Psychology 301Social Psychology

Lecture 17, Oct 30, 2008Group processesGroup processes

Instructor: Cherisse SeatonInstructor: Cherisse Seaton

OverviewMore on group processesWhen the Group becomes a crowd:

RiotsGroup processes:

Diffusion of responsibilityDeindividuation

ReadingsAronson et al. Chapter 8

What is Collective Behavior? Relatively large aggregations of individuals

who display similarities in action and outlook.

Examples of collectivesQueue: Naashon Schalk/AP

Hula Hoops in USFads

Group processes & anti-social behaviour

Murder of Reena Virk, May 10, 1999

Yelling at the refereeVandalism in a crowdSuicide baitingInternet 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

CrowdsCommon crowds: street

crowds or public gatherings, audiences, queues

AudiencesMobs

Lynch mobs Hooliganism Riots

Panics: Escape and acquisition

RiotsParisStudent protestsInitiation of

behaviour

Collective movements Rumors as

collective processesContagionMass hysteria

The War of the Worlds broadcast

Psychogenic illness

Group behaviourDiffusion 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 behaviourDeindividuation

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 ClassroomWhat 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 behaviourProsocial – intending to benefit others

Freeing hostages; solving international conflicts

Antisocial – injuring others or depriving them of their rights; criminal activityAcademic cheating; robbing a bank

Nonormative – clearly violates social norms and practices, but without specifically helping or hurting othersSpying, public nudity

Neutral – none of the above

Types of behaviourProsocial – 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

DeindividuationOriginal study - Festinger

& Newcomb (1951)Participants discussed

parentsVariables:

(1) # of negative comments

(2) accuracy of memoryNegative statements and

identifiability (r = .57)Negativity (“lowered

restraint”) and liking of group (r = .36).

DeindividuationZimbardo (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 ofrelativeanonymity

Lesseningof self-observation

Diffusion ofresponsibility

Increasedlikelihood ofanti-socialbehavior

Zimbardo’s deindividuation theoryThe 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 anonymityMembership in large groupsHeightened state of physiological arousal

Suicide BaitingMann (1981)Archival analysis – New York Times 1964-

1979Incidence: ~17% of cases in which a crowd

was presentAggressive & seriousAnonymity-inducing factors:

Size of crowd Time of episode (cover of darkness) Physical distance between crowd and victim

Suicide Baiting

Causes of AnonymityThings that create a sense of anonymity:

Group size (large) DarknessHalloween costumesMasksNo identifying info Drugs / alcohol

Deindividuation: Anonymity and Groups

Diener et al. (1976) Trick or Treat studyParticipants: 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 identifiedAlone or group

Trick or Treat Study

7.5 % transgressed

14% more than identified individual

21.4 % transgressed

36% more than identified group

Identified Anonymous

Individual

Group

Deindividuation: Anonymity and Groups

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 deindividuation1.) Makes people feel less

accountable for their actionsLack of personal identityFeel less accountable for individual

behaviorAnonymous

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 deindividuation2.) Lowers self awarenessTwo 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. anonymityConformity vs. uninhibited

Deindividuation as group identity conformity to situation based norms.Negative or positive behaviour.

Deindividuation and IntimacyGergenParticipants: 4 (female) & 4 (male)IV: Dark room vs LightDV: IntimacyDark room more:

Personal disclosureTouching (90%)Hugging (50%)

Release from social norm of being reserved Decreased interpersonal inhibitionsWould you call this “loss of personal identity”?

Explanations for deindividuation3.) 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 suggestibilityIncreased conformity to group norms

VSIncreased 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 RolesZimbardo’s prison experimentCooperation and competition

Social DilemmasCommunication and threat