Aggression - De-individuation

Question 1

What does de-individuation refer to

Answer 1

reduced sense of personal responsibility

Question 2

What did Zimbardo argue

Answer 2

behaviour is usually constrained by social norms but when we become part of a crowd we loose restraint and may behave irrationally and become de-individuated and lose individual self-identity

Question 3

Zimbardo why do we not feel guilty

Answer 3

responsibility is shared throughout a crowd - we ignore social norms and experience less personal guilt at harmful aggression directed at others

Question 4

what is a major condition of de-individuation

Answer 4

anonymity

Question 5

explain anonymity

Answer 5

we have less fear retribution because we are unidentifiable in a crowd and it provides fewer opportunities foremothers to judge us negatively

Question 6

explain how anonymity reduces private self awareness using a study

Answer 6

Prentice-Dunn and Rogers (1982) argues because our attention is focused outwardly to the events around us. This means we think less about our own beliefs and feeling we are less critical and evaluate

Question 7

explain how anonymity reduces public self awareness

Answer 7

because we realise we are anonymous and our behaviour is less likely to be judged by others.
we no longer care how others see us and so we become less accountable for our aggressive and destructive actions

Question 8

Who did the key study on de-individuation

Answer 8

Dodd (1985)

Question 9

What was dodd’s procedure

Answer 9

Asked psychology students ‘if you could do anything humanly possible with complete assurance that you would not be detected or held responsible,what would you do?’ Knowing there answers are anonymous
Three raters who didn’t know the hypothesis decided whether the responses fit into the categories pro social or antisocial behaviour

Question 10

What were the results of Dodd’s experiment

Answer 10

36% antisocial and 26% actual criminal acts

9% were pro social e.g. Helping people

Question 11

What does Dodd’s study demonstrate

Answer 11

In terms of how people imagine they would behave, this study shows a link between anoynimity, de-individuation and aggression

Question 12

Give 2 strengths of de-individuation

Answer 12

There is supportive research evidence

There is useful real-life applications

Question 13

Explain the research evidence as a strength of de-individuation

Answer 13

Douglas and McGarty (1979) looked at online aggressive behaviour in chatrooms and instant message.
They found a correlation between anonymity flaming (hostile messages)
Suggesting a link between anonymity,de-individuation and aggressive behaviour in a more relevant context to today

Question 14

Explain the real life applications which is a strength of de-individuation

Answer 14

Help us understand online gaming services such as Xbox live which have features promoting de-individuation e.g. Players using handles to identify themselves so reducing personal identity and an arousing personal environment confirming the relevance of de-individuation concepts to aggression

Question 15

What are three limitations of de individuation

Answer 15

Contradictory evidence
De-individuation does not inevitably lead to aggression
Alternative explanations may account better for aggression

Question 16

Explain alternative explanations as a limitation of de-individuation using a study

Answer 16

Spears and Lea (1992) applied SIT to de-individuation in their side model. Dein leads to behaviour that conforms to local group norms (antisocial or pro social) because anoynmity shifts an individual’s attention from personal identity to social identity as a group member.

Question 17

What does spears and Lea study show

Answer 17

Anoynmity and reduced self-awareness do not have the wider effects predicted by the de-individuation explanation - aggression is not the inevitable outcome of de-individuated state

Question 18

Explain that de-individuation does not inevitably lead to aggression as a limitation using a study

Answer 18

Johnson and Downings (1979)

Question 19

What was Johnson and Downings procedure

Answer 19

Female participants gave shocks to a confederate either wearing masks, dressed as nurses or wearing their own clothes (control)

Question 20

What was Johnson and Downings result

Answer 20

Masked participants gave more intense shocks and nurses gave fewer at low levels. Nurses were more compassionate towards victims in line with the pro social role associated with a nurses uniform

Question 21

What does Johnson and Downings study show

Answer 21

Both aggression and pro social behaviour are potential outcomes of de-individuation (not just aggression) normative cues in the situation determine which is most likely to occur

Question 22

What is Spear and Lea’s SIT and SIDE stand for

Answer 22

SIT Social Identity Theory

SIDE Social Identity model f De-individuation effects

Question 23

Who gave contradictory evidence for de-individuation

Answer 23

Gergen et al (1973)

Question 24

What was Gerden et al procedure

Answer 24

Put strangers in a darkened room and told them to do what they wanted - they soon started kissing and touching each other

Question 25

What happened when Gergen repeated the study what was changed

Answer 25

This deviance in the dark study was repeated and told they would be face to face with each other afterwards and touching and kissing was reduced

Question 26

What did Gergen study conclude

Answer 26

Despite a guarantee of anonymity creating the conditions for de-individuation - aggressive behaviour was not an outcome of this study