De-individuation Flashcards
What is de-individuation?
-A psychological state whereby an individual loses their personal identity and takes on the identity of a social group when for example in a crowd wearing a uniform
What did Le bon (1895) suggest how crowd behaviour leads to de-individuation?
-As part of a crowd it removes restraints placed by norms on aggressive behaviours which gives freedom to behave in ways that were not typical.
-Senses of self-identity and responsibility are lost and shared throughout the crowd which limits the personal feelings of guilt
What did Zimbardo suggest about individuated and de-individuated behaviour?
-Individuated behaviour is rational and normative
-De-individuated behaviour is emotional, impulsive, irrational, disinhibited and anti-normative. This leads to lack of self-awareness, ignoring social norms and not regulating our behaviour.
Which conditions promote de-individuation which promote aggressive behaviour?
-darkness
-drugs and alcohol
-uniforms
-masks and disguises
-Anonymity as part of a crowd: the bigger the crowd the more anonymous a person is and therefore the more de-individuated
What two types of self-awareness were used by Dunn and rogers (1982) to explain consequences of anonymity?
1) private self-awareness: how we pay attention to our own feelings and thoughts. This is reduced when we are part of a crowd as we pay more attention to what is going on around us rather than our own beliefs and actions. This leads us to being less self-critical
2)Public self-awareness: how much we care what other people think of our behaviour. As a crowd you are 1 individual among many so our behaviour is less scrutinised as an individual so we are okay with aggressive behaviour.
What was David Dodd’s (1985) study on de-individuation?
- asked 229 undergraduate psychology students in 13 classes the question: “if you could do anything humanly possible with complete assurance that you would not be held responsible, what would you do”. Answers were anonymous and 3 independent raters would decide what categories the behaviour belonged to
-36% involved some form of anti-social behaviour
-26% = criminal acts - most popular was rob a bank whilst some said rape/ murder
- only 9% of responses = pro social behaviour
-This shows a link between anonymity, de-individuation and aggressive behaviour
Strengths of the de-individuated explanation for aggression?
-Real-world de-individuation with baiting crowds: Leon Mann (1981) investigated instances of suicide jumpers and found that 21 instances in US newspapers where crowds gathered to encourage the person to jump. The crowds were often large and together when it was dark and the jumper was not visible enough. Therefore, this supports the conditions for de-individuation and this de-individuation led to aggressive baiting. Therefore this provides validity that large de-individuated crowds can lead to aggressive behaviour
-Research Support: Douglas and McGarty (2001) looked at aggressive behaviours on online chatrooms and messages. They found a positive correlation between anonymity and flaming - aggressive and hostile messages. They found the most aggressive texts can from people who were anonymous and is implicated in cases of self-harm and suicide. Therefore, this proves that anonymity can lead to aggressive and hostile behaviour.
-However, contrasting evidence from Gergen (1973) “deviance in the dark” study where 8 groups of participants were placed in a completely dark room for 1 hr and would not meet eachother. These people engaged in intimate activities. However, follow-up study where they would meet each other this behaviour was reduced. Nevertheless shows how de-individuation does not always end up with aggressive behaviour.
What are the limitations for the de-individuated explanation for aggression?
Role of norms: De-inividuated behaviour is more normative than anti-normative. Whilst de-individuated theory suggest we behave in a way that goes against social norms when were are less aware of personal identity, SIDE model, Spears and Lee (1992) argue that de-indiviuation actually leads to behaviour that conforms to social norms. These may be antisocial norms but could be prosocial norms. This is because de-individuation shifts a personal identity to the identity of the group so if the group helps, so will they. Therefore, even in a de-individuated state a person still responds to norms.
