Introduction

Human nature and more so human behavior is one interesting topic, given the endless arguments that human behavior theories create. One major area that has long caused considerable debate, and led to increased knowledge is the impact of the environment on human behavior. Researchers like Bargh and Chartrand (1999) for instance have pointed out that human behavior, is primarily controlled by the environment. However, while numerous scholars have held opposing views that free will overrides the environment’s impact on human behavior, it is evident that the environment affects cognition, making it a significant player in human behavior. This position revision essay, therefore, attempts to show the significance of the environment on human behavior.

My Position

While the environment will not always play a significant role in human behavior, it holds a substantial portion among the factors that control human actions. Automacity, which involves automatic responses to external stimuli requires the external stimuli to occur. For instance in the absence of such incentives then, it would be worth to say that specific action would not have happened. Through the driver rage example, Joe automatically gets angry due to the behavior of fellow road users. While the other driver’s actions are assumed to be independent of the driver’s environment, they are part and parcel of his environment. An excellent inference to such a scenario would be to remove the reckless driver that threw Joe in a rage. Under such a situation, Joe will not automatically get angry which implies that the environment will not have triggered a reaction. However, such cognitive processes are equally affected by other factors, within or outside the context. Through this deterministic model, Bargh and Chartrand (1999) further hold that the thoughts, emotions, and behavior, whether conscious or otherwise voluntary or involuntary, are all part and consequence of a larger environment, hence we are allowed to blame the setting for a wide range of actions, negative or positive.

Opposing Positions

A number of Notable scholars primarily opposes Bargh and Chartrand (1999) position of determined behavior that implicitly forms the revised position in this paper. Amy Fisher Smith, for example, believes that individuals are responsible for their actions and should be treated as such. Here, she argues, individuals are not determined by environmental stimuli but instead are actively interpreting what they perceive in the environment. In this framework, individuals have goals that guide their perceptions, where the person instead of the environment directs such goals. For instance, in the case of Joe’s road rage, a smith’s view would be that Joe needs to reach his destination fast and safe, which in this case would be current goals. As such, a reckless driver would be viewed as something that wants to prevent Joe from achieving his goals; hence Joe would most likely get angry. Further arguments hold that it is still possible to account for human behavior in a non-deterministic manner and that individuals are not passively affected by the environment.

Carl Jung, on the other hand, does not holistically oppose this position. Instead, he believes that much of human behavior is mostly unconscious and automatic (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). However, the human in this action is a free agent of all the activities in question; hence they hold a cognitive power over all activities he or she may decide to partake on. Through this view, therefore, Joe in the road rage scenario would be absolved for unconsciously getting angry although, Jung would assume that Joe had the power to get angry or not (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999).

Refutation of Opposition Position

Automatic perceptions induce ideas. In this case, perception refers to how an individual views stimuli within the external environment and how such affect how an individual behaves. Therefore, alluding that an individual is an agent of free will would surmount to ignoring the context, something that individuals are always in, even in isolated places. Furthermore, perceptual activity is mainly automatic and while possible will rarely not occur consciously. Perception then becomes the route through which the human brain unconsciously, creates a representation of the external environment within the brain (Bleys, Defloor, Van Ootegem, & Verhofstadt, 2017). This is a theory and reasoning framework that is widely accepted by both proponents and opponents alike.

Free will and the ability to control one’s action in the face of environmental stimuli, is, therefore, a complicated process. Individuals cannot control brain behavior that has been encoded into their traits and almost occurs as second nature in the presence of the right stimuli. This is equivalent to a scenario where trait constructs are non-consciously activated during an unrelated action, and an individual will more likely behave in line with the primed position. This, therefore, proves that the environment determines human behavior, to a very significant extent despite the presence of other factors.

Position Summary

This paper agrees to the fact that other conditions influence specific human behavior. However, it also takes note of the environment role in shaping perceptions and inducing automaticity, which sees human beings behave the way they do. Individuals are subject to a wide array of stimuli in the external environment, all of which play a significant role in shaping behavior. This implies that human beings are primed continuously towards specific actions and will most likely behave in a certain way under particular conditions as opposed to others. For instance, Joe’s road rage could have been as a result of constant priming towards rude behavior, which sits perfectly with the deterministic model. The revised position equally agrees that people are subject to conscious behaviors, from which they will behave in a specific manner in response to a particular stimulus (Bleys, Defloor, Van Ootegem, & Verhofstadt, 2017; Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). Intentional perceptions, therefore, will not induce automatic responses but instead will see the actor craft a response constantly aware of the action throughout the entire process. For instance, Joe would have consciously thought about the reckless driver and let him be under such a model.

Reflection on Revision

Just like how knowledge is garnered through original arguments and counter-arguments, the revision process provides a proper insight into the deterministic behavioral model by Bargh and Chartrand (1999). The entire process provides an avenue to critically review arguments and take a better one that suits one’s understanding without necessarily having to make a right or wrong stand. It has also offered a mode through which views and counterviews are newly analyzed. In this case, however, the process has increased on my initial understanding, with the revised position being closer to my previous positions albeit with modifications and new argument angles. In the same vein, additional research has helped provide a deeper understanding of this unit of behavioral psychology which is paramount to establishing a deeper understanding of future concepts. Most importantly, however, is the validity of both arguments, both opposing and proposing. As previously stated, knowledge is a continuous process; hence at this point no [position is wrong or right. However, an interesting aspect is how both positions held down to their views making valid arguments that made it quite challenging to weigh in and pick a side that suits my beliefs and that with enough plausible reasons.

References

Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist. 54(7), 462.

Bleys, B., Defloor, B., Van Ootegem, L., & Verhofstadt, E. (2017). The Environmental Impact of Individual Behavior: Self-Assessment Versus the Ecological Footprint. Environment and Behavior, 50(2), 187-212.