Mob Mentality

Crowds and mobs can be beneficial or detrimental to the social conditions of society (Surowiecki, 2007). Crowds of people have the ability to speak volumes to the general public about an issue and crowds have the ability to silence them as well. Mob mentality, groupthink, and spiral of silence are communication methods that can be used to cause a movement, silent dissenters and change political policy.

Mob mentality is a phenomenon where groups of people who gather in a place succumb to the ruling parties' behavior. (Lorden, 1930; Adamastsky, 2005). Its precepts, according to Le Bon (1831/2006), a French social scientist and writer about crowd psychology, are submergence, contagion and suggestion.

Submergence happens when by virtue of becoming an indistinguishable part of the mass, people lose a sense of their individual self, lose all sense of responsibility, and gain a sense of invincible power. Contagion is when by having lost their selves and, hence, their ability for rational judgment, crowd members uncritically follow the ideas and the emotions of others in the crowd. Finally, suggestion is when the ideas and emotions that influence the crowd principally emanate from the racial unconscious-a common primitive mental substrate which unites members of a "race." The resulting portrait of crowd behavior is deeply unflattering. Because the "racial unconscious" goes back to a precivilized age, so crowd behavior is inherently uncivilized. For Le Bon, the crowd member is a barbarian, one who descends "several rungs on the ladder of civilization" and crowds are powerful only for destruction. (p.38).

Mob mentality is similar to groupthink and spiral of silence. Groupthink is a communication theory and term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972). It occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of "mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment" (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making (Janis, p.9).

Its symptoms include the illusion of invulnerability. This illusion creates a belief in inherent morality and superiority and in the rightness of their cause. Members in a groupthink atmosphere ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions; they hold a stereotyped views of out-groups, i.e. they hold a negative view of outsiders as the "enemy" make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary. They put a direct pressure on dissenters and are put under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group's views. Members sensor themselves, which is a major symptom of spiral of silence and those in the group, particularly the leader have created and illusion of unanimity. Each group has self-appointed gatekeepers, i.e., members who protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group's cohesiveness, view, and decisions. (Janis 1972, Littlejohn & Foss, 2007). Janis' (1972) recommendations to counteract groupthink are a) to appoint critical evaluators of and for key members, b) breaking into subgroups that work on the same issue and c) that the leader periodically leave the group.

Spiral of silence, which contributes to a groupthink and mob mentality, is a theory developed by Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann in 1974. Its notion though can be traced back to the writing of Pericles and the Old Testament (Salwen & Stacks, 2008, p. 165). The theory states that people will be unwilling to publicly express their opinion if they believe they are in the minority. They will also be more vocal if they believe they are a part of the majority (Salwen & Stacks, 2008, p. 165). This method works because the majority of people in a crowd fear social rejection (Noelle-Neumann, 1974) and succumb to public opinion. Public opinion is the "attitudes or behaviors one must express in public if one is not to isolate oneself, in areas of controversy or change; public opinions are those attitudes one can express without running the danger of isolating oneself (Noelle-Neumann, 1984, pp. 62-63).

Coercion methods such as social isolation, creating an agreed upon "enemy" and the illusion of anonymity can wreak havoc on society or they can promote the common good (Surowiecki, 2007). Each member of society can choose to get involved or sequester himself or herself from the crowd. From an axiological point of view, researchers can view what value the person holds by their choosing to take an action or by doing nothing and staying silent. From an ontological position, researchers can determine if the person is a pragmatist, deciding their behavior beforehand, or a determinist, i.e., behavior is determined from prior conditions. If a person decides to join the crowd, then, how does a person retain his or her individuality without being overwhelmed by the majority? In these situations, the group carries more weight than the individual. Researchers (Scherer, & Tiele, 2008; Scheufele, & Moy 2000). attempt to answer this question by testing the spiral of silence theory in real life situations rather than in a control group. They found that more people spoke up then they had originally anticipated. The spiral of silence is the seed which can grow into groupthink, and can develop into a mob mentality. These are all factors to be taken into account and by doing studies, theorists and researchers can view human behavior from an axiological point of view because people's values will dictate their actions.

How can we know this? By viewing human behavior in action. Group think and spiral of silence are just two of the communication theories that can help explain mob mentality and its merits and harm. Groups engaging in groupthink do not allow dissenting voices and are prone to fanatical and dangerous coercion methods. Groupthink and spiral of silence's affects are strewn throughout all society: from dysfunctional and abusive family situations (Davies, 2008), to school cliques (Cross & Fletcher, 2009, p.750, & Brumbaugh, 2009, p.970.), to crimes in the community, to cults, the Ku Klux Klan (Hill, 2007), and even in the government (Johnson, 2001). Mob mentality, spiral of silence and groupthink can be witnessed "not only in the present day, but throughout history" (Salwen & Stacks, p. 165).

Spiral of silence and groupthink can be viewed in dysfunctional and abusive families. Abused children do not tell the authorities. Dysfunctional and abusive parents threaten to harm the child if the secret gets out and therefore, the child complies out of fear. "The victims protect themselves and, sometimes, other family members by staying silent" (Davies, 2008, p. 1318). This is an example of spiral of silence. The child learns it is safer to keep quiet and behave like the rest of the family, because rejection and banishment are punishment for not conforming. The child does not want to be banished from the family. The authority figure will sometimes make threats to send the child away. Therefore, the abused child stays silent adhering to the pressure of conformity (Davies, 1813).

Adhering to the pressure of conformity also exists in junior and high school students (Waller, 1932). High school students want to be viewed by their peers as cool, pretty and popular. Cliques form in high schools because adolescents want to belong and be part of the "cool crowd" (Cross & Fletcher, 2009; & Brumbaugh, 2009, p.970). Although high students may disagree, studies show (Pronin, Molouki, & Berger 2007) that people see others as more conforming than themselves. This occurred in areas ranging from consumer purchases to political views. Participants claimed to be less susceptible than their average peers to broad descriptions of social influences, and they also claimed to be less susceptible than specific peers to specific instances of conformity. Social influence and interpersonal conflict are factors that contribute to cliques and conformity. Pronin, Molouki, & Berger (2007) state that, "the power of social influence is undeniable. People wear the same styles of clothing as their friends, drive the same cars as their neighbors, vote the same politics as their parents, and read the same books as their favorite celebrities. Social commentators, ranging from playwrights to sociologists, have long lamented people's tendency to conform in their tastes, preferences, aspirations, and behaviors" (p.585) As discussed earlier, the symptoms of groupthink are not allowing outsiders into the group and forming a closed group. Cliques are closed groups and are therefore susceptible to groupthink (Janis, 1972, p.10). In cliques that are exclusively female, requirements may include being pretty, thin and wearing the latest fashions. Marketers know this and will use the mob mentality and crowd psychology to elicit the desire to belong to the cool group so that they can market their products more effectively (Menschel, 2002). One study has shown that these cliques promote eating disorders in teenage girls (Hesse, Leavy, Quinn, & Zoino, 2006, pp. 208-224). The media perpetuates this idea by showing waif-like models in its ads. A pervasive attitude in the media is that "thin is better" (Bordo, 2009), and this collective view of a women's body is inculcated into mass media which results in a negative formation of a person's body image (Greenberg, Delinksy, Reese, Buhlman, and Wilhelm, in press, p 128). Therefore, there is a strong connection between viewing ads, a collective psychology, and body image and outlook. (Bordo, 2009).

