Essay on Developmental and Social psychology The WritePass Journal

Essay on Developmental and Social psychologyï » ¿ Patch 1 Essay on Developmental and Social psychologyï » ¿ , p. 202). In effect, this theory demonstrates that children’s personalities develop from challenges which are not immediately understood. Hence, Piaget believed that imbalances exist between children’s modes of thinking and environment events which â€Å"prompt them to make mental adjustments that enable them to cope with puzzling new experiences and thereby restore cognitive equilibrium† (Kipp and Shaffer, 2012, p. 202). Cognitive theorists thereby argue that children simply adapt to the environment through their own cognitive abilities which ultimately shapes their personality. Conclusion Overall, there are clearly different views as to how an individual’s personality is shaped and although many argue that it is inherited, others disagree and believe that it is acquired from societal influences. Arguably, after reviewing both the cognitive development theory and the psychoanalytic theory it seems as though personality is in fact a mix of both nature and nurture. This is because, although children do have some traits that are inherited and exist within the unconscious mind, an individual’s thought process does actually develop from adaption. Accordingly, children are thus prompted to make mental adjustments that enable them to cope with puzzling experiences which widely influences their own personality. Patch 2 Social Psychology Introduction Social influence happens when an individual’s behaviour is affected by external factors such as conformity, compliance and obedience, bystander intervention, social loathing and social facilitating. Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerald (1955, p. 629) thus made it clear that social influence is the result of two psychological needs; informational social influence and normative social influence which are the need to be right and the need to be liked. Arguably, social influence thereby refers to the effect in which individuals have upon one another and can happen intentionally or unintentionally as a result of the way in which the person who has been influenced perceives themselves (Changing Minds, 2002, p. 1). Concepts of Social Influence Conformity, compliance and obedience are the three main areas of social influence and often occur simultaneously. This is because, â€Å"those that conform tend to be obedient and compliant† (Constable et al, 2002, p. 1).   Nevertheless, whilst conformity refers to the changes an individual makes so that they can be more like others, compliance relates to the changes an individual makes as a result of being asked. Furthermore, obedience refers to the process of obeying an order that has been made and often means that the individual has no choice but to make the changes unlike the former two social influences where the individual does have a choice. Coercion is the strongest form of social influences, nonetheless, since this forces and individual to change their behaviour even though they are reluctant to do so. Coercion is thereby the least common form of social influence since real feelings may not actually be changed. Hence, where social influence occurs voluntarily, it is evident that the individual will have made the changes themselves and therefore changes the way they feel about a particular situation. This was recognised by Rashotte who pointed out that; â€Å"social influence is the process by which individuals make real changes to their feelings and behaviours as a result of interaction with others who are perceived to be similar, desirable or expert.† In effect, Rashotte (1999, p. 4426) does not believe that social influences also consists of compliance and obedience because of the fact that individuals do not have a choice but to make the changes required from them. Because of this, it is unlikely that the feelings of an individual will actually be changed if they have been forced to make the transformation. It is questionable whether these views are accurate, nonetheless, since it has been put by Perloff (2012, p. 18); â€Å"social influence – coercion and persuasion – exerts powerful, not always positive, effects on human behaviour.† Therefore, even if the social influence has resulted involuntary, this does not indicate that social influence has not taken place. Instead, a more powerful form of change has been exerted which has had a significant impact upon human behaviour. Social facilitating is the process whereby individuals improve their behaviours when other people are watching. Therefore, whenever a person is undertaking a task, it is likely that they will do better at that task if other people are watching as they will alter their behaviour so that they can impress the onlookers. This is a mild but common form of social influence and illustrates that people can be affected by the mere presence of others. This can, however, be real, imagined or implied and was first recognised by Norman Triplett in 1898 when he conducted a study on the speed record of cyclists. It was concluded by Triplett that the speed of cyclists was faster when racing against each other than it was when racing against time alone (McLeod, 2011, p. 1). Social facilitating does depend on the individual concerned, nonetheless, because the behaviour will not always be improved and in some cases, the quality of the individuals performance may be impaired (Aiello, 2001, p.   163). Social loafing is similar to social facilitation, yet whilst social facilitation tends to improve an individual’s performance, social loafing tends to slow someone down and prevents them from working as hard. Nevertheless, social loafing does not occur when