This article was downloaded by: [University of Leeds] On: 13 January 2015, At: 01:17 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Anonymity and Group Antisocial Behavior a
Eugene W. Mathes & Thomas A. Guest
a
a
Western Illinois University , USA Published online: 30 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Eugene W. Mathes & Thomas A. Guest (1976) Anonymity and Group Antisocial Behavior, The Journal of Social Psychology, 100:2, 257-262, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1976.9711936 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1976.9711936
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 01:17 13 January 2015
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Social Psychology, 1976, 100, 257-262.
ANONYMITY AND GROUP ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR* Western Illirois University
EUGENEw . MATHES‘AND THOMAS A. GUEST
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 01:17 13 January 2015
SUMMARY According to the anonymity explanation of group antisocial behavior, group membership facilitates antisocial behavior because individuals feel more anonymous in groups than alone. This explanation was tested under three hypotheses: (a) group membership facilitates antisocial behavior, (6) group membership causes feelings of anonymity, and ( G ) anonymity facilitates antisocial behavior. Sixteen men and 10 women from an introductory personality course at Western Illinois University were asked to state how willing they were to engage in an antisocial behavior (carrying a sign reading, “masturbation is fun”) under four conditions: alone, undisguised; alone, disguised; in a group, undisguised; and in a group, disguised. Ss were more willing to carry the signs in groups than alone and disguised than undisguised. They also stated that they felt that they would be more anonymous in a group than alone and disguised than undisguised. All differences were statistically significant. Support was thus found for the three hypotheses, and it was concluded that anonymity is an explanation of group antisocial behavior.
A.
INTRODUCTION
Although diffusion of responsibility has been the most frequently cited explanation of group antisocial behavior ( 2 , 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 1 1 , 12, 13), another frequently given explanation is anonymity (2, 4, 9, 13). According to the anonymity explanation, the individual who engages in antisocial behavior with others feels that he is less likely to be noticed and remem-
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on May 9, 1975. Copyright, 1976, by The Journal Press. I The authors would like to thank Ben Wallace for his helpful comments on this manuscript. Requests for reprints should be sent to the first author at the address shown at the end of this article. 257
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 01:17 13 January 2015
258
JOURNAL O F SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
bered by people who might wish to punish his behavior than if he engages in the behavior alone. This belief facilitates the antisocial behavior of the individual who finds himself in the company of others engaging in similar antisocial behaviors. Group membership serves the same protective function as the bandit’s mask or the cover of night. In order to provide good empirical wpport for the anonymity explanation it is necessary to demonstrate three things: (a) group membership facilitates antisocial behavior, ( b ) group membership causes anonymity, and ( c ) anonymity facilitates antisocial behavior. So far only one of these relationships (c) has been demonstrated. Festinger et al. (4) have shown that antisocial behavior is positively correlated with feelings of anonymity, and Singer et al. (9) and Zimbardo (13) have shown that Ss who are disguised engage in more antisocial behavior than Ss who are not disguised. Although Wallach and his associates (e.g., 10) felt that the risky shift phenomena demonstrated that group membership facilitates antisocial behavior, subsequent research has shown that being risky is more socially desirable than being cautious (5). The only research which comes close to demonstrating that group membership facilitates antisocial behavior is the bystander apathy research ( A ) , and i t is questionable whether failing to help is comparable to most antisocial behavior which is more active in nature. No one seems to have shown that group membership produces anonymity. The purpose of the experiment described below was to provide a good empirical basis for the anonymity explanation by replicating the finding that anonymity facilitates antisocial behavior, demonstrating that group membership facilitates an active kind of antisocial behavior, and showing that group membership causes anonymity. The experiment was a 2 x 2 factorial in which Ss were asked how willing they were to engage in antisocial behavior under four conditions, undisguised and alone, undisguised and in a group, disguised and alone, disguised and in a group, and how anonymous they felt they would be under each of the conditions. Three predictions were made: 1. Ss would be more willing to engage in antisocial behavior in a group than alone. 2 . Ss would feel more anonymous in a group than alone. 3. Ss would be more willing to engage in antisocial behavior disguised (anonymous) than undisguised. Support for these three predictions would place the anonymity explanation on solid empirical ground.
EUGENE W. MATHES AND THOMAS A. GUEST
259
B. METHOD 1.
Subjects
Sixteen men and 10 women from an introductory personality course at Western Illinois University participated in this experiment. For participating, Ss received points toward their final grades.
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 01:17 13 January 2015
2.