The practice of initiating and applying pressure on the individual by the entire group continues into college with fraternities and sororities (Capone, Wood, Borsari, & Laird, 2007). The practice is called pledging (Robbins, 2005). One particular fraternity is Skull and Bones, housed at Yale University. This fraternity selects members from the junior class at Yale University. The society screens its candidates carefully, favoring Protestants and white Catholics, with special affection for the children of wealthy east coast Skull and Bones members. Its members include former President George Herbert Walker Bush and his son, President George W. Bush as well as Senator John Kerry, Austan Goolsbee, who is currently the staff director for President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and members of the CIA. (Reynolds, 2007). According to Reynolds, (2007), Members of Skull and Bones must make some sacrifices to the society-and they are threatened with blackmail so that they remain loyal-but they are remunerated with honors and rewards, including a graduation gift of $15,000 and a wedding gift of a tall grandfather clock. Though they must give a financial percentage of their estates to the society, each member is guaranteed financial security for life; in this way, Bones members can ensure that no member will feel the need to sell the secrets of the society in order to make a living (Reynolds, 2007). Thus, the secrets of the society never reach the general public, but by its members holding positions in public office, the members of this organization may carry out the ideas of that secret society. Some faction of society may concur with their beliefs and are likely move to extremes" (Sunstein, 2009, p, 21). But secrecy and groupthink doesn't just exist among the elite. Groupthink and crowd psychology can be witnessed in bystanders of a crime.

Another detrimental example of groupthink and spiral of silence in reference to crowd psychology, which mob mentality is sometimes referred to as, is the bystander effect (Checkroun, & Brauer, 2002). Bystanders witness a crime but are not committing it. The bystander effect is "when a person or group of people does not speak up when witnessing a crime" (Checkroun, & Brauer, 2002, p. 854). Society recently witnessed this effect with the rape of a high school student in California where over 10 people witnessed the rape, but no one reported it (Chen, 2009). In this example we see mob mentality and spiral of silence working in conjunction because no one spoke up while standing by and witnessing the crime (Checkroun, & Brauer, p. 860).

Mob mentality can also be viewed at sporting events when fans succumb to the "situational, environmental, social, and cognitive variables that have been shown to include factors associated with spectator violence and riots breaking out at sporting events" (Russell, 2004). These actions are harmful to the general public because someone can get physically harmed. How people conduct themselves in public is not only caused by the group mentality at these specific events, but also by family dynamics and upbringing are a factor in how people learn mob mentality and how to conduct themselves in public. According to researchers (Arthur-Banning, Wells, Baker, & Hegrenes, 2009; Day, 2010), there is a connection between adult behavior and child development and how these behaviors are passed on from generation to generation. People bring their private selves into public situations and children learn that behavior (Day, 2010, p.15).

Adults bring their private behavior into work situations as well. Adults form cliques at work and social gatherings (Janis, 1972). Charismatic and creative leaders have the ability to mobilize groups and lead them more efficiently or to the detriment of the company (Murphy, & Enscher, 2008). Creative directors showed vision, sensitivity to member's needs, and other charismatic behaviors. The "axiom of follow the leader is displayed even subconsciously in our schemas and daily behaviors. If the leader is charismatic, the majority will follow" (Winter, 2008, p. 33). But if the manager is a poor leader or is participating in ethical or legal misconduct, employees will seldom speak up because they fear for their jobs (White & Lean, 2008). Thus, unethical behavior goes unreported. Eventually, this is detrimental to the business and to the community (Gino, Moore, & Bazerman, 2010), because of the financial and loss of public trust.

