A03

• What are the strengths of de-individuation?

  1. Real-world de-individuation
  2. Ecologically valid research support
• What are the limitations of de-individuation?

  1. Gender differences
  2. Role of normative and prosocial behaviour
• Strength = real-world de-individuation

  • De-individuation can explain the aggressive crowd behaviour of ‘baiting’ - a phenomena whereby people encourage or urge a suicide jumper to jump
  • Mann (1981) analysed instances of suicide jumps reported in the US
  • In 10 out of 21 cases it was found that when a crowd gathered to watch, baiting had occurred
  • Mann suggested that membership in a large crowd, the cover of night time and physical distance between crowd and victim (all factors associated with anonymity) were likely to produce a state of de-individuation in members of the crowd
• Strength = ecologically valid research support

  • Evidence demonstrates that when anonymous and in a group, individuals are more likely to behave in a socially deviant manner
  • Douglas and McGarthy (2001) looked at aggressive online behaviour in chat rooms and use of instant messaging
  • Strong correlation between anonymity and posting hostile messages with most aggressive messages being sent by those who chose to hide their real identities
  • Diener et al. (1976) covert, natural experiment found children in a group and anonymous stole the most at 57%, compared to 21% in identificable group
• Limitation = gender differences

  • Cannavale et al. (1970) found that male and female groups responded differently under de-individuated conditions, where an increase in aggression was obtained only in all-male groups
  • Similarly, Diener et al. (1973) found that disinhibition of aggression was greater in males than females
  • Eagly (2013) suggested that this disparity exists as males respond to provocation in more extreme ways and being in a de-individuated state magnifies this tendency
  • Suggests a gender bias in the theory, where the theory cannot be applied to females
• Limitation = role of normative and prosocial behaviour

  • Found that de-individuation can lead individuals to engage in prosocial, altruistic behaviours
  • Postmes and Spears (1998) conducted a meta-analysis of 60 studies of de-individuation
  • Found that aggressive and antisocial behaviour is not more common in large groups and anonymous settings
  • Instead, de-individuation increases people’s responsiveness to situational norms and this may lead to aggressive, antisocial behaviour, but could also increase prosocial behaviour
  • Shows that social learning and group norms influence behaviours