Blog 2. Deindividuation

The social psychological phenomena of deindividuation

Deindividuation is a complex social psychological phenomenon involving many antecedents and consequences. This essay will firstly describe what deindividuation is, briefly outlining its three components - the psychological state, the situational antecedents and the behavioral consequences. Secondly, the circumstances when deindividuation is desirable and undesirable will be outlined. Thirdly, the variables that lead to prevention of deindividuation (such as accountability) and to facilitation of deindividuation (such as anonymity, increased group size and heightened arousal) will be discussed. Finally, the Social Identity Theory of deindividuation will be summarized in an attempt to explain deindividuation.

What is deindividuation?
Festinger, Pepitone and Newcomb (1952) described deindividuation as "a psychological state in which inner restraints are lost and individuals are not seen or paid attention to as individuals" (p. 382). More specifically, deindividuation consists of three components - situational factors that cause the state, a psychological state (the feeling that one does not stand out as an individual from ones environment, decreased self-awareness and decreased concern for negative consequences imposed both internally and by others) and finally the consequential uninhibited behavior (Diener, 1977).

How can deindividuation be prevented and facilitated?
There are a number of variables that have been found to facilitate deindividuation and to prevent deindividuation. Anonymity has been identified as one of the key variables in facilitating deindividuation. Diener (1979) argued that anonymous conditions cause a loss of self-awareness and that this loss facilitates deindividuation. Numerous studies have demonstrated that individuals who believe their identity is unknown are more likely to behave in an unrestrained manner (Diener, Fraser, Beaman & Kelem, 1976; Ellison, Govern, Petri & Figler, 1995; Rehm, Steinleitner & Lilli, 1987; Zimbardo, as cited in Silke, 2003, p. 494). For example, Zimbardo (cited in Silke, 2003, p. 494) showed that participants who had masked their identities (with hoods covering their faces) administered more severe and more frequent electric shocks to other subjects compared to unmasked subjects.

Also, it has been found that crowd size and feelings of anonymity are significantly positively correlated. This suggests that being immersed in a large group is associated with feeling less identifiable which in turn facilitates deindividuation (Diener, 1977). This may explain the anti-social behavior displayed by some sporting fans, such as English football hooligans (O’brien, 2006).

Conversely, accountability has been found to decrease deindividuation. This is well illustrated in a study by Miller and Rowland (1979) which found that those who were made to feel accountable for their actions behaved in a much more restrained fashion. Trick-or-treaters on Halloween whose identity was exposed were significantly less likely to “steal” extra candy than those wearing a mask.

It has also been found that arousal promotes deindividuation. Diener (1976) found that subjects with higher levels of arousal reported a number of changes consistent with the state of deindividuation. Aroused subjects reported less self-consciousness, could recall their own behaviour with less accuracy, reported less concern for social evaluation and reported that they felt more anonymous in the situation compared to the subjects in the non-aroused control condition (Deiner, 1977).

When is deindividuation desirable or undesirable?
Deindividuated can be both desirable and undesirable depending on the circumstances (Spivey & Prentice-Dunn, 1990; Johnson & Downing, 1979). Most of the research focuses on trying to find a relationship between deindividuation and antisocial behavior. However, an interesting study by Spivey & Prentice-Dunn (1990) found that deindividuation could lead to either pro-social or anti-social behavior depending on situational factors. When pro-social environmental cues were present (such as a pro-social model) deindividuated subjects were more likely to behave altruistically. Deindividuated subjects performed significantly more altruistic acts (gave money) and significantly less antisocial acts (electric shocks) compared to other people when in the presence of a pro-social model.

Also, Gergen, Gergen and Barton (1973) found that deindividuation enhanced affectionate behavior. Couples who were deindividuated using a dark chamber displayed significantly more affectionate behavior such as touching and caressing in comparison to individuated couples in a light chamber. These results imply that deindividuation may be helpful in intimate relationship development.

Furthermore, it has been found that amongst a sample of subjects who stutter, verbal disfluencies decreased under mask induced deindividuation. This leads to increased self-efficacy and decreased performance anxiety (Bloodstein, as cited in Mullen, Migdal & Rozell, 2003, p. 1072; Mullen, 1986). Also, in situations where there is an opportunity to help people who are being attacked it has been found that those who report higher levels of deindividuation are more likely to provide help (Mullen, 2003).

Antithetically, there is a large body of research that has found undesirable outcomes of deindividuation. In the presence of negative environmental situations deindividuation can result in anti-social outcomes. For instance, in conflict situations warriors who are under deindividuation conditions, such as by concealing their identity (i.e. with masks and war paint and attacking in large groups) were significantly more likely to kill, mutilate and torture captured prisoners compared to warriors who did not hide their identity and this was consistent across 24 different cultures (Watson, 1973).

However, caution is needed as alternative explanations of the findings exist. For example, offenders who intended to behave more aggressively may have worn disguises as a precautionary measure. Johnson & Downing (1979) suggested that anonymity-induced aggression ‘may not require a reduction in the subjective sense of individuation but, in many instances, could reflect a simple reduction in perceived negative sanctions’ (p. 1537). In this perspective, use of a disguise is a risk reduction measure.

On the other hand, Silke (2003) proposed that such an interpretation does not explain his findings of deindividuation effects in Northern Ireland. Silke (2003) found that the paramilitary attackers in Northern Ireland who used disguises displayed significantly more aggressive and punitive behaviour during and after interpersonal assaults. The effect was most pronounced with peripheral aggressive behaviours such as vandalism and the exiling of victims. Moreover, in this case the type of violent attacks considered were very low-risk activity for the paramilitaries. For example, in the 3 year period from 1994 to 1996, the paramilitaries carried out 736 recorded punishment attacks. During this period, only five paramilitary members were convicted of involvement in the assaults (Silke, 1999). Considering the relatively intense security presence in Northern Ireland, this number represents remarkably low levels of capture and conviction. Furthermore, in the sample of 500 cases considered in the present study, there was no correlation between the use of disguises and less likelihood of arrest afterward. In short, the attacks were carried out in an environment of very low risk for the offenders and there was no obvious association between disguise use and less negative outcomes for the offenders (Silke, 2003).

