De-Individualisation

What is it?

• A process where people lose their sense of socialised individual identity and resort to unsocialised and antisocial behaviours

Deindividuation Theory says being Anonymous Encourages Aggression:

• Another social psychological explanation of aggression suggests we're disinhibited when we're anonymous members of a crowd. When they're part of the group, people may feel less personal responsibility and less fear of public disapproval than when they're clearly identifiable as individuals. Festinger et al. (1952) coined the term deindividuation to describe this state of reduced self-awareness.

Real-world evidence for this effect:

1. Mullen (1986) analysed newspaper reports of lynch mob violence in the US. The more people there were in the mob, the greater the level of violence.

2. Mann (1981) analysed 21 reports of suicides and identified 10 cases where a crowd had baited the person threatening suicide (e.g. shouting 'jump'). Baiting was more likely to happen at night, when the crowd was at a distance and when the crowd was large (more than 300 people).

Research studies which support deindividuation:

1. Zimbardo (1969) showed that anonymity affects behaviour.

   • Participants in his study believed they were administering shocks to another participant in a learning experiment. Individuated participants wore normal clothes, and large name badges and were introduced to each other. Deindividuated participants wore coats with hoods, were instructed in groups and weren't referred to by name. The more anonymous participants administered more and longer shocks.

2. Diener et al (1976) observed 1300 trick-or-treating children in the US.

   • If they were anonymous (in costumes, masks or large groups) they were more likely to steal money and sweets.

Explanation:

• This evidence supports the idea that deindividuation increases aggression. But there are also examples of it having no effect or even reducing aggression. For example, individuals in crowds at religious festivals often express goodwill to others. It could be that being in a group means that you conform to group norms.

  If group norms are prosocial (rather than anti-social), the individual may behave that way too.

Deindividuation Theory Zimbardo (1969) [Based on Crowd Theory by LeBon in 1895]:

• The hypothesis that an individual acts differently among many people than he would if he were alone was Le Bon (1895/1995).

• According to Le Bon the crowd, in psychological terms, is a group of individuals who, acquire new characteristics that are very different from the characteristics of the individuals.

• According to Le Bon, regardless of who is in a crowd, the individual conscious personality fades, and the group's unconscious personality prevails.

• The crowd, in his position, constitutes a single collective being that is guided by a mental unity and a collective soul that makes individuals feel, think and act differently than they would independently.

The Nature of Deindividuation:

• A psychological state

• Lowered self-evaluation

• Decreased concern about judgement by others

• Personal or social norms no longer inhibit behaviours

• This particularly occurs in groups

Features of De-individuation:

• Anonymity

• Altered consciousness

• However, this may equally lead to increased prosocial behaviour – less research on this

The Process of Deindividuation:

• Social norms usually inhibit aggressive behaviour.

• So does being easily recognisable – more likely to have consequences.

• Being anonymous = being unaccountable

• This leads to loss of restraint and increasing behaviours that are usually inhibited

The Process of Individuation:

• Zimbardo says:

  • Being in a crowd diminishes awareness of our individuality

  • The larger the group, the greater the anonymity

  • Groups diminish fear and dilute feelings of guilt or shame

Examples:

• Klu Klux Klan

• Football hooligans

• Road Rage

• Internet Troll

Zimbardo 1969:

• Groups of 4 female undergrads giving electric shocks to aid learning

• Deindividuated condition:

  • Wore bulky lab coats and hoods

  • Addressed as a group when given instructions

  • Not introduced to each other

• Individuated condition:

  • Wore normal clothing and a large name tag

  • Given instructions individually

  • Introduced to each other by name

Research Support:

Anonymity- Rehm et al (1987):

• Sports team + uniform = increased aggression?

• German schoolchildren playing handball in teams of 5.

• Half wearing orange and half normal clothes

• Those in orange (harder to tell apart) played more aggressively than those in everyday clothes

The Faceless Crowd- Mullen (1986):

• Newspaper cuttings of 60 lynchings in the US (1899-1946)

• Found that the more people in the “mob” the more savage the killings

Real-world application- Mann (1981) The ‘baiting crowd:

• Studied 21 suicide leaps (60’s and 70’s)

• 10 of the cases reported in newspapers that the crowd called “JUMP!”

• At night, large crowds, and distance to jump = increased taunting

The importance of local group norms:

• Johnson & Downing (1979)

• Deindividuation could just be a product of local group norms.

• They replicated Zimbardo’s study but used masks and gowns either representing the KKK or nurses.

• Results = Ppts shocked less than the control group as nurses!

• Conclusion = People respond to normative cues of the social context.

Lack of Support:

• Postmes and Spears (1998) – a meta-analysis of 60 deindividuation studies, Concluded that insufficient support exists.

• Found that disinhibition and antisocial behaviour are not more common in anonymous conditions or in large groups.

• Not much evidence that deindividuation is associated with reduced self-awareness.

• OR that reduced self-awareness increases aggression.

Cultural Differences:

• Warriors in 23 societies

• Looked at how they changed appearance prior to the war and how much they killed, tortured or mutilated.

• Those who changed their appearance a lot (e.g. war paint) were more destructive than those who didn’t.

Prosocial Consequences:

• Deindividuation can increase pro-social behaviour

  • Spivey and Prentice-Dunn (1990)

  • Pro or anti-social behaviour depending on situational factors

• If prosocial cues were present (e.g. role model giving money to charity) PPTs performed more altruistic acts and less antisocial acts than the control group

  • Online deindividuation: Francis et al (2006)

  • Desirable effects of deindividuation can also be found in cyberspace.

  • Adolescents reported being more comfortable seeking advice about mental health in chatrooms (deindividuated) vs having an appointment with a doctor.

Gender Bias:

• Cannavale et al (1970):

  • Male and female groups respond differently to deindividuation

  • An increase in aggression was found in only the all-male groups

• Diener et al (1973) also found greater disinhibition (removal of inhibitions) of aggression in males

  • Thus evidence indicates that males may be more prone to deindividuated aggression than females