social psychological explanations; de-individuation

Question 1

what is de-individuation

Answer 1

psychological state where individual loses personal identity, taking on identity of social group

e.g., when in crowd/wearing uniform

Question 2

crowd-behaviour

Answer 2

usually easily identified by others = behaviour constrained by social norms, most forms of aggression discouraged

• join crowd = lose restraint, greater freedom to behave in ways otherwise wouldnt

= responsibility shared throughout crowd = less personal guilt about directing harmful aggression at others

Question 3

individuated vs de-individuated

Answer 3

zimbardo distinguished between the 2;

• individuated state = rational/normative behaviour
• de-individuated state = emotional, impulsive, irrational, disinhibited and anti-normative behaviour

Question 4

what conditions of de-individuation promote aggression

Answer 4

• darkness
• drugs
• alcohol
• uniforms
• masks
• disguises
• anonymity
  (the bigger the crowd, the more anonymous we are = less opportunities for others to judge us negatively)

Question 5

2 types of self-awareness

Answer 5

prentice-dunn and rogers (1982)
1. private self-awareness
= how we pay attentions to own feelings/behaviour

2. public self-awareness
   = how much we care about what other people think of our behaviour

Question 6

what is the link between types of self-awareness and aggression due to being in faceless crowds

Answer 6

1. private self-awareness
   = reduced when part of crowd
   - attention become focused outwardly to events around us
   = less self-critical/thoughtful = promote de-individuated state
2. public self-awareness
   = also reduced in crowds
   - realisation of being one individual amongst many
   = no longer care how others see us = become less accountable for aggressive actions

Question 7

who conducted a classroom exercise to illustrate de-individuation

Answer 7

dodd (1985)

Question 8

dodd (1985) method

Answer 8

method
= asked 229 undergraduate psych students in 13 classes, ‘if you could do anything humanly possible with complete assurance that you wouldn’t be detected/held responsible, what would you do?’

= students aware response was completely anonymous

= 3 blind psychologists sorted responses into categories of anti-social behaviour

Question 9

dodd (1985) findings

Answer 9

findings
- 36% of responses involved some form at anti-social behaviour
- 26% were acc criminal acts, e.g., ‘rob bank’
- 9% were prosocial behaviours, e.g., helping ppl

= demonstrate link between anonymity, de-individuation and aggressive behaviours

Question 10

strength of de-individuation explanation for aggression

Answer 10

research support

douglas and mcgarty
= looked aggressive online behaviour in chatrooms/uses of instant messaging

• strong correl. between anonymity and ‘flaming’ (posting hostile messages)

= most aggressive messages sent by those who chose to hide real identities

= support link between aggression and anonymity

Question 11

further strength of de-individuation explanation for aggression

Answer 11

IRL evidence
= can explain aggressive behaviour of ‘baiting crowds’

mann = investigated instances of suicidal ‘jumpers’
- identified 21 cases reported in US newspapers off crowds gathering to ‘bait’ jumper (encourage them to jump)

conditions = darkness, large crowds, jumpers relatively distant from crowd

= conditions predicted by de-individuation theory, provide some validity to idea that large groups can become aggressive

Question 12

weakness of de-individuation explanation for aggression

Answer 12

normative rather than anti-normative
- de-individuation theory argues behave in ways contrary to social norms when less aware of private identity

spears and lea = argue it acc leads to conforming-to-group-norms behaviour
= can be anti or prosocial norms
= attenton to private identity shifted to social identity

= suggest ppl in de-individuated state remain sensitive to norms, not ignoring them