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 suicide and murder. This model highlighted the key effects of deindividuation as being minimized self-observation, self-evaluation, and concern for social evaluation.
However this literature fell under criticism by Diener (1977), who touched on a number of deficiencies (Postmes, & Spears, 1998). Diener felt that the input variables did not always disinhibit behaviour, and that state of deindividuation is internal, and comes from decreased self-awareness (Duval & Wicklund, 1972; Wicklund, 1975). This is achieved when a person’s attention is drawn outward at their surroundings, and the ability to deliberate is undermined. This results in an inability to plan and monitor behaviour by internal standards. They become reactive to stimuli in an impulsive, emotional and irrational manor. (Diener, 1980; Zimbardo, 1969). The feeling of not being under scrutiny whilst within a group diffuses accountability and responsibility, therefore an individual is unlikely to be held accountable for their actions, and so may not face negative consequences. (Festinger et al., 1952). This suggests that although a member may know that their actions are violating their internal morality, they do it because they will not have to face the consequences of their actions.
Prentice-Dunn and Roger (1982, 1989) felt that the correspondence between reduced self-awareness and antinormative behaviour was inconsistent, and to account for this they developed the differential self-awareness theory. This highlighted two routes to disinhibited collective behaviour, the first being the anonymity and diffusion of responsibility, which we named accountability cues. This was based on the idea that members knew their actions would be linked to them as an individual, as so didn’t expect to face any consequences for their actions, as suggested by Festinger et al. (1952). The other route to disinhibited collective behaviour being attentional cues, which can be group cohesiveness and psychological arousal. This draws attention away from the member, further reinforcing the state of deindividuation. Prentice-Dunn and Roger (1989) would argue that both routes lead to antinormative behaviour, but only the attentional cues lead to deindividuation.
The early work of Festinger et al. (1952) was based on the input of anonymity within a group being a cause for deindividuation. Zimbardo (1969) refined this concept further by defining the input variables that contributed to deindividuation and it’s effects. Zimbardo (1969) stated that anonymity and the loss of responsibility were key contributors to deindividuation, as the feeling of anonymity allowed for impulsive, irrational and emotional behaviour, without fear of negative consequences. This would not have been possible without the input of anonymity, so Zimbardo would argue that anonymity was a key input variable in causing deindividuation. For Diener, the reduction of self-awareness was a key input variable (Diener 1977, 1980). Although Diener criticised Zimbardo’s work, he also helped the refine and extend deindividuation theory, however Prentice-Dunn and Rogers (1982, 1989) can be seen as redefining deindividuation theory. For this reason it is generally accepted that Festinger et al. (1952), Zimbardo (1969) and Diener (1977, 1980) have defined the classical deindividuation theory, whereas Prentice-Dunn and Rogers have redefined and altered the key concept, so this is referred to as contemporary deindividuation theory. I will be focusing on classical deindividuation theory as it was based around crowd theory (Le Bon, 1895/1995), and I feel is more relevant in this context of explaining people in crowds.
Deindividuation is a psychological state caused when an individual becomes part of a group. The member looses their individuality is no longer recognised as an individual (Festinger et al., 1952). This is caused when identified loss of individual responsibility, anonymity, novel or unstructured situations and conscious altering substances are combined, as they lead to is impulsive, irrational, intense and emotional behaviour that is self fulfilling.
Deindividuation was originally used to try to understand the antinormative collective behaviour of antisocial groups (Le Bon, 1895/1995), however it can be used to understand the collective mind within group to examine any type of antinormative behaviour. Many experiments have taken place to attempt to understand the way an individual becomes deindividuation upon becoming a member of a group, and the behavioural changes that take place.
