Risky Shift, what is it, when does it occur and why does it happen? These three questions will form the basis of this essay and will be explored to try to make the risky shift phenomenon as clear as possible.
To begin this discussion, Risky shift and terms relating to risky shift will be defined to provide some parameters with which to explore the literature on this topic. Examples of risky shift will be given throughout the essay to emphasize what risky shift is and how rampant it is in everyday society. The essay will then investigate why this phenomenon occurs, the causes and possible ways to prevent this incident from occurring.
Unfortunately, a lot of the psychological literature on this particular topic was written in the 1960’s/1970’s when the term Risky Shift was most popular. With more current research, the term Risky Shift has been replaced with the term Group Polarization. These will be defined in more detail.
The term Risky Shift was first coined in in the early 1960’s and was used to describe the tendency for groups to take more risks than the same individuals within these groups would have taken had they been faced with the same problem alone (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). There were inconsistencies with early studies however, which lead some researchers to introduce the term ‘stingy shift’ which was basically the same as a risky shift in that the group would tend to agree on the decision, however in this case, the decision was to be more conservative, or stingy (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). This idea seems to correlate quite well with the basic principles of groupthink, which is "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action“ (http://www.bola.biz/communications/groupthink.html). Risky/Stingy shift can be seen to be evident within groupthink as a sub-set of typical thinking patterns that occur in group situations and can be observed in society in situations such as student bodies, government, sporting teams and jury’s. For example, one study examined what would occur if prejudiced students were asked to discuss racial issues and what would happen if non-prejudiced students discussed the same racial issues. The results? The prejudiced students became more prejudiced whilst the non-prejudiced students became more non-prejudiced (Myers & Bishop, 1970).
As this example demonstrates, there is the possibility for groups to take opposing views, one to lean towards risk whilst the other can lean towards conservatism. These inconsistencies were discovered quite soon after the term Risky/Stingy Shift was coined. As a result, researchers created the term Group Polarization or choice shift to be more appropriate in describing these group tendencies. Group Polarization can be defined as the tendency for people to make decisions that are more extreme when they are in a group as opposed to the decisions they would make individually (www.wikipedia.org). Group Polarization as shown by the prejudiced/non-prejudiced students is the effect the group has on individual thoughts. The term polarization in this phrase does not mean a split between the groups; rather it is a magnification of existing thought patterns to one extreme or the other (risky/stingy) resulting in a more extreme group decision.
Group Polarization can occur anywhere, anytime and anyone can do it. Occasions in the army where Group Polarization occurs is called incestuous amplification, whereby an individual will only listen to people with like beliefs, which in turn can lead to miscalculations and errors in judgement (http://www.wordspy.com/words/incestuousamplification.asp). Perhaps the most famous example of incestuous amplification and risky shift in a U.S. military sense is the case of the photo scandal of U.S. soldiers torturing Iraqi inmates in Abu Ghraib prison. In defence of these crimes, the photographed soldiers said they were following orders as determined by their superiors (Kirk, 2004). Perhaps a more suitable explanation could be that the soldiers were experiencing a risky shift in that the group environment encouraged anti-social behaviour, and these beliefs were further cemented in that fact that these soldiers believed they were serving their country by behaving in this manner. It would be fair to say that these individual soldiers would not behave in the same manner if they had been in the same situation individually. As the soldier in the photos, Lynddie England has said, they were “just doing our jobs, which meant doing as we were told” (Kirk, 2004). The individual accountability for such actions has been removed and replaced by the sense of loyalty to ones job, therefore, Lynddie feels she was not responsible for her actions, she was just doing her job as set out be the military.
Whilst this example is quite famous, group polarization and the risky/stingy shift can be present in some quite normal, everyday situations. For example, sporting teams can adopt both risky or stingy shifts. A basketball team who is behind by two points with 20 seconds to go may adopt a risky shift and throw all their might into securing the ball and scoring a winning goal, whereas the opposing/winning team may adopt a stingy shift and attempt to protect the ball so as to secure the win. Juries can be seen to adopt the risky/stingy shift when delivering verdicts.
A further example, which is very pertinent to university life, especially in Canberra, is the incidence of binge drinking and the ensuing chaos. Recent cases involve mass drinking at local establishments with empty bottles being thrown, damaging private and university property and resulting in large repair bills. It is highly unlikely that the individuals who committed these acts would be likely to do so if they were drinking by themselves. It appears the culture of the ’group’ who were intoxicated and in festive moods resulted in the group choosing to express the festive occasion in an unsavoury manner.
Why does this seem to occur? There are varying explanations that attempt to provide a reason as to why group polarization occurs. For instance, a diffusion of responsibility throughout the group seems to give members of these groups a free rein to act as they see fit (Wallach, Kogan, & Bem 1964). The emotional bonds that are created within the group serve to decrease anxiety within the group and the actual risk of the situation seems less. Therefore, in the case of Lynddie England, she was a member of the United States Military, part of a large group, who was following orders by her superior. Within the group she perceives her responsibility to the individual (Iraqi prisoner) to be lower than her responsibility to the group (the Military), thus she carries out her duties with little sign of remorse.
