Social Psychological Explanations of Aggression: De-Individuation Flashcards
Define ‘de-individuation’.
- A psychological state in which an individual loses their personal identity & takes on the identity of a social group
- when e.g. in a crowd or wearing a uniform
- The result may be decreased concern about the evaluation of others
What did Zimbardo investigate about de-individuation and aggression?
- He distinguished between individuated & de individuated behaviour
- In an individuated state, our behaviour is rational & normative (conforms to social norms)
- But in a de-individuated state, we loose self awareness, stop monotoring & regulating our own behaviour, ignoring social norms
- The conditions of de-individuation that promotes aggressive behaviour includes darkness, drugs, alcohol, uniforms, masks & disguises.
What is one major factor within de-individuation?
- Anonymity
- According to researchers anonmyity shapes crowd behaviour
- We have less fear of retribution because we are a small & unidentifiable part of a faceless crowd.
- The bigger the crowd, the more anonymous we are
- Anonymity provides fewer opportunitys for others to judge us negatively.
What did Prentice-Dunn and Rogers suggest about self awareness and aggression?
- That the reason de-individuation creates a greater likelihood of aggression is not due to anonymity directly but to the consequences of anonymity.
- They explained this process in two types of self-awareness
What were the two processes of self awareness that Prentice-Dunn and Rogers explained?
- Private self awareness: Concerns how we pay attention to our own feelings & behaviour. This is reduced when we are part of a crowd.
- Our attention becomes focused outwardly to the events around us, so we pay less attention to our own beliefs & feelings
- We are less self critical & less thoughtful which promotes a de-individuated state.
- Public self awareness: Refers to how much we care about what other people think of our behaviour- this is also reduced in crowds
- We realise that we are just one individual amongst many, we are anonymous & our behaviour is less likely to be judged by others.
- We no longer care how others see us
- So we become less accountable for our aggressive actions
What was the procedure for research conducted on deindividuation?
- David Dodd (1985)
Procedure: - He asked 229 undergraduate psychology students in 13 classes this question:
- ‘If you could do anything humany 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
- 3 independent raters who did not know the hypothesis decided which categories of antisocial behaviour the responses belonged to
What were Dodds research findings?
- Dodd found that 36% if 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, deindividuation & aggressive behaviour
Give one strength of de-individuation.
- OS: Research support
- Douglas & McGarty (2001)
- Looked at aggressive online behaviours in chatrooms & uses of instant messaging
- They found a strong correlation between anonymity & ‘flaming’ (posting hostile messages)
- Found that most aggressive messages were sent by those who chose to hide their real identities.
This supports a link between aggressive behaviour & anonymity, a key element of de-individuation
What is a counter point to de-individuation?
- However, also evidence that de-individuation does not always lead to aggression
- Gergen et als ‘deviance in the dark study’, groups of 8 strangers were placed in a completely darkened room for one hour.
- They were told to do just whatever they wanted to do, they could not identify each other & would never meet again
- They v quickly stopped talking and started touching & kissing each other intimately
In a 2nd study Gergen et al told new ppts 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
Give another strength of the de-individuation theory.
OS: Real world application
De-individuation 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 newpapers of a crowd gathering to ‘bait’ a jumper i.e encourgae his/her to jump
- These instances tended to occur in darkness, the crowds were large & the jumpers were distant from crowd
- These are conditions predicted by de-individuation theory to lead to a state of de-individuation in crowds, which led to aggressive baiting
Therefore there is some validity to the idea that a large group can become aggressive in a de-individuated ‘faceless’ crowd
Give one limitation of de-individuation.
- OL: Role of norms
- De-individuated behaviour is normative rather than anti-normative
- De-individuation theory argues 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 deindividuation), Spears & Lea (1992) argue that de-individuation actually leads to behaviour that conforms to group norms.
- These may be antisocial norms but could equally be prosocial norms (e.g. helping)
- This happens because anonymity shifts an individuals attention from his/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.
