Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

University of Nottingham Ningbo

Deindividuation: A Comparative Analysis Between Students from a Chinese Collectivistic Society and a British Individualistic Society

By Line Aagaard

MA International Communication

1 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Nottingham Deindividuation: A Comparative University Ningbo Analysis Between Students from a MA. International Chinese Collectivistic Society and a Communication British Individualistic Society Studies

Author:

Line Aagaard zx22676

Supervisor: Leanne Chang

Word Count: 15.308

Handed in:

Aug. 23rd 2017

A Dissertation Presented in Part Consideration of the Degree of MA International Communication

2 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Additional Comments

3 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Acknowledgement:

The research and experiment conducted in relation to this master thesis would not have been possible without the support and help from volunteer participants who showed patience and willingness in a time were they also were struggling with exams and limited timeframes.

I would like to thank my supervisor, Leanna Chang, for whose inputs and encouragement in exploring a topic that was not very straightforward, helped tremendously.

Additionally, I send my regards to my closest friends, family and my Nottingham University Ningbo “Campus Family” for their support, patience and discussions they all had in respect to my topic and with me reaching my goal.

Fundings:

The author received no direct funding for this research.

How to Cite this Thesis:

Aagaard, Line (2017): “Deindividuation: A Comparative Analysis Between Students from a Chinese Collectivistic Society and a British Individualistic Society”. UNNC, Nottingham University Ningbo China.

4 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Table of Content

1. Introduction ...... 6 1.1 Structure of the Master Dissertation...... 8

2. Literature Review ...... 9 2.1 Definitions of Deindividuation...... 9 2.2 A Critical Review of Relevant Prior Research ...... 10 2.3 The Influence of Culture: Individualistic & Collectivistic Societies...... 16

3. Research Aim and Objective ...... 19 4.1 Philosophy of Science ...... 21 4.2 Methodology ...... 22 4.2.1 The Sample Groups...... 23 4.2.2 Quantitative Survey...... 24 4.2.2.1 Quantitative Survey Findings Relevant for the Experiment ...... 25 4.2.3 The Experiment...... 26 4.2.3.1 The Experiment Design and Conduction...... 26 4.2.4 Qualitative Semi-Structure Interview...... 31

5. Findings and Discussion ...... 33

6. Potential Bias ...... 48 6.1 The Survey...... 49 6.2 The Experiment...... 50 6.3 The Interviews...... 51

7. Alternative Approaches & Recommendations for Research ...... 53

8. Conclusion...... 55

9. Reference List...... 57 9.1 Bibliography...... 57 9.2 Filmography...... 70

5 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

1. Introduction It has long been a researched by from multiple scholars (Beamer et al., 2011; Hofstede, 2016; Lustig et al., 2013; Hall & Hall, 1990) that there are distinct cultural differences between Western and Asian countries. If we look into Hofstede’s (2016) research - with his eight dimensions – it is to be indicated that said differences can be measured in terms of different variables, one of the most distinct ones being the individual dimension; where the differences are measured in terms of how individualistic and collectivistic a society’s social norms and values are (Hofstede, 2016). Simultaneously, well renowned research on the matter of deindividuation has emerged since the midst of the last century. Deindivituation is defined as an individual’s usual behaviour being influenced by the general norm and values of the group they are part of. Thus, the individual becomes more prone to indulge in behaviour that they would not otherwise indulge in when not being influenced by a group mentality foreslår for at undgå indulge to gange: Thus the individual becomes prone to change behaviour due to influence by group mentality (Festinger et al., 1952:382) Succinctly, defines deindividuation as the perceived loss of individuality and personal responsibility that can occur when someone participates as part of a group. Ergo, the influence of a group can lead to a decrease in attention to one’s individualistic characteristics, interpersonal differences within the group and a loss of self-awareness that can leads to a rise in anti-normative behaviour.

As a tool for future communication adaption, this thesis seeks to investigate if there is a difference in how individuals from an individualistic British society and a collectivistic Chinese society differ in relation to influence brought forth by deindividuation, and who are more innately susceptible, as this has yet to be investigated. It is theorised that collectivistic minded people are more prone to be influenced given their tendencies to strive to maintain the groups’ harmony, ranking the group higher than the individual and conforms easier to the mindset of the group as a unit consciously or subconsciously. Loyalty to a cohesive group is of importance in collectivistic minded people. Thereupon, this thesis will combine the ideas of how collectivistic societies thrives to maintain the status quo and uphold the harmony within the group, juxtaposing this with ideas surrounding individualistic societies, where the mindset is more about one’s own goals, desires and values. Consequently, seek to investigate if there is any significant difference in how each nation is influenced by deindividuation - resulting in the purposed hypothesis:

6 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

H1: There is a difference between British and Chinese Students in terms of their levels of deindividuation

Succinctly, this master dissertation sets out to investigate, through the means of triangulation, i.e., the combined use of surveys, experiments, and interviews, if there is indeed a measurable difference between these societies, its occurrence and explanatory factors that can explain the difference in culture, and perhaps even how and why they are affected differently by deindividuation.

It can be argued that understanding deindividuation’s effect on different nationalities can assist in the understanding and modification of communication and its adaption to each society. By creating a better understanding, it can help communication specialists and international companies in adjusting and adapting their communication strategies to different regions and nationalities of the world at large.

7 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

1.1 Structure of the Master Dissertation Foremost, the structure of this dissertation is based upon the book “The Good Paper” (Rienecker, 2013) written by Lotte Rienecker et al., and “How to Do Media and Cultural Studies” (Stokes, 2013) by Jane Stokes. Both books are used as guidelines for writing papers in higher education. Thus, the dissertation has a top down approach - also referred to as a deductive approach (Myers, 2013:176). This is evident in the way data has been approached as content has been identified from a prior existing theory. This dissertation introduces the reason behind the chosen topic and the objective of the study. A delimiting phase was shortly addressed as to narrow down the subject to make it reasonable within the timeframe, resources, and assigned words. The remaining part of the dissertation will be divided into 4 parts:

Firstly, a critical literature review that intends to reflect the different research conducted regarding deindividuation theory and the possible impact of cultural backgrounds. It seeks to identify a gap in research that could benefit from a more thorough investigation. Secondly, this aspect will be investigated in a methodology chapter, which will explore a proposed hypothesis. Thirdly, a comprehensive discussion and analysis of the findings and gathered data will take place. Lastly, a conclusion will be presented.

It is nevertheless important to note that the models and theories, such as the general conceptions of deindividuation, SIDE theory, Hofstede’s 8 Dimensions, and Hall’s Low and High Context Society, used throughout this dissertation have been applied as a simplification of real life. The application of models and theories can vary in different cases. Additionally, the author would like to point out that, in accordance with the IC ethics form policy of Nottingham University, all appropriate ethics forms was approved prior to any form of data collecting1 and participants’ consent forms were incorporated in the surveys, interviews, as well as the experiment.

1 Appendix 4 p. 10 - “Research Ethics Checklist for Undergraduate and Taught Masters Students”

8 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

2. Literature Review

The following chapter includes the literature review and will cover 3 different aspects:

Firstly, the thesis will define the term deindividuation. Secondly, the thesis will seek to examine the existing research on the matter of deindividuation and critically examine the results2. In relation to these results, the author will look into the role culture3 might play in deindividuation. By critically reviewing both qualitative and quantitative research, this thesis aims is to find a specific area that could benefit from further investigation.

2.1 Definitions of Deindividuation The term deindividuation, which has its theoretical background in sociology, started to appear more and more after Festinger, Pepitone, and Newcomb (1952) used the expression to describe the effects of a crowd or group on the behaviour of an individual. It has been substantially modified since 1952. However, in essence, it is proclaimed, as a result of this restraint on an individual’s usual behaviour, the individual becomes more prone to indulge in behaviour that they would not otherwise indulge in when not being influeced by a group mentality (Festinger et al., 1952:382). Additionally, more recent research on deindividuation (Kiesler et al., 1992; Roeckelein, 2006; Adam, 2011; Postmes et al., 1998; Bon, 1996; Diener, 1980, Zimbardo, 1969; Chang, 2008; Morris, 1996) succinctly defines deindividuation as the perceived loss of individuality and personal responsibility that can occur when someone participates as part of a group. Ergo, the influence of a group can lead to a decrease in attention to one´s individualistic characteristics and interpersonal differences within the group. Le Bon (2009, 2014) explains the fundamental of this theory that debates that regardless of who is in a crowd, there is a loss of individual personality within individual participants, which is overridden or overpowered by a group personality. This group personality will be present within every participant in the group, creating a collective mentality that can cause participants to act similarly to each other. More prominently though,

2 P. 10 - “A Critical Review of Relevant Prior Research” 3 P. 16 - “The Influence of Culture: Individualistic and Collectivistic”

9 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 participants, when acting under this group, can act in ways that differ from the way they would act when on their own (when not part of a group) (Le Bon, 2009, 2014).

2.2 A Critical Review of Relevant Prior Research Since the mid-fifties, renowned psychologists have research the influence of deindividuation, studying it both thoroughly and intensely. No research has become quite as famous and widely discussed as the controversial experiment conducted in 1971 by Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo (1973). The experiment that has become known as the “The Stanford Prison Experiment” (Zimbardo, 2007; Zimbardo et al., 1973) and has sparked films, books and documentaries alike since then (Patrick, 2015; Zimbardo, 2007; Musen, 1992). In essence, the experiment tested how two groups were influenced by the group mentality and the dynamic and changes in personalities it induced. Nonetheless, few people are aware that it is actually, in a sense, a replicate of a lesser-known experiment conducted at Yale University in 1961, often referred to as “The Milgram Obedience Experiment” (Milgram, 1963) by Stanley Milgram and first published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology by APA4. In short, this experiment entails subjects being faced with a choice of potentially, anonymously, causing another person pain, simply advised to do so and ‘follow the rules’. Parallels are often drawn between the two for their ethical concerns (Whitbourne, 2013; Zimbardo et al., 1973; Defiesta, 2011) and their investigation of peoples’ obedience of an authority figure and their loss of self-awareness and identity, by placing participants in a position where they must do things conflicting with their personal conscience. At the most fundamental level, both landmark studies have managed to raise many questions surrounding human nature and human experiments.

Both studies have adopted a somewhat interpretivist epistemology so as to understand the reasons behind the participants’ decisions, their opinions, and attitudes towards the subject (Denzin, 2000:191). In both studies, this was done through observation under different predetermined circumstances with the common aim to “explore a research topic or phenomenon within its context, or within many real-life contexts” (Saunders et al., 2012:179)

4 American Psychological Association.

10 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 by means of case studies. Despite their similar qualitative paradigms, two widely different approaches have been taken in order to test the influence of deindividuation.

Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo (1973) sought out to investigate deindividuation, in this case by a loss of self-awareness in 24 healthy, stable-minded, young, predominantly middle-class and white males, by simulating a prison in which 12 participants were assigned the role of prisoner and 12 given the role of guards. The goal was to embody a sense of powerlessness within the “prisoners,” hence different uniforms, privileges and rules were given to all participants to erase individual identity, as participants were randomly chosen to be either a prisoner or guard. In short, the study that was meant to last for two weeks was terminated after just 6 days as people started raising ethical questions after the participants’ emotions and actions spun out of control (Zimbardo et al., 1973). The situation escalated and guards became grossly absorbed in their roles, using both mental and physical punishment, leaving the prisoners with a sense of acceptance that they were less important as human beings (Zimbardo, 2007).

Based on prior surveys, Milgram (1974) set out to observe whether people would blindly follow orders given by a superior. Stanley Milgram grounds for conducting the research was to investigate the claim that holocaust accomplices were “just following orders” from superiors as justifications for acts of genocide (Milgram, 1974), as in the case of Adolf Eichmann in 1960 (Cesarani, 2011) and Wilhelm Keitel in 1946 (History Learning, 2015). In doing so, he sought out 40 male participants that were placed in one of three positions: the authoritative experimenter, the teacher that was to follow the instructions and the learner who would be at the receiving end of stimulus coming from the teacher. Unbeknownst to the participant, the position was predetermined and the participant would always be in the role of the teacher as the rest would be merely actors playing their part (Milgram, 1963). The participants, the teachers, were given a list of word pairs that the learner was to correctly answer based on 4 answers. If he answered incorrectly the teacher, would be told by the authoritative figure to press an electric shock button. With each wrong answer they were told that there would be a 15-volt increase in the shock that would be administered to the learner

11 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

(Milgram, 1963; Blass, 1991). In reality, there were no shocks brought upon the learner, who was an actor, in testing the individuals’ willingness to follow orders and inflict pain. Succinctly, the experiment showed, unexpectedly and unlike the findings in his prior surveys, that a very high proportion of people were prepared to obey, albeit unwillingly, despite it causing severe pain and distress to the learner. Thusly, he concluded that humans have a high willingness to follow authority (Milgram, 1963), despite it conflicting with ones’ conscience and morals.

To this day its validity, controversy, and astonishing results are widely debated (Gray, 2013; Whitbourne, 2013; Barajas, 2016). Regardless of clear strength and weaknesses within both projects, there is always a catch when studying human behaviour, as it can prove quite challenging. Case studies, however, seem to be the better way when approaching these kinds of experiments, despite the fact they can be very time-consuming. Contrary to the experimental research method, where all variables are being controlled as to ensure a certain level of validity, this kind of research often takes place in environments where not all variables can be controlled, which can lead to uncontrollable bias (Myers, 2013:82).

Psychologist Peter Gray (2013) insists that participants in psychological experiments are more likely to do what they believe the researchers want them to do (Gray, 2013; Whitbourne, 2013). It is a remarkable fact that participants of social experiments might participate with great scepticism or participate with the aim of pleasing the researchers, so the end results might not reflect the truth of the matter. This could prove to be the foundation of a great deal of concern for the validity of the data: In both experiments, it can be highly argued that the participants were always aware of it being an experiment, ergo not making them “real life” observations but a mere representation, which can be hard to justify as solid data. In the case of the prison experiment, the participants were told to act like prison guards in a period where news reports about prison riots and the brutality of guards were at an all-time high (Cops, 1999; Economist, 2015; Mann, 2016). It can be argued that they all took upon a role that included brutality that they, themselves, did not identify with, believing that the study was to see how prisoners react, and through that, participants tried to create what they saw to be a real-life experiment. As a result, the gathered empirical data might have been tainted.

12 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

This is evident in one specific case with one of the guard participants, Dave Eshelman, who in later interviews stated that he was clearly playing a part, finding inspiration in a movie character and adopted such a persona as a very cruel prison guard out of boredom (Leithead, 2011). Other researchers have gone so far as to claim that there was a selection bias in picking the participants, as volunteers for the prison study scored significantly higher on scales intended for measuring abuse-related traits (McFarland et al., 2007).

The same is apparent in the Milgram Experiment where Gina Perry (2013), author of “Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments” (Perry, 2013), testifies that there is a catalogue of methodological problems within the experiment, and she believes that the experiment suffered greatly under the means of uncontrolled variables that seems to have tainted the numbers that the conclusion is based upon (Perry, 2013). This conclusion is further backed up by research from University College London and Université Libre de Bruxelles that found that variables, such as sample group and size, could have tainted the results greatly in the favour of the original conclusion (Barajas, 2016). In the opinion of the author there is also a change of Social Desirability Bias to have occurred on multiple occasions.

Similarities between this and the prison experiment seem to occur when one looks into the Milgram participants later recollections of the ordeal: Joseph Dimow (2004) elucidates his experience in being a participant in his paper “Resisting Authority: A Personal Account of the Milgram Obedience Experiment” (Dimow, 2004) where he retrospectively explains that he saw through the experiment before he even started which, quite possibly, could prove his results bias as he would “act his part” as in the aforementioned case of Dave Eshelman. Thus, not providing proofs of deindividuation as the person says he changed consciously and to prove a point, not because he was influenced by others.

Both experiments seem to suffer greatly from a lack of sample size, making it dangerous and speculative to conclude on human behaviour in general using these results alone. Would the results be the same if they have included participants that were young, old, female, and male from divergent socio-economic and psychological groups? It is hard to make definite conclusions, which is why one should not think of their findings as definite conclusions on humans’ overall behavioural nature.

13 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Despite the similarity in conclusions between Milgram and Zimbardo’s experiments to test people’s nature and the aforementioned existence of deindividuation, it is hard to look past the many flaws in their now old research. Nevertheless, one cannot dispute that it seems to point towards a tendency that there is a loss of self-awareness when people are under either group pressure, pressure of authority figure(s), or under simulated circumstances. If anything, their research has paved the way for further research (Standford Review, 2016; Brockman et al., 2005; APA, 2009; Diener, et al., 1979; Postmes et al., 1998; Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, R. W, 1980; Cesarani, 2011) on the matter. It seems safe to conclude that not all human nature is under one’s own control and most of us are to some extent easily manipulated and seduced into behaving atypical to our own values and norms. To this effect, one will somewhat blindly follow an authoritative figure that by definition has the “power”. Consequently, this confirms the deindividuation theory that is still very much relevant today. Concisely summarized by Gustave Le Bon, individual personality becomes increasingly dominated by the mind-set of the collective crowd, ergo are more prone to be influenced by deindividuation (Bon, 1996).

In 1991, parallel with more recent and valid research emerging, Marting Lea et al. (2001) enhanced on the existing deindividuation theory with their introduction of the social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE). This research extends on further studies within the field of social psychology, identifying a vast number of different variables that causes deindividuation (Guerin, 2003). The model expands on the basic deindividuation already addressed and examines how other deindividuating factors, affirmation and persuasion, that contribute to the influence of deindividuation. The theory argues that both factors are playing a vital role in influencing crowds and how people will act in ways that are often not perceived as rational. Michael Chan debated that SIDE is used to explain the effects of anonymity and social isolation in various contexts (Chan, 2010). Intrinsically, the SIDE model provides an alternative explanation for the effects of anonymity and other "deindividuating" factors that can lead to a decrease in attention to one’s individualistic characteristics and interpersonal differences within the group (Adam, 2011; Chang, 2008). Aspects that the prior theory did not adequately explain as it did not take into account the social identity and what variables could have profound effect on the group’s overall behaviour.

14 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Most profound in all these experiments is the lack of control, which is often obvious. The SIDE theory has most often been researched with a lack of consideration of the participants in relation to their social norms, values and aggression level beforehand (Reicher et al., 1995). Moreover, it can be argued that a more clarified role of the experimenter would be appropriate as they can play a significant role in persuading, intimidating or influencing the participants in certain directions. The context of the group establishing itself can also play a role as it can be debated that group mentality changed based on who the participants were - for instance the level and number of alpha figures. SIDE theory does consider social identity but it is hard to verify in group experiments because there are so many variables to keep track of in social science regarding human interaction. Evidently, not a lot of effort has gone into comparing and researching the cultural differences between collectivistic and individualistic societies, which is arguably one of its flaws.

The SIDE theory distinguishes itself from the original deindividuation theory by explaining the effects of, for instance, anonymity on group behaviour. Despite the theory having a more nuanced view on the matter, it does not consider cultural differences - specifically between a collectivistic and individualistic society, despite looking at the social identity. This is where the author of this thesis disputes that there is a lack of research in general, as most preceding literature has paid more attention to how and why individuation happens, and under which circumstances it occurs. There is bound to be some sort of difference in the magnitude of deindividuation between collectivistic and individualistic societies in this matter as some cultures thrive to uphold the status quo, whilst other societies are dominated by individuals that – on paper – should be less adamant in following the norms of the group. This, at least, this is a hypothesis. This can prove vital to investigate as it can prove as - if the dissertation is to take a step back - it can be argued that understanding deindividuation’s effect on different nationalities can assist in the understanding and modification of contemporary phenomena, such as Internet bullying. Understanding the problem and underlying influences can prove a great tool in fighting this sad tendency. The fact that the tendency, provoked by deindividuation, makes individuals adjust to a group’s overall mentality for better and worse, in this case for worse. However and more preceding, the understanding can help communication specialists and international companies adjusting and adapting their communication strategies to different regions and nationalities of the world. This is especially

15 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 important when communicating to groups in general or when using computer mediated technology or examining online electronic relationships.

2.3 The Influence of Culture: Individualistic & Collectivistic Societies Most of the more well-known research done on deindividuation all have one thing in common: They only research one ethnicity, but hardly ever seem to compare and investigate how different cultures would be effect of it. Essentially, it is a known fact that much research done on deindividuation has been conducted in western countries like the United States (Vilanova et al., 2016), where the dominant and dominated groups already have a certain persona or prescribe to certain stereotypes. This could prove relatively biased when looked upon from a “bigger picture” as it can be proclaimed that, if we define culture as “a learned set of shared interpretations about beliefs, values, norms, and social practices, which affect the behaviours of a relatively large group of people” (Lustig, 2013; Chen and Staroata, 1998:25), people should, fundamentally, be affected differently as individuation entails one’s own norms and values. Subsequently, in relation to deindividuation, it can prove noteworthy to look into the culture difference between individuals from two nations that, at least on paper, is very different (Longhurst et al., 2008), as evident in Halls theory on high and low context society (Hall, 1976) and Hofstede’s cultural index (Lustig, 2013).

Hofstede (2016), one of the most famous and most cited researcher in the sphere of influence of cross-cultural studies, is famous for addressing cultures and explaining how one can distinguish the various cultural differences of countries from one another through his ‘dimensions of national cultures5,6’. These dimensions measures relatives between cultures (Froholdt & Knudsen, 2007:303) and has become a cornerstone for cross-cultural research. Here it is important to highlight - in accordance to the thesis - the collectivism vs. individualism index that make up the independent variable of the hypothesis. Hofstede conceptualized these two concepts by proclaiming some cultures more collectivistic and others more individualistic. Initially, his research was based on survey results from the same

5 (1) Power Distance, (2) Individualism/Collectivism, (3) Masculinity/Femininity, (4) Uncertainty Avoidance and (5) Long-Term/Short-Term Orientation 6 Appendix 1 p. 3 - “Individualistic vs Collectivistic Societies Scale & High/Low Context Societies”

16 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 company (IBM) but located within 30 different countries. Today the research entails 80 different countries and paint a picture that people in individualistic countries are more prone be individualistic and believe that they are supposed to take care of themselves as oppose to collectivistic nations were being strongly integrated and loyal to a cohesive group is of importance. Individuals in countries that scored high on the scale value personal freedom and status oppose to individuals in countries with low scores who value harmony and conformity (Hofstede, 2016).

