How is Our Behaviour Influenced By the Size of the Group Around Us?
Is the reason why we don’t do in a small group what we will do in a crowd, different to the reason that we will do things in a small setting we wouldn’t want to do in public?
My last post asserted that people are human in small groups – that people wouldn’t contemplate doing in a small group the kind of things that they will do in a crowd. (See “Are People Getting Better While the World is Getting Worse?”.)
In the comments to this post Sarah made the excellent point that people do things in private that they would never contemplate doing in public. This is absolutely true: most violence (physical and sexual) is domestic.
Sarah’s comment got me thinking. I haven’t reached any conclusions — comments are most welcome — but I have formulated some questions and tentative answers.
1. My first question: Are there different reasons? Is the reason why we don’t do in a small group what we will do in a crowd, different to the reason that we will do things in a small setting we wouldn’t want to do in public?
My tentative answer is yes, the reasons are different.
- Why will we do things in a large group that we wouldn’t want to do in a small group? My guess is that in a crowd we lose our identity. There is a loss of self-consciousness and so a lack of accountability and responsibility.
- Why will we do things in a small group that we wouldn’t do in a large group? My guess is that in a smaller group we are hidden from judgements of the wider community. I think in small groups we feel that we can hide and not experience shame. Shame is a self-consciousness, a kind of hiding — and the hiding is from the group. The individual shrinks before the (real or imagined) group. (In contrast, guilt is a shrinking before our own judgements.)
2. My second question: Are there similar dynamics?
My tentative answer is yes.
It seems to me that degrading people (whether in small or large settings) means seeing the people treated badly as in some way inferior or less than human. This is perhaps most obvious in the more overt forms of racism.
The word that I use to alert me to this process is “just”. When it is used in the statement: They are just a [man/woman/Australian/unemployed person/academic...insert your favourite term of abuse]. This reduces a person to a label and so eliminates their individuality.
3. My third question: Are we talking about the split between public and private? That is: is a small group the same as private and a large group the same as public?
My tentative answer is no.
Smaller groups are often more informal and personal than large groups, but the division isn’t quite the same. A public official (mayor or police officer for instance) may be dealing with one individual, but they are still acting as a public office holder.
I don’t feel that I have a settled understanding of this subject. I feel that I am still trying to grasp what is going on. I would like to hear your views and experiences of being human in large and small groups. Have you felt reduced to a label more often in large or small groups? Do you believe that shame influences your behaviour? I look forward to hearing from you.
Other articles by Evan Hadkins
This article was last reviewed by Dr Greg Mulhauser, Managing Editor on Tuesday, 12th May 2009. You can leave a reply below.
The URL of this page is:
http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/05/12/how-is-our-behaviour-influenced-by-the-size-of-the-group-around-us/
15th May 2009
Hi Evan
Many things about this article are thought proking and I think I have dozens of answers/examples that shift the dynamics back and forth. As in domestic violence. What we find out has gone on behind closed doors can be horrific. But the possibility seems to remain that the same perpetrator would be able to enact horrofic action in a crowd, people unknown to him. Maybe simply because he had the ability to reduce people to the labels you talk about. If that’s the premise in his own home/small circle, just a woman, to be abused. What might change in this person if ‘just women’ were protesting some sort of persecution publicly and he saw the same as in his own home, women to be controlled, opened fire on the group of them? I don’t know if that’s likely or not. I guess scientists would be able to define the difference in criminal and crime.
What really intrigued me was your question about being human in a large crowd. And my own surprising experience.
Two years ago the Dalai Lama was to visit the city I live. I’m not a Buddhist, nor particulary religious. I don’t keep up with the Dalai Lama, his writings or teachings. I do however respect him, his influence, his ideology. I am more aware of, than specifically involved in his teachings.
Yet, I decided to go to his outdoor public appearance, a crowd of tens of thousands expected to gather. I hadn’t been to an event like that in years. Huge throngs of crowds and I are not generally a good mix any longer. I’d rather not. Didn’t even know what or how much I’d be able to take in in a situation like this.
I did go and found myself moved beyond what I could believe. I wept silently throughout his talk. He was engaging, funny, anything but solemn. Down to earth has to be the best overall description.
I was surprised because I rarely weep in private let alone in a crowd of so many. Not even certain what touched me so deeply, other than the Dalai Lama’s ability to be ‘out there’, allow us to see him not a persona. The other observation I had of my own behavior/reaction was it was ok to be this person with strangers. Honestly very private moments right in the midst of this gathering. And it did not go unnoticed by nearby folks or me. I’m also sure it unnerved some at their reaction.
Lots more to think about here, Evan.
Good article. Thanks Sarah for making Evan ask himself!
15th May 2009
Thanks Barbara. Your experience is remarkable and all too rare. I think we know lots about bad behaviour in large groups but very little about the kind of experience that you had. Thank you for sharing it with us.
5th July 2009
My own experience with aggressive personalities is that the only factor they consider is what they can get away with, what other people will tolerate. That’s all that’s “real” to them. Even in a crowd, this is their only consideration. For example in a crowd of morally challenged people, they will try to bully a person to impress the onlookers. But in a crowd of civilized people, they will lay low and respect others rights. I have seen this often.
5th July 2009
Hi Ken, I do think I have occassionally come across these kinds of people.
It is interesting that they can adapt so readily to the kind of crowd I think.
I guess these kinds of people will be doing things in private that they wouldn’t do in a civilised crowd – or have I misunderstood you?
Thanks for your comment.