intergroup relations- crowds: normative controls Flashcards
what is violence in crowd said to be due to (2 things)
- nature of peope coming together
- psycholigical transformation of normally civilised people
in crowds, they reduce behaviour to internal factors such as? 2 things
- individual personality
- forces released by collective membership
what did Le Bon 1986 say about crowds
- creature acting by instinct
- sacrifice of personal interest to collective interest
- unthinking behaviour
what themes did Le Bon 1986 say about crowds
- loss of conscious rationality (behaviour not controlled cannot tell right from wrong)
- barbaric behaviour (no longer thinking, reversion to barbaric behaviour)
- emotional contagion (people more suggestible to ideas and spread quickly)
what was the overall image Le Bon made of crowds
- violence ever present danger- primitive instincts waiting to be brought to fore
- violence is unthinking and meaningless
what are things that make Le Bon’s theory problematic about crowds 1
- crowd behaviour is intergroup behaviour, but no sense of that from his work- misses intergroup context
- crowd appears as psychopathic
- presents crowds as having a fixed set of behaviours, when crowds are diverse
what are things that make Le Bon’s theory problematic about crowds 2
- limit to social influence, Police rarely ever join in so isnt ‘contagious’
- irrationality of crowd behaviour: from inside crowd behaviour may appear differently (misunderstood)
why was le bon 1986 work influential
- legitmated tough response, should respond legitamtely and firmly
- appealed to people like Mussolini and Hitler
-Mussolini turned to work of le bon
what is de individuation
- loss of sense of identity, said to make people act more for collective interest
what certain conditions may de individuation occur
- in annoyminty (e.g theatre)
- large group size
- diffusion of responsability
what was found from de individuation by Zimbardo
- use of war paint, leads to loss of self (not able to identify)
- Watson: of 23 societies, 15 had warriors using war paint
- 90% when people mutilated/ killed people they were wearing the paint
- said the war paint de individuated them
what did Fesingter, pepitione and Newcombe 1952 do in their study
- made people less identifiable
- people gave more rash/ daring descriptions of their parents (at time was uncommon to speak badly of parents)
singer et al 1995 study
- use of laboratory coats
- made people use more obscene language when talking about erotic subjects
- people normally use more explicit language
zimbardo 1970 study
- dressed in hoods and robes
- involved giving punishment to people
- found people gave higher shocks when unidentifiable
diener and wallbom study 1976
- given IQ test that was impossible
- experimenter said they had to go and left person alone in room with book of answers
- manipulated if there was a mirror to see themselves or not to go cheat
- when mirror: 7% cheated
- without mirror: 71% cheated
what was dinner 1980s theory of de individuation
- the dimension of self awareness, argues in a crowd we dont self monitor, dont plan behaviour, behaviour less associated with norms, more guided by immediate cues and emotions
- less likely to feel responsible and less likely to notive your behavour to others
what was dienars 1980 conclusion or contradictory to crowds
- theres a pattern to crowds, showing behaviour appears to be controlled
- studies show crowds have a social form
whats an example of a riot as ‘not random’
- Gordon 1780 riots
- targetted specifics
- shows pattern to killings etc