Noteworthy is it that the population of the United Kingdom scores specifically high on this specific index11. In fact, according to Richard Alleyne, Britain is the most individualistic society in the world (Alleyne, 2009). According to Hofstede, this means that Brits tend to emphasize the individual aspect, growing up looking after only themselves and their immediate family. Comparatively, China’s scores are placed low on the scale12 proclaiming the importance of collectivism. Throughout their lives they protect their in-groups and extended families in exchange for unquestioned loyalty and emphasize the group and its interests (Beamer, 2011; Hofstede, 2016). Edward Hall (Hall & Hall, 1990) seems to agree with the differences between the two cultures, as concerns to his theory on low and high context society. Hall highlights the difference between the two cultures even more. High context societies such as China often refer to groups of people that have close connections over a long period of time. Thereby many aspects are unclear to outsiders, but very clear to those who know them well through years of interaction. Juxtaposing, a low context society such as the UK needs to communicate each message clearly, making it is explicit to everyone (Lustig, 2013; Beamer, 2011).

Despite the influential theoretical framework of the two cultural frameworks mentioned above, it might be because of the quantifiable data and level of easiness in comparing different cultures and how easy it is to applicable to various intercultural encounters. But can it be justified taking individuals backgrounds and cultures and making the data irrefutable, when such data is hardly as black and white as both Hofstede (Hofstede, 2016; Hofstede, 1994) and Halls (Hall & Hall, 1990) would like to have you believe? The models do have their benefits but it is important to observe that if cultural dimensions are used in a bipolar way, they may tend to make us see the world as either/or - black/white in a simplified, superficial, and generalizing way. It forces the people using it to see qualities as inherent and unchangeable,

17 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 evenly distributed between people of the same culture (Froholdt & Knudsen, 2007). This point of view is backed by Osland & Bird (2000), who states that this model tends to be very simplified. However, it is a great tool that can help researchers with the first steps and provide them with ‘best guesses’ (Osland & Bird, 2000:66). Furthermore, the models, especially Hofstede’s, are being questioned by various researchers for their in-built western bias, as they are written from a western point of view (Baskerville et al., 2005; Osland & Bird, 2000; Magala, 2004). The authors strongly agree with this point of view, as people tend to stereotype other nationalities. One cannot address these two models without also pinpointing the different methodological problems with the research design that laid the foundation. For instance, the design is mostly based on questionnaires measuring self-representation and not by observations in practice (Osland & Bird, 2000; McSweeney, 2002). It can also be disputed that these studies are not up to date, and these cultures, especially China, has gone through vigorous changes in the recent decades that can only be likened to the industrial development of Europe (CRCC Asia, 2013). Rapid change and a more globalised outlook can very well change people and change the way they are raised. Moreover, looking at a more personal level, and going back to the idea that things are not as black and white as Hall and Hofstede would have one believe, it’s worth keeping in mind that a society is made up of individuals and their very nature might vary and change over time.

Despite the arguments against and lack of validation of the two models, it is commonly agreed upon in the sphere of researchers that cultural differences do indeed exist, especially when comparing China and UK (Jordan, 2013; Moss, 2016; Sun et al., 2004).

18 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

3. Research Aim and Objective

As established in the previous literature review, it became apparent that there is a lack of comparing different cultures with each other, even though various culture theorist states that there is a manifested difference in how people interact, act and form opinions based on their cultural background and the specific way they have been raised. Given that deindividuation is viewed as making a person act against own norms and value when subject to the opinions and acts of a group (Festinger et al., 1952:382), henceforward, defining it as the perceived loss of individuality and personal responsibility that can occur when someone participates as part of a group (Morris, 1996). This and can lead to a decrease in attention to one´s individualistic characteristics and interpersonal differences within the group (Adam, 2011; Chang, 2008). The dissertation aims to investigate if there is a correlation between the extent one is being influenced by deindividuation and their nationality be it collectivistic or individualistic. Respectively, it is debateable to suggest that there is bound to be some sort of difference in the magnitude of deindividuation between collectivistic and individualistic societies. Given that some cultures thrive to uphold the status quo and other societies are dominated by individuals that – on paper – should be less adamant and generally less conforming. Nonetheless, at least from a black and white standpoint, there are grounds to believe that there is to be a difference in how people with different backgrounds are affected by deindividuation. Despite this it has yet to be fully investigated as most deindividuation theory fails to investigate a population at large or facilitate cross-cultural comparisons. This is because a lot of preceding literature has paid much attention to how and why individuation happens and under what circumstance it occurs.

Suitably, research of this matter can prove essential on many different levels when it comes to communicating to various groups across the now globalised world. Communication is all about getting the intended message across so knowing the audience and how they might be influenced can prove a vital instrument in various verbal interactions, be it for business or social relations, online or offline. Ergo, better understanding on the matter can help communication specialists and international companies adjusting and adapting their communication strategies to different regions and nationalities of the world. This is especially

19 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 when communicating to groups at large or when using computer mediated technology or examining online electronic relationships.

As follows, this thesis will examine this subject to create knowledge that can hopefully inspire other people to do more extensive research on this matter or start a healthy debate amongst scholars.

20 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

4. Philosophy of Science and Methodology

The following chapter is divided into two sections. The first section describes scientific methods used in this thesis. The second section entails the choice of a mixed methods approach and triangulation for the collection of empirical data and displays the data and findings of said methodology.

By having a deducted approach, the theory will be operationalized into a H0 and a H1 hypothesis (Saunders et al., 2012:144; Myers, 2013:23). This approach has been determined the most efficacious in relation to the objective of the thesis as it can be argued that all successful research begins with a thorough understanding of the subject at hand and prior research on the matter.

4.1 Philosophy of Science As previously stated, this dissertation takes on a mixed method approach as it can be maintained that no single method is perfect nor free from disadvantages. This statement is backed by Greene et al., as they deliberate that the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods brings a host of advantages by: “clarification of the results from one method with the results from another,” and “discovery of paradox and contradiction,” etc. (Greene et al., 1989, cited in Bryman, 2006:105). Thus, the thesis will involve literature reviews, surveys that are highly quantitative, a somewhat quantitative human experiment and qualitative semi- structured interviews.

By using both qualitative and quantitative designs, combined with a positivistic or interpretivist paradigm, it should contribute to more valid and reliable data as they can counter each other’s flaws and disadvantages to a certain extent (Kruuse, 2007; Nardi, 2013; Rubin et al., 2013:14; Saunders et al., 2012:163; Myers, 2013:39, Denzin, 2000:191)7.

7 For a more elaborate explanation of the advantages, disadvantages and choice of paradigm the author would like to refer the readers to the following appendix: Appendix 3 p. 8 - “Quantitative & Qualitative Methodology”

21 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

4.2 Methodology Research has been used to find and gather proper empirical data that could be deemed both relevant and valid to provide a justifiable answer to the hypothesis, viewable below (Saunders et al., 2012:5):

H1: There is a difference between British and Chinese Students in terms of their levels of deindividuation

Specifically, a systematic approach to gathering empirical data, a mixed method approach that was taken to highlight tendencies within the participants and gather fundamental information that each serves the purpose of leading to a conclusion in relation to the hypothesis. The following four subchapters will address this matter. In essence, the survey serves to create a foundation for the experiment that seeks to investigate the hypothesis more firmly. Lastly, the interview seeks to provide more qualitative findings in relation to the participants´ personal opinions in relation to the hypothesis.

In order to gather empirical data in a systematic and well-planned manner that limits the chances of bias, a lot of work has gone into the research, planning process, and pilot testing. Henceforward, for a further and more specific elaboration on the thought process, planning, researching, and execution8,9,10, and a complete list of findings and data of the different methodologies11,1213 the author kindly refers to the adjacent appendixes14.

8 Appendix 5 p. 25 - “Construction of the Quantitative Surveys” 9 Appendix 8 p. 65 - “The Experiment” 10 Appendix 11 p. 86 - “Qualitative Semi-Structured Interview” 11 Appendix 7 p. 50 - “Survey Results” 12 Appendix 10 p. 77 – ”Results of Experiment” 13 Appendix 14 p. 97 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews” 14 Appendix, p. 2 - “Table of Content”

22 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

4.2.1 The Sample Groups Before addressing each approach, the author will firstly address the general sample groups used for each methodology in order to give the readers a comprehensive understanding of the participants’ demographics and cultural diversity - justifying them as a group that can represent the younger student generation in their countries. The dissertation has 3 different approaches and therefore 3 different sample groups were used. Each of these groups will be addressed more unambiguously within each relevant chapter.

In general, in order to compare the two cultures within a frame of a none-exciting budget and proximity, students of UNNC have been chosen. Both Chinese and British students are somewhat accessible at this international campus and within the timeframe it seems most convenient to use the resources available to the author.

The survey and the experiment were conducted in both English and Chinese in order to accommodate any given relevant participant. This was based on the statement of two scholars, Marshall and While (1994), that argue that not only does undertaking research on ESL speakers in English possibly compromise the validity and reliability of responses, but also that it “can further jeopardize the accuracy of interpretation” (Marshall and White, 1994:658). Furthermore, a third scholar, Harzing (2005), debated that researching participants in their second language, particularly surveys, can lead to elements of the participants’ culture within their answers being lost, and can “obscure important differences between our countries” (Harzing, 2005:222). Unfortunately, it was not a possibility, due to lack of Chinese language skills, to conduct the semi-structured interview in all participant’s native language(s), leaving the interview to be conducted entirely in English. Anyhow, to accommodate for this potential bias all participants were sent both questions and explanations of specific terms prior15 and were encouraged to ask if they did not understand what was going to be addressed, in order to limit bias.

15 Appendix 13 p. 95 - “Questions and Information Sheet for the Interviewee”

23 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

4.2.2 Quantitative Survey The main purpose of the survey is to gather relevant data that can be used to form the experiment. This being, locating questions were not only there are the most diverse ranking but also challenge the participants of the experiment when talking about it with each other. Ergo, questions that questions different personal norms and values that are to be tested if they are influenced by deindividuation in relation to their opinions when subject to the matter of the experiment. Thus, it is the objective of the author to find different questions where British and Chinese people, considering their diverse norms and values, have the biggest differences of opinion - differences not necessarily related to nationality. Correspondingly, it can prove crucial that the empirical data collected through the surveys will display different tendencies and opinions on a Likert scale and help to choose which valid and useful questions should be used in the experiment (Nardi, 2013). Conducting a survey is deemed an appropriate way of obtaining data as it is a "systematic questioning of a large number of people who normally constitute a representative sample of the relevant population" (Kruuse, 2007:271). The quantitative survey will greatly aid the objective since it is a “general term to include all methods of data collection in which each person is asked to respond to the same set of questions in a predetermined order” (Saunders et al., 2012:416). This will grant the author the means to draw a general conclusion based on any obtained tendency that can help further support the dissertation and the objective of reaching a conclusion while additionally help tailoring the experiment.

The selection criteria include Chinese as well as British UNNC students, age 18-28 years and of both sexes. To address this group, the survey was distributed among potential candidates by the means of a QR code among students on campus. Responders that did not fulfil the selection criteria were dismissed. This left the research with 147 Chinese and 74 British UNNC students.

The survey itself was divided into three parts16:

The first section, question 1-3 of the survey, was to ensure that the participants were part of the abovementioned sample group. The second section, question 4-26, entailed moral and ethical questions relating to the experiment, reflecting the participants’ norms and values,

16 Appendix 6 p. 30 - “The Quantitative Surveys”

24 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 placing them on a nominal scale from 1 to 10 (1 = a negative response, 10 = a positive response). The questions were designed with the purpose of making each respondent address ethical issues and personal norms and values by asking questions relating to i.e. beauty norms, abortions, untraditional behaviours and environmental issues.

Lastly, two additional questions17 were asked, as the general tendencies found in this data can prove useful in relation to a later discussion of data and findings.

4.2.2.1 Quantitative Survey Findings Relevant for the Experiment The main goal of the survey was to find the 10 questions with the biggest differences of opinion within each nationality in order locate the questions best suited to test the hypothesis within the experiment. As will be explain more explicitly in the designated chapter18 it is therefore important that the participants are faced with questions where they do not all have the same prior opinion. Thus, leaving no room to be influenced in the discussions by others opinions as it is in line. The following 10 questions demonstrated the biggest difference within each nationality and thus were selected as the scenarios to test deindividuation in the experiment:

1. On a scale, how likely are you to Photoshop, filters or use other means to make pictures of yourself (Like your Facebook or WeChat profile picture) more pretty? 2. On a scale, how likely are you to confront people if you have an issue with them? 3. On a scale, how annoying do you find it when your friends are on their phones (texting, reading, calling) when you are out having dinner with them? 4. On a scale, how funny do you find it when people, your age and you do not know, fall over on the street? 5. On a scale, how likely are you to buy drinks for your close friends on a night out? 6. How much would you respect a man in police uniform telling you to get down on your knees and put your hands behind your head (In this case you have done nothing wrong/No gun is pointed at you).

17 (27) Have you ever changed your opinion because of group pressure? (28) Have you ever changed your opinion because it could prove beneficial to the group you are part of? 18 P. 26 – “The Experiment”

25 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

7. On a scale, how would you rank the beauty of this person? 8. On a scale, how likely are you to date a person that is not consider beautiful by other people? 9. On a scale, how likely are you to fight in a war for the safety of your own country? 10. On a scale, how likely are you to abort a child, which you or your significant other is pregnant with, if it will be born autistic?

4.2.3 The Experiment The experiment’s main objective is to control a variable and through that study the probability of change. As already established, deindividuation occurs when certain situations causes people’s sense of themselves, both morally and ethically, to recede and they let themselves be influenced by the opinions and actions of other. In order to research if there are any differences in how British and Chinese students are affected, two conflicting hypotheses have been established. A null hypothesis that predicts that there will be no difference of significance and an alternative hypothesis that predicts that there is a significant difference or “relationship between the variables” (Saunders et al., 2012:174) as seen beneath:

H0: There is no difference between British and Chinese Students in terms of their levels of deindividuation

H1: There is a difference between British and Chinese Students in terms of their levels of deindividuation

4.2.3.1 The Experiment Design and Conduction This chapter will address the overall experiment design, sample group and discuss the depended variable.

The experiment is made up of different phases. These phases introduce the participants to a survey that is based on the findings of the surveys conducted in advance and entails some

26 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 questions that people tend to have various opinions about and arguably can reflect their own personal norms and values to certain things. In total, each participant is to answer the same survey 3 times, 10 questions in randomized order, and measurable changes in their rankings is to be recorded. These 10 questions were chosen based on the findings in the surveys and illustrated the 10 questions where there were the biggest differences of opinion within each nationality. This was done to limited the chance of bias. Had all participants been on the same opinion/ranking prior to the experiment they would not be any room to be influenced by others opinion as it is the same already.

However, in a classic experiment, which is used in this dissertation, one forms a group of participants and then randomly places them within an experimental group or a control group. The reason behind this is to limit the chances of bias by ensuring homogeneous groups where each participant has an equal chance of being placed within either the experiment or the control group.

Prior to this the 20 participants were divided into 4 groups, 2 Chinese and 2 British, each containing 5 participants leaving one control group per nationality. In the control group, no intervention was made. (Saunders et al., 2012:175)

The 20 participants were picked at random among the 23 people that took the survey and were willing to participate in the experiment within the designated timeframe. Likewise, their placement within the experiment groups was picked at random according to nationality. By doing so the author was left with 4 groups as illustrated:

27 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

To respect and assure anonymity to the participants, each were assigned with a gender- neutral pseudonym that reflects the group they were divided into.

In order to test the hypotheses, the dissertation introduces a variable that consists of an anonymous group chat discussion about the survey questions. Hence, the experiment introduces this 4th phases, different from the 3 phases entailing the same survey, between the first and second time they are to answer the surveys. This is done so in order to see if the participants of said group discussions are influenced by each other and in that case if it leaves a measurable difference in ranking to be evident in their individual survey results.

28 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

This phase, unique to the experimental groups and limited to one hour, asks of the participants to discuss each of the 10 questions, their own opinion, and the reason why they each rank the way they do. To ensure that discussion would occur the researcher introduced each question and asked if they as a group could agree upon a number. This was done, not to see if they could do just that, but to evoke a sense of group mentality within each group by giving them a task and a common goal. Nonetheless, the reason was for the participants to open up for a discussion about their own opinions and listen to the opinions of others.

Thus, phase 1 introduces a survey to all participants. On the same day, the 2 experimental groups are faced with the group chat discussion to be directly followed by the same survey that all participants will fill out yet again. One week later all participants will receive the survey again. Underneath the 4 phases are illustrated for a better and more comprehensive understanding:

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Same day Same day Same day 1 week later 5 British participants Survey Chat room discussion Survey Survey (Experimental) 5 British participants Survey Survey Survey (Control group) 5 Chinese participants Survey Chat room discussion Survey Survey (Experimental) 5 Chinese participants Survey Survey Survey (Control group)

The people in the control groups who were not exposed to phase 2 were assumed to display the same results in both phase 1, 3 and 4. The variable being that of an anonymous chat room discussion with people with the same cultural background. In these groups, they were to rank the 10 questions and discuss the different points of view. The goal of this was to see if the participants that were spectators and part of these discussions would change their own opinion when tested again in phase 3. This will display any possible loss of the sense of themselves, both morally and ethically, and show any influence by the opinion and actions of other, and may even illustrate to what extent. This leaves the results to mirror a change that

29 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 has occurred in opinions after being exposed to a group mentality. The purpose of phase 4 is to investigate whether any change in opinion is permanent or only occurs whilst being affected by the overall group mentality.

Succinctly, all 4 groups are to be tested within the same frame, leaving the dependent chat room variable to be tested through the surveys (Saunders et al., 2012:176). Thus, leaving the objective of the control group to function as a test where no intervention is made and no group discussion that potentially can affect the participants has occurred.

In this study the author used an online chat room due to a lot of existing research and the fact that the SIDE theory emphasizes that the transgression of general social norms results from the anonymity of the person within a group or a crowd, and that anonymity can amplify social influence if group identity is highly salient (Diener, 1980; postmes et al. 2001:1254; Chiou, 2006; Spears et al., 2001) 19. Thus, by using a setting were participants are highly anonymous the chances to create an atmosphere that, according to research, brings forth deindividuation is optimal. Based on the limited timeframe available to the author it seems fitting to use this as a tool to evoke a faster deindividuation, thus creating an atmosphere were potential changes are more evident in a short amount of time. This idea is further backed by Mann, Newton and Innes (1982), who proclaim that the deindividuation theory implies that anonymity provides a scenario wherein the individual is protected from “the social disapproval or rejection likely to follow from non-adherence to the norm” (Mann et al., 1982:261).

In an effort not to taint the results, no participants were aware of what group they were placed within, nor were they aware of what was being tested throughout the experiment. For the same reason as with the survey, both experiments were conducted in the language of the people it was addressed to.

19 Specified more thoroughly in the following appendix: Appendix 2 p. 6 - “The Role of Anonymity”.

30 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

4.2.4 Qualitative Semi-Structure Interview A qualitative semi-structured interview was planned with two Chinese and two Brits. This was in order to gain a different insight and gather more qualitative specific information and point of views on the matter. Thusly, it aimed to achieve a deeper understanding of the connection between society and deindividuation.

A semi-structured interview opens up for the possibility for the interviewer to control, dictate and direct the interview and adapt it accordingly to the respondent (Saunders et al., 2012:375). This often gives the interviewer the capability to omit some questions, add additional questions or even vary the way the questions are asked or being presented (Myers, 2013:123) and additionally the possibility to “explore in depth a general area in which you are interested” (Saunders et al., 2012:375; Rubin, 2012:50), which was deemed relevant in relation to the objective.

The objective of the survey was to gain qualitative data and investigate the individuals’ opinion on two matters: Deindividuation and cultural differences. Thus, the questions of the Interview were divided into two sections. First section entailed asking the interviewee about their own perception of their culture and whether they viewed it as being collectivistic or individualistic. Second section made the interviewee speculate upon the matter of deindividuation and whether they believed their own culture as a whole to be influenced by it or not and to what extent. Being a semi-structured interview the questions were intended to open up discussion and through that investigate deindividuation more thoroughly given each participants individual personality. In doing so it opens up for the possibility to like each answer, based on each participant, to the hypotheses and take into account potential cultural nuances.

31 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

The interview was conducted after the experiment and involved 4 participants, 2 Brits and 2 Chinese, entailing UNNC students which fulfil the same selection criteria as in the initial survey, each group consisting of one female and one male participant. As evident below the assigned pseudonym is added.

SBF - Female, 21- year-old, British Student at UNNC. SBM - Male, 19-year-old, British Student at UNNC SCF - Female, 20-year-old, Chinese Student at UNNC

SCM - Male, 19-year-old, Chinese Student at UNNC

Each participant was chosen at random and was to have no relation to the previous experience with the research in order to bring in participants with no knowledge of what was being investigated. Twenty minutes were set aside for each interview in order to accommodate for the time schedule of the participants. Moreover, all interviews were planned and conducted on the same day to prevent the possibility of participants discussing the matter in private and influencing each other.

32 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

5. Findings and Discussion This chapter will reflect the analytic process that seeks to support or dispute the hypothesis seen below:

•

H1: There is a difference between British and Chinese Students in terms of their levels of deindividuation

This hypothesis is based on the findings in the literature review chapter20 that suggested that there should be a difference in how two different nationalities, a collectivistic and an individualistic society, is influenced by deindividuation. An expression that describes the effects of a crowd or group on the behaviour of an individual where said individual adjusts to the opinion of the group and starts to act differently from how they would on their own. Essentially, the individual’s conscious personality fades, and the group’s unconscious personality prevails (Le Bon, 2009, 2014)21.

If there is indeed a significant difference in how the different nationalities are affected, it can prove a vital tool in order to adjust communication to larger groups within each respective culture and provide a foundation that can inspire other – bigger – research on the matter.

This was sought investigate through a mixed-method approached that combined surveys, interviews and an experiment. Despite the chronological order of the methods22 only the survey and experiment occurs in this orders whilst the general findings of the interview are weaved into context in general as it main purpose was to provide qualitative data to be related to the more quantitative findings.

20 P. 9 - “Literature Review” 21 P. 9 - “Definition of Deindividuation” 22 Survey ! Experiment ! Interview

33 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Both main theories, Hofstede (2016) and Hall (1976), presented within the literature review focus on the differences between collectivistic and individualistic societies. It was sought, through a qualitative survey and interviews, to paint a more nuanced picture, as both Hall and Hofstede seems to have a very black and white outlook, of course displaying a simplification of real life. The key points of said literature viewed Chinese as being more prone to value the group, juxtaposing against British people, who tend to value the individual – illustrated by Hofstede in the scores given on his individualistic matrix and Hall on his idea on high and low context societies23.

