Essay on Deindividuation PDF

Preview

Summary

Factors influencing Deindividuation...

Description

Define deindividuation and discuss circumstances that elicit this psychological state

Deindividuation is a concept within social psychology whereby individuals tend to lose their sense of individual consciousness when in groups or in crowds. The theory of deindividuation, derives from the works of the French social psychologist: Gustave Le Bon(1895), and his publication of The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. He speculated that there are three prominent characteristics which are responsible for resulting in deindividuation. These are anonymity, suggestibility and contagion (being controlled by a collective mind: which eventually possesses an individual in social situations). Zimbardo further studied this theory in 1969 and argued that “arousal, anonymity and reduced feelings of individual responsibility,” mainly contributed towards deindividuation. He argued that a large crowd causes an individual to lose their identity where the greater the group’s size, the higher the feelings of anonymity and the loss of self-awareness. This indicates that deindividuation prompts practices that are not in accordance with social norms, and much research has taken place around this issue. This essay will consider some of this research to explore the phenomenon of deindividuation and the conditions which evoke this psychological state. Research based on deindividuation focuses primarily on the influence of anonymity. An interesting set of studies led by (Diener et al.,1976), demonstrated that anonymous conditions within a group context caused individuals to lose a sense of their personal responsibility. In one such study, several researchers privately observed more than 1,300 children who had arrived for trick-or-treating during Halloween at 27 homes spread throughout Seattle(as part of the field experiment). Most children were either alone or in groups with fellow trick or treaters. An experimenter then greeted them and allowed a random half of the children to remain anonymous whilst the other half were questioned on their names and where they lived. Each child was instructed by the experimenter to take a single piece of candy after which the children were left alone. This approach consistently showed that children who were anonymous were most likely to cheat by taking extra pieces of candy. Therefore when anonymous and in a group, children are more prone to behave in a socially deviant way, thus supporting the state of deindividuation as being similar to the social psychological theory of aggression.

Since Diener’s study lacked acknowledgement of the subtypes within self-awareness which influence deindividuation in various ways, Prentice-Dunn and Rogers(1982) put forward the differential self-awareness theory of deindividuation. Their theory proposed that self-awareness consists of two distinct categories: public and private. Public selfawareness suggests “concerns about one’s appearance and the impression made in social situations” while private self-awareness indicates a “focus on personal, more covert aspects of oneself such as perceptions, thoughts, and feelings” (p.504). This model identified that accountability cues such as anonymity and lack of responsibility were likely to decrease public self-awareness, whereas attentional cues such as being in a group and arousal tended to decrease private self-awareness. Overall, Dunn and Rogers argued that these particular cues often led an individual to partake in various disinhibited behaviours. In another particular study that explored the role of anonymity on deindividuation, participants concealed their faces by wearing hoods. This study attempted to investigate whether empathic assessments differed when the participant was merely observing someone else as compared to when the participant was directly providing shocks to another person. The participants were told that the experimenters would not know who applied the shock, creating a lack of personal responsibility. Those who were completely anonymous were more liable to press a button, because they assumed that electric shocks would be executed to their “supposed victims” in another room: as opposed to individuals whose identities were not hidden (Zimbardo, 1969). Therefore, these studies clearly highlight that deindividuation does have an effect on anti-normative behaviours, especially under the presence of cues such as anonymity and a lack of personal responsibility. Additionally, an interesting study by Dodd in 1985 also further studied this relationship between anonymity and deindividuation. Dodd measured his participants by posing them with the question of “if you could do anything humanly possible with complete assuredness that you would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do?” The responses given by the participants were then classified into four distinct categories of antisocial, prosocial, neutral and nonnormative. Results from Dodd’s study identified that 36% of the responses were antisocial, 9% were prosocial, 36% neutral and 19% of them were nonnormative. This shows that upon the basis of situational cues such as anonymity, an individual’s ability to behave in an antisocial manner increases, making it more assuring

that criminal acts can be easily committed. Overall, this behaviour change from Dodd’s findings greatly supports the concept of deindividuation. Examining group behaviour and its influence, there have been many other studies around deindividuation. For instance, Postmes and Spears produced a set of 60 studies, in a meta-analysis entitled “Deindividuation and Antinormative Behaviour: A Meta- Analysis, 1998.” Contradicting evidence was discovered by them: some which supported deindividuation, with “evidence that larger groups either induce or facilitate stronger antinormative behaviour.” (p. 252, Postmes and Spears, 1998). But some results highlighted that “anonymity to an outward group leads to a slightly more antinormative behaviour.” (p.252, Postmes and Spears, 1998). This indicates that a manipulation of deindividuation can lead to behaviour that an individual will not normally engage in, if for instance their personal identity is known. Despite using a wide range of studies, this meta-analysis of Postmes and Spears was ambiguous to the consistency of the effects of deindividuation. Even though deindividuation provides explanation for group behaviour in social situations, it is highly unlikely that this is the case for every other group. Although most aspects of deindividuation state that anonymity evidently generates uninhibited behaviour, it is much complementary to the factor of group size. A study by Kugihara (2001) found that a large group size justifies a higher level of anonymity experienced by the group’s members, resulting in stronger antisocial behaviour and actions that contradict a society’s approved norms of conduct. What can be taken from these results is that a group(especially one that is large), has the full potential to heighten arousal amongst its group members, and to also cause identity loss. Based on this approach, if the individual regards the group as highly important, then he or she is more prone to conform to the norms set by that group. Furthermore, a group has the power to make members within it become unidentifiable as well as aroused. For instance, Mullen’s study in 1986 examined the relationship between lynch mobs and deindividuated behaviours. The study suggests that lynch mobs can efficiently persuade members into believing that their actions will not lead to prosecution. This is due to members remaining under the false assumption that any performed actions will be the group’s responsibility and not theirs. In general, results identified that as the lynch mobs became numerous, more members began to lose their selfawareness and thus became more inclined to conduct atrocities. Therefore when large

groups of people converge, it is evident that individuals lose their sense of self and personal responsibility. A consequence of deindividuation is that it leads to increased aggressive behaviour. This is highlighted through a study by Malmuth et al. in 1981 where research was conducted amongst male university participants in North America. These participants were questioned on ”how likely they personally would be to rape, if they could be assured of not being caught.” Just over a third of these male university participants answered in agreement and indicated that not being identified would undoubtedly increase their likelihood of raping. This result evidently supports that deindividuation leads to more aggression especially when under the influence of anonymity. Similarly, a study by Silke (2003) analysed 500 violent attacks that occurred in Northern Ireland. Around 206 attacks of those 500, were carried out by people who concealed their identity by wearing some sort of a disguise. Thus Silke’s study demonstrates that the severity of violence was directly linked to whether the culprit’s identity was known or not. Through evidence such as this, aggressive actions can be supported by deindividuation and anonymity. However, the loss of an individual’s identity is not always the cause of antisocial behaviours. In a study conducted by Downing and Johnson(1979), female undergraduates were instructed to wear costumes of either a nurse or robes worn by Ku Klux Klan members (American white supremacist hate group). Throughout the study, half of the participants were identified while the others remained unknown. All of the participants taking part were then provided with the choice of either increasing or decreasing the intensity of the electric shocks that were administered to another supposed participant: one who had previously behaved in an abhorrent manner. Participants who wore the Ku Klux Klan costumes, increased the intensity of the electric shocks given, in both the identified and anonymous conditions. Rather surprisingly, anonymous participants who were dressed as a nurse reduced the shock intensity four times more frequently than participants who could be identified. Overall, these findings thus indicate that sometimes individuals who become less self-aware, tend to let themselves become more susceptible towards the needs of others. To further support that deindividuation is not directly linked with aggression, various studies have examined social media applications, especially those that allow users to post anonymously. One such study looked at an application named Yik Yak. Posts from university

