A03

• Point: A strength of this explanation is that there is evidence to support it.

  Evidence: Douglas and Mc Garty (2001) have investigated online behaviours in chat rooms and uses of instant messaging.

  Explain: The findings demonstrated a strong correlation between anonymity and ‘flaming’, which is sending or posting messages that are hostile and/or threatening.

  Link: Therefore, this suggests there is a link between being anonymous, de-individuation and aggressive behaviour in terms of online messaging.
• :( research that challenges the link bwn de-individuation & aggression.

  Gergen (1973) placed 8 strangers in a completely darkened room for 1hr & told them to do whatever they wanted, w no rules to stop them & they were given guarantees they would never encounter each other again.

  The results: pcts started kissing & touching each other intimately but when study was repeated & pcts were told they would see each other after the darkness, no kissing/touching observed.

  Therefore, challenges the validity of de-individuation as none of the behaviours observed in the darkened room was aggressive.
• Further challenging evidence comes from research showing deindividuation can even => to prosocial behaviour.

  Johnson & Downing (1979) asked female pcts to give fake electric shocks to a confederate while either dressed in a Ku Klux Klan outfit, a nurse’s outfit or in their own clothes.

  The results: KKK-dressed pcts gave more (and intense) electric shocks but nurses gave fewer at lower levels & were more compassionate towards their victim.

  Therefore, => normative cues in the situation (e.g. the role of a nurse) are important to consider as it can lead to both aggression & prosocial bhviour.
• A :( of the theory is that there are alternative explanations which challenge the assumption that aggression must follow de-individuation.

  e.g, the Social Identity model of De-individuation Effects (SIDE) explains how anonymity & reduced self-awareness leads to behaviour which conforms to local group norms.

  This means that an individual shifts their attention from their personal identity to their social identity as a member of a group.

  Therefore, the SIDE model provides a supportive development of the theory as it can account for other outcomes of de-individuation, e.g. prosocial behaviour.