Almost a century ago, the French engineer Max Ringelmann discovered that the collective performance of a group does not exceed half the sum of the performance of its members.

Researcher Bibb Latané tested this finding by making people believe they were working with others when in fact they were doing it alone. Six subjects were blindfolded, seated in a semicircle, and were fitted with headphones through which the subjects were deafened by the sound of applause. People could not hear themselves, much less others. Scientists assumed that in a group, subjects would scream louder because they would be less shy. The result was surprising: when the subjects believed that five others were shouting and clapping along with them, they made one-third less noise than when they were supposedly alone. Those who applauded alone and in a group did not perceive themselves as “idlers”: they believed that they clapped equally loudly in both situations.

Social loafing is the tendency of people to exert less effort when they join forces for a common goal than when they are individually responsible.

When people are not responsible for the end result and cannot evaluate their own contributions, when their personal responsibility is distributed among all members of the group, then being lost in the crowd reduces the fear of evaluation, and social loafing becomes the result.

Collective efforts do not always lead to their weakening. Sometimes the goal is so significant that the team spirit forces everyone to do their best. It has also been found that people in a group are less likely to slack off if the task is challenging, challenging and exciting. In the case of a difficult and interesting task, people may perceive their contribution to the task as irreplaceable.

It has also been found that when people perceive other members of their group as unreliable or unproductive, they work harder. Additional incentives or the need to strive for certain standards also contribute to the group's collective efforts. The same thing happens in the case of intergroup competition.

When a group encounters a challenging obstacle, when the group's success as an entity is rewarded, and when a spirit of "team play" reigns, group members work most energetically.

In order to increase the motivation of group members, the strategy of tracking individual productivity is often used. For example, coaches in group sports videotape the game and subsequently evaluate each player.

Whether people are in a group or not, they exert more effort when their personal outcome can be determined. This finding is reminiscent of everyday situations with diffuse responsibilities in which group members tend to shift responsibility and some responsibilities to each other.

Deindividuation

It is difficult for us to imagine a lonely rock fan screaming frantically near his music center, a lonely teenager painting entrances. In certain situations, people who are members of a group tend to throw away normal boundaries, lose their sense of individual responsibility, and experience what psychologists call deindividuation. The group disinhibits us, gives us a feeling of excitement or belonging to something greater than “I”. The consequence may be acts of vandalism, pogroms, violation of public order, terrorist acts, etc.

Deindividuation is the loss of self-awareness and fear of evaluation, which occurs in group situations when a person’s anonymity is ensured.

The state of deindividuation can be enhanced by the following factors:

• 1. Group size. The larger the group, the more prone its members are to deindividuation. In large groups, fear of evaluation drops sharply. Since “everyone did this,” people explain their behavior by the current situation, and not by their own free choice.
• 2. Anonymity. When absorption in a group is combined with anonymity, self-control disappears. Sometimes, in order to provoke particularly harsh behavior, people are specially depersonalized, for example, they paint their face and body, put on special masks and uniforms.

Robert Watson, studying the customs of tribes, discovered that where warriors are hidden in war paint, they torture prisoners especially cruelly. Where there is no custom of hiding faces, prisoners are usually left alive.

3. Exciting and distracting activities. Outbursts of aggression in groups are often preceded by minor actions that excite and distract attention. Groups shout, chant, clap, dance, and this is done in order to simultaneously excite people and reduce their self-consciousness.

"All the brothers and sisters of the Moon Sect joined hands and shouted with increasing intensity: Chu-chu-chu, chu-chu-chu! I'm A! YA! POW! This action united us as a group, as if we had mysteriously experienced together something important. Power, chu-chu-chu, scared me; but it also gave me a feeling of comfort, and there was something extremely relaxing in this accumulation and release of energy" (F. Zimbardo).

4. Decreased self-awareness. Circumstances that reduce self-awareness, such as alcohol intoxication, increase deindividuation. Deindividuation, on the contrary, decreases if self-awareness increases. This occurs, for example, in front of mirrors and cameras, in small towns, in bright light, when wearing name tags or unusual clothing, and in the absence of distracting stimuli.