Trust is a major value preyed upon by cult leaders. Groupthink and mob mentality are clearly demonstrated in cults because the majority have created the illusion of anonymity and dissenters are punished. Cult leaders prey upon the lonely, disenfranchised of society through the use of ordeals and initiations. Cult leaders draw a loyal elite group into their circle, and then shower the person with attention, and understanding, thus propagating loyalty and a "fear or disdain of outsiders" (Kent, 2008, p. 112). Cult leaders are charismatic and prey upon the gullibility of a disenfranchised, emotionally starved person. Cult leaders and their henchmen use control methods such as guilt, fear or shame to keep the person sequestered to create conformity (Greenspan, 2009; Wexler, 1995). Cults brainwash people (Kent, 2008, p.112). Recruit methods include advertising commercials on television or in magazines or by approaching people in public. Scientologists use this method (Goldwag, 2009, p. 99; Isser, 1991, p. 112). Greenspan (2008,) argues that a person can guard themselves against gullibility. Greenspan argues that people are too trusting and are not critical thinkers when it comes to marketing, Ponzi schemes, religion and political propaganda (Greenspan, 2008, pp. 176-177). Other scholars (Letki, 2006, p. 309) agree with this assessment. Both of these scholars agree that gullibility in succumbing to marketing and prejudice are factors which contribute to mob mentality. Schools and parents can educate the public so that racism and prejudice may be alleviated in our culture (Rowley, Helaire, & Banerjee, 2008; Gillerman, 2007; Waller, 1932).

One group that promotes racism though is the Ku Klux Klan. Its history stems from the southern states specifically the Ku Klux Klan had first formed in Pulaski,Tennessee (Hill, 2007, p.2). The Ku Klux Klan is selective in its membership because it is widely viewed as dangerous, prejudice and racist. The Ku Klux Klan uses racial intolerance as a means of group participation and they conduct secret meetings to propagate the false belief that members are of a superior race (Hill, 2007). Members who dissent are punished and in a few cases, have been beaten or have had their houses burned down (Hill, 2007; Blee, 2005, p. 617). Schools, secret societies and closed groups are not the only institutions to fall prey to mob mentality and groupthink. Governments and nations can also (Fenton, 2008; Liu, 2006; Kim, Han, Shanahan, & Berdayes, 2004).

Nazi Germany and the Hitler's reign of terror struck an entire nation. When Hitler came to power, he persuaded millions of Germans to allow the extinction of people of Jewish race. The economy in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s was still ailing after World War 1. Hitler used his command of rhetoric and his cultic leadership to wage a race and economic war upon on the Jewish people. Propaganda was used in schools, the media and in churches in order to persuade and manipulate national mindset. Hitler presented them with speeches and symbols (semiotics) that appealed to the crowd mentality. Hitler used a combination of fear of economic insecurity, prejudice against a religious and ethnic groups, and propagandist media to turn public opinion against the Jews and thus rationalized to the German citizens the deployment of the Jewish population to be sent off to death camps (Bosmajian, 1965, p.2). As viewed by the Nazis, "the German Volk was sentimental, respectful of force, intellectually disinterested, desirous of simplicity, susceptible to emotional contagion, moved by exaggeration, impressed less by knowledge than by fanaticism, and influenced to action not through the mind but through the heart. Hitler thought their receptivity was very limited, their intelligence small, and their power of forgetting enormous" (Bosmajian, 1965, p.2). The masses, Hitler wrote, are "receptive only to an expression of force" (Bosmajian, p.2). Peacemakers, citizens, and communication scholars question how such a tragedy could happen. The answer is spiral of silence, groupthink and mob mentality (Johnson, 2001; Janis, 1972). Communication scholars and studies have a duty to research this type of communication as it affects society's relations domestically and internationally. Governments, institutions and the media lie to people or have an agenda that doesn't always represent the truth, but rather a corporate or political agenda (Salwen & Stacks, 2008, p. 95). A citizen can protect themselves, though, and be armed with the truth to avoid giving their freedoms away. In other words, each person can avoid being gullible and succumbing to groupthink (Greenspan, 2009, p.55).

