He critically observes the human behavior and personality. He figures out the authoritative and dominating factors that shape the person 's personality, thinking, cognition and motivational processes. According to Mulhollem,"Bandura simply observing the others and incorporating this concept into his theory". Social cognitive theory is a crust of the psychosocial, cognitive and behavior processing. This theory clearly asserts the humanistic elements such as individuality, contemplative self-awareness and cogitative reaction.
Meanings in an identity reflect an individual’s conception of himself or herself as an occupant of that particular position or “self-in-role” (Stryker 1980). Self-verification occurs when meanings in the social situation match or confirm meanings in an identity. Thus, when individuals enact and verify an identity, they simultaneously produce and reproduce the social structural arrangements that are the original source of those
The primary notions for understanding behavior are rooted in a person’s cognition, affect, and motivation. Theory also suggests that a person’s cognitive abilities (that guides behavior) can enable them to reflect on their thought, feelings, and motivation in response to the influences of the social environment (HBSE lecture). Because social environments do determine behavior, through examples of triadic reciprocal causations theory describe how the imitation of observed behaviors is influenced by the environment, person, and behavior. According to Bandura, each of these factors are causes of one another and must be understood as a system of influencing forces (Pervin, Cerrone & John,
Symbolic Interactionism George Mead (1863-1931) George Herbert Mead is one of the key developers of the symbolic interactionism. This is a micro-level perspective based on self and society. It states that human behavior is influenced by meanings and definitions that are created through interactions with others in society. This is the ongoing use of a language and gestures in suspense to how the other will react in a conversation. Within the George Mead’s theory of Mind, Self and Society, he said that the self is made up of 2 components: the “me” represents expectations, attitudes and learnt behaviors of others in society.
Is every life a precarious one? If not, how are these levels of precarity distributed? “To be a body is to be exposed to social crafting and form, and this is what makes the ontology of the body a social ontology. In other words, the body is exposed to socially and politically articulated forces as well as to claims of sociality.” (Butler, 2009:3) In Butler’s words, “one way of managing populations is to distribute vulnerability unequally in such a way that vulnerable populations are established within discourse and policy.” (Butler, 2013:171). This precariousness is therefore a category imposed and distributed unequally among populations.
When real social groups are considered the SEH appears to provide only a partial explanation, and a variety of more or less powerful alternative social motives may underlie discriminatory behaviour. We explore some social-structural, individual and interpersonal limits to the SEH, and we call for an awareness of these motives and a re-examination of the good-structure thesis. The SEH, as it stands, provides only a partial contribution to our understanding of the relationship between social identity and discriminatory intergroup behaviour (Cherry, 2016). The personality and self-identity focuses on the characteristics of a person and enduring personal characteristics of individuals. Five approaches to personhood are examined metaphysical, empirical, transcendental, hermeneutical, and phenomenological.
Systems theory Systems theory mainly describes the human behaviour in terms of complex systems. It is based on the idea that an effective system is based on individual needs, rewards, expectations, and attributes of the people living in the system. According to this theory, families, couples, and organization members are directly involved in resolving a problem even if it is an individual issue. System, ecological, and network theory are all traditions in social work that can be identified within the system theory. System theory argues that the whole is something different to the amount of the detached parts.
Social Impact Theory The Social Impact Theory assumes that individual position is influenced by the social environment; hence social interaction generates public opinion. Social impact refers to any influence on individual feelings, thoughts or behavior as implied by the actions of others. Social Impact Theory (SIT) relates to the influence that group or society has on individual at a given time, the influence depends on the strength, the magnitude of persuasion and the closeness with the sources. The theory posits that people are not only the recipients of social impacts but also the participants in formulating the social environment (Andrzej Nowak et al, 1990:364). People’s orientation towards a certain agenda depend on the degree of
researcher and the participants. Garcia and Quek (1997) stressed that researcher’s interpretations play a key role in this kind of study bringing “such subjectivity to the fore, backed with quality arguments rather than statistical exactness” Therefore, from all the above viewpoints, it is clear that interpretive methodology is a theoretical framework or perspective which is mainly based on the idea that the behaviour of social actors in social context can be understood by the meaning that social actors give to what they and other do. While interacting, the people interpret what is going on and this is what social life its patterned quality. Interpretation in sociological research takes place at two levels which can be explained as follows:
The ways of communication are what they are, not due to basics, principles and structures, but since of what they can achieve socially in ordinary instantiation. With this accentuation, a key inquiry is the way individuals make signs in the setting of interpersonal and institutional force relations to attain to particular points. This is in a general sense vital, since semiotic frameworks can shape social relations and society itself. One of the main keys of social semiotic hypothesis is, the rule that methods of correspondence offer generally particular and socially imparted alternatives (or 'semiotic assets') for conveying. The Investigation of correspondence from this viewpoint, tries to distinguish the semiotic choices that are accessible to communicators.