• - the presence of individual responsibility for the results of one’s work: the higher the level of responsibility, the lower the social laziness;
• - group cohesion and friendships: people in groups mess around less if they are friends rather than strangers;
• - group size: the larger the group size, the greater the social laziness;
• - cross-cultures and differences: members of collectivistic cultures are less likely to exhibit social loafing than members of individualistic cultures;
• - differences: women are less socially lazy
• 4 The synergy effect when uniting people into an integral group creates additional intellectual energy, which is embodied in the group result, which predominates the sum of individual results. Formally, for this effect, the ratio is 1 1 - more than 2 This effect was studied by Russian scientists V. M. Bekhterev and M. M. Lange V. The studies they conducted found that the group is significantly more productive than individual people. This is manifested both in the intellectual sphere and in other forms of mental activity: increased observation of people in the group, accuracy of their perception and assessments, increased memory and attention, efficiency of solving simple arithmetic problems that do not require complex and coordinated interaction. However, Bekhterev also noted that when solving complex problems when logic and consistency are needed, “particularly gifted people” prevail over group average indicators. The synergy effect is clearly manifested when conducting a “brainstorming” - a “brainstorming”, when a person must offer many new ideas without critically and logical analysis.
• 5 effects of groupthink. This is a specific way in which the search for agreement dominates in a cohesive group, which subordinates a realistic assessment of possible alternative actions. The discovery of this phenomenon of the term “groupthink” belongs to Irwin Janis. The described effect occurs when the criterion of truth is the agreed position of the group, which contrasted with the opinion of an individual. When group members are faced with the threat of divergent positions, opinions, disputes and conflicts, they try to reduce group cognitive dissonance and eliminate negative feelings as they arise, and at the same time find a solution, although this may not be well thought out and reasonable from the point of view of everyone individual member of the group If the group is drawn into such decision-making strategies, the search for consensus becomes so important that group members voluntarily give up all doubts and opportunities to look at the problem with a new, original look. Individual group members can also turn into so-called group overseers who are busy fixing and severely punish any dissent.
• 6 effects of conformity Group members who depend on it in their contacts with the world, in most situations they can even perceive sensory information with a certain modification due to group factors and of a different nature. The effect was established in 1956 by Solomon Asch. Further studies identified the following factors of conformity:
  • - personality type: persons with low self-esteem are more dependent on group pressure than those with high self-esteem;
  • - group size: people show a high level of conformity when they are faced with the unanimous opinion of three or more people;
  • - group composition: conformity increases if the group consists of experts, group members are authoritative for the person and belong to the same social environment;
  • - cohesion: the greater the cohesion of the group, the greater its conformity (the “groupthink” trap);
  • - status (authority): people who have authority in the eyes of a person can more easily influence her, they are more often obeyed, the presence of an ally: if a person defends his position or doubts the group at least one ally who gives the correct answer, then the tendency to adopt a group position decreases
  • - public situation: people have a high level of conformity when they have to speak publicly, and not when they write down their position on their own

Having expressed their opinion publicly, people tend to carry it out - the complexity of the task or problem: if the task is too difficult, the person feels incompetent and shows more conformity

Conformity should not be seen as a uniquely negative tendency, since this factor contributes to group decision. The following reasons for conformist behavior can be indicated:

• 1) persistent and stubborn behavior of people trying to dig up the face that her position is wrong;
• 2) the tendency of group members to avoid condemnation, punishment, or removal from group members for their disagreement;
• 3) uncertainty of situations and lack of information contribute to the fact that group members begin to focus on the opinions of others
• 7 effects of fashion (group imitation) Imitation is one of the main mechanisms of group integration. In the process of group interaction, group members form common standards, behavioral stereotypes, adherence to which emphasizes their unity and strengthens their membership in the group. Members of certain groups create certain established norms regarding appearance (group uniforms for the military, business suits for businessmen, white coats for doctors). Such a group uniform, sometimes not officially established, shows others to which group a person belongs, what norms and rules govern behavior. People tend to imitate the butt of a person who is somewhat similar to themselves, to a greater extent than someone who is dissimilar. The effect of imitation underlies any learning and contributes to the adaptation of people to each other, the consistency of their actions, preparedness and to solving group problems. This effect is similar in some elements to the effect of conformity, however, in the latter case, the group exerts a certain pressure on its member, while when imitation, group norms are accepted voluntarily.
• 8 halo effects (“halo effect”) This influence on the content of knowledge, personality assessments of a certain attitude that one person has in relation to another, arises when people perceive and evaluate each other in the process of communication. This effect occurs under the following conditions:
  • - lack of time (a person does not have time to get to know another person well, think through his personal characteristics or analyze the interaction situation);
  • - excessive amount of information (a person is overloaded with information about different people, and therefore does not have the opportunity or time to think about an individual);
  • - not the significance of another person (formation of an unpaid) idea of ​​a person who plays the role of a halo;
  • - stereotypes of perception (the functioning of generalized images of various groups, which members of a certain group use as shortened versions of knowledge about these groups);
  • - brightness and originality of the personality (certain traits seem to catch the eye of others and push into the background all other qualities of this person, such a characteristic feature is the person’s appearance)

