Social Psychological Explanations Of Aggression: De-individuation

What is de-individuation?

A psychological state in which an individual loses their personal identity and takes on the identity of a social group.

Who is de-individuation a concept originally used by?

Le Bon, to explain the behaviour of individuals in crowds.

Usually, because we are easily identified by others, what is our behaviour constrained by?

Social norms: we live in a society where most forms of aggression are discouraged.

When we become part of a crowd, what do we lose?

Constraint, and have the freedom to behave in ways we wouldn’t otherwise. We lose our senses of individual self-identity and responsibility for our behaviour. We disregard norms and even laws. Responsibility becomes shared throughout the crowd, so we experience less personal guilt about directing harmful aggression at others.

What did Zimbardo distinguish between?

De-individuated and individuated behaviour.

In an individuated state, what is our behaviour like?

It is national and normative (it conforms to social norms).

In a de-individuated state, what is our behaviour like?

Behaviour is emotional, impulsive, irrational, disinhibited and anti-normative.

When we are in a de-individuated state, what do we lose?

Self awareness, we stop monitoring and regulating our own behaviour, ignore social norms and ‘live for the moment‘, failing to form longer-term plans.

What do conditions of de-individuation promote?

Aggressive behaviour.

What are the conditions of de-individuation?

Darkness, drugs, alcohol, uniforms, masks and disguises.

What is a major factor of de-individuation?

Anonymity.

What do Dixon and Mehendran argue about anonymity?

That ‘anonymity shapes crowd behaviour‘. We have less fear of retribution because we are a small and unidentifiable part of a faceless crowd.

The bigger the crowd, the what?

The more anonymous we are. Anonymity provides fewer opportunities for others to judge us negatively.

Although the experience of de-individuation as part of a faceless crowd creates a greater likelihood of aggression, what do Dunn and Rogers argue?

That this is not due to anonymity directly, but to the consequences of anonymity. They explain this process in terms of two types of self-awareness.

What are the two types of self-awareness discussed by Dunn and Rogers?

• Private self-awareness.

• Public self-awareness.

What does private self-awareness refer to?

It concerns how we pay attention to our own feelings and behaviour.

When is private self-awareness 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 self-beliefs and feelings. We are less self-critical and less thoughtful, which promotes a de-individualised state.

What does public self-awareness refer to?

How much we care about what other people think of our behaviour.

When is public self-awareness reduced?

In crowds: we realise that we are just one individual amongst many, we are anonymous, and our behaviour is less likely to be judged by others. We no longer care about how others see us, so we become less accountable for our aggressive actions.

What was Dodd’s procedure of his study on de-individuation?

He asked 229 undergraduate psychology students in 13 classes this question: If you could do anything humanly 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. Three independent raters who did not know the hypothesis decided which categories of antisocial behaviour the responses belonged to.

What were the findings of Dodd?

Dodd found that 36% of 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, de-individuation and aggressive behaviour.

What are the strengths of de-individuation?

• Research support.

• Real-world de-individuation.

How is research support a strength of de-individuation?

Douglas and McGarty looked at aggressive online behaviour in chatrooms and uses of instant messaging. They found a strong correlation between anonymity and flaming' (posting hostile messages). They found that most aggressive messages were sent by those who chose to hide their real identities. This is a common behaviour of online 'trolls. It has been implicated in high-profile cases of self-harm and even suicide.

What does the research support mean?

It supports a link between aggressive behaviour and anonymity, a key element of de-individuation.

What is the counterpoint to the research support?

However, there is also evidence that de-individuation does not always lead to aggression. In Gergen et al's 'deviance in the dark' study, groups of eight strangers were placed in a completely darkened room for one hour. They were told to do just whatever they wanted to, they could not identify each other and they would never meet again. They very quickly stopped talking and started touching and kissing each other intimately. In a second study Gergen et al. told new participants they would come face-to-face afterwards. In this case the amount of touching/kissing was much lower.

What does the counterpoint to the research support mean?

That therefore, de-individuation may not always lead to aggression.

How is real-world de-individuation a strength?

De-individuation can explain the aggressive behaviour of 'baiting crowds. Mann 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. encourage him or her to jump. These incidents tended to occur in darkness, the crowds were large and the jumpers were relatively distant from the crowd (i.e. high up). These are the conditions predicted by de-individuation theory to lead to a state of de-individuation in crowds, which led to aggressive baiting.

What does the real-world de-individuation mean?

That therefore there is some validity to the idea that a large group can become aggressive in a de-individuated 'faceless' crowd.

What is the limitation of de-individuation?

Role of norms.

How is the role of norms a limitation of de-individuation?

De-individuated behaviour is normative rather than anti-normative: de-individuation theory argues that 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 de-individuation), Spears and Lea argue that de-individuation actually leads to behaviour that conforms to group norms. These may be antisocial norms but could equally well be prosocial norms (e.g. helping). This happens because anonymity shifts an individual's attention from his or her private identity to their social identity as a group member.

What does the role of norms suggest?

That people in a de-individuated state remain sensitive to norms rather than ignoring them.