The self-efficacy and observational learning contribute to the attitude and behavior of an individual. Development is influenced by experiences in an environment (Baumeister 1999). Therefore, observational learning is reflective of stage of growth and the level of understanding. It also reflects the life experiences in different environment (Baumeister 1999). Different seasons indicate different levels of sensitivity to life experiences and environment. The actual determinant of behavior is likely to be environment and time rather than individual choices. However, the focus should be the choice of place and time resulting in the determination of behavior. Studies show that ethological theory behavior emerges biologically and is influenced by time. The social cognitive theory has been accused of being overly mechanical and having too little attention to the developmental changes (Conner & Norman 1996). Ethological theory emphasizes on the impact of sensitive periods of human development (Akhtar et al 2011). In conclusion, individual behavior is developed through a series of intertwined behavioral factors. Some of the factors include self-determination while others are directly influenced by environment. Environment is determined through time and place. Young people are subjected to a series of changes in the process of development. Environmental changes and expectations have a direct impact on the individual behavioral choices. This means that the limitations of time and place can be overcome through responsible handling of extreme exposure to freedom. References Akhtar, S., O'Neil, M. K., & Freud, S. 2011. On Freud's "Beyond the pleasure principle". London: Karnac Books. Austin, M., Taylor, S., & Mulroy, E. 2004. Evaluating the social environment component of human behavior and the social environment courses through an analysis. Journal of human behavior in social environment, 10,3, 111-118. Baumeister, R. F. 1999. The self in social psychology. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Bless, H., & Forgas, J. P. 2000. The message within: The role of subjective experience in social cognition and behavior. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Borgatta, E. F., & Montgomery, R. J. 2000. Encyclopedia of sociology. New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Brewer, M. B., & Hewstone, M. 2004. Social cognition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Conner, M., & Norman, P. 1996. Predicting health behaviour: Research and practice with social cognition models. Buckingham: Open University Press. Hawkins, D. R. 2002. Power vs. force: The hidden determinants of human behavior. Carlsbad, Calif: Hay House. Kay, J. 2006. Managing behaviour in the early years. New York: Continuum. Kondrat, M. 2002. Actor-centered social work: Re-visioning "person-in-environment" through a critical theory lens. Social work, 47, 4, 435-448. Kunda, Z. 1999. Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Mathew, L., & Bankston, W. B. 1999. political structure, economic inequality, and Homicide: A Cross-National Analysis. Deviant Behavior, 19,1, 27-55. Sampson, R., Morenoff, J., & Gannon-Rowley, T. 2002. Assessing "neighborhood effects": Social processes and new directions in research. Annual review of sociology, 28, 1, 443-478. Stone, S. 2004. Reflecting on the social environment dimensions of HB &SE. Journal of Human Behavior and social the environment, 10, 3, 111-118. Wichers, R. 1996. A theory of individual behavior. San Diego: Academic Press. Read More