Blog 2. Deindividuation

The social psychological phenomena of deindividuation

Deindividuation is a complex social psychological phenomenon involving many antecedents and consequences. This essay will firstly describe what deindividuation is, briefly outlining its three components - the psychological state, the situational antecedents and the behavioral consequences. Secondly, the circumstances when deindividuation is desirable and undesirable will be outlined. Thirdly, the variables that lead to prevention of deindividuation (such as accountability) and to facilitation of deindividuation (such as anonymity, increased group size and heightened arousal) will be discussed. Finally, the Social Identity Theory of deindividuation will be summarized in an attempt to explain deindividuation.

What is deindividuation?
Festinger, Pepitone and Newcomb (1952) described deindividuation as "a psychological state in which inner restraints are lost and individuals are not seen or paid attention to as individuals" (p. 382). More specifically, deindividuation consists of three components - situational factors that cause the state, a psychological state (the feeling that one does not stand out as an individual from ones environment, decreased self-awareness and decreased concern for negative consequences imposed both internally and by others) and finally the consequential uninhibited behavior (Diener, 1977).

How can deindividuation be prevented and facilitated?
There are a number of variables that have been found to facilitate deindividuation and to prevent deindividuation. Anonymity has been identified as one of the key variables in facilitating deindividuation. Diener (1979) argued that anonymous conditions cause a loss of self-awareness and that this loss facilitates deindividuation. Numerous studies have demonstrated that individuals who believe their identity is unknown are more likely to behave in an unrestrained manner (Diener, Fraser, Beaman & Kelem, 1976; Ellison, Govern, Petri & Figler, 1995; Rehm, Steinleitner & Lilli, 1987; Zimbardo, as cited in Silke, 2003, p. 494). For example, Zimbardo (cited in Silke, 2003, p. 494) showed that participants who had masked their identities (with hoods covering their faces) administered more severe and more frequent electric shocks to other subjects compared to unmasked subjects.

Also, it has been found that crowd size and feelings of anonymity are significantly positively correlated. This suggests that being immersed in a large group is associated with feeling less identifiable which in turn facilitates deindividuation (Diener, 1977). This may explain the anti-social behavior displayed by some sporting fans, such as English football hooligans (O’brien, 2006).

Conversely, accountability has been found to decrease deindividuation. This is well illustrated in a study by Miller and Rowland (1979) which found that those who were made to feel accountable for their actions behaved in a much more restrained fashion. Trick-or-treaters on Halloween whose identity was exposed were significantly less likely to “steal” extra candy than those wearing a mask.

It has also been found that arousal promotes deindividuation. Diener (1976) found that subjects with higher levels of arousal reported a number of changes consistent with the state of deindividuation. Aroused subjects reported less self-consciousness, could recall their own behaviour with less accuracy, reported less concern for social evaluation and reported that they felt more anonymous in the situation compared to the subjects in the non-aroused control condition (Deiner, 1977).

When is deindividuation desirable or undesirable?
Deindividuated can be both desirable and undesirable depending on the circumstances (Spivey & Prentice-Dunn, 1990; Johnson & Downing, 1979). Most of the research focuses on trying to find a relationship between deindividuation and antisocial behavior. However, an interesting study by Spivey & Prentice-Dunn (1990) found that deindividuation could lead to either pro-social or anti-social behavior depending on situational factors. When pro-social environmental cues were present (such as a pro-social model) deindividuated subjects were more likely to behave altruistically. Deindividuated subjects performed significantly more altruistic acts (gave money) and significantly less antisocial acts (electric shocks) compared to other people when in the presence of a pro-social model.

Also, Gergen, Gergen and Barton (1973) found that deindividuation enhanced affectionate behavior. Couples who were deindividuated using a dark chamber displayed significantly more affectionate behavior such as touching and caressing in comparison to individuated couples in a light chamber. These results imply that deindividuation may be helpful in intimate relationship development.

Furthermore, it has been found that amongst a sample of subjects who stutter, verbal disfluencies decreased under mask induced deindividuation. This leads to increased self-efficacy and decreased performance anxiety (Bloodstein, as cited in Mullen, Migdal & Rozell, 2003, p. 1072; Mullen, 1986). Also, in situations where there is an opportunity to help people who are being attacked it has been found that those who report higher levels of deindividuation are more likely to provide help (Mullen, 2003).

