Some years ago the world was horrified to watch a video tape of a large group of Los Angeles policemen sadistically beating, kicking, stomping, and abusing a helpless black man who had been stopped for speeding. A neighbor caught the action on his new video camera, and the world was stunned to see the racism, brutality, and sadistic evil perpetrated by men in authority, wearing the uniform of cops. The defense attorney planned to sue for $56 million ~ $1 million for each of the 56 blows which were rained down upon the victim, a black man whom friends said was a sensitive, harmless, friendly kind of guy. Even President Bush called the display "sickening."
Four cops in particular were indicted by a grand jury for misconduct and assault, but at least 21 cops were present at the scene of the action, and none of them took any action to stop the vicious assault. Why? Carol Tavris, social psychologist, wrote in the Los Angeles Times : the ghost of Kitty Genovese would sympathize with Rodney King. Genovese, you may remember, is the symbol of bystander apathy in America. Screaming for help, she was stabbed repeatedly and killed in front of her New York apartment, and not one of the 38 neighbors who heard her, including those who came to their windows to watch, even called for help.
She mentions in her article, In Groups, We Shrink From Loner's Heroics, that one of the appalling things we see in the savage beating of Rodney King is the image of many police officers watching, and doing nothing to intervene. What was the matter with them, we wonder. Tavris said that something happens to individuals when they collect in a group. They think and act differently than they would on their own. Most people, if they observe some disaster or danger on their own a woman being stabbed, a pedestrian slammed by a hit-and-run driver will at least call for help; many will even risk their own safety to intervene. But if they are in a group observing the same danger, they hold back. The reason is not that they are lazy, cowardly, or have 50 other personality deficiencies; it has more to do with the nature of groups than the nature of individuals.
She mentions in her article, In Groups, We Shrink From Loner's Heroics, that one of the appalling things we see in the savage beating of Rodney King is the image of many police officers watching, and doing nothing to intervene. What was the matter with them, we wonder. Tavris said that something happens to individuals when they collect in a group. They think and act differently than they would on their own. Most people, if they observe some disaster or danger on their own a woman being stabbed, a pedestrian slammed by a hit-and-run driver will at least call for help; many will even risk their own safety to intervene. But if they are in a group observing the same danger, they hold back. The reason is not that they are lazy, cowardly, or have 50 other personality deficiencies; it has more to do with the nature of groups than the nature of individuals.
There are some examples supporting my own argument : mob psychology is not sagacious, even dangerous.
In one experiment in behavioral psychology, students were seated in a room, either alone by themselves or in groups of three. A staged emergency was created, and smoke began pouring into the room. Students seated on their own within a minute got up, checked the vents, and went out of the room to report what seemed to be a fire. But those who were seated in groups of three did not move! For six minutes they sat their, rubbing the thick smoke from their eyes and coughing. The students in groups said later that the smoke was caused by "steam pipes," or "truth gas," or else "leaks in the air conditioning," making excuses for their inactivity. Not one group student said what the individual students who were alone said: "I thought it was fire."
In one experiment in behavioral psychology, students were seated in a room, either alone by themselves or in groups of three. A staged emergency was created, and smoke began pouring into the room. Students seated on their own within a minute got up, checked the vents, and went out of the room to report what seemed to be a fire. But those who were seated in groups of three did not move! For six minutes they sat their, rubbing the thick smoke from their eyes and coughing. The students in groups said later that the smoke was caused by "steam pipes," or "truth gas," or else "leaks in the air conditioning," making excuses for their inactivity. Not one group student said what the individual students who were alone said: "I thought it was fire."
In another experiment psychologists staged a situation where people heard a loud crashing noise, a scream, and a woman moaning that her ankle was broken. Seventy percent of the people were were "alone" when they heard the uproar got up to go to the woman's aid. Of the people who were in the presence of another person when the commotion occurred, only 40% took any action.
Also, the Witch Trials and the Holocaust are the representative examples that put the person in a group of other like-minded individuals with leaders pushing for brutality, and mob psychology ensues.
Then, why the mob psychology happened? There are 6 things about this question : unknown, irresponsibility, unquestioning, emotion, suggestion, and friendliness. The mob psychology happened because people lose themselves by unifying into crowd, actions of other individuals are ambiguous so matter of responsibility is also ambiguous, and judge with conjecture and imagination because information is limited. Also, because people are emotional because of inflamed agitation caused by synergism of agent and reaction or lack of responsibility and criticism, the crowd's interest is concentrated on only one and because it cause the narrow range of consciousness, there are very low resistance against the impact applied from the outside. Finally, people can feel friendliness because of the irresponsibility, unknown, and emotion.
Someone can say that mob psychology cause good events like miracle of Sindang station, or 2002 World Cup in Korea and Japan. In addition, they can said the mob psychology was a significant part of factors of the French revolution. Yes. There are some good examples about mob psychology. But, the good examples are just only part. There are so many bad events by the mob psychology than good events. And someone can argue that if there was an outstanding leader, mob psychology is the best thing to save all of us. They often cite Frenched revolution as an example. But that case is so peculiar condition and like their opinion, mob psychology just can be controlled with a competent leader. Also, someone who are favorable for mob psychology can said that we can save the time and money economically because of the trait of majority vote, but because of it, opinions of minority can be ignored although their opinions are right as a result.
Also, the Witch Trials and the Holocaust are the representative examples that put the person in a group of other like-minded individuals with leaders pushing for brutality, and mob psychology ensues.
Then, why the mob psychology happened? There are 6 things about this question : unknown, irresponsibility, unquestioning, emotion, suggestion, and friendliness. The mob psychology happened because people lose themselves by unifying into crowd, actions of other individuals are ambiguous so matter of responsibility is also ambiguous, and judge with conjecture and imagination because information is limited. Also, because people are emotional because of inflamed agitation caused by synergism of agent and reaction or lack of responsibility and criticism, the crowd's interest is concentrated on only one and because it cause the narrow range of consciousness, there are very low resistance against the impact applied from the outside. Finally, people can feel friendliness because of the irresponsibility, unknown, and emotion.
Someone can say that mob psychology cause good events like miracle of Sindang station, or 2002 World Cup in Korea and Japan. In addition, they can said the mob psychology was a significant part of factors of the French revolution. Yes. There are some good examples about mob psychology. But, the good examples are just only part. There are so many bad events by the mob psychology than good events. And someone can argue that if there was an outstanding leader, mob psychology is the best thing to save all of us. They often cite Frenched revolution as an example. But that case is so peculiar condition and like their opinion, mob psychology just can be controlled with a competent leader. Also, someone who are favorable for mob psychology can said that we can save the time and money economically because of the trait of majority vote, but because of it, opinions of minority can be ignored although their opinions are right as a result.
Every time the news reports another story of a group that has behaved mindlessly, violently and stupidly, including the inevitable members who are just 'going along,' many people shake their heads in shock and anger at the failings of 'human nature.' But the findings of behavioral research can direct us instead to appreciate the conditions under which individuals in groups will behave morally or not. Once we know the conditions, we can begin to prescribe antidotes. By understanding the impulse to diffuse responsibility, perhaps as individuals we will be more likely to act. By understanding the pressures that reward groupthink, loyalty and obedience, we can foster those that reward whistle-blowing and moral courage. And, as a society, we can reinforce the belief that they also sin who only stand and watch.
