deindividuation

Question 1

deindividuation definition

Answer 1

loss of self-identity and personal responsibility

Question 2

deindividuation theory of aggression

Answer 2

• normally, we are in an individuated state so are constrained by social norms so not aggressive
• increase of anonymity leads to loss of public self-awareness and private self-awareness
• leads to deindividuation
• so behaviour is less constrained by social norms (we lose our inhibitions) and becomes impulsive, emotional and disinhibited
• responsibility is shared throughout the group as we assume the group identity, so we experience less personal guilt at harmful aggression directed towards others
• so more aggression

Question 3

private self-awareness

Answer 3

• e.g. when we are in a crowd, our attention focuses outward to events around us so we pay less attention to our own beliefs and feelings
• so less private self-awareness
• so less self-critical and evaluative
• fosters deindividuated state

Question 4

public self-awareness

Answer 4

• e.g. in a crowd, we realise our behaviour less likely to be judged by others and so we care less about how others see us
• so less accountable for our aggressive actions
• which fosters a deindividuated state

Question 5

examples of increase in anonymity

Answer 5

• Being drunk
• Darkness
• Crowds
• Uniform/disguise
• Tribal paint

Question 6

evaluation points for deindividuation theory of aggression

Answer 6

• supporting evidence from Dodd
• supporting evidence from Johnson and Downing
• real world-application
• supporting evidence from Watson

Question 7

supporting evidence for deindividuation theory of aggression from Dodd

Answer 7

• asked 229 undergraduate psychology students in 13 classes ‘if you could do anything humanly possible with complete assurance that you would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do?’
• students’ responses were anonymous
• 3 raters who didnt know the hypothesis decided which categories of antisocial behaviour the responses belonged to
• 36% of responses involved some form of antisocial behaviour
• 26 were actual criminal acts, most common being ‘rob a bank.’
• few students opted for murder, rape and assassination of a political figure
• Only 9% of responses were prosocial behaviours
• supports link between anonymity, deindividuation and aggressive behaviour as it suggests that when the participants were more anonymous, their private self-awareness was lowered (they paid less attention to their own thoughts and feelings about criminal behaviour) and their public self-awareness was lowered (they cared less about how others would see them if they carried out criminal behaviour)
• suggests that deindividuation occurred with the participants experiencing a loss of self-identity and personal responsibility for their actions which then led them to suggest they would carry out aggressive behaviour
• so supports validity of deindividuation explanation

Question 8

supporting evidence for deindividuation theory of aggression from Johnson and Downing

Answer 8

• study where female participants had to give (fake) electric shocks to a confederate
• In one condition participants dressed in a KKK-type outfit with masks hiding faces
• Participants in another condition dressed as nurses, and a third control group wore their own clothes
• Compared with control group, KKK-dressed participants gave more (and more intense) electric shocks, and the ‘nurses’ gave fewer at lower levels
• ‘Nurses’ more compassionate towards their ‘victim.’
• suggests both aggression and prosocial behaviour are potential outcomes of deindividuation (not just aggression), and normative cues in the situation determine which is most likely to occur [you would need to explain how here using the flow diagram - see notes on L7b]
• supports deindividuation is a valid explanation of aggression when normative cues are present

Question 9

real world application of deindividuation theory of aggression

Answer 9

• Deindividuation theory helps us to understand aggressive behaviour online, including online gaming services such as Xbox Live.
• These services promote a psychological state of deindividuation: reduction of personal identity (using ‘handles’), arousing and immersive game-playing, and the presence of a ‘crowd’ (a potentially worldwide audience).
• Douglas and McGarty (2001) found a strong correlation between anonymity and ‘flaming’ (posting hostile messages).
• Trolling and bullying (cyberbullying) are increasingly common online behaviours and can be discriminatory in extreme forms (e.g. women and girls, people with disabilities, gay people, and people from ethnic minorities).
• Online anonymity makes cyberbullying more widespread and potentially harmful because bullies are unaccountable and unlikely to face consequences.
• Even under real identities, online communication is de-individuated as it is ‘at a distance’ rather than face-to-face, and it is easier to communicate aggressively in writing (time to compose responses without listening to others).
• This supports the external validity of the theory, as it has important real-world applications in explaining online aggression.

Question 10

supporting evidence for deindividuation theory of aggression from Watson

Answer 10

• collected data on the extent to which warriors in 23 societies changed their appearance prior to going to war (e.g. through war paint, tribal costumes etc.) and the extent to which they killed, tortured or mutilated their victims
• 12/15 societies that changed their appearance were highly aggressive, compared to 1/8 who didnt change their appearance
• supports external validity of theory as an explanation of aggression as the theory can account for real life instances of aggression whereby the anonymity from changing appearance triggers deindividuation and therefore more aggressive behaviour
• explain flow diagram