DEINDIVIDUATION..research.
• BATs: Outline and evaluate the
deindivuation theory of aggression.
• All: Outline research of deindivuation
• Most: Explain the research in relation to
aggression.
• Some: Critically evaluate the research into
deindividuation in relation to AID and and
apply to a context.
• Synoptic: Gender, Methods, Ethics, Nature
nurture, Free Will etc....
Origins of the theory.......
• LeBon(1995)individuals behaviour change in
the presence of large crowds, he described
individuals in a crowd: ‘descends several
rungs of the ladder of civilisation’
• A number of psychological factors involved the
most important being:
• Anonymity (It breeds a ‘collective mindset’)
Zimbardo (1970/73)
• Built upon LeBon’s original idea and went onto
describe deindividuation as more than
anonymity, there are other important factors.
• Increased Arousal
• Reduced Responsibility
• Sensory Overload
• Altered consciousness (drug/alcohol)
Diener (1980)
• Individuals act in well scripted ways and do so
without conscious awareness.
• They only become aware when being evaluated
by others or if their behaviour does not follow a
script.
• Thus suggesting:
• Crowds block an individuals capacity for self
awareness and therefore become deindividuated
but do not discount the effect of social arousal.
Prentice Dunn & Rogers(1982)
Public self awareness
• Concern about impression
• Can be reduced by
anonymity/ diffusion of
responsibility.
So...loss of public
awareness leads to a loss of
public standards of
behaviour and lowers our
inhibitions.
Private self awareness
• Own thoughts and feelings
• Can be reduced by
becoming so involved in an
activity we forget ourselves.
So...loss of private
awareness leads to a loss
of internal standards &
over reliance on
environmental cues.
Anonymous group behaviour ensures a reduced
capability to engage in rational thinking.
Fans become so involved in game that they are no longer self aware
An example of reduced private self awareness.
A reliance upon others in environment to set the standards of how to act.
Factors that interact to cause
deindividuation
(adapted from Myers 1998)
Group presence and size
Social arousal
Physical anonymity
Decreased self awareness
Diffusion of responsibility
Deindividuation
Increased responsivity to
situational cues (private self
awareness)
Loss of normal inhibitions
(public self awarenss)
1.Trick or Treat (TOTS) Diener et al
1976)
Place: Seattle USA
Procedure: 27 women asked to give out sweets to 1000 trick or treaters.
Half the children were asked for names and addresses, the other half were anonymous.
Some children were on their own, while others were in a crowd.
Whilst chatting to the children the women had to answer a phone call and left the children
with strict instructions to only take one sweet each.
Results of TOTS investigation?????
Children more
likely to steal in
groups when they
were anonymous
Sample
High
ecological
validity
Sample
Operationalisation
of aggression
2. Anonymous Lab Coat (ALC) Study
(Zimbardo, 1970)
Place: USA
Procedure: Women dressed in lab coats &hoods in order to
render them anonymous.
A control group wore their own clothes and had name tags.
The women had to shock victims (Think Milgram!!!)
Results of ALC Study....
• Pp’s had to shock a victim (confederate). The
anonymous pp’s shocked for longer than the
identifiable pp’s.
• Thus it can be concluded that..... Anonymity
would appear to contribute to aggressive
behaviour.
Ku Klux Klan effect –
suggested that there was
an association with the
KKK, this may have affected
the amount of shocks
given.
Unethical – informed
consent/protection from
harm.
given.
Sample was just women –
may be different for men.
3.The costume Experiment(CE)
(Johnson & Downing,1979).
• Pps made anonymous
by wearing masks and
overalls, similar to
KKK or nurses.
• Compared to control
group Pps shocked
more when dressed
as KKK, but they
shocked less when
dressed as nurses.
Not anonymity
Artificial situation
3.The costume Experiment(CE)
(Johnson & Downing,1979).
8
7
Shock level
6
5
4
Shock level
3
2
1
0
Identifiable
Hoods and coats
Graph illustrating results from the costume experiment.
Nurses uniform
Is deindividuation ever desirable?
• Deindividuated can be both desirable and undesirable depending
on the circumstances (Spivey & Prentice-Dunn, 1990; Johnson &
Downing, 1979).
• An interesting study by Spivey & Prentice-Dunn (1990) found that
deindividuation could lead to either pro-social or anti-social
behaviour depending on situational factors.
• When pro-social environmental cues were present (such as a
pro-social model) deindividuated subjects were more likely to
behave altruistically.
• Deindividuated subjects performed significantly more altruistic
acts (gave money) and significantly less antisocial acts (electric
shocks) compared to other people when in the presence of a
pro-social model.
4. Darkened Room Arousal (DRAS)
Gergen et al (1973)
• The researchers discovered deindividuation enhanced
affectionate behaviour.
• Couples who were deindividuated using a dark chamber
displayed significantly more affectionate behaviour such as
touching and caressing in comparison to individuated
couples in a light chamber.
• These results imply that deindividuation may be helpful in
intimate relationship development.
Low ecological Validity.
Evidence against deindividuation
theory of aggression.
Psychology in action......dating in the
dark.
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5DC692b
0y8&feature=related
What would you do if you could remain
anonymous?
AO2/AO3 = Evaluation of
deindividuation.
Experimental support
Other theories Instinct theory, Biological theories & drive theories.
Recent analysis Norm based analysis of collective behaviour is
supported
Does not always lead to aggression Can result in pro
social beahviour too, think natural disasters, anti social situations
where individuals have not acted with indifference or no action!!!!
Analysis of football supporters behaviour Ingham
(1978) football supporters follow ritualised rules of behaviour in the terraces,
acts of violence are not always the result of mob rule.
Importation Model
• This theory suggests prisoners bring their own set of
rules and social histories, this subsequently alters
their behaviour in prison (Irwin cressey,1962).
• Their behaviour is not unique to prison, they would
have acted this behaviour out in the wider society
prior to be confined to prison.
• They simply bring in a ‘here's one I made earlier’
attitude to prison.
Importation cont…
• Irwin went on to suggest it was wrong to simply focus upon
‘inmate culture’ and that it was necessary to examine how it is
influenced by elements and experiences outside.
• Such factors that have been known to affect inmates are:
• Alcohol addiction
• Race
• Age
• Employment record
• Education
• Previous criminal activity.
What research have we to support
these claims?
• Mills et al (1998) surveyed 202 inmates using the Alcohol
dependence Scale (ADS)...high levels of serious institutional
misconduct were associated with the severe levels of alcohol.
• Kane & Janus (1981) suggested that greater periods of
unemployment and previous criminal activity also had a
influencing impact on behaviour.
• Evidence from US prisons show that non-whites & younger
inmates far more likely to be aggressive in prison...
• Reason: The groups are more likely to be disenfranchised &
separated from mainstream societies norms & values that
promote pro social methods of meeting basic needs & solving
interpersonal conflict.
• The underlying assumption being sub cultural forces have
been influenced them to be aggressive in different contexts
including their homes, areas where they live &….eventually
prison.
Identified different prisoner sub-cultures & three different categories…..
Irwin & Cressey (1962)
2. Convict Subculture.
1.Criminal/thief culture.
Inmates who have been raised in the prison system
Follow norms from
They seek power & information over the system.
within their culture
The primary reference group is fellow convicts.
i.e. Not betraying one another.
These prisoners are
They refer to fellow inmates
influenced by
as their
deprivation prior to imprisonment & these values
primary reference group.
are imported from outside
(Blomberg & Lucken,2000)
3.Conventional/Straight subculture
One time offenders, characterised as straights by Irwin & Cressey (1962)
Not part of criminal subculture, they usually reject other subcultures &
Identify with prison guards and staff. They do not tend to be aggressive.
Situational models
• The prison itself also brings about aggression, it
cannot all be dispositional.
• Situational factors must play a part:
• Organisational: leadership,management,policies &
procedures
• Physical: Security level, level of available resources.
• Staff characteristics: gender, level of experience,
relationship with prisoners.
• This can be demonstrated in the Deprivation Model.
Deprivation model
• Sykes (1958) outlined the pains of
imprisonment that inmates experienced
during their sentence. The origin of prison
subculture emanates from within not outside
the institute.
• 5x deprivations arise from ‘the indignities
degradations suffered by becoming an inmate’
(Massey,1986) are as follows:
Deprivation model
• Deprivation of liberty: This informs the prisoner they are not a trusted
person who can live free. They feel morally rejected by society and there loss of liberty is
further emphasised by the use of numbers and uniforms. Prisoners often have to obtain
permission to eat/sleep shower etc (Blomberg & Lucken,2000).
• Deprivation of autonomy: They have no power and very few choices, this
leads to a feeling of almost helplessness among inmates, this can lead to frustration and
aggression. Thus upon release they cannot think for themselves.
• Deprivation of goods: deprived of goods and commodities, that they would
expect to experience if they were not in prison. Brings about a sense of failure to most
serving prison time (Sykes,1958).
• Deprivation of heterosexual relationships: Important part
of self identity, denial reduces men's sense of worth. In addition the greater opportunity for
homosexual behaviour in prison may lead to anxieties for prisoners.
• Deprivation of security: Prisoners report fear for their safety even though
the institutes themselves are secure. They describe fellow inmates as aggressive and this
leads to a heightened sense of physical threat.
DEINDIVIDUATION..research.
• BATs: Outline and evaluate the
deindivuation theory of aggression.
• All: Outline research of deindivuation (E)
• Most: Explain the research in relation to
aggression.(C)
• Some: Critically evaluate the research into
deindividuation in relation to AID and and
apply to a context. (A)
• Synoptic: Gender, Methods, Ethics, Nature
nurture, Free Will etc....
Overall conclusion….
• All these deprivations lead to increased stress
for prisoners. As a consequence of suffering
some inmates react aggressively
• (a) To gain control over social order imposed
upon them.
• (b) Reduce stress.
• So is that it?????????
The answer in short is no………
Other situational models…..
The popcorn Model (Folger & Skarlicki,1995)
1
Individual is like first
piece of corn to pop
when the pan is hot.
2
Suggests that the
environment ‘heats’
prisoners up
So we need to sort
out prison =
reduction in violence.
Evaluation of situational models.
Constant levels of prisoner stress: Does not explain why riots sometimes
explode out of nowhere, more recent research has focused upon relative rather than absolute
deprivation(Colvin,1992)
Research support: Richards (2007) inmate v inmate and inmate v staff assaults with 900 US
prisons had higher than average rates whist some were lower suggest individual characteristics of prison
play a part.
Conflicting findings on crowding in prisons empirical findings do not
seem to support the hypothesis.
Unexplained motives Light (1991) developed a set of categories to describe the different
settings in which prisoners assault prison officers. 1.unexplained- over 25% had no motive.
Female aggression in prisons. Females offenders develop strong bonds with
other members of their social groups rather than identify with prison subculture, therefore may be different
to men.