Social 'Code of Conduct'

The term Conduct can be defined as “the manner in which a person behaves.” According to the Athenian philosopher Plato, “Human behavior flows from three main sources: desire, emotion, and knowledge.”

Given the foundations upon which Plato determines behavior, I conclude that behavior, particularly social behavior involving human interaction, is more of an art-form, rather than a scientific method. The art of human interaction not only poses a large influence on our behavior and its characteristics, but also reflects it. Simply said, the interactions we experience influence our behavior, while on the flip-side, our behavior helps to dictate the interactions.

There are a multitude of different types of behaviors that are influenced by social situations, and vice-a-versa. Among the diverse forms of behavior, I have found the psychological aspects of bystander intervention, and the act of conformity, to be intriguing.

Bystander Intervention

The term ‘bystander intervention’ is a type of altruism, or the act of helping another person in need without obvious personal benefit or likely detriment to oneself. Although the true motive behind acts of altruism continues to be disputed, their presence within our society is apparent, though not always prevalent.

During the late 1960’s and early 1970’s two social psychologists by the names of John Darley and Bibb Latané conducted a number of experiments on the mental processes and decisions that surround, what they called, the “Bystander or Genovese Effect”. Their studies were inspired by the brutal murder of a woman by the name of Kitty Genovese that involved a large number of bystanders which were present during her attack, and none of which came to Genovese’s aide. The Bystander or Genovese Effect suggests that the larger the group of bystanders is, the less likely any one bystander is to offer a victim help in an emergency; this conclusion developed a concept known as ‘diffusion of responsibility’ which states that the more bystanders present, the less each one feels responsible to help.

In other words, if a single individual is faced with an emergency he bears the sole responsibility for assisting the victim; however, if others are present, the responsibility is not focused uniquely on any one of the group members and is instead, shared among all of them.

Darley and Latané also created a “multi-stage model” to explain and simplify the “decision-making process” that occurs during bystander intervention and is performed by each bystander during the event in question; these stages include: “notice the emergency, interpret it as an emergency, assume personal responsibility to intervene, decide how to intervene, and then actually intervene”. Furthermore, it is important to remember that at any point in this process, a bystander may make a decision that leads to inaction by skipping a step or deciding not to move to the next step of the decision-making process.

In my opinion, there are many reasons why people do not intervene, the majority of which include an imbalance between an individual’s personal advantage and the level of risk associated with the intervention. Much like many other behaviors with a group influence, the presence or absence of bystander intervention apparently goes along with whatever is considered the social norm of the crowd.

Conformity

Similar to bystander intervention, the act of conformity is almost completely determined, created, and developed by group influence. Conformity is essentially the process of changing one’s attitude or behavior in order to accommodate the standards of a group. During the act of conformity, an individual’s priorities and concerns can drastically change from an internal aspiration of personal gain, into an external desire of acceptance.

During the 1950’s an American social psychologist by the name of Solomon Asch performed studies on the behavior of conformity and the “powers of persuasion” that are evident in peer pressure and group influence. Asch unveiled that more-often-than-not, an individual will make correct decisions, as well as more desirable choices when away from group settings and during times of decreased peer pressure; thus, concluding that these positive decisions and choices are partly due to the absence of concern associated with “fitting-in”, as well as the level of acceptance that the individual’s actions demonstrate within a group. The Asch experiments also demonstrated that people tend to conform rather than be the lone-dissenting-voice due to fear of failure, out casting, and blame.

Conformity is a typical and commonly defaulted behavior and, in some cultures, possibly even an expected mannerism, having societal consequence for its absence.

Associated Phenomena

Both bystander interventions, as well as the act of conformity, are significantly affected by the three psychological phenomena: social facilitation, social loafing, and groupthink

• Social facilitation occurs when the presence of other people facilitates or hinders individual performance. This conveys the mentality of ‘going along with the crowd’ or the avoidance of being the ‘odd man out’.

• Social loafing is a reduction in individual effort or responsibility when in a group. This particular paradox can be both an external appointment, as well as an internal decisiveness; it describes the lack of responsibility which is assigned to or assumed by an individual, when in a group setting.

• Groupthink occurs when the desire for harmony or conformity in a group, outweighs the ideals of progress and positivity; thus, resulting in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome.

We often see these 3 phenomena through public assemblies, such as governments and large corporations; these are frequently the arenas in which we openly witness individuals avoid being the ‘odd man out’, refrain from accepting personal responsibility, and willingly making faulty decisions, causing ill-advised results.

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, the social behaviors such as ‘bystander intervention’ and ‘conformity’ are considered ordinary, widespread mannerisms that we can all relate to. The way we interact or CONDUCT ourselves with one another, whether in a group setting or one-on-one, helps to determine who we are as individuals. Through socializing, we develop the abilities to learn, and possibly understand, each other with the ultimate goal of co-existing together.

Just remember that human interaction is not an exact science, it is an art; it takes skill and creativity.

References

Britannica: Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.mwu.eb.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/mwu

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). SOCIAL INFLUENCE: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/205845016?accountid=35812

Kowalski, R., & Westen, D. (2011). Psychology (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Rutkowski, G. K., Gruder, C. L., & Romer, D. (1983). Group cohesiveness, social norms, and bystander intervention. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 44(3), 545-552. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.3.545

Stephen, B. K. (2002). Social influences on ethical behavior in organizations. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 233-236. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/220138935?accountid=35812

Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. (2013). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink