8 thoughts on “Psychology CSE 2017”

  1. The research finding clearly reflects the significance of social influence on violence among the college students. As the number varies the violence increases which may be because of following other influences –
    1. Diluted responsibility in group.
    2. Fear of punishment is dissolved in group.
    3. Violence in action may require social presence and it varies with size.
    4. Violence is not just individual phenomena.
    Further this finding reflects that group size is also a factorand college students have potent violent attitude in predisposition which is manifested as the size of the group varies.
    Sheriff’s cave experiment by designing two groups one as Rattle and other as Eagle reflected similar effect in students. The group soon lead to ingroup vs outgroup.
    Thus as the size increases in the college there are higher number of ingroup and outgroup and the conflicts. This may be a reason for such correlation.
    Finally this study helps to understand that violence is also a mass phenomenon and can be controlled by controlling the size and this may be the reasons why CrPC (criminal code in India) restricts the number of people standing together under its section 144.

    1. You should emphasise that the given data is not capable to explain anything.. What all you have written is mere possibilities.

  2. The research finding indicates that violence is related to number of students and assuming that the correlation is positive, as the number of students increases, violence increases as well. This research finding provides insight on crowd psychology.

    This research proves the Le Bon’s theory that in more crowd, the individual psychology is subordinated to a ‘collective mentality’ which radically transforms individual behaviour.
    Intensification of emotions in crowd is much easier and hence the high correlation between the number of students and violence.

    For example- The 2016 JNU protests clearly stand in accordance to the above research finding. The protest against the capital punishment of a convict started with a small group and as more students started joining the protest, the situation deteriorated so much so that violence and ‘anti-India’ slogans were shouted.

    1. The presentation is focused but the explanation that the correlation proves the Lee Bon’s theory is not appropriate as the data is not experimental.

  3. In the study, the positive correlation that was found between the student intake and the violence can be attributed to the group conformity. Here, with the increase in the number of students, size of the group increases and individual seizes to think individually, rather he starts to think about doing things that pleases the group members rather than himself which is nothing but conformity to the group. In such dynamics, a student tends to:
    1. Think about things irrationally at times.
    2. Take higher amount of risks outside his comfort zone to please the group members.
    3. Perform actions that are considered radical otherwise.
    4. And is not afraid of punishment as he tends to think that the effects get diluted when in a group.

    Due to all the above reasons, we can state that tendency to resort to violence increases with the increase in size of the number of students. An example to demonstrate this tendency is observed in “bullies”. They never operate individually and with the increase in the size of group he tends to do stuff that is otherwise unacceptable. The menace of raging in colleges can also be explained by this study as the students in the name pleasing their in-group members (in this case, friends), tend to resort to offences that are punishable.

  4. The study to establish link between number of students in a college and violence shows high correlation. There can be multiple reasons for conflict between the students:
    1. Social Identity and group formation – Tajfel suggested that groups give a sense of pride among people. Formation of group is a common phenomenon among college students and therefore, intergroup conflicts are unavoidable.
    2. Deprivation – More the number of students, more the variation among them. Feeling of deprivation can also be one of the factors of conflicts. It can be economic, emotional, etc.
    3. Alcoholism and drug abuse can lead to unsocial behavior.
    4. Diversity among ethnic groups is expected with more number of students. Conflict can occur with the biases towards other group and pride for one’s group.
    5. Indifferent and unsympathetic behavior towards other individuals/groups can also cause tension.

    The above stated are common to almost all the settings, but an increase in the above negative feelings can create an antisocial attitude and therefore result in violence and conflict.

  5. The correlation between number of students intake and violence is indicative of the predominance of social influence on behavior, specifically group behavior. Increase in the size of students increases the likelihood of formation of groups, and people in group behave very differently than individuals do.

    Prejudice is a typical attitude that is shown by one group (in-group) toward the other (out-group). The bigger the group, the more intense the prejudice. There are several factors like cohesiveness, conformity, obedience, etc. that are typical of a group behavior and may lead to violence stemming from lack of communication and misunderstandings between groups, among other factors such as competition, feelings of group superiority, etc. Group norms reinforce negative behaviors such as violence.

    Correlation here does not necessarily mean that the number of students intake cause students to behave violently. There may be several other factors that may cause increase in violence among students, like individual differences in personality, parenting styles, genetic predispositions, etc. Having said that, increase in students intake is definitely related to violence based on the principles of social psychology.

  6. in this question i have written as follows:
    the finding merely says that there is a correlation between students intake and violence but it doesnt say anything about whether the correlation is positive or negative. also the correlation doesnot imply causation thus we cannot clearly say that the students intake causes the violence. also we cannot establish directionality from the researc finding- ie we dont know whether it is the students intake that cause violence or the other way around. the correlation between the two variables may be because of variety of other external factors which we cannot be sure of thus overall this statement doesnot tell us anything apart from the fact that there is a relation between students intake and violence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *