1. Behaviour in Groups: “Deindividuation” Collective Behaviour of individuals in a Group UNIT: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Link to this video: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7364550n

2. Behaviour in Groups Anti-Social “MOB” rule Food fights, riots, vandalism Pro-Social Deindividuation – abandoning usual restraints to join in group behaviour.

3. 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 students RESULTS: 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.

4. 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)

5. Trick or Treat Experiment (Diener et al, 1976) Place: Seattle USA Procedure: 27 women asked to give out sweets to 1000 trick or treaters. Half the children were asked for names and addresses, the other half were anonymous. Some children were on their own, while others were in a crowd. Whilst chatting to the children the women had to answer a phone call and left the children with strict instructions to only take one sweet each.

6. 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

7. Interpretation of Deindividuation: DEINER (1980) Increased Arousal Sense of Anonymity (Strong group feelings) (External focus – Social Control) Reduced Self-Awareness (Less Personal Control) DEINDIVIDUATION

8. 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.

9. Research on Deindividuation Johnson and Downing (1979) Participants: Volunteers divided into two groups Group 1 – Nurses uniforms Sub-group 1-A (Individuated) – face visible Sub-group 1-B (Deindividuated) – face concealed Group 2 – Ku Klux Klan robes Sub-group 2-A (Individuated) – face visible Sub-group 2-B (Deindividuated) – face concealed Participants asked to deliver electric shock

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

13. Group Factors that contribute to Deindividuation (adapted from Myers 1998) Anonymity Decreased self- awareness Diffusion of responsibility Deindividuation -loss of normal inhibitions Increased responsiveness to social norms or situational cues