Many approaches to psychology explain behaviour in terms of individual characteristics such as personality

The very essence of the definition of psychology as ‘the science of behaviour’ means that there are inevitably a number of different approaches to explaining behaviour. For example, behaviour can be seen to be determined mainly by an individual’s personality or even biology, or as the result of social pressure e.g. from family, culture, peer pressure, society etc. The basic dictionary definition of behaviour is ‘a generic term covering acts, activities, responses, reactions, movements, processes, operations etc. (Reber & Reber, 2001). Examples of behaviour studied by psychologists include criminal/deviant behaviour, conformity, obedience, and helping behaviour. Particularly during the post World War II period there was a resurgence and heightened interest in explaining extreme forms of behaviour (such as strict obedience). The major controversy regarding the explanation of behaviour centres around the issue of whether behaviour can be explained mainly by social pressure or whether it is influenced more on an individual level i.e. by one’s personality traits.
One of the earliest explanations of criminal/deviant behaviour had its roots in physiology/biology. Sheldon (1942) argued that there are 3 main body types, endomorphic, ectomorphic and mesomorphic; with mesomorphics (because of their physique) more likely to engage in criminal activity. Physical/biological explanations of behaviour were soon replaced by personality explanations. The argument being that individuals with particular types of personality traits behave in a consistent manner. One well-known established theory of personality and behaviour was provided by Eysenck (1947). He proposed that personality can be described by 3 dimensions: extraversion-Introversion (sociable to reserved), neuroticism-stable (irritable to calm and even-tempered), and psychotocism (insensitivity). This he argued has a biological basis, thus the trait is stable. Extraversion-introversion was said to be based upon levels of Cortisol, with extraverts less aroused than introverts, hence the need to seek higher levels of stimulation than introverts. The neuroticism-stable dimension has its roots in the Autonomic Nervous System (ANS), with neurotics ANS reacting more quickly and strongly than those with the stable trait. For example Furnham (1982) found that extraverts always search more stimulating environments than introverts. More recently the ‘big five’ theory of personality has gained popularity; it attempts to encompass all personality types in to 5 categories – openness to experience, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1993). Personality is used as an explanation for behaviour, the proposition is that these traits are stable factors (possibly based in biology) which play a major role in determining how one behaves e.g. the extravert is always sociable and out-going whereas the introvert is reserved and prefers peace and quiet.
However, using individual characteristics to explain behaviour is highly contentious and as such has been heavily criticised. The view that one particular aspect of the individual determines behaviour is reductionist and does not appreciate the possible effects of the environment upon behaviour. Such criticism came mainly from Mischel (1968) who argued that the determinants of an individual’s behaviour are not consistent individual traits but rather the environment that they find themselves in. An often cited study which demonstrates this criticism precisely is that of Hartshorne and May (1928) who examined the trait of honesty in children. If personality is the main influence on behaviour then this honesty trait should remain consistent for many different situations. Instead, what was found was that depending on the situation and circumstances, the levels of honesty fluctuated dramatically.
Social psychologists conducted hundreds of experiments, particularly during the post WWII period, to demonstrate the potent force social pressure can be upon an individual’s behaviour. Asch (1951) asked participants to complete a simple unambiguous line-judging task. Besides the participants’ there were other confederates’ who deliberately gave incorrect answers. It was found that as a result of the other participants’ incorrect answers, a significant number of participants also gave incorrect answers even though it was obvious and clear what the correct answer was. Furthermore, when questioned in private most participants gave the correct response. This clearly demonstrates the effect social pressure can have on how one responds even to the simplest of tasks. Their behaviour was affected by the social pressure (indirect) to conform to the group norm which was to give an incorrect response.
A real life example of social pressure influencing behaviour is of Nazi war criminal Adolf Elchmann, despite committing horrific crimes during the war he claimed to have never been anti-Jewish and even helped his Jewish half-cousin escape the concentration camps (Arendt, 1963). So, it seems that social pressure to act in a certain way can override individual beliefs and characteristics. Anecdotes like these led to a surge in research on social pressure and obedience; which is one of the prime examples of how social pressure can affect individuals behaviour. Milgram (1974) famously conducted a number of experiments in which participants had to act as a teacher towards another participant who was the ‘learner’, they were asked to administer shocks to the ‘learner’ as punishment for any incorrect answers. Amazingly most participants complied to the experimenter’s request to administer the shocks even though they themselves were not comfortable with this type of behaviour. Similarly, Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo, (1973) carried out a simulated prison experiment in which participants played the roles of either ‘prisoner’ or ‘guard’. Both the prisoners and guards behaviour was consistent with the expected stereotypical behaviour of the two roles. So, instead of acting as individuals they succumbed to the social pressure to fulfil the roles they were assigned.
