Summary

Deindividuation account is the earliest major social psychological theories of aggression. Le Bon (1895), a French social psychologist and sociologist was the first to recognise how an individual’s behaviour changes when s/he is part of a crowd. The most important factor is anonymity. The more anonymous the crowd, the greater the threat of extreme action. A ‘collective mindset’ takes over and the crowd acts as one unit. The individual becomes part of the crowd and loses self control.

‘Deindividuation’ was defined by Festinger et al. (1952) as a state of affairs in a group where members don’t pay attention to other individuals as individuals and, correspondingly, the members don’t feel they’re being singled out by others. According to Festinger et al., individuals merge to the group, forego individuality and become anonymous when belonging to a group. Anonymity is the start of the process that leads to uncharacteristic behaviour in the individual. Being in a group causes the individual to be less bothered about the consequences of their actions. Zimbardo (1969) argued that there is more to deindividuation than just anonymity in a group or crowd.

Diener et al. (1976) conducted an experiment involving over 700 Halloween trick-or-treaters visiting local houses in their Halloween costumes. Friends of the researchers put out bowls of sweets or coins that were labelled “TAKE ONE”. There were two conditions, the non-anonymous condition and the anonymous condition. While chatting to the child/children, the homeowner had to answer the telephone leaving the children at the front door. A hidden observer recorded the amount of stealing. 57% of the anonymous groups, 21% of the anonymous and alone, 21% of the non-anonymous groups and 8% of the non-anonymous and alone stole. Not being identifiable and being in a group of other anonymous children produced the highest rate of anti-social behaviour. Zimbardo (1969) conducted a study, ‘anonymous laboratory coat’ experiment. Female students had to deliver shocks to another student in a study ‘creativity under stress’ and each participant was given a 75-volt shock to convince her that it hurt but no actual shocks were administered. Half of the students wore bulky lab coats and hoods that hid their face and were not referred to by name. The other half wore their normal clothes, were given large name tags to wear and could see each other dimly while giving the shock. The hooded, deindividuated participants gave twice as much shock as the other group and also increased shock time over 20 trials.

Deindividuation of the guards was also a feature of the ‘prison simulation experiment’. The participants that wore surgical masks and gowns delivered less electric shock than the participants whose names and identities were emphasised. In another of Zimbardo’s (1969) studies, the participants were Belgian soldiers. The soldiers that wore hoods did not behave more aggressive. They were self conscious, suspicious and anxious.

Diener (1980) suggested that people often behave in well-scripted ways and do so without conscious awareness. When a person is judged by others, the person becomes more self conscious. Crowds tend to block a person’s capacity for self-awareness, with the result that he/she becomes deindividuated. A key factor in behaviour is social arousal. Prentice-Dunn and Rogers (1982) distinguished between two kinds of self-awareness. Public self-awareness is when people worry about the impression they make on other people knowing that they will be judged based on that impression. This awareness can be reduced by anonymity in a crowd and diffusion of responsibility. Private self-awareness is when a person is concerned for his/her own thoughts and feelings. Loss of this awareness can cause a person to lose internal standards and rely on environmental cues to tell them how to behave.

In a meta-analysis (a ‘study of studies’) of 60 studies, Postmes and Spears (1988) found very little support for either the occurrence of deindividuated behaviours or the existence of a deindividuated state associated with large anonymous groups or crowds compared with individual behaviour. Both individuals and groups conform more to situation-specific norms when deindividuated, which is inconsistent with deindividuation theory.

Gergen et al.’s (1973) ‘black room experiment’ showed how anonymity can affect behaviour in other ways. Participants spent an hour together, either in a dark room or in a normally lit room. When they were in the dark room, they chatted and explored the physical space then began to discuss serious matters. When conversation faded, 90% of participants deliberately touched each other, almost 50% hugged and 80% admitted to be sexually aroused. However, those in the lit room talked politely or the whole hour. We feel less accountable for our behaviour in the dark room, but this state of deindividuation can be far from anti-social.

Questions

1. Aggression is a behaviour that can be expressed verbally, mentally and physically.

2. Intention is crucial to definitions of aggression because incidences of aggression do occur where the intent to harm fails

3. Instrumental aggression is the aggression in order to obtain something of value. Emotional aggression is the impulsive behaviour intended solely to hurt another person.

4. Aggression is a result of anger while not all violence is a result of anger. Aggression is a human behaviour that is found in all human beings and shown through abusive language, damage to objects and property, assault on self and others. Violence is aggression in action.

5. ‘Deindividuation’ was defined by Festinger et al. (1952) as a state of affairs in a group where members don’t pay attention to other individuals as individuals and, correspondingly, the members don’t feel they’re being singled out by others. This type of behaviour is due to anonymity and shift of attention.