ChapteR 10 Behavior in Social and Cultural Context 359this explanation, because deindividuated people
in crowds “forget themselves” and do not feel
accountable for their actions, they are more likely
to violate social norms and laws—breaking store
windows, getting into fights, or rioting at a sports
event—than they would be on their own. But
deindividuation does not always make people
more combative. Sometimes it makes them more
friendly; think of all the chatty, anonymous people
on buses and planes who reveal things to their
seatmates they would never tell anyone they knew.
What really seems to be happening when
people are in large crowds or anonymous situa-
tions is not that they become mindless or unin-
hibited. Rather, they become disinhibited, just as if
they were intoxicated on alcohol. That disinhibi-
tion, in turn, makes them more likely to conform
to the norms of the specific situation, which may be
either antisocial or prosocial (Hirsh, Galinsky, &
Zhong, 2011; Postmes & Spears, 1998). College
students who go on sprees during spring break
may be violating local laws and norms not because
their aggressiveness has been released but because
they are conforming to the “Let’s party!” norms of
their fellow students. Crowd norms can also foster
helpfulness, as they often do in the aftermath of
disasters such as the Boston Marathon bombing,
when strangers rush to help victims and rescu-
ers with medical aid, food, clothes, and tributes.
Sometimes both norms operate at the same time:
After a soccer loss to Boston in the World Cup
in Vancouver in 2011, many Canucks fans rioted,
burning cars, smashing windows, and looting; but
other fans did what they could, sometimes at riskhuman beings operate. On the contrary, the more
people there are around you, the less likely that one
of them will come to your aid. Why?
The answer has to do with a group process
called the diffusion of responsibility, in which respon-
sibility for an outcome is diffused, or spread, among
many people, reducing each individual’s personal
sense of accountability. One result is bystander
apathy: In crowds, when someone is in trouble,
individuals often fail to take action or call for help
because they assume that someone else will do so
(Darley & Latané, 1968; Fischer et al., 2011). This
happens all over the world. In Foshan, China, a
2-year-old girl was run over by a van. For the next
seven minutes, more than a dozen people, recorded
by an impassive security camera, walked or bicycled
past her, doing nothing. Eventually, a woman pulled
the little girl to the side of the road and she was
taken to a hospital, where she died soon thereafter.
A meta-analysis of the many studies done
since the first identification of bystander apa-
thy revealed some cause for optimism, though:
In truly dangerous, unambiguous emergencies—a
child is drowning, or people are being shot at by a
gunman in a school, movie, or street—people are
more likely to rush to help, and in fact are often
spurred to do so by the presence of others. One
reason is that the person who intervenes counts on
getting physical and psychological support from
other observers. In addition, dangerous emergen-
cies are most effectively handled by cooperation
among observers (Fischer et al., 2011).
Watch the Video The Basics: Under the Influence
of Others at MyPsychLabDeindividuation. The most extreme instances
of the diffusion of responsibility occur in large,
anonymous mobs or crowds. The crowds may con-
sist of cheerful sports spectators or angry rioters.
Either way, people often lose awareness of their
individuality and seem to hand themselves over to
the mood and actions of the crowd, a state called
deindividuation (Festinger, Pepitone, & Newcomb,
1952). You are more likely to feel deindividuated in
a large city, where no one recognizes you, than in
a small town, where it is hard to hide. You are also
more likely to feel deindividuated in large classes,
where you might—mistakenly—think you are in-
visible to the teacher, than in small ones. Sometimes
organizations actively promote the deindividuation
of their members as a way of enhancing conformity
and allegiance to the group. This is an important
function of uniforms or masks, which eliminate
each member’s distinctive identity.
Deindividuation has long been considered
a prime reason for mob violence. According to
diffusion of respon-
sibility In groups, the
tendency of members to
avoid taking action be-
cause they assume that
others will.deindividuation In
groups or crowds, the loss
of awareness of one’s own
individuality.People in crowds, feeling anonymous, may do destruc-
tive things they would never do on their own. These
soccer hooligans are kicking a fan of the opposition team
during a night of violence.