Procedure
The experiment was carried out by the first author during one of his introductory personality classes. He told his class that he was going to carry out an experiment on observer response to deviant behavior and that he hoped to hire some of the members of his class as confederates. He explained that the confederates would carry signs stating “masturbation is fun” through the student union cafeteria so that observers could be interviewed concerning their reactions to the sign carriers. H e explained that four conditions would be created and that they would involve (a) a single sign carrier, ( 6 ) a group of 10 sign carriers, (c) a single disguised sign carrier, and ( d ) a group of 10 disguised sign carriers. The E then showed the Ss examples of the signs and disguises that would be used. T h e sign consisted of a piece of white cardboard, approximately one by three feet, with a wooden handle. The slogan, “masturbation is fun,” was printed on the cardboard in black letters approtimately three inches tall. The disguise consisted of a knitted ski mask which covered the whole head, leaving only the eyes exposed, and a set of coveralls. The E then passed out forms which asked Ss how willing they would be to participate in each of the conditions and the minimum amount of money they would require to participate in each of the conditions. The E explained that he would hire the students asking the smallest amounts of money and pay them with university funds. The forms also contained a question concerning anonymity. Willingness to engage in the antisocial behavior was measured by both the willingness and money questions. I t was felt that the money question would provide a behavioroid measure of willingness (1). The form was composed of four pages, one page for each condition. The questions for the undisguised, alone condition were the following: 1. Are you willing to walk across the cafeteria of the union, alone, carrying a sign reading “masturbation is fun?” 2. Regardless of your answer to Question 1, how much money do you
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 01:17 13 January 2015
26 0
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
feel you should be paid to walk across the cafeteria of the union, alone, carrying a sign reading “masturbation is fun?” 3 . If you did the above, do you think people would recognize you? Responses to Questions 1 and 3 were made on seven point scales ranging from “no, definitely” to “yes, definitely.” The questions on the other three pages were similar to those on this page except that they applied to the other three conditions. The pages were combined into questionnaires in four different random orders. After the forms were completed. the Ss were debriefed. During the debriefing, Ss were asked whether they were suspicious of any of the manipulations and what they thought the hypotheses were that had been tested. Although several Ss were suspicious, only three Ss guessed one of the hypotheses (that group membership facilitates antisocial behavior). No S’s data were eliminated from the analyses.Z
C. RESULTS Responses to each of the three questionnaire items were initially analyzed by means of 2 x 2 x 2 analyses of variance. The independent variables were Sex of Subject (male, female), Disguise (yes, no), and Group Membership (yes, no). Since no significant main effects or interactions were found for Sex of Subject, the results were reanalyzed as 2 X 2 (Disguise X Group Membership) within subjects analyses of variance. The results reported in this paper are of the 2 x 2 analyses. For Question 1, which asked Ss how willing they were to participate in each of the four experimental conditions, main effects were found for Disguise (F = 25.53, df = 1/25, p = .0001) and Group Membership (F = 22.31, df = 1/25, p = ,0002). Ss were more willing to carry signs, disguised (R = 4.42) than undisguised = 3.29) and in a group = 4.40) than alone = 3.31). The interaction was not significant (F = 2.41, df = 1/25, p = .13). For Question 2 , which asked S s how much money they would require to participate in each of the four experimental conditions, main effects were found for Disguise (F = 4.36, df = 1/25, p = .04)and Group Membership (F = 5.69, df = 1/25, p = .02). Ss required more money to carry signs undisguised = $47.92) than disguised = $29.98) and alone (R = $50.29) than in a group (R = $27.61). Although the interaction was not significant (F = 2 . 0 2 , df = 1/25, p = .16), a Newman-Keuls analysis of the
(x
(w
(x
(x
(x
Analyses performed on only the data of the Ss who were not suspicious produced results similar to those obtained when the data of all of the Ss were analyzed.