There is also a negative version of the halo effect, when positive personality traits are mixed in, a biased attitude towards a person is formed on the part of others. Bias is a specific attitude towards the perception of self, based on the negative traits of a person (object of perception), and information about the trait is not reliable, but simply they take her on faith.

9 The effect of group favoritism. It is the tendency to favor in-group members over out-group members. This effect serves as a distribution mechanism between people who are perceived as their own and others. The effect of Group Favoritism is more pronounced when the criteria for comparing performance results and the characteristics of relations with other groups are very important for the group, when groups compete with each other, opportunities for unambiguous manifestation of groups are formed. membership in the group is more important than interpersonal similarity, then they prefer “their own,” even if the “strangers” are similar in their personal bones, interests, and views.

Group members also tend to attribute the success of their group to intragroup factors, but also possible failure to external ones. Therefore, if a group is successful in its activities, it believes that this is thanks to itself (its leadership, climate, abilities of its members). When a group finds itself in a situation of defeat ( failures), then looks for the culprits outside the group or shifts the blame to other groups.

• 10 effects of group egoism. This is the direction of group interests, goals and norms of behavior against the interests, goals and norms of individual groups or the whole society. In this case, entire groups are achieved due to opposition to the interests of members of other groups, neglect of public interests. Group egoism manifests itself when the goals and values ​​of the group become more important than social values ​​and goals, when they give in to the interior of the EUAM of an individual for the sake of the stability of the group’s existence. In such cases, a person is sacrificed to the integrity of the group and completely submits to the requirements and standards of group behavior. This effect has extremely negative consequences for the group as a whole, its future life and the fate of its individual members.
• 11 pendulum effects This is a cyclic alternation of emotional states of a sthenic and asthenic nature, the intensity and duration of which depends on the activities of the group. The emotional potentials of the group were studied experimentally by O M Lutoshkin. The emotional cycles of a group depend on the following factors:
  • - day of the week and time of day; at the end of the week, workers’ mood deteriorates and fatigue accumulates;
  • - features of the psychological structure of the group, leadership processes, system of relationships, level of conflict, group cohesion;
  • - level of discipline in the group: the higher the work discipline in the group, the better the mood of its members
• 12 wave effects. This is the dissemination of ideas, goals, norms and values ​​in a group. An individual shares a new idea with his immediate environment, this idea is complemented and developed by group members. The idea begins to be considered among other members of the group, its group evaluation and discussion takes place, and the idea reaches more and more people. This is possible only when the new idea meets the needs and interests of people, and does not contradict them. If the idea meets the interests of people and is developed by them, then the ripple effect intensifies. If the idea contradicts the interests of people, then the wave fades away.
• 13 Pulsar effect. This is the change in group activity depending on various stimuli. Group activity unfolds as a cycle: optimal activity necessary for the normal functioning of the group - increase in activity - decline in activity - return to the optimal level of activity. The deployment of this cycle depends on external (the group receives an urgent task) and internal (the desire of group members to solve the problem) incentives; in accordance with the pulsar effect, the group’s activity increases sharply at the beginning of the activity, and when the problem is solved, a decline in activity occurs. Then the level of activity rises again to the optimal level , necessary for the normal coordinated work of groups.
• 14 Boomerang effect. First studied in media activities; lies in the fact that the person who perceives the information does not recognize it as true, but continues to adhere to the preliminary setting, or a new assessment of events or a person is formed, the content of which is opposite to that of the information that the person was told. The boomerang effect occurs when conflicting information is communicated or when people interact, when the aggressive actions of one person are then directed against another, ultimately acting against the one who carries out these actions or responds negatively. In a group setting, people are more committed to a calm person than to an aggressive opponent.
• 15 The "us - them" effect. This is a feeling of belonging to a group (the “we” effect) and, accordingly, detachment, separation from others (the “they” effect). The effect of belonging to a group has two separate effects - emotional support and addition. The effect of addition is that a group member feels attached to the problems, affairs, successes or failures of the group to which he actually belongs or subjectively belongs to the group, and feels responsible for the results of the group. The effect of emotional support is manifested in the fact that a group member expects emotional and real support, compassion, and help from other group members. If a member does not receive support, his sense of “we” - a sense of belonging to the group - is destroyed and a feeling of “they” arises, that is, he is able to perceive his group as strangers who do not share his interests and concerns. The “we” effect is a psychological mechanism of group functioning. Hyperbolization of the “we” feeling leads to an overestimation of one’s capabilities and advantages, to separation from other groups, into group egoism. At the same time, the insufficient development of the sense of “we” leads to a loss of the sense of value-orientation unity of the group.

Group influence

In accordance with the above, it is understandable why Western researchers paid most of their attention to the effects within small groups that do not have a social structure that anticipates their emergence. A group was often understood as a collection of individuals whose mere presence contributes to the intensification or reduction of the intensity of a particular social process. This type of research has been conducted for over a hundred years (Kravitz & Martin, 1986). At different times, the social processes occurring as a result of such interaction received different names, the abundance of which can simply be confusing: social facilitation (social facilitation), deindividuation, distribution

responsibility, group polarization, conformism and social laziness. Next we will focus on the last two.

Social loafing is a process in which the larger the group becomes, the weaker the individual's internal need to contribute to the group's task. Latane, Williams, & Harkins (1979) tested this theory in the United States by asking members of groups of varying sizes to clap or shout as loudly as possible. Members of larger groups exerted less effort. A similar effect was observed later in the Pacific Rim countries.

However, when more complex problems were posed, cultural differences began to emerge. Karait & Williams (1993) reported a meta-analysis of 147 cases of the social loafing effect in the United States and 15 cases in the Asian Pacific Rim. When given a more difficult task, social loafing decreased across the board, but in five cases of challenging tasks in Asian countries, the result was diametrically opposite. As group size increased, group members exerted more, not less, effort.

Confirmation of this effect was also obtained in two studies by Early (1989, 1993), who also tested the cultural explanation. Earley hypothesized that working in a group, as opposed to working individually, would increase the motivation of people in collectivist cultures to work hard and would not be an excuse for them to slack off. In the first study, he showed that, when performing a series of one-hour tasks, Chinese managers worked harder in a group, while US managers worked more effort when working alone. In addition, Earley asked subjects to complete a short questionnaire to determine their individualistic and collectivist value orientations. Thus, he was able to demonstrate that the behavior of those who were oriented toward collectivist values ​​exhibited the opposite effect of social loafing. Earley's second study included Israeli, Chinese, and American managers as subjects. Again he assessed their value orientations, but this time in one case the subjects worked in a group with their comrades, and in the other with strangers. He found that for individualists, the effect of social loafing is pronounced when working in a group, regardless of the composition of the group. Collectivists worked more intensely in a group consisting of people they knew.

Early's research (Early, 1989, 1993) has identified clear principles according to which certain variables are likely to influence social influence processes in cases where individualistic values ​​are not dominant. His findings are especially compelling because he independently determined his subjects' values, without relying on the assumption that Chinese people are more collectivistic than Americans. For those value-oriented towards collectivism, the presence of any group is not enough: for them, it is important who the group consists of.

How common is social loafing? In laboratory conditions, this phenomenon was observed not only in those who tug of war, spinning an exercise bike, shouting and clapping, but also in those who pumped water or gas, evaluated poems and editorials, generated new ideas, typed and recognized signals. Will the results obtained in real life match those obtained in the laboratory?

Under the communist regime, peasants on Russian collective farms worked first in one field and then in another and had virtually no personal responsibility for a specific piece of land. Small private plots were left to them for their own needs. According to one study, these private plots as a whole occupied only 1% of cultivable land, but produced 27% of all Soviet agricultural production (N. Smith, 1976). In Hungary, private holdings occupied 13% of the land, providing one third of production (Spivak, 1979). In China, where peasants were finally allowed to sell surplus produce beyond government orders after 1978, food production immediately began to increase by 8% per year - two and a half times faster than in the entire previous 26 years (Church, 1986). ).

But, of course, collective efforts do not always lead to their weakening. Sometimes the goal is so significant and it is so important that everyone puts in their best effort that team spirit creates and maintains real zeal. In the Olympic rowing race, does each oarsman in an eight-man rower use less force on the oar than in a double or single rower?

A number of pieces of evidence convince us that this is not the case. People in a group are less likely to slack off if the task is challenging, challenging, and engaging (Karau & Williams, 1993). When collectively solving a difficult and interesting problem, people may perceive their own contributions as indispensable (Harkins & Petty, 1982; Kerr, 1983; Kerr & Bruun, 1983). When people perceive other members of their group as unreliable and unproductive, they work harder (Vancouver & others, 1993; Williams & Karau, 1991). Additional incentives or the need to strive for certain standards also promote collective group effort (Shepperd & Wright, 1989; Harkins & Szymanski, 1989).

Groups are much less likely to mess around if their members are - Friends, rather than strangers to each other (Davis & Greenlees, 1992). Latane noted that in Israel, kibbutzim, oddly enough, are more productive than farms of other forms of ownership. Unity strengthens efforts. Does this mean that social loafing does not occur in collectivist cultures? To find out, Latan and his colleagues (Gabrenya & others, 1985) went to Asia and repeated their noise experiment in Japan, Thailand, India, and Malaysia. What did they find? Social laziness was clearly evident in these countries as well.

Yet sixteen subsequent experiments in Asia showed that people in collectivistic cultures exhibited less social loafing than those in individualistic cultures (Karau & Williams, 1993). As noted earlier, in collectivist cultures there is a strong loyalty to family and work group. Women also exhibit less social loafing than more individualistic men.

Some of these findings are similar to those found in studies of conventional work groups. When a group is faced with a difficult task that is perceived as a challenge, when the success of the group as an entity is rewarded, and when there is a spirit of “team play”, all group members work most energetically (Hackman, 1986). So, although social laziness does appear every now and then when people work together and do not take individual responsibility, it cannot be said that more hands always mean less work done.

Concepts to remember

Social laziness Social loafing is the tendency of people to work less hard when they join forces for a common goal, compared to when they take personal responsibility for their work.

Chapter 16. Together we do things we wouldn't do alone.

In 1991, an eyewitness filmed four LAPD officers striking an unarmed Rodney King with batons while 23 other police officers watch indifferently. In total, more than fifty blows were struck, King’s skull was pierced in nine places, his brain was damaged and his teeth were knocked out. The playback of the tape plunged the country into a long-running debate about police brutality and gang violence. People wondered: where was the notorious humanity of the police? What happened to standards of professional conduct? What evil force caused such actions?

Deindividuation

Experiments on social facilitation show that being in a group can excite people, and experiments on social loafing show that in a group, personal responsibility for actions can become diluted. When arousal is coupled with diffuse responsibility and normative inhibition is weakened, the results are striking. Actions can range from relatively minor deviations from the generally accepted boundaries of what is permitted (throwing bread at each other in the cafeteria, shouting insults at a sports referee, uncontrollable screaming during a rock concert) to impulsive self-gratification (group vandalism, orgies, robberies) and even destructive social explosions (police brutality, street riots, lynchings). In 1967, about two hundred students at the University of Oklahoma gathered to watch their friend threaten to jump from the roof. The crowd began chanting, “Jump, jump.” He jumped and fell to his death (UPI, 1967).

Rice. Footage of the beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers made people wonder: why do people so often violate their usual prohibitions in group actions?

These examples of unbridled behavior have something in common: one way or another, they are all provoked by group pressure. The awareness of belonging to a group can cause excitement in a person: he grows in his own eyes, it already seems to him that he is an exponent of something greater than just his own “I”. It's hard to imagine a rock fan alone screaming frantically at a rock concert, an Oklahoma student alone trying to incite someone to commit suicide, or even a police officer single-handedly beating a defenseless driver. In certain situations, people in a group tend to reject generally accepted normative restrictions, they lose their sense of personal responsibility and become deindividualized(term coined by Leon Festinger, Albert Pepitone & Theodore Newcomb (1952)). Under what circumstances does such a psychological state arise?

