The Relationship between Social Environment and the Behavior of Students
SOCW 6210 - Human Behavior and the Social Environment II
Name
Walden University
2022
The Relationship between Social Environment and the Behavior of Students
Gadin and Hammarstrom (2000) analyzed the relationship between psycho-social factors in the
school environment and pupils' health and sense of self-worth in a sample of Swedish pupils.
They found that problems in relations with classmates were the most recurrent psycho-social
factor associated with ill-health. Lack of self-control at school affected self-worth among girls,
but not among boys. Research on work and home environments has shown that there can be a
strong relationship between social settings and short and long-term emotional well-being.
Considering how much time most children spend at school, psycho-social dimensions of schools
have sparked the interest of a growing number of researchers concerned with school
effectiveness and the emotional well-being of young people. Below are some conclusions from
this research, with specific studies cited as supporting examples.
Additional explanations about the importance of each quality area of the school’s psycho-social
environment are presented in Annex 3,“Worksheets for leading discussions of quality areas.”
These findings can help you convince others that using the PSE Profile as a way to assess and
improve your school is a worthwhile effort. A positive social environment at school can
influence the behavior of students. A study of health behavior among school-age children
coordinated by WHO showed a strong and progressive relationship between indicators of
"alienation" from school and health compromising behaviors among students from Australia and
Wales (Nutbeam,et al, 1993). The relationship was most clear with smoking and alcohol misuse.
The authors recommend not only school health education, but also changes to the school
environment and ethos he advantages of a positive school environment can be greater well-being
and happiness, an improved sense of belonging and better quality of life for those engaged with
the organization. Indirectly, it may result in better levels of academic achievement. It can also
alter some of the more negative aspects of school life by reducing bullying and harassment,
injury, truancy and absenteeism. It has the potential to diminish stereotyping and prejudice, fear,
anxiety, depression and loss of motivation. Furthermore, feelings of well-being during childhood
provide sound foundations for positive health in later adolescence and adulthood; and students
working in a supportive school environment where they feel a sense of attachment are more
likely to respect their surroundings.
2.4 Effects of Social Environment on the Behavior of Students
Consumer behavior is often strongly influenced by subtle environ-mental cues. Using grocery
shopping as an example (or a “leitmotif,” if you wish), we first argue that the traditional
perspective on consumer choice based on conscious information processing leaves much
variance to be explained. Instead, we propose that many choices are made unconsciously and are
strongly affected by the environment. Our argument is based on research on the perception–
behavior link and on automatic goal pursuit.
Bargh et al. (2001) extended this research using more social goals. They showed that the goals to
achieve and to cooperate can operate without awareness. Moreover, their research also
demonstrated that action resulting from un-conscious goals has sophisticated characteristics
comparable to those of conscious goals. For instance, like conscious goals, unconscious goals
lead to persistence in the face of obstacles. That is, participants who were temporarily pre-vented
from achieving their goals demonstrated increased motivation over time. Moreover, the social
environment can trigger the activation of unconscious goals through important others. People
associate goals with other people, and the activation of a representation of such an important
other can lead to automatic activation of these associated goals (Fitzsimons & Bargh,2003; Shah,
2003). This way, both goals that you often per-form in the presence of an important other (e.g.,
you often help a particular friend) and goals that others have for you (e.g., your mother wants
you to achieve) can be activated. Fitzsimons and Bargh demonstrated that merely thinking about
an important other leads to the activation of goals, whereas Shah obtained similar effects with
subliminal priming of the representation of another person. For example, participants primed
with their mother (Fitszsimons & Bargh,2003) or father (Shah, 2003) tried harder to succeed on a
task relative to control participants.
Other goals can automatically affect our behavior because these goals are linked to specific
environments. In research by Aarts and Dijksterhuis (2003) on automatic normative behavior,
participants were asked to look at a visual image of a certain environment such as a library or an
expensive restaurant. Behavioral goals typically associated with this environment (e.g., being
silent in a library or being neat and tidy in an expensive restaurant) become automatically
activated pro-vided people are led to believe that they actually have to visit the depicted
locations. For instance, people who were led to believe that they had to go to a library at the end
of the experiment spontaneously started to whisper. This research shows that norms can become
activated automatically.
Finally, Aarts and Dijksterhuis (2000) demonstrated that goals can also cause habitual behavior
to ensue automati-cally. They asked Dutch undergraduate students how often they used their
bicycle to reach various destinations (note that, especially in cities, bicycle use in Holland is
about as common as car use in the United States). Later, participants were divided into habitual
bicycle users (i.e., people who use their bike all the time) and non habitual bicycle users. In the
actual experiments, participants were given a certain goal implying a specific location, such as
the goal to “attend a lecture.” The locations that were implied (such as the university) could be
reached by bicycle, but also by other means, such as by car or by various modes of public
transport. The social environment of young students is often a matter of being raised alone or
with young students of the same age, which is far from the natural life of young students where
they live in family groups until the age of 2 to 3 years and then in either bachelor groups or
mixed sex juvenile groups.
The social environment constitutes an important part of the housing environment of young
students but other parts of the housing such as spacing or access to exercise have attracted more
focus in scientific studies. This paper gives an overview of the first large study aimed at
investigating specific effects of two different social environments on the development of young
students. Students show more interest in contacting humans and were more easily approached by
humans in their home environment. Students interacted more with a trainer during weekly
training sessions than group housed students. The interaction consisted mainly of non-aggressive
biting, indicating that singly housed students were motivated for physical interaction. However,
some students completed fewer stages in the training program and they also disturbed more
during training sessions than group housed students. (Shah, 2003)
Group students exercised more in their paddocks compared to singly housed students, and it is
therefore very likely that group housed students develop a better co-ordination of movements
than singly housed students. Likewise, observations on social behaviour during the summer
season showed that previously group stabled stallions had a higher frequency of displacements
and submissive behaviours but fewer direct aggressive interactions compared to previously
students, implying that group students have a more well-developed social language. Although
students are social by nature their social skills still have to be refined and practiced. The
differences between the treatment groups imply that by housing young students singly and thus
not giving them the opportunity to practice their social skills they may be more prone to the risk
of injuries when interacting with other students as adults. (Shah, 2003)
The summer observations also showed that previously group housed colts frequently had a
former group mate as their nearest neighbor whereas previously single housed colts did not
associate more with their former box neighbours, when they were pastured in groups. This result
indicates that physical contact may be necessary in order to establish bonds between animals,
and that full physical contact is an important part of the social behaviour. Additionally,
previously singly housed students stayed closer together than group housed students possibly
indicating a higher level of social motivation. Social behaviour and also beneficial in relation to
their reactions in training situations. (Shah, 2003).
References
Bandura, A. (1991b). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines &
J.L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development (Vol. 1, pp. 45-103).
Hills dale,NJ: Erlbaum.
Barnett WS, Frede EC, Mobasher H, Mohr P. (2007). The efficacy of public preschool pro-grams
and the relationship of program quality to efficacy. Educ Eval Policy Anal;10(1):37– 49.
Bennett, R. (2005). Factors associated with student plagiarism in a post-1992 university.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 137-162
Bone, J. (2005). The social map and the problem of order: A re-evaluation of 'Homo
Sociologicus'. Theory &Science, 6(1)
Chickering, A, Dalton, J, & Stamm, L (2006). En-couraging Authenticity and Spirituality in
Higher Education. SF: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A., & Reiser, L. (1993). Education and Identity (2nd ed). SF:
Dusenbery, David B. (2009). Living at Micro Scale, p. 124. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Elizabeth Barnett, and Michele Casper, (2001). A Definition of “Social Environment”, American
Journal of Public Student behaviour, March 2001, Vol. 91, No. 3.
Hale, R. (1998). The Application of Learning Theory to Serial Murder, or "You Too can Learn to
Be a Serial Killer". In R. M. Holmes, & S. T. Holmes, Contemporary Perspectives on
Serial Murder (pp. 75-84).
Hensley, C. & Singer, S. (2004). Applying Social Learning Theory to Childhood and Adolescent
Firesetting: Can it Lead to Serial Murder? International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology. Vol 48 (4), 461-476
Jossey-Bass.Flint, A., Clegg, S., & MacDonald, R. (2006). Ex-ploring staff perceptions of
student plagiarism.Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40, 124-156.Kuh, G.,
Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., & Whitt, E. (2005). Student Success in College: Creating conditionsthat
matter. SF:
Jossey-Bass.Levy, E., & Rakovski, C. (2006). Academic dishonesty: A zero tolerance policy
professor and student registration choices. Research in Higher Educa-tion, 47, 735-754.
Longres, John F. (2000). Human behavior in the social environment, 3rd Edition. Itasca, IL:
Peacock. (ISBN: 0-87581-426-3).
Love, P., & Simmons, J. (1998). Factors influencing cheating and plagiarism among graduate
students in a college of education. College Student Jour-nal, 32, 539-551.
Miller, N. & Dollard, J. (1941). Social Learning and Imitation. Yale University Press.
Power C, Hertzman C. Health, wellbeing and coping skills. In: Keating DP, Hertz-man C, eds.
Developmental health and the wealth of nations: social, biological, and edu-cational
dynamics. New York: Guilford Press, 1999:41–54.19.
Powers, J. D., Bowen, G. L., & Rose, R. A. (2005). Using social environment assets to identify
intervention strategies for promoting school success. Children & Schools, 27, 177–185
Pulvers, K. & Diekhoff, G. M. (1999). The relationship between academic dishonesty and
college eclassroom environment. Research in Higher Edu-cation, 40 (4), 487-499
Rotter, J. B. (1945). Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Prentice-Hall.
Yeung WJ, Linver MR, Brooks-Gunn J. (2002). How money matters for young children’s
development: parental investment and family processes. Child Dev; 73(6):1861–79.18.
