If there are images in this attachment, they will not be displayed.

Download the
original attachment
CAMPUS CLEANLINESS
AIM
To study the socially responsible behavior and attitude on campus
cleanliness amongst college students.
Objectives
• To study the extent of social responsibility among college students
regarding campus cleanliness
• To see if there exists an inconsistency between attitudes and
behavior of college students regarding campus cleanliness.
• To study the contribution of students in promoting socially
responsible behavior.
• To understand the factors influencing social responsibility among
college students.

Social responsibilty is the obligation to make decision and take acions that will enhance the
welfare and interests of society as well as the organization. Social responsibility is quiet
important to the society, organization and human.

Social responsibilty is an ethical or ideological theory that an entity whether it is a

government, corporation,organization or individual has a responsibility to society.this
responsibility can be “negative”, meaning there is a reponsibility to refrain from acting or it
can be “positive,” meaning there is a reponsibility to act(proactive stance).

One of the theories that tries to explain the basis for social irresponsibility is the
Deindividuation Theory.

Deindividuation is the loss of a sense of individual identity and loosening of normal

inhibitions against engaging in behaviour that is inconsistent with the internal standards.
Deindividuation theory is a social psychological account of the individual in the crowd.
Deindividuation is a psychological state of decreased self-evaluation, causing anti-normative
individuals into an unruly group or crowd. It posits that the group provides an environment in
which the individual –submerged and anonymous- suffers from a loss of self-
awareness(zimbardo,1969). Deindividuation hinders reflection about the consequences of
actions, rendering social norms impotent while increasing suggetiabilty to random outside
influences. Recently, this lack support has been attributed to the faulty assumption that
crowds cause a loss of self. Instead, it has been proposed that deindividuation marks a
transition from individual identity to social dimensions of the self.this transition to a social
identity may increase responsiveness to social norms particular to the crowd, instead of
decreasing responsiveness to generic social norms, as suggested by deindividuation theory.

According to the theory, thepsychological state of deindividuation is aroused when

individuals join crowds or large groups.the state is characterized by diminished awareness of
self and individuality. This in turn reduces an individual’s self-restraint and normative
regulation of behaviour. In social psychology,deindividuation is a major theory of group
behaviour: it provides an explanation of collective behaviour of violent crowds, mindless
hooligans, and the lynch mob. Finally, recent research is discussed, which argues for a
reconceptualization of deindividuation. It appears deindividuationis not a loss of individual
identity, but may be better constructed as a transition to a social identity.

Deindividuation theory is rooted in the earliest works of social psychology, in particular

Gustave Le Bon’s crowd theoryin the crowd the collective mind takes possession of the
individual. As a consequence,a crowd member is reduced to an inferior form of
evolution:irrational,fickle, and suggestible. The individual submerged in the crowd loses self-
control and becomes a mindless puppet, possibly controlled by the crowd’s leader, and
capable of performing any act, however atrocious or heroic.

Deindividuation theory differs from Le Bon’s theory in one further important respect. The
consequence of deindividuation is not that the loss of individualityis replaced by a collective
mindthat guides the individual’s actions. Rather the lossof individuality leads to toatl loss of
conyrol, and releases a person from internalized moral restraints to produce emotional,
impulsive, irrational,regressive and intense behaviour. Earlier the theory deindividuation was
lack of accountability that submerges with the group.Hence the focus was on anonymity in
the group as the most important factor to produce deindividuation.Contemporary
formulations of the theory focus on the psychological process of the reduced private self
awareness as the defining feature of deindividuation which was based on work done by
Diener,Prentice,Dunn and Rogers in 1982.Self awareness entails a person becoming the
object of ones own attention .Classic and contemporary views agree on the main thrust of the
deindividuation hypothesis:The psychological stste of the deindividuation brings about anti-
nor,ative and dis-inhibited behaviour.

Researchers working within the framework of social identity theory have attempted to
reconceptualise deindividuation inorder to account for the crowd’s normative regulation.They
argue that deindividuating settings do not cause a loss of self, but they shift a person from an
individual identity to a collective identity as a member of the group or crowd.

In sum whereas deindividuation theory argues that the crowd causes a loss of identity
,reverting the individual to irresponsibility ,it seems more productive to reconceptualise the
theory as a shift from a personal identity to social identity .

Description of the sample

The sample consists of Undergraduate and Post graduate students of sample size (N=120)
both males and females.The age group of the students range from 21-24 years, and they have
been selected from various city colleges in Chennai such as Madras School of Social Work
(MSSW), Women’s Christian College (WCC), Loyola College, Presidency College, Madras
Christian College, Vivekananda College, SCP Jain College, M.G.R.Janaki College of Arts &
Sciences, A.M. Jain College, PSNA CET College and University of Madras ( Both Chepauk
& Taramani Campuses) using Convenient Sampling.

Description of the tool

The project on “Campus Cleanliness” made use of a Tailor made survey Questionnaire
which consisted of 20 questions. 15 questions consist of close-ended questions with three
alternatives each. The remaining 5 are open ended questiions where the respondents are
expected to answer in detail. The questionnaire consists of 8 items which indicate Behavioral
reactions (1, 3, 5, 12, 15 & 16), 6 items corressponding to their Attitude towards Cleanliness
(4, 6, 7, 10, 13 & 14) and 3 questions indicating their Affect or emotions (2, 11 & 18). The
tool asked for stating details such as name, Age, Sex and Institution. The Survey
Questionnaire was prepared after a brainstorming session followed by a Pilot Study of 11
participants including Students and Experts from the field of Psychology, Jainology and
Zoology. Since the study is with a specific objective in mind, the Opinion Survey
Questionnaire is not validated as proposed by a Standard Psychometry textbook. Similarly,
the reliability could also not be established.

Administration of the Tool

The “Opinion Survey Questionnaire on Campus Cleanliness” was administered individually
to each student. The students were asked to fill in the personal details and questions 8, 9, 18
and 20 were asked to be answered in detail. They were encouraged to clarify doubts, if any.