Introduction
Human behaviour and personality are integral components of social science that have been comprehensively analyzed. Significant interest has been in social influence as an intricate component of understanding human behaviours and personalities. The interest is necessitated by the risks of young generations developing negative behaviours and personalities conforming to social influences, leading to drug abuse, failure to respond to imminent threats, or physical aggression. The individuals react based on social cues that they are exposed to that are considered norms that guide their behaviour and personalities. Therefore, this research seeks to answer the question, “how much are our behaviours and personalities influenced by the people we are around?”.
Social Normative and Informative Theories of Human Behavior
Social impact can be inducted into two forms of theoretical premises. The first would be the normative social influence which can be described as a state where people’s behaviours conform to social norms aimed at getting a sense of belonging (Nolan et al., 2008). Research by Hu et al. (2019) posited that normative impulses influenced people to conform to the positive expectations of those around them. Moreover, the assumption is not exclusive to observed norms, whereby people also conform to communicated data about the people around them. The idea is founded on Asch’s experiments that stipulated that an individual may conform to a specific action by ignoring reality and focusing on the imagined concepts that align with the majority (Nolan et al., 2008). The framework supported ideas such as peer pressure as a normative factor that often instigates behaviour relating to substance abuse (Keyzers et al., 2020). The norms, therefore, set a benchmark for social behaviour and personality to which people conform.
The alternative approach is the informational approach that builds on the idea that human behaviour conforms to some social stimulus. The sociological framework was promoted in “A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment” by Deutsch and Gerrard, arguing that when information is deficient, people’s behaviours are autokinetic (Perfumi et al., 2018). They used a light test to present an ambiguous task, such that the participants were exposed to light for a while, and after some time, the light was moved. The participants would then be asked how far the light was moved with a precursor of what others indicated. The autokinetic reaction, in this case, regards an environment or situation that has no social norm attached, thus creating an ambiguous situation for a person to respond to (Perfumi et al., 2018). Therefore, the behaviour would be subjective and erratic and cannot be explained by logic, accepting what they are told as evident truths. As such, the theoretical frameworks guide the research to understanding human behavior and personality.
Social Normative Influences
Involuntary behaviour is expressed in multiple ways in daily life. Nolan et al. (2008) offered an example of such behaviour and personality traits through a case where families increased their recycling habits when they gained normative knowledge of the average recycling trends by other households. Similarly, towel reuse in hotels was influenced through such normative connotation, influencing a 28% increase (Nolan et al., 2018). These implications present the normative approach of explaining human behaviour when exposed to societal norms or subtle notions, all aimed at developing a sense of belonging.
Social Identity Among Children and Behaviour
Concurrently, social dynamics can be expressed based on life experiences people have with their families as people they are around on a day-to-day basis. In this case, Miller and Tolan (2018) explored the idea that children from birth to their teenage years are characterized to seek identity with their surroundings, including their parents. The sense of belonging from such environments may be referred to as the group identity that people strive to acquire. The analogy has been used to explain aggression in children, translated as a response to life experiences at home. In the event of harsh parenting, which correlates with physical aggression, and yelling, children are susceptible to expressing themselves aggressively when their parents are harsh (Miller & Tolan, 2018). Children replicate the yelling and aggression imposed on them from home and project them as cognitive behaviours.
Social Influence of Peer Pressure on Drug Abuse
Behaviours gained from social influence can be presented using the case of drug addiction that arises from peer pressure. In early or emerging adulthood, people are attributed to exploring and experimenting as mechanisms for forming their identity (Keyzers et al., 2020). In this context, drug abuse is considered a socially influenced behaviour that young adults explore to conform with trends among their peers. Additionally, Pickard (2020) highlighted that substance abuse is valued in social environments based on what they offer to reinforce social identity. As such, Keyzers et al. (2020) presented that 41% of youths between 19-22 years report annual marijuana use, and corresponding 38% drink and party 21-22-year-olds. The feature presents the significance of peer conformity experienced more specifically in college, where the students conform to social expectations. Therefore, its impact is presented in a negative light that increases negative behaviours that are popularized with adolescence and early adulthood.
Social Support and Addiction Recovery
Conversely, the idea is exemplified in the success of modern addiction recovery approaches correlated with social identity paradigms. These approaches give empirical and practical justification that behaviours are modified by the social exposition people have. Pickard (2020) documented a test for drug-addicted rodents whose behaviour was modified using social rewards as an alternative to drugs. In this case, the potential of using social influence was an active factor as the rodents were all receptive to social inclusion rather than taking drugs with a 100% adherence to resistance from drugs (Pickard, 2020). Based on these findings, Pickard (2020) hypothesized the application of social identity paradigms in drug addicts to reinforce resistance and recovery from substance abuse. He advocated for the idea that social support was an essential conduit to support such behavioural changes in addicts.