students were analysed and then seven participants were instructed to sort each Yik Yak post into two categories of either content or intent. Posts under content based included topics such as aggression, crime, etc. whereas intent based involved the subset of prosocial, antisocial, nonnormative and neutral. Overall, results showed that most Yik Yak users were not experiencing deindividuation. Around 50% of the posts were labelled as "Miscellaneous", which highlights that if Yik Yak users were experiencing deindividuation, most of the posts should have been placed posts into a violent category such as "Aggression.” Aspects of a computer-mediated communication can have severe impacts on an individual’s behaviour. One such study observed students and compared the differences between their opinions on homosexuality, based on their level of deindividuation. Students expressed their opinions via face-to-face interactions, a non-anonymous virtual chat or an anonymous discussion board. Face-to-face interactions were not very engaging as many students either gave politically correct responses or simply conformed to by nodding in agreement to the views of another individual. Through the non-anonymous virtual chat, more students participated than previously and even justified their opinions by sharing known cases.

As expected on the anonymous discussion board, a lot more students

expressed riskier views, and made comments that would not have occurred during face-toface interactions. Overall, this study illustrates that under the presence of a stronger deindividuated setting such as the anonymous discussion board, individuals are less constrained thus are more likely to express their opinions fully. Whereas in a weaker deindividuated setting such as the face-to-face interactions, individuals are more cautious and thus less likely to express their opinions truthfully. Conclusively, various studies have established that by manipulating the causes of deindividuation, individuals are still more prone to engage in disinhibited and transgressive behaviours. It is certainly reasonable that remaining anonymous (by concealment of identity or via the Internet), being under increased arousal or aggression and the presence of a large group, can strongly encourage individuals to behave out of general social norms. This is mainly because of an individual’s diminished sense of personal responsibility. However it is also important to consider the impact of the context and types of cues given to individuals when examining this psychological state. A combination of studies are used to provide a

wider perspective on the behaviour of individuals especially under the influence of anonymity, as highlighted by the notorious studies of Diener et al. and Zimbardo. Despite the success of numerous studies in proving their predictions right, it is impossible to ignore the varying results of Postmes and Spears meta-analysis, therefore suggesting much more research is required before a definitive theory for causes of deindividuation can be proved.

Word Count: 2000

References

Chang, J. (2008). The Role of Anonymity in Deindividuated Behaviour: A Comparison of Deindividuation Theory and The Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effect. The Pulse, 6(1), 1-8. Diener, E., Fraser, S. C., Beaman, A. L., & Kelem, R. T. (1976). Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of personality and social psychology, 33(2), 178. Dietz-Uhler, B., & Bishop-Clark, C. (2002). The psychology of computer-mediated communication: Four classroom activities. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 2(1), 2531. Dodd, D. K. (1985). Robbers in the classroom: A deindividuation exercise. Teaching of Psychology, 12(2), 89-91. Fein, S. , Kassin, S. , & Markus, R.H. (2011). Social psychology (8th ed.). Wadsworth, USA: Cengage Learning. Johnson, R. D., & Downing, L. L. (1979). Deindividuation and valence of cues: Effects on prosocial and antisocial behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(9), 1532. Korsgaard, S. R. (2019). The Zodiac Killer in View of Deindividuation Theory. Zodiac. Kugihara, N. (2001). Effects of aggressive behaviour and group size on collective escape in an emergency: A test between a social identity model and deindividuation theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 575-598. Le Bon, G. (2009). Psychology of Crowds (annotated). Sparkling Books. Malmuth, N. M. (1981). Rape proclivity among males. Journal of social issues, 37(4), 138157. Mullen, B. (1986). Atrocity as a function of lynch mob composition: A self-attention perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(2), 187-197. Myers, G.D. (2010). Social psychology (10th ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Education. Myers, G.D. , & Twenge, M.J. (2016). Social psychology (12th ed.). New York, USA: McGrawHill Education. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behaviour: A metaanalysis. Psychological bulletin, 123(3), 238. Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). Effects of public and private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 503.

Rohmeyer, R., Bradshaw, A., & Frederick, C. (2016). Deindividuation in Social Media. Silke, A. (2003). Deindividuation, anonymity, and violence: Findings from Northern Ireland. The Journal of social psychology, 143(4), 493-499. Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In Nebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska press....