Aggression : De-individuation

Question 1

What is deindividuation?

Answer 1

A psychological state where an individual has lowered levels of self evaluation and decreased concerns about evaluation by others, freeing them from social norms (particularly when they’re in a group).

Question 2

What is the crowd theory?

Answer 2

Gustave Le Bon (1895) explained behaviour of individuals in groups, Zimbardo (1969) proposed theory of de-individuation

Question 3

How are social norms a constraint to aggression?

Answer 3

Identity is based on compliance with social norms. Under normal circumstances an awareness of social norms, and our identifiability prevents aggressive and deviant behaviour. Individuals in public places carry out self-assessment to ensure compliance with social norms. When an individual becomes part of a crowd, they become anonymous and lose their individuality. It’s weakened as awareness of their individual identity is weakened. Individuals in groups do not see the consequences of any aggression and social norms that are normally followed are forgotten.

Question 4

What’s the role of anonymity?

Answer 4

In an individuated state our behaviour is rational and normative. In a de-individuated state our behaviours are emotional, impulsive, irrational, disinhibited and anti-normative and we lose our self-awareness, we stop monitoring and regulating our own behaviour and simply ‘live for the moment’ without thinking about the future.

Question 5

What conditions promote aggression?

Answer 5

• Darkness
• Uniforms
• Disguise
• Drugs/ alcohol
• Crowds (the bigger the better)
• Major factor is a feeling of anonymity
• Less fear of retribution
• fewer opportunities for others to judges negatively

Question 6

Prentice-Dunn & Rogers (1982)

Answer 6

Suggested deindividuation makes aggression more likely bc of the consequences of anonymity

Question 7

Prentice-Dunn & Rogers (1982)’s private self awareness?

Answer 7

Relates to how much attention is paid by ourselves to our own feelings and behvaiour, which is reduced in a crowd setting

Question 8

Prentice-Dunn & Rogers (1982)’s public self awareness?

Answer 8

Relates to how much attention is paid by others to our feelings and behvaiour, which is reduced in a crowd setting

Question 9

Malamuth (1981)

Answer 9

Questioned male undergrads at US uni directly about their likelihood of committing an act if they were guaranteed anonymity and immunity → 35% admitted they would rape.

Question 10

Dodd (1985)

Answer 10

299 US students in 13 classes were asked “If you could do anything humanely possible with complete assurance you would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do?” → 36% involved antisocial behaviour, 26% criminal acts (rob a bank, murder, rape, assassination of political figure), only 9% prosocial

Question 11

Diener (1976)

Answer 11

On Halloween, 1300 children under different conditions (non/ anonymity either alone or in a group) given the opportunity to steal sweets and money → 57% in group and anonymous stole, 21% in identifiable

Question 12

Johnson & Downing (1979)

Answer 12

Three conditions where Ps had to give fake electric shocks to confed…
- female Ps dressed as KKK (hidden faces)
- Dressed as nurses
- Wore normal clothes
They found that KKK condition gave much higher shocks demonstrating when individuals agre disguised and their identity is hidden, they are more likely to be aggressive

Question 13

What are the strengths of deindividualisation as an explanation of aggression?

Answer 13

• Supporting evidence that anonymity encourages aggressive behaviour (particularly on social media) → Douglas & McCarthy (2001) analyzed interactions in chatrooms and instant messaging and found that users who engaged in aggressive behavior (eg: trolling) concealed their identities (supporting de-individuation theory). However, a limitation of this evidence is its generalisability; online aggression may not fully reflect real-world behaviors, as face-to-face interactions involve additional social cues that may inhibit aggression.
• real-world evidence that identifies conditions increasing the likelihood of de-individuation → Mann (1981) studied cases of crowds encouraging “suicide jumpers” and found that baiting incidents were more likely in darkness, with larger, distant crowds (supports de-individuation theory). These conditions lower self-awareness, creating aggressive responses. However, this was a naturalistic, observation study, it lacks control over extraneous variables (alcohol/drug use), and the situational context for the crowd gathering, potentially limiting validity.

Question 14

What are the limitations of deindividualisation as an explanation of aggression?

Answer 14

• evidence showing gender differences in responses to de-individuated condition → Cannavale et al. (1970) placed males and females in de-individuated settings and found increased aggression only in males, supported by Diener (1973). This highlights a beta bias in the theory (assumes men and women respond similarly to de individuation). This doesn’t mean that females are not capable of aggression, even under deindividuated circumstances, as demonstrated by Johnson & Downing’s (1979). However, the context in gender differences in aggression needs to be further explored.
• anonymity does not always lead to aggression → Gergen et al. (1973) found in their “deviance in the dark” study, where strangers placed in a dark room with anonymity often engaged in sexually intimate behaviour, rather than aggressive behavior. When participants were told they would meet afterwards, intimate behaviors declined but didn’t stop. Spears and Lea (1992) further developed the Social Identity Model (SIDE), proposing that de individuation leads individuals to conform to the specific norms of the group, whether pro-social or anti-social, rather than disregarding social norms entirely.