A further explanation is provided by Collins and Guetzkow (1964) who suggested, particularly in the case of the Risky Shift phenomenon, that the presence of high risk-takers within the group influence the decisions of others within the group. This is highlighted by the example mentioned above of drunken university students. Most of the students involved are down-to-earth people day-by-day, whilst a few have quite big personalities. Add to the mix the effect of alcohol and the big personalities have the ability to influence the smaller personalities who are disinhibited by the effects of alcohol.
One possible explanation for the stingy shift phenomenon may be the fact the individuals within a group do not want to be seen to be letting their compatriots within the group down by choosing the risky decision and possibly failing, hence they choose the ‘safe’ option (http://www.changingminds.org/explanations/theories/risky_shift.htm).
One explanation which could provide insight into recent political decisions regarding the immediacy of the US and Australians Governments retaliation to threats of national security and their lack of action regarding climate change is humans tendency to over-react to immediate threats (terrorism) and to under-react to long-term threats (climate change) (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_risk_2.html).
The size of the group also has an effect on how susceptible the group will be to polarization. Research indicates that the larger the group, the larger the shift will be to either risk or conservatism. One real life example of this happening is the looting that occurred following Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Ordinary citizens were photographed and documented looting stores for anything of worth. As so many people were seen to be looting, more people thought it would be acceptable for them to loot as well, therefore, as the looters group grew, more people felt a sense of deindividuation and a dissemination of responsibility within the group, thus justifying their decision to loot (Vidmar & Burdeny, 1971).
A further explanation is that of interpersonal comparisons. Basically mere exposure to the preferences of others is necessary and sufficient for group shift to occur. Furthermore, when an individual discovers that others within the group share their ideas more then they would have suspected, the individual tends to voice their opinions more. This can be because the group itself is discovered to be leaning more in the preferred direction or the individual is able to act out more within the group after observing another individual sharing the same thoughts (Myers, & Lamm, 1976).
The last influence to be discussed is termed as the normative influence and is a form of cognitive change that occurs within the group. The basis is that a discussion will take place concerning the issue at hand, which predominately favours the preferred direction (risk or conservative), and much new information favouring the preferred direction will be presented to the individuals in the group. The arguments will support pre-existing views held by the individual, cognitively cementing the thoughts of the individual who will then adjust their comments appropriately based on the discussion of the group (Myers, & Lamm, 1976).
In summation, the risky shift appears in every day life; however, there is an opposing view that aims to restore balance in group decision making called the stingy shift. Groups make decisions all the time, in government regarding how individuals will live their lives and without the stingy shift, perhaps the quality of life may not be as high. As such, group polarization is the more frequently used term in today’s’ psychological research and there are many examples mentioned above that highlight this phenomenon. There are many reasons as to why these incidences seem to occur, such as deindividuation and the diffusion of responsibility, but with this knowledge it is also evident that there are ways to consciously become aware of this phenomenon and attempt to control for its possible wayward effects.
References
Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. California: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Collins, B. E., & Guetzkow, H. (1964). A social psychology of group processes for decision-making. New York: Wiley
Definitions retrieved on 20th October from website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_polarization
Groupthink definition retrieved on 20th October 2007 from website: http://www.bola.biz/communications/groupthink.html
Incestuous Amplification retrieved on 20th October 2007 from website: http://www.wordspy.com/words/incestuousamplification.asp
Johnson, K. The struggle for Iraq: Prison scandal; Guard featured in abuse photos says she was following orders. New York Times. Retrieved on 20th October, 2007 from website:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CEFD9103CF931A25756C0A9629C8B63
Myers, D. G., & Bishop, G. D. (1970) Discussion effects on racial attitudes. Science, 169, 778-779
Myers, D. G, & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 83. pp. 602-627.
Perceived Risk retrieved on 20th October 2007 from website:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_risk_2.html
Stingy Shift Explanation retrieved on 20th October 2007 from website: http://www.changingminds.org/explanations/theories/risky_shift.htm
Vidmar, N, & Burdeny, T. C. (1971). Effect of group size and item type in the “group shift’ effect. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. Vol. 3.
Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bem, D. J. (1964). Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk taking in groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 263-274
Appendices
Theory and Research
This blog covers an extensive range of theory, however it was difficult to find relevant research on the term Risky Shift itself as it is an old concept. Using the term group polarization produced much better theory and has been included in this essay.
Using all terms produced a large amount of theory, which was very interesting, yet some was not relevant. Given the word limit, as much diverse theory and research was included as was possible.
Written Expression
This blog fits APA format and the language and examples used are relatable and useful in explaining the topic in understandable terms. The theory itself can be a little wordy and using the examples makes the bulk of the information more digestible to the reader.
Online Engagement
My engagement has been much better in Term 2 as compared to Term 1. I wrote and commented on extensive topics, adding videos and useful links that I thought were applicable to the topics. I aimed to address as many issues as possible and make my posts as entertaining as possible while still covering the topics discussed in class.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Prosocial and Anti Social Behaviour as demonstrated on Summer Heights High
I am sure some of you may be aware of the ABC comedy Summer Heights High. For those of you who don't it is a comedy created by comedian Chris Lilley based on a fictional high school and it basically revolves around three main charaters. Ja'imee (ja-may) King, Jonah Takelau and Mr G, the drama teacher. It airs on wednesday nights and can be downloaded from the ABC website: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/summerheightshigh/#home. These characters are of course fictional and are overly steroetypical which I think is the creators point.
Anyway, the reason I mention this show is that during the lecture on Prosocial behaviour I tried to think of some examples of pro and anti social behaviour and this show seemed to pop into my head as having some very pertinent examples, not to mention funny ones. The three main characters also make it easy to present clear examples of pro and anti social behaviour.
Take for example Ja'imee. She is the resident private school girl on exchange at the dingy public school. She seems to be displaying prosocial behaviour in episode 5 as she wants to organise a yr 11 formal for the benefit of her class mates. She seems to be displaying altruistic behaviour as she wants her classmates to have some fun and she is willing to put in the work to organise venues and dj's and fundraisers. The outcome though, is that the tickets work out to be $450, which suits her budget, and she has ulterior, selfish motives. She wants a formal so everyone can see how cool she is, and to be the coolest person at the formal, she invites a hot lesbian as her date, so she will be cooler than her friend who is taking a guy in a wheelchair.
So, is Ja'imee pro or anti social?
She does appear to be helping others, or she thinks she is as people who hang around her become cooler.
However, due to her ulterior motives, I dont honestly think that is why she is organising the formal.
She disobeys the rules as set out be her year advisor. He originally does not agree to the formal, but she threatens to kill herself so he relents.
Ja'imee certainly does not conform to socially acceptable behaviour as she organises a fundraiser for "AIDS" yet what she really wants the money for is to pay for the DJ. I dont think this is socially acceptabe behaviour as she is cheating people out of their money.
She does demonstrate some prosocial behaviour in that she attempts to cooperate with others, yet the only other people she will cooperate with are the hot people at the school. All other people (teachers, boys, non-hot people) she manipulates to get her own way.
So, overall, I would say Ja'imee is a good example of anti-social behaviour, as defined in the lecture notes anyway...
Another good example is Jonah Takelau, the resident break dancing polynesian.
In short, he has a temper and is much like Ja'imee. He has behavioural and learning problems and as such has a contract written up between him, his teachers and the guidance counsellor. He continually breaks these rules, and partakes in socially unacceptable behaviour, such as asking his female english teacher if she is on her period and taking a mobile phone picture of his rear end and sending it to his guidance counsellor. He also accuses his dad of molesing him to get out of doing an english report.
He demonstrates conflict with a yr 7 rival breakdancer and they continually clash throughout the series.
Again, Jonah is a prime example of anti-social behaviour.
Mr G is a mixed bag in relation to his behaviour. He is hell-bent on providing a great drama production for the end of year show. However, his original subject matter was quite touchy. You may have seen the news regarding the Annabelle ecstasy story, this storyline was changed to become a Mr G production. So the show predominately revolves around Mr G and his school experienes.
He does exhibit some prosocial behaviours as he does try to cooperate with others, however, it usually ends in tears as he does have verrrrry little give in his thought patterns. He is trying to help others as he wants to put together a great production and help the kids he has chosen to do just that.
However, he does not appear to be behaving in socially acceptable ways as he is trying to capatilize on the death of a schoolgirl.
Thus, he too appears to have a touch of the anti social behaviour about him
All in all, I hope this makes a bit of sense of what pro and anti social behaviour is, even though these are greatly exaggerated examples. I thought I would try to make it a little fun and I would recommend watching the show if you havent seen it, just keep an open mind as it is not intended to be at all serious.
If you want to add any comments or examples, feel free.
Thanks guys.
Anyway, the reason I mention this show is that during the lecture on Prosocial behaviour I tried to think of some examples of pro and anti social behaviour and this show seemed to pop into my head as having some very pertinent examples, not to mention funny ones. The three main characters also make it easy to present clear examples of pro and anti social behaviour.
Take for example Ja'imee. She is the resident private school girl on exchange at the dingy public school. She seems to be displaying prosocial behaviour in episode 5 as she wants to organise a yr 11 formal for the benefit of her class mates. She seems to be displaying altruistic behaviour as she wants her classmates to have some fun and she is willing to put in the work to organise venues and dj's and fundraisers. The outcome though, is that the tickets work out to be $450, which suits her budget, and she has ulterior, selfish motives. She wants a formal so everyone can see how cool she is, and to be the coolest person at the formal, she invites a hot lesbian as her date, so she will be cooler than her friend who is taking a guy in a wheelchair.
So, is Ja'imee pro or anti social?
She does appear to be helping others, or she thinks she is as people who hang around her become cooler.
However, due to her ulterior motives, I dont honestly think that is why she is organising the formal.
She disobeys the rules as set out be her year advisor. He originally does not agree to the formal, but she threatens to kill herself so he relents.
Ja'imee certainly does not conform to socially acceptable behaviour as she organises a fundraiser for "AIDS" yet what she really wants the money for is to pay for the DJ. I dont think this is socially acceptabe behaviour as she is cheating people out of their money.
She does demonstrate some prosocial behaviour in that she attempts to cooperate with others, yet the only other people she will cooperate with are the hot people at the school. All other people (teachers, boys, non-hot people) she manipulates to get her own way.
So, overall, I would say Ja'imee is a good example of anti-social behaviour, as defined in the lecture notes anyway...
Another good example is Jonah Takelau, the resident break dancing polynesian.
In short, he has a temper and is much like Ja'imee. He has behavioural and learning problems and as such has a contract written up between him, his teachers and the guidance counsellor. He continually breaks these rules, and partakes in socially unacceptable behaviour, such as asking his female english teacher if she is on her period and taking a mobile phone picture of his rear end and sending it to his guidance counsellor. He also accuses his dad of molesing him to get out of doing an english report.
He demonstrates conflict with a yr 7 rival breakdancer and they continually clash throughout the series.
Again, Jonah is a prime example of anti-social behaviour.
Mr G is a mixed bag in relation to his behaviour. He is hell-bent on providing a great drama production for the end of year show. However, his original subject matter was quite touchy. You may have seen the news regarding the Annabelle ecstasy story, this storyline was changed to become a Mr G production. So the show predominately revolves around Mr G and his school experienes.
He does exhibit some prosocial behaviours as he does try to cooperate with others, however, it usually ends in tears as he does have verrrrry little give in his thought patterns. He is trying to help others as he wants to put together a great production and help the kids he has chosen to do just that.
However, he does not appear to be behaving in socially acceptable ways as he is trying to capatilize on the death of a schoolgirl.
Thus, he too appears to have a touch of the anti social behaviour about him
All in all, I hope this makes a bit of sense of what pro and anti social behaviour is, even though these are greatly exaggerated examples. I thought I would try to make it a little fun and I would recommend watching the show if you havent seen it, just keep an open mind as it is not intended to be at all serious.
If you want to add any comments or examples, feel free.
Thanks guys.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Risky Shift
Okay, I took a little Risk myself and have decided on this topic as my Blog 2 topic. It's a little new to me and I may have thrown myself in the deep end but I am willing to learn and would love some help or experiences from anyone else.
Basically the definition of risky shift is "a tendency for groups to take greater risks than the same individuals would have decided (on average) individually".
So I understand that and I have an example. When in Africa, I went white water rafting and I am not normally the thrill seeking type, I like to bushwalk and sight-see etc, yet I decided to take part in this as I was travelling at the time with a group of 4 typical Aussie boys who thought it would be a good idea, thus I was swayed to take a riskier course of action then if I had have made the decision on my own.
Can anyone else provide me with examples of their own, or times where this phenomena might occur more than others? This topic is also related to group polarization, and it can also go the other way, from risk to conservatism working on the same principles of individual v the group.
The term group ploarization effect is also swimming around there to describe the two extremes of the phenomena.
So if anyone has any interesting stories to perk me up whilst doing work, feel free to let me know.
Thanks guys.
Basically the definition of risky shift is "a tendency for groups to take greater risks than the same individuals would have decided (on average) individually".
So I understand that and I have an example. When in Africa, I went white water rafting and I am not normally the thrill seeking type, I like to bushwalk and sight-see etc, yet I decided to take part in this as I was travelling at the time with a group of 4 typical Aussie boys who thought it would be a good idea, thus I was swayed to take a riskier course of action then if I had have made the decision on my own.
Can anyone else provide me with examples of their own, or times where this phenomena might occur more than others? This topic is also related to group polarization, and it can also go the other way, from risk to conservatism working on the same principles of individual v the group.
The term group ploarization effect is also swimming around there to describe the two extremes of the phenomena.
So if anyone has any interesting stories to perk me up whilst doing work, feel free to let me know.
Thanks guys.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Gun Control
This blog is in response to Mike's blog http://mikesocialpsychology.blogspot.com/2007/10/another-high-school-shooting.html on school massacres but with my slant. Instead of focussing on the role of bullying in these massacres I wanted to see what effect gun control legislation has on the occurrence of these massacres.
The first time this issue really came to my attention was when I watched the Michael Moore movie/doumentary/mockumentary (as people have called it) 'Bowling for Columbine'.
I find it very disturbing that in 1999 there were 28,874 (4.08 per 100,000 people) gun-related deaths in the United States, which works out at 80 deaths a day. Obviously these weren't all in school massacres, but my point is that comparatively, the US has fairly relaxed gun laws, you can/could buy firearms and ammunition in WalMarts, and in 2000, 12 out of every 100,000 people suffered gunshot related injuries.
Compare this death rate with Canada, who happen to have the second highest death rate by firearm with 0.54 per every 100,000 people. It really astounds me and makes me wonder how the US addresses this situation, and what effect gun legislation has on death rates.
The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.
As this statement shows, a decrease in firearm ownership should lead to a decrease in death specifically related to firearms (well, it seems obvious enough).
