Thus far, the primary focus of this chapter has been people in social situations. We learned, for example, how individuals process information about other people (social cognition) and how behavior is shaped by social interactions (social influence). But human beings do not exist solely as isolated units. When striving toward a common goal, we often come together in groups, and these groups have their own fascinating social dynamics.

Being around other people does not always provide a performance boost, however. Learning or performing difficult tasks may actually be harder in the presence of others (Aiello & Douthitt, 2001), and group members may not put forth their best effort. When individual contributions to the group aren’t easy to ascertain, social loafing may occur (Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). Social loafing is the tendency for people to make less than their best effort when individual contributions are too complicated to measure. Many students will shy away from working in groups because of the negative experiences they have had with other group members’ social loafing.

Social loafing often goes hand-in-hand with diffusion of responsibility, or the sharing of duties and responsibilities among all group members. Diffusion of responsibility can lead to feelings of decreased accountability and motivation. If we suspect other group members are slacking, we tend to follow suit in order to keep things equal.

576

DEINDIVIDUATION In the last section, we discussed how obedience played a role in the senseless violence carried out by boy soldiers in Uganda. We suspect that the actions of these children also had something to do with deindividuation. People in groups sometimes feel a diminished sense of personal responsibility, inhibition, or adherence to social norms. This state of deindividuation can occur when group members are not treated as individuals, and thus begin to exhibit a “lack of self-awareness” (Diener, 1979). As members of a group, the boy soldiers may have felt a loss of personal identity, social responsibility, and ability to discriminate right from wrong.

Research suggests that children are indeed vulnerable to deindividuation. In a classic study of trick-or-treaters, Ed Diener, a professor and researcher at the University of Illinois, and his colleagues set up a study in 27 homes throughout Seattle, Washington. Children arriving at these houses to trick-or-treat were ushered in by a woman (who was a confederate, of course). She told them they could take one piece of candy, which was on a table in a bowl. Coincidentally, next to the bowl of candy (about 2 feet away) was a second bowl full of small coins (pennies and nickels). The woman then excused herself, saying she had to get back to work in another room. What the children didn’t know was that an experimenter was observing their behavior through a peephole, tallying up the amount of candy and/or money they took. The other variable being recorded was the number of children and adults in the hallway; remember, the experimenters never knew how many people would show up when the doorbell rang!

577

The findings were fascinating. If a parent was present, the children were well behaved (only 8% took more than their allotted one piece of candy). But with no adult present, children acted quite differently. Of the children who came to the door alone and anonymous (the confederate did not ask for names or other identifying information), 21% took more than they should have. By comparison, 80% of the children who were in a group and anonymous took extra candy and/or money. The researchers suggested that the condition of being in a group combined with anonymity created a sense of deindividuation (Diener, Fraser, Beaman, & Kelem, 1976). Are you wondering how much money and candy the kids took? It seems that the children who took more than their fair share of candy grabbed as much as their hands could hold (between 1.6 and 2.3 extra candy bars, on average). As for the money, around 14% of the children stole coins (and ignored the candy), while nearly 21% took both money and more than one piece of candy.

We have shown how deindividuation occurs in groups of children, but what about adults? Perhaps you have heard about “Bedlam,” a football game between archrival teams from the University of Oklahoma (OU) and Oklahoma State University (OSU). Most years, OU has won, but in 2011, OSU beat OU 44–10. This was the first time in the university’s history it captured a Big 12 championship, and the first time it had beaten OU in 9 years. With just a few seconds left, thousands of OSU fans stormed the field, tearing down the goalposts and injuring several people in the celebration. Even after an announcement instructing fans to stay off the field, hoards of people charged forward, some of them laughing. They showed virtually no regard for the safety of others. The fans’ impulsive behavior seemed to be a result of deindividuation. This type of behavior has been repeated in many settings and with many groups of people. Why can’t we learn to make better decisions when we find ourselves in groups? Perhaps it has something to do with our tendency to act in rash and extreme ways when surrounded by others.

RISKY SHIFT Imagine you have $250,000 to spend for your company. Will you spend more if you’re making decisions alone or working as part of a committee? Researcher James A. F. Stoner (1961, 1968) set out to find the answer to this question, and here’s what he discovered: When group members were asked to make a unanimous decision on how to spend the money, they were more likely to recommend uncertain and risky options than individuals working alone, a phenomenon known as the risky shift.

GROUP POLARIZATION AND GROUPTHINK As members of a group work together, their positions tend to become more extreme. For example, if people who strongly support the legalization of marijuana are assembled in a group, their position will become increasingly pro-legalization over time. Group polarization is the tendency for a group to take a more extreme stance after deliberations and discussion (Myers & Lamm, 1976). When people hear their opinions echoed by other members of the group, the conversation tends to become more extreme, as the new information tends to reinforce and strengthen the group members’ original positions. So does group deliberation actually help? Perhaps not when the members are initially in agreement.

578

As a group becomes increasingly united, another group process known as groupthink can occur. This is the tendency for group members to maintain cohesiveness and agreement in their decision making, failing to consider possible alternatives and related viewpoints (Janis, 1972; Rose, 2011). Groupthink is thought to have played a role in a variety of disasters, including the Challenger space shuttle explosion in 1986, the Mount Everest climbing tragedy in 1996, and the U.S. decision to invade Iraq in 2003 (Badie, 2010; Burnette, Pollack, & Forsyth, 2011).

As you can see, groupthink can have life-or-death consequences. So, too, can the bystander effect, another alarming phenomenon that occurs among people in groups.

LO 8 Recognize the circumstances that influence the occurrence of the bystander effect.

THE BYSTANDER EFFECT Before meeting Julius, the orphans had been homeless for several months. At night, they kept each other warm coiled beneath the bus, and they shared food when there was enough to go around. Their meals often consisted of scraps that hotels had poured onto side roads for dogs and cats. The orphans leaned on one another, but they didn’t get much assistance from the outside world. Day after day, they encountered hundreds of passersby. Why didn’t anyone try to rescue them? “Everybody was fearing responsibility,” Julius says. In northern Uganda, many people cannot even afford to feed themselves, so they are reluctant to lend a helping hand.

But perhaps there was another factor at work, one that psychologists call the bystander effect. When a person is in trouble, bystanders have the tendency to assume (and perhaps wish) that someone else will help—and therefore they stand by and do nothing, partly a result of the diffusion of responsibility. This is particularly true when there are many other people present. Strange as it seems, we are more likely to aid a person in distress if no one else is present (Darley & Latané, 1968; Eagly & Crowley, 1986; Latané & Darley, 1968). So when people encountered the 11 orphans begging on the street, they probably assumed and hoped somebody else would take care of the problem. These children must belong to someone; their parents will come back for them.

Perhaps the most famous illustration of the bystander effect is the attack on Kitty Genovese. It was March 13, 1964, around 3:15 A.M., when Catherine “Kitty” Genovese arrived home from work in her Queens, New York, neighborhood. As she approached her apartment building, an attacker brutally stabbed her. Kitty screamed for help, but initial reports suggested that no one came to her rescue. The attacker ran away, and Kitty stumbled to her apartment building. But he soon returned, raping and stabbing her to death. The New York Times originally reported that 38 neighbors heard her cries for help, witnessed the attack, and did nothing to assist. But the evidence suggests that the second attack occurred inside her building, where few people could have witnessed it (Manning, Levine, & Collins, 2007).

579

More recently, in April 2010, a homeless man (also in Queens) was left to die after several people walked by him and decided to do nothing. The man, Hugo Tale-Yax, had been trying to help a woman under assault, but the attacker stabbed him in the chest (Livingston, Doyle, & Mangan, 2010, April 25). As many as 25 people walked past Mr. Tale-Yax as he lay on the ground dying, and one even took a cell phone picture of him before walking away. Can you think of any reason they wouldn’t help? Would you help someone in such a situation?

A recent review of the research suggests that things might not be as “bleak” as these events suggest. In extremely dangerous situations, bystanders are actually more likely to help even if there is more than one person watching. More dangerous situations are recognized and interpreted quickly as being such, leading to faster intervention and help (Fischer et al., 2011). If we want to increase the likelihood of bystanders getting involved in stopping violence, the community needs to educate its members about their responsibilities as neighbors and take steps to increase people’s confidence in their ability to help (Banyard & Moynihan, 2011). Take a look at Table 14.2 to learn about factors that increase helping behavior.

