Week 10 - Collective Behaviour

Question 1

What are three theories of crowd behaviour?

Answer 1

De-individuation
Emergent norm theory
Social Identity theory

Question 2

What are 6 theories of why people do/n’t engage in collective action?

Answer 2

System justification theory
Normative pressure
Subgroup differences
Cost-benefit analysis
Efficacy considerations
Identity considerations

Question 3

What event evidences that riots aren’t a modern phenomena? (x1, plus explain x2)

Answer 3

Nika riots, 532 AD
Week long, half city burned, destroyed, tens of thousands killed
Unclear cause of violence, maybe escalated from small gathering

Question 4

Have there been riots locally? (x1, plus explain x3)

Answer 4

Battle of Brisbane, 1942
Americans, allies getting stationed here
Were better paid, had more things to give local girls
Two nights, big fights with Oz soldiers

Question 5

What was the cause of the Cronulla riots? (x3)

Answer 5

Small fight between Lebanese men and beach patrol,
Escalated by racist text messages calling Ozzies to arms
5000 people gathered

Question 6

What was the traditional view of crowd behaviour? (x2)

Why has this always been of interest to social psychs? (x1)

Answer 6

Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual, in a crowd he is a barbarian - a creature acting on instinct
Saw irrational, aggressive behaviour as inevitable
Politically motivated/funded - understand in order to control/reduce risk of protest/rebellion

Question 7

Explain the psychodynamic basis of traditional views of crowd behaviour (x2)

Answer 7

Superego normally controls instincts/aggressive impulses

But in crowds, the primitive id takes over

Question 8

What 3 themes emerge from the psychodynamic/traditional views of crowd behaviour?

Answer 8

Anonymity implied by the crowd means people lose responsibility for their actions
Unconscious antisocial motives are released
Ideas and behaviours spread rapidly and unpredictably through the crowd (“contagion”)

Question 9

Describe the 4 stages in a flow chart of de-individuation and crowd behaviour (x8)

Answer 9

Environmental conditions: anonymity, high arousal, group unity
Leads to reduced self-awareness
That manifests as de-individuation
With symptoms such as:
Weakened restraints against impulsive behaviour
Increased responsiveness to current emotional states
Inability to monitor/regulate own behaviour
Less concern about evaluations by others
Lowered ability to engage in rational planning

Question 10

What is meant by the term de-individuation? (x3)

Answer 10

Don’t lose identity,
But don’t care about personal beliefs, needs – all about the crowd
Lose maturity, behave like child

Question 11

What evidence did Festinger (1952) provide for the de-individuation hypothesis of crowd behaviour through experiment on discussions of parents? (x3)

Answer 11

Ps engaged in group discussion about their parents.
Some conditions, took place in dimly lit room, with participants wearing lab coats.
In this de-individuation condition people made more negative comments about their parents than control condition.

Question 12

What evidence did Jaffe and Yinon (1979) provide for the de-individuation hypothesis of crowd behaviour through ‘shock’ experiment? (x2)

Answer 12

Compared mean electric shock administered in lab by individuals compared to groups of three.
Ps in groups gave consistently more intense shocks

Question 13

What evidence did Zimbardo (1970) provide for the de-individuation hypothesis of crowd behaviour through ‘shock’ experiment? (x2)

Answer 13

Ps gave strangers electric shocks in lab.
Some made to wear cloaks and hoods, others wore ordinary clothes.
Deindividuated participants gave up to twice the duration of electric shock

Question 14

What evidence did Siegel (1986) provide for the de-individuation hypothesis of crowd behaviour through experiment of f2f vs electronic discussion? (x2)

Answer 14

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

Question 15

What was involved in Diener (1976) study of the de-individuation hypothesis of crowd behaviour through trick-or-treat behaviours? (x4)
Finding? (x2)

Answer 15

Observed 1352 US children
Experimenters in 27 homes, children to “take one of the lollies on the table”.
Children either alone or in groups.
Half the children first asked names and where they lived, to reduce de-individuation.
80% of de-individuated kids took extra sweets,
Only 8% of others

Question 16

What anthropological evidence of tribal warfare did Watson (1973) contribute to the de-individuation hypothesis? (x4)

Answer 16

Studied archival records
Found that cultures in which people change their appearance before battle (e.g,. body painting, masks) engage in more aggressive warfare -
80% engaged in torture/mutilation
Vs 13%

Question 17

What evidence did Mullen (1986) provide for the de-individuation hypothesis of crowd behaviour through examination of archives on US lynchings? (x1)

Answer 17

The larger the size of the crowd, the more gruesome the assault

Question 18

What are 3 limitations of the de-individuation hypothesis?