Group size

The group not only has the ability to excite its members, it provides them with anonymity. A screaming crowd hides a screaming basketball fan. Members of a rampaging vigilante pack believe they can escape punishment; they perceive their actions as group. Participants in street riots, who have become an impersonal crowd, do not hesitate to rob. In an analysis of 21 cases in which a would-be suicide threatened to jump from a skyscraper or bridge in the presence of a crowd, Leon Mann (1981) found that if the crowd was relatively small and illuminated by daylight, there was generally no attempt to induce suicide. But when the size of the crowd and the darkness of the night provided anonymity, people usually egged on the suicide, mocking him in every possible way. Brian Mullen (1986) reports similar effects in lynch mobs: the larger the mob, the more its members lose their sense of personal responsibility and the more willing they are to engage in extreme atrocities such as burning, tearing or dismembering the victim. For each of the above examples, from a crowd of fans to a pack of lynch mobs, it is characteristic that in such cases people's fear of evaluation drops sharply. Since “everyone did this,” they explain their behavior by the current situation, and not by their own free choice.

Philip Zimbardo (1970) suggested that impersonality in large cities in itself guarantees anonymity and provides norms of behavior that permit vandalism. He purchased two decade-old used cars and left them with their hoods up and license plates removed on the street: one on the old NYU campus in the Bronx and the other near the Stanford University campus in the small town of Palo Alto. In New York, the first “undressing men” appeared within ten minutes; they removed the battery and radiator. Three days later, after 23 episodes of theft and vandalism (by people, by all accounts, not poor at all), the car turned into a pile of scrap metal. By contrast, the only person to touch a car during the week in Palo Alto was a passerby who closed the hood of the car because it was starting to rain.

Anonymity guarantee

Can we be sure that the stark contrast between the Bronx and Palo Alto is due to greater anonymity in the Bronx? There is no absolute certainty about this. But it is possible to conduct appropriate experiments to make sure whether anonymity really removes inhibitions from people’s behavior. In one of his experiments, Zimbardo (1970) asked women at New York University to wear matching white robes and caps similar to those of the Ku Klux Klan (Figure 16-1). When instructed to shock the victim, these subjects held their finger on the button twice as long as those who could see a face and a large name tag.

Rice. 16-1. Subjects whose faces are hidden behind a mask deliver stronger electric shocks to defenseless victims than those who can be identified.

A group of researchers led by Ed Diener (1976) ingeniously demonstrated what happens when group members are guaranteed complete anonymity. On the eve of Halloween, 1,352 children from Seattle were observed going from house to house with the traditional trick or treat. [Give me a treat, or we’ll make fun of you. A type of caroling. (Translator's note)]

In 27 houses in different districts of the city, experimenters were waiting for children who came alone or in a group. The owner cordially invited guests into the house and offered to take “each one chocolate,” and then left the room. Hidden observers found that children in a group took extra chocolate more than twice as often as those who went alone. Similarly, children who remained anonymous were more than twice as likely to cheat as children who were asked for their name and address. These examples demonstrate that the degree of honesty depends largely on the situation. As shown in Fig. 16-2, in the case when dissolution in the group was combined with a guarantee of anonymity, children took the extra chocolate most often.

[Violators, Identified, Anonymous, Individual, Group]

Rice. 16-2. Children are more likely to take extra chocolate when they are in a group, when they are anonymous, and especially when they are deindividuated by both (data from Diener & others, 1976).

Experiments like these got me interested in the effect of wearing a uniform. In preparation for battle, warriors of some tribes depersonalize themselves: they paint their faces and bodies or wear special masks (like ardent fans of sports teams). It is also known that in some cultures it is customary to kill, torture and maim enemies who remain alive after a victory; in others, prisoners are simply sent to prison. Robert Watson (1973) meticulously studied anthropological data and found that cultures in which warriors are depersonalized are the same ones that brutalize prisoners. The uniformed LAPD officers who beat Rodney King were angry at his defiant refusal to stop, they felt mutual support and were unaware that they were being watched. Thus, they fell under the power of the situation, forgetting about the usual norms of behavior.

Does guaranteed anonymity always unleash our worst instincts? Fortunately, no. First of all, it should be noted that the situations in which the subjects were placed during most of the experiments described above had clearly expressed antisocial features. Robert Johnson & Leslie Downing (1979) pointed out that the violence in Zimbardo's experiment may have been provoked by Ku Klux Klan costumes. In one experiment at the University of Georgia, female subjects wore nursing scrubs before receiving electric shocks. When women wearing these robes acted anonymously, they were less aggressive toward the victim than when their names and identifying information were emphasized. Obviously, in a situation of anonymity, a person is less aware of his actions and becomes more receptive to situational cues - both negative (Ku Klux Klansman costume) and positive (nurse's robe). Sensing altruistic cues, deindividuated people donate even more money than when their names are publicized (Spivey & Prentice-Dunn, 1990).

This helps explain why wearing black uniforms - traditionally associated with evil and death and worn by medieval executioners, Darth Vader and ninja warriors - has the opposite effect of wearing a nurse's outfit. Mark Frank & Thomas Gilovich (1988) report that from 1970 to 1986, black uniform sports teams (primarily Los Angeles Raiders And Philadelphia Flyers consistently ranked first in the National Football and Hockey League in terms of penalties received. Subsequent laboratory experiments found that wearing a simple black sweater can provoke a person to more aggressive actions.

Stimulating and distracting activities

Outbursts of aggression in large groups are often preceded by minor actions that excite and confuse. Groups shout, chant, clap, dance, and this is done in order to simultaneously excite people and reduce their self-consciousness. An eyewitness from the Muna sect recalls how chanting “chu-chu-chu” helped deindividuation:

« All the brothers and sisters held hands and began to shout with increasing force: choo-choo-choo, choo-choo-choo, choo-choo-choo! YAA! YAA! POW! This action brought us together as a group, as if we had mysteriously experienced something important together. The power of the "choo-choo-choo" scared me; but she also gave me a feeling of comfort. After releasing the accumulated energy, we felt completely relaxed» (Zimbardo & others, 1977).

Experiments by Ed Diener (1976, 1979) showed that activities such as rock throwing and chanting can set the stage for more unbridled behavior. There is a self-reinforcing pleasure in doing impulsive things and watching others do the same. When we see others doing the same thing, we assume that they feel the same way and thus strengthen our feelings (Orive, 1984). Impulsive group acts capture our attention. When we are outraged by the actions of a referee, we are not thinking about our values, we are reacting to the immediate situation. Later, when we think about what we did or said, we sometimes feel ashamed. Sometimes. But sometimes we ourselves look for opportunities to deindividuate ourselves in a group: at a disco, at war, in street riots - wherever we can indulge in strong positive emotions and feel unity with others.

Weakened self-awareness

Group experiences that weaken self-awareness tend to discord behavior and attitudes. Experiments by Ed Diener (1980) and Steven Prentice-Dunn and Ronald Rogers (1980, 1989) found that deindividuated, self-aware people have less self-restraint and control; they tend to act in direct response to the situation, without even remembering their values. All this is confirmed in experiments on self-awareness. Self-awareness and deindividuation are like two sides of the same coin. Those who have increased their self-awareness, say, by placing them in front of a mirror or a television camera, exhibit increased self-control, their actions more reflective of their attitudes. When in front of a mirror, people who are afraid of gaining weight will eat less starchy and sweet foods (Sentyrz & Bushman, 1997). In addition, people who have maintained self-awareness are less likely to engage in trickery and deception (Beaman & others, 1979; Diener & Wallbom, 1976). The same is true for those who have a strong sense of individuality and independence (Nadler & others, 1982). People who have heightened self-awareness, or who have it induced, show greater consistency between what they say and what they do.

Circumstances that reduce self-awareness, such as alcohol intoxication, correspondingly increase deindividuation (Hull & others, 1983). Conversely, deindividualization is reduced in circumstances that increase self-awareness: in front of mirrors and television cameras, in small towns, in bright light, when wearing name tags or nonstandard clothing, etc. (Ickes & others, 1978). When a teenager goes to a party, a wise parent's advice might be, "I hope you have a nice evening, and don't forget who you are." In other words, enjoy being in a group, but don't lose your sense of self: don't succumb to deindividuation.

Concepts to remember

Deindividuation(Deindividuation) - loss of self-awareness and fear of evaluation; occurs in group situations that guarantee anonymity and do not focus on an individual.