Antithetically, there is a large body of research that has found undesirable outcomes of deindividuation. In the presence of negative environmental situations deindividuation can result in anti-social outcomes. For instance, in conflict situations warriors who are under deindividuation conditions, such as by concealing their identity (i.e. with masks and war paint and attacking in large groups) were significantly more likely to kill, mutilate and torture captured prisoners compared to warriors who did not hide their identity and this was consistent across 24 different cultures (Watson, 1973).

However, caution is needed as alternative explanations of the findings exist. For example, offenders who intended to behave more aggressively may have worn disguises as a precautionary measure. Johnson & Downing (1979) suggested that anonymity-induced aggression ‘may not require a reduction in the subjective sense of individuation but, in many instances, could reflect a simple reduction in perceived negative sanctions’ (p. 1537). In this perspective, use of a disguise is a risk reduction measure.

On the other hand, Silke (2003) proposed that such an interpretation does not explain his findings of deindividuation effects in Northern Ireland. Silke (2003) found that the paramilitary attackers in Northern Ireland who used disguises displayed significantly more aggressive and punitive behaviour during and after interpersonal assaults. The effect was most pronounced with peripheral aggressive behaviours such as vandalism and the exiling of victims. Moreover, in this case the type of violent attacks considered were very low-risk activity for the paramilitaries. For example, in the 3 year period from 1994 to 1996, the paramilitaries carried out 736 recorded punishment attacks. During this period, only five paramilitary members were convicted of involvement in the assaults (Silke, 1999). Considering the relatively intense security presence in Northern Ireland, this number represents remarkably low levels of capture and conviction. Furthermore, in the sample of 500 cases considered in the present study, there was no correlation between the use of disguises and less likelihood of arrest afterward. In short, the attacks were carried out in an environment of very low risk for the offenders and there was no obvious association between disguise use and less negative outcomes for the offenders (Silke, 2003).

Both the desirable and undesirable effects of deindividuation can be seen in computer-mediated communication. On the one hand deindividuation has been found to increase group polarisation and out-group bias in political debate chatrooms (Lee, 2007). However, adolescents feel significantly more comfortable seeking help about mental health problems under the deindivduated circumstances of internet chatrooms compared to the individuated circumstances of a personal appointment with a professional (Francis, Boyd, Aisbett, Newnham & Newnham, 2006).

Social Identity Theory of deindividuation
In an attempt to explain deindividuation, the Social Identity Theory argues that deindividuation-enhancing factors (such as anonymity and arousal) decrease attention to individual factors whilst increasing attention to situational factors (Lee, 2007). Deindividuation manipulations thus increase the responsiveness to situational norms. According to the Social Identity Theory, it is likely that a person switches from a personal to a group identity in deindividuating circumstances (Reicher, 1984; Spears, Lea & Lee, 1990).

The implication of the Social Identity Theory is that, under deindividuating circumstances, people should be more responsive to norms in the immediate social context (Lee, 2007). This accounts for the finding that deindividuation increases pro-social behavior given positive cues and increases anti-social behavior given negative cues (Johnson & Dowling, 1979; Spivey & Prentice-Dunn, 1990). The Social Identity Theory also accounts for the fact that some deindividuated behavior does not comply with general social norms (Postmes & Spears, 1998).

Conclusion
The complex nature of deindividuation has been demonstrated through this essay. Deindividuation consists of situational causes, an internal psychological state and unrestrained behavioral consequences. Deindividuation can be enhanced by increasing situational causes such as anonymity, arousal and crowd size and prevented by decreasing these variables as well as by increasing accountability. Deindividuation can be either desirable or undesirable depending on the situation. In anti-social environments such as conflict circumstances, deindividuation can increase negative behaviors (i.e. aggression and violence). However, pro-social situations such as in the presence of a pro-social model, deindividuation can lead to increased positive behavior. In terms of theoretically accounting for deindividuation, the Social Identity Theory appears to account for much of the research findings.



References
Diener, E. (1977). Deindividuation: Causes and consequences. Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 143–155.

Diener, E. (1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1160-1171.

Diener, E., Fraser, S., Beaman, A., & Kelem, R. (1976). Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 178-183.

Ellison, P., Govern, J., Petri, H., & Figler, M. (1995). Anonymity and aggressive driving behavior: A field study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 265-272.

Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of deindividuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382-389.

Francis, K., Boyd, C., Aisbett, D., Newnham, K., & Newnham, K. (2006). Adolescents attitudes to seeking help for mental health problems. Youth Studies Australia, 26(4), 142-150.

Gergen, K. J., Gergen, M. M., & Barton, W. H. (1973). Deviance in the dark. Psychology Today, 7, 129-130.

Johnson, R. D., & Downing, L. L. (1979). Deindividuation and valence of cues: Effects on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1532–1538.

Lee, E. (2007). Deindividuation effects on group polarization in computer mediated communication: The role of group identification, public self-awareness and perceived argument quality. The journal of Communication, 57(2), 385-403.

Miller, F. G., & Rowland, K. L. (1979). Halloween masks and deindividuation. Psychological Reports, 44, 422.

Mullen, B., Midgal, M. J., & Rozell, D. (2003). Self-awareness, deindividuation and social identity: Unraveling theoretical paradoxes by filling empirical Lacunae. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5) 1071-1081.

Mullen, B. (1986). Stuttering, audience size, and the other-total ratio: A self-attention perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 141-151.

O’brien, A. G. (2006). Divisive power of crowd fuels supporters' baffling culture of vileness. The Times, 88.

Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123(3), 238-259.

Rehm, J., Steinleitner, M., & Lilli, W. (1987). Wearing uniforms and aggression: A field experiment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 357–360.

Reicher, S. D. (1984). Social influence in the crowd: Attitudinal and behavioural effects of de-individuation in conditions of high and low group salience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 341–350

Silke, A. (2003). Deindividuation, anonymity, and violence: findings from Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Psycholog, 143(4), 493-499.

Silke, A. (1999). Ragged justice: Loyalist vigilantism in Northern Ireland. Terrorism and Political Violence, 11, 1-31.

Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121–134.

Spivey, C. B., & Prentice-Dunn, S. (1990). Assessing the directionality of deindividuated behavior: effects of deindividuation, modeling and private self-consciousness on aggressive and prosocial responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11(4), 387-403.

Watson, R. I. (1973). Investigation into deindividuation using a cross-cultural survey technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 342-345.

Appendices
Self-Assessment
Theory
I presented a number of theoretical concepts in my essay giving brief examples of the central concepts. Due to the word limit the depth of analysis had to be limited.

Research
I feel that my essay provided a sufficient representation of the available research. However, I could have incorporated more research on deindividuation across different cultures and investigated developmental variables.

Written expression
My essay was written and referenced in APA format. A simple writing style, logical sequence and subheadings were used to enhance readability.
- Flesch-Kincaid grade level = 12.0
Readability could have been improved by the use of tables, concept maps or figures to help illustrate the main points of the essay.

Online engagement
My online engagement has been consistent throughout the semester. I have conducted weekly discussions as well as numerous other posts on my own blog. Also I have commented on many of the other blogs throughout the semester.

Week 14 discussion

Hey everybody,

I found a couple of things interesting this week. The first was the question raised 'are any helping acts purely altruistic?' My opinion is probably not. I think theres always some degree of self-gain motive in any behavior. But really, if the helper gets something out of helping then isn't that a better scenario? Everyone benefits!! Who needs pure altruism!

The second thing I found interesting was that people are more likely to help attractive others. The reason I found this interesting is because in an earlier lecture it was said that attractive people are more likely to be percieved as superior to others on many traits but not honesty!! I thought this would result in people being less likely to help 'attractive people'.

Any opinions welcome,

Cheers mike!

Another high school shooting

On Wednesday there was yet another U.S high school shooting in Cleveland. This made me think about the psyhchological impact of bullying on kids. Not to say going on a shooting spree is the answer but seeing the way some kids are continously victimized it doesn't suprise me that it happens.


What are your thoughts on the psychological impact of bullying??

Armenian genocide aknowledgement

hey everyone,

I know the we've already done the topic of genocide but I heard an interesting report on the news las night I thought was worth bringing up. Basically it was about the U.S officially aknowledging that the killings of hundreds of thousands of Armenians by the turks between 1915 - 1917 was genocide. The Bush administration was opposed as it would harm their relationship with Turkey and thus their interests in the middle east by cutting off Turkish supply lines to Iraq.

