Let's get things rolling by taking a quick poll. If you punched someone today, please raise your hand. I'm not guilty about it either, thankfully. I mean I have never thrown a punch at anyone, but I still would like to share an experience that nearly led to me doing so. A few years back, my husband and I attended a Red Sox-Yankees game at the famous Yankee Stadium. Do you already have an idea of where this is headed? My husband is a huge supporter of the Red Sox, so he had his Red Sox cap on. I don't have any allegiance to either the Red Sox or the Yankees, I'm sorry if this disappoints Red Sox fans. I take pleasure in the psychological components and the visual aspects of sports events such as these. Prior to the game beginning and for a few innings, a few Yankees supporters made lighthearted comments about my partner’s cap and joked around about how the game would go. He responded with some funny remarks of his own and everyone had a good time. As the game went on and both teams stayed neck-and-neck in points, a tense atmosphere arose between the Yankees supporters and my partner, with hostility becoming more pronounced. My husband's patience was fading, so I preemptively removed the hat from his possession. Since I had nowhere to hide it, I put it in plain sight, foolishly believing that there would be no consequences since A) I am not a die-hard enthusiast and B) I was certainly not looking to start any trouble with anyone. I was completely mistaken about this however. I was subjected to some unpleasant comments from certain Yankees fans, and for about 10 minutes, I put up with it before I began yelling back. Finally, my husband had to intercede by standing between me and one of those Yankees fans. Can you believe it? I'm someone who has no interest in baseball yet I am still willing to bet that many of you have been in a similar position where you wanted to react similarly.
The reason I was affected so profoundly by this experience is due to a basic aspect of human nature, which is the propensity to blur the lines between "us" and "them". The positive aspect is that we have the capacity to adapt our reactions to a variety of circumstances, instead of feeling powerless in regards to our genetic makeup or surroundings. By being conscious of the conditions that make us more likely to act out in aggression against members of other groups, we may be able to lessen our susceptibility to them. Before we can arrive at our destination, it is necessary that we have a better understanding. What causes people, including myself, to act in such a manner? Simply belonging to a group can have an effect on someone's behavior. The way individuals perceive, express emotion and act towards others alters when the atmosphere transitions from a "me and you" dynamic to a “us and them” situation. In other words, people's attitudes, emotions and actions vary depending on the social context. From whence does this inclination originate in the overall context? Reflecting on our evolutionary past, we can see that our ancestors derived numerous physical and psychological advantages from their ability to work together and form strong bonds with other members of their group. The advantages of this included the pooling of resources and fulfilling the emotional need to feel a part of something. Those who were adept at recognizing and working together with other members of the group gained more advantages. The downside of this inclination to separate ourselves from others is that it can be considerably expensive to lead a group lifestyle. The need to fit in with a group can lead to us taking on behaviors or expressing opinions that we would not normally choose, as living in a group setting creates pressure for conformity. Conflict between groups that seems impossible to resolve often originates from this desperate desire.
Where does the inner group conflict that we experience today originate from? This is something that has been seen throughout history and was a problem of our ancestors as well. Groups are continuously transforming the way people act, due to the fact that they alter individuals' perceptions of what is considered acceptable. In comparison to individual interactions, it appears that people tend to have a more aggressive approach when interacting in groups. I had no feeling whatsoever when I first entered the baseball stadium, but as soon as I put on the cap, it was like a sign to signify my allegiance to a certain group. I didn't have any negative feelings towards the Yankees fans originally, however, their behavior towards me made me start to identify more with being a Red Sox fan. As they treated me like I was a part of Red Sox Nation, my loyalty promptly shifted in that direction. I was no longer acting as an individual, but rather speaking on behalf of Red Sox supporters. Research conducted in the last few decades of social psychology has demonstrated that my experience is not a singular one. Group interactions are typically perceived as being more confrontational than individual conversations. If you were to request that individuals document all their interpersonal exchanges, and then ask them to reflect on how successful these encounters were (such as a business gathering), what do you think would be their responses? Reports indicate that group interactions are markedly harsher than those between just two individuals. In comparison to one-on-one interactions, people tend to view group-to-group interactions as being more competitive than they are cooperative. Even when there is no competition between groups, this remains true, I regret to inform you, my readers. Ultimately, people now anticipate that future collective interactions will be more hostile than individual encounters at all. It is likely that these discoveries will match up with your previous experience. Since childhood, it's usually been the case that group divisions have resulted in one group competing against the other. It is not unexpected that individuals possess this mental model in their minds.
So it stands to reason that this template actually has an absolute effect on our behavior than we think it does. When in a group, people tend to display more aggressive behavior than when they are by themselves. Imagine a scenario in which you have gathered two people or three groups of three individuals together. You need to inform them that they must decide, either alone or together, on how they want to interact with each other. Psychological research has shown that people tend to cheat more when playing games as part of a team, rather than on their own. This phenomenon has been observed in numerous studies. In today's world, the demand to cause physical harm to others is not uncommon; it goes beyond just requests. When people in the lab make decisions as a group, they will assign someone else to consume a more intensely spicy hot sauce compared to when they are deciding individually. What is the reason behind the fact that groups can alter our behavior? Why do groups have this effect on us? At least three elements may be responsible for the heightened aggression among groups, although this is not a complete set of factors. Groups can provide us with the perspective to view immoral behavior as being potentially beneficial for the success of our own group. Rather than accepting the belief that being a good group member requires one to be mean to the others, we should recognize there are other ways of participating in a group. Second, groups also provide an avenue for the assignment of blame for potentially harmful behavior. When working together in a group, the burden of responsibility for any unfavorable results is shared, lessening the individual accountability. Eventually, groups can lead us to become disconnected from our moral compasses. We may become so engrossed in the thrill of being part of a collective that it becomes difficult to focus on whether we're sticking to our own ethical code. Assessing this last component is highly challenging and complex to quantify. As researchers, we cannot simply inquire whether people have become disconnected from their internal moral standards, as bringing it up would draw their attention to the issue.
Of course, my colleagues and I were too eager to understand the inner workings of people's minds when they behave in a group environment. We used a blend of psychology and neuroscience techniques in an effort to investigate the seemingly imperceptible. If you plan your experiments accordingly, functional neuroimaging can provide a convenient and unobtrusive way to monitor ongoing psychological processes in real time. We employed Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to observe the modifications in cerebral blood circulation in our study. By utilizing this technique, it is possible to observe which brain regions are more active when participants are completing the designated tasks compared to some baseline. We were particularly interested in the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) and pregenual anterior cingulate area in this instance. The two centimeter area located behind the middle of your forehead is being referred to here. The MPFC is now linked to self-reflexive thinking, which is simply a more complex way of talking about thinking about one's own self. In numerous studies, the neural process of the prefrontal cortex has been found to be more active when people contemplate their own mental states, traits and physical characteristics than those of another's. This region is also linked to numerous other tasks and processes. The MPFC is especially stimulated when people think of information which is closely related to them, such as their own name or the name of the street they lived on during childhood. At this moment, you may be questioning the connection between this area and groups. When acting as a part of a group, people's individual moral principles can become more difficult to discern. It is likely that the activity in the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) will decrease when someone reads about their moral conduct within a collective setting.
We conducted an experiment to investigate whether the activation of the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) would be reduced when people read sentences regarding their own behavior in a competitive team environment, as opposed to reading them alone. Individuals were brought into the laboratory one by one and assigned to either of two teams competing for a prize of money. We put the participants in an MRI scanner and gave them a set of statements regarding moral and social conduct to read. For instance, an unethical action might involve taking food from a communal fridge without permission. Alternatively, it could be seen as a statement about societal norms if someone were to declare that they have a Facebook account. We explained to our participants that what they were doing was in fact a game, and their mission was to press a button immediately when they encountered any social statement, but not to respond in any other situation. The distracters of the moral items did not have a moral label; instead, they were just referred to as "distracters." In conclusion, we informed the participants that they were going to play the game twice - one round by themselves and another with nine of their teammates. We informed him that nine of their colleagues were returning to the laboratory in order to participate in the game with them through real-time streaming from a room located across the hallway. The audience was presented with a pre-recorded video, yet they still felt as if their teammates were playing alongside them in that moment; the illusion of real-time interaction was what made the experience so meaningful. Once the two games were completed, we removed him from the scanner and asked for one final favor, "Could you assist us in choosing photos of your teammates and opponents?"
We were granted authorization from these individuals to make the material available online, as well as releasing it to the media and distributing it more widely to the general public. The participants were unaware that a separate set of individuals had already ranked the photos from most attractive to least attractive. But contemplate this scenario: there's a guy competing with your group and you need to decide which picture should be chosen to be seen by the whole world. "Could it be this one?" you might ask yourself and your group. As expected, individuals who displayed lower activity in the prefrontal cortex when reading about their own moral behavior within a collective setting also chose more hostile images of their competitors compared to their teammates, displaying an unsympathetic attitude. Be aware that there are two important points to consider here. In order to be more certain that the data pattern we observed is linked to a decrease in consideration of one's self when in a group, we ran several additional analyses. It is also worth mentioning that this study had a limited sample size, so it should not be taken as a conclusive result. We still have a lot of research to complete in order to gain a better comprehension of how this event plays out in reality, particularly when it involves more serious forms of aggression. It appears that people who became absorbed in the group were more severe when it came to competing with others. This is one potential explanation for the results. At this point, you may be wondering if this is something to worry about outside of the lab. After all, most people aren't running around punching each other. So, does it still really matter? If not properly monitored, the implications of these collective behaviors will have far-reaching repercussions in society.
