Citation: Huitt, W. (2003). A systems model of human behavior. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved [date] from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/materials/sysmdlo.html
| EdPsyc Interactive: Courses | Home Page |
A model is a critical component of one's vision as it defines the important variables to consider and the relationships among those variables. There are a number of different philosophical positions that provide a foundation for organization and interpretation of empirical data into models. One of those positions is that everything can be reduced to a simple entity and if we want to know about multiple entities we can study the entities one at a time and then aggregate our knowledge for an understanding of the whole. This is the foundation of Newtonian physics and the position that forms the foundation for much of the research in psychology. One assumption of this belief is that the interaction of entities can be studied by adding and subtracting them in multiple variations. For example, if we want to study the relationship of thinking and emotional development, we can study each separately and then we can study them together by first introducing one factor, then removing it and introducing another factor. If we want to study what makes for an effective school, we can introduce factors one at a time to see which one has the greatest impact.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is a view that one must not only understand the entities in isolation, but must understand the relationships between or among entities. In this view, it is not enough to first study the development of thinking and then the development of emotion or to identify separate factors that make an effective school, rather these must be studied together in order to understand the relationships among the factors. This systems or cybernetics view reflects a transactional approach to educational and developmental psychology (e.g., Gordon, 1975; Schiamberg & Smith, 1982; Thompson, 1971) and provides the basis for the model of human behavior presented below.
This systems approach is reflected in this model in several ways. First, the basis of the model stems from an acceptance of the three major aspects of human beings (Mind, Body and Spirit) that have been the focus of the study since the ancient Greeks.
In terms of mind (or human personality, as it is sometimes called), there is wide support for three dimensions (e.g., Eysenck, 1947; Miller, 1991; Norman, 1980): 1) cognition (knowing, understanding, thinking); 2) affect ( attitudes, predispositions, emotions, feelings); and 3) conation (intentions to act, reasons for doing, volition, will). The three components of the mind can be used to organize many of the major issues and topics discussed in educational psychology. This model recognizes that the mind receives information and manifests action through the body. Body can be considered in terms of 1) biological or genetic influences; 2) bodily functioning, and 3) overt behavior or output. Overt behavior has been extensively studied by the behaviorists (e.g., Bandura, 1977; Skinner, 1953). The model also recognizes there is a feedback loop between overt responses (or "behavior") and resulting stimuli from the environment. Finally, the model recognizes that both biological and spiritual influence the development and functioning of the components of mind.
There are therefore five major components of the individual in this systems model of human behavior
- Cognitive component -- Perceives, stores, processes, and retrieves information
- Affective component -- Can modify perceptions and thoughts before and after they are processed cognitively
- Conative component -- Directs and manages input and output functioning
- Spiritual component -- How we approach the unknowns of life, how we define and relate to the sacred
- Behavioral system -- Overt action of organism (output of the individual)
It is hypothesized that an individual's thinking (cognition), feeling (affect), and willing (volition, conation) as well as overt behavior and spirituality develop as a result of:
- transactions among the various components of mind as
- influenced by biological maturation, bodily functioning and the spiritual dimension of the individual,
- the environment or context of the individual, and
- the feedback from the environment as a result of an individual's overt behavior.
A second aspect of the model is that human beings do not develop in isolation; they develop in a variety of contexts -- environments which surround the individual human being and which he is in constant interaction play a major role in development (e.g., Bridge, Judd & Moock, 1979; Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979, 1989)
The first level of the ecology or the context of human development is the microsystem. This level has the most immediate and earliest influences and includes the family,
along with local neighborhood or community institutions such as the school, religious institutions and peer groups as well as the specific culture within which the family identifies.
The second level is the mesosystem. This has an intermediate level of influences such as social institutions involved in such activities as transportation, entertainment, news organizations, and the like. The influence of these systems and institutions interacts with, and is filtered through, the microsystem institutions.
The third level is the macrosystem. This is the most removed influences such as international region or global changes or even more abstract aspects of culture. For example, the movement from the agriculture and industrial economies to an information-age, global economy is having widespread influence on the ways societies, communities, and families are operating.
While we sometimes tend to focus on family or school influences on human development, we should always remember that there are other important influences. An African, as well as Native American, tradition states that it takes a whole community to raise a child. This is an important principle of a complex adaptive systems approach is that there are competing factors, both within the individual and the context within which the individual exists, as well as the interaction between individual and context. Maintaining a homeodynamic balance among these competing factors is a key factor in the effective and efficient functioning of such a system.
An important aspect of this model is that it reflects an approach that defines human beings as having both biological and spiritual components of their nature (e.g., Danesh, 1994; Frankl, 1946/1984). From the perspective of philosophy, this is called a dualist position. That is, it is assumed that the biological brain and the psychological mind are two separate entities and should be studied transactionally. It is also postulated that human beings have a soul or spirit that influences the operation of the mind and that continues to exist after the decomposition of the body. The opposite of this position, the materialistic viewpoint, states that there is no non-materialistic aspect to the universe and to human beings and that the mind is totally a result of brain functioning. From this perspective the mind ceases to function when the brain ceases to function.
On of the implications of the dualist position is that there are a variety of sources of knowledge about human beings and human nature. That is, if human beings are more than what the materialists believe, then science, which is limited in its study to the material universe, cannot inform us totally about human beings and human behavior. If we are to have a more complete understanding we must look to additional sources of information. While an attempt has been made to stay within the parameters of a scientific approach as the standard for developing understanding and discerning truth, I acknowledge that other sources of knowledge (e.g., personal experience and intuition, spiritual and religious scriptures and background, and study of philosophy) have also influenced the development of this model and my interpretation of data. I will make my viewpoint about human beings as explicit as possible so that you can accurately judge to what extent my philosophical position may suggest a particular interpretation when another is equally valid.
Throughout the course there will likely be instances where the research findings presented in class do not match knowledge you have acquired through other sources. It is also possible that you have a different viewpoint or philosophy that would allow a different interpretation of data than the one I provide. Should this occur you have every right to bring in additional data or to interpret data in a different way than that given in the text or in a class presentation. In these instances, please state your viewpoint or your additional data as clearly and as concisely as possible, explaining how your interpretation or data is just as valid, if not more so, than that previously stated. View these times of dissonance as opportunities to develop new understandings or to integrate previous understandings in new ways. It is not always necessary to completely discard knowledge derived from either science or other sources, but interpretations may need to be modified in order to include the findings derived from science. I encourage others to develop their own models that might highlight other aspects of human behavior not adequately attended to in this model.
References:
| Internet Resources | Electronic Files |
Return to: