Aggression - De-individuation Flashcards
De-individuation
A psychological state in which an individual loses their personal identity + takes on the identity of the social group when, for example, in a crowd or wearing a uniform. The result may be to free the individual from the constraints of social norms.
Crowd behaviour
De-individuation - concept originally used by Le Bon to explain behaviour of individuals in crowds. Usually as we are easily identified by others, our behaviour is constrained (forced, controlled) by social norms + we live in a society where most forms of aggressive behaviour are discouraged. But, when we become part of a crowd - lose restraint (control) + have freedom to behave in ways we wouldn’t otherwise contemplate - lose our senses of both individual self-identity + responsibility for our behaviour + have a greater disregard for norms + even laws. Responsibility becomes shared throughout the crowd, so we experience less personal guilt at harmful aggression directed at others.
How does de-individuation lead to aggression?
De-individuation - concept originally used by Le Bon to explain behaviour of individuals in crowds. Usually as we are easily identified by others, our behaviour is constrained (forced, controlled) by social norms + we live in a society where most forms of aggressive behaviour are discouraged. But, when we become part of a crowd - lose restraint (control) + have freedom to behave in ways we wouldn’t otherwise contemplate - lose our senses of both individual self-identity + responsibility for our behaviour + have a greater disregard for norms + even laws. Responsibility becomes shared throughout the crowd, so we experience less personal guilt at harmful aggression directed at others.
Role of self-awareness
Experience of de-individuation as part of a faceless crowd creates a greater likelihood of aggression.
Prentice-Dunn + Rogers - Not due to anonymity directly but to the consequences of it.
They explain this through 2 types of self-awareness:
Private self-awareness - How we pay attention to our own feelings + behaviour. This is reduced when we are part of a crowd. Our attention becomes focused outwardly to the events around us, so pay less attention to our own beliefs + feelings - less self-critical, less thoughtful + less evaluative, all of which foster a de-individuated state.
Public self-awareness - How much we care about what other people think of our behaviour, this is also reduced in crowds. We realise that we are just one individual amongst many, we are anonymous + our behaviour is less likely to be judged by others - no longer care how others see us, so we become less accountable for our aggressive + destructive actions.
Research into de-individuation
Dodd - psychology teacher who developed a classroom exercise to illustrate de-individuation.
Procedure - asked 229 undergraduate psychology students in 13 classes this question: ‘If you could do anything humanly possible with complete assurance that you would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do?’ Students were aware their responses were completely anonymous. 3 independent raters who didn’t know the hypothesis decided which categories of antisocial behaviour the responses belonged to.
Findings - 36% of responses involved some form of antisocial behaviour, 26% were actual criminal acts (most common ‘rob a bank’). Few - murder, rape + assassination of a political figure. Only 9% were prosocial behaviours (helping people). In terms of how people imagine they would behave, this study demonstrates a link between anonymity, de-individuation + aggressive behaviour.
AO3 - Research support
Strength - Research support:
Douglas + McGarty - aggressive behaviours online in chatrooms + uses of instant messaging.
Strong correlation between anonymity + ‘flaming’ (sending or posting threatening or hostile messages. Most aggressive messages - sent by those who chose to hide their real identities.
This suggests the existence of a link between anonymity, de-individuation + aggressive behaviour in a context that has a lot of relevance today. This is because of the explosion in social media use, activities of online ‘trolls’ + exit from Twitter of several high-profile media celebrities.
AO3 - Lack of support
Limitation - Some studies have shown that de-individuation doesn’t always lead to aggression.
Gergen et al - ‘deviance in the dark’ study - selected groups of 8 participants who were all strangers to each other. They were placed in a completely dark room for an hour + told to do whatever they wanted to, with no rules. It was impossible for the participants to identify each other, + they were given a guarantee that they would never encounter each other again. It didn’t take them long to stop talking + start kissing + touching each other intimately. Study was repeated - this time participants told they could come face-to-face with each other after the hour of darkness. The amount of kissing + touching declined dramatically. Of all the behaviours that de-individuation could have given rise to in this study, aggression was not one of them.
AO3 - De-individuation + prosocial behaviour
Limitation - Isn’t just aggression that is an outcome of de-individuation.
Johnson + Downing - study where female participants had to give (fake) electric shocks to a confederate.
One condition - participants dressed in a Ku Klux Klan-type outfit with masks hiding their faces.
Another condition - participants dressed as nurses.
3rd group (control) - participants wore their own clothes.
Compared with control group - KKK-dressed participants gave more (+ more intense) shocks + ‘nurses’ fewer at lower levels. Researchers also noted that nurses were more compassionate towards their ‘victim’, in line with their prosocial role associated with a nurse’s uniform.
It seems that both aggression + prosocial behaviour are potential outcomes of de-individuation (not just aggression) + normative cues in the situation determine which is most likely to occur.
