From_a_Socially_Psychological_Perspective__Fundamental_Concepts_of_Human_Interaction

From a Socially Psychological Perspective: Fundamental Concepts of Human Interaction By Teri Large (Warrick) Psy 300 Richard Alpert September 1, 2013 From a Socially Psychological Perspective: Fundamental Concepts of Human Interaction Human interaction; a behavior exhibited by all humankind and the one behavior or concept that does not rely on culture, dynamics, or religion for a description. However, behavior in social interactions depend on a variety of factors ranging from brain chemistry, individual belief’s, to cultural influences and possibly family or social dynamics. Human interaction is interaction with one or more people at any one time. Many settings support human interactions and can influence the behaviors exhibited by the people in them. Social psychology looks at human behavior as influenced by other people and the social context in which this occurs (Kowalski and Westen, 2011). Social psychologists examine the factors that lead us to behave in a given way in the presence of others, and look at the conditions under which certain behavior/actions and feelings occur. Social psychology studies the way these feelings, thoughts, beliefs, intentions, and goals are constructed and how such psychological factors, in turn, influence our interactions with others (McLeod, S. A., 2007). In this essay, we will look at human behaviors and how they change in social settings and how social interactions are influenced by the behavior of others. Believed by some, individuals are composed of three elements: who you think you are, who others think you are, and who you are really. One thing that makes us all human though, is the need for human interaction. People have an innate desire, or a strong need to belong. People affiliate, or seek out and spend time with others, for many reasons. They interact to accomplish instrumental goals such as charity planning, or meeting over dinner to discuss business plans, while other interactions reflect family ties, shared interests, desires for companionship, or sexual interest (Fiske, 1992; Mills & Clark, 1994). If one were able to observe other individuals in their private settings as well as their social settings, he/she would recognize that many social settings elicit different behaviors from most people as they adapt or conform to roles having found no commonalities. This may be because some people feel more comfortable around others, their friends, and feel they can be their true selves around them. Some may be embarrassed of their behavior behind closed doors or do not want others to know they display unacceptable behaviors. Some may simply enjoy letting loose when in social settings because they cannot in private. Depending on the concepts and whether people develop social schemas (specific ways of viewing others), social facilitation (becoming more active/productive in the presence of others), or social loafing (stepping back, decreasing activity/production and allowing others to take control), groupthink is usually a factor in many of the behaviors exhibited. Whatever the reasons, and no matter the consequences, humans do display different behaviors in different social settings. Social groups are a basic part of human life. Except in rare cases, we all typically belong to at least one, if not many different types of social groups. Groups give security, companionship, values, certain norms, and for some, identity. Beyond primary groups of family and friends, most of people have several secondary groups that exist at work, school or within a “group type community.” Within every group, an individual belongs to, different effects, advantages, disadvantages, and consequences exist. The effects associated with human interaction that we will discuss in this essay are groupthink, social loafing, and social facilitation. Let us examine the following concepts of human interaction associated with: College life and Track running. Each situation has a different group impact and groupthink approach for individuals on a personal level. The perceived group level in terms of psychology concepts - a precursor leading to peer-pressure could be someone who is socially awkward or into trends, a follower type personality; an individual seeking to fit in, seeking acceptance as opposed to being left out (Kowalski and Westen, 2011). Some consequences to this type of personality and behaviors are addiction, present in various forms, such as alcohol, which can be extremely harmful, even fatal. Applying the college student example here can easily show that an innocent, unwaveringly alert, yet inattentive student, living on or off campus, can fall prey to such hazards in the search to belong. Seeking to participate in campus activities, contests, sports, and possibly search out sorority/keg houses; seeking commonalities and social acceptance, the groupthink mentality and social facilitation concepts applied in this situation, reflect on how the two concepts can also deliver negative impacts. The diligent, intelligent, yet socially-depraved student may undergo changes to his/her appearance or his/her hobbies and interests - to conform or reflect those of the group he/she is seeking to join. More examples of conforming are changing the way he/she dresses, the music he/she listens to; such as switching from country style clothing (jeans, t-shirt, and boots), and music (Luke Byran and Reba MacIntire), to a more classy dress attire (slacks, blouse, and dress shoes) and more soft rock or hip hop (Chris Doughtry and Lady Antebellum). There are different levels of social absorption that a student may fit into, one or more listed in various levels. Example: Substance abuse: when completely dependent and/or continuous binge drinking, social intervention and therapy may be required as the individual usually no longer sees or perceives a problem. The student continues to repeat the same negative behavior, i.e. grades going from A/B to C/D’s or failing, classes skipped, grocery money spent on drugs or alcohol, loss of interest, change in personal philosophy, ways of thinking, sleeping patterns and mood swings. If moderate or social drinking occurs, social intervention may not be required. When the individual breaks the conformity of the