Intergroup conflict is considered to be one of the most pressing challenges that our world faces today. It is estimated that during the course of the last 100 years, more than 200 million individuals have been violently killed due to genocide, war and other forms of aggression. Despite a decrease in recent years, intergroup violence continues to plague communities from Boston to many parts of the United States and beyond, affecting people across the globe. The combative nature of our political environment is becoming more and more evident. The current state of our government is one of the most extreme levels of polarization it has seen in recent years. The figures associated with this issue are indeed alarming, but there is an additional impediment to our ability to combat it - the attitude we have regarding who should take responsibility. When we try to pin conflict on a few bad individuals, we ignore the reality that being part of a collective such as our national identity, religion or political affiliation can make us more inclined to act aggressively. The difficulty of recognizing and understanding this issue is what makes it so insidious and intriguing; it's difficult to notice that it is actually occurring and influencing us. An understanding of why I had become so aggressive only dawned on me after returning from the Red Sox Yankees game. Using myself as an example, this was how and when it all clicked. At that point, I was unable to comprehend what was going on despite the fact that my profession is studying this. My Red Sox-Yankees tale may be an entertaining one, but it pales in comparison to the clashes between protesters and police that have been occurring for over a year in places such as Ferguson. By donning riot gear and responding to a peaceful gathering of protesters as if they were an unruly mob, police forces could likely create the very situation that was initially feared. Are we destined to be unkind to each other if it is so difficult for us to self-regulate? Fortunately, the answer is no. It may be that our best strategies for minimizing conflict between groups lies with the individuals who comprise those groups.
Reflecting on the fMRI study I mentioned earlier is a good place to start. It is of utmost importance to take into consideration that not everyone displayed that result. In other words, those who did not display lessened activity in the prefrontal cortex when in a group setting also did not exhibit aggression towards their opponents. When it has been made known to people that their behavior in groups will be shared and attributed to them, other researchers have discovered that they become less aggressive. Research from both our lab and others has indicated that one way to reduce aggression in intergroup conflict is to make individuals think of themselves as individuals rather than simply members of a group. This concept is something that our lab is currently exploring further. There are numerous powerful motivations that we experience as individuals, which can lead to beneficial behavior and collaboration. When we interact directly with each other in person, there is a powerful impulse to treat one another fairly, distribute resources evenly, and avoid causing any harm. Even with people they don't know, individuals will often pay more to protect others from electric shocks than to prevent shocks to themselves. For instance, this is the case in a lab setting where someone is willing to expend greater resources for strangers' safety than their own. Rats will even forgo their favorite snacks such as chocolate in order to assist a fellow rat who is entrapped within an enclosed cylinder, like the one pictured. Analysis of combat data from the Civil War and World War One has revealed a unique behavior - soldiers on both sides would typically shoot over the heads of their adversaries, rather than attempting to kill them. This is an uncommon occurrence among innocent civilians or in laboratory environments.
Needless to say, most of us find the concept of causing harm to someone else in a one-on-one situation highly unpleasant. This is the basic conclusion. It is important to emphasize that, while not always the case, group dynamics can sometimes lead to negative behavior. People with a group-focused mindset may be more likely to give greater amounts of money to charitable causes than those who are more individualistic. When people work together in a group, they are capable of achieving much more than if each individual works by themselves, provided that they are all striving towards the same constructive aim. That begs the question, what are our next steps to take? I believe it is wise to approach the situation with a hopeful but realistic outlook. Today's discussion highlights the importance of acknowledging and capitalizing on our natural inclination to act in a socially responsible manner when conflict arises. Rather than viewing the person we're dealing with as simply existing within a group, it is imperative that we recognize them as an individual. Doing so can help us to keep disputes from escalating out of control. We've all had the experience of dealing with someone from a different group, and feeling the strong urge to do them harm – whether it be throwing a punch at them while watching a baseball game, sabotaging their work, or simply ignoring them at a social gathering. If you paused to consider the situation, would you still act in the same way if it was just you and the other person, without any of your groups around?
See also: https://mygodsentangels.com/