Understanding Interpersonal Behaviour - Essay Example

Introduction A group is an interaction of two or more individuals who interact with each other, share characteristics and collectively share a sense of unity. Group members may depend on each other (Barlow, 2013). Groups may vary in size with some being small while other may be large. There are also different types if groups such as cultural groups, groups formed at the workplace and social groups. Individual behaviour has for a long time been a topic of discussion among psychologists with different schools of thoughts and perspectives seeking to explain the same. The behaviour of humans falls within a range with some being unusual, common, acceptable while some are outside the acceptable limits. Individual behavior according research is a product of a multitude of factors that are interrelated (Capozza, 2000). As such, these factors are true for both particular actions and patterns of behavior. Based on the complexity of the said factors, it becomes challenging to underpin the exact influence of individual behavior with broad characteristics such as individual thoughts, genetics, feelings, social interaction with other individuals, macro-social environment, and individual interaction between groups (Barlow, 2013). In this essay, the researcher will answer the question: “In what ways does an individual’s behavior change when s/he is part of a group?”Considerationof various methods, perspectives and underpinning of epistemological assumptions will be undertaken in answering the question. It will also be necessary to consider the context of the individual and group such as cultural and societal factors and the importance of interactions, experience, values and social norms (Brown, 2010). The key factors that are involved in group behavior include conformity, obedience, groupthink, prejudice, social identity theory, schemas and stereotypes (Brown, 2010). These factors will be discussed and evaluated in the essay alongside relevant research and theories. The rationale of discussing the aforementioned factors is due to how they influence the behavior of an individual under influence in a group. Groups Group behavior is a situation in which individuals interact in groups which may be small or large, and within which certain values, norms and characteristics are internalized within an individual, status differentials and communication patterns (Capozza2000, p.16).Majority of research that is conducted in the area of group behavior have been mainly based on experimental perspectives in psychology (Capozza, 2000). However, qualitative and critical psychologists have argued that there is less focus on studying behavior in a context which involves acknowledging the impact of culture and society on group behavior, environments, social roles, relationships and movement from laboratory experiments and measurements (Capozza, 2000). There is still a focus on affective and cognitive aspects of behavior within mainstream psychology whilst processes at individual level that are fundamental in both social and group processes have not been always acknowledged. According to Nafstad and Blakar (2012), “A fully-fledged social psychology cannot be based solely on experimental laboratory research alone p.285.” Obedience A key area that is within group behavior is obedience. In studying obedience, psychologists assess the tendency of individuals to comply with orders from a figure in authority and in regard to group behavior, adaptations of individuals to comply with the wishes and rules of the entire group. When alone, individuals may contravene but when under a group and with authority figures in place, an individual may be obliged to obey. Milgram, concerned with the atrocities committed by the Nazi Germany, explored the effects of obedience in individuals when such individuals are subjected to authority (Milgram, 1974).From thethe experiment, 65 percent of the teachers administered the full voltage (450 volts) suggesting that obedience is related to situation pressure that is eminent in groups. The Agency Theory In explaining the actions of the individuals during the experiment, Milgramproposed the Agency theory). According to the theory (Milgram, 1974), there is an autonomous state in which individuals make decisions based on own beliefs and ideas and the agent state in which an individual gives up responsibility and defers the responsibility to an individual of higher status (Milgram, 1974). The theory of group think can also explain the behavior in the study. In group think, group decisions are often dangerous, irresponsible and made under extreme pressure from domination by a powerful leader. Based on the theory, members in a group make faulty decisions due to group pressure which may lead to the deterioration of reality testing, mental efficiency and moral judgment. Individuals in groups that are affected by group think often ignore alternatives and make irrational decisions. Groups are vulnerable to groupthink when the members of the group share similar backgrounds, and when the group is insulated from external opinions. Several ethical issues within the study by Milgram have risen. Such issues include the distress to the participants, lack of debriefing and deception on the nature of the study. Even though Milgram carried out several variations to the original experiment, it still has flaws in the methodology. Due to the setting of the experiment in the laboratory, there arose a distinct lack of ecological validity since the obedience that is portrayed when an authority figure can not necessarily generalize and represent real-life interactions in social settings. It has also been suggested that the experiment by Milgram was caught up in broader processes of psychology. The said is due to the authority of the experimentation and the power of science that is suggested in the study and in specific the instances where the experimenter acts as the authority figure in the peer-group by urging the participants to carry on with the experiment. It has also been argued that Milgram’s experiment dramatizes the capacity for violence in people and the demonstration and measure of obedience is only short term. If a psychologist takes the said points into consideration, then it is evident that the need for a multi-perspective view in regard to group behavior as concentrating on lab experiments solely cannot fully account for explanation of obedience and behavior of individuals in groups. Further evidence to this is suggested by the fact that Milgram fails to make a concise conclusion for the study. Conformity Conformity is another area within understanding how individual behavior changes