De-individuation

Question 1

De-individuation

Answer 1

• Social psychological theory of aggression that occurs when an individual is part of a group or crowd.
• Lost sense of self-identity, morals and beliefs that normally guide behavior are loosened and they adopt the moral of the group they’re part of at that time.

Question 2

Crowd behaviour

Answer 2

• De-individuation is a concept originally used by Le Bon (1895) to explain the behaviour of individuals in crowds.
• We are usually easily identified by others, so our behaviour is constrained by social norms.
• In society most forms of aggression are discouraged but when part of a crowd, we lose restraint and have the freedom to behave in ways we wouldn’t otherwise.
• Loss of individual self-identity and responsibility for behaviour.
• Disregarding of norms and even laws.
• Responsibility becomes shared throughout the crowd -> less personal guilt about directing harmful aggression at others.

Question 3

De-individuation and aggression

Answer 3

• Zimbardo (1969) distinguished between individuated and de-individuated behaviour.
• In an individuated state, our behaviour is rational and normative (conforms to social norms).
• But de-individuated behaviours are emotional, impulsive, irrational, disinhibited and anti-normative.
• De-individuated state: loss of self-awareness, stop monitoring and regulating our own behaviour, ignore social norms (live for the moment).
• The conditions of de-individuation which promote aggressive behaviour include darkness, drugs, alcohol, uniforms, masks and disguises. A major factor is anonymity.
• Dixon and Mahendran (2012), ‘anonymity shapes crowd behaviour”. Less fear of retribution because we are a small and unidentifiable part of a faceless crowd.
• The bigger the crowd, the more anonymous were. Anonymity provides fewer opportunities for others to judge us negatively.

Question 4

Reduced self-awareness

Answer 4

• The experience of de-individuation as part of a faceless crowd creates a greater likelihood of aggression.
• Dunn and Rogers (1982): not due to anonymity directly, but to the consequences of anonymity.
• They explain this process in terms of two types of self-awareness:
• Private self-awareness concerns how we pay attention to our own feelings and behaviour, reduced when we are part of a crowd. Attention focuses on external events and less on beliefs and feelings. Less self-critical and less thoughtful; a de-individuated state.
• Public self-awareness refers to how much we care about what other people think of our behaviour, also reduced in crowds. Realisation that we are just one individual amongst many, we are anonymous, and our behaviour is less likely to be judged by others. No longer care how others see us, so we become less accountable for our aggressive actions.

Question 5

of two types of self-awareness

Answer 5

• Private self-awareness concerns how we pay attention to our own feelings and behaviour, reduced when we are part of a crowd. Attention focuses on external events and less on beliefs and feelings. Less self-critical and less thoughtful; a de-individuated state.
• Public self-awareness refers to how much we care about what other people think of our behaviour, also reduced in crowds. Realisation that we are just one individual amongst many, we are anonymous, and our behaviour is less likely to be judged by others. No longer care how others see us, so we become less accountable for our aggressive actions.

Question 6

Research on de-individuation

Answer 6

• Dodd (1985): psychology teacher who developed a classroom exercise to illustrate de-individuation.
• Asked 229 undergraduate psychology students in 13 classes this question: If you could do anything humanly possible with complete assurance that you would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do?’.
• The students knew their responses were completely anonymous.
• Three independent raters who did not know the hypothesis decided which categories of antisocial behaviour the responses belonged to.

Question 7

Findings:

Answer 7

• 36% of the responses involved some form of antisocial behaviour.
• 26% were actual criminal acts, the most common of which was ‘rob a bank’.
• A few students opted for murder, rape and assassination of a political figure.
• Only 9% of responses were prosocial behaviours (such as helping people).
• In terms of how people imagine they would behave, this study demonstrates a link between anonymity, de-individuation and aggressive behaviour.

Question 8

Evaluation
Research support

Answer 8

• One strength is research support for de-individuation.
• Douglas and McGarty (2001): aggressive online behaviour in chatrooms and uses of instant messaging.
• Found a strong correlation between anonymity and ‘flaming’ (posting hostile messages).
• They found that most aggressive messages were sent by those who chose to hide their real identities.
• This is a common behaviour of online ‘trolls’, implicated in high-profile cases of self-harm and even suicide.
• Supports a link between aggressive behaviour and anonymity, a key element of de-individuation.

Question 9

Counterpoint

Answer 9

• Also, evidence that de-individuation does not always lead to aggression.
• Gergen et al’s (1973): ‘Deviance in the dark’ study. Groups of eight strangers were placed in a completely darkened room for one hour.
• They were told to do just whatever they wanted to, they could not identify each other, and they would never meet again.
• They very quickly stopped talking and started touching and kissing each other intimately.
• In a second study Gergen et al. told new participants they would come face-to-face afterwards. In this case the amount of touching/kissing was much lower.
• Therefore, de-individuation may not always lead to aggression.

Question 10

Real-world de-individuation

Answer 10

• Can explain the aggressive behaviour of “baiting crowds.
• Mann (1981) investigated instances of suicidal ‘jumpers” (e.g., from buildings).
• He identified 21 cases reported in US newspapers of a crowd gathering to ‘bait’ a jumper, i.e., encourage him or her to jump.
• These incidents tended to occur in darkness, the crowds were large, and the jumpers were relatively distant from the crowd (i.e., high up).
• These are the conditions predicted by de-individuation theory to lead to a state of de-individuation in crowds, which led to aggressive baiting.
• Some validity to the idea that a large group can become aggressive in a de-individuated ‘faceless’ crowd.

Question 11

Role of norms

Answer 11

• De-individuated behaviour is normative rather than anti-normative.
• De-individuation theory argues that we behave in ways that are contrary to social norms (e.g., disinhibited aggression) when we are less aware of our private identity.
• However, in their SIDE model (social identity model of de-individuation), Spears and Lea (1992) argue that de-individuation leads to behaviour that conforms to group norms.
• These may be antisocial norms but could equally well be prosocial norms (e.g., helping).
• This happens because anonymity shifts an individual’s attention from his or her private identity to their social identity as a group member.
• This suggests that people in a de-individuated state remain sensitive to norms rather than ignoring them.

Question 12

Nurture and nature

Answer 12

• De-individuation highlights factors related to nurture in aggressive behaviour.
• These include anything that reduces private and public self-awareness.
• People who would not usually behave aggressively do so when part of a crowd (e.g. at a football match), ultimate example of this is online behaviour (e.g. social media).
• However, nature plays an important role in causing aggressive behaviour.
• These causes are genetic, ethological and evolutionary.
• This approach suggests that people are aggressive in crowds perhaps because the situation makes you feel stressed.