The psychology of Mexican Waves at the Olympics |
|
 I have just come back from a phenomenally exciting day at the Olympic stadium watching the athletics. What a fantastic experience to watch people performing at their peak. But the thing that struck me most was the amazing atmosphere - it was absolutely buzzing.
And along with thousands of others, I participated in many of the Mexican waves that regularly swept around the stadium. In between jumping up from my seat and waving my arms in the air I got thinking about the psychology behind such an activity – how on earth does a Mexican wave get started? Researchers in Hungary and Germany have modelled crowds performing Mexican Waves and have found that: - It typically takes 2 dozen people to start a Mexican wave
- The wave typically starts in the shape of a small, tight ball, then gradually spreads out into a line as more people join in
- Approximately 3 out of 4 Mexican waves move in a clockwise direction
- The typical speed of a wave is 22 seats per second
- The typical width of a wave is 15 seats (6-12 metres)
- 20 seconds after the first group start, at least 50% of people in the following columns need to get actively involved in the wave in order for it to be successful.
One of the things that was most noticeable in the Mexican waves at the Olympic stadium was that the waves that started spontaneously were much more successful (in terms of participation and duration) than those started by the commentators encouraging a Mexican wave to begin. This is nice example of crowd behaviour – when we are in a crowd, we are more likely to behave in line with what other people in the crowd are doing, rather than in line what one person tells the crowd to do. This is a particular element of self-categorization theory, known as depersonalization. In essence, when we’re in a crowd, we base our behaviour on the norms, goals and needs of the wider group. This is one of the reasons we witnessed people looting in last summer’s riots who would never normally steal anything and why this year we see Mexican waves ripple around the stadium. For those of you out there about to go to an Olympics event – enjoy. If I had a chance to go again, I would, like a shot, just to soak up that atmosphere. And if while you’re there, it crosses your mind to try and start a wave, here are a few top tips: 1) Get a buzz going with the groups around you – remember you need about 2 dozen in a ball shape to get the wave moving 2) The success of your initial start depends on the next few rows of people, so build on any excitement in your block of seats – adding to their cheers will help 3) Choose a time when people are neither too bored nor too excited / distracted by the track & field activities – this is a key component of wave success 4) Don’t sit next to the empty banks of seats! Once going, the wave will jump these, but they will make it harder to get a wave started.
Another international day of something or other... so what! |
|
It was International Women’s Day last week but I was astonished to learn that this is in fact one of over 200 international observance days in the calendar. There’s even World Star Wars day (May the 4th if you are interested, as in May the 4th be with you). Stripping away the more esoteric events you are left with a list of 78 Observance Days that are recognised by the UN. On these days we are expected to commemorate, celebrate or reflect on a worthy cause Another of these is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on the 21st of March. (My first thought on hearing about it was that it sounds like a good idea but ambitious for a day’s work). If this day has passed you by then you are not alone but it has in fact been held on the same day for the past 46 years. It was established by the UN six years after the Sharpeville massacre in South Africa. On March 21st 1960, 69 people taking part in a peaceful anti-apartheid demonstration were shot dead by police. Since then the 21st March has been a UN day of observance, which aims to remind people of racial discrimination’s negative consequences. It also encourages people to remember their obligation and determination to combat racial discrimination. 1960s South Africa is a far cry from the present day UK but the pervasive force of racism is still present. In the past year we have seen the rise in the English Defence League, a glut of racism in football, Croydon ‘Tram Woman’ and her racist rant, John Galliano sharing his far-right political ideals and the trivialisation of Gypsies (See ‘My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding’), to name but a few. So on the 21st March what can we do to help to eliminate racial discrimination in our society? And by the way, I am recommending slightly tougher action than that endorsed by FIFA’s Head, Sepp Blatter (he thought that racist comments during play could be settled with a handshake when the match was over). The first thing we can all do is not tolerate racial or any other form of discrimination. This applies to every day of the year, not just the 21st March. Sometimes it is easier to pretend that we didn’t hear something than confront it but the psychological research in this area is absolutely clear, if you challenge someone’s racism they will be less likely to do the same again. Be bold. The other thing we can all do is look internally and examine our unconscious biases. If you haven’t done an Implicit Association Test yet you can do one here. Do these two things and suddenly this is not just another International Day of …Whatever.