environment or group in which elicited the poor choices and behaviors, the person in question may experience a moment of clarity. Recognizing the negative influence of their behaviors on themselves and those around them, allowing the individual the realization of whom and what they have become, thus, they are able to make positive, personal changes (sobriety), even under peer pressure. Often using excuses for not drinking, if need be. With support and encouragement, this change can maintain and allow the individual to revert to their typical “normal, acceptable behavior.” The impact of social facilitation on a track runner would depend on their personal values, views, and goals. The application of social facilitation towards a track runner works in much the same premise as the study conducted by Norman Triplett (1898), which found cyclists elicited better personal times, achieving higher goals as opposed to cycling alone (eg individual time trial). Triplett's experiments demonstrate the “co-action effect,” a phenomenon whereby “increased task performance comes about by the mere presence of others doing the same task” (Triplett, 1898). The results of this study apply to the track runner as well. Working in positive groups reinforces the social facilitation concept, enhancing personal performance whether motivated by competition or personal goals, for example, when running the 500 or 1000-meter dash, one runner starts while another waits for them to handoff so they can run until they hand off, etc. until the end of the race. Especially the starting runner, his/her performance is imperative to the results of the race, and this is a great example of social facilitation, as each runner pushes to perform or out perform, whether it is against each other or the competing team, either way the group feeds off of each other. The presence or perception of challenge can improve performance under healthy conditions/circumstances. Research has shown that the presence of others generally increases motivation and drive. Dashiell (1935) found that the presence of an audience facilitated subjects' multiplication performance by increasing the number of simple multiplications completed. By contrast, negative social facilitation, while training to increase stamina and fitness, a runner evaluated by world champions may feel intimidated or inadequate. If the presence of competition and challenges occur with a task less familiar to an individual or a more complex task than an individual is accustomed to (under stressful conditions causing anxiety or nervousness) this can cause social loafing or hinder an individuals performance instead of encouraging positive results. Under these stresses to perform or impress, the runner may miss a marker, trip, or overexert. It seems, then, that the extent of social facilitation or inhibition depends upon the nature of the interaction between the task and the performer. In some cases, the presence of co-actors/audience improved the quality of performance (Dashiell 1935) but in others, it impaired the quality (though it increased the quantity of, say, multiplications). Culture appears to play a role in the willingness to conform to a group. Stanley Milgram (1957-1959) found that conformity was higher in Norway than in France. This attribute is to Norway’s longstanding tradition of social responsibility, as compared to France’s cultural focus on individualism. However, Pessin (1933) found an opposite audience effect, namely that subjects needed fewer trials at learning a list of nonsense words when on their own than when in front of an audience. Japan likewise found that when alienated, Japanese students would be susceptible to anti-conformity (giving intentional incorrect answers when the group had the correct answers) (Ashe, 1951). One third of the time - significantly higher than has been seen in replications of the Asch Studies before, when factoring in environment vs. personal susceptibility to group-think/ social facilitation and social loafing, self esteem and self value help weigh in (Milgram, 1963). If a person perceives others to be able to “bring more” to the group, they will wait and see what is expected of them- which is usually minimal. Others may fear withstanding the worst of the majority of the work and wait to see the delivery so they are not “suckered” into doing the hardest parts or the entire project. Typically, social loafing is absent when there is a mutual respect in the group or perception of equality, such as a close-knit group of friends or co-workers. In essence, environment and personal susceptibility factor in to whether a person will contribute the bare minimum by way of social loafing, push to the extreme via social facilitation, or avoid conflict by using groupthink. One of the most fascinating aspects of social psychology is human interaction and its concepts. Environment, culture, and personal values all have strong ties in facets of human studies. Majorities of individuals conform to society’s definition of normal behavior; however, do we act the same within a social setting as we do when we feel that no one else is looking' The conduction of studies on the theories that society, obedience, authoritarian roles, as well as the need to belong, influences and changes human behavior in social settings; therefore, it is safe to conclude that, yes, society and its behaviors are influenced by a variety of factors concerning social and human interactions in different social settings. Resources Dashiell, J. F. (1935). Experimental studies of the influence of social situations on the behavior of individual human adults. http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php'term=SocialFacilitation http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/02/stanley-milgram-obedience-to authority.php McLeod, S. A. (2007). Social Psychology - Simply Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-psychology.html McLeod, S. A. (2011). Social Facilitation - Simply Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/Social-Facilitation.html Pessin, J. (1933). The comparative effects of social and mechanical stimulation on memorizing. The American Journal of Psychology, 45(2), 263-270. Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition.The American journal of psychology, 9(4), 507-533.