Transcript Deindividuation - hardleypsychology

Deindividuation
Deindividuation Theory
Gustave Le Bon (1895) described how an
individual was transformed when part of a
crowd.
He claimed when in a crowd, the combination
of anonymity, suggestibility and contagion
mean that a ‘collective mind’ takes
possession of the individual.
As a consequence the individual loses self
control and acts in a way that goes against
personal social norms.
Nature Of Deindividuation
The psychological state of
deindividuationis aroused when
individuals join crowds or large groups
The focus of deindividuation theory has
almost been exclusively on antisocial
behaviour.
Process Of Deindividuation
An individual avoids acting in an aggressive
manner partly because there are social
norms inhibiting the ‘uncivilised behaviour.
According to zimbardo being part of a crowd
can diminish awareness of our own
individuality.
In a large group there is greater anonymity
and increasing behaviours that are usually
inhibited
Research- Anonymity
Rehm et al. (1987) assigned German
schoolchildren into teams of 5 people.
Half the teams wore orange shirts, the
rest wore normal clothes
The ‘orange’ children who were harder
to identify played more aggressively.
Evaluation
Johnson & Downing (1979) study used same
experiment as Zimbardo but made
anonymous by means of a mask and overalls
+ proves theory of Anonymity
- lacks ethical issues such as: psychological
harm, deceived, lack of informed consent.
- demand characteristics as they were
dressed up as the KKK
Research – The faceless
Crowd
Mullen (1986) analysed newspaper
cuttings of 16 lynchings in the US
He found the more people in the mob
the greater the savagery with which
their victim was killed.
Reduced private self
awareness
Prentice-Dunn (1982) claimed that the
important determinant of deindividuation
is reduce self awareness
If an individual is self-aware they focus
on their internal attitudes and moral
standards thus reducing anti social
behaviour
Lack of support
A meta-analysis of 60 studies (postmes and
spears 1998) found insufficient support for the
major claims of deindividuation theory.
Disinhibition and anti social behaviour are not
more common in large groups and
anonymous settings
Neither was there evidence that
deindividuation is associated with reduced
self awareness, or that reduced self
awareness increases aggressive behaviour
Prosocial consequences
Spivey and Prentice-Dunn (1990) found
that deindividuation could lead to either
prosocial or antisocial behaviour
depending on situation.
When prosocial environmental cues
where presented participants preformed
significantly more altruistic acts and
fewer antisocial acts.