Social psychological explanations of aggression: De-individuation

Question 1

Who came up with de-individuation

Answer 1

Gustav LeBon (1985)

Question 2

De-individuation explaining crowd behaviour

Answer 2

We lose restraint/individual self-identity/responsibility for our behaviour= disregard norms/laws and responsibility is shared throughout crowd= - personal guilt

Question 3

Difference between individuated/de-individuated behaviour (Zimbardo)

Answer 3

Individuated= rational/normative
De-individuated= emotional/impulsive/irrational/disinhibited/anti-normative
=Loss of self-awareness/regulation of behaviour/ignoring social norms

Question 3

Conditions of de-individuation that promote aggression

Answer 3

Darkness/drugs/alcohol/uniforms/disguises/anonymity

Question 4

How does anonymity “shape crowd behaviour” (Dixon/Mahendran)

Answer 4

Don’t fear consequences as small/unidentifiable part of faceless crowd
-Few opportunities to be judged negatively

Question 5

How is it more the consequences of anonymity than anonymity directly that cause aggression in de-individuation

Answer 5

Dunn/Rogers said causes reduction in public/private self-awareness

Question 6

Private self-awareness

Answer 6

-Paying attention to own thoughts/behaviour
-Reduced in crowns as attention is focussed outwardly
=Less self-critical/thoughtful
=De-individuation

Question 7

Public self-awareness

Answer 7

How much we care about what other ppl think about our behaviour
-Reduced in crowds as anonymous= feel less accountable for aggression

Question 8

Who conducted research on de-individuation

Answer 8

David Dodd (1985)

Question 9

David Dodd procedure

Answer 9

Psychology students asked what they would do if this action had no consequences
-All responses anonymous

Question 10

David Dodd findings

Answer 10

36% said antisocial behaviour
26% were criminal acts
Only 9% was prosocial

Demonstrates anonymity/de-individuation/aggression link

Question 11

What % of David Dodd’s students would have engaged in antisocial behaviour if their actions had no consequences

Answer 11

36

Question 12

What % of David Dodd’s students would have committed crimes if their actions had no consequences

Answer 12

26

Question 13

What % of David Dodd’s students would have engaged in prosocial behaviour if their actions had no consequences

Answer 13

9

Question 14

Strength of de-individuation

Answer 14

Research support
-e.g Douglas/McGarty looked at online aggressive behaviour= most aggressive messages sent by anonymous accounts

Supports a link between aggressive behaviour and anonymity, a key element of de-individuation

Question 15

Counterpoint to research support

Answer 15

Evidence that de-individuation doesn’t always lead to aggression
-e.g Gergen’s “deviance in the dark” study: strangers in dark room together for 1 hour= immediately started touching and kissing

So de-individuation may not always lead to aggression

Question 16

Strength 2 of de-individuation (explains baiting corwds)

Answer 16

Mann investigated cases of crowds encouraging someone to jump off bridge and kill themselves
-Dark/large crowds/jumper distant
-These conditions are predicted by theory to cause de-individuation/aggression

Increases internal validity

Question 17

Weakness of de-individuation

Answer 17

Normative not anti-normative