Preventing Hazing at Harvard crimson shield

 

Research and Theory

Who Gets Hazed and How Often?
Student members of social clubs, such as final clubs, or fraternities and sororities are not the only ones who are affected by hazing. All students can be at risk. Hazing occurs in athletic teams and in all kinds of student organizations - even in marching bands. From secondary schools to post-secondary institutions, hazing incidents have no boundaries.

In recent years, a few in-depth surveys have attempted to capture the prevalence of hazing. Below are some of the key findings.

National Survey: Initiation Rites and Athletics for NCAA Sports Teams1
Alfred University
August 1999
Dr. Nadine C. Hoover, Principal Investigator

Sample: 2,027 NCAA athletes across 224 colleges/universities

Key Findings:

  • 79% of respondents reported experiencing some kind of hazing activities
    • 19% experienced a questionable hazing activity that was humiliating or degrading
    • 39% experienced an alcohol-related hazing activity
    • 21% experienced an unacceptable hazing activity that was unsafe and could result in injury or criminal violations
  • When these data are projected to the national population, there are estimates that over a quarter of a million NCAA athletes were hazed.
  • One in five athletes participated solely in non-hazing teambuilding activities (e.g. ropes courses)
  • 42% of the respondents indicated that they consumed alcohol when they visited colleges or universities for team recruitment
  • Nearly half of the athletes surveyed reported that they drank alcohol as part of a team initiation
  • The athletes who were at greatest risk of being hazed through a team initiation met were:
    • Males
    • Non-fraternity members
    • Soccer players
    • Lacrosse players
    • Swimmers or divers
  • The athletes who are at greatest risk of being subjected to unacceptable hazing behaviors that are unsafe and could result in injury or criminal violations include:
    • Males
    • Swimmers or divers
    • Football players
    • Water polo players
  • Female athletes were more likely to have been subjected to alcohol-related hazing than to other forms of hazing, if they were hazed

National Study of Student Hazing2
University of Maine
2007
Drs. Elizabeth Allen & Mary Madden

Sample: 1,482 full-time students aged 18 to 25 years across 53 different universities/colleges

Key Findings:

  • More than half (55%) of students report that they experienced a specific behavior that is defined as hazing. However, 91% of these students do not identify as having been hazed.
  • 47% of students report that they were hazed in high school
  • Some of the most common types of hazing activities that participants report experiencing during college include:
Hazing Activity Percent
Experiencing
Drinking games with alcohol 26%
Singing or chanting intending to humiliate 17%
Heavy consumption of alcohol leading one to get sick or pass out 12%
Associating with certain people and not others 12%
Being yelled, screamed, or cursed at 10%

    Prevalence and Profiling: Hazing Among College Students3
    Cornell University
    2005
    Dr. Shelly Campo, Gretchen Poulos, Dr. John Sipple

    Sample: 736 undergraduate students at a large university

    Key Findings:

    • 36% of respondents engaged in at least one activity that would be classified as hazing
    • The most commonly reported hazing activity in which students engaged is Drinking Games/Contests (17.1%), followed by Sleep Deprivation (14.9%)
    • However, when asked if they participated in hazing according to the university’s definition, 12.4% of respondents reported that they had been hazed; while 6.7% of respondents reported that they were the ones hazing their peers
    • Respondents indicated that they would be most likely to leave a situation in which they are being hazed if they have friends who were not members of the organization that is hazing

    The Hazing Continuum

    Massachusetts law provides a definition of hazing, including explicit examples of activities that endanger individuals’ physical and mental health. However, students tend not to have a universal conception of what might constitute hazing. While one person might view a particular activity as a harmless prank, another individual might consider it potentially harmful.

    Simultaneously, not every type of team-building activity that an organization uses to integrate its new members is hazing. In fact, there is a spectrum of behaviors, ranging from positive, non-hazing activity to severe hazing incidents that can cause death.

    Elizabeth Allan and Brian Rahill’s website stophazing.org presents a conceptual spectrum of hazing activity.4 Note that these categories are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive, and that all kinds of behavior described may violate the Massachusetts hazing law.