being watched by others but when working in a group with others since it is felt that many individuals work harder when they are alone than when they are in a group. This is also known as the free-rider theory which means that â€Å"self interested individuals lack incentives to contribute voluntarily to the provision of public goods, or to reveal their true valuations of such goods† (Asch and Gigliotti, 1991, p. 33). An example of social loathing was provided in a study conducted on individuals involved in a tug-of-war game. Here, it was found that â€Å"people playing tug-of-war while blindfolded pulled harder if they thought they were competing alone. When they thought others were on their team, they made less of an effort† (Coon and Mitterer, 2008, p. 541). Perspectives and Methods of Research It is evident that social influence arises because of a number of different influential factors and the only way this can be identified is by undertaking a number of different activities involving humans. This enables a determination to be made as to whether the true feelings of the individuals involved have been influenced. Nevertheless, because of the complex nature scientific studies have, it is questionable whether the thoughts, feelings and behaviours of human beings can be accurately measured through empirical methods of investigation. This is because, it has been argued by Thomas Kuhn (1970, p. 4) that empirical methods of investigation are â€Å"influenced by prior beliefs and experiences.† Essentially, it could therefore be said that the studies conducted would have produced different results if they were undertaken by a different scientist. Conclusion Overall, there are a number of different concepts of social influence which appear to have been proven by empirical methods of investigation. These include conformity, compliance and obedience, bystander intervention, social loathing and social facilitating and can occur voluntary or involuntary. Social influence thus arises as a result of two human needs which are the need to be right and the need to be liked and happen depending upon the ways in which the individual perceives themselves. In proving these different concepts, a number of scientific studies have been carried out which all aim to demonstrate how social influence affects the changes of human behaviour. Nevertheless, although these methods have proven workable in explaining human behaviour, the accuracy of these methods has been questioned. This is because; it is believed that different outcomes would be produced if a different person conducted the studies since past experiences and current knowledge are said to widely i nfluence the tests that are being performed. Despite this, it is evident that changes to human behaviour frequently arise which is largely the result of the changes that are being made within society whether they are intentional or unintentional. References Aiello, J. R. (2001). Social Facilitation from Triplett to Electronic. Group Dynamics, Theory, Research and Practice. 5(3). Asch, P. and Gigliotti, G. A. (1991). The Free-Rider Paradox: Theory, Evidence and Teaching. The Journal of Economic Education, 22(1). Bjorklund, D. F. (2011). Children’s Thinking. Wadsworth Publishing Co Inc. 5th Edition. Bouchard, T. J. Lykken, D. T. McGue, M. Segal, N. L. and Tellegen, A. (1990). Sources of Human Psychological Differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. Science New Series, 250(4978). Changing Minds. (2002). Social Influence. Retrieved 27 December, 2012, from http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/social_influence.htm Constable, S. Schuler, Z. Klaber, L. and Rakauskas, M. (1999). Conformity, Compliance and Obedience. Retrieved 27 December, 2012, from units.muohio.edu/psybersite/cults/cco.shtml Coon, D. and Mitterer, J. O. (2008). Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behaviour with Concept Maps and Reviews, Cengage Learning. Crews, F. (1996). The Verdict on Freud. Psychological Science, 7(63). Deutsche, M. and Gerard, H. B. (1955). A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influences upon Individual Judgement. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 51(629). Honderich, T. (1995). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. Kipp, K. and Shaffer, D. (2012). Developmental Psychology: Childhood and Adolescence. Wadsworth Publishing Co. 9th Edition. Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago University Press. 2nd Edition. Lam, V. O’Donnell, V. L. Gillibrand, R. (2011). Development Psychology. Prentice Hall. 1st Edition. Loehlin, J. C. (1982). John Locke and Behaviour Genetics. Behaviour Genetics, 13(1). McLeod, S. (2007). Nature Nurture in Psychology. Retrieved 27 December, 2012, from simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html McLeod, S. (2011). Social Facilitation. Retrieved 27 December, 2012, from simplypsychology.org/Social-Facilitation.html Perloff, R. M. (2012). The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the Twenty-First Century. Taylor Francis. 4th Edition. Rashotte, L. (1999). Social Influence. Retrieved 27 December, 2012, from www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/fragr_image/media/social Shaffer, D. R. (2009). Social and Personality Development. Cengage Learning, 6th Edition. Stocks, J. L. (1915). Plato and the Tripartite Soul. Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy, 24(94). Shuttleworth, M. (2010). Aristotle’s Psychology. Retrieved 26 December, 2012, from http://explorable.com/aristotles-psychology.html Tomasic, T. (2006). Personality: Nature vs. Nurture or Something in Between? Retrieved 27 December, 2012, from http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro06/web1/ttomasic.html