Early theorists, such as Festinger , believed that deindividuation occurred when those in a group are not given individual treatment; individuals are unaccountable. This unaccountability leads to a reduction in inner restraint, increasing behavior that would normally be inhibited.
Like Lee Bon, Festinger defined deindividuation as a loss of individuality through submergence in a crowd. However, to Festinger, this individuality is not replaced by the collective mind. Rather, deindividuation simply releases an individual from their normal moral restraints Postmes and Spears, Zimbardo did not see deindividuation as solely group phenomenon, applying deindividualization as broadly as suicide, murder, and hostility in relationships Postmes and Spears, Although he studied anti-social behavior, Zimbardo stressed that deindividuated acts can be prosocial.
When individuals had minimal self-observation, self-evaluation, and concern for social evaluation, Zimbardo argued, individuals have a weakening of controls based on guilt, shame, fear, and commitment Zimbardo, Zimbardo conducted an influential study which inspired the field of deindividuation research as a whole.
Researchers clothed one group of participants anonymously in oversized lab coats and hoods, and a control group with typical clothes and name tags. The participants were assigned a task similar to that of the Milgram obedience experiment — to shock a so-called participant an actor so long as the researchers demanded that they do so. Those clothed in the anonymizing white robes shocked these actors for a longer amount of time than individuals in typical clothing Postmes, However, Zimbardo reported that a replication of his study — the participants dressed as non-anonymous soldiers this time obtained the opposite results.
Diener believed that Zimbardo and other researchers showed inconsistent support for the deindividuation hypothesis because of a lack of concern with the individual psychological changes of deindividuation Diener, For example, in one study by Diener, Westford, Dineen, and Fraser , participants were required to hit a so-called pacifist an actor trained to be non-responsive.
If deindividuation held, researchers believed, then there would be greater aggression toward the pacifist in crowds. However, results of these studies were inconsistent, or even contradictory.
In one study, for example, isolated individuals actually displayed more aggression than groups Postmes and Spears, Diener et. However, the field setting made it virtually impossible to measure the self-awareness of participants.
In Prentice-Dunn and Rogers , individuals were instructed to focus attention outward through being seated in a dimly lit room with loud music playing, where participants played video games and were encouraged to speak among each other.
Those in an inward-facing group played less arousing games in a well-lit quiet room. In the former condition, consistent with deindividuation theory, participants had higher levels of aggression Postmes, Historically, evaluating the research relating to deindividuation has been difficult, as the definition of deindividuation has evolved rapidly. Researchers have seen deindividuation theory as neglecting how crowd behavior may be the product of local group norms. As late as the s, deindividuation was a focus of psychological research, but there remained little empirical support for deindividuation theory.
The evidence supporting deindividuation driven by anonymity was inconsistent and there remained no evidence for the state of deindividuation itself Diener, As a result, the next decade saw a reconceptualization of deindividuation theory.
The main contributing factor in anti-normative behavior in deindividuated groups shifted from a lack of accountability among group members to the anonymity that belonging to the group brings. According to Le Boon, collective behavior is always irrational and individuals in the crowd lose their intellectual control. However, sociologists beyond Le Bon found that crowds can actually encourage norms for restraint and orderly behavior Turner and Killian, Theorists postulated that group behavior was a consequence of local group norms rather than the anonymization of individuals within groups.
Those dressed as Ku Klux Klan members shocked actors more, and those dressed as nurses shocked actors less than the control group. Thus, this research supports the ideas that those in groups are sensitive to, and highly influenced by, normative cues.
According to differential self-awareness theory, there are two types of cues that disinhibit collective behavior. Although both accountability cues and attentional cues can result in antinormative, disinhibited behavior, only reduced private self awareness could lead to deindividuated behavior, as defined by Prentice-Dunn and Rogers The definition and usage of deindividuation has shifted markedly over time.
Early deindividuation theorists such as Frestinger et al. Zimbardo later attempted to define the inputs leading to and subsequent effects of deindividuation. The factors leading to deindividuation, in the s, expanded from solely anonymity to contextual factors such as reductions of responsibility, arousal, sensory overload, a lack of predictability, and the effects of drugs and alcohol Zimbardo, This deindividuation involved reduced feelings of self-observation, but accountability to an audience.
And finally, Diener saw reduced self-awareness as being the defining feature of deindividuation. Diener ultimately expanded deindividuation theory but kept it within the realm of classical deindividuation theory.
In contrast, Prentice-Dunn and Rogers eliminated the anonymity that results in a lack of conscious accountability resulting in a fear of negative consequences. Social identity theorists argue that a deindividuation situation does not cause a loss of self, but a shift in identity from individual to member of a crowd. By: Stephanie Kirby. Have you heard of "mob mentality"? Most people know the phrase but don't know there's a term for it: deindividuation.
