de-individuation

• De-individuation


  Le Bon (1895) coined the term to explain the behaviour of individuals in crowds
• In everyday life as an individual, we are easily identified and our behaviour is by social norms (society discourages aggression)
• When we are in a crowd, we lose restraint and have the freedom to behave in ways we wouldn't otherwise contemplate
• Why de-individuation occurs


  This is because in crowds we lose our sense of self-identity and responsibility for our actions which means we can disregard social norms and even laws in some cases
• Responsibility is diffused across people in the crowd so there is less personal guilt
• Individuated state


  Our behaviour is generally rational and normative i.e. it conforms to social norms
• Deindividuated state


  Our behaviours are emotional, impulsive and irrational and disinhibited which means we lose self-awareness and stop monitoring and regulating our own behaviour - we 'live in the moment' failing to form longer term plans
• Conditions of de-individuation


  • Darkness
  • Drugs
  • Alcohol
  • Uniforms
  • Masks and disguises
• Anonymity shapes crowd behaviour
• When in a crowd, we have less fear of retribution because we are small and an unidentifiable part of a faceless crowd. The bigger the crowd, the more anonymous we are. Crucially, anonymity provides fewer opportunities for others to judge us negatively
• Dunn and Rogers proposed that de-individuation leads to aggression, not anonymity but instead as a consequence of anonymity
• Private self awareness


  This is reduced when we are in a crowd, we are less self-critical and less evaluative of ourselves which leads to a deindividuated state
• Public self awareness


  How much we care about what other people think of our behaviour also reduces in crowds. We realise we are just one person among many; we are anonymous, and our behaviour is likely to be judged by others. We become less accountable for our behaviour
• 36% of the responses involved some form of anti-social behaviour
• 26% were actual criminal acts i.e. "rob a bank"
• A few opted for murder, rape and assassination of a public figure
• Only 9% were prosocial i.e. helping people
• Douglas & Mcgarty looked at aggressive online behaviour in chatrooms and uses of instant messaging and found a strong correlation between anonymity and 'flaming', that is sending or posting threatening and/or hostile messages
• The most aggressive messages were sent by those who chose to hide their real identities
• Gergen et als "Deviance in the dark" study found that when participants were told they would meet the group members after the 'hour of darkness', kissing and intimate behaviour was reduced
• Johnson and Downing (1979) found that participants who were dressed in a KKK uniform were significantly more aggressive and delivered higher-intensity electric shocks to confederates, compared to those dressed as nurses
• The researchers also note that the nurses were more compassionate towards the 'victim', in line with the prosocial role associated with a nurse's uniform
• De-individuation can help us explain aggressive behaviour on online gaming services such as Xbox live
• Social identity theory model

  Anonymity and reduced self-awareness leads to behaviour that conforms to local group norms, which could be antisocial or prosocial