I just wonder if the accessability of firearms for teens, and disgruntled employees has any effect on their decision to carry out these killing sprees that seem to be occurring more and more these days. Would they still possess the urge to carry out this style of retribution if they didn't have a gun in their shed? And if this is the case, why is nothing being done about it?
I commend the action taken following the Port Arthur massacre in attempting to control firearms with a firearm buyback scheme, and I think this has positively contributed to the comparatively low death rate by firearm we have in Australia. I feel that the stance and legislation we have on guns here in Australia is superior to those held in the United States and this shows in the death rates. I do not know how successful our scheme of firearm buyback would be in the US but I do feel it is a positive piece of legislation in the prevention of these types of massacres becoming a common day occurrence.
I recommend that if you haven't seen the movie Bowling for Columbine, you rent it and view it because it really raises some interesting food for thought and is sometimes quite confronting. However, I do suggest you go in with an open mind.
Thanks
For more info on gun laws and related deaths, go to:
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
The first time this issue really came to my attention was when I watched the Michael Moore movie/doumentary/mockumentary (as people have called it) 'Bowling for Columbine'.
I find it very disturbing that in 1999 there were 28,874 (4.08 per 100,000 people) gun-related deaths in the United States, which works out at 80 deaths a day. Obviously these weren't all in school massacres, but my point is that comparatively, the US has fairly relaxed gun laws, you can/could buy firearms and ammunition in WalMarts, and in 2000, 12 out of every 100,000 people suffered gunshot related injuries.
Compare this death rate with Canada, who happen to have the second highest death rate by firearm with 0.54 per every 100,000 people. It really astounds me and makes me wonder how the US addresses this situation, and what effect gun legislation has on death rates.
The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.
As this statement shows, a decrease in firearm ownership should lead to a decrease in death specifically related to firearms (well, it seems obvious enough).
I just wonder if the accessability of firearms for teens, and disgruntled employees has any effect on their decision to carry out these killing sprees that seem to be occurring more and more these days. Would they still possess the urge to carry out this style of retribution if they didn't have a gun in their shed? And if this is the case, why is nothing being done about it?
I commend the action taken following the Port Arthur massacre in attempting to control firearms with a firearm buyback scheme, and I think this has positively contributed to the comparatively low death rate by firearm we have in Australia. I feel that the stance and legislation we have on guns here in Australia is superior to those held in the United States and this shows in the death rates. I do not know how successful our scheme of firearm buyback would be in the US but I do feel it is a positive piece of legislation in the prevention of these types of massacres becoming a common day occurrence.
I recommend that if you haven't seen the movie Bowling for Columbine, you rent it and view it because it really raises some interesting food for thought and is sometimes quite confronting. However, I do suggest you go in with an open mind.
Thanks
For more info on gun laws and related deaths, go to:
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
Chaser Video
I found it! After a more thorough search, I found the video! Now you may understand a little better...
The Chaser-Public Service Announcements
Just an interesting note, I'm not sure if you guys watch much of the Chaser on the ABC, but a few weeks back I noticed a sketch that was a)funny and b)interesting.I thought it also related well to social psychology. The sketch was called Public Service Announcements (I've had a search on youtube but have been unable to find this exact clip, sorry..).
Anyways, the premise of the sketch was one of the chaser boys would snatch the PA system from a company and make an announcement. One such inceident occurred in a leading supermarket. The chaser made an annoucenment that patrons should observe one minute silence, with no explanation as to why to do so.
The thing I found most interesting was that the staff at the store did not do anything to stop a stranger from abusing their PA system and even more interesting/amusing was the fact that the patrons actually observed the silence!
Not only that, the chaser stopped the one minute silence bacuse he lost track of time and then he went over time for about 1 1/2 minutes. I thought this was a great example of the influcence that groups have on individuals as throughout the segment, the cameras panned across the store to show individuals who were unsure of what was going on odserving people around them and copying what they were doing, even the staff bowed their heads and stopped serving and I am almost 100% sure that this skit wasn't filmed on remembereance day.
Well, I thought this was an interesting and pertinent example of what we are being taught about groupthink and the likes and if I can find the URL in the next week or so I will post it so you can have a look for yourselves and see what I am talking about, enjoy!
Anyways, the premise of the sketch was one of the chaser boys would snatch the PA system from a company and make an announcement. One such inceident occurred in a leading supermarket. The chaser made an annoucenment that patrons should observe one minute silence, with no explanation as to why to do so.
The thing I found most interesting was that the staff at the store did not do anything to stop a stranger from abusing their PA system and even more interesting/amusing was the fact that the patrons actually observed the silence!
Not only that, the chaser stopped the one minute silence bacuse he lost track of time and then he went over time for about 1 1/2 minutes. I thought this was a great example of the influcence that groups have on individuals as throughout the segment, the cameras panned across the store to show individuals who were unsure of what was going on odserving people around them and copying what they were doing, even the staff bowed their heads and stopped serving and I am almost 100% sure that this skit wasn't filmed on remembereance day.