Here is an interesting related article on the topic.

Any opinions welcome!

Professionalism destroying sport - the overjustification effect

Hey everyone,

I am a big sports fan and cant imagine what life would be like without it but you have to question why we now give such huge rewards and publicity to elite sports people. I don't think its good for society (i.e kids looking up to guys like andrew (e) johns, ben cousins etc) or for entertainment value (i.e. the style of game the islander nations play compared to the top tier nations at the rugby world cup).

I wonder what aliens would think if they came to earth and found humans giving all this attention and money to people who hit, kick and throw balls around an oval?? They would probably think we were crazy!!

Whatever happened to the good old days when first-grade footballers worked their 9-5 then play their guts out on the weekend?

Do you believe that the professionalism and huge extrinsic incentives in sport today are destroying the core of what sport is supposed to be about?

here are some opinions about money in soccer

Any opinions welcome,

Cheers, Mike

Deindividuation and facebook.

Hey everyone,

Ive decided to do my second blog on deindividuation. I decided to do this topic because of my own experiences. I have had quite a lot of trouble with anonymous mobile phone harrasment.

I figure sites like myspace and facebook would be the perfect environment for deindividuated harrasment. I've heard there have been problems in highschools with kids pretending to be teachers, putting up degrading pics and cyberbullying other students. I've found a couple of journal articles on the consequences of deindividuation in internet chat rooms but havent come across anything about facebook yet - I guess it's still pretty new!!. Has anyone experineced or know anyone who's experienced any problems on facebook, myspace etc?? Or other forms of computer mediated communication?

Final Exam Stategy??

What strategy is everyone going to take in preparing for the final exam?? This open book format has got me a bit concerned. I went through the first couple of chapters putting stickies on what I thought were the important points and ended up having too many to be of any use. I figure I'm just going to try and get through as many questions as quickly as possible from memory marking questions I'm unsure of then use the index for those questions.

Has anyone had any experience with open book tests?? Any tips welcome!!!!


cheers, mike!

Week 12 discussion

Hey everybody,

One thing I found interesting about this weeks lecture was the point James made about overemphasizing the importance of leaders. I think this is evident in sport, I think that coaches get too much of the blame when teams are doing poorly and too much credit when teams ared doing well.

Another concept I think is worth discussing is social loafing. I think whether or not I social loaf depends greatly on my motivation level. For example if I have a group university assignment I generally put in more effort than usual so I dont let my group down. I would feel worse if I failed in a group task than if I failed on an individual task because not only do you have to deal with your own dissapointment but also your team mates. On the other hand, when I used to work at woolworths I always hoped there would be a few other staff on because that made it easier to bludge and get away with doing as little work as possible - I had very little motivation for stacking fruit.

What does everybody think about overemphasizing the importance of leaders? Is anyone guilty of social loafing? If so, in what situations do you social loaf?

Any opinions welcome!

Cheers, Mike

Week 11 discussion

I found this weeks lecture interesting as the things were discussed I could easily see in my life. One concept I questioned which research supports was 'birds of a feather flock together' because most of the successful couples I know have quiet different personalities.

Whats your opinion?

Concept Map blog 1

Week 10 discussion

Hey everybody,

I've decided that I am going to start a general discussion on each weeks material just to help clarify bits I dont understand, share my views and get peoples opinions on the various topics.

I didnt make it to this weeks lecture due to illness but had a browse theough the notes. The excell program sounds very interesting. One bit that interested me was the 'Cultural mapping' phase. Did Anita go into more detail about this in the lecture?? One of my initial reactions was that people within a culture behave in such different ways that it would be hard to give examples of 'culturally preferable' behaviours.

Is there really that much difference between cultures? I've never had the experience of living in other cultures but I figure good manners and 'treat others how you'd like to be treated' apply universally. Does anyone have personal experience of different behavioural expectations between cultures??

Any feedback welcome!

Motivation and Emotion essay

Hey everyone, as most people doing this subject are also doing motivation and emotion I thoght i'd use this blog to start up discussion about the 3,000 procastination word essay we're all procrastinating on. Is anyone else struggling? There seems to be so much research out there and studies linking just about everything under the sun to procrastination.

Has anyone found any articles about antecedents? Most of the ones I've found have been correlational studies and as they say correlation does not prove causation.

