Deindividuation

• Deindividuation:

  = the loss of one's sense of individuality- Reber & Reber (2001).

  • We no longer feel individual identity or responsibility.
  • Situations in which we are deindividuated can increase the chances of anti-social behaviour, including aggression.
  • Eg, being within a group, disguising self, drugs & alcohol can give the illusion of deindividuation.
• Why deindividuation occurs:

  1. Anonymity- situations where we feel we cannot be identified mean we fear judgement of others less.
  2. Diffusion of responsibility- as an individual, we take full responsibility for our actions, but as a group, responsibility is shared so we give up personal control.
  3. Disinhibition- usually awareness of social/ personal norms prevent us from acting in an anti-social way. When we are less identifiable, we are less likely to be held responsible for wrong-doings, so we no longer face punishment or the judgement of others. We lose our inhibitions- free to behave antisocially & without shame or guilt.
• Group situation or hidden/ anonymous-> Lowered inhibitions-> Change in normal standards of behaviour.
• Zimbardo (1969) Study:

  • Studied the effect of reduced inhibitions using females in a 'study of learning'.
  • A confederate used as the 'student' & female PPs were 'teachers'.
  • The 'students' had to be given electric shock by PPs, if they completed tasks incorrectly.
  • Half the PPs wore lab coats & hoods to cover their faces & were never referred to by name & spoken to in groups of 4 (deindividuated group).
  • The other half wore normal clothes, given large name tags & formally introduced to each other (individuated group).
  • All PPs could see the 'student' & were told that the student was either 'honest' or 'conceited & critical'.
  • No matter what the description, the deindividuated PPs delivered twice as many shocks as others. Individuated PPs delivered different amounts of shocks depending on description. (Lacks ecological validity).
• Evaluation of deindividuation- strength:

  • Research support- Diener (1976) natural observation study of 1300 US children.
  • Trick or treaters in the study were more likely to perform anti-social actions if in costume & in a large group, because the possibility of personal identification was reduced.
  • Deindividuation meant behaviour could deviate from normal moral standards.
• Evaluation of deindividuation- strength:

  • Anthropological evidence supports the theory, particularly disinhibition & shows it can apply across time & culture.
  • Robert Watson showed how warriors in 23 societies were much more likely to act violently (torture, murder etc), if they had changed their appearance using war paints before going to battle.
  • This shows how deindividuation can lead to increased aggression.
• Evaluation of deindividuation- weakness:

  • Gender gap in the effects of deindividuation; studies have shown that all female groups display far less aggression than all male groups.
  • Eg, Diener et al (1973) found males had greater removal of inhibitions to perform aggressive acts (underlying biological or sociological factors may explain these differences & deindividuation does not allow for them).
  • Suggests that deindividuation may only explain aggression in easily provoked males & may not be applicable to females.