Deindividuation

Deindividuation Definition: Psychology

Deindividuation is a phenomenon in which people exhibit antisocial and sometimes violent behaviour in situations where they believe they cannot be personally identified because they are part of a group.

American social psychologist Leon Festinger et al. (1952) coined the term ‘deindividuation’ to describe situations in which people cannot be individuated or isolated from others.

Deindividuation Examples

Let’s look at some examples of individuation.

Le Bon explained that deindividuated behaviour occurs in three ways:

• Anonymity causes people to be unidentifiable, leading to a sense of untouchability and a loss of personal responsibility (private self-perception decreases).

• This loss of personal responsibility leads to contagion.

• People in crowds are more prone to antisocial behaviour.

Causes of Deindividuation: Origins of Deindividuation

The concept of deindividuation can be traced back to theories of crowd behaviour. In particular, the French polymath Gustave Le Bon (a person of excellent knowledge) explored and described group behaviours amidst unrest in the French community.

Le Bon’s work published a politically motivated critique of crowd behaviour. French society was unstable at the time, with many protests and riots. Le Bon described the behaviour of groups as irrational and changeable. Being in a crowd, he said, allowed people to act in ways they usually would not.

Deindividuation: Theory of Aggression

Under normal circumstances, an understanding of social norms prevents aggressive behaviour. In public, people generally constantly evaluate their behaviour to ensure that it conforms to social norms.

However, when a person becomes part of a crowd, they become anonymous and lose their sense of identity, thus, loosening normal inhibitions. Constant self-assessment is weakened. People in groups do not see the consequences of aggression.

Johnson and Downing’s (1979) experiment found that participants dressed similarly to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) gave more shocks to a confederate, while participants dressed as nurses gave fewer shocks to a confederate than a control group. This finding shows that social learning and group norms influence behaviours. The nurse group delivered fewer shocks because nurses are typically symbolised as caring.

Deindividuation Experiments

Deindividuation has been a research subject of many well-known experiments within the field of psychology. The loss of personal responsibility that comes with anonymity was particularly interesting post-war.

Philip Zimbardo

Zimbardo is an influential psychologist best known for his Stanford Prison Experiment, which we will look at later. In 1969, Zimbardo conducted a study with two groups of participants.

• One group was anonymised by wearing large coats and hoods that concealed their identities.
• The other group was a control group; they wore regular clothing and name tags.

Each participant was taken to a room and given the task of ‘shocking’ a confederate in another room at various levels, from mild to dangerous. Participants in the anonymous group shocked their partners longer than participants in the control group. This shows deindividuation because the anonymised group (deindividuated) showed more aggression.

Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)

Zimbardo conducted the Stanford prison experiment in 1971. Zimbardo set up a prison mock-up in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology building.

• He assigned 24 men to play the guard or prisoner role. These men had no abnormal traits such as narcissism or an authoritarian personality.
• The guards were given uniforms and reflective goggles that obscured their faces.

Fig. 2 - The Stanford Prison Experiment is famous in the world of psychology.

The guards were instructed to do whatever they deemed necessary to maintain order in prison and gain the prisoners' respect. Physical violence was not allowed. The guards then worked out a system of rewards and punishments for the prisoners.

The guards became more and more abusive towards the prisoners, who became more and more passive. Five prisoners were so traumatised that they were released.

The Role of Individuation in the Prison study

The guards experienced deindividuation through immersion in the group and the strong group dynamic. The clothing of the guards and prisoners led to anonymity on both sides.

The guards did not feel responsible; this allowed them to shift personal responsibility and attribute it to a higher power (study conductor, research team). Subsequently, the guards said they felt someone official would stop them if they were being too cruel.

Diener et al. (1976)

Ed Diener suggested that deindividuation also involves an aspect of objective self-perception. Objective self-awareness is high when attention is focused inward on the self and people monitor their behaviour. It is low when attention is directed outward, and behaviour is not observed. This decrease in objective self-awareness leads to deindividuation.

An observer was out of sight to record the children’s behaviour. Those who were anonymous in some form, be it through costumes or being in larger groups, were more likely to steal items (such as sweets and money) than those who were identifiable.

Can Deindividuation Lead to Positive Outcomes?

Although deindividuation is associated with negative behaviour, there are cases in which group norms can have a positive influence.

For instance, those in groups for good causes often engage in prosocial behaviours, showing kindness and charitable behaviours.