Lecture 11 - Crowds and collective action

Question 1

What is the ID?

Answer 1

Seeding, primitive instinct that we’re all born with. Animalistic drive to satisfy our most primitive desires.
‘If it feels good to u just do it’
It doesn’t care about the consequences.

Question 2

What is the SUPEREGO?

Answer 2

It keeps the ID in check, and oversees control

Question 3

What are the theories of crowd behaviour/riots?

Answer 3

De-individuation
Emergent norm theory
Social identity theory

Question 4

What is the de-individuation hypothesis?

Answer 4

(1) the anonymity implied by the crowd means people lose responsibility for their actions
(2) unconscious antisocial motives are released
(3) ideas and behaviours spread rapidly and unpredictably through the crowd (“contagion”)

Question 5

What is the process of crowd behaviour according to de-individuation hypothesis?

Answer 5

Environmental conditions (anonymity, high arousal, close group unity, )
             = 
Reduced self-awareness
             = 
DE-INDIVIDUATION
             =
SYMPTOMS
Impulsivity
Emotionality: increased responsiveness to emot states
Low self-regulation
Lack of concern about social desirability
Irrationality

Question 6

What studies support the de-individuation hypothesis?

Answer 6

Festinger et al. (1952) 
Jaffe & Yinon (1979) 
Zimbardo (1970) 
Siegel et al. (1986) 
Diener et al. (1976) 
Watson (1973) 
Mullen (1986)

Question 7

What did Festinger et al., (1952) do?

De-individuation and comments

Answer 7

They had participants engage in a group discussion about their parents. Some Ps wore ordinary clothes and were placed in normal lighting.

Other Ps were de-individuated, they had to were lab coats and were placed in dimly lit rooms.

In this de-individuation condition people made more negative comments about their parents than in a control condition.

Question 8

What did Jaffe & Yinon (1979) do?

Electric shocks by individuals or groups

Answer 8

Ps were given electric shocks to themselves and they had to decide how much of an electric shock they would give back as revenge. They did this either individually or in groups of three.

They compared the mean electric shock administered in the lab by individuals compared to groups of three. Participants in groups gave consistently more intense shocks than did participants on their own.

Question 9

What did Zimbardo (1970) do?

Cloaks and shocks

Answer 9

He had people give strangers electric shocks in the laboratory.

Some participants were made to wear cloaks and hoods and other participants wore their ordinary clothes.

Deindividuated participants gave up to twice the duration of electric shock as did control participants.

Question 10

What did Siegel et al., (1986) do?

COMPUTER AND FLAMING

Answer 10

They recorded exchanges between groups of people engaging in group discussion either face-to-face or over computer.

Computer-mediated communication was characterized by higher incidences of swearing, name-calling and insults (“flaming”).

People weren’t so nice when they were anonymous.

Question 11

What did Diener et al. (1976) do?

Halloween and de-individuation

Answer 11

They observed the behaviour of 1352 children trick-or-treating in the US.

Experimenters in 27 homes invited children in to “take one of the lollies on the table”. Children were either alone or in groups.

Half the children were first asked their names and where they lived, to reduce de-individuation.

They found that when children were individuated, hardly any children took extra candy.

However, when they were deindividuated (which is default cos of costume) almost everyone did.

Question 12

What did Watson (1973) find in relation to cultures?

Answer 12

studied archival records and found that cultures in which people change their appearance before battle (e.g,. body painting, masks) engage in more aggressive warfare.

There are norms in how to engage in warfare, such as engaging in torture or mutilation.

They found that those who deindividuated before battle engaged in a higher percentage of torture and mutilation than those who had no deindividuation.

Question 13

What did Mullen (1986) find?

archival lynchings

Answer 13

He examined archival records of lynchings in the US. He found that the larger the size of the crowd, the more gruesome the assault.

A similar correlation between crowd size and anti-social behaviour has been found in archival records of people threatening to throw themselves.

Question 14

What are the limitations of the deindividuation hypothesis?

Answer 14

First, the evidence for the notion of de-individuation is often circumstantial, and when tested directly, the evidence is mixed.

Second, crowds frequently behave in calm and even pro-social ways. How can we explain why sometimes crowds behave in negative and volatile ways and sometimes they do not?

