Post on 24-Dec-2015
Behaviour in Groups:“Deindividuation”
Collective Behaviour of individuals in a GroupUNIT: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Link to this video: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7364550n
Behaviour in Groups
Anti-Social
“MOB” rule
Food fights, riots, vandalism
Pro-Social
COMMUNITY Support
Rescue crowds during disasters
Deindividuation – abandoning usual restraints to join in group behaviour.
Research on Deindividuation
Zimbardo et al (1970) – Lab Coat Experiment
Participants: College Students divided into two groups
Control Group – wore normal clothes with a name tag
Expmtl Group – wore uniform overalls (lab coats) and mask
Task: Deliver electric shocks to fellow studentsRESULTS:Individuated Group (Control ) Delivered weak electric shocks
Deindividuated Group (Expmtl )
Delivered stronger shocks
INFERENCE: Power of individual norms are undermined by anonymity in a crowd.
Interpretation of Deindividuation:
ZIMBARDO described ANONYMITY as a critical factor in explaining deindividuation
Other related factors leading to abandoning restraints:
• Increased Arousal
• Reduced Responsibility
• Sensory Overload
• Altered consciousness due to drug/alcohol)
Results of Trick or Treat Experiment
Children more likely to cheat when they:• Were Anonymous• Were in a group• Could shift the responsibility for the behaviour
Interpretation of Deindividuation:
DEINER (1980)
Increased Arousal Sense of Anonymity
(Strong group feelings) (External focus – Social Control)
Reduced Self-Awareness
(Less Personal Control)
DEINDIVIDUATION
Reicher (1987)
Contradicted the view that deindividuation decreased self-awareness
Proposed that deindividuation increased awareness of social norms
Evidence: Observations of how anonymous people in crowds compelled to help in emergency situations e.g., helping out in floods, fires, earthquakes.
Research on Deindividuation
Johnson and Downing (1979)Participants: Volunteers divided into two groups
Group 1 – Nurses uniformsSub-group 1-A (Individuated) – face visible
Sub-group 1-B (Deindividuated) – face concealed
Group 2 – Ku Klux Klan robesSub-group 2-A (Individuated) – face visible
Sub-group 2-B (Deindividuated) – face concealed
• Participants asked to deliver electric shock
The Costume Experiment(Johnson & Downing,1979).
• Individuated participants delivered less shocks than Deindividuated participants.
• Individuated and Deindividuated participants shocked more when dressed as KKK, but they shocked less when dressed as nurses.
RESULTS (Johnson and Downing, 1979)refer to Fig. 15.2, p364 of textbook
Nurses Uniforms
• More Caring behaviour
Ku Klux Klan robes
• Less caring behaviour
CONCLUSION: Group norms take precedence over individual norms when in a crowd. If group norms are pro-social, then pro-social behaviour is manifested. If anti-social, then anti-social behaviour is shown.
Two sides to Deindividuation
When a person is unsure of how to act in a crowd, Deindividuation could lead to either pro-social or anti-social behaviour depending on situational factors.
• Situational cues are pro-social Pro-social Behaviour
• Situational cues are anti-social Anti-social Behaviour