SP explanations for aggression: De-individuation Flashcards
1
Q
What is de-individuation?
A
- psychological state where people lose their personal identity and take on the identity of a social group e.g. in a crowd or wearing uniform
2
Q
How did Le Bon explain de-individuation in crowds?
A
- on our own we are easily identifiable by others & behaviour is constrained by social norms
- when we become part of a crowd we lose sense of individual self-identity, restraint & disregard norms & laws
> responsibility is shared throughout crowd so we experience less personal guilt when directing harmful aggression to others
3
Q
What did Zimbardo distinguish between?
A
- individuate state; our behaviour is rational & normative
- deindividuated state; behaviours are emotional, impulsive, irrational & anti-normative > in this state we lose self-awareness, stop monitoring & regulating our own behaviour
4
Q
What are the conditions of de-individuation which promote aggressive behaviour?
A
- darkness, drugs, alcohol, uniforms, masks
- major factor = anonymity
- Dixon & Mahendran > anonymity shapes crowd behaviour > we have less fear of retribution because we are small & unidentifiable as part of a faceless crowd
5
Q
According to Prentice-Dunn & Rogers what actually increases the likelihood of aggression beside anonymity?
A
- the consequences of anonymity
- explain this process in terms of two types of self awareness:
- private self awareness > 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, less self critical > promotes a de-individuated state
- public self awareness > how much we care about what others think about our behaviour, this is reduced when we are part of a crowd, anonymous so no longer care how others see us > less accountable for aggressive behaviour
6
Q
What is a strength of research into de-individuation?
A
- research to support
- Douglas & McGarty looked at aggressive online behaviour in chatrooms & uses of instant messaging
- found a strong correlation between anonymity and flaming > most aggressive messages sent by those who chose to hide their real identities
- supports link between aggressive behaviour and anonymity, a key element of deindividuation
7
Q
What is a counterpoint of research to support deindividuation?
A
- also evidence that de-individuation does not always lead to aggression
- Gergen et al ‘deviance in the dark’ study > he placed groups of strangers were placed in a completely darkened room for one hour & told to do whatever they wanted to do & that they could not identify each other
- started touching & kissing each other intimately
- in a second study where they were tole they would come face to face after > touching/kissing was much lower
- de-individuation does not always lead to aggression
8
Q
What is another strength of de-individuation?
A
- can explain aggressive behaviour of ‘baiting crowds’
- Mann investigated instances of suicidal jumpers & identified cases reported in US newspapers of a crowd gathering to ‘bait’ a jumper >encouraged them to jump
- these incidents tended to occur in darkness, the crowds were large & jumpers were distant from the crowds
- conditions predicted by the de-individuation theory that lead to a state of de-individuation in crowd > some validity that a large group can become aggressive in a de-individuated faceless crowd
9
Q
What is a limitation of de-individuation?
A
- de-individuated behaviour is normative rather then anti-normative
- DI theory argues that we behave in ways that are contrary to social norms when we are less aware of our private identity
- However, in Spears & Lea SIDE model they argue that DI actually leads to behaviour that conforms to group norms
- these may be antisocial norms but also prosocial norms e.g. helping > happens because anonymity shifts an individuals attention from his or her private identity to their social identity as a group member > so they remain sensitive norms rather than ignoring them
