Lecture 14 Group Influence: Deindividuation, Polarization, and Groupthink
Group- collection of individuals who are interdependent or bonded together to some degree
Characteristics of groups:
• Roles
◦ Set of expected behaviors
• Norms
◦ Rules of conduct for group members
• Cohesiveness
◦ Closeness of group members
The Deindividuated State and Deviant Behavior
Deindividuation is a psychological state where an individual is not focused on their internal standards of morality.
This loss of focus on internal standards opens the individual up to engage in deviant behavior.
Deviant behavior is defined as behavior that is non-acceptable, socially unacceptable, or immoral.
Normally, individuals have constraints against deviant behavior. For example, if someone is being annoying in a class, social and internal constraints prevent one from simply punching them. These constraints are learned.
In a state of deindividuation, these learned constraints matter significantly less, creating an opening for loyalty and deviant behavior.
This concept is used to explain why people often behave differently in crowds compared to when they are by themselves.
Factors Affecting Deindividuation: Group Size and Anonymity
Group Size: The larger the number of people in a group, the more likely the members are to become deindividuated.
Large settings like concerts or sporting events involving tens of thousands of people facilitate this state.
Large groups cause individuals to feel like they are part of a larger organism rather than an individual.
Increasing group size increases the sense of loss of individuality.
Historical Evidence (Lynchings): Researchers analyzed racially motivated lynchings from the late and early in American history. The findings showed that the larger the mob, the more brutal the torture and killing of the victim was. This is consistent with the idea that larger groups led to more intense deindividuation and a lessening of constraints against violence.
Suicide Jumper Phenomenon: In situations where an individual is considering committing suicide by jumping from a building, a crowd often forms on the street. In some cases, the crowd begins taunting the person, chanting "jump, jump, jump." Research indicates this taunting typically only happens when the crowd reaches a "critical mass." The larger the group, the more deindividuated the members become, lessening the constraints against this negative, deviant behavior.
Anonymity: A feeling of being anonymous increases the likelihood of deindividuation.
If a person is personally identifiable, they feel like an individual. If they are wearing a uniform or costume identical to others, they feel anonymous.
Time of day affects anonymity; people feel less identifiable at night compared to during the day. This explains why riots are more likely to occur anonymously at night.
The Shock Magnitude Study (KKK vs. Regular Clothes): In a study similar to the Milgram experiment, participants delivered what they believed were electric shocks to a victim. They were able to set the magnitude of the shock themselves.
Condition A: Participants wore their regular clothes.
Condition B: Participants wore identical KKK uniforms to increase anonymity.
Results: Participants in identical KKK uniforms delivered significantly stronger shocks than those in regular clothes. The anonymity led to deindividuation and reduced constraints against aggression.
The Continuum of Deindividuation and Positive Group Characteristics
Deindividuation is not a binary state (either "on" or "off"), but rather a continuum or scale.
There is no "magic number" (e.g., fewer than vs. more than ) where deindividuation suddenly occurs. As group size or anonymity increases, the extent of deindividuation increases gradually.
Positive Behavior: Deindividuation does not always lead to negative behavior.
When deindividuated, people lose their individual identity and take on the characteristics of the group they are part of.
Nursing Uniform Follow-up Study: Researchers repeated the shock study but changed the costume. Participants wore either regular clothes or identical nursing uniforms.
Nurses are associated with helping and care.
Results: While identical KKK uniforms led to stronger shocks compared to regular clothes, identical nursing uniforms led to weaker shocks compared to regular clothes.
This confirms that deindividuation leads people to adopt the behavior associated with the group context, whether that is aggressive (KKK) or helpful (nursing).
Distraction and the Self-Awareness Conflict
Distraction: Environments with high sensory input—such as music, lights, or many people—distract individuals from their internal standards of morality. This increases deindividuation. Places like clubs produce deindividuation because they combine large groups, anonymity (darkness), and high levels of distraction.
The Halloween Candy Study: Researchers looked at the effects of deindividuation on children trick-or-treating.
Halloween provides a natural setting for deindividuation due to large groups, costumes (anonymity), and distraction (decorations/candy).
Condition A (Individuation): The researcher asked the children their names.
Condition B (Deindividuation): The researcher did not ask for names.
The researcher would then leave the children alone with a bowl of candy, instructing them to take only one.
Results: Children in the deindividuated condition were much more likely to steal extra candy. Asking for a child's name broke the sense of deindividuation/anonymity and significantly reduced the likelihood of theft.
Real-World Example (New York Cultural Festival): During a festival in New York, mobs of men spontaneously formed and sexually assaulted women in the middle of the day. This is attributed to the combination of large crowd size, the feeling of anonymity within that crowd, and the high level of distraction from festival activities, leading to a loss of internal moral regulation.
Group Influence on Opinion: Risky Shift and Polarization
Risky Shift: Early psychology research suggested that people make riskier decisions when in a group compared to when they are alone.
Example (Frank's Business): In a scenario where Frank is considering quitting his job to start a business, participants were asked how confident Frank should be of success before quitting. Individuals might suggest a conservative confidence, whereas groups might suggest a riskier confidence.