However, social structures are presented to highlight addiction as a norm, thus raising concern about how social influence is integrated. Taylor et al. (2019) promoted the application for Alcoholics Anonymous, popularly known as AA, as a social support group that addicts can be around to change their behaviour. They reinforced that the peer-led approach improved the AA meetings’ efficacy while contrasting involvement and identity. The results were that “efficacy was predicted by identity (bij = 0.41, SE = 0.09, t = 4.70, p <.001, CIs = 0.23, 0.59), but not by involvement (c′1 = <0.01, SE = 0.02, t = 0.22, CIs = −0.04, 0.05)” reinforcing that social identity has more impact on recovery rather than general involvement (Taylor et al., 2019). The results showed that for every unit of enhancement in social identity there was a corresponding increase in the efficacy of involvement in AA meetings. As such, according to Taylor et al. (2019), with the p-value was lower than 0.001, it may be concluded that there is a statistically significant connection between social identity and efficacy.
Relatively, involvement can be with groups of different ages with which the individual does not identify. Hence, developing a social identity integrates peer support, breaking the normative social exclusion of drug addicts. These systems have stimulated the formulation of the Social Identity Model of Cessation, and the Social Identity Model of Recovery, where people are grouped in inclusionary groups with people that understand their circumstances and provide the social support required to recover (Kay & Monaghan, 2018). These elements present a dynamic perspective that human behaviour and personalities are multidisciplinary concepts inherent to social identity factors.
Social Media as a Social Influence on Behaviour
The application of normative social theory can be applied to contemporary terms based on technological advancements. Perfumi et al. (2018) stipulated that social influence can be emulated from social media platforms that are being integrated as a substantial impact on society. Human’s social and information-seeking character has adapted to the new social media environment, as 72% trust what their friends share (Perfumi et al., 2018). Therefore, humans are influenced by the social platforms that they follow and the pages they interact with on a day-to-day- basis. They highlighted experiments that used general knowledge questions, and participants were exposed to histograms of other users’ prior answers. The prior answers were stimuli to induce normative behaviour, with which 52% of the participants conformed (Perfumi et al., 2018). The information presented the contemporary influence of social media on behaviour. The assumptions made were that people base their online behaviour on the feedback they receive.
A contrary opinion can be described based on the impact of deindividuation, showing that when people are protected from social conformity through anonymity, the results change. Perfumi et al. (2018) considered the element as deindividuation, which is the opposite of the social normative theoretical approach. So, when the individual’s anonymity was preserved, 1.4% of the social media users did not conform to these norms (Perfumi et al., 2018). Thus, the outcome of the experiments was inclined to reinforce that people are normatively influenced by complying with the information they have access to in a social premise, but when deindividuated, they do not conform to these norms.
Conclusion
The paper presents a clear perspective answering the controversial idea that we are the people we associate with. The idea presented was that we are influenced by peer pressure and cognitive development based on the people individuals interact with. The notion, in this case, was expanded to include exposure to social media as we regularly interact with those around us, acquiring normative behaviours through digital platforms in modern environments. The influence, in this case, is a socially induced perspective that presents a direct relationship between personality traits and behaviour that tend to conform to social norms.
Nonetheless, these influences have been presented as positive and negative influences that are cognitively developed from our immediate surroundings. These impacts are especially critical for the young population as they develop their behaviours and identities early. As in the report, parents play an essential role in influencing the traits that children are exposed to and how to deconstruct negative behaviours such as social aggression, which may be a neural challenge. Thus, the topic can be a concern for the risks it presents or leveraged for the opportunities they present for behaviour modification. Overall, awareness of these impacts is an essential and intricate component of understanding human behaviour and personality as influenced by those around us, which can be voluntary or involuntary.
References
Hu, X., Chen, X., & Davison, R. M. (2019). Social Support, Source Credibility, Social Influence, and Impulsive Purchase Behavior in Social Commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 23(3), 297–327. Web.
Kay, C., & Monaghan, M. (2018). Rethinking recovery and desistance processes: developing a social identity model of transition. Addiction Research & Theory, 27(1), 47–54. Web.
Keyzers, A., Lee, S.-K., & Dworkin, J. (2020). Peer Pressure and Substance Use in Emerging Adulthood: A Latent Profile Analysis. Substance Use & Misuse, 55(10), 1–8. Web.
Miller, G. M., & Tolan, P. H. (2018). The influence of parenting practices and neighborhood characteristics on the development of childhood aggression. Journal of Community Psychology, 47(1), 135–146. Web.
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative Social Influence is Underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 913–923. Web.
Perfumi, S. C., Bagnoli, F., Caudek, C., & Guazzini, A. (2019). Deindividuation effects on normative and informational social influence within computer-mediated-communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 230–237. Web.
Pickard, H. (2020). Addiction and the self. Noûs, 55(4). Web.
Taylor, I., McNamara, N., & Frings, D. (2019). The “doing” or the “being”? Understanding the roles of involvement and social identity in peer‐led addiction support groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50(1), 3–9. Web.