The conceptual framework of psychology establishes various theories that seek to understand, define, or give meaning to human behavior. Some of these theories include the influences of the social and biological aspect of human life on man’s behavior. Giving light to this matter, the remainder of the text will discuss two articles which validate the social and biological aspects that influence behavior while synthesizing the main points revealed by each text. The first journal article talks about the social influences that affect behavior.
However, the study focused on social influences of behavior that has something do to with the observance of ethics and morality in the organizational setting. The study was based on concepts presented by reviewed behavioral sciences with ideas and perspectives on ethics and morality in the workplace. The variables for this study included the employees and their responsive behavior to the influence of leaders that materialize through authoritative or persuasive means.
The results of the study has revealed that influence plays a role on the adaptation of moral or ethical practices and obligations and that in order for organizations to uphold the highest ethical standards and guidelines, it should structure the organization in such a way that it strictly implements ethical policies. (Lewicki, 2002) The second journal article talks about the biological influences that affect behavior. However, the study focused on both the biological and environmental influences that impact behavior allowing a broad discussion on the topic.
The study focused on the discussion of the relative impacts or outcomes of genetic differences to the environment and vice versa. The study revealed that two processes – gene-environment interaction and gene-environment correlation – prove the effects of one’s genetic structure to one’s behavioral aspects or dimensions. (Johnson, 2007) For instance, the adjustments of individuals with disabilities to society, as compared with others who are normal in terms of physical attributes, seem to differ. Social behaviors are entirely different between people with disabilities and those who live normal lives.
This is because individuals seem to adjust or meld into an environment according to their genetic make-up and the possibilities and limitations that it poses (Johnson, 2007). Although both articles seem to focus on specific situations, such as organizational behavior when it comes to moral or ethical practices and the genetic and environmental influences on behavior, the facts and ideas presented on both articles seem to prove the vulnerability or the impressionable feature or nature of behavior as it may be influenced by social or biological aspects of human life.
With this in mind, the impact of the social structure and interactions are realized as the results of the previous study revealed stringent organizational policies and social structures to dictate the moral and ethical beliefs held by the employees within the organization. On the other hand, the second article proves the impact of an individual’s biological make-up to one’s behavior in terms of social interaction, and other external processes which require the display of human behaviors.
However, the article also discusses the probability of changing or altering biological influences as the environment is also plays a role in shaping behavior. The interplay of environmental influences to the social and biological influences of behavior is a similar viewpoint observed from the two articles. Since the social structure within an organization – how strict moral and ethical policies are implemented, or how strong the influence of social relationships is upholding these policies, etc. is instrumental to goodness or badness of organizational behavior, this means that the environment, or the working environment for that matter plays an important role in shaping human behaviors; and as the role of environment was discussed as a measure in determining the extent of biological influences to behavior, the environmental influences remain to be a common denominator between the two points of view which seek to define how behavior is developed by external faculties.