    Subtle
    Hazing    		 Harassment
    Hazing    		 Violent
    Hazing

    Subtle Hazing:

    Activities falling into the “subtle hazing” category generally encompass behaviors that may seem innocuous on the surface. Groups use subtle hazing practices so that new members can experience some form of inferiority before they are fully integrated into an organization or team. New members may experience embarrassment or humiliation during subtle hazing.

    Some examples of subtle hazing include:

    • Memorization of trivial information/lineups
    • Carrying unnecessary objects/items at all times
    • Designated periods of silence
    • Receiving unwanted nicknames

    Harassment Hazing:

    "Harassment hazing" generally consists of activities that cause psychological or physical distress to new members during an integration process.

    Some examples of harassment hazing include:

    • Sleep deprivation
    • Being pressured or coerced to wear uniforms/clothing typically worn by persons of the opposite gender
    • Running personal errands/needless tasks for current members

    Violent Hazing:

    "Violent hazing” consists of activities that can cause harm through physical injury or emotional pain.

    Some examples of violent hazing include:

    • Forced alcohol consumption
    • Beating, paddling, or branding
    • Sexual abuse or simulated sexual abuse
    • Kidnappings or abductions
    • Exposure to extreme weather conditions without proper attire

    Theoretical Perspectives
    (Adapted with permission from Hazing at Cornell: Research and Theory)

    There are many theoretical explanations and definitions for hazing. Since no single theory can adequately explain the factors that contribute to hazing entirely, it is important to consider how multiple factors may lead individuals to deviate from their own ethical standards or the norms of society.

    Below is an overview of some elements that may play a role in hazing:

    Evolutionary psychology: Our ancestors survived by forming groups that had strong bonds. Consequently, we are social creatures with needs for affiliation. Our innate drives for connection and preservation may contribute to practices such as hazing that are perceived to strengthen the ties between group members.5

    Lack of external constraints: The social order of civilizations depends on accountability and shared agreement to conform to behavioral norms. When external security is decreased (e.g., in the aftermath of natural disasters), conformity to societal standards decreases (e.g., looting). In the absence of strong internal leadership and prosocial norms, groups that operate in secrecy, isolated from external constraints, are at greater risk of deviating from societal norms of conduct. Hazing among students, the abuse of prisoners in Iraq, and the Enron corporate scandal each reflect in part the absence of external constraints on group behavior.5

    Conformity and obedience to authority: Research has demonstrated that social context has a powerful influence on people's willingness to inflict harm on others. In Milgram's classic study, subjects being pressured by interviewers delivered what they believed were highly painful (even lethal) shocks to a person screaming in another room.6 In Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment, college students were assigned randomly to play the role of either a prisoner or prison guard for a two-week, live-in experiment.7 The study was stopped after five days because the "guards" became vicious toward the "prisoners."

    Cognitive dissonance: When an individual holds two opposing beliefs in tension, he or she experiences tension which may be resolved by changing one of the views. When people who view themselves as smart, reasonable people participate in degrading experiences, they may look back and minimize the extent to which they experienced degradation. Otherwise they would be left saying to themselves, "I'm a smart person and I joined a group that degraded me," which would create tension. Saying to oneself, “It wasn't that bad,” creates less tension. As a result, individuals in a group that are hazed may eventually feel positively about the group that subjected them to the experience.5

    Groupthink: Irving Janis described a process in highly cohesive groups in which faulty decision-making arises as a result of a convergence of dynamics, including pressure for unanimity, suppression of individual moral objections, and degradation of outsiders.8 These dynamics result in a failure to realistically appraise alternative courses of action and may contribute to disregard for the safety of others.5

    Beliefs about masculinity: Culturally-constructed notions of what it means to be a "real man" place an emphasis on physical and mental toughness, obedience to superiors, and the value of force as a means of accountability.9-10 Such beliefs, combined with desires by heterosexual men to demonstrate that they do not possess qualities associated with gay men (e.g., vulnerability, emotionality, nurturance), contribute to the perpetuation of hazing. This process inevitably marginalizes gay men as well as women.5

    Sociopathy: Some individuals within groups have personalities characterized by anti-social tendencies. Psychologically speaking, "anti-social" does not mean "doesn't like to party." It means traits such as to disregard the rights and safety of others, failure to conform to societal norms, and lack of remorse. While such individuals tend to be a small subset of groups, they can exert significant influence as hazing ringleaders.5

    Shared coping: When individuals go through a highly stressful experience together (e.g., a natural disaster, a battle), they may feel closer to each other as a result. Enduring hazing together may make a group feel more unity, but as with hurricanes, the experience may yield damage as well as benefits.11

    Cycles of abuse: Individuals who are hazed may be at greater risk of hazing others because of a displaced desire for revenge. When a neophyte endures hazing and becomes a member or teammate with privileged social status, he or she then hazes the next batch of new group members or teammates. Inevitably, each year the bar is gradually raised, subjecting new members to more dangerous or humiliating activities than what the hazers had previously experienced themselves.11

    Identification with the aggressor: Intensive hazing can involve complex strategies to “break down” individuals and “remold” them to conform to the belief structures of the group. The group may isolate new members and expose them to repeated experiences designed to conform the new member's beliefs to those of the group. They may be told that the group is special and superior, and that attainment of this status is worth whatever must be endured to achieve it. Eventually, new members may desire to become like the individuals who abuse them.5

    Symbolic interactionism: Stephen Sweet argues that hazing is not simply the result of psychologically- or morally-flawed individuals, but “is the result of a confluence of symbols, manipulated identities, and definitions of situations that are organized in the context of initiation rites.”12 Symbolic interactionists view hazing as a cultural phenomenon in which the meaning ascribed to social encounters and the power of these “realities” shape individuals' choices about their actions.5

    Rites of passage: As adolescents and young adults pass through the developmental stage of identity formation, rites of passage may help them mark their transition to full adulthood. Rituals serve as a way for a community to assist members through this process (e.g., commencement, birthday parties, religious confirmation, initiation into a group). By definition, an initiation does not involve hazing.13

    Need for esteem: Self-esteem is bolstered by a sense of accomplishment and acceptance by others. "Surviving" hazing may contribute to a sense of achievement and garner the "respect" of group members, both of which can enhance individuals' esteem. Those who haze may enhance their own sense of esteem and heroism by maintaining membership in a group that "weeds out the weak."5

    Expression of power: Hazing may gratify individuals' desires for a sense of power and control. Hazing is about establishing hierarchy within organizations or teams. Current members of an organization exert power or social dominance on new members who seek affiliation. In order to feel part of a group, new members are expected to participate in certain activities that “current” members do not complete themselves.

    Need for intimacy: Many members of groups that haze cite closeness as a goal of hazing. Among males, however, cultural definitions of masculinity tend to undermine overt attempts at intimacy (e.g., talking about one's feelings). Hazing activities may thus be designed to meet intimacy needs without violating cultural norms. For example, being intoxicated makes it more acceptable to share one's feelings (e.g., "I love you, man!").5

    Misperceived norms: In some groups, the majority of members believe that it is not important to humiliate, intimidate or physically abuse new members. These members, however, mistakenly believe that they are in the minority. They may therefore reluctantly perpetuate these practices because they assume that everyone else believes that they are the right things to do.5

    Fear of reprisal: Even when an individual who has been hazed wishes to not perpetuate the practices, he or she may do so out of fear of disapproval or retaliation by the group. Groups may exert considerable pressure on dissatisfied members in order to maintain secrecy about their hazing practices.5 Some individuals who are hazed perceive that the humiliation and degradation from hazing would be less severe than what individuals would experience if they were to refuse to participate in hazing.14

    Perceived lack of alternatives: While the underlying needs of individuals and groups can be met through non-hazing means, a lack of knowledge about those means and an absence of creativity enables individuals to perpetuate the belief that hazing is necessary. When presented with credible alternatives, many individuals agree to pursue them in place of hazing.5

    Unrealistic Optimism: Although some college students may believe that hazing is harmful, they do not necessarily see themselves as susceptible to the harms that can arise from hazing.3 This research finding suggests that an optimistic bias15 may exist here: members of organizations or teams that haze may perceive that nothing adverse will happen to their group and only other groups will experience the negative consequences associated with hazing. Thus, organizations or athletic teams may continue to haze as long as they continue to stay out of harm’s way.