Here are a few articles I've been looking at, feel free to add to the list!

Van Eerde, W. (2003). Ameta-anylitically derived nomological network of procrastination. Personality and individual differences, 35, 1401-1418.

Steel, P. (2003). The nature of procrastination. University of Calgary. Retrieved 29th of August, 2007, from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~steel/procrastinus/meta/meta.html

Scher, S. J., & Osterman, N. M. (2002). Procrastination, conscientiousness, anxiety, and goals: Exploring the measurement and correlates of procrastination among school-aged children. Psychology in Schools, 39, 385-398.

Any comments, tips etc welcome;)

Blog 1. Genocide

Social Psychological Variables of Genocide

Introduction
A systematic attempt to annihilate a racial group or nation - more commonly referred to as genocide (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006) - can be seen as occurring when a ‘perfect storm’ of social psychological variables come together.” These variables include cognitive errors and biases such as confirmation bias, illusory correlations and belief-perseverance. These errors and biases result from human’s innate tendency to use mental shortcuts (heuristics) and may lead to negative perceptions and violence toward members of other groups. Genocide leaders and the media influence these cognitions and behaviors. Crisis situations can further perpetuate the development of genocide. These variables and the way they interact will be discussed with reference to the major genocides of the 20th century.

Cognitive Factors
Humans tend to divide the world into ‘us’ and ‘them’ or into ‘in groups’ and ‘out groups’ and adopt a more positive view toward the ‘in group.’ This is known as ‘in group bias’ (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). When highly positive ‘in-group’ views are coupled with extremely negative ‘out-group’ views, stereotyping and prejudicial attitudes toward the ‘out-group’ may occur resulting in an ideology of supremacy (Staub, 2003, p55). These factors are highly predictive of aggressive behaviour (Baumiester, Smart & Boden, 1996). For example, the Hutu leaders believed Hutus were superior to Tutsis referring to them as cockroaches. This was a major factor in the Rwanda genocide (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006). Similarly, the Nazis viewed themselves and all people of the Aryan race as far superior to the other races i.e. Jews, Slavs and gypsies (Adalian, 1997, p60). Genocide leaders may try to promote this scenario. For instance, Hutu leaders in the Rwanda genocide used fear based propaganda radio broadcasts to polarise themselves from the Tutsis (Barker, 2004).

‘In group bias’ can lead to a perceived-threat orientation, which strongly predicts prejudicial and aggressive behaviour (Bobo & Hutchings, 1996). A culture with a perceived-threat orientation may assume that the other culture poses a threat and thus prepare for conflict (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006). Leaders wishing to promote violence can enhance this perception. For example, Nazi Germany used stereotypes to enhance the perception of threat Jews posed. Nazis warned citizens that Jews were ‘a growing tumour that must be excised. Movies such as ‘The Eternal Jew’ portrayed Jews as a spreading plague of rats (Adalain, 1997, p63). Similarly Tutsis in Rwanda became identified as a threatening invading force despite having historical roots in the same region as the Hutus (Mamdani, 2001, p70).

The way humans’ process information can also abet the development of hatred and violence (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006). The term ‘cognitive miser’ refers to humans’ natural tendency to minimise the amount of thinking where possible. Humans utilise the less taxing automatic processing in preference over the more laborious conscious processing (Fiske & Taylor, 1991, p13). Hence, humans often take mental shortcuts known as heuristics when processing information. This can lead to errors (Nisbett & Ross, 1980, pp13 - 14).

People often automatically seek information that supports their beliefs while ignoring evidence that disproves their beliefs. This is known as confirmation bias (Swann & Read, 1981). Such a bias was evident in the nationalist Yugoslavian media who published a distorted account of history that served to generate increased ethno political hatred. According to the Helsinki Watch (cited in Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006) “The constant invocation of history to bolster ethnic nationalism has impeded the search for lasting and equitable political solutions to ethnic strife in Yugoslavia.”