Zimbardo (1969) reported three influential experiments in his paper, which became the basis for much of the redefinition of deindividuation that followed. The shock paradigm experiments involved allowing participants to dress in different costumes, to shock volunteers who could see them. Each costumes giving membership to a different group, either identifiable or unidentifiable. For e.g. one experiment had participants in lab coats and in their own clothes to see the effect the costume/role would have on the shock they delivered. Zimbardo found that anonymous participants, (i.e. in lab coats), shocked for longer than those who were identifiable in their own clothes. The exact opposite was found for soldiers who were given a chance to wear their own clothes. Zimbardo suggested that the different roles had different levels of anonymity, and that being part of a social group such as the army may affect the feeling of responsibility. Zimbardo stated that soldiers felt deindividuated when separated from other soldiers, and when make identifiable in plain clothes felt anonymous. This supports Diener’s (1980) theory, that deindividuation is an internal psychological state, as the soldier’s recognised themselves as part of a group with a collective mind instead of individually, so in a sense they are already deindividuated. This raises the question, how do individuals perceive themselves? We are all part of a number of groups, e.g. race, religion, nationality. The way we view ourselves is in part dependent in part on the situation, as a novel or unstructured situation (Zimbardo, 1969) is an input variable leading to deindividuation. For e.g. if a person goes to a football match for their local team and they will become a member of that group, but when their country team is playing they will be part of a bigger group. This may be how the soldiers’s view themselves, and by becoming a civilian they feel separated and deindividuation. If this is the case, experiments may be difficult, as the right situation must be created to judge the behaviour alone in relation to deindividuation. This is always an issue of creating a naturalistic experiment.
Diener (1980) attempted to simulate more realistic and naturalistic experiments where he could test the deindividuation theory. Diener developed an experiment where participants were asked to attack another person with foam, rather than the shock paradigm, as Diener believed that aggression could be measured more. Results showed that anonymity had no affect of aggression, however individuals were more aggressive than groups. With identifiable groups being least aggressive. This is consistent with Diener’s (1980) theory that anonymity is not a key factor is causing deindividuation, however I must question the validity of the experiment. Festinger et al. (1952) concepts of deindividuation stated that there was an association between not being scrutinised or accountable, and antinormative behaviour. If a group member would not be help responsible but would be identifiable they would be less likely to deviate from normal behaviour. This can be seen with the identifiable groups being the least aggressive. This may be due to the other members identifying them as aggressive, which is a negative consequence.
This raises the question what normative behaviour is, as this must be defined before behaviour can be called antinormative for deviating from, this. I would argue that norms are socially constructed and situation specific (Lindskold & Propst, 1980; Reicher et el., Spears, & Postmes 1995; Singer, Brush, & Lublin, 1965) as to an extent they are what is expected of you by your peers in that situation as being normal, or acceptable. These norms are generalised by location, age, class etc, and are reinforced by dominant ideology and fear of change. Classical Deindividuation Theory has defined antinormative behaviour as being antisocial, (e.g. violence), however this is very closed minded and neglects the possibility that this antisocial behaviour may be normal. Nonetheless, assessing what is normal is very difficult and labour intensive, so in terms of the deindividuation paradigm, stereotypes of socially accepted behaviour must be taken as the norm, as it will be correct for the majority of the time. The problem with this being that those participants whose behaviour is classed as antinormative may be classed incorrectly. This will limit the validity of the results.
The classical theory of deindividuation is a useful tool in explaining the behaviour of people in crowds as it helps to understand the concept of a deindividuated member of a group. The classic deindividuation theory originated from crowd observation, and many of the core findings are still valid over 40 years later. Although doubts have been raised about the validity of research, it is difficult to create naturalistic experiments in the correct context. And classifying behaviour and results requires the interpretation of the experimenter, which may cause disagreement. Although deindividuation has been the subject of much debate and redefinition over the years, all of the viewpoints maintain the main element of deindividuation as the psychological state that brings antinormative behaviour.
References
Diener, E. (1977). Deindividuation: Causes and consequences. Social Behaviour and Personality, 5, 143-155.
Diener, E. (1980). Deindividuation: The absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members. In P. B. Paulus (Ed) Psychology of Group Influence, 143-155. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A Theory of Objective Self-Awareness. New York: Academic Press.
Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382-389.
Le Bon, G. (1995). The crowd: A study of the popular mind. London: Transaction. (Original work published 1895).
Lindskold, S., & Propst, L. R. (1980). Deindividuation, self-awareness and impression management. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological theory, 201-221. New York: Academic Press.
Postmes, T., Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and Antinormative Behaviour: A Meta Analysis. Psychological Bulletin. American Psychological Association Inc, 123, No.3, 238-259.
Reicher, S., Spears R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology, 6, 161-198. Chicester, England: Wiley.
Wicklund, R. A. (1975). Objective self-awareness. New York: Academic Press.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order vs. deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 237-307. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.