The survey introduced 2 quantitative questions24 to see and compare the opinions of the two different nationalities in relation to group interaction. This, in order to see if it would fit the theory presented & if the sample group to be used for all research fit the pattern. Indeed, there is a slight tendency pointed towards Chinese being more prone to changed opinion either because of group pressure or to benefit the overall group.

Firstly, the survey found that 10.7% more Chinese responders have changed their opinion under group pressure but even more interestingly, 6.4% more of the Chinese responders have changed their opinion because it was beneficial for the group. Extraordinary, however, is that both nationalities seem to, at one point or another, gone to some greater extent to value the group over their own opinion. Inherently, this paints a bit more of a nuanced picture of the difference between the two cultures. This is to say that the differences are not, at least in this example, too noteworthy. However, in relation to the validity of the test, it is important to

23 Appendix 1 p. 3 - “Individualistic vs Collectivistic Societies Scale & High/Low Context Societies” 24 Q: (27)”Have you ever changed your opinion because of group preasure?” & (28)”Have you ever changed your opinion because it could prove beneficial to the group you are part of?”

34 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 note that, the Chi Square statistic for both questions show that the relationship between ethnicity and participant responses is not significant25. In sum, this links in with the interviews where common patterns and characteristics where located suggesting a tendency towards the Chinese being collectivistic than the British Students. This is evident in the interview on different levels. First off, if we look at both Chinese participants, SCM and SCF both agreed to great extents that they both felt like a product of their nation and viewed themselves as highly collectivistic. An example of this is SCF who explain how her father raised her to “be selfless which in some ways should put group interest above my own.”26 And that Chinese people from her perspective are “… taught to put group interests over our own interests (…) when we are in a group, we don’t tend to go out of our way to reach something like just for ourselves (.) we tend to put the group’s aim first”27. In general she provided proclaimed, there is a strong desire to not damage the group harmony, which falls perfectly in line with the theories that debated that Chinese people do not wish to “lose face” or upset the status quo of the group. Nonetheless, she is still open to the suggestion that it is very much based on the individual and how they go about life and was taught to live in regards to morals and values. She, especially, claims to be raised with very traditional Chinese parents that are admired in their own community and due to their values their selfless actions of putting the group’s needs above their own. SCF sees this as a strong lesson as it has helped her better manoeuvre in a Chinese environment despite the fact that she see a loss of herself in it; “… the whole problem of the collectivistic society is that people tend to hold their own desire back. We don’t we don’t get taught to speak for ourselves or express our opinions”28.

Brit SBM also seem to fit the label as he, with his British background, sees himself as being highly individual and raised that way by both parents and society. If anything he concluded that from his experience29 that “English society it is more individualistic”30. Ergo, viewing England as a highly individualistic society and through examples he displays how, for instance, the school tells students to “be selfish”31, which is not being questioned by

25 (X2 = 3.21. p > .05) (X2 = 2.12 p > .05). - Appendix 6 p. 63 - “Survey Results”. 26 Appendix 14 p. 111 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews” 27 Appendix 14 p. 110 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews” 28 Appendix 14 p. 111 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews” 29 International British Student at University of Nottingham’s Chinese Campus in Ningbo. Thus, lived in China for a year. 30 Appendix 14 p. 106 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews” 31 Appendix 14 p. 106 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews”

35 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 individuals and by that it becomes an acceptable part of society. If anything, compared to China, where the subject has spent almost a year, he would say that English people by far are the more individualistic counterpart as evident in the following quote: “they [Chinese] always say ‘oh look out for uh others as well’ as well as yourself so yeah I think it is [England] more individualistic as well like look out for your own grades and your own” 32.

Ironically, Chinese SCF points out that she was raised to “be selfless”33 were as Brit SBM points out he was raised to “be selfish”34. Clear points that tie in with Hofstedes’ (2016) collectivistic/individualistic matrix, where one of the distinct differences between the two cultures are just that: Look out for the individuals’ interest vs. look out for the groups’ interest.

Contradictorily to SBM, the odd one out is SBF, who is strongly opposed to these strict labels as she views Great Britain as generally “very collectivistic “35. SBF is firmly against the beliefs that England is an individualistic society: “disagree I completely disagree I could not disagree more”36. On the contrary, she sees it as being high collectivistic and points to the political structure of her country as an example. She sees herself as highly collectivistic and points to the way she was raised among 3 siblings with close proximity to her age and further states that “It is just important to consider other people before (.) you consider yourself37”. Regardless, she does agree that no two individuals are raised the same way and knows British people with a completely different outlook on the matter than her. Thus, she is also the one that makes it evident that it can prove a dangerous task to view the world as black and white and group a whole nation together as not everyone falls, in their own opinion, within these categories. This becomes apparent in her as she also pointed out that she is a stronger believer that “everyone is raised really really differently, like, I know people [British] that have completely different outlooks than me”38. Her opinion and point of view falls within the critique points of the theories as proposed by the author, through that claiming these theories to be a bit too black and white.

32 Appendix 14 p. 107 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews” 33 Appendix 14 p. 110 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews” 34 Appendix 14 p. 106 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews” 35 Appendix 14 p. 99 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews” 36 Appendix 14 p. 99 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews” 37 Appendix 14 p. 100 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews” 38 Appendix 14 p. 100 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews”

36 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Despite a tendency pointing towards the collectivistic and individualistic characteristics, it is also important to note that no individual is alike and, again, it can prove a dangerous task to group a whole nation together - especially two such immense cultures. The world tends not to be that black and white and as both cultures is made up of millions and millions of individuals that are raised, influenced and react differently. This is especially true given the advancement of the Internet and the global society that it introduces, which overall became apparent through both surveys and interview. In the case with the survey despite a difference in percentages, the results are still fairly similar, though with a tendency of favouring the Chinese Students to be more collectivistic. Likewise, with the Interview there were some participants that argued against their collectivistic label (SBF) or pointed out that it was a more individual pattern than a social and national pattern (SCF).

Succinctly, based on the interviews and survey, it can prove somewhat safe to assume that there is a difference between British and Chinese students at UNNC, and that one is more collectivistic (Chinese) and one is more individualistic (British). However, it is interesting to address the fact that it seems that both Chinese and British participants are somewhat influenced by the collectivistic norms and values. but the British is just ‘less’ collectivistic than the Chinese.

It can be argued that key findings in the preceding research on the matter of deindividuation, despite is lack of control on variables, still points towards the fact that people are indeed affected to some extent by the people that they are group together with. Not only does both Zimbardo (1973) and Milgram (1963) but also Marting Lea’s et al. (2001) SIDE theory all addressed and sought to investigate to what extent this happens, and in some cases why. It is suggested that an individual in a deindividuated situation prioritizes the group’s social desirability, as most prominently proposed by the SIDE. Nonetheless, this thesis focus point is if there is an evident difference between British and Chinese Students in the level of deindividuation. Based on the interviews, it can quickly be determined that all participants, regardless of nationality, feel as if they have experienced and even been affected by deindividuation in one form or another. Brit SBF explains that she encounter it on a regular

37 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 basis but states that this obviously is not a bad thing unlike the Stanford Prison Experiment in every case. The same sorts of answers are evident within both of the Chinese interviewee as they also state to encounter it in their daily life. Likewise, Brit SBM does see it happening around him all the time, especially growing up. The grounds for this, according to SBM, beautifully described it as: people would rather join the mentality of the group, despite it being against their own morals and values, than facing being excluded from the group. Debatably, he makes a very valid point because arguably no human likes to feel left behind or discarded from the group. He might even presented a very valid point as this correlates with some of the arguments from the participants of the Zimbardo’s prison experiment, petrified to being on the opposite “team” of the guards, excluded from the group. Subsequently, all interviewees despite nationality, does proclaim to encounter deindividuation in their daily life. This relates back to the findings of the survey as it equally points towards the fact that within both nationalities there is a significant high number of respondents that are prone to changed their opinion due to group pressure or to accommodate the interest of the groups.

Unlike Zimbardo (1973) and Milgram’s (1963) famous experiments, the experiment conducted in relation to this dissertation did not consider or investigate peoples’ obedience to an authority figure or have the resources to place participants in a position where they had to do things conflicting with their personal conscience, even though it would have been an ideal set-up. Instead, it focused on how an anonymous group chat discussion with students from their own nationality could affect their own perception of matters presented to them in form of surveys. It sought to investigate if they indeed became effected by the group’s opinion(s) and if the subconsciously changed their own norms and values in exchange in relation to the fact that Le Bon (2009, 2014) argues deindividuation as the loss of self-awareness and a commitment to the groups that make their conscious personality fade and courses the groups norms to prevails (Le Bon, 2009; Le Bon, 2014). Consequently, and in relation to experiment, the authors has placed the findings of each of the experimental groups within two identifiable tables with the aim to display what each of the 5 participants answered in each of the 3 surveys they were faced with doing the 4 phases and changes that might have occurred. Note: The control group served their purpose and the findings shows that there were more people that changed their ranking in the groups that had participated in the group discussion – effectively, proving that the variable had some sort of effect. However, in the appendix it is

38 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 possible to view the 2 similar tables for the control groups to validate this or to locate individual assigned tables to view a more individual comprehensible version39.

Accordingly, each of the following 2 tables will be addressed and important findings will be highlighted. To clarify the table it is worth noting that the first column signifies each participants and their designated pseudonym, each of the following columns each signifies one of the 10 questions leaving each vertical line to represent how each participants ranked that question in each of the 3 phases – one cell, 3 numbers, each one a ranking40. As recalled, the group discussion, phase 2, happened between first and second number in each box. In consequence, if the ranking has changed by 2 numbers the numbers have been made bold. For ranking that has changed more than 2 the numbers, they will be both bold and underlined.

39 Appendix 10 p. 77 - “Experiment Results” 40 #-#-# ! # (phase 1) – # (phase 3) – # (phase 4)

39 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

To all appearances, there are more bolded numbers, displaying significant change in opinion, in the table displaying the Chinese findings: Each of the Chinese has at least 2 questions each to which their opinions changed significantly, unlike the British. Here, 2 people (B1, B4) haven’t changed their opinion considerably at any questions, backed up by B1’s own statement after the experiment claiming that, “From what I remember I think my answers are the same. What others have said hasn't as far as I am aware of have changed my mind”41.

At first glance, these tables might be hard to comprehend which is why each participant will first be analysed individually followed by a deeper discussion, analysis and a comparison between the findings within each nationality. Prior to this it is important to take notice of the fact that, in the following tables, the ranking for the surveys from phases 1, 3 and 4 are illustrated in the vertical columns, signifying what number survey its addressed and questions are horizontally displayed.

41 Appendix 10 p. 84 - “Experiment Results”

40 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

As previously discussed both 1B and 4B had no significant change over the course of the 4 phases. All the rankings are pretty much consistent which might bear witness to the fact that nothing has been influenced and they did not at any point change their opinion, norms or values in relation to the questions asked, despite be subdued to a group discussion with other Brits.

2B, 3B and 5B can be grouped together because they are of similar results and significance. Despite the fact B3 is one of the British participants who had the most significant change in ranking over the course of the experiment, it is evident in all three participants that if their ranking changed after the group discussion, it became more permanent as the number between phase 3 and 4 are the same. This is where their similarities are apparent. Corroborating the fact that the change is more likely due to logical thinking of other participants as discussed in the potential bias chapter42, not deindividuation as is manifested in the following quote by B3: “It made me reflect on why I made those choices…”43. This matter will be discussed more vigorously in the chapter following the individual participants’ analysis, as it is vital in relation to drawing a conclusion.

42 P. 48 - “Potential Bias” 43 Appendix 10 p. 84 - “Experiment Results”

41 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

1C is the one participant with most changes, as she is showing a significant change in half of the questions, most noteworthy question 7-10 each time seemingly pooling more towards the average of the group. She seems aware that her rankings has changed slightly but explain it by claiming that: “From the discussion with others, I found something I hadn't thought of before, so I changed some ideas”44. But that doesn't explain why in some cases the raking reversed back to original number as evident in question 10, that reversed back to original ranking despite the opinion having changed over 5 points after the group discussion. However, much like with 2B, 3B and 5B, some of the results are changed somewhat permanently after the group discussion (Question 8-9).

Based on the ranking of 2C, the person seems very opinionated as most rankings are in either ends of the scale or utterly neutral. A tendency does become slightly apparent in question 3 and 9 where the person seems to have changed the opinion more permanently after the group discussion both time to mirror the opinion of the other participants more. Much like 1C, 3B and 5B the change in opinion seems lastingly.

3C depict herself as having a strong personal opinion and is not likely to be influenced by anyone45. However, she has the biggest change in ranking among all participants, changing a ranking from 2 to 8 in relation to question 10 and jumping right straight back to her original ranking a week later after arguably not being influenced by the group chat to same great extent anymore. Could this prove that she was indeed influenced by the group to such an extent that her own personal norms and values changed to reflect the group’s overall opinion(s) instead of her own personal one(s)? Possibly, it is very remarkable that this person had such a significant change and yet changed it back the moment she had not just been influenced by other Chinese people. This will be discussed more in the following paragraph along with other participants

44 Appendix 10 p. 84 - “Experiment Results” 45 Appendix 10 p. 84 - “Experiment Results”

42 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 displaying same tendency and participants not displaying this tendency and what this might mean in relation to the hypothesis.

4C is mildly influenced in a few cases and did provide an insight into this, stating that despite being aware that other people have other opinions, it does not “mean that I will change”46. Nonetheless, significant change has occurred, were rankings have changed to mirror the more general opinion of the group.

One of the most interesting participants of the research: 5C has also had significant change in ranking over the course of the 4 phases. Most notably is the 5C’s tendency to change the opinion after group discussion, question 4-5, but then reverse back to the original ranking a week later, like some of the other Chinese participants, 1C & 3C, but not notably in any cases with the Brits. Does this reflect that the opinion has indeed been affected at a point in time and due to the circumstance in the anonymous chat room to match the groups over all opinion? This will be addressed in the following paragraph as it could prove a key point in relation to reaching a conclusion.

In relation to the statements they were all asked to provide at the end, it is interesting to note that unlike the British participants, Chinese participants, specifically 1C and 5C, were keener to listen to the rest of their group members and change their opinion based on what other people thought and expressed as evident in the following quote by 5C:

“If someone else's view of the problem is justified and I am willing to accept it, then I will change my view”47

46 Appendix 10 p. 84 - “Experiment Results” 47 Appendix 10 p. 84 - “Experiment Results”

43 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Both also happen to be the 2 people that changed their rankings the most significantly in either scales. It can be disputed that this is an evidence of the collectivistic way of thinking, both eager to listen to the group and confine in order so as not disturb the harmony, as they are more prone to just be ‘willing to accept it’, ‘change my view’ and “… changed some ideas”48.

There are two important and remarkably things to take from the participants’ individual analysis: Opinion might have changed after the group discussion, subsequently leading to one of two scenarios:

1 Continuing with the new – after chat room – ranking 2 Reversing back to original – pre chat room – ranking

If we look at option 1, that group discussion might simply have influenced the opinion in a logical way by other participants pin-pointing things participants said they had not taken into account, and thus has been showing another way of reading said questions. By this, changing their original ranking was not due to deindividuation but more likely due to common sense and logic. This is evident in this statement from one of the participants: “From the discussion with others, I found something I hadn't thought of before, so I changed some ideas”49. It was also evident in how the ranking that changed, changed in what seems to be a permanent manner. The second scenario is the interesting one, as they changed their opinion after the group discussion but reversed back a week later whilst not being under the influence of the variable anymore. It can be expostulated that those people, at that point in time, have compromised with their own norms and values in order to reflect the more common opinion within the group. Thus, in theory, they have been affected by deindividuation as it can be disputed that deindividuation only affects people when they are part of the group and would result in them reversing back to their original norms and values once no longer being affected by said group. This theory is backed up by the findings in Zimbardo’s (1973) experiment, where the moment the experiment stopped, the people went back to follow their own values and norms again

48 Appendix 10 p. 84 - “Experiment Results” 49 Appendix 10 p. 77 - “Experiment Results”

44 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 and were not permanently changed for the worse/better. In fact, many felt ashamed of how the group dynamic had changed them and their individual values and norms. In order to accommodate this point of view, the tables below display participants who reversed back to their original ranking, underlined, omitting those who changed opinion seemingly permanently.

It is striking that this tendency only occurs in Chinese participants. This makes the Chinese participants the only participants that, when participating in a group discussion and at that moment in time, compromised their own norms and values but reversed back to original ranking after not being influenced by the group anymore. It might not have occurred all that

45 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 much all together and only in relation to a few questions, but this scenario [2] did nevertheless occur within 3 different Chinese participants and in contrast to no British participants. Prominently, as discussed, 1C and 5C were also the ones who came out sounding most collectivistic based on their personal statements after the experiment. Additionally, this ties in with the majority of the interviewees’ opinions that Chinese people would indeed be more affected despite both Brits and Chinese, in their own opinion, being affected by it. An aspect all respondents agreed upon: If anything, the more collectivistic one is the more prone they are to be affected. Nonetheless, still stating that both cultures, no matter how individualistic or collectivistic they are, still are affected. Essentially Brit SBF, bear in mind she was also the one who does not see herself as individualistic but rather collectivistic, characterised deindividuation as a collectivistic way of thinking. Baring this in mind, it can be debated if that means she thinks people who are generally more collectivistic are more liable to be affected. Stating that “… I’m always compromising what I think to other people, which is fine like I literally have zero issues with that like (.) My opinions come from the people around me … 50”. Debatably confirming that, from her point of view, collectivistic people are more prone to change their opinion based on the group norms as they are less self-involved. Likewise, both male participants, Brit SBM and Chinese SCM, agree that people who are more prone to a collectivistic mind-set are more affected by it. Further backed by Chinese student SCM who does see himself as being highly influenced by the mentality of the group that surrounds him at a given point. At first glance, Chinese SCF is more or less of the same opinion but does go on to explain how she think it is more about what type of individuals that make up the group that influence you than it is if you yourself are of a collectivistic or individualistic mind-set. Given the specific situation it might affect one nationality more than another, but it’s all very much related to the group of people. In relation to this it is relatively interesting to discuss that, however, she does identify her and her landsmen as highly collectivistic. Needless, she argues that Brits and Chinese are affected in the same manner from her point of view. This is especially interesting as she, by doing this, also argues against the hypothesis of the thesis and dismisses it. She believes that given the specific situation, it might affect one nationality more than another but it’s all very much related to the group of people. In sums, she does believe deindividuation to occur but think it affect Brits and Chinese to the same

50 Appendix 14 p. 102 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews”

46 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 extent depending on the individual. This is very much the same argument SBF used in relation to not view her whole nation as neither nor [collectivistic or individualistic] by, without knowledge of the investigated literature and theory, drawing on the flaws and potential bias of said research and their overall tendency to view it as either black and white - obviously presenting a simplification of the truth or reality of the matter. Nevertheless, all of this provides vital insight into the general idea that collectivistic people - who in a simplified world Chinese people are, more so than British - are more susceptible to be affected. Tying in with the former patterns found in the experiment that does argue in favour of a difference in how the two nationalities are affected and that collectivist Chinese are more prone to be influenced.

Thus, a pattern becomes evident over the course of all three studies:

Collectivistic cultures such as with China are more prone to be affected by deindividuation, than a country less collectivistic. This was particular evident in the two Chinese participants of the experiment, specifically 1C and 5C, who were the only two subject that displayed signs of being influenced by deindividuation in the experiment and additionally both displayed signs of being the most collectivistic participants as they both seemed keener to listen to the rest of their group members and change their opinion based on what other people thought and expressed. Correlating with the ideas that more collectivistic nationalities are more prone to be influenced by deindividuation which. This also became evident in both survey and interview findings.

47 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

6. Potential Bias

The following chapter will address potential bias within each of the 3 adopted approaches. This is done in the subsequent chapters. Overall, however, it is important to note some common aspects that can have tainted the results. Additionally, it addresses the appraisal of the reflections on the mixed method approach (Plano et al., 2016).

• Sample Group Bias

Scholars argue that the sample groups and their personal schedule can generate different results based on when the surveys are taken place (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). Given that the sample group is students that at this given time were struggling with deadlines, it might have affected the reliability of the results as their behaviour and commitment might have been affected by external influences. Males and females can also, based on gender, have different outlooks that have been omitted, as they, in the survey, are grouped into one. All participants are students more or less within the same age group and cannot possibly display the population at large – especially China, which is both an immense country and a huge population. Moreover, the participants are all students at an international campus, possibly arguing that they are highly affected by other cultures and could not properly reflect their own culture as a whole. The results may also suffer from a truth-bias based on the fact that there is no preventing that the participants lie in any of the 3 methodologies.

• Social Desirability Bias

It is worth keeping in mind as people sometimes answer questions with a subconscious want to please and give what is viewed as the social desirability response (Kaminska & Foulsham, 2013:1). This is also evident in research psychologist Peter Gray and Susan Whitbourne undertook, which proclaimed that participants in psychological experiments are more likely to do what they believe the researchers want them to do (Gray, 2013; Whitbourne, 2013). This results in data/findings that might not reflect what the participants would actually do in the real world. To prevent this, the researcher tried to remain anonymous, not provide the

48 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 participants of any knowledge of what was being investigated, as well as having as little contact as possible with participants doing the experiment and surveys. This was of course impossible when conducting the interview for obvious reasons.

• Small Scale of Study/Sample Size

It is important to remember that in all 3 approaches the small sample sizes will largely affect the reliability of the study and cannot be viewed as representative of their general populations. In either case, it may show tendencies that can be further potential future research.

• Lost in Translation

Regardless of the effort to present each survey and the experiment in participant’s own language some things are bound to be lost in translation. Additionally, each question or task might have been interpreted by each nationality differently, potentially affecting the decoding phase.

6.1 The Survey The issue with using a Likert scale is that it can be culturally-biased as it tends to be more intuitive for native English speakers (Flaskerud, 1988:185), and Asian respondents “are more likely to exhibit a mild response style” (Dolnicar and Grün, 2007:139) on these scales.

