Social personality and abnormal psychology session 3: Inter
group behaviours 2
London riots (2011): background – happened in Tottenham where there has been
services cut, reports of police discrimination and the arrest and shooting of Mark
Duggan – started a peaceful protest in order to get an explanation but police where
slow to act – spread to more deprived areas of London (anarchy and chaos used to
described riots)
Crowd behaviour: early theories
Why do people in crowds often behave differently than when alone?
LeBon (1908) – alone, people can be cultivated but among a crowd, they become
barbaric
Freud (1921) – when in crowds it ‘unlock the unconscious’ aggression due to
anonymity
McDougall (1920) – crowds are ‘easily swayed’, and lack self-consciousness
Individual mind = rational, moral and in control
Deindividuation
People are instinctively selfish and aggressive. These instincts are suppressed
(societal norms)– people are identifiable as individuals however in crowds there is a
degree of anonymity which results in instinctive, aggressive behaviour as we are
detached from the norms and values of society
Deindividuation theory: the process: submergence in a crowd (anonymity) –
deindividuation (loss of identity) – lowered self-observation (weakened control
based on guilt, shame, fear) – impulsive, irrational, uncontrollable behaviour
The Stanford prison experiment: Zimbardo et al (1973) - Stanford University students
randomly assigned to either: ‘prisoner’ (dressed in a smock, given a number) or
‘guard’ (dressed in uniform, tinted sunglasses – lower levels of self-observation),
Clothing intended to create sense of anonymity. Resulted in participants engaging in
behaviours they would not normally display: Guards humiliated prisoners, thought of
ways to punish and degrade the prisoners/prisoners became passive and accepted
their status (prisoners became mentally unwell – experiment was stopped earlier
than originally set out as)
Silke (2003) – violence in Northern Ireland - Collected information on 500 attacks
between 1994-1996. Offenders who were wearing a disguise (balaclava, hood, mask)
more likely to: cause serious injury to victim, vandalise property, attack multiple
victims, exile the victim. Claim: anonymity of disguise created effects of
deindividuation (correlational)
Diener et al (1976) – 100’s of trick or treaters – wanted to see who would steal sweet
or money even when told by an adult to take one piece of candy - depended on
whether the child arrived alone or in a group – those in a group where more likely to
break the rules – when asked to give name and address only 7.5% broke rules in
comparison to the deindividuated group 57.5% broke the rules
Deindividuation applied to rioting behaviour: the London riots
Deindividuation Theory would argue that anonymity and diffusion of responsibility
created by crowd led to the effects of deindividuation - individual mind is ‘lost
group behaviours 2
London riots (2011): background – happened in Tottenham where there has been
services cut, reports of police discrimination and the arrest and shooting of Mark
Duggan – started a peaceful protest in order to get an explanation but police where
slow to act – spread to more deprived areas of London (anarchy and chaos used to
described riots)
Crowd behaviour: early theories
Why do people in crowds often behave differently than when alone?
LeBon (1908) – alone, people can be cultivated but among a crowd, they become
barbaric
Freud (1921) – when in crowds it ‘unlock the unconscious’ aggression due to
anonymity
McDougall (1920) – crowds are ‘easily swayed’, and lack self-consciousness
Individual mind = rational, moral and in control
Deindividuation
People are instinctively selfish and aggressive. These instincts are suppressed
(societal norms)– people are identifiable as individuals however in crowds there is a
degree of anonymity which results in instinctive, aggressive behaviour as we are
detached from the norms and values of society
Deindividuation theory: the process: submergence in a crowd (anonymity) –
deindividuation (loss of identity) – lowered self-observation (weakened control
based on guilt, shame, fear) – impulsive, irrational, uncontrollable behaviour
The Stanford prison experiment: Zimbardo et al (1973) - Stanford University students
randomly assigned to either: ‘prisoner’ (dressed in a smock, given a number) or
‘guard’ (dressed in uniform, tinted sunglasses – lower levels of self-observation),
Clothing intended to create sense of anonymity. Resulted in participants engaging in
behaviours they would not normally display: Guards humiliated prisoners, thought of
ways to punish and degrade the prisoners/prisoners became passive and accepted
their status (prisoners became mentally unwell – experiment was stopped earlier
than originally set out as)
Silke (2003) – violence in Northern Ireland - Collected information on 500 attacks
between 1994-1996. Offenders who were wearing a disguise (balaclava, hood, mask)
more likely to: cause serious injury to victim, vandalise property, attack multiple
victims, exile the victim. Claim: anonymity of disguise created effects of
deindividuation (correlational)
Diener et al (1976) – 100’s of trick or treaters – wanted to see who would steal sweet
or money even when told by an adult to take one piece of candy - depended on
whether the child arrived alone or in a group – those in a group where more likely to
break the rules – when asked to give name and address only 7.5% broke rules in
comparison to the deindividuated group 57.5% broke the rules
Deindividuation applied to rioting behaviour: the London riots
Deindividuation Theory would argue that anonymity and diffusion of responsibility
created by crowd led to the effects of deindividuation - individual mind is ‘lost