Well, I thought this was an interesting and pertinent example of what we are being taught about groupthink and the likes and if I can find the URL in the next week or so I will post it so you can have a look for yourselves and see what I am talking about, enjoy!
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Genocide-NewWord, Old Concept
Genocide: New word, Old concept.
Genocide is a relatively new word, coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944 to describe a behaviour that has been documented throughout the history of man. Genocide is a combination of Greek and Latin words and in its simplest translation means tribe killing. Lemkin, 1945, describes his views on genocide as “a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight”. This annihilation of a race of people can be achieved by many different means, be they social, political, removal of culture or dignity, and by violent force. Lemkin termed genocide in relation to the World War II atrocities that were being committed by the German Nazi’s against any opposing cultures, and any sympathetic German’s. The term has now been applied to more recent events, including Rwanda, Darfur and Chechnya, and has been backdated to past events, which have now been recognised as fulfilling the requirements to be termed genocide. The term genocide has now been formally recognised and ratified into law, allowing the people responsible for performing these acts to be held accountable for their actions. As stated in the Convention on the Punishment and Prevention for the Crime of Genocide (1948), genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole, or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such;
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measure intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Genocide is one of the most horrific acts man is capable of, however, there are many conflicts still occurring today. Why is this so? The causes behind genocide, and their interrelation with each other is quite complex. The combination of limited resources and overpopulation, previous interracial conflicts, propaganda, stereotypes, legalized discrimination and ethnic segregation/racial prejudice all play a role in the inception of genocide. The significance of a genocide is that these factors can occur individually in a society without genocide occurring. The problem appears when these factors culminate at the same time to create a tension so high it manifests itself as genocide. In more recent times, with the inception of the United Nations, ignorance and failure to act by other nations has allowed genocide to continue to be a problem throughout the world, with the most prominent at the moment being the conflict in Darfur.
To demonstrate how these incidents react to create a genocide, the conflicts of Rwanda in 1994 will be explored along with the atrocities committed in WWII.
One possible explanation for the act of genocide is the very real threat of limited resources, with not enough land or food to go around creating a sense of panic and ‘every man for himself’. Whilst this was not the case in Rwanda, through cleaver use of propaganda, this basic threat of overpopulation was provoked to instil a sense of fear and urgency (retrieved from website: www.hrw.org). The use and effectiveness of propaganda will be explored further in this piece.
Many prejudices occur within a society and it has been said that if we were to wake up one day with every person being the same race, creed and colour, we would find something else to be prejudice about (Aiken, cited in Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Racism is one such prejudice, which is rampant in today’s society and plays an important part in the instigation of genocide. Racism includes racist ideologies, prejudiced attitudes, discriminatory behaviour, structural arrangements and institutionalised practices resulting in racial inequality (Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, 1978). The basis behind these thoughts are sometimes falsely justified with factitious moral or scientific evidence. These false beliefs are then reflected in discriminatory legislation or regulations and promotes anti-social beliefs. The purpose of this legislation is to hinder the development of the victims and ensure power is retained by the group committing the acts (Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, 1978).
In the case of Rwanda, prejudices occurred between different ethnic groups. Three main ethnic groups coexisted in Rwanda for over two thousand years in relative peace. These being the majority Hutus, the second largest being the Tutsi and the Twa making up the remaining 1% of the population. The occupation of Rwanda by Belgian forces created a feeling of unrest within the existing tribes. Before occupation by the Belgians, literal translation of Tutsi and Hutu were descriptions of a person’s status. The Tutsi were considered to be rich in cattle, whilst the Hutu were sub-ordinate to or a follower of a more powerful person. These definitions were more akin to the Indian Caste system then defined ethnic groups. Beliefs by the Belgians were that the Tutsi were superior to the Hutu, and the Belgians reinforced this belief by promoting Tutsi leaders. The belief of the Europeans at the time was that the Whites were superior to the Tutsi, who were superior to the Hutu, who were superior to the Twa. Identity cards were introduced to further instil a sense of social categorization, with physical features predominately the distinction between the different tribes. This further lead the Tutsi to believe they were superior to the Hutu (retrieved from website: www.hrw.org). Hence, with the abolishment of European governance and the first democratic election, resentment and effective propaganda inflamed underlying tension.
Deindividuation signifies a loss of individuality and self-awareness, which occurs most often in the presence of others (Baumiester & Bushman, 2008). This results in people being more likely to act on their impulses, culminating in antisocial behaviour. In this case, with the introduction of governmental doctrines, the responsibility was removed from the individual, hence their sense of accountability for their actions is decreased, whilst the notion of ‘group think’ increases, with the result in Rwanda being a loss of at least 500,000 lives (Frontline, 2004).
Legalised discrimination describes the efforts of the government to invoke legislation to actively deprive a group as such that they inhibit normal standards of living (retrieved from website www.aad.english.ucsb.edu). The Nazi’s did this with much efficiency. All aspects of life were controlled by law, religious, moral, economic, biological and physical restrictions were put in place to limit the standard of living for all people who were genetically inferior. The most affected groups were Jew’s, Greek and French. Laws prohibited Polish people from working, even food rations were strictly monitored, with Germans earning the right to 77% of the fat ration, with the Jewish population receiving 0.32% of the ration (Lemkin, 1944).
