Social behaviours are those behavioural traits that are shared by members of a social group. Such behaviours may be shared through norms, ritual, territorial behaviour, mutual aid, affiliation, and even violence. Social behaviour is typically repeated behavior amongst two or more members of the same species and covers any behaviour where one member behaves significantly differently from the other in the context of the group. This is because of an interaction amongst those members during the course of their interactions with each other.
One aspect of this interaction is called a mob mentality. Mob mentality is also known as ‘groupthink’ in some quarters, and refers to the process by which people in a social grouping attempt to override the effects of their decisions on the rest of the group by resorting to social behaviours that are collective but individualistic in nature. There is a danger here for the individual who does not adhere to the collective norm to be ostracised by his or her peers. This is especially so in cases such as rape, witch hunts, and even in the political arena where controversial public statements can have dire consequences. These mob mentality tendencies can have long lasting effects on individuals, often shaping their personality and beliefs in fundamental ways. Consequently, many people are preoccupied with studying social behaviours and communication across the human communication spectrum, in order to avoid being lumped into a category of people who fall into the wrong group.
This study of social behaviours has produced some interesting distinctions. People are either homosapiens, or eusocial animals. Within the last century there has been a tendency towards a move away from homosapiens towards less cosmopolitan forms of life, such as subsociality. Subsociality, therefore, co-exists with homo sapiens but is also related to the evolution of culture.
In this paper we use the example of an experiment carried out at the University of Bristol in the UK. The researchers led by Professor Peter Wells had members of a high school study group make use of a computer and were then asked to complete a complex task on it. At the end of the task they were subjected to a battery of tests that measured their personality and cognitive processing. At the end of the study the results showed that those subjects who had made use of the social environment during the task performed better than those who made no use of it.
This experiment brought about a wealth of data on the effects of social environment on self-concept and behaviour. The results showed that those subjects who made social investment during the task benefited more than those subjects who made no investment. However, what was more surprising was the finding that this benefit was only apparent when they considered themselves to be part of a group. Those who did not consider themselves part of a group had no benefit from the experience. What is behind this?
This study is significant because it helps us understand the role that self-concept and social competence play in how we perceive the world and how we interact with others. It is likely that we make different social decisions based on our self-concepts and how we think other people see us. This means that we need to pay attention to how we define ourselves and how these decisions affect our behaviour. Our interpretation of events and other people’s reactions can be highly influential when it comes to shaping our self-concept and self Concepts.
The phenomenon of this study is an example of how social context shapes perception. In essence, it highlights how social behaviours are influenced by how they are presented to others. A common thread throughout many of psychology studies is the fact that most people describe their own experiences in unique ways which do not necessarily coincide with the patterns of other people’s experiences. In psychology this is called ‘social construction’. It is the process by which people build upon each other and give each other new meanings and new perceptions. It is an interesting area of study which has been used in fields as diverse as business, sport and politics.
The study also indicates that children tend to model their parents behaviour and that this will also influence their own behaviour. For example, parents who emphasise sociality, fairness and individuality in a child are likely to create more socially responsible individuals who are willing to engage in collective work. On the other hand, individuals who receive greater parental investment and experience greater emotional stress are also likely to exhibit more anti-social behaviour. This suggests that being exposed to high levels of stress may increase anti-social behaviour in humans. Whilst this research is at an early stage it makes sense to look at how changes in behaviour might relate to children’s social investment and that of their parents.