Deindividuation is a social psychological explanation of aggression. It refers to the loss of personal identity and responsibility that occurs as a result of being in a crowd of people, or wearing a mask.
DEINER detailed deindividuation as 4 effects of decreased self-awareness. He stated it occurs when: self-awareness is blocked by environmental factors, there is a reduced need for social approval, there is a reduction in rational thinking and a decrease in inhibitions.
LE BON was the first to recognise how behaviour changed in a crowd. He proposed a number of factors leading to an individual becoming psychologically transformed in crowd situations, the most important being anonymity. He suggested that the more anonymous the crowd, the greater the threat of extreme action. A collective mind-set takes over and the crowd acts as one, with an individual becoming submerged and losing self-control. The idea of a “collective mind-set” was criticised, as it was proposed instead that anonymity leads to a release from internal restraints, producing emotional, impulsive and irrational behaviour. ZIMBARDO suggested that reduced responsibility, increased arousal, sensory overload and altered consciousness due to drugs and alcohol play an important part.
ROGERS ET AL suggested that there are two types of self-awareness. The first is public self-awareness. This is an individual’s concern about the impression presented to other people, knowing that they will be evaluated. This is reduced by being in a crowd, diffusion of responsibility, anonymity and role models within the group which set the social norms. It was found that loss of public awareness leads to loss of public standards of behaviour or a lowering of inhibitions. Private awareness regards the concern individuals have for their own thoughts and feelings. This is reduced by becoming so involved with activities that individuals “forget” themselves e.g. when dancing at a club. Loss of private awareness leads to a loss of internal standards and an over-reliance on environmental cues such as others in a crowd. People therefore forget how to think for themselves.
This theory is validated by the work of ZIMBARDO in his Stanford Prison experiment. In this experiment, healthy students were recruited to play either guards or prisoners. The guards donned uniforms including reflective sunglasses that prevented prisoners from making direct eye contact, thus providing the guards with anonymity. Prisoners wore a smock and stockings over their hair, hence removing any sign of individuality. During the study, participants did not address each other by name, instead referring to prisoners as number X and guards as Mr Correctional Officer. Zimbardo found that both guard and prisoner “uniforms” increased the anonymity of the participants, along with the thought that they were not being watched. These factors contributed to their deindividuation and escalation of aggressive behaviour.
Zimbardo’s research has since been heavily criticised for its numerous violations of the BPS’s ethical guidelines. The experiment was designed to last for two weeks, but was stopped after 6 days due to the level of aggression shown by the guards and the inhumane treatment of the prisoners. This clearly shows a violation of the ethical guideline pertaining to “Protection from Harm”. This experience may have had insurmountable, long term effects for the participants, as they left the study in a more fragile psychological state than they entered. Another criticism is that Zimbardo used 24 male participants, a small, gender biased sample. This may mean that we cannot apply the results to a wider population. There may also be an issue of culture bias, as this study was set in America. People from other cultures, may not have acted similarly when put in the same situation. A further criticism of this research is that although the prisoners wore uniforms, they did not become aggressive. For them, deindividuation led to obedience, apathy and depression. This may mean that the roles people are given, rather than the uniform, affects aggression.
In a further study ZIMBARDO used female students to give electric shocks to other female students who were actually confederates. Some participants wore their own clothes and ID labels; others wore white costumes and cloaks, masking their identity. The latter gave a much higher number of shocks than the former, which could have been due to the anonymity provided by the costumes. This would have meant they were deindividuated, and felt they could act more aggressively. It has been suggested that the white costumes of some of the participants acted as a demand characteristic as they resembled the outfit worn by the racist and notably aggressive group, “The Ku Klux Klan”. This may have meant that the wearers conformed to the role of being a member in an aggressive group. When the experiment was re-run with some girls dressed as nurses, these girls gave even lower shocks than those in their own clothes and nametags. This supports the demand characteristic, stereotype and roleplaying explanation. Once again, this research can be criticised as lacking ecological validity. The task of shocking people lacked mundane realism, suggesting that the results cannot be applied to the general population.
REHM addressed this issue of ecological validity, by assessing aggressive acts of 11 year olds during a real life handball game. Across the tournament 20 games of uniformed teams showed more violence than non-uniformed teens. All aggressive teams were male and one team was responsible for the aggression in 14 out of 19 games. Rather than deindividuation, the results could be explained using social identity theory. Wearing a uniform enhances cohesion in a group and creates social identity. Rehm’s experiment had strong ecological validity as he conducted a natural experiment. The task was also realistic, as young boys regularly play sports; meaning that the results can be applied to other boys of the same age.
There is also cross cultural research that supports the concept of deindividuation. An example of this is WATSON’S cross cultural study. In all 24 cultures studied, warriors who concealed their identity with face and body paint were more aggressive than those who were identifiable. These findings therefore suggest that anonymity contributes to deindividuation and that higher levels of aggression occur as a result.
As a general theory, deindividuation has many practical applications; one of these being CCTV. By reducing the anonymity of crowd members, these systems have reduced violence levels at football matched. However, the theory does not explain that being part of a crowd does not always result in deindividuation and aggressive behaviour. For example, individuals in crowds at religious festivals express good will to others, whereas crowds in a shop may act aggressively towards one another. For this reason, deindividuation could be criticised as being reductionist, as it states that being in a crowd triggers only aggressive behaviour. We have seen however, that this is not always the case, as with Zimbardo’s prisoners. The theory of deindividuation could also be seen as deterministic, in that it ignores an individual’s free will, suggesting we are all passive victims of our environment.
CANNAVALE ET AL found that male and female groups responded differently under deindividuation conditions reflecting a gender bias in the theory.- beta bias.
The desirable effects of deindividuation can also be found in cyberspace. Adolescents reported feeling significantly more comfortable seeking help with mental health problems under the deindividuated circumstances of internet chatrooms compared to the individual circumstances of a personal appointment with a health professional- FRANCIS ET AL.