EUGENE W. MATHES AND THOMAS A. GUEST
261
means showed that when not disguised, Ss required significantly Ip < .05) more money to carry the sign alone = $64.61) than in a group = $31.23), but that when disguised, Ss did not require significantly more money to carry the sign alone = $35.96)than in a group = $24.00). For Question 3, which asked Ss the extent to which they felt they would be recognized under the four experimental conditions, main effects were found for Disguise (F = 52.32, df = 1/25,p = .0001)and Group Membership (F = 9.63,df = 1/25, p = .005). Ss stated that they would be more recognizable undisguised = 5.79) than disguised = 2.73) and alone = 4.46)than in a group = 4.06).The interaction was not significant
(x
(x
(w
(x
(x (x
(w
(x
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 01:17 13 January 2015
(F < 1). D. DISCUSSION In the Introduction it was pointed out that in order to provide good empirical support for the anonymity explanation, three things must be demonstrated: (a) group membership facilitates antisocial behavior, (b) group membership causes anonymity, and (c) anonymity facilitates antisocial behavior. This experiment demonstrated all three relationships. Replicating the Singer et al. (9)and Zimbardo (13)results, this experiment showed that anonymity (disguise) facilitates antisocial behavior. It went beyond these studies, however, to show that group membership facilitates antisocial behavior and causes anonymity. Ss were more willing to carry the signs and asked for less money to carry them when they were promised disguises than when they were not promised disguises. They were more willing to carry the signs and asked for less money to carry the signs when they knew that they were going to carry the signs in a group rather than alone. Finally, they felt that they would be less recognizable if they carried the signs in a group than alone. The fact that group membership made a difference concerning pay for undisguised Ss but not disguised Ss can be interpreted in terms of the anonymity hypothesis. Possibly, anonymity provided by the disguise was so adequate that the anonymity added to it by group membership was not enough to cause a further reduction in pay demanded. On the other hand, without the disguise, the anonymity provided by group membership was of considerable benefit and resulted in a significant reduction in pay demanded. An alternative explanation of these results might be the diffusion of responsibility: group membership facilitates antisocial behavior because people in groups feel less responsible for their behavior. Although such diffusion can explain the main effect of Group Membership on willingness
262
JOURNAL O F SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
to engage in the antisocial behavior and pay demanded for such behavior, it cannot explain the main effect of Group Membership on recognizability. Furthermore, in the present experiment the E assumed the major portion of the responsibility for the antisocial behavior, making diffusion of responsibility unnecessary. It seems that the anonymity explanation fits the data better than the diffusion of responsibility explanation.
REFERENCES I.
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 01:17 13 January 2015
2. 3
4.
5. 6. 7. 8.
0
I0
CARLSMITH. J. M. Experimentation in sorial psychology. In G. Lindzey & E Aronson (Eds.1, Huiidbook of Sorinl Psvchology (rev. ed., Vol. 2). Readina. Mass: Addison-Wesley. 196X. BROWN,R. Mass phenomena. In G. Lindzey (Ed.).Harldhook ofSorial Psychrology (Vol. 2 ) . Reading. Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954. D A R L E Y , J . , & LATANE, B. Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. J . Prrsotiul. & Sot-. P s y h a l . , 1968. 8, 3 i i - 3 X 3 . FES'rINGER. L., PEPITONE, .A,. & NEWCOMB, T.Some consequences of deindividuation in a group. J. Abtt. &r S o r . Psyclcol., 1952, 47, 332-239. J E L I S O N , J . M., & KISKIND. J. A social comparison of abilities interpretation of risktaking behavior. J . P e r s o d . & S o r . Psychol., 1970, 15. 37.5-390. K O G A N . N..&! WALLACH. M. Group risk taking as a function o f members' anxiety and delensivenes3 levels. J . f'crsonal., 1967. 35. 5G6.3. I.E BON, G . The Crowd. Dunwoody. Ga.: S. Berger, 1968. MATHES. E. W..& LAHN.A. Diffusion of responsibility and extreme behavior. J . Prrsonul. & S o r . Psyrltol., i n press. SIKCER,J . , BRVSH.C., & LYBIN.S. Some azpects of rleindivirluation: Identification and conformity. J . Ewprr. .'jar. P s j r k o i . , l96S, 1. .356-.3iX. WALLACH.M., KOGAN.K . , 8; BEM. D. Group influence on individual risk taking. J . . ~ K o ~ ~ ~ s oE.. N. &
:lbri. G .So(.. Psyrhol., 1962, 65. 7 5 - 8 6 11. ___ . Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk taking in groups. J. A b n . G SOC. I'syclid., 1964, 68, 263-274. 12. WALLACH.b l . , LOGAN. N..& BVRT. R. Group risk taking and held dependenceindependence of group members. Soriomefry, 1967. 30, 323-338. 1.3.
The human choice. In W. Arnold & I). Levin (Eds.). 3rbraska SymMofittafion. Lincoln: IIni\-. Nebraska Press, 1969.