A government practicing groupthink and the perpetuation of propaganda to control its citizens is demonstrated in communist countries such as North Korea (Cummings, 2009; Kim, Han, Shanahan, & Berdayes, 2004). The closed regime of Kim Jong Il censors and controls the state-run media and uses propaganda to suppress its citizens by not promoting free-thinking and questioning authority and an unwillingness to voice opposing opinions (Cummings, 2009; Kim, Han, Shanahan, & Berdayes, 2004). United States citizens can fall prey to these tactics as well. We have witnessed the same behavior and actions from our own government officials, specifically the Bush/Cheney administration with its secrecy about the torture trails, the war in Afghanistan and the pursuit of al-Quaeda. (Hayden, 2007 p. 147-193).

According to a PBS report (2009) and John Dean (2004), a former White House counsel to Richard Nixon, both say former Vice President Cheney is an extremely secretive public official. "He's talked a lot about the need for preserving candid advice and for not having people prying into affairs that are properly for the president and his men alone. He even said that he himself doesn't write things down, doesn't use e-mail, because he doesn't want to even raise the possibility of a situation in which his actions could someday be exposed, which would then constrain what he wants to do now" (PBS, 2009, ¶ 1). "Secrecy is sort of the core of everything they want to do from almost the very beginning. They wanted to prevent leaks. Certainly that probably describes a lot of what happened in the Bush administration" (PBS, 2009, ¶ 5). As Americans, we are now seeing the effects that stemmed from this administration, not only on the economy, but also foreign policy, homeland security, war and health care (Cummings, 2009; Gelb & Zelmati, 2009). From this example, the American people can clearly see groupthink penetrating the halls of our government and affecting foreign and domestic policy which has a direct impact on the quality of United States citizens' lives.

Conversely, crowd psychology and mob mentality can be used for good, i.e., to move or change political policy (Lating, Barnett, & Horowitz, 2010). By using citizen journalism on the internet (Zeucher, 2008) at websites like the Huffington Post (2009) or on Twitter (2009), and by assembling in order to gain media attention at town hall meetings held this summer by senators, grass root groups can change social policy (Fenton, 2008, p. 230). Policies such a civil rights for Black people (Kirk, 2007, p.75) and an enactment of hate crimes prevention act against the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgendered (LGBT) community (The White House, 2009, October 28) are the result of a crowd or mob changing existing policy. But caveat emptor! Investigations have shown (Ainsworth, 1994, p. 33-34) that some grass root groups are not grass root in nature- -they are "Astroturf", (i.e. fake organizations) financed by and bussed out by big corporations with financial interests in the particular policy (Walker, 2009, p. 83). A current example of one of these events is the Taxpayer March on Washington financed by an organization called FreedomWorks, a privately funded group with a self-proclaimed Republican and capitalistic agenda (FreedomWorks, 2009). In regards to communication studies, public relations personnel and journalists have an ethical duty and role in manufacturing and reporting about these organizations (Beder, 1998) and how these astroturf organizations rile up the masses to cause a protest about an issue, when their real underlying agenda is to protect their financial interests (Walker, 2009, p. 87). Astroturf organizations rarely have the common person's best at in mind. They have their own financial interests at heart in order to continue their lobbying and putting pressure on congress to enact policies that are consistent with their views. Many citizens have been duped by this deceptive practice (Greenspan, 2009, p.70) and the vox populi can speak up about it because it affects the democratic process. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the United States constitution.

As Noelle-Neumann said, confronting the spiral of silence and speaking up has its price (Noelle-Neumann, 1984); but remaining silent and following the crowd or blindly following authority has it price too: freedom. The forefathers of this country protested against British rule, and as a result, the United States Constitution, which ironically, was formed in secret, (PBS, 2009,¶ 4) and our constitutional freedoms were established. If the Black community had not spoken up and retaliated against the established mindset and formed a mob, then Black people would not have equal rights in society (Kirk, 2007, p.75). A similar event is beginning to evolve in the LGBT community and as a result, president Obama signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act (Schafer, & Shaw, 2009, p. 417; The White House, 2009, October 28).