Answer 18

Notion of crowd behaviour as irrational and pathological.
Evidence for de-individuation often circumstantial - when tested directly, evidence is mixed.
Crowds frequently behave in calm/pro-social ways

Question 19

What was involved in Postmes and Spears (1998) meta-analysis of evidence for the de-individuation hypothesis? (x2)
Finding? (x2)
Concluding/arguing? (x1)

Answer 19

IVs: group size, anonymity, cohesiveness
DVs: electric shock, stealing, cheatingIVs not reliably related to antisocial behaviour.

Little support that experience of de-individuation per se accounts for effects found.
Strong effect for situational (group) norms

Anonymity and de-individuation assist people to take on whatever role is implied by the situation (can be both antisocial and prosocial).

Question 20

What was involved in the Johnson and Downing (1979) study of de-individuation and role expectations? (x5)
Finding? (x2)

Answer 20

Ps told they’d be administering shocks to strangers in ‘learning experiment’
Asked to wear KKK or nurses robe
Half also given name badge
Then asked to participate in second ‘shock/learning’ study
Measured change in shock levels
KKK robes gave similar shock with/out name badges
Nurses gave weaker electric shocks, especially when individuated (by name badge)

Question 21

Describe emergent norm theory of crowd behaviour (x4)

Answer 21

Argues that crowd (as all) behaviour governed by norms (rules of appropriate behaviour).
When crowds meet, people are uncertain what appropriate norms are -
Attention is attracted by behaviour of distinctive individuals, implying a norm is emerging.
Inaction on part of majority is interpreted as confirmation of the norm, amplifying pressure to behave similarly

Question 22

Describe the 5 components of the flow-chart of emergent norms and crowd behaviour

Answer 22

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

Question 23

What are 3 limitations of emergent norm theory?

Answer 23

Most often, crowds gather for specific purpose - bring with them a clear set of shared norms
Crowd violence often has an intergroup component
Crowds often behave logically, even when they’re violent (e.g. target govt buildings over local’s).

Question 24

What were the findings of Reicher (1984) analysis of news and interviews on the St Paul’s, Bristol riots? (x4)

Answer 24

Violence, burning and looting was “orderly” and directed at symbolic targets (history of police brutality priorate aggressive cafe raid)
Crowd remained within confines of its community
During/after riot, Ps felt strong sense of social identity -
ie people felt positive identity as members of St Paul’s community.

Question 25

Describe the 4 components of the flow-chart of social identity theory of crowd behaviour

Answer 25

Individuals come together as members of specific social group with specific purpose
Social identity provides norms for behaviour - when uncertain, crowd looks to core members for guidance
Conformity to group norms
Collective behaviour

Question 26

What are 3 types of collective action?

Answer 26

Industrial action
Representation
Staging

Question 27

What is industrial action? (x2)

Answer 27

Collective action

Refusal to perform labour (e.g. strikes, stop-work meetings)

Question 28

What is representation, in terms of collective action? (x2)

Answer 28

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)

Question 29

What is staging, in terms of collective action? (x2)

Answer 29

Take over public space, directly declare how state should be run and how good life should be pursued
(e.g., public meetings, demonstrations, pickets, paint-throwing, sit-ins, vigils, graffiti, marches, destruction of property, internet manipulation).

Question 30

Who was Edith Cowan (collective action pioneer)? (x3)

Answer 30

Helped lead successful Australian campaigns
e.g. for women’s suffrage (the vote) & for women being allowed into legal profession
First woman elected to parliament (1921, West Australia)

Question 31

Who was Vincent Lingiari (collective action)? (x2)

Answer 31

Helped lead successful “Wave Hill walk-off” against

Unequal pay for Indigenous Gurindji workers, stolen wages, and for land rights.

Question 32

What were the patterns in frequency of representations and staging in Australia, 1965-71? (x2)

Answer 32

Stable/slight decline in representations

Dip in staging in 1968, but overall, nearly doubled over period

Question 33

Describe the pattern of mobilisation for a peace rally in 1980s Netherlands

Answer 33

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

Question 34

What was involved in Taylor (1987) study of whether people would engage in collective action following unfair treatment? (x3)
Finding? (x4)

Answer 34

Ps in decision-making task - all beginners, so in bottom, ‘unsophisticated decision-maker’ group
But could move up if did well
All ‘failed’, told likely due to an unfair procedure
choose action from acceptance, re-test, individual or collective protest
Generally, Ps preferred acceptance or remark request
BUT, attraction to collective protest increased when
The injustice of the outcome was very obvious
Participants were close to the cut-off for acceptance