Question 15

What did Postmes && Spears (1998) meta-analysis reveal?

Answer 15

They looked at all these studies that manipulated things like group size, anonymity, cohesiveness (IVs) and looked at their effects on anti-normative behaviour (electric shock, stealing cheating)

What they found that there was not a lot of evidence that what leads to deindividuation makes people mean

What they did pick up on strongly was the situational norms (SN). SN has an effect on people, but the argument is that it makes u MORE SENSITIVE to the situational norms or expectations. e.g. If I de-individuate by making people wear school uniforms, they should behave more like students.

Question 16

What did Johnson and Downing (1979) do?

According to the theory, if u DInd someone and the situation implies something prosocial, u should become nicer.

Answer 16

They got Ps into lab and got them to give electric shocks to strangers.

Ps then had them put on KKK outfits and got them to. Or they got them to wear a nurses robe (it’s also DInd but implies caring). Half were then individuated by being asked to wear a name badge; half were left de-individuated.

They then asked to give electric shocks again after the manipulation (changes mentioned above).

RECAP: So Ps are either given a KKK or nurse outfit and and were either wearing a name badge or not. They got Ps to give electric shocks BEFORE AND AFTER those changes. They were looking for the change in how mean people were.

Negative scores meant u gave less of an electric shock after the manipulation. Positive score meant u gave more of an electric shock.

They found that when dressed in the KKK outfits the became meaner (there was no change in meanness depending on whether they were given or not given a name badge)

Ps given the nurse outfit became nicer (administered less electric shocks) and this change was particularly greater when they were given no name badge (when they were DInd)

Question 17

How does the emergent norm theory relate to crowd behaviour?

Answer 17

Crowd behaviour – like all group behaviour – is governed by norms, or rules of appropriate behaviour.

When crowds meet, people are uncertain as to what the appropriate norms are or what to do.

Their attention is attracted by the behaviour of distinctive individuals, implying a norm is emerging.

Inaction on the part of the majority is interpreted as confirmation of the norm, amplifying pressure to behave in a similar way.

Question 18

P

Answer 18

Ad hoc collection of individuals with no history of association; therefore, no pre-existent norms
=
Distinctive behaviour perceived as an implicit norm
=
Normative influence comes into play, creating pressures against non-conformity
=
Inaction of majority interpreted as tacit confirmation of the norm; pressures against non-conformity increase
=
COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR

Question 19

What are the limitations of emergent norm theory?

In reality this rarely happens, u don’t get people meeting in a normative vacuum.

Answer 19

More often than not, crowds gather for a SPECIFIC PURPOSE and bring with them a clear set of SHARED NORMS

Crowd violence often has an INTERGROUP COMPONENT (THEY ARE FIGHTING AN OUTGROUP)

Crowds often behave LOGICALLY, even when they’re violent. (This theory implies some kind of contagion of behaviour that doesn’t have to be logical)

Question 20

What did Reicher (1984) find when he analysed a riot in Bristol using newspaper reports and interviewing rioters?

Answer 20

Essentially the riots were quite rational
He found that violence, burning and looting was “orderly” and directed at symbolic targets

The crowd remained within the confines of its community

During and after the riot, participants felt a strong sense of social identity; in other words people felt a positive identity as members of the St Paul’s community.

From the inside it can look very organised, logical, methodical. People just prepared for a battle. They knew exactly what was going to happen and who their specific targets were (i.e. the police); it was not an act of random violence. So often what looks illogical and crazed (from the outside) isn’t always.

Question 21

What is the process of crowd behaviour according to social identity theory?

Answer 21

Individuals come together as members of a specific social group with a specific purpose
=
Social identity provides norms for behaviour. When uncertain, crowd members look to core members for guidance. Senior member sets the norm, not just anyone.
=
Conformity to group norms
=
COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR

Question 22

What are three types of collective action?

Answer 22

(1) Industrial action: Refusal to form labour (e.g., strikes, blackbans, stopwork meetings)
(2) Representation: Performance in which individuals and organizations attempt to “stand” for a larger group of individuals (e.g., conventions, conferences, petitions, the formation of organizations, open letters)
(3) Staging: People take over a public space and make demands; directly declare how the state should be run and how the good life should be pursued (e.g., public meetings, demonstrations, pickets, paint-throwing, sit-ins, vigils, graffiti, marches, destruction of property, internet manipulation).

