SP explanations for aggression: De-individuation

Question 1

What is de-individuation?

Answer 1

• 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

Question 2

How did Le Bon explain de-individuation in crowds?

Answer 2

• on our own we are easily identifiable by others & behaviour is constrained by social norms
• when we become part of a crowd we lose
  1) sense of individual self-identity
  2) restraint
  3) & disregard norms & laws
• as responsibility is shared throughout crowd we experience less personal guilt when directing harmful aggression to others

Question 3

What did Zimbardo distinguish between?

Answer 3

• 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

Question 4

What are the conditions of de-individuation which promote aggressive behaviour?

Answer 4

• 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

Question 5

According to Prentice-Dunn & Rogers what actually increases the likelihood of aggression beside anonymity?

Answer 5

• 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

Question 6

What is a strength of research into de-individuation?

Answer 6

• 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

Question 7

What is a counterpoint of research to support deindividuation?

Answer 7

• also evidence that de-individuation does not always lead to aggression
• Gergen et al ‘deviance in the dark’ study > 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

Question 8

What is another strength of de-individuation?

Answer 8

• 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

Question 9

What is a limitation of de-individuation?

Answer 9

• 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(social identity model of de-individuation) 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 their private identity to their social identity as a group member > suggest they remain sensitive norms rather than ignoring them