580

LO 9 Demonstrate an understanding of aggression and identify some of its causes.

Using racial slurs and hurling threatening insults is a form of aggression. Psychologists define aggression as intimidating or threatening behavior or attitudes intended to hurt someone. Like any phenomenon studied in psychology, aggression results from an interplay of biology and environment. According to the frustration–aggression hypothesis, we can all show aggressive behavior when placed in a frustrating situation (Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939). But aggressive tendencies also seem to be rooted in our genes. Studies comparing identical and fraternal twins suggest that aggression may run in families. Identical twins, who have the same genes, are more likely than fraternal twins to share aggressive traits (Bezdjian, Tuvblad, Raine, & Baker, 2011; Rowe, Almeida, & Jacobson, 1999). Some research on identical twins suggests that approximately 50% of aggressive behavior can be explained by genetic factors (DiLalla, 2002; Tackett, Waldman, & Lahey, 2009). Hormones and neurotransmitters also appear to play a role, with high levels of testosterone and low levels of serotonin correlating with aggression (Glenn, Raine, Schug, Gao, & Granger, 2011; Montoya, Terburg, Bos, & van Honk, 2012).

The way we express our aggression may be influenced by our gender. Males tend to show more direct aggression (physical displays of aggression such as hitting), while females are more likely to engage in relational aggression—behaviors such as gossip, exclusion, and ignoring, that are indirect and aimed at relationships (Ainsworth & Maner, 2012; Archer, 2004; Archer & Coyne, 2005; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Why would women show a tendency toward relational aggression as opposed to direct aggression? One important reason is that females run a greater risk of bodily injury resulting from a physical confrontation (Campbell, 1999).

Gender disparities in aggressive behavior typically appear early in life (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008; Hanish, Sallquist, DiDonato, Fabes, & Martin, 2012), and result from a complex interaction of environmental factors and genetics (Brendgen et al., 2005; Rowe, Maughan, Worthman, Costello, & Angold, 2004). As mentioned, high levels of testosterone have been linked to aggression, and men have more testosterone than women. Social and cultural factors also play a role. Researchers have noted that boys tend to be more aggressive when raised in nonindustrial societies; patriarchal societies, in which women have less power and are considered inferior to men; and polygamous societies, in which men can have more than one wife. Evolutionary psychology would suggest that competition for resources (including females) increases the likelihood of aggression (Wood & Eagly, 2002).

581

Typically, we associate aggression with behavior, but it can also exist in the mind, coloring our attitudes about people and things. This is evidenced by the existence of stereotypes—the conclusions or inferences we make about people who are different from us, based on their group membership (such as race, religion, age, or gender). Stereotypes are often negative (Blonde people are airheads), but they can also be positive (Asians are good at math). Either way, stereotypes can be harmful.

Stereotypes are often associated with a set of perceived characteristics that we think describes members of a group. The stereotypical college instructor is absentminded, absorbed in thought, and unapproachable. The quintessential motorcycle rider is covered in tattoos, and the teenager with the tongue ring is rebelling against her parents. What do all these stereotypes have in common? They are not objective or based on empirical research. In other words, they are like bad theories of personality that characterize people based on a single behavior or trait. These stereotypes typically include a variety of predicted behaviors and traits that are rooted in subjective observations and value judgments.

When Julius was living in Louisiana, a man once approached him and said, “Is it true in Africa people still walk [around] naked?” We can only imagine where this man had gathered his knowledge of Africa (perhaps he had spent a bit too much time flipping through dated issues of National Geographic), but one thing seems certain: He was relying on an inaccurate stereotype of African people. The underlying message was clearly an aggressive one; he judged African people to be primitive and not as advanced as he was.

LO 10 Recognize how group affiliation influences the development of stereotypes.