The Problem of Cautious Decisions: Later research showed the opposite: groups sometimes make more cautious decisions than individuals.
Example (Frank's Daughter's College Fund): If the risk involves investing his daughter's college money in a stock, individuals might be risky ( confidence required), while groups become very cautious ( confidence required).
Group Polarization: This concept resolves the conflicting findings of risky shift versus cautious shifts.
Definition: When a group of like-minded people with similar opinions discusses an issue, they do not arrive at a moderate average; instead, every member's opinion becomes more extreme in the direction they were already leaning.
Examples: Students complaining about a test until everyone hates the professor; talking with friends about an annoying person until the group collectively loathes them.
Causes of Group Polarization
Persuasive Argument: During a discussion, group members share different reasons for their shared position. An individual might start with two reasons to hold a belief; after the discussion, they might have learned five new reasons, making their opinion stronger and more extreme.
Social Comparison: People define themselves (e.g., as "intelligent" or "principled") relative to others. An individual who is against the death penalty defines themselves as being more against it than the average person. When they join a group where everyone is against the death penalty, they must become even more extreme to distinguish themselves and maintain their self-concept as being unique or leading in that belief.
Social Categorization: Groups want to maximize the difference between themselves ("us") and the other side ("them"). In politics, Democrats move further to one extreme and Republicans to the other to ensure they are clearly differentiated from the opposition. This is fueled by confirmation bias—the tendency to only interact with people and information that agree with us, creating "bubbles."
Historical Study (Desegregation attitudes, ): Researchers measured prejudice levels and divided participants into high-prejudice and low-prejudice groups to discuss school bus desegregation.
After discussion, the high-prejudice group became even more prejudiced.
After discussion, the low-prejudice group became even less prejudiced.
The groups polarized away from each other.
Groupthink: Poor Decision Making in Expert Groups
Groupthink occurs when a group of intelligent, expert people makes a catastrophically bad decision because the priority becomes justifying a preordained conclusion rather than analyzing evidence objectively.
It was identified in the and has been applied retrospectively to historic events.
Historic Examples of Groupthink:
Pearl Harbor: Military commanders had tracking information on Japanese planes and warnings of a potential attack but decided it was nothing and failed to raise alarms, assuming the Japanese could not harm the U.S.
Watergate: Nixon's administration decided to bug the Democratic offices at the Watergate Hotel. This was an unnecessary and "dumb" risk because Nixon was already projected to win the reelection easily.
Bay of Pigs: The JFK administration attempted to use CIA-trained Cubans to overthrow Castro. They overestimated local support and suffered a major international embarrassment when the U.S. involvement was immediately obvious.
Space Shuttle Challenger (): The shuttle exploded seconds after takeoff, killing all astronauts. Engineers had warned that low temperatures the night before made the O-rings brittle. Management ignored these warnings due to political and financial pressure to launch, leading to the disaster.
Iraq Invasion (): The decision to invade was based on faulty intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction. The group process biased the interpretation of weak evidence to fit a preconceived desire to invade.
Symptoms of Groupthink
Overestimation of the Group:
Illusion of Invulnerability: The belief that the group is too smart or powerful to make a wrong decision. This is related to unrealistic optimism (the group version of thinking one's future will be better than average).
Unquestioned Morality: The group assumes their decisions are morally correct by definition. Anyone who disagrees is labeled as immoral. This is similar to self-serving cognitions.
Closed-Mindedness:
The group stops listening to alternative opinions and focuses on justifying their actions rather than questioning them. This involves cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias (interpreting ambiguous evidence to support the desired conclusion).
Pressures toward Uniformity:
Members put pressure on each other to reach the preordained conclusion. This is related to the Asch study on conformity; individuals are afraid to appear different or voice doubts.
Mindguards: Individuals who protect the leader from dissenting opinions. In the JFK administration, Robert Kennedy initially served as a mindguard, telling officials that the President did not want to hear alternative ideas.
Illusion of Unanimity: It appears everyone is in agreement, even if individuals have secret doubts. This is similar to the false consensus effect.
Preventing Groupthink
Consult with Outside Experts: Experts from outside the group do not share the group's preordained conclusions and are less biased.
Encourage Criticism: Instead of suppressing dissent, groups should actively seek out flaws.
Devil's Advocate: Assign one person the specific job of identifying every possible flaw in the plan.
JFK's Strategy Shift: After the Bay of Pigs, JFK assigned his brother Robert Kennedy to be a devil's advocate rather than a mindguard. This shift is credited with the successful management of the Cuban Missile Crisis, preventing nuclear war.
Subdivide the Group: Breaking a large group into subgroups allows members to speak more freely without the pressure of a powerful leader being present in the room.
Second-Chance Meetings: After a decision is made, the group should sleep on it and meet the next day to voice any final concerns before committing to the action.
Openness to Criticism: Psychologically, it is difficult to expose ideas to criticism, but it is necessary to identify flaws in thinking and avoid bad decisions.