Running Head: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Do Groups Corrupt People?

(Name)

(University Name)
Social Psychology 2

This essay is aimed to answer a simple question concerning influence of groups on

individuals and whether such groups corrupt individuals or not. This will be answered in light of

the principles and theories of social psychology. Similarly, the essay will talk about what an

individual does for groups and vice versa. Classical research will be included in this regard.

Factors through which groups badly influence the individuals will also be discussed. Historical

trends in social psychology will also be discussed for attempting to answer this question. The

conclusion in the end will summarize the discussion. The thesis statement of this essay is that

groups largely corrupt individuals in that the personal will and attitudinal approach of the

individuals is lost and they eventually do what the groups requires individuals to do.

A group is defined as two or more people who interact for longer than a few moments

and attempt to influence one another as well as perceive each other as one unit (Stangor, 2004).

Research shows that when we are surrounded by individuals in the form of a group, the speed

and agility of the individuals improve, as people are able to solve difficult problems in easier

manner (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Similarly, accuracy is also improved through which people

can perform longer tasks in short period of time. This means that the social facilitation within a

group leads to help people in terms of their efficiency and accuracy (Cummings & Cross, 2003).

However, one of the fundamental principles of social psychology states that groups largely

corrupt individuals. This is not just true in political sense, but also in any other sort of setting.

The group thinking will influence the attitude, behaviour, tone and overall mood of the

individual (Nolan et al., 2008). The corruption in this regard refers to the effect of the group

thinking, which can either be good or bad (Hopper & Weinberg, 2011). When an individual is

communicating with a group of individuals, his personal behaviour and attitude will change, and
Social Psychology 3

he will eventually adopt group practices. Therefore, such a situation means that individuals will

be corrupted by the groups through which they are largely influenced.

The recent research suggests that the group environment is helpful for the individuals in

terms of their character formation (Pickren et al., 2012). However, the main subject has never

been discussed whether the process through which such groups are able to influence as well as

challenge the moral character, behaviour and disposition of individuals is fair or not. When

individuals participate in the extracurricular activities or religious activities, their moral outlook

is heavily influenced (Rothbart & Korostelina, 2006). This means that there is a direct concern

between the moral behaviour and attitude of individuals and group activities. The main rationale

behind this is that when the individuals spend more time within a group of specific people

carrying out specific activities, then they will be psychologically as well as socially influenced.

There are different types of groups. Some of the groups are joined by individuals

voluntarily and in some groups individuals have to be a part, as it is their responsibility (Forsyth,

2010). Every individual joins these groups, because groups are a part of one’s social life. This is

the reason that groups influence pretty much every individual. Similarly, individuals are also

able to influence the groups but at a very minor level. The individuals form their attitude based

on the group influence. In this regard, the individuals also learn about the acceptable as well as

unacceptable patterns of behaviour. Here comes the main role and influence of groups on the

individuals. Sometimes, the members of the groups declare a moral thing immoral and vice

versa. For example, a group might influence an individual to lie about his personality, as it would

not be harmful. These are the unacceptable norms and patterns of behaviour in our society, and

humans are not supposed to act this way, but the influence of group makes individuals do so

(Hecther & Opp, 2005). Additionally, such unacceptable patterns of behaviour and attitude make
Social Psychology 4

individuals not following the social norms, and which are also immoral. Hence this can be said

that where groups can influence the individuals to learn about different new behavioural patterns,

there are negative things too that they learn due to which they become corrupt and their morality

on individual scale is questioned (Hecther & Opp, 2005).

Another fact is that the social norms basically govern the behaviours of individuals. In

this regard, each individual has a choice to join a particular group, and thus he or she also has to

subscribe to a particular group, which will follow certain norms and will drive individual

behaviours in a certain way (Cook, 2003). The individuals are psychologically influenced by the

groups in a way that they will also have to approve and disapprove those practices and norms as

well as behaviours that the groups approve or disapprove. By doing so, the individual morality is

questioned and the individual is likely to become corrupt if he is psychologically influenced by

the bad practices and norms of a group. This also means that the group largely maligns the

individual thinking and attitude about a particular aspect of our society (Cook, 2003). This is an

argument from the psychological end and not in the social respect. Furthermore, this actually

means that the individuals do not become capable to think and reflect about issues themselves

and become victim of the group thinking. Whatever the group says is largely acceptable by the

individuals, and they do not even have second thoughts about what is being talked about.

Therefore, when the individuals are influenced by the group in terms of the specific pattern of

thinking, behaviour and attitude, then this would mean that the groups have largely corrupted the

individual’s moral formation (Cook, 2003). This also suggests that the individuals tend to avid

those things that are disapproved by the groups and do those that the groups approve. In this

regard, it is also essential to identify how an individual is important for a group and vice versa.
Social Psychology 5

Another important point is that what an individual does for a group, and vice versa. These

aspects will be discussed in following discussion.

An individual is the basic component through which a group is formed. A group consists

of two or more individuals who have a shared goal of achieving something. The individual is

motivated by the group through different factors. In this regard, individual also plays his role for

the group. An individual plays the role of initiating something within the group he is a part of.

He similarly also defines the rules of the group that is formed by including him in that. Group

members develop opinions on a certain subject through which different issues are clarified and a

major view is obtained which is adopted by all the individuals later (Levine & Moreland, 2006).

In this regard, individual also has his opinion, which is merged later into the group opinion.

Similarly, an individual will maintain one or multiple roles within a group. The group is

basically an association of individuals, so all the individuals are associated with one another for

achieving a cause, for which every individual will play his distinct role. Maintenance of roles

would hence involve encouragement, harmonization, record keeping, compromise and

expressing. However, there are also very controversial roles in a group, which are played by the

individuals themselves and groups do not have any influence on this individual roles (Levine &

Moreland, 2006). For example, as mentioned before that group is formed for achieving a

particular cause. In this regard, individuals have to perform responsible roles. However, it

happens sometimes that an individual plays a negative role by becoming more degrading,

withdrawing, uncooperative and dominating towards others. In this respect, the individual is

simply trying to corrupt the other individuals in the group by influencing his personal view

(Levine & Moreland, 2006). So this means that the individual also has to be socially responsible
Social Psychology 6

when he is acting in a group, as otherwise he will only cause a bad and corrupt influence in the

other group members.

A group influences an individual through several different ways. Most of the factors in

this respect are personal in nature. These can be known as egoistic, emotional and achievement

factors. When it comes to egoistic factors, it means that every individual has a personal pride as

well as a sense of personal value. In this regard, the group tries to influence the behaviour and

attitude of an individual in such a way that he acts in accordance to his own self-esteem and

values. Personal values of an individual are also subject to change based on the sort of influence

exercised by the group over individual. Similarly, every group has a role to play through which

the individuals can achieve something (Provis, 2016). This is also considered as the main

purpose for which a group is formed by the individuals. In this respect, the achievement oriented

attitude of the individual will be affected if the group does influence in negative way. An

individual will only try to bring his skills on the table when the group supports and encourages

him to do so. If the purpose is not being served in a better manner, then the individual’s attitude

to achieve to something will be devalued and he will behave in a way that will not be beneficial

for him in any manner (Provis, 2016).

Furthermore, a group also caters to the emotional needs of the individual. Individuals

primarily aim to join groups in order to derive a plethora of their emotional needs. Groups can

provide an emotional support to the individuals in times of sorrow, happiness, anger and

loneliness etc. (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). In this regard, the group has a very important role to

play for individual. However, if the group does not play its role, then the essence of its

foundation in view of individual is lost, and the latter also does feel corrupted as the group

influences prevail in his mind and brain.

Social Psychology 7

The above discussion has so far established the relation between group influence and

individual’s formation of morality. Similarly, the discussion has also been made on what

individuals do for a group and what groups give back to individuals in return. In this regard, this

is main part of discussion that whether the groups corrupt people or not. Based on the above

thesis, it will be asserted here that groups influence individuals in a way that their attitudes and

behaviours change and their choices and thinking are corrupted (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004).

This can be established with the help of different historical trends and classical principles of

social psychology, which have been presented by postmodern thinkers.

In this regard, Zimbardo conducted a study related to Stanford Prison Experiment. His

study revealed that social roles have a major influence on the behaviours of individuals. In this

experiment, different participants were given different roles such as prisoner and guard etc.

