De-individuation Flashcards
What is de-individuation?
A psychological state in which an individual loses their personal identity and takes on the identity of the social group.
Explain how Zimbardo distinguishes between an individuated and de-individuated state.
In an individuated state, behaviour is normative and rational (conforms to social norms), whereas de-individuated behaviours are impulsive, disinhibited, irrational and anti-normative.
Which key factors plays a role in eliciting a state of de-individuation leading to aggression?
· Anonymity – less easily identifiable due to shared visual similarity.
· Consumption of alcohol and/or drugs (altered state of consciousness) – inhibitions are loosened, and executive functions are suppressed, leading to increased impulsion.
· Diffusion of responsibility – shared responsibility for actions which reduces guilt.
What are the two types of self-awareness?
· Private self-awareness – how we pay attention to our own feelings.
· Public self-awareness – how much we care about what other people think of our behaviour.
Why do these types of self-awareness decrease when in crowds?
· Public self-awareness – we care less about what other people think when in crowds as we are less easily identified (anonymity).
· Private self-awareness – we pay less attention to our own feelings because we experience less responsibility for our own actions (diffusion of responsibility).
What are two studies which show the influence of de-individuation on aggressive behaviour?
- Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1972)
- Zimbardo (1969)
Explain Zimbardo’s (1969) study and results.
Groups of 4 female ptpts were asked to deliver electric shocks to a confederate to aid learning.
They issued the shocks in one of either 2 conditions:
1 -De-individuated state (never referred to by name, sat in separate cubicles, wearing hoods and lab coats)
2- Individuated state (wore name tags and normal clothes, introduced to each other).
Participants in the de-individuated condition more likely to issue an electric shock and hold the button down for twice as long.
How does the Stanford Prison Experiment highlight the role of de-individuation in aggressive behaviour?
Prison guards were in a de-individuated state – acting in a group, had anonymity due to wearing uniforms and mirrored sunglasses.
2 Strengths of de-individuation
Real-world application:
De-individuation can explain the aggressive crowd behaviour of ‘baiting’ – a phenomena whereby people encourage or urge a suicide jumper to jump.
Mann (1981) analysed instances of suicide jumps reported in the US. In ten out of the 21 cases analysed, it was found that when a crowd had gathered to watch, baiting had occurred. Mann suggested that membership in a large crowd, the cover of night time, and physical distance between crowd and victim (all factors associated with anonymity) were likely to produce a state of de-individuation in the members of the crowd.
The power of baiting was also evident in Mullen’s (1986) analysis of 60 lynchings in the US between 1899 and 1946. It was found the more people there were in the mob, the greater the savagery with which the perpetrators killed their victims.
Ecologically valid research:
Douglas and McGarthy (2001) 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’.
Furthermore, Diener et al. (1976) conducted a covert, natural experiment of 1,300 trick-or-treating children at Halloween who were observed under different conditions – one condition of anonymity, one of non-anonymity, and then conditions of being alone or in a group. The children were given the opportunity to steal sweets and money. Those children who were in a group and anonymous were the group who stole the most at 57%, compared to 21% in the group that were identifiable.
This therefore supports the link between aggressive behaviour and anonymity, which strengthens a key element of de-individuation theory.
2 Limitations of de-individuation
Gender differences:
Cannavale et al. (1970) found that male and female groups responded differently under de-individuated conditions, where an increase in aggression was obtained only in the all-male groups. Eagly (2013) suggested that this disparity exists because males respond to provocation in more extreme ways than females and being in a de-individuated state magnifies this tendency.
This suggests a gender bias in the theory, where the theory cannot be applied to females.
Prosocial behaviours:
It has been found that de-individuation can lead to individuals engaging in altruistic prosocial behaviours. Specifically, Johnson and Downing (1979) found that when dressed as nurses, participants gave fewer shocks to a confederate than a control group in normal clothes. The nurse group were also noted to be more compassionate towards the victim, in line with the prosocial role associated with a nursing uniform.
This therefore showed divergent effects of the de-individuation manipulation based on the cues contained in the clothes which could also be interpreted as signalling a contextual norm. These findings shows that social learning and group norms influence behaviours.
