Aggression - Deindividuation

Aggression - Deindividuation

1. Deindividuation is the loss of identity & loosening of normal inhibitions

2. Origins of the theory

   • Gustave Le Bon 1895 When in a crows: anonymity, suggestibility & contagion. Individuals dont see the consequences & social norms are forgotten.
   • Zimbardo suggests that being part of a crowd can diminish awareness of ones individuality. Larger the crowd = greater anonymity. There is a diminished fear of neg evaluations & therefore a reduced sense of guilt.

3. The theory of D can be applied to agg as it explains how rational individuals become agg hooligans in an unruly mob.

   • Festinger et al 1952: Suggests that there is a reduction of the inner restraints & self-awareness when individuals are submerged in a group, they are unable to see the consequences & social norms are forgotten.
   • Zimbardo 1970: Argued that reduced responsibility, inc arousal, sensory overload & altered consciousness due to drugs/alcohol play an important part in D.

4. Examples: Zimbardo, Nazi Guards & London Riots.

5. Things that could lead to deindividuation: Anonymity, Group Size & Costume

6. Research

   • Gustave Le Bon 1895: Suggests that the more anonymous the crowd = greater threat of extreme action. A 'collective mindset' takes over and the crowd acts as one = loose self control.
     • The idea of a 'collective mindset' has been criticised, it is believed that the anonymity leads to a release from internal restraints, producing emotional, impulsive & irrational beh.
   • Diener 1980: Suggested that people often beh in well-scripted ways, and do so without conscious awareness. When beh doesn't follow the script, the individual becomes self-aware. He believed that crowds block an individuals capacity for self awareness & the individual becomes deindividuated.
   • Johnston & Downing 1979: Any beh produced could be a product of local group norms. Used Zimbardo's exp conditions, but P's were made anonymous by a mask & overalls, or nurses uniforms. P's shocked more when dressed in KKK uniforms but less when dressed a nurse. Shows: People respond to normative cues associated with the social context in which they find themselves .
   • Evidence is mixed. Postmes & Spears 1998: MA of 60 studies of D found insufficient support for the major claims of D. They found that disinhibition and antisocial beh are not more common in large groups & anon settings. Nor was there much evidence that D is associated with reduced self-awareness or that reduced self-awareness inc agg beh.

7. IDA

   • Gender Bias
     • Cannavale et al 1970: Found that M & F groups responded differently under D conditions reflecting a gender bias in the theory. An inc in agg was obtained only in all male groups.
     • Diener et al 1973: Also found the same results. He found a grater disinhibition of agg in M. Thus, evidence indicates that M may be more prone to disinhibition of agg beh when D, than F