These examples show how a mob can change existing policy and are beneficial to society. Organizing and participating in a large-scale protest comes with boundaries though (Adamastsky, 2005). There are conflicting opinions by law enforcement about an individual's and a group's ability to police itself when a mob forms. On one side, law enforcement officials have ascertained the need for reaction rather than pro-action and using force (Access Control Security Systems, 2004, December) against a mob. The experts in the field contend that a "temporary insanity" occurs when mobs form and researchers in the professional field support this view (Sunstein, 2009, Adamastsky, 2005); while other law enforcement officials argue for the self-policing method and support the idea of that individuals in a crowd will conduct themselves accordingly to classical principles which are that people will conduct themselves accordingly in the presence of the police (Prati & Pietrantoni, 2009, p.992).

Sunstein (2009) and Vorobyoff (2006) argue for individual responsibility, (i.e. each person is responsible for his or her own actions). One psychologist (Jost, 2009, p. 255) says that we have become a society that blames others instead of taking responsibility for our own decisions. Or does a person succumb to the group's mentality as Sunstein (2009) argues when he says, "crowds and large masses are not self-policing; mob mentality leads to polarizations, extremism, and violence. When people find themselves in groups of like-minded others, they are more likely move to extremes" (Sunstein, 2009, p, 21). Moving to extremes can be for the common good as we have seen with the Civil Rights Movement and the liberating the Jews from concentration camps during World War II. Conversely, though, it is destructive such as witnessed in the lynchings by the Ku Klux Klan or by other hate groups.

The media and family upbringing affect our outlook and opinions about other races and gender (Winter, 2008). We must challenge those beliefs and escape from prejudice and from the groupthink and mob mentality to form our own values, opinions, beliefs and mindset. In the words of Emerson: "to be an individual and to think for oneself in a world that is constantly trying to make us conform is the struggle of a lifetime" (Emerson, 1875/2009, p.133).

It is a struggle worth fighting if our actions bring freedom and a better social condition.

ReferencesAccess Control Security Systems (2004, December). Brawl puts sports security in public limelight. Retrieved from http://login.securitysolutions.com/wall.aspx?ERIGHTS_TARGET=http%3A%2F%2Fsecuritysolutions.com%2Fmag%2Fsecurity_brawl_puts_sports%2FAdamastsky, A. (2005). Dynamics of crowd-minds: Patterns of irrationality in emotions, beliefs and actions. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Co.

Ainsworth, B. (1994). Astroturf lobbying: Powerful (and not always popular) special interests influence the legislature from behind the shield of others. California Journal, 25, 33-34.

Beder, S. (1998).Public relations' role in manufacturing artificial grass roots coalitions. Public Relations Quarterly, 43, 21-23.

Blee, K. (2005). Racial violence in the United States.Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(4,) 599-619. doi: 10.1080/01419870500092423

Bordo, S. (2009). Not just 'a white girl's thing': The changing face of food and body image problems. In H. Malson, & M. Burns, (Eds.), Critical feminist approaches to eating dis/orders. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 46-59.

Bosmajian, H. (1965). Nazi persuasion and the crowd mentality. Western Speech, 29, 68-78.Retrieved fromhttp://libproxy.lib.csusb.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=15749480&site=ehost-live

Brumbaugh, A. (2009). Why do I identify with thee? Let me count three ways: How ad context influences race-based character identification. Psychology & Marketing, 26 ,(11), 970-986.

Capone, C., Wood, D., Borsari, B., & Laird, R. (2007). Fraternity and sorority involvement, social influences, and alcohol use among college students: A prospective examination. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(3), 316-327. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.21.3.316

Checkroun, P., & Brauer, M. (2002). The bystander effect and social control behavior: The effect of the presence of others on people's reactions to norm violations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, (6),853-867. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.126Chen, S. (2009, October 28). Gang rape raises questions about bystanders' role. CNN. [Online article]. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/28/california.gang.rape.bystander/index.html

Cross, J., Fletcher, K. (2009). The challenge of adolescent crowd research: Defining the crowd. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 38, 747-764.doi: 10.1007/s10964-008-9307-6

Cummings, B. (2009). The North Korea problem: Dealing with irrationality. Current History. 108, 284-290.

