7. De-individualisation

• De-individualisation refers to a reduced sence of personal responability
• How might crowd behaviour shape aggressive behaviour?

  • Zimbardo (1969) our behaviour is usually constrained by social norms  
  • This is because we live in a society where most forms of aggressive behaviour are discouraged  
  • When we become part of a crowd, we lose restraint and behave in impulsive and irrational ways
  • We lose our sense of individual self-identity and responsibility for behaviour - become de-individuated
  • Responsibility becomes shared throughput the crowd and we experience less personal guilt  at harmful aggression directed at others
• Conditions which promote aggressive behaviour  

  • Darkness 
  • Drugs  
  • Alcohol 
  • Uniforms  
  • Masks  
  • Disguises  
  • A major one is anonymity
• How might anonymity promote aggressive behaviour?

  • We have less fear of retribution because we are small and unidentifiable as part of a crowd  
  • The bigger the crowd the more anonymous we feel  
  • Anonymity provided fewer opportunities for others to judge us  
• Private self-awareness  


  How we pay attention to our own feelings and behaviour  
• How does anonymity reduce our private self awareness?

  • Our attention is focused only of the events around us, so we pay less attention to our own beliefs and feelings  
  • Less self-critical, less thoughtful and less evaluative  
  • Thus fosters the development of a de-individualised state  
  • An increases the likelihood of aggressive behaviour
• Public self-awareness  


  How much we care about what other people think about our behaviour  
• How does anonymity reduce public self-awareness?

  • We realise that we are just one individual amongst many  
  • We are anonymous and so is our behaviour 
  • Therefore, our behaviour is less likely to be judged by others  
  • No longer care how others see us as become less accountable for our aggressive and destructive behaviours 
• Steven Prentice-Dunn and Ronald Rogers (1982) Developed the idea that there were two consequences for anonymity

  1. Reduced private self-awareness
  2. Reduced public self-awareness
• David Dodd (1985) 


   A psychology teacher who developed a classroom exercise to illustrate de-indivudlisation   
• David Dodd (1985) - procedure

  • Asked 229 undergraduate psychology students in 13 classes the same question  
  • ‘If you could do anything humanly possible with complete assurance that you would not be detected or heled responsible, what would you do?’  
  • Students aware that their responses would be completely anonymous 
  • Three independent raters who did not know the hypothesis decided which categories of anti-social behaviour  
• David Dodd (1985)  - Findings

  • 36% of respnses involved some type of antisocial behaviour  
  • 26% were actual criminal acts  
  • Only 9 % were prosocial and involved helping people  
  • Few even opted for the rape, murder and assassination of political, figures  
  • This study's findings demonstrate a link between anonymity, de-indivudlistion and aggressive behaviour 
• Research support for de-individualisation - 😊  

  P - Research conducted by Douglas and McGarty (2001) supports de-individualisation

  E - Looked at aggressive online behaviour in chatrooms and in instant messages .Found a strong correlation between anonymity and ‘flaming’ - involved sending or posting threating and/or hostile messages  

  A - Most aggressive messages were sent by those who chose to hide their real identities  

  L - Suggests the existence of link between anonymity, de-individualisation and aggressive behaviour in a context with is relevant in today's society 
• Lack of support - 🙁  

  P - Still research which demonstrates that de-individualisation doesn't always lead to aggressive behaviour

  E - In their ‘deviance in the dark’ study Gergen et al (1975) selected groups of 8 participants strangers to each other. Placed in completely darkened room for one hour and told to do whatever they wanted. Started kissing immediately.

  A - Repeated but participants told they would come face-to-face with each other after. Amount of kissing declined

  L - In de-individualted state - aggressive behaviour was not an outcome of the study
• De-individualisation and prosocial behaviour - 🙁  

  P - De-individualisation does not inevitably lead to aggression

  E - Johnson and Downing (1979) - female participants had to give fake electric shocks to a confederate. One condition - KKK outfit. Another condition dressed as nurses. Control - own clothes 

  A - KKK dressed partipants gave more intense shocks, nurses gave fewer intense shocks. Nurses were more companionate to their victims in line with prosocial role associated with nurses 

  L - It seems that aggression and prosocial behaviour can be outcomes of de-individualisation