Milgram’s Cognitive Overload Model:Reactions to Overload

• Represents an updating of Simmel’s explanation of the difference between rural and urban life

• Long standing interest in differentiating the city from the countryside

• Ferdinand Toënnies described a difference between Gemeinschaft (community)and Gesellschaft (society)

Ferdinand Toënnies

(1855-1936)

Georg Simmel(1858-1918)

• An influential German sociologist and philosopher often cited for his writing on the psychological effects of city living

• “The Metropolis and Mental Life” (1903) was a very influential paper adopted and updated by Milgram

Milgram’s Cognitive Overload Model:Reactions to Overload

• Allocate less time to each input (brusque manner)• Disregard low priority inputs• Redrawn boundaries in social transactions—shift

overload to others• Receptor is blocked prior to entrance into system

(unlisted telephone numbers)• Filtering devices diminish intensity of inputs

(answering machines)• Creation of special institutions to absorb

inputs/shield the individual

Lofland’s Privacy Model: Symbolic Transformations

Source: Lofland, L. H. (1973). A world of strangers: Order and action in urban public space. New York: Basic Books

• Rules for urban behaviour:

– Minimize expressivity– Minimize body contact, keep to the right– Sit away from others– Minimize eye contact with strangers– When in doubt, flee– Disattend, pretend not to notice deviants

Models of Crowding

• Stokols equilibrium model (interaction approach)

– Uses phenomenological (subjective) reports– Density/crowding distinction (physical vs.

psychological measurement

• Freedman drive energization model– Hullian learning theory approach

• E = H x D where E = excitatory potential (probability of behaviour, H = habit strength (number of repetitions of a behaviour, D = drive (e.g., hunger, thirst, etc.)

Personal Attributes

•Personality traits•Momentary drive states

•Intelligence & otherskills

Environmental Qualities

Physical SocialAmount & statusconfiguration of powerspace

StressorsNoiseHeatExposure time

Experience of StressPsychologicalPhysiological

Response to stress

Models of Crowding

• Esser’s brain evolution model– Based upon Maclean’s brain evolution model

Esser’s Crowding Model

Crowding is overstimulation of the nervous systemMaclean’s brain evolution model

Oldestsection brain stem (crowding due to

overload)limbic system (crowding

when stimuli clash with expectations)

neocortical (posthetic) brain(crowding due to excessive

Newest novelty in stimuli) section

Problems with Studying the Abnormal

• No phenomenological reports possible when studying psychotic patients

• Confound in joint manipulation of social and spatial density

• Different diagnostic groups may react differently to various environmental conditions (confounding variable)

• Limited adaptive mechanisms in institutionalized individuals

• Poor external validity (generalizability)• Institutionalization in itself may produce peculiar

behaviour

Role of Ethology

• Apply the methodology, not the results of ethology

• Heuristic value in stimulating research• No phenomenological reports possible with

animals• Animal resources are much more limited than

human resources

Generalizability of Laboratory Studies

• Limited time variable

• Weaker manipulations than real world crowding

• Projective/simulational research may be inappropriate

• Sex of subject is frequently confounded with sex of the group

Calhoun’s Research on Overcrowding in Rats

Impossiblility of crowding in nature over a long time period as a result of population regulating forces:

• Territorial behaviour• Relationship between weight and fertility in

females

Behavioural Sink(Syndrome of Crowding Effects)

• Dominance hierarchy• Pansexuality (multiple copulations,

homosexual behaviour• Faulty maternal care given to pups• Passive, withdrawn behaviour of submissive

male rats• Adrenal gland enlargement

Generalization to humans?

Case Studies of Extreme Overcrowding

• African slave trade ships

• Black Hole of Calcutta

• Concentration camps in WW II

Community Noise• Noise is everywhere (indoors as well as outdoors)

• Noise seems accepted as a necessary evil in industrial society

• Noise gets less media attention than other, more conspicuous forms of pollution

• Noise affects health/well-being

• Unlike industrial noise, watchdog agencies are less obvious in community noise

• Aircraft noise may always be present

• Women, children, and the elderly are especially vulnerable since they spend more time in their homes and neighbourhoods

Stress and Health

• Cognitive appraisal of stress (Lazarus’ model)

• Perceptions of danger varies with group membership and value systems

• Physiological effects

• Psychological effects

• Coping attempts

• Certain groups are more at risk

• Prolonged stress is life threatening

Noise and Health

• Increase in hypertension (high blood pressure)• Increased consumption of medication• Increased hospital admissions• Increase in physician visits• Increase in cardiovascular problems• Increase in sleep problems• Increase in mortality• Lower birth weight babies• Slower height and weight gains in children• Hearing loss

Noise and Children

• Children may be more vulnerable because:– Spend more time outdoors– Physical growth/development is incomplete– Better hearing– Poorer listening skills– Less developed language skills– Immature attention mechanisms– Requirement of a higher signal/noise ratio– Weak frustration coping skills

Noise Effects in Children

• Poorer auditory discrimination

• Reduced physical growth

• Slower psychological development

• Poorer progress on standardized tests

• Lower tolerance for frustration

• Heightened blood pressure

• Lessened perceptions of control

• Lowered attentiveness

• Heightened distractibility

Bronzaft (1981)

P.S. 98 is located 220 feet from an elevated train line—classes

were disrupted every 4.5 minutes for a 30 second interval.

Mean Reading Achievement Test Scores Before Noise ReductionQuiet Side Noisy Side

Grade 2 2.65 2.25Grade 3 3.06 2.63Grade 5 6.23 5.05

Grade 6 6.94 5.99

Bronzaft (1981)

• Students on the noisy side did significantly poorer on the standardized reading test.

• After noise reduction (rubber rail mounts, acoustic ceilings), total noise decreased 6-8dBA (train noise level = 81-83 dBA)

• There were no significant reading test differences for quiet and noisy classrooms following the noise reduction interventions.

• Is a Hawthorne effect possible?

Page (1977)

Experiment 1

Noise level % helping

50 dB 60

80 dB 45

100 dB 35

Dependent measure: picking up dropped cards

Page (1977)

Experiment 2: Dependent measure:picking up dropped packages

Noisy street (92 dB) 80% HelpedRegular street (72 dB) 90% Helped

Provided physical help: 72% males, 39% females

Proved verbal help: 14% males, 45% females

Mathews & Canon (1975)Experiment 1:

Condition % helping

Natural noise (control, 48 dB) 72Medium white noise (65 dB) 67High white noise (85 dB) 37

Dependent measure: Number of arithmetic problems willing to solve

Experiment 2:

No cast condition % helpingNatural noise (50dB) 20High noise (87 dB) 10

Cast conditionNatural noise (50 dB) 80High noise (87 dB) 15

High noise: lawn mower running with muffler removedLow noise: usual background noise in the residential neighbourhood

Possible Explanations for Less Aid Under Noisy Conditions:

• Information overload may cause screening of inputs and a de-emphasis on needs of others

• Noise may function as a distractor• Noise may prevent verbal communication, raising costs

(efforts) of social interaction• Production of negative affect and mood change:

irritation, annoyance, unpleasantness • Aversive quality of noise may lead to escape, reducing

likelihood of assistance

Cohen & Lezak (1977)

Slide content

Calm DistressQuiet 2.13 2.06Noise 1.38 1.44

Dependent variable: Number of social cues slides remembered

The data supports Milgram’s overload model

Korte & Grant (1980Location: Dundee, Scotland (pop. 200,000) 2 locations in central business district

Noise noise (75 dB) Low noise (70 dB)

Novel Items:

1. Pink party hat worn by female, balloons tied to a tree.2. Sign: “Attention: Project in Progress”, female holding bright yellow teddy bear.

• Korte & Grant (1980)

Location: Dundee, Scotland (pop. 200,000) 2 locations in central business district

Noise noise (75 dB) Low noise (70 dB)

Novel Items:

1. Pink party hat worn by female, balloons tied to a tree

2. Sign: “Attention: Project in Progress”, female holding bright yellow teddy bear.

Korte & Grant (1980) Dependent measure: Awareness of object

Noise Level

High Low

Present 35% 56%Absent 65% 44%

Support for Milgram’s Overload Model