L8- Social psychological explanations of aggression- Deindividuation

Question 1

define deindividuation

Answer 1

psychological state of mind when an individual loses their personal identity and takes on the identity of a social group e.g in crowd or a uniform= result could be decreased concern about the evaluation of others

Question 2

Crowd Behaviour

Answer 2

-deindividuation CONCEPT first used by Gustave le bon to explain behaviour of individuals in crowds
- usually, easily identified= behaviour constrained by social norms
- crowd= lose restraint, freedom to behave out of ordinary
- lose sense of individual self-identity and responsibility for behaviour
-disregard norms + even laws
- responsibility becomes shared by crowd- less personal guilt about harmful agg to others

Question 3

who coined the term deindividuation

Answer 3

Festinger

Question 4

what can deindividuation be used to explain

Answer 4

violence in prisons and sporting events- large numbers of people in close proximity to each other

Question 5

Zimbardo

Answer 5

• distinguished between individuated and deindividuated behaviour
• individuated behaviour= rational, normative
• deindividuated= emotional, impulsive, irrational, disinhibited and anti-normative- lose self-awareness, stop monitoring and regulating behaviour- ignore social norms- failing to form long term plans

Question 6

Conditions for de-individuation which promote aggresive behaviour

Answer 6

drugs,alcohol,darkness,uniforms,masks,disguises
- major factor= anonymity

Question 7

Dixon and Mahendran- anonymity

Answer 7

-‘anonymity shapes crowd behaviour’
- less fear of retribution- small and unidentifiable part of crowd
- bigger crowd= more anonymous
- anonymity prevents us from being judged negatively
- greater likelihood of aggression

Question 8

Prentice-Dunn and Rogers

Answer 8

• inceased liklihood of agg not due to anonymity directly, but consequences
• 2 types of self-awareness

Question 9

private self-awareness

Answer 9

• how we pay attention to our own feelings and behaviour
• reduced when part of crowd
• attention focused outwardly to events around us- pay less attention to our own beliefs and feelings
• less self-critical, less thoughtful= promotes deindividuation state

Question 10

public self-awarness

Answer 10

• how much we care about what other people think of our behaviour
  -reduced in crowds- realise we are one individual among many
  -anonymous and behaviour less likely to be judged by others
  -no longer care about others perception- become less accountable for agg actions

Question 11

Research on deindividuation

Answer 11

Dodd:
- 229 undergrad psych students
- asked ‘if you could do anything humanly possible with complete assurance you would not be detected or held responsible, wwyd?
- 3 independent raters rated responses- antisocial or not
- 36% antisocial, 26% criminal
- demonstrates connection between deindividuation as a result of anonymity, and subsequent aggression

Question 12

Evaluation of deindividuation

Answer 12

+ research support- Diener, kids on halloween
+research support- Malmouth+check- rape
+research support- Johnson+downing- KKK + shocks
- difficult to separate effects of deindividuation from other explanations
- deindividuated behaviour actually normative, not anti-normative

Question 13

Strengths

Answer 13

+ Diener- natural experiment- halloween, concealed raters observed 1300 child trick or treaters under diff conditions 1. anonymity 2. non-anonymity 3. alone/group- given opportunity to steal sweets + money- group + anonymous stole most 57%, 21% in identifiable= anonymous+group= more likely to behave socially deviant way

+ Malmouth+Check- North america- asked uni students question ‘would u rape if would not be caught?’- 35% said yes- deindivduation can = agg behaviour

+ Johnson + Downing- lab experiment- 3 conditions- 1. female participants dressed KKK type outfit (entirely masked) 2. nurses 3. normal clothes- give (fake) shocks to confederate- KKK outfits= much higher levels vs other groups= when disguised, even if aren’t part of group= more likely to behave agg

Question 14

Weaknesses

Answer 14

• difficult to separate effects of deindividuation from other explanations (SLT)- e.g. football- large crowds, history of violence + agg- on pitch + fans- BUT rugby , cricket also crowds- no violence= agg better explained by cultural factors, internalised through SLT
• deindivudated behaviour normative not anti-normative- theory states we behave against norms when less aware of private identity- SIDE model= argues deindividuation leads to behaviour conforming to GROUP norms- pro-social or anti-social- happens bc private identity shifts to social identity= sensitive to group norms, not ignoring