%INBARDO. 1'.
posirrni
oil
Dt.ptrrt iiient of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences Western Illitlois University Macomb. Illinois 61455
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Anonymity and Group Antisocial Behavior a
Eugene W. Mathes & Thomas A. Guest
a
a
Western Illinois University , USA Published online: 30 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Eugene W. Mathes & Thomas A. Guest (1976) Anonymity and Group Antisocial Behavior, The Journal of Social Psychology, 100:2, 257-262, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1976.9711936 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1976.9711936
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 01:17 13 January 2015
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Social Psychology, 1976, 100, 257-262.
ANONYMITY AND GROUP ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR* Western Illirois University
EUGENEw . MATHES‘AND THOMAS A. GUEST
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 01:17 13 January 2015
SUMMARY According to the anonymity explanation of group antisocial behavior, group membership facilitates antisocial behavior because individuals feel more anonymous in groups than alone. This explanation was tested under three hypotheses: (a) group membership facilitates antisocial behavior, (6) group membership causes feelings of anonymity, and ( G ) anonymity facilitates antisocial behavior. Sixteen men and 10 women from an introductory personality course at Western Illinois University were asked to state how willing they were to engage in an antisocial behavior (carrying a sign reading, “masturbation is fun”) under four conditions: alone, undisguised; alone, disguised; in a group, undisguised; and in a group, disguised. Ss were more willing to carry the signs in groups than alone and disguised than undisguised. They also stated that they felt that they would be more anonymous in a group than alone and disguised than undisguised. All differences were statistically significant. Support was thus found for the three hypotheses, and it was concluded that anonymity is an explanation of group antisocial behavior.
A.
INTRODUCTION
Although diffusion of responsibility has been the most frequently cited explanation of group antisocial behavior ( 2 , 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 1 1 , 12, 13), another frequently given explanation is anonymity (2, 4, 9, 13). According to the anonymity explanation, the individual who engages in antisocial behavior with others feels that he is less likely to be noticed and remem-
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on May 9, 1975. Copyright, 1976, by The Journal Press. I The authors would like to thank Ben Wallace for his helpful comments on this manuscript. Requests for reprints should be sent to the first author at the address shown at the end of this article. 257
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 01:17 13 January 2015
258
JOURNAL O F SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
bered by people who might wish to punish his behavior than if he engages in the behavior alone. This belief facilitates the antisocial behavior of the individual who finds himself in the company of others engaging in similar antisocial behaviors. Group membership serves the same protective function as the bandit’s mask or the cover of night. In order to provide good empirical wpport for the anonymity explanation it is necessary to demonstrate three things: (a) group membership facilitates antisocial behavior, ( b ) group membership causes anonymity, and ( c ) anonymity facilitates antisocial behavior. So far only one of these relationships (c) has been demonstrated. Festinger et al. (4) have shown that antisocial behavior is positively correlated with feelings of anonymity, and Singer et al. (9) and Zimbardo (13) have shown that Ss who are disguised engage in more antisocial behavior than Ss who are not disguised. Although Wallach and his associates (e.g., 10) felt that the risky shift phenomena demonstrated that group membership facilitates antisocial behavior, subsequent research has shown that being risky is more socially desirable than being cautious (5). The only research which comes close to demonstrating that group membership facilitates antisocial behavior is the bystander apathy research ( A ) , and i t is questionable whether failing to help is comparable to most antisocial behavior which is more active in nature. No one seems to have shown that group membership produces anonymity. The purpose of the experiment described below was to provide a good empirical basis for the anonymity explanation by replicating the finding that anonymity facilitates antisocial behavior, demonstrating that group membership facilitates an active kind of antisocial behavior, and showing that group membership causes anonymity. The experiment was a 2 x 2 factorial in which Ss were asked how willing they were to engage in antisocial behavior under four conditions, undisguised and alone, undisguised and in a group, disguised and alone, disguised and in a group, and how anonymous they felt they would be under each of the conditions. Three predictions were made: 1. Ss would be more willing to engage in antisocial behavior in a group than alone. 2 . Ss would feel more anonymous in a group than alone. 3. Ss would be more willing to engage in antisocial behavior disguised (anonymous) than undisguised. Support for these three predictions would place the anonymity explanation on solid empirical ground.
EUGENE W. MATHES AND THOMAS A. GUEST
259
B. METHOD 1.
Subjects
Sixteen men and 10 women from an introductory personality course at Western Illinois University participated in this experiment. For participating, Ss received points toward their final grades.
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 01:17 13 January 2015
2.
Procedure
The experiment was carried out by the first author during one of his introductory personality classes. He told his class that he was going to carry out an experiment on observer response to deviant behavior and that he hoped to hire some of the members of his class as confederates. He explained that the confederates would carry signs stating “masturbation is fun” through the student union cafeteria so that observers could be interviewed concerning their reactions to the sign carriers. H e explained that four conditions would be created and that they would involve (a) a single sign carrier, ( 6 ) a group of 10 sign carriers, (c) a single disguised sign carrier, and ( d ) a group of 10 disguised sign carriers. The E then showed the Ss examples of the signs and disguises that would be used. T h e sign consisted of a piece of white cardboard, approximately one by three feet, with a wooden handle. The slogan, “masturbation is fun,” was printed on the cardboard in black letters approtimately three inches tall. The disguise consisted of a knitted ski mask which covered the whole head, leaving only the eyes exposed, and a set of coveralls. The E then passed out forms which asked Ss how willing they would be to participate in each of the conditions and the minimum amount of money they would require to participate in each of the conditions. The E explained that he would hire the students asking the smallest amounts of money and pay them with university funds. The forms also contained a question concerning anonymity. Willingness to engage in the antisocial behavior was measured by both the willingness and money questions. I t was felt that the money question would provide a behavioroid measure of willingness (1). The form was composed of four pages, one page for each condition. The questions for the undisguised, alone condition were the following: 1. Are you willing to walk across the cafeteria of the union, alone, carrying a sign reading “masturbation is fun?” 2. Regardless of your answer to Question 1, how much money do you
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 01:17 13 January 2015
26 0
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
feel you should be paid to walk across the cafeteria of the union, alone, carrying a sign reading “masturbation is fun?” 3 . If you did the above, do you think people would recognize you? Responses to Questions 1 and 3 were made on seven point scales ranging from “no, definitely” to “yes, definitely.” The questions on the other three pages were similar to those on this page except that they applied to the other three conditions. The pages were combined into questionnaires in four different random orders. After the forms were completed. the Ss were debriefed. During the debriefing, Ss were asked whether they were suspicious of any of the manipulations and what they thought the hypotheses were that had been tested. Although several Ss were suspicious, only three Ss guessed one of the hypotheses (that group membership facilitates antisocial behavior). No S’s data were eliminated from the analyses.Z
C. RESULTS Responses to each of the three questionnaire items were initially analyzed by means of 2 x 2 x 2 analyses of variance. The independent variables were Sex of Subject (male, female), Disguise (yes, no), and Group Membership (yes, no). Since no significant main effects or interactions were found for Sex of Subject, the results were reanalyzed as 2 X 2 (Disguise X Group Membership) within subjects analyses of variance. The results reported in this paper are of the 2 x 2 analyses. For Question 1, which asked Ss how willing they were to participate in each of the four experimental conditions, main effects were found for Disguise (F = 25.53, df = 1/25, p = .0001) and Group Membership (F = 22.31, df = 1/25, p = ,0002). Ss were more willing to carry signs, disguised (R = 4.42) than undisguised = 3.29) and in a group = 4.40) than alone = 3.31). The interaction was not significant (F = 2.41, df = 1/25, p = .13). For Question 2 , which asked S s how much money they would require to participate in each of the four experimental conditions, main effects were found for Disguise (F = 4.36, df = 1/25, p = .04)and Group Membership (F = 5.69, df = 1/25, p = .02). Ss required more money to carry signs undisguised = $47.92) than disguised = $29.98) and alone (R = $50.29) than in a group (R = $27.61). Although the interaction was not significant (F = 2 . 0 2 , df = 1/25, p = .16), a Newman-Keuls analysis of the
(x
(w
(x
(x
(x
Analyses performed on only the data of the Ss who were not suspicious produced results similar to those obtained when the data of all of the Ss were analyzed.
