Behaviour in Groups: “Deindividuation” Collective Behaviour of individuals in a Group UNIT: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Link to this video: .

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)

Trick or Treat Experiment (Diener et al, 1976)

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

Group Factors that contribute to Deindividuation

(adapted from Myers 1998)

AnonymityDecreased

self-awareness

Diffusion of responsibility

Deindividuation-loss of normal inhibitions

Increased responsiveness to

social norms or situational cues