Davies, G. (2008). When children don't tell. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, (9),1318-1319.

Day, R. (2010). Introduction to family processes (5th ed.). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.Dean, J. (2004) Worse than Watergate: The secret presidency of George W. Bush. New York, NY: Little, Brown, & Co.Emerson, R. W. (2009). Essays and lectures: Representative men, English traits, and the conduct of life. New York: Barnes & Noble. (Original work published 1875).

Fenton, N. (2008). Mediating hope: New media, politics and resistance. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 11, 230-248. doi: 10.1177/1367877908089266FreedomWorks. (2009). Taxpayer march on Washington scheduled for September 12, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/taxpayer-march-on-washington-scheduled-for-septemb

Gelb, L. & Zelmati, J. (2009). Mission unaccomplished. Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, 13, 10-24.

Gillerman, D. (2007) Teaching tolerance in a suburban high school. Masters Thesis, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. Retrieved from http://ted.coe.wayne.edu/sse/finding/gilleran.htm

Gino, F., Moore, D., & Bazerman, M. (2010). See no evil: When we overlook other people's unethical behavior. In R. Kramer, A. Tenbrunsel and M. Bazerman, (Eds.), Social decision making: Social dilemmas, social values, and ethical judgments. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Goldwag, A. (2009). Cults, conspiracies, and secret societies: The straight scoop on Freemasons, the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Black Helicopters, the New World Order, and many, many more. New York: Vintage Press.

Greenberg, J., Delinksy, S., Reese, H., Buhlman, U. & Wilhelm, S. (in press). Body image. In J. Grant, & M Potenza (Eds.) Young adult mental health, pp. 126-142. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Greenspan, S. (2009). Annals of gullibility: Why we get duped and how to avoid it. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.

Griffin, EM (2008).A first look at communication theory. (7^th Ed.) New York: McGraw Hill.

Hayden,C. (2007). The Vulcan rhetoric of crisis: Presidential advisors and the war in Iraq. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68 (5-A), p. 147-193. Retrieved November 28, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3262750). http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1338896251&sid=1&Fmt=6&clientId=42799&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Hesse, S., Leavy, P. Quinn, C. & Zoino, J. (2006). The mass marketing of disordered eating and eating disorders: The social psychology of women. Women's Studies International, 29, 208-224.

Hill, K. (2007). Klandestine organizing: A critical look at storytelling and member cohesion in a secret society. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/8/0/2/pages188020/p188020-2.php

Huffington Post (2009) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Isser, N. (1991). Why cultic groups develop and flourish: A historian's perspective. Cultic Studies Journal, 8, (2),104-121.

Janis, Irving L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes.Second Edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Janis, Irving L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Janis, I. L. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.

Johnson, P. (2001) Effects of groupthink on tactical decision making. Monograph presented at School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

Jost, J. (2009). Virtue ethics and the social psychology of character: Philosophical lessons from the person-situation debate. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, (2), 253-254. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.031

Kent, S. (2008). Contemporary uses of the brainwashing concept: 2000 to mid- 2007. Cultic Studies Review, 7, (2), 99-128.

Kim, S., Han, M., Shanahan, J. & Berdayes, V. (2004). Talking on sunshine in North Korea: A test of the spiral of silence as a theory of powerful mass media.International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16, 39-62.

Kirk, J. (2007). Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement: Controversies and debates. New York: Pallgrave McMillan.

Lating, J., Barnett, J., & Horowitz, M. (2010). Creating a culture of advocacy. In M. Kenkel and R. Petersen (Eds.) Competency-based education for professional psychology. pp. 201-208. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Le Bon, G. (2006). The Crowd. West Valley City, UT: Walking Lion Press. (Originally published 1831).

