Deindividuation (social psychological explanation)

What is deindividuation?

an emotional state where you feel anonymous, this leads to a lessening of moral restraint (eg: feel more able to be aggressive/anti-social)

involves a loss of personal identity and so personal responsibility

What did Diener identify as the 4 consequences of deinidividuation?

1. Poor self-monitoring of behaviour (lose self-identity, so no longer apply such rigid behaviour restraints - actions become highly emotional, impulsive, atypical)

2. Reduced need for social approval (reduced self identity, take on identity of group, so don’t need social approval)

3. Reduced inhibitions against behaving impulsively (more likely to behave impulsive when restraints of behaviour is removed - become ‘we’ not ‘I’)

4. Reduced rational thinking - (group/’mob’ mentality)

Agentic state

Deindividuation makes it easier to enter the ‘agentic state’ (Milgram)

this is where we feel no personal responsibility for our actions, rather feel an authority figure is responsible

Why is deindividuation proposed as an explanation of crowd violence?

The relative anonymity of a crowd leads to a decreased feeling of self-awareness and an increased receptiveness to environmental cues

Zimbardo - in group/crowd settings behaviour becomes anti-normative NOT restricted by social norms → social norms no longer apply as we can’t be judged by others through being anonymous nor will we face up to the consequences of our behaviour - supported by Dixon and Mahendran (2012)

What is a consequence of anonymity (not anonymity itself)?

allows us to develop either:

• Private self-awareness

  OR

• Public self-awareness

What is private self-awareness?

anonymity leads us to become less aware of our own beliefs + opinions because the larger group is more important

What is public self-awareness?

consequence of anonymity - we will not face retribution or judgements from others

Dodd (1985)

• double blind trail

• asked psych students if you could do anything humanly possible w/o consequences, what would you do?

• students knew their answers were anonymous

• 36% involved anti-social behaviour

• 26% were actual criminal acts (most common - rob bank)

• 9% prosocial

HOW PEOPLE IMAGINE THEY WOULD BEHAVE = CLEAR LINK B/W ANONYMITY, DEINDIVIDUATION + AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR

Evaluation: anonymity support/practical application

Douglas an McGarty (2001)'s study on chatroom activities found the most violent/aggressive messages were sent by anonymous profiles, supporting the idea of di-individuation can lead to less personal responsibility, and can be applied to understanding of it in media

Evaluation: contradiction

However, Johnson and Downing (1979) found participants dressed in KKK uniforms delivered stronger shocks than those dressed as nurses, suggesting that social roles associated with uniforms are emphasised, not lost, within a group setting

Evaluation - alternative explanation

Neurological explanation - low levels of serotonin → more impulsive + overactive amygdala (detects environmental stimuli) → detects threats in harmless stimuli → more aggressive response

Evaluation: reductionist

Suggesting that the environment is the only thing that causes aggression is reductionist - Brunner et al (1993) found that the males within a large Dutch family who all had a history of violence (eg: rape) had the MAOA-L gene and low MAOA levels in their brains, suggesting that genetic factors also play an important role in aggression