Another cognitive error known as ‘illusory correlation’ involves people inferring connections between unrelated phenomena. ‘Illusory correlations’ provide seemingly sound evidence to support a belief system despite their falsity (Ward & Jenkins, 1965). Unfortunately, once beliefs are created, humans are extremely reluctant to abandon them. This is known as ‘belief-perseverance’ (Ross, Lepper & Hubbard, 1975). This is why certain cultural groups may tenaciously hold onto erroneous beliefs about other groups for a long period of time. This is more common in cultures with a history of marginalisation and bias. Leaders may exploit these cognitive errors to promote violence (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006). This is well illustrated in the use of “The protocols of the Elders of Zion” to strengthen anti-Semitic’s belief perseverance of a fictitious Jewish world dominance conspiracy (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006).

The ‘fundamental attribution error’ is a cognitive bias involving automatically attributing others behaviour to internal dispositions whilst failing to take into account situational factors. People are more likely to make a fundamental attribution to others than themselves. This is known as the ‘actor-observer effect’. When these attributions are made in relation to entire groups, it is referred to as the ‘ultimate attribution error’ (Ross et al, 1975). This leads to the belief that animosity between groups is built into the two opposing parties. For instance, the Yugoslavian mass murders and the Rwandan genocide are often dismissed as primordially ingrained hatreds that are permanently built-in to an underlying social identity. This in turn leads to an ignorance of political, social and economic antecedents. This influences bystanders’ appraisal of the situation and perhaps decreases their motivation to prevent the situation escalating further (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006).

Additionally, when the fundamental attribution error is coupled with the motivation to retain a belief of a just world, this can result in blaming the victim for the atrocities they had to endure (Lerner, 1980, p7). Such as the aftermath of World War Two, some people proposed that perhaps the Jews might have been partly responsible for the holocaust (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006). This may be in an attempt to diminish cognitive dissonance (Staub, 2003, p59).

Influence of leaders
The influence of leaders plays a major role in the development of genocide (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006). Research on personality traits of genocide leaders has found moderate correlations with personality characteristics such as charisma, desire for power and dominance, self-confidence, self-direction and intelligence (Bass & Stogdill, 1990, p8; Chemers & Ayman, 1993, p18; Hollander, 1985; Simonton, 1984, p45).

Genocide leaders are motivated by situations that cause difficult living conditions, which are unanticipated and unusual for those involved. These situations make it easier for selfish leaders to exert their influence. Political crisis, economic crises or the effects of war were evident leading up to all the major genocides of the 20th century (Staub, 2003, p68). These genocides resulted in the perpetrators benefiting financially, especially those in leadership positions. For instance although Rwanda suffered economically, the Hutu leadership became increasingly wealthy. The Nazis benefited from stolen money and art funnelled into Swiss bank accounts (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006).

Cultural Factors
Also, for genocide to occur, violence must be acceptable within the culture. The major genocides all occurred in cultures that had a long history of conflict and war. In these cultures aggression is used as a normative problem-solving skill (Staub, 2003, p63). Cultures with an aggressive history, particularly those glorify violence (i.e. military parades, heroic violent media etc) are most vulnerable to genocide (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006).

Many cultures promote and hold in high esteem compliance, obedience and conformity and often there are harsh penalties for not abiding by these cultural demands such as verbal aggression, physical violence and ostracism (Levin & Paulus, 1989). Genocide group members face immense pressure to partake in hatred and violence and fear the ramifications of failing to conform (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006). The pressure to conform is enhanced by the presence of a powerful authority figure. This is evident in Milgram’s (1965) obedience studies. Research has shown that using both a strong authority figure and starting out with smaller acts of compliance and gradually progressing to major acts of compliance (otherwise known as foot-in-the-door technique) is an effective technique used by genocide leaders to facilitate violence (Haritos-Fatouros, 1988).

The effect of group formation
The formation of groups, regardless of the nature, can increase the potential capacity for violence. Groups promote a perception of anonymity and deindividuation (Festinger, Pepitone & Newcomb, 1952). This may result in lack of self-awareness and a perception of lack of responsibility of individual group members. This has been shown to increase the propensity for violence once provoked (Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1989). This is evident in groups such as Hitler’s youth and the Khmer Rouge (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006).

Furthermore, if individuals in a group hold similar beliefs on an issue, these beliefs tend to perpetuate as a function of being part of the group. This phenomenon is referred to as groupthink. Unfortunately, when groups involve views of prejudice these views can also be enhanced (Myers & Bishop, 1970). For instance, Slovidam Milosovic utilised ‘group think’ by expelling those with reform or moderate agendas from the Serbian Central Committee enabling him to more efficiently put in action his agenda for ethnic cleansing (Oberschall, 2001, p28). Likewise, extremist Hutu leaders attacked moderate Hutus at the beginning of the 1994 Rwanda genocide in order to eliminate their influence and promote their own views (Barker, 2004).