when individuals are in groups. Conformity is basically the influence on a person that may alter the behavior or beliefs of the individual in relation to the pressure of the group to enable the individual fit into the group (Capozza, 2000). According to Capozza (2000), when in a group, an individual is confronted by three types of conformity namely normative, informational and identification. Normative conformity is the desire of an individual to be liked by the group; identification is conformity to a social role while informational conformity is the desire of theindividual to be correct. Asch’s line of study explored normative conformity in individuals due to the attempts of participants to avoid rejection from other members in agroup. Informal conformity is also part of the line of study as participants desire to be correct when in a group. When under a group, according to Asch, individuals will attempt to interact with the group and display the effects of influence from majority of the group members. Social Norms When part of a group, the behavior of an individual is also likely to change due to the social norms that are often the unspoken rules in a group (Schwartz, 2011). Not only do these social norms shape human behavior but also shape the attitudes of individuals. The behavior of an individual thus varies based on the group that the individual is part of, a characteristic in society which allows norms to have a heavy impact on social settings. In the absence of social norms, the human society would probably not function the way it is functioning currently (Tajfel& Turner, 1979). Human beings would be forced to become abstract in behavioras there would be lacking pre-tested and standardized lifestyle (Schwartz, 2011). Individuals would thus have to make an array of choices for themselves. With norms being institutionalized, humans tend to manipulate their behaviorperhaps as a direct result of the desire by an individual to be accepted by other individuals in a group and ‘fit in’ with the other members (Tajfel& Turner, 1979). Based on the nature of the norms and the perspectives that an individual has, norms may impact various sections of society both negatively (drug use and racism) and positively (dressing warmly during winter and eating). Social Identity Theory A theory that may be applied in evaluating real life examples is the Social Identity Theory. In the theory, members of a group are thought to derive an individual sense of social identity (Pederson & Pederson, 2012). According to the theory, such groups are important in enhancing the pride and self-esteem of an individual (Schwartz, 2011).As such, an individual within a group will constantly attempt to improve the status in their group, or discriminate others through social categorization (Schwartz, 2011). The said discrimination occurs through stereotypes and prejudice mainly through three cognitive processes. Social categorization, social identification and social comparison are the cognitive processes in play (Schwartz, 2011). Social categorization is the decision by an individual in which group they belong, social identification is more of the overt identification existent within the group while social comparison is the discrimination of the out-group that is believed to be inferior. With the cognitive processes in place, the self-esteem of individuals is increased within the group. Even though it may be argued that the Social Identity Theory provides a full and concise explanation of the formation of both in-groups and out-groups, the theory fails to clearly define the occurrence of the process and does not predict actual behavior. Therefore, even though the theory explains some aspects of social behavior in a group, it cannot be applied in the real world phenomenon as it does not provide a full explanation for real-life behavior of individuals in groups such as terrorism (Schwartz, 2011). In a real-world research incorporating a psychological approach to terrorism, suggestions have been made that it is necessary to restrict cognitive biases from clouding the analysis political situations. Therefore, experimental psychology may not be useful when used solely in explaining and analyzing situations in real-life. However, according to Zimbardo (2002), terrorism is about psychology since it is key in understanding values, motives and the ideology of terrorists. Thus, it is clear that there is debate on how real-life examples of individual behavior in groups should be studied. Conclusion Even though majority of the prominent studies in group and individual behavior are based on experimental psychology, there is tendency for critical, discursive and qualitative psychologist to argue that in exploration of individual behavior in groups, experiences, values and social norms need to be taken into account as opposed to the notion that is held by experimental psychologists that simply recognizes that the said factors only have an ‘effect’. In considering the experiments and debates within the study of changes of individual behavior in groups, it may be appropriate for future research to focus on people at an individual level within the contexts as well as the actions of these individuals when in groups. For instance, the relationships, experiences, social roles and values of individuals need to be considered when drawing conclusions on why individuals act in certain manners when in groups instead of displaying extreme phenomena like in the cases of Zimbardo and Milgram. References Barlow, S. H. (2013). Specialty competencies in group psychology. New York, Oxford University Press. Brown, R. (2010). Prejudice its social psychology. Chichester, West Sussex, Wiley-Blackwell. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10411624. Capozza, D. (2000). Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research. London, Sage Publ. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row Nafstad, H. E. Blakar, R. M. (2012). ‘Ideology and Social Psychology’. Social and Personality Psychology Compass.6 (4), 282-294. Pederson, L., &Pederson, C. S. (2012). The expanded dialectical behavior therapy skills training manual: practical DBT for self-help, and individual and group treatment settings. Eau Claire, WI, Premier Pub. & Media. Schwartz, S. J. (2011). Handbook of identity theory and research. New York, Springer. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979).An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.In W. G. Austin & S. Tajfel, H. (2010). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Col Zimbardo, P.G. (2002) ‘Psychology to Play Key Role in National Centre on Terrorism’. Monitor on Psychology, 33 (11), Retrieved from: Read More