Both the desirable and undesirable effects of deindividuation can be seen in computer-mediated communication. On the one hand deindividuation has been found to increase group polarisation and out-group bias in political debate chatrooms (Lee, 2007). However, adolescents feel significantly more comfortable seeking help about mental health problems under the deindivduated circumstances of internet chatrooms compared to the individuated circumstances of a personal appointment with a professional (Francis, Boyd, Aisbett, Newnham & Newnham, 2006).

Social Identity Theory of deindividuation
In an attempt to explain deindividuation, the Social Identity Theory argues that deindividuation-enhancing factors (such as anonymity and arousal) decrease attention to individual factors whilst increasing attention to situational factors (Lee, 2007). Deindividuation manipulations thus increase the responsiveness to situational norms. According to the Social Identity Theory, it is likely that a person switches from a personal to a group identity in deindividuating circumstances (Reicher, 1984; Spears, Lea & Lee, 1990).

The implication of the Social Identity Theory is that, under deindividuating circumstances, people should be more responsive to norms in the immediate social context (Lee, 2007). This accounts for the finding that deindividuation increases pro-social behavior given positive cues and increases anti-social behavior given negative cues (Johnson & Dowling, 1979; Spivey & Prentice-Dunn, 1990). The Social Identity Theory also accounts for the fact that some deindividuated behavior does not comply with general social norms (Postmes & Spears, 1998).

Conclusion
The complex nature of deindividuation has been demonstrated through this essay. Deindividuation consists of situational causes, an internal psychological state and unrestrained behavioral consequences. Deindividuation can be enhanced by increasing situational causes such as anonymity, arousal and crowd size and prevented by decreasing these variables as well as by increasing accountability. Deindividuation can be either desirable or undesirable depending on the situation. In anti-social environments such as conflict circumstances, deindividuation can increase negative behaviors (i.e. aggression and violence). However, pro-social situations such as in the presence of a pro-social model, deindividuation can lead to increased positive behavior. In terms of theoretically accounting for deindividuation, the Social Identity Theory appears to account for much of the research findings.



References
Diener, E. (1977). Deindividuation: Causes and consequences. Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 143–155.

Diener, E. (1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1160-1171.

Diener, E., Fraser, S., Beaman, A., & Kelem, R. (1976). Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 178-183.

Ellison, P., Govern, J., Petri, H., & Figler, M. (1995). Anonymity and aggressive driving behavior: A field study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 265-272.

Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of deindividuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382-389.

Francis, K., Boyd, C., Aisbett, D., Newnham, K., & Newnham, K. (2006). Adolescents attitudes to seeking help for mental health problems. Youth Studies Australia, 26(4), 142-150.

Gergen, K. J., Gergen, M. M., & Barton, W. H. (1973). Deviance in the dark. Psychology Today, 7, 129-130.

Johnson, R. D., & Downing, L. L. (1979). Deindividuation and valence of cues: Effects on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1532–1538.

Lee, E. (2007). Deindividuation effects on group polarization in computer mediated communication: The role of group identification, public self-awareness and perceived argument quality. The journal of Communication, 57(2), 385-403.

Miller, F. G., & Rowland, K. L. (1979). Halloween masks and deindividuation. Psychological Reports, 44, 422.

Mullen, B., Midgal, M. J., & Rozell, D. (2003). Self-awareness, deindividuation and social identity: Unraveling theoretical paradoxes by filling empirical Lacunae. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5) 1071-1081.

Mullen, B. (1986). Stuttering, audience size, and the other-total ratio: A self-attention perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 141-151.

O’brien, A. G. (2006). Divisive power of crowd fuels supporters' baffling culture of vileness. The Times, 88.

Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123(3), 238-259.

Rehm, J., Steinleitner, M., & Lilli, W. (1987). Wearing uniforms and aggression: A field experiment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 357–360.

Reicher, S. D. (1984). Social influence in the crowd: Attitudinal and behavioural effects of de-individuation in conditions of high and low group salience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 341–350

Silke, A. (2003). Deindividuation, anonymity, and violence: findings from Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Psycholog, 143(4), 493-499.

Silke, A. (1999). Ragged justice: Loyalist vigilantism in Northern Ireland. Terrorism and Political Violence, 11, 1-31.

Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121–134.

Spivey, C. B., & Prentice-Dunn, S. (1990). Assessing the directionality of deindividuated behavior: effects of deindividuation, modeling and private self-consciousness on aggressive and prosocial responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11(4), 387-403.

Watson, R. I. (1973). Investigation into deindividuation using a cross-cultural survey technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 342-345.

Appendices
Self-Assessment
Theory
I presented a number of theoretical concepts in my essay giving brief examples of the central concepts. Due to the word limit the depth of analysis had to be limited.

Research
I feel that my essay provided a sufficient representation of the available research. However, I could have incorporated more research on deindividuation across different cultures and investigated developmental variables.

Written expression
My essay was written and referenced in APA format. A simple writing style, logical sequence and subheadings were used to enhance readability.
- Flesch-Kincaid grade level = 12.0
Readability could have been improved by the use of tables, concept maps or figures to help illustrate the main points of the essay.

Online engagement
My online engagement has been consistent throughout the semester. I have conducted weekly discussions as well as numerous other posts on my own blog. Also I have commented on many of the other blogs throughout the semester.