Question 23

Is staging increasing and in what aspects?

Answer 23

Yes, in both relative and absolute terms

Question 24

What did the Gallup poll reveal in 1983 about collective action?

Answer 24

That approximately 40% of people in the US believed it was likely that there would be nuclear war by 1998, and 70% believed that they would not survive a nuclear war.

Despite this, surveys in the 1980s showed that only a very small minority of people engaged in collective action to try to prevent the proliferation of nuclear missiles.

This finding suggests that although collective action is typically thought of as the most powerful to achieve social change, people are typically quite reluctant to engage in collective action; ONLY A MINORITY ENGAGE IN COLLECTIVE ACTION.

Question 25

What did the 1980s Netherlands peace rally show?

Answer 25

Did not agree with goals (26%)
Agreed with goals (74%)
- Not aware of rally (15%)
- Aware of rally (59%)
- Did not intend to go (49%)
- Intended to go (10%)
- Did not go (6%)
- Attended rally (4%)

Only a small number of people actually attended the rally, despite 74% of people agreeing with its goals, of which 54% were aware of the rally, of which only 10% intended to go, whereas actually only 4% did.

Question 26

What did Taylor et al., (1987) do?

Protest and Prejudice

Answer 26

He had Ps decision-making task; they were given 15 minutes to read and answer questions about criminal case involving a stabbing.

As a participant u were put into this low status group; u were aware that there was a higher status group. They reinforced status by saying that the higher status group could win $100 whereas they could only win a maximum of $10.

They were told that if they performed well at the task, they could then be promoted to a better group. And they were told that they had failed the test - but were led to believe that this decision was based on an unfair procedure. The judges (who were from the high status group) were evaluating the low status group using other criteria such as number of guys and girls or their personality, length of response etc.

Ps were given the option of (1) accepting the result, (2) sit a re-test, (3) protest individually, (4) or collectively protest (through petition)

They found that people tended to prefer acceptance and requests for remark to individual and collective protest.

BUT, attraction to collective protest increased when

(a) The injustice of the outcome was very obvious
(b) Participants were close to the cut-off for acceptance

Question 27

What did Lalonde & Silverman (1994) do?

Answer 27

Ps had to evaluate an ethics case involving the accusation of sexual misconduct of a psychology professor.

They led participants to believe they’d been denied access to a higher status group. They were further led to believe that the boundaries between the high and low status group were either
Open (they’d been denied entry because their test scores weren’t good enough)
Slightly open (they’d achieved better than the pass mark but had been denied entry because the high status group had decided to let only 2% of the low status group in)
Closed (they’d achieved better than the pass mark but had been denied entry because the high status group had decided to let none of the low status group in)

Participants then had to nominate how they’d respond to the situation: acceptance, asking for a re-mark, or organizing a petition.

There was a huge drop in willingness to engage in collective action (when comparing the closed and slightly open group) when 2% of ur group were treated fairly compared to 0%. There is also quite a big increase in acceptance when 2% of ur group were allowed in compared to none of ur group.

Experimenters noted that tokenism works, letting in just one or two people creates the illusion of fairness and robs from people that anger to engage in collective action.

Question 28

What are other strategies powerful group can use to suppress collective action?

Answer 28

Fear (of death / imprisonment / exclusion / social stigma)
Control of information / media
Antagonising differences within the group
Promoting a culture of individualism and advocating just-world beliefs

Question 29

List explanations for why people do/don’t engage in collective action?

Answer 29

1) System justification
2) Normative pressure
3) Subgroup (Intragroup) differences
4) Cost-benefit analyses
5) Efficacy considerations
6) Identity considerations

Question 30

According to Jost and Banaji (1994) what is system justification?

Answer 30

Members of disadvantaged groups are motivated to rationalize away injustice … they convince themselves that the system is fair & that they can move up the ranks if they work hard enough.

Instead of directing anger at the system, anger is directed at other disadvantaged groups.

Question 31

What is evidence for system justification?

John Jost argued ironic effects where people who had the most to gain from challenging the system were the ones to who were most likely to endorse the system, least likely to confront income inequality etc.

Answer 31

Low-income respondents and African Americans were more likely than other participants to endorse the belief that economic inequality is legitimate and necessary

Low-income people more likely than high-income people to believe that large differences in pay are necessary to foster motivation and effort

The notion of the meritocracy endorsed more by poor and Southern African Americans than by more affluent and Northern African Americans

Question 32

What is normative pressure?

Answer 32

According to the normative approach, people will be more likely to engage in collective action the more they feel such behaviour will be endorsed by important people in their life.

However, a reason why people might NOT engage in collective action, according to normative pressure is due to:

a) fear of being labeled a trouble-maker
b) negative societal stereotypes of activists
c) fear of being labeled a hypocrite

Question 33

What are intragroup differences?

Answer 33

Within a group it may be something of someone's 
(a) attitudes
(b) goals, and/or
(c) methods 
that u just don't like or agree with.

Question 34

What is the activities dilemma?

Answer 34

Routine forms of claim-making are unlikely to attain wide
media coverage

Novel, disruptive and violent actions often involve sustained conflict with police

Strong media coverage that results can be negative and counter-productive

part of what u are doing is provoking, being distinctive which draws attention. The attention may be negative, and that reinforces that position towards ur movement.

Question 35

How does cost-benefit analysis relate to collective action?

Answer 35

Klandermans argued that the decision of whether to engage in collective action is based on a rational weighing up of costs and benefits to the individual.

Collective action is not very attractive because costs to the individual are high and rewards are shared by all. So even if people do not participate in collective action they can benefit from whatever concessions are won (the “free rider” effect). (You can benefit from change brought about by collective action without taking part in it.)

Question 36

What is efficacy considerations?

Answer 36

In line with Klandermans’ notion of cost-benefit analyses, it has been argued that a major disincentive for people getting involved in collective action is the BELIEF THAT ACTION WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE.

Consistent with this, perceptions of potential effectiveness are positively correlated with willingness to engage in collective action among unionists, African Americans, anti-nuclear activists, and environmental activists.

There is a positive correlation between the extent to which u think the protest is going to have an effect and ur willingness to engage in it.

Question 37

Sometimes people do things in the absence of any efficacy. Describe a study that supports this.

Answer 37

Schofield & Pavelchak (1989) examined people’s attitudes toward nuclear war before and after watching a movie depicting nuclear holocaust. After watching the movie, Ps reported a DECREASED sense that they had the ability to prevent nuclear war, and at the same time an INCREASED intention to engage in anti-nuclear activism.

so protest is not just about effectiveness.

Question 38

What did Klandermans and Oegema (1987) do?

Answer 38

They interviewed 114 Dutch participants shortly before a major rally protesting against NATO’s decision to deploy cruise missiles in Europe.

They found that “None of the respondents was very optimistic about the effectiveness of the demonstration; those who intended to demonstrate were no exception.
None of them believed that the deployment of the cruise missiles could be stopped”

Question 39

What is a possible reason for why people may engage in collective action even when they don’t think the ultimate goals of the protest are likely to be achieved? Describe a study which supports this?

Answer 39

One possibility is that effectiveness isn’t construed more broadly than just changing governments minds. They are using more flexible criteria for what they regard to be effective collective action.

Hornsey et al. (2006) asked people at a rally in Brisbane whether they were likely to attend future rallies on the same theme.

Future intentions were NOT related to the perceived effectiveness of the rally in influencing heads of government or policy makers … but it WAS related to the perceived effectiveness of the rally in terms of:

(a) influencing the general public (media coverage)
(b) expressing their personal values

(c) building an oppositional movement (need to voice
opinion)

Question 40

What is identity issues in relation to collective action?

Answer 40

Being an activist is WHO THEY ARE; THEIR IDENTITY
people participate in collective action - even when the hopes for success are low - is that they have internalized being an activist into their self-concept.

So nothing else matters, cost-benefit analyses, normative pressures, stereotypes, if u have a self-identity as an activist.

Simon and colleagues have shown across a range of domains that “activist identity” is the biggest predictor of whether or not people engage in collective action … more so than the “rational” weighing up of costs and benefits.