deindividuation

• What is de-individuation?


  A psychological state in which an individual loses their personal identity and takes on the identity of the social group
• What does de-individuation result in?

  The result may be to free the individual from the constraints of social norms
• De-individuation is a concept originally used by who to explain what?

  Le Bon (1895) to explain crowd behaviour
• Because we are usually easily identified by others, our behaviour is usually what?

  Constrained by social norms and aggression is often discouraged
• However, what happened when we are part of a crowd?

  We lose restraint and have the freedom to behave in ways we wouldn't otherwise contemplate
• We lose our sense of what?

  Both self-identity and responsibility which gives us a greater disregard for norms and laws
• What happens to responsibility in a crowd?

  We share responsibility throughout the crowd and so we experience less guilt
• Zimbardo (1969) distinguished between what?

  Individuated and de-individuated behaviour
• What is individuated behaviour?


  In an individuated state, our behaviour is generally rational and normative
• What is de-individuated behaviour?

  De-individuated behaviours are emotional, irrational and impulsive and anti-normative. We lose self-awareness, stop monitoring and regulating our own behaviour so ignore social norms
• When is de-individuation likelier to occur?

  Crowds, Drugs and alcohol, Darkness, Masks, Uniforms, Disguises
• What did Prentice-Dunn and Rogers (1982) say?

  That de-individuation doesn't necessarily lead to aggression
• According to Prentice-Dunn and Rogers (1982), aggression is not necessarily as a result of anonymity but due to what?

  Consequences of anonymity, change in self-awareness
• What are the two types of self-awareness?

  Private and public
• What is private self-awareness?

  How we pay attention to our own feelings and behaviour
• What is public self-awareness?

  How much we care about what other people think of our behaviour
• Who conducted supporting evidence for the deindividuation theory of aggression?

  Diener (1976)
• What did Diener (1976) conduct?

  A natural experiment examining the effects of deindividuation on aggression
• What day of the year did Diener (1976) conduct his study on?

  Halloween
• Who were the participants of Diener (1976)?

  1300 child trick or treaters
• What were the four conditions of Diener (1976)?

  One condition of anonymity, one of non-anonymity, and then conditions of being alone or in a group
• In Diener's study (1976), the children were given the opportunity to do what?


  Steal sweets and money
• What did Diener (1976) find?

  Those children who were in a group and anonymous were the group who stole the most at 57%, compared to 21% in the group that were identifiable
• Who conducted contradictory evidence for the deindividuation theory of aggression?

  Gergen et al. (1973)
• What did Gergen et al. (1973) conduct?

  A 'deviance in the dark' study
• What did participants do in Gergen et al.'s (1973) study?

  Participants were taken to a pitch black room
• What did Gergen et al. (1973) find?


  They proceeded to kiss and touch each other intimately.
• What were participants told in Gergen et al.'s (1973) study?


  That they could do whatever they wanted with no rules to stop them, and they would not be introduced to each other afterwards
• How does Gergen et al. (1973) contradict the de-individuation theory of aggression?


  De-individuation theory would predict that de-individuation always leads to aggression. However, in this study it lead to intimacy
• Who conducted a study that deindividuation can lead to different outcomes other than aggression?

  Johnson and Downing (1979)
• What did Johnson and Downing (1979) conduct?

  A study where female participants had to give (fake) electric shocks to a participant
• What were the three conditions in Johnson and Downing's (1979) study?

  In one condition, the participants were dressed in a Ku Klux Klan-type outfit where their faces were hidden and in the other they dressed as nurses, there was a control condition where they wore their own clothes
• What did Johnson and Downing (1979) find?

  Those dressed as Ku Klux Klan members shocked actors more, and those dressed as nurses shocked actors less than the control group