Deindividuation theory has also been supported by different cultures in a study by Watson. A cross-cultural study was conducted and found that warriors who disguised their appearance tended to be more aggressive, suggesting that deindividuation effects are universal. This research was supported by Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment where the guards wore military styles uniforms and silver reflector sunglasses, making eye contact impossible. It was thought that this disguised appearances and deindividuation was what caused the guards to show aggressive behaviour. Also during this experiment prisoners were dehumanised and thus deindividuated by the clothes they wore and being addressed only by their number, thus increasing their anonymity which made it easier for the guards to behave aggressively towards them. However, there is some dispute as to what caused the aggressive acts of the guards and it has been suggested that they were acting in terms of perceived social roles, rather than losing their sense of socialised individual identity. The study failed to tell us much about how real guards behave, but rather how people behave when they are asked to act like guards.
Also, in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment and replication of Milgram’s study, there are ethical issues that need to be considered. In particular, in the Stanford prison experiment, participants were subjected to much psychological harm and stress, in particular the prisoners who were humiliated and abused. Zimbardo himself accepted that certain aspects of the study were unethical and admitted that he became over-involved in the study. In fact, the prisoners were treated so brutally that the experiment had to be stopped after just six days.
In the replication of Milgram’s study, ethical issues included deception, and lack of informed consent, as the participant was not told the true nature of the study and so had to be deceived. The participant’s right to withdraw was also an issue as it was made to seem that they had to continue shocking the learner. Ethical issues like these however, can be overcome with debriefing, which Zimbardo implemented.
There is also a lack of support for the deindividuation theory as evidence appears to be mixed. A meta-analysis of 60 studies concluded that there is insufficient support for the major claims of this theory. For example Postmes and Spears found that disinihibition and antisocial behaviour are not more common in large groups and anonymous settings. Neither was there much evidence that deindividuation is associated with reduced self-awareness, or that self-awareness increases disinhibition of aggressive behaviour. Therefore we cannot be sure as to how valid this theory actually is.
Also, although a lot of research into deindividuation has found associations between deindividuation and antisocial behaviour, some studies have shown that deindividuation may also increase the incidence of prosocial behaviour. When prosocial environmental cues were present, deindividuated participants performed significantly more selfless acts and significantly fewer antisocial acts compared to a control group. Other desirable effects of deindividuation can also be found in cyberspace as adolescents reported feeling significantly more comfortable seeking help under deindividuated circumstances of internet chartrooms for example. This shows that deindividuation is not necessarily a negative thing, as the theory suggests and deindividuation does not just lead to aggression solely.
The role of anonymity in the research of deindividuation is sometimes unclear as researchers have often failed o distinguish between the effects of the anonymity of the victim, as opposed to the anonymity of those doing the aggressing. Another issue that needs to be addressed is whether the likelihood of aggression is increased if our in-group cannot recognize us or only if our out-group cannot. Therefore, the role of anonymity in his research is still unambiguous.
Another social theory of aggression is social learning theory, which sees aggression as learned in two ways, both involving operant conditioning. Bandura stated that aggressive behaviour is learned either through direct experience of vicarious experience. Direct experience refers to if a child is rewarded for being aggressive, that behaviour is positively reinforced and more likely to be repeated. Vicarious experience refers to when a child sees a role model behaving in a particular way and imitates the behaviour of the model. Aggression is learned through reinforcement of direct experiences and imitation of aggressive models. Bandura believed that four criteria need to be met for imitation to occur; attention to role model, then retention where the observed behaviours are memorised, then reproduction of the target behaviour, and lastly motivation where direct and vicarious reinforcements as well as punishments influence the motivation to imitate.
There are a number of factors that influence imitative behaviour. Individuals are more likely to copy modelled behaviour if it results it outcomes that they value and the model is powerful and admired and similar, for example age, sex.
Research evidence supporting Social Learning Theory comes from Bandura Bobo doll experiment where children were shown various scenarios involving aggressive behaviour to a Bobo doll by a model. He found that children in the aggressive condition showed more verbal and physical aggression. Bandura concluded that the chances of aggressive acts being imitated increased if the aggressive model was reinforced but decreased if the model was punished. This supports social learning theory as it shows that imitation will only be seen if the behaviour is vicariously reinforced. Aggression was also more likely to be intimidated if a child identified with a model, for example boys were more aggressive if the model was male.
However, there are several criticisms we can make with Bandura’s study. Methodological issues include the fact that Bobo dolls are not living people and does not retaliate when hit, and therefore lacks ecological validity. Therefore it is questionable as to how much the study tells us about the imitation of aggression towards other human beings. Also some people argue that there is high demand characteristics involved in this study as the situation was unfamiliar so the children may have been acting in the way they thought they were expected to.
Social learning theory also ignores biological factors which may influence aggressive behaviour such as high levels of testosterone and ignores any evidence suggesting biological or genetic components influence human aggression and so the theory is reductionist.
A strength of social learning theory however, is its ability to explain cultural differences in levels of aggression. Some cultures emphasize and model aggressive behaviour whereas others emphasise non-aggressive behaviour and produce individuals with low aggression levels
by
thenainoji (student)