Guards were equipped with sticks and Prison wore chains and prisoner dress. The guards acted

ruthlessly in this experiment. This study showed that the individuals in the prisoner were heavily

influenced by the acts of guards as these individuals submitted to what the guards asked them to

do (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007). The cognitive dissonance theory was also reflected in this

experiment. It was also seen that the individuals’ thinking was largely corrupted and they

assumed that the prison environment is bad. Similarly, the group of prisoners was involved in the

acts of denial, which influenced the individuals by becoming corrupt.

Similarly, Bibb Latane presented the social impact theory, according to which he

presented the mathematical equations for predicting the level of impact of society on individuals

in particular situations. Based on this theory, Latane argued that there is a bystander effect or

bystander apathy in case of most of the situations where when the individual is in need of help

from others, the others in the group would not help him (Fiske, 2013). This is a psychological
Social Psychology 8

phenomenon that is largely present in many of our social settings. The people exhibiting deviant

behaviours are also seen doing this when they are in a group. In most of the situations, this

theory suggests that the individuals will feel helpless and so when they are put in certain

situation where someone else is in need, they will not be included to help others. So the

individuals become corrupt in many ways due to group influence in different social contexts.

Furthermore, Darley also presented another theory of social impact in which he argued

that individuals’ social behaviour is largely influenced by the groups of which individuals are

part of. Darley also gave the same view as was given by Latane that the individuals will not be

helping others when there are people in the surroundings (Hogg & Tindale, 2008). This

behaviour arises among individuals because they feel that others should help the individual in

need and they do not need to take this initiative of helping the person out. So the views given by

Zimbardo, Darley and Latane suggest that there is a great influence of groups on the social

behaviours of individuals, due to which they often behave in a negative manner when they are

put in to a certain situation.

Lastly, it can be said that the central question of groups corrupting people has been

answered in light of the principles and theories of social psychology. The essay has talked about

what an individual does for groups and vice versa. Classical research has been included in this

regard. Factors through which groups badly influence the individuals have also been discussed.

Historical trends in social psychology have also been discussed in that how the individuals have

been influenced by the groups while they assumed different roles and responsibilities. Based on

the socio-historical narrative about group thinking presented by Zimbardo, Latane and Darley,

this can hence be concluded that that groups largely corrupt individuals in that the personal will
Social Psychology 9

and attitudinal approach of the individuals are lost and they eventually do what the groups

require individuals to do.

Social Psychology 10

References

Carnahan, T., & McFarland, S. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: Could

Participant Self-Selection Have Led to the Cruelty?. Personality And Social Psychology

Bulletin, 33(5), 603-614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167206292689

Cialdini, R., & Goldstein, N. (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annual

Review Of Psychology, 55(1), 591-621.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015

Cook, K. (2003). Trust in society (1st ed.). New York, N.Y.: Russell Sage foundation.

Cummings, J., & Cross, R. (2003). Structural properties of work groups and their consequences

for performance. Social Networks, 25(3), 197-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0378-

8733(02)00049-7

Fiske, S. (2013). Handbook of social psychology (1st ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

Forsyth, D. (2010). Group Dynamics (5th ed.). New York: Cengage Learning.

Hechter, M., & Opp, K. (2005). Social norms (1st ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage

Foundation.

Hogg, M., & Tindale, S. (2008). Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group

Processes (1st ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Hopper, E., & Weinberg, H. (2011). The social unconscious in persons, groups, and

societies (1st ed.). London: Karnac.

Social Psychology 11

Levine, J., & Moreland, R. (2006). Small Groups: Key Readings (1st ed.). New York:

Psychology Press.

Nolan, J., Schultz, P., Cialdini, R., Goldstein, N., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative Social

Influence is Underdetected. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 913-923.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167208316691

Pickren, W., Dewsbury, D., & Wertheimer, M. (2012). Portraits of pioneers in developmental

psychology (1st ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Provis, C. (2016). Individuals, groups, and business ethics (1st ed.). London: Routledge.

Rothbart, D., & Korostelina, K. (2006). Identity, Morality, and Threat: Studies in Violent

Conflict (1st ed.). Lanham (Md.): Lexington Books.

Stangor, C. (2004). Social Groups in Action and Interaction (1st ed.). New York: Psychology

Press.