De- individualtion

Question 1

What is de-individuation?

Answer 1

A psychological state in which an individual loses their personal identity and takes on the identity of the social group

Question 2

Which key factors plays a role in de-individuation leading to aggression?

Answer 2

1. Anonymity (wearing a uniform)
2. Altered consciousness (alcohol, drugs)
3. Diffusion of responsibility – responsibility for the action is spread amongst the group members  more likely to be aggressive as don’t feel personally responsible for actions

Question 3

What are the two types of self-awareness?

Answer 3

1. Private self-awareness – how we pay attention our own feelings
2. Public self-awareness – how much we care about what other people think of our behaviour

Question 4

What are two studies which show the influence of de-individuation on aggressive behaviour?

Answer 4

1. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1972)
2. Zimbardo (1969)

Question 5

What was Zimbardo’s (1969) study exploring anonymity in de-individuation and aggression?

Answer 5

Zimbardo (1969):
Groups of four female participants were asked to deliver ‘electric shocks’ to a confederate to ‘aid learning.’ They issued these shocks in one of two conditions:
1. De-individuated condition – identities were removed, they wore bulky lab coats and hoods, sat in separate cubicles and were never referred to by name.
2. Individuated condition – wore their normal clothes, were given name tags and introduced to each other, and able to see each other when issuing the electric shocks.
Zimbardo found that participants in the de-individuated condition were more likely issue an electric shock and hold the button down for twice as long compared to participants in the individuated condition.

Question 6

What are the two strengths of de-individuation?

Answer 6

Real-world application – the baiting crowd
Mann (1981) analysed suicide leaps reported in the US. In ten out of 21 cases where a crowd had gathered to watch, baiting had occurred (crowd had urged suicide jumper to jump). Mostly occurred at night when the crowd was large and some distance from the jumper  likely to produce a state of de-individuation in the members of the crowd.
The power of baiting was also evident in an analysis of 60 lynchings in the US – the more people there were in the mob, the greater the savagery with which the perpetrators killed their victims.

Research support with high ecological validity
Douglas and McGarthy (2001) looked at aggressive online behaviour in chatrooms and use of instant messaging. They found a strong correlation between anonymity and ‘flaming’ (posting hostile messages) with most aggressive messages being sent by those who chose to hide their real identities (common behaviour of online ‘trolls’) – this has been implicated in high-profile cases of self-harm and even suicide.
This therefore supports the link between aggressive behaviour and anonymity – a key element of de-individuation.
Counter-argument: there is also evidence that de-individuation doesn’t always lead to aggression. Gergen et al. (1973) conducted a ‘deviance in the dark’ study where groups of 8 strangers were placed in a completely darkened room for 1 hour. They were told to do whatever they wanted to as they couldn’t identify each other and they would never meet again. They quickly stopped talking and started touching and kissing each other intimately. In a secondary study participants were told they would come face-to-face afterwards – the amount of touching/kissing was much lower. This suggests de-individuation may not always lead to aggression.

Question 7

What are the two limitationsof de-individuation?

Answer 7

Gender differences
It has been found that male and female groups responded differently under de-individuated conditions.
Cannavale et al. (1970) found an increase in aggression was obtained only in all-male groups and not in all-female groups.

De-individuation and prosocial behaviour
It has been found that de-individuation does not always lead to aggression.
Postmes and Spears (1998) conducted a meta-analysis of 60 studies of de-individuation. It was found that aggressive and antisocial behaviour is not more common in large groups and anonymous settings. Instead de-individuation increases people’s responsiveness to situational norms (what most people regard as appropriate behaviour in a given situation) – this may lead to aggressive behaviour, but it could also lead to increased prosocial behaviour.
A research study found that when prosocial environmental cues were present (e.g. a prosocial model), de-individuated participants performed significantly more altruistic acts (giving money) and fewer antisocial acts (giving electric shocks) compared to a control group.