Conclusion
It is clear that there are numerous interdependent psychological variables involved in the development of genocide (see Figure 1). These variables include Humans’ innate cognitive predisposition to use shortcuts whilst processing information making them vulnerable to cognitive errors and biases. These errors and biases can result in negative attitudes, stereotyping and prejudicial views toward certain cultural groups. Leaders, the media and crisis situations, can manipulate all these factors.

References
Adalian, R. P., Totten, S., Parsons, W. S. & Charny, I. (1997). The Armenian genocide. Century of Genocide: Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views. New York, N.Y: Garland.

Bass, B. M. and Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications (3rd ed.). New York, N.Y: Free press.

Barker, G. (2004). Ghosts of Rwanda [video recording]. United States of America: Public Broadcasting Services, (frontline).

Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L. & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egoism to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103(1), 5-33.

Bobo, L. and Hutchings, V. L. (1996). Perceptions of racial group competition: extending Blumer's theory of group position to a multiracial social context. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 951-972.

Chemers, M. M. & Ayman, R. (1993). Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and Directions, San Diego, C.A: Academic Press.

Festinger, L., Pepitone, A. & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of deindividuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382-389.

Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social Cognition (2nd ed). New York, N.Y: Random House.

Haritos-Fatouros, M. (1988). The official torturer: a learning model for obedience to the authority of violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(13), 1107-1120.

Hollander, E. P., Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (1985). Leadership and power. Handbook of Social Psychology, 2, 485-537

Lerner, M. J. (1980) The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. New York, N.Y: Plenum.

Levin, J. M. & Paulus, P. B. (1989). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. Psychology of Group Influence, 187-231.

Mamdani, M. (2001). When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism and the Genocide in Rwanda. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.

Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18(1), 57-76.

Myers, D. G. & Bishop, G. D. (1970). Discussion effects on racial attitudes. Science 169(3947), 778-789.

Nisbett, R. E. and Ross, L. (1980) Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Human Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.

Oberschall, A. (2001). From ethnic cooperation to violence and war in Yugoslavia. Ethnopolitical Warfare: Causes, Consequences and Possible Solutions, Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.

Prentice-Dunn, S. & Rogers, R. W. (1989). Deindividuation and the self-regulation of behavior. Psychology of Group Influence, 87-109.

Ross, L., Lepper, M. R. and Hubbard, M. (1975) Perseverance in self perception and social perception: biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 880-892.

Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, Creativity and Leadership: Historiometric Inquiries. Cambridge, M.A: Harvard University Press.

Staub, E. (2003). The Psychology of Good and Evil, New York, N.Y: Cambridge University Press.

Swann, W. B. Read, S. J. (1981) Acquiring self-knowledge: the search for feedback that fits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(6), 1119-1128.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. The Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 7-24.

Ward, W. C. & Jenkins, H. M. (1965). The display of information and the judgment of contingency. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 19(3), 231-241.

Woolf, L. M., & Hulsizer, M. R. (2006). Psychosocial roots of genocide: risk, prevention, and intervention. Journal of Genocide Research, 7(1), 101-128.

Appendix 1. Self-Assessment
Theory
I presented a number of theoretical concepts in my essay giving brief examples of the central concepts. Due to the word limit some relevant theory had to be excluded and descriptions were brief.

Research
I feel that my essay provided a sufficient up to date representation of the available research. Several examples were provided from a number of 20th century genocides. Alternatively, I could have provided fewer examples in greater depth. I believe that I have shown an understanding of the social psychological research on genocide and presented it in a concise relevant fashion.

Written expression
My essay was written and referenced in APA format. A concept map was provided to outline the major concepts of the essay and how they relate to each other. A simple writing style, logical sequence and subheadings were used to enhance readability.
- Flesch reading ease = 30.5
- Flesch-Kincaid grade level = 12.0
Readability could have been improved if I had more proficient computer skills. I could have possibly included a table with more information. Also If my concept mapping skills were better I could have delivered more information through that.