Question 35

Using a similar method to Taylor et al. (1987), Lalonde & Silverman (1994) led participants to believe they’d been denied access to a higher status group. What else was involved in their social identity study into collective action? (x5)

Answer 35

Led to believe boundaries were:
Open - but that their scores weren’t good enough
Slightly open - they’d passed, but quota of 2% set for low status entry to high group
Closed - they’d passed, but higher status group had denied entry
Ps then chose acceptance, re-mark request, or organise petition

Question 36

Using a similar method to Taylor et al. (1987), Lalonde & Silverman (1994) led participants to believe they’d been denied access to a higher status group. What was found by their social identity study into collective action? (x3)
Concluding (regarding tokenism)? (x1)

Answer 36

If open, re-test was most popular, with half as many accepting
Closed, similar levels across all three responses
But if slightly open, acceptance highest, and petition lowest
Suggests tokenism can be used to keep minorities quiet

Question 37

Besides tokenism, what are 4 strategies powerful groups use to suppress collective action?

Answer 37

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 38

Explain Jost and Banaji (1994) system justification theory of why people do/n’t engage in collective action (x3)

Answer 38

Disadvantaged groups are motivated to rationalise injustice
System is fair, and they can move if they try hard enough
Anger directed at other disadvantaged groups, vs the system

Question 39

What circumstantial evidence did Jost find for his system justification theory? (x5)

Answer 39

Low income, and african, americans more likely to support ltd individual/media rights to criticise govt
And more likely to endorse economic inequality as legitimate/necessary
Low income Latinos more likely (than high) to trust US govt officials
Low income more likely to believe pay diffs foster motivation/effort
Meritocracy endorsed mor by poor and southern african americans than affluent and northern

Question 40

Explain the normative approach to explaining why people do/n’t engage in collective action (x5)

Answer 40

More likely to engage in collective action if feel behaviour will be endorsed by important people in their life.
Normative pressure typically works against collective action:
Fear of being labeled a trouble-maker
Negative societal stereotypes of activists
Fear of being labeled a hypocrite

Question 41

Explain the potential role of intragroup differences in explaining why people do/n’t engage in collective action (x5)

Answer 41

Pressure to unite behind a single/uniform front …
But might antagonize real differences that exist within the protesting group:
Attitudes
Goals - specific outcomes?
Strategies - methods, level of force?

Question 42

What is ‘the activist’s dilemma’? (x3)

Answer 42

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

Question 43

Explain the potential role of cost-benefit analysis in explaining why people do/n’t engage in collective action (x3)
What is the main criticism of this approach? (x1)

Answer 43

Argues that we only decide based on rational weighing of cost-benefit to individual
Collective action unattractive due to high individual costs, but shared reward
And can ‘free-ride’ - benefit from concessions won by others
Too mechanistic and individualistic

Question 44

In line with cost-benefit analysis, how might efficacy considerations affect the decision to engage in collective action? (x1)
Which is evidenced by what findings? (x4)

Answer 44

Argues that major disincentive is belief that action will make no difference
Perception of potential effectiveness correlated with action willingness among unionists, african americans, anti-nuclear and environmental activists

Question 45

What was involved in Schofield and Pavelchak (1989) study showing that perceptions of efficacy is not everything when it comes to activist intentions? (x1)
Finding? (x2)

Answer 45

Examined attitudes toward nuclear war before/after watching a movie depicting nuclear holocaust.
After, Ps reported decreased sense that they had the ability to prevent nuclear war,
But also an increased intention to engage in anti-nuclear activism.

Question 46

What was involved in Klandermans and Oegema (1987) study into the impact of efficacy on activist intentions? (x1)
Finding? (x1)

Answer 46

Interviewed 114 Dutch Ps shortly before protesting against NATO’s decision to deploy cruise missiles in Europe.
None of them believed that the deployment of the cruise missiles could be stopped

Question 47

If people don’t think their collective action will achieve the ultimate goal, why do it? (x1)

Answer 47

Perhaps using more flexible criteria to evaluate ‘effectiveness’

Question 48

What did Hornsey (2006) find when asking rally attendees about likely attendance at future rallies? (x4)

Answer 48

Intent not related to perceived influence on govt/policy, but to
Influencing the general public
Expressing their personal values
Building an oppositional movement

Question 49

Explain the potential role of identity issues in explaining why people do/n’t engage in collective action (x3)

Answer 49

Possible that even when hope of success is low, activist identity has been internalised into self-concept

Question 50

What evidence have Simon and colleagues provided for the role of identity in collective action intentions? (x2)

Answer 50

Across a range of domains “activist identity” is extremely predictive of whether or not people engage in collective action …
Over and above the “rational” weighing up of costs and benefits.