De- individuation

• De-individuation:

  • Zimbardo (1969) argued that behaviour is usually constrained by social norms – meaning aggressive behaviour is usually discouraged
  • However, when we become part of a crowd we lose restraint and may behave in emotional, impulsive and irrational ways 
  • We become de-individuated and lose individual self-identity and responsibility for our own behaviour 
  • Responsibility becomes shared throughout the crowd, so we experience less personal guilt at harmful aggression directed at others
• Anonymity is a major condition of de-individuation

  • Several conditions of de-individuation promote aggression. E.g. Darkness, uniforms, masks, etc.
  • However, the most important condition of de-individuation is ANONYMITY
  • We have less fear of retribution because we are unidentifiable in a crowds – the bigger the crowd, the greater the anonymity
  • Anonymity provides fewer opportunities for others to judge us negatively
• Anonymity reduces private self-awareness

  • Prentice-Dunn and Rogers (1982) argue that anonymity reduces private self-awareness because our attention is focused outwardly to the events around us
  • This means we think less about our own beliefs and feelings – we are less self-critical and evaluative
• Anonymity reduces public self-awareness

  • Anonymity also reduces public self-awareness because we realise we are anonymous and our behaviour is less likely to be judged by others
  • We no longer care how others see us – we become less accountable for our aggressive and destructive actions
• Dodd (1985) – Student De-individuation Study

  Procedure

  • Dodd asked psychology students: ‘If you could do anything humanly possible with complete assurance that you would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do?’
  • Students knew their answers were anonymous
  • Three independent raters, who did not know the hypothesis, decided which categories of prosocial or antisocial behaviour the responses belonged to
• Dodd procedure - findings :

  • 36% of responses involved a form of antisocial behaviour and 26% actual criminal acts (most common was ‘rob a bank’.
  • Only 9% of responses were prosocial behaviours (e.g. helping people)
  • In terms of how people imagine they would behave, this study demonstrates a link between anonymity, de-individuation and aggressive behaviour
• AO3:

  • strength of de-individuation as an explanation of aggression is that there is supportive research evidence
  • Douglas and McGarty (2001) looked at aggressive online behaviour in chatrooms and uses of instant messaging 
  • They found a strong correlation between anonymity and posting hostile messages. The most aggressive messages were sent by those who hid their identities
  • This suggests a link between anonymity, de-individuation and aggressive behaviour in a context that has even greater relevance today
• AO3:

  • limitation of de-individuation as an explanation of aggression is that there is contradictory research evidence
  • Gergen et al put strangers in a darkened room and told them to do what they wanted – they soon started kissing and touching each other 
  • This study was repeated and this time participants were told they would be face-to-face with each other afterwards – the kissing and touching reduced 
  • anonymity fosters de-individuation, but aggressive behavior is not a result, suggesting that de-individuation doesn't always result in aggressive behavior.
• AO3:

  • limitation of de-individuation as an explanation of aggression is that de-individuation does not always lead to aggression
  • Johnson and Downing's study showed that female participants, dressed as nurses or wearing their own clothes, gave more intense shocks and nurses gave fewer and less intense shocks
  • nurses were more caring, which is in line with the prosocial role associated with a nurse’s uniform
  • indicating that prosocial behavior is just as likely to occur as deindividuation, and aggression is not always the outcome.
• AO3:

  • strength of de-individuation as an explanation of aggression is that it has useful real-life applications
  • De-individuation theory can help us to understand aggressive behaviour in online services such as Xbox Live
  • These services have features promoting de-individuation, for example a reduction of personal identify through the use of gamer tags/usernames, rather than real names
  • This real-life application confirms the relevance of de-individuation concepts to aggression and can be used to develop online features that reduce anonymity in order to reduce online aggression
• AO3:

  • limitation of de-individuation as an explanation of aggression is that other explanations may account better for aggression
  • According to Spears and Lea's social identity theory, de-individuation involves shifting attention from personal identity to group identity, which can result in antisocial or prosocial behavior depending on group norms.
  • This could lead to antisocial or prosocial behaviour, depending on the group norms. Not always antisocial
  • Therefore, anonymity and reduced self-awareness linked to de-individuation do not always inevitably lead to aggression