Online engagement
My online engagement has been consistent throughout the semester. Although I may lack technical expertise I have initiated many interesting discussions through my own blog posts, participated in numerous other peoples posts and posted a link to relevant articles. With improved technical skills my online engagement could become more valuable.

Concept Map

Figure 1. Social psychological variables of genocide.

Click on the map and drag to see different locations. To zoom in click on the plus. To zoom out click on the minus.

Abolition of death penalty in Rwanda

Heres a couple of interesting articles about the situation post - genocide in Rwanda. The first is about the Rwandan traditional justice system (Gacaca) used for perpatrators of the Rwanda genocide. The second is about the recent abolition of the death penalty in Rwanda.

Any thoughts/comments welcome..

Concept Map (genocide) version 2

Figure 1. Social psychological variables of genocide concept map

Mikes plan to prevent genocide!!

Tips for the U.N

1. Identify vulnerable areas through SPSS analysis of correlations between current living conditions and similar living conditions that led to past genocides.

2. Dig deep, provide more financial aid, all genocides occur in economic crises.

3. Provide medical aid.

4. Make psychological aid availible.

5. When violence occurs have negotiators passively reason with leaders from outside the country

6. Do not send troops. To me this indicates forceing western cultural values onto another culture which I think is wrong and only serves to create more hate.

7. Encourage countries to have a strong education system that includes courses on history that are unbiased, emphasize that violence has never achieved anything and that much more can be achieved through negotiation.

8. Provide educational resources where required.

Any comments welcome!!

Would you help????

Hypothetical question! If there was a genocide starting in Rwanda tommorrow excactly the same as the one in 1994 and the military were asking for volunteers to help defend against approx 7 million machete wielding Hutu's would you lend your services??

I thought about this question long and hard and concluded that I would politely say no, I've tried sticking up for someone once before and got touched up! Operant conditioning lol! Also humans generally have an innate tendency to be selfish to aid survival and reproduction (lect 1 I think) and I did not miss out on this tendency! Plus If I did go, as soon we leave they would kill each other anyway! It would be just delaying the inevitable. Pointless!

Genocide is terrible and I feel for the victims especially the kids. I am generally an optimistic person but the more I research genocide the more I feel it is innevitable. It has been happening since time began and will - as far as I can see - continue to happen forever. Since 1945 there has only been 26days of world peace, that is a very alarming stat, not even a month!!!!. It seems that whenever there is economic or political crises people just go crazy and are capable of anything! Who Knows if Howard gets voted in again hah

Any comments welcome!!

10 worst genocides

I found this list of the 10 worst genocides.

1. Mao Tsedong: 27 - 73 million Chinese deaths (1945 - 1976)

2. Joseph Stalin: 4 - 60 million polictical purges (1922 - 1953)

3. Hitler: 15 - 50 million civilian deaths by democide and by deaths in concentration camps

4. Hideki Tojo: 6 million - 30 million deaths of Chinese civilians during World War II

5. Pol Pot: - 3 million deaths in Cambodia in the 1970s

6. Kim Il Sung: More than 1.6 million political purges and deaths in concentration camps (1946 - 1994)

7. Mengitsu Haile Mariam: 1.5 million deaths by democide in Ethiopia in the 1970s

8. Ismail Enver: 1.2 - 1.5 million deaths of Turkish civilians (1914-1916)

9. Yakubu Gowon: Over 1 million deaths in Nigeria in (1966-1975)

10. Leonid Breshnev: over 900,000 Armenian deaths (1979 - 1982)

Post-graduation options

Its hard to believe that that I've been doing psych now for almost 3 years. I have enjoyed the degree and learned a lot but I am begining to wonder whats in store after I finish.

-What does everybody plan to do when they graduate?

-What kind of jobs are availible for a person with an undergrad psych degree?

-Does anyone plan on doing honours or any other post-grad studies?

Any comments welcome!

Factors leading to genocide.

I've started doing a bit of research into the factors leading to genocide question for blog 1. Some of the factors I've found are things like in-group bias, illusory correlations, belief perserverance etc.

Do you think these factors are a problem here in Australia? Obviously we haven't had anything close to what happened in Rwanda but the sydney race riots were enough to send a shiver up my spine! What factors do you think lead to the sydney riots? Do you think our leaders could have prevented the disater? or done anything differently?

Any opinions welcome.

Mikes Blog

Welcome to Mikes blog!