Outline and evaluate the theory of deindividuation

Outline and Evaluate the Theory of Deindividuation

Aggression is the intent to harm someone through verbal or physical actions. The Deindividuation theory is used to explain how anonymity can lead to individuals behaving in an antisocial manner, even though they would not act in this way in any normal circumstances.

Deindividuation happens when you have an individual who feels anonymous, they act in ways that they would not normally due to social norms, but the fact that they are deindividuated makes them feel fine about not complying to the social norms, for example breaking the law and being aggressive. There are situations that increase Deindividuation, such as being in a group, or wearing a mask. In large groups an individual may act violent due to the responsibility not being completely on them.

A strength of the Deindividuation theory is that there are many studies that support it. Zimbardo’s prison experiment is a prime example that Deindividuation results in violent/aggressive behaviours. Within the experiment students were randomly allocated to prisoners and guards, the prisoners wore uniforms with sunglasses and treated the prisoners harsh, so harsh that the experiment had to be called off after just 5 days. This experiment is a clear example of how Deindividuation works, due to the guards wearing the uniform and sunglasses they were not acting themselves and therefore did not deem themselves responsible for the actions as they ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Another experiment that supports the Deindividuation theory is by Diener, he studied the behaviour of trick or treaters on Halloween. Diener found that the children were much more likely to steal or display an act of antisocial behaviour when dressed up in Halloween costumes. This supports the Deindividuation theory as the costumes hide the identity of the children therefore making them anonymous, proving that Deindividuation does cause aggression.

Deindividuation can be applied to real life situations, for example the football riots in Egypt where 75 people were killed, this behaviour was carried out in a crowd and therefore anonymity was high and the blame was not rested on a single person but dispersed throughout the crowd of rioters.

The face validity of the theory is high due to it being very believable, it is seen in many circumstances to be true that when in a group the responsibility of any actions carried out is thought to be dispersed throughout, for example the London riots, shops were looted and vandalism occurred but these actions were only carried out when the rioters thought they were anonymous.

The Deindividuation theory does however have weaknesses, for instance many of the experiments carried out to study Deindividuation are very unethical. This is understandable as the experiments are trying to find out whether the loss of identity causes someone to act aggressively and therefore is hard to study due to the stricter rules in place to make sure no participants are harmed during any experiments. The prison guard experiment by Zimbardo is a prime example of how unethical some studies into Deindividuation are.

There is also the idea that the social learning theory opposes that of the Deindividuation theory. The social learning theory states that everything is learnt and therefore it is not down to a loss of identity but from seeing what others are doing around you and copying them. Aggressive behaviour may also not be down to the circumstances were in or whether we were brought up around violence but it could also be down to biological factors such as high testosterone levels.

In conclusion the theory of Deindividuation is a valid way of determining why some people are aggressive but it does not account for every situation, what if the individual was by them self in daylight where everyone could see, then what? It is this idea that makes this theory only acceptable to a certain extent.

Peer Reviews

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

sydneyhopcroft

15th of Sep 2012

Quality of writing

The Quality of Written Communication is excellent. The candidate controls their use of psychology-related terminology and their Standard English brilliantly. There is no cause for concern with regard to spelling, punctuation and/or grammar.

Level of analysis

The Level of Analysis is balanced and shows a good level of knowledge of psychology and how to effectively evaluate a theory based on empirical evidence from studies. A number of studies are cited, chiefly (and appropriately) Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment. This shows the examiner the candidate has learnt from the studies and can draw from an inventory of these studies which are the most appropriate to back up theory analysis. The analysis is balanced, with two strengths and two weakness clearly explained, with some pieces of evaluation involving real life events like the London 2012 riots. All this is excellent and shows an intuitive command of analysis for an A Level candidate.

Response to question

This answer is very good. The candidate responds well and remains extremely focused on the question and the psychology of deindividuation throughout, straying only to describe studies into the behaviour. The candidate shows a clear knowledge of the psychology involved in deindividuation and the circumstances in which it is most likely inhibited. I would recommend they draw a clear difference between deindividuation and conformity, as both are fairly similar and can often be confused. The structure of the answer is good as well, with a clear introduction structured analysis and then a fine conclusion. The balance of the analysis is easily appreciated given the candidate's good structure as well.

Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn