How well does the classic theory of deindividuation explain the behaviour of people in crowds?

Authors Avatar

Briefly describe and then critically evaluate the concept of deindividuation. How well does the classic theory of deindividuation explain the behaviour of people in crowds?


Deindividuation is a theory that has been the subject of much discussion over past decades, and is to a large extent based on the crowd theory of Gustave Le Bon (1895/1995). Deindividuation is the loss of individuality when a subject becomes part of a group, either by decreased personal awareness or when individuals are no longer recognised as individuals (Festinger et al., 1952). Many theories recognise deindividuation as a psychological state where self-evaluation and evaluation apprehension are decreased, causing antinormative behaviour (Diener, 1980; Festinger, Pepitone & Newcomb, 1952; Zimbardo, 1969).

Deindividuation theory has been used to understand the transformation of the individual’s behaviour when part of a crowd. Le Bon (1985/1995) in his acclaimed book The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind suggested that whilst in a crowd an individual’s personal and social inhibitions are decreased when anonymity, suggestibility and contagion are combined. The loss of individuality relieves the individual of moral restraints, and they become submerged within the group and capable of immoral and uncivilised acts.

According to Le Bon, the group share a collective mind that takes possession of the members, so in essence the members become puppets. The issue with this being that if all members cannot share a collective mind, as this would suggest equality. There must be either a structured or an unstructured hierarchy within a group, i.e. the dominant members who direct the other submissive members. The role of a leader must be a member who epitomises the group ideology, and that those joining the group can emulate.

Furthermore, one must ask to what extent a dominant member is deindividuation, as adopting a dominant role would individualise the member, relieving anonymity and reinstating more accountability. An example of this would be the genocide committed by the German army, where the dominant figure, (Adolf Hitler); lead the group to atrocious acts. The dominant figure however is the one member who is seen to be most accountable for the acts of the group however, and it cannot be said that the leader is question was in any way deindividuated.

Festinger et al. (1952) continued this theory, adding that this state of deindividuation became possible when the individual is not recognised as an individual, but as a member within a group. This increased the likelihood of the member’s inner restraints and inhibitions being reduced. Whilst within a group, the members have a collective identity and are no longer subject to individual scrutiny and associated accountability for their acts. This unaccountability frees the individual of the guilt of their actions, giving them the freedom to commit acts that violate their own personal and social norms.

Join now!

The variety of inputs that leads to deindividuation were later developed by Zimbardo (1969). His theory identified loss of individual responsibility, anonymity, novel or unstructured situations and conscious altering substances as circumstances that lead to behaviour that violates a person’s established norms. This behaviour is impulsive, irrational, intense and emotional behaviour. This behaviour is self-reinforcing and difficult to terminate, as it is governed less by inhibitions, giving the individual freedom to reaffirm their identity (Erikson, 1968). Although deindividuation was based around crowd theory (Le Bon 1895.1995), Zimbardo applied the concept to situations outside of the group phenomenon, such as ...

This is a preview of the whole essay