aggression - de-individualisation

Question 1

what’s De-Individuation and who created it

Answer 1

is a concept used by Le Bon (1895) to explain the behaviour of individuals in crowds.

Question 2

explain crowd behaviour
(De-Ind)

Answer 2

usually we are easily identified by others, our behaviour set by social norms + society deems aggressive behaviour negatively.
But when in crowd - we lose restraint + have freedom to behave in ways we wouldn’t otherwise.

we experience less personal guilt at harmful aggression directed at others.

Question 3

what do we lose in a crowd

Answer 3

we lose our sense of individual self-identity + responsibility for our behaviour + have greater disregard for norms + laws.

Question 4

who distinguished between individual and de-individualted behaviour

Answer 4

Philip Zimbardo 1969

Question 5

what happens in an individuated state

Answer 5

our behaviour is generally rational and normative (i.e conforms to social norms)

Question 6

what happens in a de-individualted state

Answer 6

behaviours are emotional, impulsive and irrational.
most importantly they are anti-normative + disinhibited.
we lose self awareness, we stop monitoring and regulating our own behaviour, we ignore social norms and ‘live for the moment’ failing to form longer term plans.

Question 7

what were John Dixon + Desi Mahendran conditions De-individuation leading to aggression

Answer 7

conditions for de-individuation which promote aggression include; darkness, drugs, alcohol, uniforms, masks and disguises.

Question 8

what did Dixson and Mahendran say shapes crowd behaviour and what does this lead to?

(de-individualtion leading to aggression)

Answer 8

‘anonymity shapes crowd behaviour’. we have less fear of retribution because we are small + unidentifiable part of faceless crowd; the bigger the crowd, more anonymous we are. also provides fewer opportunities for other to judge us negatively.

Question 9

what does the experience of de-individualism lead to

Answer 9

experience of de-individuation as part of faceless crowd creates a greater likelihood of aggression.

Question 10

what’s was Prentice-Dunn and Rogers role of self-awareness
(de-indivdualisation)

Answer 10

according to Steven prentice-Dunn + Ronald rogers 1982, this is not due to anonymity directly but consequences of anonymity.
this explained by Private self awareness and Public self awareness.

Question 11

What’s Public self-awareness
(de-individuation)

Answer 11

how much we care about what other people think of our own behaviour + this is reduced in crowds. we realise we are just one individual amongst many; were anonymous + behaviour is less likely to be judged. no longer care how others see us, we become less accountable for our aggressive + destructive actions.

Question 12

what’s private self-awareness
(de-individuation)

Answer 12

concerns how we pay attention to our own feelings + behaviour. This is reduced when we are apart of a crowd. Our attention becomes focused outwardly to the events around us, so we pay less attention to our own beliefs + feelings. Were less self-critical, less thoughtful + less evaluative all foster a de-individuated state.

Question 13

who conducted research into de-individuation

Answer 13

David Dodd 1985 psychology teacher who developed classroom exercise to illustrate De-Individuation.

Question 14

outline Dodd’s procedure research into de-individuation

Answer 14

PROCEDURE:
-asked 229 undergraduate psychology students in 13 classes this question: ‘if you could do anything humanly possible, what would you do?’
-Responses anonymous.
-3 independent raters who did not know the hypothesis decided which categories of antisocial behaviour the respondents belonged to

Question 15

Dodds sample

Answer 15

229 undergrad psychology students in 13 classes

Question 16

what was Dodd’s question

Answer 16

“if you could do anything humanly possible what would you do?”

Question 17

what was Dodd’s findings

Answer 17

FINDINGS:
D found 36% of the responses involved some form of antisocial behaviour
26% were criminal acts, most common ‘rob a bank’. few murder, rape, assassination of political figure.
9% were prosocial behaviours (helping people)
In terms of how people imagine they behave this study demonstrates a link between anonymity, de-individuation + aggressive behaviour.

Question 18

Evaluation of De-individuation

Answer 18

RESEARCH SUPPORT:
Douglas + McGarthy 2001 aggressive online behaviour in chatrooms + uses of instant messaging. Found strong correlation between anonymity + ‘flaming’ sending threatening + hostile messages. Most aggressive messages were sent by those who chose to hide their real identity.
Suggest: existence of link between anonymity, de-individuation + aggressive behaviour in context has greater relevance today. because the explosion in social media use, the activities of online ‘trolls’.

LACK OF SUPPORT:
some research shows that de I doesn’t always lead to aggression. ‘deviance in the dark’ study Gergen et al 1973.
-selected 8 Ps all strangers to each other.
-placed in completed dark room for 1 hour + told to do whatever they want.
-didnt take long for them to stop talking + start kissing + touching each other intimately. study was repeated but instead told after hour of darkness they would meet each other after. Unsurprisingly amount of kissing declined dramatically. Aggression was not present in this study.

DE-INDIVIDUATION + PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Johnson + Downing 1979 conducted study: female participants had to give (fake) electric shocks to confederate. IN -1 condition Ps were dressed as Ku Klux Klan type outfits with masks.
-another condition dressed as nurses.
-control group dressed in own clothes
found: most intense and more shocks in KKK group. Nurses gave fewer + lower levels and was more compassionate to victim.
= seems that aggression + prosocial behaviour are potential outcomes of de-individuation and normative cues in the situation determine which is most likely to occur.

REAL-LIFE APPLICATION
Helps us to understand aggressive behaviour in gaming e.g. Xbox. promotes de-individuation, reduction of personal identity players use ‘handles’ and there is presence of ‘crowd’ in form of audience.

Question 19

RESEARCH SUPPORT:
Douglas + McGarthy 2001

Answer 19

aggressive online behaviour in chatrooms + uses of instant messaging. Found strong correlation between anonymity + ‘flaming’ sending threatening + hostile messages. Most aggressive messages were sent by those who chose to hide their real identity.
Suggest: existence of link between anonymity, de-individuation + aggressive behaviour in context has greater relevance today. because the explosion in social media use, the activities of online ‘trolls’.

Question 20

LACK OF SUPPORT:
‘deviance in the dark’ study Gergen et al 1973.

Answer 20

-selected 8 Ps all strangers to each other.
-placed in completed dark room for 1 hour + told to do whatever they want.
-didnt take long for them to stop talking + start kissing + touching each other intimately. study was repeated but instead told after hour of darkness they would meet each other after. Unsurprisingly amount of kissing declined dramatically. Aggression was not present in this study.

Question 21

DE-INDIVIDUATION + PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Johnson + Downing 1979

Answer 21

conducted study: female participants had to give (fake) electric shocks to confederate. IN -1 condition Ps were dressed as Ku Klux Klan type outfits with masks.
-another condition dressed as nurses.
-control group dressed in own clothes
found: most intense and more shocks in KKK group. Nurses gave fewer + lower levels and was more compassionate to victim.
= seems that aggression + prosocial behaviour are potential outcomes of de-individuation and normative cues in the situation determine which is most likely to occur.

Question 22

REAL-LIFE APPLICATION

Answer 22

Helps us to understand aggressive behaviour in gaming e.g. Xbox. promotes de-individuation, reduction of personal identity players use ‘handles’ and there is presence of ‘crowd’ in form of audience.