Transcript Slide 1
Psychology 301 Social Psychology Lecture 17, Oct 30, 2008 Group processes Instructor: Cherisse Seaton Overview More on group processes When the Group becomes a crowd: Riots Group processes: Diffusion of responsibility Deindividuation Readings Aronson et al. Chapter 8 What is Collective Behavior? Relatively large aggregations of individuals who display similarities in action and outlook. Hula Hoops in US Fads Examples of collectives Queue: Naashon Schalk/AP Group processes & anti-social behaviour Murder of Reena Virk, May 10, 1999 Yelling at the referee Vandalism in a crowd Suicide baiting Internet anonymity When the Group Becomes a crowd Since 1945, 1,000 people are believed to have died and 3,400 people injured in almost 30 serious soccer stadium accidents worldwide. Hillsborough Stadium 1989 Psychology: predicting and preventing crowd hysteria that often leads to mob stampedes and tragedy When the group becomes a crowd: Riots Crowds Common crowds: street crowds or public gatherings, audiences, queues Audiences Mobs Lynch mobs Hooliganism Riots Panics: Escape and acquisition Riots Paris Student protests Initiation of behaviour Collective movements Rumors as collective processes Contagion Mass hysteria The War of the Worlds broadcast Psychogenic illness Group behaviour Diffusion of Responsibility “Each bystander’s sense of responsibility to help decreases as the number of witnesses to an emergency increases” (p. 346). In this context = Individuals in a crowd may feel less personally responsible for anti-social behaviour, or aid a person in need Group behaviour Deindividuation Definition: “The loosening of normal constraints on behaviour when people are in a group, leading to an increase in impulsive and deviant acts” (p. 258) Getting “lost in the crowd” Sense of anonymity Being less identifiably = less personally accountable Robbers in the Classroom What would you do if you knew you wouldn’t get caught? Dodd (1985) “If you could be totally invisible for 24 hours and were completely assured that you would not be detected, what would you do?” Modified to: “If you could do anything humanly possible with complete assurance that you would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do?” Types of behaviour Prosocial – intending to benefit others Freeing hostages; solving international conflicts Antisocial – injuring others or depriving them of their rights; criminal activity Academic cheating; robbing a bank Nonormative – clearly violates social norms and practices, but without specifically helping or hurting others Spying, public nudity Neutral – none of the above Types of behaviour Prosocial – 9% Antisocial – 36% Robbing a bank (individually accounts for 15% of all responses) Nonormative – 19% Neutral – 36% Personality or situation? No significant difference between university student & prisoner responses Deindividuation Original study - Festinger & Newcomb (1951) Participants discussed parents Variables: (1) # of negative comments (2) accuracy of memory Negative statements and identifiability (r = .57) Negativity (“lowered restraint”) and liking of group (r = .36). Deindividuation Zimbardo (1969) Lowering personal identifiably leads to an increase in anti-normative or anti-social behaviour Studies of chaotic crowd behaviour & riots Zimbardo’s Deindividuation Model State of relative anonymity Lessening of selfobservation Diffusion of responsibility Increased likelihood of anti-social behavior Zimbardo’s deindividuation theory The deindividuated state: Reduced self-awareness (minimal self-consciousness, etc.) Altered experience (disturbances in concentration and judgment, etc.) Support for this model is limited Zimbardo’s deindividuation theory Factors that Facilitate Deindividuation: Reduced responsibility (diffusion of responsibility) Feelings of anonymity Membership in large groups Heightened state of physiological arousal Suicide Baiting Mann (1981) Archival analysis – New York Times 1964-1979 Incidence: ~17% of cases in which a crowd was present Aggressive & serious Anonymity-inducing factors: Size of crowd Time of episode (cover of darkness) Physical distance between crowd and victim Suicide Baiting Causes of Anonymity Things that create a sense of anonymity: Group size (large) Darkness Halloween costumes Masks No identifying info Drugs / alcohol Deindividuation: Anonymity and Groups Diener et al. (1976) Trick or Treat study Participants: Over 1300 trick-or-treaters Given an opportunity to steal extra candy and/or money and were unobtrusively monitored by concealed raters. IVs: Anonymous or identified Alone or group Deindividuation: Anonymity and Groups Trick or Treat Study Identified Individual Group Anonymous 7.5 % transgressed 14% more than identified individual 21.4 % transgressed 36% more than identified group Why Does Deindividuation Lead to Impulsive Acts? Research suggests some reasons for why this happens. Among them are that the presence of others: 1.) Makes people feel less accountable for their actions. 2.) Lowers self awareness, thereby shifting people’s attention away from their moral standards. 3.) Increases the extent to which people obey the ‘group’ norms. Explanations for deindividuation 1.) Makes people feel less accountable for their actions Lack of personal identity Feel less accountable for individual behavior Anonymous Personal Identifiably & Aggression Rehm, Steinleitner & Lilli (1987) 5th Graders & Handball Orange vs. regular shirts Independent raters (blind to study) DV: # of aggressive acts Personal Identifiably & Aggression Explanations for deindividuation 2.) Lowers self awareness Two different forms of self-awareness: 1) Public self-awareness: Concern about how other’s think of you. Decreased public SA disinhibition 2) Private self-awareness: Attention to our own thoughts, attitudes, values, physical sensations, and feelings. Important for self-regulation around personal values Monitoring & evaluating behaviour Low private SA behaviour guided by external cues Complications: Sometimes deindividuation leads to prosocial behaviour Depends on operational definition : Group identity vs. anonymity Conformity vs. uninhibited Deindividuation as group identity conformity to situation based norms. Negative or positive behaviour. Deindividuation and Intimacy Gergen Participants: 4 (female) & 4 (male) IV: Dark room vs Light DV: Intimacy Dark room more: Personal disclosure Touching (90%) Hugging (50%) Release from social norm of being reserved Decreased interpersonal inhibitions Would you call this “loss of personal identity”? Explanations for deindividuation 3.) Increases the extent to which people obey the ‘group’ norms. Deindividuation: the loss of one’s sense of personal identity in a group? Research results confusing: Increased suggestibility Increased conformity to group norms VS Increased rejection of (society) norms Free / uninhibited behaviour Extreme aggression / Expression of feelings Social identity theory Social Identity Theory of deindividuation Deindividuation-enhancing factors (such as anonymity and arousal) decrease attention to individual factors whilst increasing attention to situational factors (Lee, 2007). A person may switch from a personal to a group identity in deindividuating circumstances Under deindividuating circumstances, individuals are more responsive to norms in the immediate social context Deindividuation increases pro-social behavior given positive cues and increases anti-social behavior given negative cues The Social Identity Theory also accounts for the fact that some deindividuated behavior does not comply with general social norms Next Class…. Social Roles Zimbardo’s prison experiment Cooperation and competition Social Dilemmas Communication and threat