Letki, N. (2006). Investigating the roots of civic morality: Trust, social capital, and institutional performance.Political Behavior, 28 (4),305-325. doi: 10.1007/s11109-006-9013-6

Littlejohn, S. & Foss, K. (2007). Theories of Human Communication (9th Ed.). California: Wadsworth Publishing.

Liu, J. (2006). A cross-national and double-sided test of a 'spiral of silence' theory: Culture, governmental form & personality. Paper presented at the International Communication Association annual meeting. Dresden, Germany.

Lorden, D. (1930). Mob behavior and social attitudes. Sociology & Social Research, 14, pp. 324-331.

Menschel, R. (2002). Markets, mobs & mayhem: How to profit from the madness of crowds. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Noelle-Neumann, E. & Petersen, T. (2004). The spiral of silence and the social nature of man. In Lynda Kaid (Ed.) Handbook for political communication research. (pp. 339-356). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Noelle-Neumann, E. (1984). The Spiral of Silence. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24, 43-51.

PBS: Frontline. (2009). A man with secrets. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/themes/secrecy.html

Prati. G., & Pietrantoni, L. (2009). Elaborating the police perspective: The role of perceptions and experience in the explanation of crowd conflict.European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 991-1001.

Pronin, E., Molouki, S., & Berger, J. (2007). Alone in a crowd of sheep: Asymmetric perceptions of conformity and their roots in an introspection illusion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 92 (4),585-595.Reynolds, J. (2007). Secret societies: Inside the world's most notorious organizations. Toronto, Canada: Arcane Publishing.

Robbins, A. (2005). Pledged: The secret life of sororities. New York: Hyperion.

Rowley, S., Helaire, L., & Banerjee, M. (2008) Reflecting on racism: School involvement and perceived teacher discrimination in African American mothers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,29, (5), p. . doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2009.08.001

Russell, G. (2004). Sport riots: A social-psychological review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 353-378.

Salwen, M. & Stacks, D. (2008). An Integrated approach to communication theory and research. (Chapter 11), New York: Routledge.

Schafer, C., & Shaw, G. (2009). Tolerance in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly; 73 (2), 404-431.

Scheufele, D. & Moy, P. (2000). Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A conceptual review and empirical outlook. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12, 3-28.

Scherer, H. & Tiele, A. (2008). No silence -- no spiral. Public expression of opinion tested in a realistic setting. Paper presented at International Communication Association annual Meeting. Montreal, Canada.

Sunstein, C. (2009). Going to extremes. New York: Oxford University Press.

Surowiecki, J. (2007). The Wisdom of crowds. American Journal of Physics, 75, 190-192

Twitter (2009) http://twitter.com/

Vorobyoff, O. (2006). Diffusionof responsibilityin the modern world. (Masters Thesis). Long Island University, Brooklyn, NY. Available from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1203559471&sid=2&Fmt=2&clientId=42799&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Waller, W. (1932). Crowd and mob psychology in the school. In the sociology of teaching. (pp. 160-175). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. doi: 10.1037/11443-012

Walker, E. (2009). Privatizing participation: Civic change and the organizational dynamics of grassroots lobbying firms. American Sociological Review, 74,(1), 83-105.

Wexler, M. (1995). Expanding the groupthink explanation to the study of contemporary cults. Cultic Studies Journal, 12, 49-71.White & Lean, (2008) the impact of perceived leader integrity on subordinates in a work team environment. Journal of business Ethics, 81, (4),765-778. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9546-6The White House (2009, October 28). President Obama commemorates enactment of Hate Crimes Prevention Act. [online video]. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-commemorates-enactment-hate-crimes-prevention-act

Winter, N. (2008). Dangerous frames. How ideas about race and gender shape public opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Zuercher, R. (2008). In my humble opinion: The spiral of silence in computer-mediated communication. Paper presented at the National Communication Association annual meeting, Washington, D.C.