Helping behaviour has also been extensively studied, one would assume that this would be a matter of individual choice contingent upon personal characteristics and traits e.g. some individuals are more helpful that others. Latane and Darley (1968) investigated such behaviour by observing participants as smoke poured into their waiting room through a ventilation grille, when participants were on their own 70% immediately reported the incidence, but when they were with other people only 30% responded. Similarly, Latane and Rodin (1969) observed participants as they heard a woman calling out for help, when participants were on their own 70% responded but when in the presence of other only 40% went to the woman’s aid. The behaviour of participants was affected by whether or not they were in the presence of others, and in such situations they modelled their behaviour on the basis of how the others behaved.
Peer pressure is another well-known source of social pressure upon one’s behaviour. Peer refers to people who are of a similar age and status to the individual e.g. school children, work colleagues. The term peer pressure refers to the way in which individuals are socially pressured to act and behave in a certain way that is in accordance with the norms of their particular group irrespective of their own individual characteristics. For example, Raffaelli and Crockett (2003) found that pressure upon adolescents from their peer group led them to have sex at a younger age than they would personally have been comfortable with. Another phenomenon which also demonstrates this type of pressure is crowd behaviour, where members of a group e.g. football supporters, behave in a manner which is not consistent with their usual everyday behaviour. Their behaviour becomes influenced by the ‘crowd norm’ and is a clear example of conformity since individuals are ‘yielding to group pressure’ (Crutchfield, 1962). So, it is not just pressure from a higher authority figure that can influence an individual into behaving and acting in a particular manner.
Although social pressure does affect peoples’ behaviour, there are a number of factors that affect the extent to which an individual’s behaviour is affected. If the group size is large then conformity and obedience levels tend to be high and vice versa. For example in Asch’s (1951) study when there were four group members who gave incorrect responses conformity levels were at their highest. Also the more cohesion there appears to be among group members, the greater the conformity. Similarly, if there is a clear majority view then conformity tends to be greater than when there are a variety of views. Again, this was demonstrated in Asch’s study, when all the others gave the same incorrect response there were higher levels of conformity than when there were confederates who gave different responses. Cultural differences also play a major role; in cultures where there is a greater emphasis upon groups and community cohesion there tends to be higher levels of conformity compared with cultures that emphasis individuality e.g. UK and USA (Smith & Bond, 1998).
Social pressure to be obedient to a higher authority figure is also affected by a number of factors. If by obedience ones’ behaviour has a negative affect on another individual then the closer the ‘victim’ is the less likely that they will succumb to social pressure. The legitimacy of where the social pressure to obey orders originates also has a profound effect on whether or not a person’s behaviour will be affected, for example when the pressure is from another individual similar to the individual obedience levels drop by 20% than when it is a higher authority figure (Milgram, 1974). Where there is conflicting pressure to both conform to group norms and obey orders, individuals are more likely to follow the group norm and disobey orders rather than behave in a manner that contradicts group norms (Milgram, 1974). So, it is not a clear case of social pressure influencing behaviour, there are many other factors which affect the extent to which one’s behaviour is influenced.
The main ways in which behaviour is affected by social pressure (direct and indirect) is manifested through conformity to norms and obedience. For example, in the Asch (1951) studies participants behaviour (in terms of their responses) was clearly influenced by the pressure to conform to group norms since the information they received was simple and unambiguous. Although the above studies clearly demonstrate how social pressure can undoubtedly influence behaviour, it could possibly be the case that certain personality types are more prone to conform to norms and obey orders than others. People with the personality type which includes a variable of ‘authoritarian submission’ which is a ‘submissive, uncritical attitude towards idealized moral authorities of the in-group’ (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson & Sanford, 1950, p. 228) have been found to display higher levels of obedience than those without this particular personality trait (Elms & Milgram, 1966). Haas (1966) found that people with higher levels of the personality variable hostility were less inclined to be obedient than those with lower levels of hostility. Conformity levels themselves have been found to vary with particular types of personality traits. Those that are more likely to conform tend to lack in ego-strength, are submissive, inhibited and lacking in insight, whereas personality characteristics which predict non-conformity include, intellectual effectiveness, leadership ability, efficiency and lack of pretension (Crutchfield, 1954).
As such, it appears that neither of the two opposing approaches to explaining behaviour provide a unique and full explanation. Individually, there is no doubt that both personality and social pressure have a huge influence on one’s behaviour. A more plausible approach would be to take an interactionist perspective, where behaviour is seen as the result of an interaction between personality traits and the situation. For example, an introvert may be reserved and shy at a social event with strangers but sociable at the same event when in the presence of friends; or someone with a strong personality may not be so easily influenced by social pressure than someone who is very suggestible. So, it is not as simple as social pressure accounting for all types of behaviour. Societies are governed by norms, so there will always be pressure upon individuals to conform, however the strength and particular personality traits and characteristics of an individual may play a pivotal role in the extent to which their behaviour can be explained by social pressure.