This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Exam #3
• Friday, December 19th at 12:30pm (DO NOT be late – I will not administer an exam to anyone once the first person in class finishes) • Will cover Chapters 9, 10, 11 and 12 • And all notes starting on 11/5 (beginning with “Moral disengagement”) • Not cumulative Dodd (1985) Dodd (1985)
College students were asked: “If you were completely invisible for one day, what would you do?” [If you could do anything humanly possible with complete assurance that you would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do?] Behavior intended to help others: 9% Behavior intended to harm others or deprive Behavior them of their rights: 36% them Behavior that violates social norms but does not Behavior specifically hurt or help others: 19% specifically Specific response contents: Criminal acts: 26% Sexual acts: 11% Spying behaviors: 11% Most common single response: “Rob a bank” Most (15%) (15%) August 28, 2001 August 28, 2001 A woman in Seattle was standing on the edge of the woman Ship Canal Bridge Commuters began to chant “Jump…Jump…Jump” Commuters and “Jump, Bitch, Jump” as police were trying to talk her down her She ended up jumping 160 feet into the water (she She survived) survived) Would any of those on-lookers have tried to coax her Would into jumping if they had been by themselves? into June 11 , 2000 June
th Dozens of young men roamed New York's Dozens Central Park sexually assaulting, terrorizing, and robbing more than two dozen women after a parade along Fifth Avenue after Deindividuation Deindividuation
Loss of self-awareness when we’re in Loss group situations that foster anonymity and draw attention away from the self draw Examples: Yelling obscenities at a referee Group vandalism Looting / Riots / Lynchings Deindividuation Deindividuation
Why do we do together what we would not Why do separately? do The presence of other people is arousing Combined with diffusion of responsibility Arousal + Diffusion of responsibility = Arousal Extreme behavior (which is often negative) Extreme Factors that Affect Deindividuation Factors that Affect Deindividuation Group Size
Bigger crowds = greater anonymity Mann’s (1981) archival study examined instances Mann’s with a potential “jumper” with Suicide Suicide baiting was more likely when: Crowds were large and when it happened at night Crowds Mullen (1986) – Archival study of lynchings Mullen between 1899-1946 between Factors that Affect Deindividuation Factors that Affect Deindividuation Physical Anonymity KKK rallies and Halloween pranks On-line music/movie pirating Few inhibitions in on-line chatrooms Deindividuation
• Halloween Candy study Halloween
(Diener et al., 1976) (Diener • Children trick or treated alone Children or in groups or • 1/2 children asked their name 1/2 and address; other 1/2 not asked and • All children given the All opportunity to steal extra candy or extra change Halloween Candy Study Halloween Candy Study
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Identified Anonymous Alone In Groups Does anonymity always lead to negative behavior?
Johnson and Downing (1979) – Female Johnson subjects participated in a “learning experiment” experiment” Each put on either a nurse’s uniform or a Each KKK robe KKK Identified by name tag or not (deindividuated Identified vs. not) vs. Could increase or decrease intensity of shock Could an obnoxious confederate an Tag
15 No Tag Change in Shock 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 KKK Nurse Deindividuation
Crowd Reduced self-awareness Reduced accountability Disinhibition Causes: • Anonymity • Group size • Arousal • Alcohol Consequences: • Emotional, impulsive and extreme behavior Group decision making Group Most “big” decisions are made in groups Domestic and foreign policy decision Groups interact with one another to make Groups judgments and decisions judgments E.g., Juries, Management teams Why make decisions in groups? Why
More knowledge, more ideas, better More memories memories Evaluate opinions better, catch errors Also, diffusion of responsibility if Also, something goes wrong something Group Polarization Group A group discussion strengthens the group average inclination of group members average Group Polarization Example Group Polarization Example Imagine you’re considering the pros and cons of Imagine going to grad school, and you talked it over with two groups: two Your family: Your Who are initially slightly opposed to the Who initially idea idea Your friends: Your Who are initially slightly favorable Who After discussion, what is likely to happen? Attitude Towards Grad School Definite GO Unsure Definite NO Before Group Discussion Attitude Towards Grad School Definite GO Friends’ average position Unsure Definite NO Family’s average position Before Group Discussion Attitude Towards Grad School Definite GO Unsure Definite NO Before Group Discussion After Group Discussion A B C&D E F Jury Research Jury
Kalven and Zeisel (1966) – 90% of Kalven unanimous juries’ final verdicts are consistent with the initial majority vote consistent Myers and Kaplan (1976) – mock juries Myers deliberating traffic felony cases; discussion produces shift in initial direction produces Why Do Groups Polarize? Why
1. Discussion produces a commitment 1. commitment People become more committed to a People viewpoint when they express that viewpoint publicly This can lead to more extremity Why Do Groups Polarize? Why
2. Persuasive arguments theory Persuasive • During discussion, people are exposed During to more arguments favoring the initial position position ...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 01/02/2010 for the course SOP 3004 taught by Professor Champers during the Fall '09 term at University of Florida.
- Fall '09