Propaganda is a well-known and useful tool in inciting group thinking. It can be defined as a sustained effort by an institution to manage public opinion (retrieved from website: http://web.utk.edu). The institution in Rwanda was the Hutu government influencing the Hutu public to protect their land and assets. Many techniques can and are used to increase the effectiveness or propaganda to reach the desired result. Perhaps the most effective in both Rwanda and Germany was the incitement of fear against the ‘common enemy’ (Lemkin, 1944). Political ideology is espoused profusely within propaganda to ensure the needs for that party are met. All of this is undertaken with the intent of retaining power, to ensure the balance stays in the favour of the ruling party (retrieved from website: www.calvin.edu/).
In effect, there are many different, individual acts that, when collated, can produce enough fear and hatred toward another group of people to produce catastrophic effects.
Rwanda was overcome with this wave of fear, and their sense of duty was wrongfully called upon. Segregation of people based on racial characteristics, teamed with incorrect beliefs about these ordained races formed the basis for the events to come. Propaganda spouting incorrect information was spread throughout the country with mixed results. Hutu majority areas took to the propaganda immediately, with devastating effects, these effects eventually trickled down to the Tutsi majority areas with eventually the same results. Individual accountability was taken away from the people who confessed to acting under legitimate orders from the government, they killed because the government wanted them to kill. The introduction of laws enacting prejudice behaviours made it lawful for atrocities to take place, again, removing individual accountability.
As has been shown not only Rwanda and Germany, but also many more conflicts throughout history, there is not one main cause for genocide. Genocide occurs as a result of a combination of smaller psychosocial factors, combined with intent that creates the ‘perfect storm’ capable of destruction of an entire group of people.
References
Aiken, G. cited in Baumeister, R. F, & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature. USA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Baumeister, R. F, & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature. USA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide. (1948). Retrieved from website: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/gncnvntn.htm on 30th August, 2007.
Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, 1978. General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from website: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_prejud.htm on 30th August, 2007.
Definitions retrieved from website: www.aad.english.ucsb.edu/pages/discrim.html on 30th August, 2007.
Definitions retrieved from website: www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm on 30th August, 2007.
Definition retrieved from website: http://web.utk.edu/~glenn/Definition.html on 30th August, 2007
Frontline (2004). Ghosts of Rwanda DVD
History retrieved from website: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/ on 30th August, 2007.
Lemkin, R. (1944). Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. UK: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Genocide is a relatively new word, coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944 to describe a behaviour that has been documented throughout the history of man. Genocide is a combination of Greek and Latin words and in its simplest translation means tribe killing. Lemkin, 1945, describes his views on genocide as “a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight”. This annihilation of a race of people can be achieved by many different means, be they social, political, removal of culture or dignity, and by violent force. Lemkin termed genocide in relation to the World War II atrocities that were being committed by the German Nazi’s against any opposing cultures, and any sympathetic German’s. The term has now been applied to more recent events, including Rwanda, Darfur and Chechnya, and has been backdated to past events, which have now been recognised as fulfilling the requirements to be termed genocide. The term genocide has now been formally recognised and ratified into law, allowing the people responsible for performing these acts to be held accountable for their actions. As stated in the Convention on the Punishment and Prevention for the Crime of Genocide (1948), genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole, or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such;
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measure intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Genocide is one of the most horrific acts man is capable of, however, there are many conflicts still occurring today. Why is this so? The causes behind genocide, and their interrelation with each other is quite complex. The combination of limited resources and overpopulation, previous interracial conflicts, propaganda, stereotypes, legalized discrimination and ethnic segregation/racial prejudice all play a role in the inception of genocide. The significance of a genocide is that these factors can occur individually in a society without genocide occurring. The problem appears when these factors culminate at the same time to create a tension so high it manifests itself as genocide. In more recent times, with the inception of the United Nations, ignorance and failure to act by other nations has allowed genocide to continue to be a problem throughout the world, with the most prominent at the moment being the conflict in Darfur.
To demonstrate how these incidents react to create a genocide, the conflicts of Rwanda in 1994 will be explored along with the atrocities committed in WWII.
One possible explanation for the act of genocide is the very real threat of limited resources, with not enough land or food to go around creating a sense of panic and ‘every man for himself’. Whilst this was not the case in Rwanda, through cleaver use of propaganda, this basic threat of overpopulation was provoked to instil a sense of fear and urgency (retrieved from website: www.hrw.org). The use and effectiveness of propaganda will be explored further in this piece.
Many prejudices occur within a society and it has been said that if we were to wake up one day with every person being the same race, creed and colour, we would find something else to be prejudice about (Aiken, cited in Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Racism is one such prejudice, which is rampant in today’s society and plays an important part in the instigation of genocide. Racism includes racist ideologies, prejudiced attitudes, discriminatory behaviour, structural arrangements and institutionalised practices resulting in racial inequality (Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, 1978). The basis behind these thoughts are sometimes falsely justified with factitious moral or scientific evidence. These false beliefs are then reflected in discriminatory legislation or regulations and promotes anti-social beliefs. The purpose of this legislation is to hinder the development of the victims and ensure power is retained by the group committing the acts (Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, 1978).
In the case of Rwanda, prejudices occurred between different ethnic groups. Three main ethnic groups coexisted in Rwanda for over two thousand years in relative peace. These being the majority Hutus, the second largest being the Tutsi and the Twa making up the remaining 1% of the population. The occupation of Rwanda by Belgian forces created a feeling of unrest within the existing tribes. Before occupation by the Belgians, literal translation of Tutsi and Hutu were descriptions of a person’s status. The Tutsi were considered to be rich in cattle, whilst the Hutu were sub-ordinate to or a follower of a more powerful person. These definitions were more akin to the Indian Caste system then defined ethnic groups. Beliefs by the Belgians were that the Tutsi were superior to the Hutu, and the Belgians reinforced this belief by promoting Tutsi leaders. The belief of the Europeans at the time was that the Whites were superior to the Tutsi, who were superior to the Hutu, who were superior to the Twa. Identity cards were introduced to further instil a sense of social categorization, with physical features predominately the distinction between the different tribes. This further lead the Tutsi to believe they were superior to the Hutu (retrieved from website: www.hrw.org). Hence, with the abolishment of European governance and the first democratic election, resentment and effective propaganda inflamed underlying tension.
Deindividuation signifies a loss of individuality and self-awareness, which occurs most often in the presence of others (Baumiester & Bushman, 2008). This results in people being more likely to act on their impulses, culminating in antisocial behaviour. In this case, with the introduction of governmental doctrines, the responsibility was removed from the individual, hence their sense of accountability for their actions is decreased, whilst the notion of ‘group think’ increases, with the result in Rwanda being a loss of at least 500,000 lives (Frontline, 2004).
Legalised discrimination describes the efforts of the government to invoke legislation to actively deprive a group as such that they inhibit normal standards of living (retrieved from website www.aad.english.ucsb.edu). The Nazi’s did this with much efficiency. All aspects of life were controlled by law, religious, moral, economic, biological and physical restrictions were put in place to limit the standard of living for all people who were genetically inferior. The most affected groups were Jew’s, Greek and French. Laws prohibited Polish people from working, even food rations were strictly monitored, with Germans earning the right to 77% of the fat ration, with the Jewish population receiving 0.32% of the ration (Lemkin, 1944).
Propaganda is a well-known and useful tool in inciting group thinking. It can be defined as a sustained effort by an institution to manage public opinion (retrieved from website: http://web.utk.edu). The institution in Rwanda was the Hutu government influencing the Hutu public to protect their land and assets. Many techniques can and are used to increase the effectiveness or propaganda to reach the desired result. Perhaps the most effective in both Rwanda and Germany was the incitement of fear against the ‘common enemy’ (Lemkin, 1944). Political ideology is espoused profusely within propaganda to ensure the needs for that party are met. All of this is undertaken with the intent of retaining power, to ensure the balance stays in the favour of the ruling party (retrieved from website: www.calvin.edu/).
In effect, there are many different, individual acts that, when collated, can produce enough fear and hatred toward another group of people to produce catastrophic effects.
Rwanda was overcome with this wave of fear, and their sense of duty was wrongfully called upon. Segregation of people based on racial characteristics, teamed with incorrect beliefs about these ordained races formed the basis for the events to come. Propaganda spouting incorrect information was spread throughout the country with mixed results. Hutu majority areas took to the propaganda immediately, with devastating effects, these effects eventually trickled down to the Tutsi majority areas with eventually the same results. Individual accountability was taken away from the people who confessed to acting under legitimate orders from the government, they killed because the government wanted them to kill. The introduction of laws enacting prejudice behaviours made it lawful for atrocities to take place, again, removing individual accountability.
As has been shown not only Rwanda and Germany, but also many more conflicts throughout history, there is not one main cause for genocide. Genocide occurs as a result of a combination of smaller psychosocial factors, combined with intent that creates the ‘perfect storm’ capable of destruction of an entire group of people.
References
Aiken, G. cited in Baumeister, R. F, & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature. USA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Baumeister, R. F, & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature. USA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide. (1948). Retrieved from website: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/gncnvntn.htm on 30th August, 2007.
Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, 1978. General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from website: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_prejud.htm on 30th August, 2007.
Definitions retrieved from website: www.aad.english.ucsb.edu/pages/discrim.html on 30th August, 2007.
Definitions retrieved from website: www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm on 30th August, 2007.
Definition retrieved from website: http://web.utk.edu/~glenn/Definition.html on 30th August, 2007
Frontline (2004). Ghosts of Rwanda DVD
History retrieved from website: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/ on 30th August, 2007.
Lemkin, R. (1944). Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. UK: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Way harder than Facebook...
Maaan, who else agrees that this thing is way harder than facebook...or am I just technologically dimwitted...?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)