GROUPS AND SOCIAL IDENTITY Evolutionary psychologists would suggest that stereotypes allowed human beings to quickly identify the group to which they belonged (Liddle, Shackelford, & Weekes-Shackelford, 2012)—an adaptive trait, given that groups provide safety. But because we tend to think our group is superior, we may draw incorrect conclusions about members of other groups, or outsiders in general. We tend to see the world in terms of the in-group (the group to which we belong, or us) and the out-group (those who are outside the group to which we belong, or them). For better or worse, our affiliation with an in-group helps us form our social identity, or view of ourselves within a social group, and this process begins at a very young age. Those in your in-group may influence your behaviors and thoughts more than you realize.

DISCRIMINATION Seeing the world from the narrow perspective of our own group may lead to ethnocentrism. This term is often used in reference to cultural groups, yet it can apply to any group (think of football teams, glee clubs, college rivals, or nations). We tend to see our own group as the one that is worthy of emulation, the superior group. This type of group identification can lead to stereotyping, discussed earlier, and discrimination, which involves showing favoritism or hostility to others because of their group affiliation.

Those in the out-group are particularly vulnerable to becoming scapegoats. A scapegoat is the target of negative emotions, beliefs, and behaviors. During periods of major stress (such as an economic crisis), scapegoats are often blamed for undesirable social situations (high unemployment).

582

PREJUDICE People who harbor stereotypes and blame scapegoats are more likely to feel prejudice, hostile or negative attitudes toward individuals or groups (Infographic 14.3 on page 584). While racial prejudice has declined in the United States over the last half-century, there is still considerable evidence that negative attitudes persist. The same is true when it comes to sexual orientation, disabilities, and religious beliefs (Carr, Dweck, & Pauker, 2012; Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002). The causes of prejudice are complex and varied. Cognitive aspects of prejudice include the just-world hypothesis, which assumes that a person has done something to deserve the bad things happening to him, and that he should be able to control the events in his life. Prejudice may also result from conformity, as when a person seeks approval from others with strong prejudicial views.

Researchers have concluded that prejudice can be reduced when people are forced to work together toward a common goal. In the early 1970s, Eliot Aronson and colleagues developed the notion of a jigsaw classroom. The teachers created exercises that required all students to complete individual tasks, the results of which would fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. The students began to realize the importance of working cooperatively to reach the desired goal. Ultimately, every contribution was an essential piece of the puzzle, and this resulted in all the students feeling valuable (Aronson, 2015).

STEREOTYPE THREAT Stereotypes, discrimination, and prejudice are conceptually related to stereotype threat, a “situational threat” in which a person is aware of others’ negative expectations. This leads to a fear of being judged or treated as inferior, and it can actually undermine performance in a specific area associated with the stereotype (Steele, 1997).

African American college students are often the targets of racial stereotypes about poor academic abilities. These threatening stereotypes can lead to lowered performance on tests designed to measure ability, and to a disidentification with the role of a student (in other words, taking on the attitude that I am not a student). Interestingly, a person does not have to believe the stereotype is accurate in order for it to have an impact (Steele, 1997, 2010).

There is a great deal of variation in how people react to stereotype threats (Block, Koch, Liberman, Merriweather, & Roberson, 2011). Some people simply “fend off” the stereotype, by working harder to disprove it. Others feel discouraged and respond by getting angry, either overtly or quietly. Still others seem to ignore the threats. These resilient types appear to “bounce back” and grow from the negative experience. When confronted with a stereotype, they redirect their responses to create an environment that is more inclusive and less conducive to stereotyping.

Unfortunately, stereotypes are pervasive in our society. Just contemplate all the positive and negative stereotypes associated with certain lines of work. Lawyers are greedy, truck drivers are overweight, and (dare we say) psychologists are manipulative. Can you think of any negative stereotypes associated with prison guards? As you read the next feature, think about how stereotypes come to life when people fail to stop and think about their behaviors.

583

CONTROVERSIES

584

585

Much of this chapter has focused on the negative aspects of human behavior, such as obedience, stereotyping, and discrimination. While we cannot deny the existence of these phenomena, we believe they are overshadowed by the goodness that lies within every one of us.

Question 1

1. Group polarization

2. The risky shift

3. The bystander effect

4. Deindividuation

Question 2

1. low social identity

2. low levels of the hormone testosterone

3. low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin

4. low levels of ethnocentrism

Question 3

Question 4