De-individuation

• when we act individually, we are fully responsible for our actions. but when we act as part of a group the responsibility is shared
• Zimbardo (1969) distinguished between individuated and de-individuated behaviour
• individuated is when behaviour is rational and normative
• de-individuated is when behaviour is emotional, impulsive and irrational
• Zimbardo (1969) had a group of 4 female students. one condition being anonymous and the other being onymous. the participants were tasked to give shocks to a 'learner'. the anonymous condition shocked more often and for twice as long
• autonomy: morals that normally guide behaviour are reduced. adopt the morals of the group they are in at the time
• ability to monitor behaviour: less aware of their own actions
• ability to control impulsive behaviour: less aware of consequences
• ability to think clearly: no longer able to think rationally
• ability to respond clearly: due to the collective mind-set
• the larger the group, the greater the anonymity and the greater the effect of deindividuation
• when someone is in de-individuated state, they have an increased response to situational factors and a decreased response to dispositional factors
• due to the situation, a person experiences social arousal, sensitive to collective mind set
• experience a diluted sense of guilt, due to reduction of power of norms
• reduced fear of retribution, due to lack of guilt and reduced fear of consequences
• reduced tendency to evaluate and judge the behaviour of others and reduced concern of the judgement to others
• therefore, they experience a diffusion of responsibility, so they're more prone to antisocial behaviour
• there are a range of supporting studies. a more recent source of evidence is social media/online gaming
• Johnson and Dowling (1979) found de-individuation could explain anti-social and prosocial behaviours, dependent on normative cues