    Risk-Taking During Adolescence: Adolescents (aged 13-17) and young adults (aged 18-22) may be more likely to engage in risky behaviors when they are accompanied by their peers than when they are alone, according to Steinberg.16 Recent discoveries suggest that it is not until reaching age 24 that individuals become less susceptible to peer influence when assessing risks.16 When applied to hazing—generally a group activity—college-aged students may likely engage in risky hazing practices because they are in the presence of their peers.

    Sources:

    1 Hoover, N.C. (1999). Initiation rites and athletics: A national survey of NCAA sports teams. Retrieved from http://www.alfred.edu/sports_hazing/.

    2 Allan, E.J. and Madden, M.M. (2008, March11).Hazing in View: College Students at Risk. Initial Findings from the National Study of Student Hazing.
    Retrieved from
    http://www.hazingstudy.org/publications hazing_in_view_web.pdf.

    3 Campo, S., Poulos, G., and Sipple, J.W. (2005). Prevalence and profiling: Hazing among college students and points of intervention. American Journal of Health Behavior, 29(2), 137-149.

    4 Rahill, B. and Allan, E. (2005). Hazing Defined. Retrieved from http://www.stophazing.org.

    5 Cornell University. (2006). Consider the Issues: Research and Theory. Hazing.Cornell.edu: A revealing look at hidden rites. Retrieved from http://www.hazing.cornell.edu.

    6 Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper and Row.

    7 Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). On the ethics of human intervention on human psychological research with special references to the Stanford prison experiment. Cognition, 2(2), 243-56.

    8 Janis, I. L. (1997). Groupthink. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (163-176). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    9 Allan, E.J. and DeAngelis, G. (2004). Hazing, masculinity, and collision sports: (Un)becoming heroes. In J. Johnson and M. Holmes (Eds.), Making the team: Inside the world of sport initiations and hazing (61-82). Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press Inc.

    10 Allan, E.J. (2004). Hazing and Gender: Analyzing the Obvious. In Nuwer, H. (Ed.), The hazing reader (275-294). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    11 Guynn, K.L. and Aquila, F.D. (2004). Hazing in high schools: Causes and consequences. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

    12 Sweet, S. (1999). Understanding fraternity hazing: Insights from symbolic interactionist theory. Journal of College Student Development, 40(4), 355- 363.

    13 Lipkins, S. (2006) Preventing hazing: How parents, teachers, and coaches can stop the violence, harassment, and humiliation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    14 Holman, M. (2004). A search for a theoretical understanding of hazing practices in athletics. In J. Johnson and M. Holmes (Eds.), Making the team: Inside the world of sport initiations and hazing (50-60). Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press Inc.

    15 Weinstein, N.D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820.

    16 Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends Cogn Sci, 9(2),
    69-74.

    Additional References:

    Cokley, K., Miller, K., Cunningham, D., Motoike, J., King, A. & Awad, G. (2001). Developing an instrument to assess college students' attitudes toward pledging and hazing in Greek letter organizations. College Student Journal, 35(3), 451-456.

    Lodewijkx, H., & Syroit, J. (1997). Severity of initiation revisited: Does severity of initiation increase attractiveness in real groups? European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(3), 275-300.

    Lodewijkx, H., & Syroit, J. (2001). Affiliation during naturalistic severe and mild initiations: Some further evidence against the severity-attraction hypothesis. Current Research in Social Psychology, 6(7), 90-107.

    Martin, R. and Davids, K. (1995) The effects of group development techniques on a professional athletic team. Journal of Social Psychology: 135(4), 533- 535.

    Nuwer H Wrongs of Passage: Fraternities, Sororities, Hazing and Binge Drinking. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2001:1-360.

    Nuwer, H. (2004). The hazing reader. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Page Last Updated: July 10, 2008