Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Obedience

Obedience

According to obedience research, we may harm others under the forceful pressures of an authority figure (Milgram, 1974). How about if the inappropriate orders were delivered with less force? The increasing interdependence between nurses and physicians compelled Hofling and his colleagues to explore nurses’ reactions to a potentially harmful medical request made by the perceived authority figure, the doctor (Hofling, Brotzman, Dalrymple, Graves, & Pierce, 1966). In this situation, obedience...

Conformity

Conformity

Conformity is the change in a person’s behavior to go along with the group, even if that person does not agree with the group.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment

The famous and controversial Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by social psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues at Stanford University, demonstrated the power of social roles, social norms, and scripts.

Bystander Effect

Bystander Effect

The discussion of bullying highlights the problem of witnesses not intervening to help a victim. This is a common occurrence, as the following well-publicized event demonstrates. In 1964, in Queens, New York, a 19-year-old woman named Kitty Genovese was attacked by a person with a knife near the back entrance to her apartment building and again in the hallway inside her apartment building. When the attack occurred, she screamed for help numerous times and eventually died from her stab wounds.

Milgram's Obedience to Authority

Milgram's Obedience to Authority

Obedience to authority is classically demonstrated in a more famous series of social psychology experiments performed by Stanley Milgram. He was a social psychology professor at Yale who was influenced by the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi war criminal. Eichmann’s defense for the atrocities he committed was that he was “just following orders.”

Deindividuation

Deindividuation

Deindividuation is a form of social influence on an individual’s behavior such that the individual engages in unusual or non-normal behavior while in a group setting. Why? Because in these group settings, the individual no longer sees themselves as an individual anymore, disinhibiting their behavior and personal restraint.

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Opportunities to Strengthen the National Disaster Medical System: The Military-Civilian NDMS Interoperability Study.

Health security·2022

Same author

Factors Associated with Continued Food Insecurity among Households Recovering from Hurricane Katrina.

International journal of environmental research and public health·2018

Same author

Public health aspects of nuclear and radiological incidents.

American journal of disaster medicine·2014

Same author

A critique of the official report on the evacuation of the World Trade Center: continued doubts.

Disasters·2013

Same author

Farnesides A and B, sesquiterpenoid nucleoside ethers from a marine-derived Streptomyces sp., strain CNT-372 from Fiji.

Journal of natural products·2013

Same author

Violent extremist group ecologies under stress.

Scientific reports·2013

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 2, 2026

The HoneyComb Paradigm for Research on Collective Human Behavior

The HoneyComb Paradigm for Research on Collective Human Behavior

Published on: January 19, 2019

Normative collective behavior in the Station building fire.

B E Aguirre¹, Manuel R Torres, Kimberly B Gill

¹University of Delaware.

Social Science Quarterly

|May 4, 2011

Summary

Group dynamics, not just panic, influenced outcomes in the Station nightclub fire. Factors like group proximity and prior visits affected casualties, challenging traditional explanations of collective behavior during emergencies.

More Related Videos

The Social Dimension of Stress: Experimental Manipulations of Social Support and Social Identity in the Trier Social Stress Test

The Social Dimension of Stress: Experimental Manipulations of Social Support and Social Identity in the Trier Social Stress Test

Published on: November 19, 2015

The Collective Trust Game: An Online Group Adaptation of the Trust Game Based on the HoneyComb Paradigm

The Collective Trust Game: An Online Group Adaptation of the Trust Game Based on the HoneyComb Paradigm

Published on: October 20, 2022

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 2, 2026

The HoneyComb Paradigm for Research on Collective Human Behavior

The HoneyComb Paradigm for Research on Collective Human Behavior

Published on: January 19, 2019

The Social Dimension of Stress: Experimental Manipulations of Social Support and Social Identity in the Trier Social Stress Test

The Social Dimension of Stress: Experimental Manipulations of Social Support and Social Identity in the Trier Social Stress Test

Published on: November 19, 2015

The Collective Trust Game: An Online Group Adaptation of the Trust Game Based on the HoneyComb Paradigm

The Collective Trust Game: An Online Group Adaptation of the Trust Game Based on the HoneyComb Paradigm

Published on: October 20, 2022

Area of Science:

Social psychology
Collective behavior
Emergency response

Background:

The Station nightclub fire resulted in significant casualties, prompting an examination of collective behavior during mass emergencies.
Traditional explanations often focus on irrationality and herd mentality during evacuations.

Observation:

Analyzed documents from the Station nightclub fire, focusing on 179 distinct groups.
Utilized negative binomial regression to identify predictors of casualties within these groups.

Findings:

Group-level factors, including initial proximity, number of intimate relations, prior venue visits, and evacuation route length, significantly predicted casualties.
Dangerous contexts were found to diminish the protective effect of intimate social ties.
Behavioral differences between survivors and victims were identified, alongside evidence of role extension among staff.

Implications:

Challenges the emphasis on irrationality in fire evacuation studies.
Advocates for incorporating group-level social psychological processes into explanations of building fire incidents.
Highlights the importance of social structures in understanding disaster outcomes.