5 Steps to a 5 AP Psychology, 2010-2011 Edition - Laura Lincoln Maitland [168]
Another phenomenon that arises when people are in large groups is deindividuation. When we are in a large group, we tend to lose some self-awareness. We may engage in behavior that is unusual or uncharacteristic for us because of this group anonymity. This especially occurs when there is a heightened sense of arousal. Antisocial behavior from normally well-behaved individuals may occur in these situations. Let a pitcher hit a batter with a ball for a second time and watch the benches of both teams empty and a fistfight take place. This normative behavior reduces the conflict any one person feels toward acting in such a brutal way. None of the players give much thought to the repercussions. Similarly, when a blackout occurs, we have become accustomed to expect certain groups to riot and loot. Deindividuation can also lead to prosocial behavior, with an unusual outpouring of generosity among virtual strangers all caught up in an emotionally arousing situation.
Effects of the Group
Your performance on certain tasks is also affected by being in a group situation. Social facilitation refers to a tendency to perform well-learned tasks better in front of others. The well-rehearsed piano student may perform much better at the recital than he or she has all week during practice. This tendency for improved performance can be explained by the level of arousal and increased motivation that occurs in front of the audience. Studies have also shown that when first learning a new task, performing in front of others leads to the opposite tendency or social impairment. Someone just learning to play tennis may begin to hit the ball across the net much more consistently until a crowd gathers to watch, and then the player blows nearly every shot.
When we are in a group of like-minded people, group polarization might occur. The decisions reached by the group are often more extreme than those made by any single individual. Groupthink can be a disastrous consequence of group polarization. Irving Janis first discussed this phenomenon in relation to the ill-fated decision for the U.S. to invade Cuba in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Cabinet members wanting to preserve the harmony of the newly formed group failed to raise objections or voice dissenting opinions, and actively engaged in self-censorship of any opposing ideas. Because everyone seemed to agree out loud, the group felt there was no way the invasion could be stopped, which led to a disastrous failure. A cure for the groupthink phenomenon might be to bring in outside opinions or have a single member of the group act as the devil’s advocate. By bringing in ideas contrary to the ones being mentioned by the rest of the group, more critical attention is paid to all aspects of the decision and the potential problems.
Minority Influence
The lone dissenter shows that minority influence can also have an effect. This is classically seen in the movie Twelve Angry Men. One member of the jury held unswervingly to his opinion that the defendant was innocent and finally convinced all of the other members to shift their opinion. Anxious to get on with their lives and overwhelmed by the circumstantial evidence provided by the prosecution, the other jurors had quickly concluded that the innocent man must be guilty. Initially, all the other jurors were inclined to agree, so as each supported conviction, members of the group became even more sure it must be right.
Bystander Intervention
The tragic murder of Kitty Genovese outside a New York apartment complex stimulated social psychological research on bystander intervention. Experimenters Bibb Latané and John Darley set up lab conditions in which participants, thinking either that they were alone or that they were with others, heard an emergency cry for help. Those who thought they were alone were much more likely to give assistance than those who thought others were present. The diffusion of responsibility phenomenon seems