EUGENE W. MATHES AND THOMAS A. GUEST
261
means showed that when not disguised, Ss required significantly Ip < .05) more money to carry the sign alone = $64.61) than in a group = $31.23), but that when disguised, Ss did not require significantly more money to carry the sign alone = $35.96)than in a group = $24.00). For Question 3, which asked Ss the extent to which they felt they would be recognized under the four experimental conditions, main effects were found for Disguise (F = 52.32, df = 1/25,p = .0001)and Group Membership (F = 9.63,df = 1/25, p = .005). Ss stated that they would be more recognizable undisguised = 5.79) than disguised = 2.73) and alone = 4.46)than in a group = 4.06).The interaction was not significant
(x
(x
(w
(x
(x (x
(w
(x
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 01:17 13 January 2015
(F < 1). D. DISCUSSION In the Introduction it was pointed out that in order to provide good empirical support for the anonymity explanation, three things must be demonstrated: (a) group membership facilitates antisocial behavior, (b) group membership causes anonymity, and (c) anonymity facilitates antisocial behavior. This experiment demonstrated all three relationships. Replicating the Singer et al. (9)and Zimbardo (13)results, this experiment showed that anonymity (disguise) facilitates antisocial behavior. It went beyond these studies, however, to show that group membership facilitates antisocial behavior and causes anonymity. Ss were more willing to carry the signs and asked for less money to carry them when they were promised disguises than when they were not promised disguises. They were more willing to carry the signs and asked for less money to carry the signs when they knew that they were going to carry the signs in a group rather than alone. Finally, they felt that they would be less recognizable if they carried the signs in a group than alone. The fact that group membership made a difference concerning pay for undisguised Ss but not disguised Ss can be interpreted in terms of the anonymity hypothesis. Possibly, anonymity provided by the disguise was so adequate that the anonymity added to it by group membership was not enough to cause a further reduction in pay demanded. On the other hand, without the disguise, the anonymity provided by group membership was of considerable benefit and resulted in a significant reduction in pay demanded. An alternative explanation of these results might be the diffusion of responsibility: group membership facilitates antisocial behavior because people in groups feel less responsible for their behavior. Although such diffusion can explain the main effect of Group Membership on willingness
262
JOURNAL O F SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
to engage in the antisocial behavior and pay demanded for such behavior, it cannot explain the main effect of Group Membership on recognizability. Furthermore, in the present experiment the E assumed the major portion of the responsibility for the antisocial behavior, making diffusion of responsibility unnecessary. It seems that the anonymity explanation fits the data better than the diffusion of responsibility explanation.
REFERENCES I.
Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 01:17 13 January 2015
2. 3
4.
5. 6. 7. 8.
0
I0
CARLSMITH. J. M. Experimentation in sorial psychology. In G. Lindzey & E Aronson (Eds.1, Huiidbook of Sorinl Psvchology (rev. ed., Vol. 2). Readina. Mass: Addison-Wesley. 196X. BROWN,R. Mass phenomena. In G. Lindzey (Ed.).Harldhook ofSorial Psychrology (Vol. 2 ) . Reading. Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954. D A R L E Y , J . , & LATANE, B. Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. J . Prrsotiul. & Sot-. P s y h a l . , 1968. 8, 3 i i - 3 X 3 . FES'rINGER. L., PEPITONE, .A,. & NEWCOMB, T.Some consequences of deindividuation in a group. J. Abtt. &r S o r . Psyclcol., 1952, 47, 332-239. J E L I S O N , J . M., & KISKIND. J. A social comparison of abilities interpretation of risktaking behavior. J . P e r s o d . & S o r . Psychol., 1970, 15. 37.5-390. K O G A N . N..&! WALLACH. M. Group risk taking as a function o f members' anxiety and delensivenes3 levels. J . f'crsonal., 1967. 35. 5G6.3. I.E BON, G . The Crowd. Dunwoody. Ga.: S. Berger, 1968. MATHES. E. W..& LAHN.A. Diffusion of responsibility and extreme behavior. J . Prrsonul. & S o r . Psyrltol., i n press. SIKCER,J . , BRVSH.C., & LYBIN.S. Some azpects of rleindivirluation: Identification and conformity. J . Ewprr. .'jar. P s j r k o i . , l96S, 1. .356-.3iX. WALLACH.M., KOGAN.K . , 8; BEM. D. Group influence on individual risk taking. J . . ~ K o ~ ~ ~ s oE.. N. &
:lbri. G .So(.. Psyrhol., 1962, 65. 7 5 - 8 6 11. ___ . Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk taking in groups. J. A b n . G SOC. I'syclid., 1964, 68, 263-274. 12. WALLACH.b l . , LOGAN. N..& BVRT. R. Group risk taking and held dependenceindependence of group members. Soriomefry, 1967. 30, 323-338. 1.3.
The human choice. In W. Arnold & I). Levin (Eds.). 3rbraska SymMofittafion. Lincoln: IIni\-. Nebraska Press, 1969.
%INBARDO. 1'.
posirrni
oil
Dt.ptrrt iiient of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences Western Illitlois University Macomb. Illinois 61455