Double conviction in Stephen Lawrence murder: Two further steps in the right direction, and several sad reflections |
|
Today, along with millions of others, I have listened to the news that two of the murderers of Stephen Lawrence have finally been convicted of his death, more than 18 years after the unprovoked racist attack in south-east London. Stephen Lawrence’s murder has brought about some fundamental changes in our understanding, reaction to, and management of racism in our society. Firstly, the Macpherson Inquiry into the handling of the initial investigation by the Metropolitan Police shone a spotlight on how prejudice can thrive in groups and how people in professional roles can turn a judicious blind eye when something is not particularly important to them. The term “institutional racism” used in the report of the Macpherson Inquiry has subsequently become a well recognised, if somewhat miss-used, term in today’s vernacular. Secondly, the Race Equality Duty, was introduced in 2001 in direct response to the findings of the Macpherson Inquiry. Leading the introduction of these new legal duties on the public sector, Jack Straw indicated that his ambition was for public sector bodies such as the police to become the leading light on taking proactive, positive steps to foster good relations between different groups and tackle discrimination. Thirdly, Recommendation 11 of the Macpherson Inquiry amplified the responsibility of race relations legislation, and in particular the responsibility of all police officers to uphold their legal duties. The fact that Chief Police Officers can be held vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their officers relevant to the legislation is just one of the reasons that police forces and constabularies take issues of racism so much more seriously now than previously. Fourthly, Stephen Lawrence’s murder played a significant role in the ending the double jeopardy principle, whereby no one could be tried twice for the same crime. The abolition of this legal principle in 2005 meant that one of Stephen’s murderers could be successfully tried again. So the death of Stephen Lawrence has brought about some fundamental changes in the way that racism is dealt with in this country. However, I realise with some resignation it is not Stephen’s death that has brought about these changes. It is not even the fact that the attack was racially motivated that brought about these changes. In fact, the thing that ensured Stephen’s murder did not simply go recorded as an unsolved crime was just how stupendously badly the Metropolitan Police bungled the initial investigation, combined with the tenacity of Stephen’s mother and other supporters. So can individuals make a difference in tackling issues as big as racism? Without a doubt. I also strongly believe organisations can, and do, have a significant impact on cultural change, including on issues as significant as tackling racism in society. Hopefully your organisation will be doing this in a positive, proactive way, and not in the negative mishandling impact that the Met Police had.
Is calling someone a 'Jew' acceptable? |
|
Even those people who like to be known for their outspoken comments are aware that there is a fine line between getting attention and getting sacked. Top Gear presenter Richard Hammond judged this to near perfection recently with his comments about Mexicans. His crude comments certainly got him talked about but overall many found what he had to say amusing, including his bosses at the BBC. Hammond knew that by choosing Mexicans he would be on safer ground than if he remarked about, say, Indians or Pakistanis. Make offensive observations about the first and he is being humorous but make them about the latter and he'd be racist. He gauged this very well, showing us where the public's tolerance of such views lies. I mention this because I have just returned from a trip to the US.Arriving at my hotel I switched on the TV to see Michael O'Leary, the CEO of Ryanair, being interviewed on Bloomberg by Francine Lacqua. One of her first questions was whether O'Leary flew on the budget airline himself? He said that he did and passengers seeing him queue up like everyone would think 'Jew'. I couldn't really believe what I'd heard especially since the interviewer let it pass without remark. Should he be allowed to get away with this? As far as I am aware there's been no reaction to what he said by anyone? Does this demonstrate again the public's lack of concern about certain groups of people being derogated and stereotyped in this way? I am always suspicious about people being described as 'colourful' or 'outspoken' as if this can forgive any utterance they make. The same applies here and it is worse that it is a senior, successful businessman making it. The lack of response may mean that no-one was watching in the first place or more worryingly that many find his remarks acceptable? Leaders have to recognise that they are role models if not outside of their organisations then certainly within them and they have a responsibility to display behavior that is not offensive.
Workplace romance - The fear and the facts |
|
Click here to read the original blog in full on the Management Today website - Psychology at Work Blog, a blog page about the psychology of business,management and leadership written by Pearn Kandola.
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>
|
|
