Introduction
to Social Behavior : By birth, humans are social creatures. Indeed, without social interactions (the support of caregivers), no infant would survive. Even when we become capable of living independently, very few people seek to live in isolation. Instead, we generally welcome social interactions, and no study of behavior would be complete without considering these interactions.
The study of social behavior is often referred to as "social psychology", but the reality is that studying social interactions is not solely the domain of psychologists--sociologists and anthropologists, among others, also study social interactions in various ways. What distinguishes social psychology from these other disciplines is the emphasis on the individual as the focus of study--that is, social psychologists tend to focus on how individuals act in social situations, and how they are influenced by social processes. Sometimes, the focus is on how the individual is affected by others--what is called social influence.
Obviously, social behavior is a broad topic, and there is a wealth of material available related to almost any aspect of the subject. Apart from the discussion in the text, you may find the following sources useful for further exploration.
Perspectives on Aggression
You only have to pick up a newspaper or watch the nightly news to realize that aggressive behavior is all too common. Murders and assaults by individuals, riots at political demonstrations or sporting events, and wars are never far from the headlines. Why is aggression so common? And is there anything that society can do about it?
For psychologists, trying to understand behavior is always the primary goal. To many aggression is an innate drive, which arose as a product of the competition which Darwin called natural selection -survival of the fittest. To psychologists from the other approaches, aggressive behavior is learned, like all behavior. Thus, the approaches fundamentally differ in terms of explaining how aggression occurs.
While one might be inclined to regard the dispute as largely theoretical, and therefore irrelevant to everyday life, the implications of the theories are significant in terms of deciding how society should deal with aggression. To those who believe aggression is an innate drive, and therefore unavoidable, the goal is to try to channel aggression into appropriate activities, like sports instead of war. Doing so, they argue, produces a release of drive energy called catharsis. By contrast, those who believe that aggression is learned argue that providing opportunities for "catharsis" really simply teaches people to engage in more aggressive behavior.
Television, movies, and video/computer games are often full of violence, either simulated (in movies and games) or real (in the case of television news and "docudramas"). What impact, if any, does this frequent exposure to aggressive behavior have on people? According to social learning theory, it will make aggression more likely; the concern is particularly significant when talking about the impact on children, who are presumably more impressionable. There have been thousands of studies of the issue in the past forty years, and while the majority of the studies clearly favor the social learning interpretation over catharsis, individual studies always have limitations, and the debates about public policy continue. The issue is further muddied, because some would say that, regardless of the theoretical arguments, there is no practical impact of observing violence, because most people are capable of discriminating between fantasy and reality. Let's hope so, because the indications are that entertainment media are more saturated with graphic visual portrayals of violence today than ever.
Perspectives on Prosocial Behavior
While the debates about aggression in general, and media violence in particular, continue, one must remember that not all social behavior is negative. Indeed, there are many instances in which people help others, sometimes at great risk or cost to themselves. Helping a person in distress represents an example of altruism, a form of prosocial behavior (empathy and making amends for wrongs are other examples). What motivates someone to help another person? And can society do anything to promote such behavior?
At the most basic level, the debate focusses on whether true altruism even exists--that is, will anyone really help someone if there is truly nothing to gain? From a Biological point of view, such behavior would seem contrary to the demands of natural selection; instead kin altruism suggests that one only helps others who are perceived as genetically related--one's family first, then one's tribe. A Cognitive variant, social exchange theory, suggests that altruism involves perceived gains, but that the gains can be social rather than genetic--for example, if I help you, then you may later be able to help me in some other way. At any point critics can still claim the existence of a gain which may not yet be conceivable.
Applying the Concepts: Are Aggression and Altruism on the Same Dimension? When we hear the word "altruism", we immediately think of pro-social behavior, that is, a behavior that looks after the well-being of others. When we hear the word "aggression", we often think of antisocial behavior, behavior that disrupts the well-being of others. Just as prosocial behavior and antisocial behavior seem to be the opposites of each other, so too we often assume that altruism and aggression are the opposites of each other. The initial implication is that an aggressive person would not show altruistic behavior, and an altruistic person would not show aggressive behavior. For example, we may say, "X could not have started that fight; he's a very caring and helpful person." Or, "Y is such a violent person, she would never agree to help someone else." But are we right? Are altruism and aggression really two sides of the same coin?
What the tests reveal is, first, that antisocial behavior, including aggression, is independent of altruism. That means that an individual who is aggressive may, in other situations, act altruistically. Likewise, a person who is altruistic may, in other circumstances, act aggressively. Antisocial behavior and prosocial behavior, then, do not seem to be opposites of each other: they are distinct from each other and often co-exist as tendencies in the same person. It appears, then, that X may be a caring and helpful person, but still be responsible for the outbreak of violence; and Y may be a very violent person, but still demonstrate helping behaviors.
It was also found that the tendency to be antisocial seems to be a result of both genetic influences and environmental influences. Thus, both the Biological Approach and the Behaviorist Approach have support for their explanations of aggressive behavior. But altruistic behavior showed a different result: the only influence on altruistic behavior was found to be environmental. In this case, it seems that the Behaviorist Approach receives support for its explanation that altruistic behavior is learned.
It would be interesting to try to understand the AntiSocial Behavior present around us. We can all try to understand the causes, roots and outcomes of AntiSocial behavior. We can attain better results only and only if we act and wonder with an impartial and secular stance. Perhaps; many of our thoughts and beliefs are not what they are!!! Perhaps we aren't who we think we are...!