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