Deindividuation Theory of Aggression

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html

AO1• Deindividuation – to lose one’s sense of

individuality and identity.• Can occur in 2 main ways – – Becoming part of a crowd– Identifying with a particular role ( often aided by

wearing uniform or mask)

Can be used to explain aggression which occurs when in a group.

AO1:Le Bon (1896) – individuals are more likely to

behave in aggressive manner when part of a large anonymous group.

• A collective mindset is created and the group can become a ‘mob’.

Individuals feel less identifiable in a group, so the normal constraints that prevent aggressive behaviour may be lost. The shared responsibility for action reduces individual guilt.

Deindividuation occurs when self awareness is blocked by environmental events.

Critical factors include :◦ Strong feelings of

group membership◦ Increased levels of

arousal◦ Focus on external

events◦ Feeling of

anonymity (e.g. Wearing a uniform)

AO1:Diener (1980)

The deindividuated individual is trapped in the moment, perception of time is distorted and they are unable to consider consequences.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1761062858590826090&ei=jpNNS7a5OorN-QbTwt3CBw&q=tiananmen+square&hl=en&view=3#

Increased arousal External focusStrong group feelings Sense of anonymity

Reduced self awareness

DEINDIVIDUATION

AO1:Diener cont.

Zimbardo (1973) Stanford Prison experiment

Evaluation A02 support

You have 10 minutes to use this classic experiment to illustrate

deindividuation theory and apply it to the guards aggressive

behaviour.

• Explored deindividuation in female undergraduates.• Group 1 dressed in white lab coats with hoods over their

faces• Group 2 wore large name tags.• All pps observed a woman being interviewed and evaluated

her performance by administering electric shocks.• Condition 1 – pleasant interviewee, condition 2 – obnoxious• Group 2 shocked the obnoxious interviewee more than the

pleasant one• Group 1 (deindividuated) shocked both interviewees equally.• Zimbardo concluded that deindividuation increased

aggression, making it indiscriminate and not at all influenced by individual characteristics.

AO2 Support:Zimbardo (1969)

Is it relevant that all the participants

were women?

Aggression in handball Deindividuation was created by giving one team orange shirts,

whilst other team wore own clothes. In boy teams, uniformed teams were

more aggressive than non-uniform. In girl teams, no differences found. Researchers concluded that uniform >

loss of individuality > deindividuation.

AO2 Support:Rehm et al (1987)

Is there an alternative explanation? How can the gender difference

be explained?

Watson (1973) – 24 cultures. Warriors in face and body

paint more likely to kill, mutilate and torture captured prisoners.

AO2 support: Cross cultural evidence

• Silke (2003) – violent assaults in Northern Ireland.• 206 / 500 cases carried out by offenders wearing masks or disguises.• Anonymous attackers were more prolific and inflicted more serious physical injuries than identifiable attackers.

Using Cardwell draw a spider diagram or make notes to outline some of the problems with deindividuation theory.

E.g.

AO2 Problems with deindividuation theory

It has been found that male and female groups respond differently under deindividuation conditions.

An increase in aggression has only been found in ‘all male’ groups.

Evidence suggests that males may be more prone to aggressive behaviour when disinhibited, than females.

Gender differences (A02- weakness)

Importance of norms of the group e.g. Ku Klux Klan versus nurses uniforms

Mixed evidence

Deindividuation can also increase the incidence of prosocial behaviour.

Weaknesses of the theory...

Crowd baiting

Cyber bullying?

Real world application

Gender bias

Real world application

Cross cultural validity

AIDs....