Why do good people behave badly in groups?

No one is defending the events of India's Got Latent, but the venomous condemnation and the FIR undoubtedly polarised people's reactions. Some felt vindicated, possibly reflecting a peculiar case of projection, while others experienced a sense of righteousness as their beliefs about karma were reaffirmed. Only a handful voiced concerns regarding freedom of speech. However, beyond the outrage, a more significant question arises:

Why do people sometimes act in ways they wouldn’t stand for alone?

Social psychology provides all the answers.

What happens when we join a group?

You think you’re making your own decisions when in a group? Think again. We lose our individuality in groups. Anonymity makes us question who’s actually responsible—aka the Bystander Effect (thanks, Latane). Irving Janis’ groupthink is here to remind us how we’d rather nod along even when it means saying yes to ruining someone’s life.

Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) shows how group dynamics can literally cause us to disregard our ethics and behave criminally.

This extends beyond a mere YouTube show; these dynamics are evident in multiple aspects of life: In corporate boardrooms, individuals often prioritise nodding along to poor ideas rather than risking the label of being 'difficult'. In locker rooms, decent men remain silent as others make degrading remarks about women. In classrooms, students suppress their thoughts to evade being labelled as a 'troublemaker'.

What if we asserted our personal beliefs and identity within a group?

When those around us are laughing or in agreement, voicing a differing opinion can seem like a perilous move for both our social standing and career prospects. What is the reason? The consequences of nonconformity—ostracism—can be as painful as physical suffering, as demonstrated by Naomi Eisenberger’s studies. This pain acts as a subconscious motivator for compliance, urging us to conform to the group, even when it contradicts our beliefs and ethics.

So should we blame the individual or the group?

Mischaracterising individuals by evaluating them without considering social context is a tendency inherent to our lazy brains. Fritz Heider refers to this as the fundamental attribution error. He discusses how we frequently perceive the actions of others as indicative of their character, while we tend to justify our own actions by attributing them to the circumstances. For instance, if you arrive late to a meeting, you might explain it by citing a traffic jam. 

However, if another person is tardy to the same meeting, you may refer to them as a 'scatterbrain' or 'lazy'. This is not intentional or egotistical; it is merely a subconscious bias. We assign behaviour to individuals' character through blame and labelling, as our brains seek predictability in anticipating future actions. An extremely harmful bias to individuals' reputations.

Harold Kelley’s covariation model offers a way to address this bias: He proposes that we attribute behaviour to three factors: 'the Actor' (the one exhibiting the behaviour), 'the Entity' (the recipient of the behaviour), or 'the Circumstances' (the context). To figure out what’s driving the behaviour, ask yourself:

• Consensus: How do others react? If they react the same way, the issue may lie in the context, not the individual.
• Consistency: Does this person act this way in other situations? If yes, it may be a sign of character.
• Distinctiveness: Does this person act the same with everyone, across all situations? If bad behaviour is isolated to a specific situation or person, it could be the context, not the individual.

When to hold onto your morals, and when to detach?

Having examined group dynamics from a psychological perspective, it is evident that associating with groups that reflect our values aids in maintaining our beliefs.

In professional environments, particularly when we lack the option to select our team members, and especially when we hold positions of influence that affect others, it is essential to distinguish personal beliefs from the matter at hand. 

It’s easy to get caught up in belief bias and make emotionally charged, vindictive decisions. This may result in unjust outcomes, unwarranted trauma, and, ultimately, repercussions that contradict the principles we strive to maintain.

So, here’s the takeaway:

Good people can act badly in groups, but this isn’t necessarily a reflection of their morals or character—it’s the powerful forces of group dynamics and cognitive biases at play.

The real question should be: Are we judging individuals fairly in group situations, or are we simply projecting our own biases?

(Our guest author, Nikita Goswami, is an independent creative director and ethical advertising teacher. She has 15+ years of experience driving creative and strategic campaigns at Ogilvy, Publicis, and Havas, and subsequently at Byju's and FreshToHome.)