An example of deindividuation in recent event can be the recent riots, people may have been more prone to riot and loot while hiding their identity if people did not have the means to remain anonymous then they may have been less prone to riot.
The psychologist Zimbardo has carried out experiments on deindividuation and the effect of it, in one study, participants in the experimental condition were made to be anonymous by being issued large coats and hoods which largely concealed their identity. Then other participants were dressed up like Ku Klux Klan members. However, the participants in the control condition wore normal clothes and name tags. Each participant was brought into a room and given the task of “shocking” a confederate in another room at different levels of severity ranging from mild to dangerous (similar to Stanley Milgram’s study in 1963.) Zimbardo noted that participants who were in the anonymous condition “shocked” the confederates longer, which would have caused more pain in a real situation, than those in the non-anonymous control group.
Zimbardo also carried out the famous ‘Stanford prison experiment’, the Stanford prison experiment is infamous for its blatant display of aggression in deindividuated situations. Zimbardo created a mock prison environment in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology building in which he randomly assigned 24 men to undertake the role of either guard or prisoner. The experiment, originally planned to span over two weeks, ended after only six days because of the sadistic treatment of the prisoners from the guards. Zimbardo attributed this behaviour to deindividuation due to immersion within the group and creation of a strong group dynamic. Several elements added to the deindividuation of both guards and prisoners. Prisoners were made to dress alike, wearing stocking caps and hospital dressing gowns, and also were identified only by a number assigned to them rather than by their name. Guards were also given uniforms and reflective glasses which hid their faces. The dress of guards and prisoners led to a type of anonymity on both sides because the individual identifying characteristics of the men were taken out of the equation. Additionally, the guards had the added element of diffusion of responsibility which gave them the opportunity to remove personal responsibility and place it on a higher power.
Questions have been raised about the external validity of deindividuation research. As deindividuation has evolved as a theory, some researchers feel that the theory has lost sight of the dynamic group intergroup context of collective behaviour that it attempts to model. Some propose that deindividuation effects may actually be a product of group norms; crowd behaviour is guided by norms that emerge in a specific context. More generally, it seems odd that while deindividuation theory argues that group immersion causes antinormative behaviour, research in social psychology has also shown that the presence of a group produces conformity to group norms and standards.
Certain experiments, such as Milgram’s obedience studies (1974) demonstrate conformity to the experimenter’s demands; however the research pattern in this experiment is very similar to some employ in deindividuation studies, except the role of the experimenter is usually not taken into account in such instances.
A larger criticism is that our conception of the antinormative behaviours which deindividuation causes is based on social norms, which is problematic because norms by nature are variable and situation specific. For instance, Johnson and Downing (1979) demonstrated that group behaviours vary greatly depending on the situation. Participants who dressed in Ku Klux Klan robes shocked a research confederate more, but participants dressed as nurses actually shocked less regardless of whether they were identifiable or anonymous. They explained these results as a product of contextual cues, namely the costumes. This explanation runs counter to Zimbardo’s initial theory of deindividuation which states that deindividuation increases antinormative behaviour regardless of external cues. Researchers who examine deindividuation effects within the context of situational norms support a social identity model of deindividuation effects.