It was decided to use the numbers from 1 to 10 in order to better measure small changes in the opinions. Nevertheless, it might have backfired as it can results in respondent fatigue, “a well-documented phenomenon that occurs when survey participants becomes tired of the survey task” (Lavrakas, 2008), resulting in the data to deteriorate. Additionally, there is a chance that the respondents have interpreted the scale in different ways, which is amplified by the number of potential answered used.

49 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

6.2 The Experiment Unfortunately, when conducting an experiment like this there is a lot of variables that might affect the reliability, and based on the resources and timeframe the author did try her best to avoid them having too much implication on the results. Regrettably, this did not pan out in the expected way and the results are presumably affected by potential bias that is to be listed and shortly describe beneath:

• It can be argued that the timeframe for the online discussions was too short. This is manifested in a statement from one of the participants: “there were only five of us. So like it still feels quite individual during the discussion. It’s not like a group thing”51. As a consequence, not enough time was implemented to make people feel like a group – a fatal flaw. Using less questions or even a different approach as described in later chapter52 could have prevented this. When the whole feeling of a group mentality is lacking so is, some would say, the chance of individuation consequently making the whole experiment obsolete (Le Bon, 2009; Le Bon, 2014). Moreover, the group size might have played another major part. As previously stated, it is known that if participants are anonymous, there is a bigger chance that deindividuation might occur and Kugihara (2001) argued that the larger the group size, the higher degree of anonymity is expected (Kugihara, 2001:575). In essence, a bigger group and longer timer could perhaps have produced more valid data that reach better statistical significance. Because if the individual participants would consider the group important and make themselves identify with that group then, according to Kugihara, they are more likely to conduct themselves according to the exacting norms set by the group at question (Kugihara, 2001). In this way, the salience of the group encourages an individual to identify with the group and to conform his or her behaviour to group norms. The lack of group sensation could keep some participants bigotry at heart.

51 Appendix 14 p. 113 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviewes” 52 P. 41 - “Alternative Approaches and Recommendations for Research”

50 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

• Doing the group chat they might have been presented to a logical string of thoughts they had not thought of themselves or another participants changed how they perceived the question. Through this, they may have changed their answers but not due to deindividuation. This is evident in this statement from one of the participants: “From the discussion with others, I found something I hadn't thought of before, so I changed some ideas”53.

• As the experiment was trying to mirror the “real life” of each participant, they have been exposed to various external and uncontrollable variables that might have influenced them during the process.

• Despite effort to avoid this, some participants might have had roughly the same opinion to begin with, in such a way, that there was no need to conform to the groups’ general opinion. Sadly, the author had to use those participants available to her at the time, and could not take this into much consideration.

• Pilot testing the experiment could have prevented a lot of these biases and properly changed the experiment for the better. However, unlike with the interview and the survey, unfortunately it was not possible to conduct one of these due to the time schedule of relevant participants.

Due to some issues with reaching statistical significance, the author sought to prevent confirmation bias when discussion and analysing upon the experiment data.

6.3 The Interviews To overcome the previously stated bias in relation to translation, the participants were indeed provided with an information sheet prior54, as evident in the transcript55. Nonetheless some

53 Appendix 10 p. 77 - “Experiment Results” 54 Appendix 13 p. 95 - “Questions and Information Sheet for the Interviewee” 55 Appendix 14 p. 97 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews”

51 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017 participants, SCM in particular, had failed to read this preceding the interview, which highly influenced the quality of said interview. In general, there seemed to be a slight problem for the participants with understanding the term of collectivistic or individualistic society. Retrospectively the author should, like with the term individuation (that was explained in the information sheet), have gone to greater extent to explain those terms as well. An example of this is SBF that states that “For people to say like Britain is individualistic like to me it has connotations that it’s selfish”56 - had the term been properly explained she might not have seen it as such a negative thing and might easier have identified with it as its not necessarily a bad thing. In retrospect, some of the questions could have been slightly leading which could be the case for Question 157. Ideally it should have been worded more neutrally and less leading so as to prevent acquiescence bias (Rabin & Schrag, 1999:38).

56 Appendix 14 p. 105 - “Transcript of the Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews” 57 Appendix 13 p. 95 - “Questions and Information Sheet for the Interviewee”

52 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

7. Alternative Approaches & Recommendations for Research This chapter will reflect on the chosen methodology and address the consequences of the approaches and what alternative methods could have been used.

• Quantitative and Qualitative Survey The survey could have been utilized in a different way, focusing more on gaining data to prove or disprove the hypothesis through both quantitative and qualitative means, rather than gathering information mainly to be used in the experiment. This could presumably have provided the author with a more quantifiable data.

• Interviews Another method that is already used but could have been exploited differently as a means of collecting data is interviews. An extended version of the in-depth interviews could create a better understanding of different cultural perspectives. Notwithstanding, due to the limited time frame, the author only had the time to conduct 4 minor interviews. No doubt that had the interviews been longer, more important and specific information could have been achieved.

• Observations Retrospectively, there is undoubtedly better ways to have gone about testing deindividuation in the two different nationalities. Had the funding, time and possibility been presented to the author, an observation, on a larger field-based scale, could have proven less biased with a better chance to control variables and more genuine data could plausibly have been produced. Contrary, potential variables could likewise have been hard, if not harder, to keep a track off (Saunders et al., 2012:176). Resultantly, it could have been a genuine and alternative way of approaching data collection that could have been used.

53 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

• Experiment Despite issues with keeping track of variables and some compromises that was necessary due to timeframe, resources, and participants it does not rule out this specific method as a way of collecting proper data. A series of other experiments could have taken with different approaches or duplicating already existing experiments. This could have tested it within the two nationalities, which could have provided the paper with data that could help concluding on the hypothesis. Unfortunately, the thesis potentially suffers as a consequence of the conducted experiment and its biases. In relation to the conducted experiment it would have proved quite interesting, and probably highly sufficient, to consider each participant and test how collectivistic and/or individualistic they felt/are as people.

54 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

8. Conclusion

Based on the critical literature review it became evident that there arguably is reason to believe that there is a difference in how the two cultures are affected by deindividuation. Thus, the thesis sought to investigate a hypothesis through the means of triangulation, consisting of surveys, an experiment and interviews.

The UNNC students from China, deemed to be more collectivistic by theorist, showed slight tendencies - within the experiment - towards being influenced by deindividuation juxtaposing British students. This pattern was likewise discovered within the quantitative survey were a greater number of Chinese students, compare to their British counterparts, were willing to conform and subdue to a groups general idea. Similar impression was provided by the qualitative interviews were interviewees argued that despite them all encountering deindividuation in their everyday life within their either collectivistic or individualistic societies, they do in fact believe that the more of a collectivistic mind-set a person has the more prone they are to be affected and/or influenced by deindividuation. The latter statement can be tied back to the experiment where it was also found that the two participants that displayed the most collectivistic mindset, based on their personal statements, were the two subject that was influenced the most by deindividuation. Correlating, with the ideas that more collectivistic nationalities are more prone to be influenced by deindividuation as they strive to maintain the groups’ harmony and place the group higher than the individual, conforming easier to the mindset of the group as a unit, be it consciously or subconsciously, and loyalty to a cohesive group is of importance. Noteworthy however, is the fact that the world is not as black and white as this research suggest and readers should bear in mind that, being that each culture is made up of millions of individuals, it can be hard to group them together as one unit and view each nationality to be the same and fall within a pre-specified group.

In conclusion, the methodology did firstly find evidence that suggest a cultural difference between the cultures and moreover showed a very slight tendency towards the fact that Chinese students from a collectivistic society were more likely influenced by deindividuation arguably because they are more prone to compromise their own norms and values based on the group dynamic.

55 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Worth mentioning however, is that a bigger sample size could benefit the dissertation and create a better and more explicit insight into the matter. Thus, it is recommended that more research is conducted on the matter in order to draw a proper conclusion and support of the hypothesis whilst bearing in mind that the world is not as simplified as this dissertation thrives to make it. More research on the matter could prove important as the basic for developing more explicit communication tool as a more precise understanding of how deindividuation effects collectivistic and individualistic societies can help communication specialists and international companies adjusting and adapting their communication strategies to different regions and nationalities of the world especially when communicating to groups at large or when using computer mediated technology or examining online electronic relationships.

56 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

9. Reference List 9.1 Bibliography

A

Adam (2011): “How the Internet Created an Age of Rage”. The Guardian URL:https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/24/internet-anonymity-trolling- tim-adams - Retrieved 21th of November 2016

Alleyne, Richard (2009): “Britain’s ‘me Culture’ Making us Depressed”. The Telegraph, Sciences News. URL:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/6514956/Britains-me- culture-making-us-depressed.html - Retrieved 22nd of May 2017

APA (2009): “More Shocking Results: New Research Replicates Milgram’s Findings”. American Psychological Association. URL:http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/03/milgram.aspx - Retrieved 24th of November 2016

B

Baskerville et al. (2005): “A Research Note: the Unfinished Business of Culture”. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Volume 30, Issue 4, May 2005

Barajas, Joshua (2016): “How the Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind”. PBS Newshour. URL:http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/how-the-nazis-defense-of-just-following- orders-plays-out-in-the-mind/ - Retrieved 27th of March 2017

57 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Beamer, Linda & Varner, Iris (2011): “Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace”. Fifth edition. McGraw-Hill International Edition

Blass, Thomas (1991): “Understanding Behavior in the Milgram Obidence Experiment: The Role of Personality, Situations, and Their Interactions”. Journal of Personaloty and Social Psychology. Vol. 60, No. 3, 198-4;3

Bon, Gustave Le (1996): “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind”. URL:http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/445 - Retrieved 24th of November 2016

Brockman et al. (2005): “You Can’t be a Sweet Cucumber in a Vinegar Barrel – a Talk With Philip Zimbardo”. Edge URL:https://www.edge.org/conversation/philip_zimbardo-you-cant-be-a-sweet-cucumber- in-a-vinegar-barrel - Retrieved 25th of November 2016

Bryman, Alan (2006): “Integrating Quantitative and Qulitative Research: How is it Done?”. Qulitative Research, 6(1).

C

Cesarani, David (2011): “Adolf Eichmann: The Mind of a War Crimial”. BCC – History. URL:http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/eichmann_01.shtml - Retrieved 27th of March 2017

Chan, Michael (2010): “The Impact of Email on Collective Action: a Field Application of the SIDE Model”. New Media Society, 12(8).

58 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Chang, Jenna (2008): “The Role of Anonymity in Deindividuated Behavior: A Comparison Deindividuation Theory and the Social Identity of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE)”. The Pulse: Volume 6, Issue 7. URL:http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=77099 - Retrieved 24th of November 2016

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1998): ”Foundation of Intercultural Communication”. Pearson

Cherry, Kendra (2015): “What is the Hawthrone Effect”. About Health URL:http://psychology.about.com/od/hindex/g/def_hawthorn.htm - Retrieved 25th of November 2016

Chin, Paul (2008): “Developing a Content Management System Strategy”. An Inter.com Project Management eBook. Jupiter Media Corp.

Chiou, W. B. (2006): “Adolescents’ Sexual Self-Disclosure on the Internet: Deindividuation and Self-Impression”. Adolescence, 41.

Cops, Billy (1999): ”A History of Brutality in Blue”. Revolutionary Worker #1013, July 4. URL:http://revcom.us/a/v21/1010-019/1013/philly.htm - Retrieved 27th of March 2017

CRCC Asia (2013): “China’s Industrial Revolution”. URL:http://www.crccasia.com/news/chinas-industrial-revolution/ - Retrieved 15th of August 2017

59 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

D

Defiesta, Nick (2011): “When Psychologists “Go Wrong””. Yale Daily News. URL:http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2011/09/28/when-psychologists-go-wrong/ - Retrieved 27th of March 2017

Denzin, N. (2000): “Handbook of Qualitative Research”. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Dervin, B., & Dewdney, P. (1986): “Neutral questioning: A new approach to the reference interview.” Research Quarterly

Diener et al. (1979): “Self-Awareness and Transfression in Children: Two Field Studies”. Pudmed. K Pers Soc Psychol. 1979 Oct;37(10):1835-46

Diener, E. (1980): “Deindividuation: The Absence of Self-Awareness and Self-Regulation in Group Members”. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence. Hillsdale URL:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/512839 - Retrieved 24th of November 2016

Dimow, Joseph (2004): ”Resisting Authority: A Personal Account of the Milgram Obedience Experiment”. 2004 issue of Jewish Currents.

Dolnicar, S. & Grün, B. (2007): “Cross-Cultural Differences in Survey Response Patterns”. International Marketing Review, 24(2): 127-143

60 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

E

Easterby-Smith (2008): ”Working with Pluralism: Determining Quality in Qualitative Research”. Organizational Research Methods 11(3)

Economist (2015): ”Police Brutality in Chicago – Dark Days”. URL:http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21649503-citys-police-have-yet-put- their-murky-past-behind-them-dark-days - Retrieved 28th of March 2017

F

Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952): “Some Consequences of Deindividuation in a Group”. Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 382-389.

Flaskerud, Jacquelyn H. (1988): “Is the Likert Scale Format Culturally Biased?”. Nursing Research: May/June 1988, Volume 37, Issue 3, 185-186.

Froholdt L.L & Knudsen F. (2007): “The Human Element in Maritime Accidents and Disaster – A Matter of Communication”. IMEC URL:http://www.imla.co/imec/FabienneKnudsen.pdf - Retrieved 20th of May 2017

G

Gray, Peter (2013): ”Why Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment Isn’t in My Textbook”. Psychology Today. URL:https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201310/why-zimbardo-s- prison-experiment-isn-t-in-my-textbook - Retrieved 28th of March 2017

61 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Guerin, B. (2003): “Social Behaviors as Determined by Different Arrangements of Social Consequences: Diffusion of Responsibility Effects with Competition”. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 313- 329.

H

Hall, Edward T. (1976): “Beyond Culture”. New York: Anchor Books.

Hall, Edward T., Hall, Mildred R. (1990): “Understanding Cultural Difference: German, French and Americans”. Consortium Book Sales & Dist.

Harzing, A. (2005): “Does the Use of English-Language Questionnaires in Cross-National Research Obscure National Differences?” International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 5 (2):213-224

History Learning (2015): ”Wilhelm Keitel”. URL:http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/military-commanders-of-world- war-two/wilhelm-keitel/ - Retrieved 28th of March 2017

Hofstede, Geert (1994): “Cultures and Organisations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance of Survival: Software of the Mind”. London, England: HarperCollins

Hofstede, Geert (2016): “What about China?”. Homepage. URL:https://geert-hofstede.com/china.html - Retrieved 22nd of May 2017

62 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

I

J

Jordan, Anna (2013): “Cultural Differences Between UK and China and their Implications on Offshore Team Management in China”. Reseach Metholodogy. URL:http://research-methodology.net/cultural-differences-between-uk-and-china-and-their- implications-on-offshore-team-management-in-china/ - Retrieved 22nd of May 2017

K

Kaminska, Olena, Foulsham, Tom (2013): “Understanding Sources of Social Desirability Bias in Different Modes: Evidence from Eye-tracking”. ESRC, Institute for Social & Economic Research. No. 2013-04, March 2013

Kiesler et al. (1992): “Group Decision Making and Communication Technology”. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 52, 96-123.1992-39104 -001

Kruuse, Emil (2007): “Kvantitative Forskningsmetoder – i Psykologi og Beslægtede Fag”. 6th edition. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag

Kugihara, N. (2001): “Effects of Aggressive Behaviour and Group Size on Collective Escape in an Emergency: A Test Between a Social Identity Model and Deindividuation Theory”. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40.

L

63 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Lavrakas, Paul J. (2008): “Encyclopedia of Survey Reseach Methods”. URL:http://methods.sagepub.com/reference/encyclopedia-of-survey-research- methods/n480.xml - Retrived 27th of July 2017

Le Bon, Gustav (2009): “Psychology of Crowds”. Sparking Books edition. Sparking Books.

Le Bon, Gustav (2014): “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind”. 2nd edition. Aristeus Books

Lee, Jussim et al. (2015): “Interpretations and methods: Towards a More Effectively Self- Correcting Social Psychology”. CrossMark. URL:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103115300032 - Retrieved 21th of May 2017

Leithead, Alastair (2011): “Stanford Prison Experiment Continues to Schock”. BCC News, San Francisco. URL:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-14564182 - Retrieved 28th of March 2017

Longhurst, Brian et al. (2008): “Introducing Cultural Studies”. Pearson Longman: Edinburgh.

Lustig, W. Myron & Koester, Jolene (2013): “Intercultural Competence – Interpersonal Communication Across Cultures”. Seventh edition. Pearson.

M

Magala Sławomir (2004): “Cross-Cultural Compromises, Multiculturalism and the Actuality of Unzipped Hofstede”. ERIM Report Series Research In Management.

64 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Mann, L., Newton, J. W., & Innes, J. M. (1982): “A Test Between Deindividuation and Emergent Norm Theories of Crowd Aggression”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42.

Mann, Brian (2016): “Reports of Prison Guards Brutality in New Work Draw a Harsh Spotlight”. NCPR. URL:http://www.npr.org/2016/10/20/498688702/reports-of-prison-guard-brutality-in- new-york-draw-a-harsh-spotlight - Retrieved 28th of March 2017

Marshall, S. & While, A. (1994): “Interviewing Respondents Who Have English as a Second Language: Challenges Encountered and Suggestions for Other Researchers.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 19(1)

McFarland Sam et al. (2007): “Revisiting the Standford Prison Experiment: Could Participant Self-Selection Have Led to the Cruelty?”. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007 May;33(5):603-14. Epub 2007 Apr. 17.

McSweeney, Brendan (2002): “Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: a Triumph of Faith—a Failure of Analysis”. Human Relations 55(1)

Milgram, S. (1963): “Behavioural Study of Obedience”. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67

Milgram, S. (1974): “Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View”. Harper Collins.

65 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Morris, M. (1996): “By Force of Arms: Rape, War, and Military Culture”. Duke Law Journal, 45(4).

Moss, Paul (2016): “British and Chinese: Divided by Culture?”. BBC news, The World Tonight. URL:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36280987 - Retrieved 22nd of May 2017

Myers, Micael D. (2013): “Qualitative Research in Business and Management”. 2nd Edition. University of Auckland

N

Nardi, Peter M. (2013): “Doing Survey Research - A Guide to Quantitative Methods”. 3rd Edition. Paradigm Publishers.

O

Osland, J.S. & Bird, A. (2000): “Beyond Sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural Sensemaking in Context”. Academy of Management Executive, Feb. 2000, Vol. 14 Issue 1.

Oxenham, Simon (2016): “Our Biases Get in the Way of Understanding Human Behavior”. New Scientist. URL:https://www.newscientist.com/article/2101466-our-biases-get-in-the-way-of- understanding-human-behaviour/ - Retrieved 21th of May 2017

P

66 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Perry, Gina (2013): “Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments”. The New Press.

Plano Clark et al. (2016): “Mixed Methods Research - A Guide to the Field”. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998): “Deindividuation and Antinormative Behavior; A Meta- Analysis”. Psychological Bulletin react-text: 53 123(3). May 1998 URL:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232560381_Deindividuation_and_Antinorm ative_Behavior_A_Meta-Analysis - Retrieved 5th of December 2016

Postmes, Tom et al. (2001): “Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effects of Anonymity on Group behavior”. SAGE Journals. URL:http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/01461672012710001 - Retrieved 21th of May 2017

Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1980): “Effects of deindividuating situational cues and aggressive models on subjective deindividuation and aggression”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 104–113.

Q

R

Rabin, Matthew & Schrag, Joel L. (1999): “First Impressions Matter: A Model of Confirmatory Bias”. President and fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Quarterly Journal of Economics.

67 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Reicher, S. D. et al. (1995): “A Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Phenomena”. URL:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240237685_A_Social_Identity_Model_of_Dei ndividuation_Phenomena - Retrieved 21th of May 2017

Reinecker, Lotte (2013): “The Good Paper”. 1st edition. Samfundslitteratur. Book.

Roeckelein, Jon (2006): “Deindividuation Theory”. Elsevier's Dictionary of Psychological Theories. Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V., 2006.

Rubin et al., (2012): “Qualitative Interviewing - The Art of Hearing Data”. 3rd Edition. Sage

S

Saunders et al. (2012): “Research Methods for Business Students”. 6th edition. Pearson

Social Science Statistic (2017): “Statistical Calculators”. URL:http://www.socscistatistics.com - Retrieved 4th of August 2017

Spears, Lea M., & de Groot, D. (2001): “Knowing me, knowing you: Anonymity effects on social identity processes within groups”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27. URL:http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167201275002 - Retrieved 21th of May 2017

68 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Standford Review (2016): “Zimbardo on the Nature of Man”. URL:http://stanfordreview.org/article/zimbardo-on-the-nature-of-man/ - Retrieved 5th of December 2016

Stokes, Jane (2013): “How to do Media and Cultural Studies”. 2nd edition. London:Sage

Sun, Tao et al. (2004): “Values and Lifestyles of Individualists and Collectivists: A Study on Chinese, Japanese, British and US Consumers”. Emerald Insight. URL:http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/07363760410549140 - Retrieved 22nd of May 2017

SurveyMonkey (2017) URL:https://www.surveymonkey.net - Retrieved 16th of February 2017

T

U

V

Vilanova, Felipe et al. (2016): “Deindividuation: From Le Bon to the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects”. Cogent Psychoogy, Volume 4, 2017 – Issue 1. URL:http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311908.2017.1308104 - Retrieved 18th of May 2017

W

69 Line Aagaard Nottingham University Ningbo August 23rd Zx22676 MA International Communication 2017

Whitbourne, Susan Krauss (2013): “The Secrets Behind Psychology’s Most Famous Experiment”. Psychology Today. URL:https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201301/the-secrets- behind-psychology-s-most-famous-experiment - Retrieved 28th of March 2017

X

Y

Z

Zimbardo et al. (1973): “Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison”. Department of Psychology, Stanford, California 94305, U.S.A.

Zimbardo Philip (2007): “The Lucifer Effect: Understading How Good People Turn Evil”. Randome House New York. 1st edition.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1969): “The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos” In W. D. Arnold, & D. Levine (Eds.) Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 237–307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

9.2 Filmography

Musen, Ken (1992): “Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment”. Documentary. 52 minutes.

Patrick, Kyle (2015): “The Stanford Prison Experiment”. July 17th 2015. Alcarez. 122 minutes. URL:http://www.ifcfilms.com/films/the-stanford-prison-experiment - Retrieved 28th of March 2017

70