The term refers to how people in a group can lose their sense of identity and behave in ways they normally wouldn't. Often it's innocent behavior but not always. Deindividuation can be a serious and dangerous issue unless you know what to watch for. This website is owned and operated by BetterHelp, who receives all fees associated with the platform. Before we understand what deindividuation is, we need to understand what it isn't.
In the simplest form, your identity is what makes you who you are. It includes your self-awareness, your thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors. Self-awareness is being aware of yourself in relation to your standards. It's knowing your character, your morals, and your desires. These are things that make you the person you are. Deindividuation refers to when a person becomes part of a crowd or group and then begins to lose their individual identity.
They become less aware of self and who they are as an individual. The more the person becomes involved in the group, the less self-awareness they have, which includes knowing their morals, characters, and beliefs. These qualities start to be replaced by the identity of the group. The individual then begins to take on the morals and character that is held by the group as a whole. Think of being surrounded by fans at your favorite team's home game.
Everybody's yelling, some people are thumping their chests, and you're jumping up and down. Most likely, you wouldn't exhibit these behaviors if you were standing there by yourself. But being a part of the crowd carries you away from your personal identity, and you feel free to do things you normally wouldn't. While it can have a negative impact on you in certain situations like when you're ganging up on someone , it's something you can learn to overcome.
The important thing is learning how to recognize when it's happening and what the dangers are. Then you know what to look for in order to avoid it. Classic examples include gangs, cults, and large mobs of people. However, there are many other examples, including the military.
In fact, not all deindividuation is bad. Studies have found that at large charity events, when people feel they are part of the group, they tend to donate and raise larger sums of money.
The large donations inspire others to do the same. Or, when training with a military unit, people are more likely to push themselves harder. They have taken on the identity of the group, which has made an impact on their behavior and what they believe they are capable of. Deindividuation is the idea that, when in groups, people act differently than they would as individuals. Because of the anonymity that groups provide, psychologists have found that people can even act in impulsive or antisocial ways when they're part of a crowd.
In , Gustave LeBon put forward the idea that being part of a crowd can change people's behavior. According to LeBon, when people join a crowd, their behavior is no longer restricted by the usual social controls, and impulsive or even violent behavior can result.
The term deindividuation was first used by psychologist Leon Festinger and his colleagues in a paper. Festinger suggested that, when in deindividuated groups, the internal controls that typically guide people's behavior begin to loosen. Additionally, he suggested that people tend to like deindividuated groups, and will rate them more highly than groups with less deindividuation. But what exactly causes deindividuation to occur? According to psychologist Philip Zimbardo , several factors can make deindividuation more likely to occur:.
Importantly, not all of these factors need to occur in order for someone to experience deindividuation—but each of them makes experiencing deindividuation more likely. When deindividuation occurs, Zimbardo explains , people experience "changes in perception of self and others, and thereby to a lowered threshold of normally restrained behavior.
However, Zimbardo described ways in which deindividuation can lead people to behave in violent and antisocial ways such as stealing and rioting, for example.
If you've gone trick-or-treating, you may have seen a house where there was a bowl of candy and a note: "Please only take one. A paper by psychologist Edward Diener and his colleagues suggested that deindividuation could play a role in situations like this. On Halloween night, Diener and his colleagues asked households from the Seattle area to participate in a deindividuation study. At participating households, a female experimenter would meet each group of children.
In some cases—the individuated condition—the experimenter would ask each child for their name and address. In the deindividuated condition, this information was not requested, so the children were anonymous to the experimenter.
The experimenter then said that she had to leave the room, and that each child should take just one piece of candy. In some versions of the study, the experimenter added that one child would be held responsible if anyone in the group took extra candy.
The researchers found that Zimbardo's conditions for deindividuation were related to whether or not the children took extra candy or even helped themselves to coins from a nearby bowl. First, it made a difference whether children were alone or in groups in this case, the researchers didn't experimentally manipulate group size: they simply recorded whether the children had approached the house individually or as a group.
Children who were by themselves were less likely to take extra candy, compared to children who were in groups. Additionally, it mattered whether children were anonymous or individuated: children were more likely to take extra candy if the experimenter didn't know their name. Finally, the researchers found that whether or not someone was held responsible for the group's actions also impacted the behavior of group members. When someone in the group was held responsible—but the experimenter didn't know anyone's name—children were more likely to take extra candy.
However, if the experimenter knew the name of the child who would be held responsible, children were less likely to take extra candy presumably to avoid getting their friend in trouble , and, if the experimenter knew everyone's name, taking extra candy was even less likely. Another approach to understanding deindividuation comes from social identity theory. According to social identity theory, we derive a sense of who we are from our social groups.
0コメント