Deindividuation, phenomenon in which people engage in seemingly impulsive, deviant, and sometimes violent acts in situations in which they believe they cannot be personally identified (e.g., in groups and crowds and on the Internet). The term deindividuation was coined by the American social psychologistLeon Festinger in the 1950s to describe situations in which people cannot be individuated or isolated from others.
Some deindividuated situations can reduce accountability, because people who are hidden within a group cannot be easily traced or blamed for their actions. Thus, the effects of deindividuation are sometimes viewed as socially undesirable (e.g., rioting). However, research has shown that deindividuation also strengthens adherence to group norms. Sometimes those norms conflict with the norms of society at large, but they are not always negative. Indeed, the effects of deindividuation can be rather inconsequential (e.g., “letting loose” on the dance floor) or even positive (e.g., helping people).
Origins of deindividuation theory
Theories of crowd behaviour provided the origins of modern deindividuation theory. In particular, the work of Gustave Le Bon in 19th-century France promulgated a politically motivated criticism of crowd behaviour. At the time, French society was volatile, and protests and riots were commonplace. Le Bon’s work described group behaviour as irrational and fickle, and it therefore found much support at the time. Le Bon believed that being in a crowd allowed individuals to act on impulses that would normally be controlled or self-censored.
Le Bon argued that such undesirable behaviours can arise through three mechanisms. First, anonymity prevents people from being isolated or identified, which leads to a feeling of being untouchable and to a loss of a sense of personal responsibility. Le Bon further argued that such loss of control leads to contagion, in which a lack of responsibility spreads throughout the crowd and everyone begins to think and act in the same manner. Finally, people in crowds become more suggestible.
In the 1920s the British-born American psychologist William McDougall argued that crowds bring out people’s instinctive primary emotions, such as anger and fear. Because everyone experiences those basic emotions and because people are less likely to have more complex emotions in common, the basic emotions will spread rapidly within a crowd as people express them. It was argued that that process, similar to Le Bon’s idea of contagion, leads to uncontrolled and impulsive behaviour.
The role of accountability
Modern theories have applied and extended early principles to understand people’s behaviour in smaller groups and in other contexts, such as when people have the opportunity to interact with others while concealing their identity and remaining anonymous.
Following Le Bon, Festinger and his colleagues proposed that being deindividuated (in particular within a group) reduces normal constraints on behaviour and encourages people to do things they normally would not do, because they are not directly accountable for their actions. They are in a sense liberated to do what they like. Festinger found support for that idea by demonstrating that participants who engaged in a group discussion about their parents while being dressed alike in a dimly lit room were more likely to make negative comments than were participants in a control group. In other words, the deindividuated situation allowed participants to express views that they would normally keep to themselves.
In the 1960s and ’70s the American psychologist Philip Zimbardo investigated the variables that lead to deindividuation and the behaviours that result from it. According to Zimbardo, factors leading to a state of deindividuation include anonymity; shared, diffused, or abandoned responsibility; altered temporal perspective (so that the individual focuses more on the here and now than on the past or present); physiological arousal; sensory overload; novel or unstructured situations; and altered states of consciousness (such as those brought about by the use of alcohol or drugs). Zimbardo claimed that those factors and others act to minimize self-observation and evaluation, reduce concern for social evaluation, and weaken controls based on feelings of guilt, shame, fear, and commitment. Thus, thresholds for expressing inhibited behaviours are lowered, and those behaviours are typically impulsive and often negative and antisocial.
In the 1970s Zimbardo conducted a series of experiments in which participants were deindividuated by being dressed in robes in the style of the Ku Klux Klan. In one experiment, female participants were asked to deliver shocks to another female participant (who was in fact a confederate) as a response to incorrect answers in a learning task. Results revealed that the deindividuated participants gave shocks that were twice as long in duration as those given by participants who were not dressed in the deindividuating clothing. Zimbardo and his colleagues also carried out what became a landmark experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment, in which student participants were deindividuated as prisoners or prison guards in a simulated prison setting at Stanford University. The students in the position of guards were physically brutal to the students who were deindividuated as prisoners, so much so that the experiment had to be terminated early.
The American psychologist Ed Diener provided a theoretical clarification of Zimbardo’s theory by introducing the concept of objective self-awareness. According to Diener, objective self-awareness is high when attention is drawn inward toward the self and people actively monitor their own behaviour; it is low when focus is directed outward and behaviour is monitored less or not at all. Deindividuation is caused by a reduction in objective self-awareness, and factors that can reduce self-awareness (e.g., anonymity or being in a group) can bring about deindividuation. Under conditions of deindividuation, attention is therefore drawn away from the self, and people are less capable of monitoring their behaviour in relation to internal norms and standards.
To support this idea, Diener and his colleagues observed the behaviour of more than 1,300 children one Halloween in the 1970s, focusing on 27 homes where, on their visit, the trick-or-treating children were invited to take one candy from a table. Half of the children were asked where they lived and were asked for their names; half were not asked for this individuating information. Results revealed that deindividuated children and children in groups were more than twice as likely to take more than one candy. Diener and his colleagues argued that the groups and anonymous children transgressed because the deindividuating conditions reduced their objective self-awareness and freed them from the normal constraints on their impulse to take more candies.
In the 1980s the American psychologists Steven Prentice-Dunn and Ronald Rogers reformulated Diener’s theory by introducing the distinction between public and private self-awareness in deindividuated contexts. Public self-awareness is said to decrease as a result of anonymity, so that people become less aware of how they appear publicly to others. Anonymous individuals, for example, are less aware of how they present themselves, and, as a result, their behaviour will tend to be antinormative, or against accepted norms and standards. Also, private self-awareness, or awareness of internal norms and standards, decreases because of the physiological arousal of being in a group and the high levels of group cohesiveness. People therefore become less aware of their internal standards of behaviour, which will also lead them to behave more impulsively. Deindividuation, then, is said to influence behaviour by reducing the level of explicit control that people have over their thoughts and actions.
Although factors such as anonymity are widely held to increase antisocial behaviour and aggression, not all research findings support that view. Zimbardo found that soldiers gave electric shocks of shorter duration when they were deindividuated in the style of clothing he used in his earlier study. The American psychologists Robert Johnson and Leslie Downing adopted a similar paradigm but dressed female participants in either Klan-style clothing or nurses’ uniforms. The participants who were dressed in the nurses’ outfits were significantly less aggressive.
Those results suggest that aggression and antisocial behaviour are not inevitable by-products of deindividuated situations. In some cases in which norms and standards promote aggressive behaviour (e.g., soldiers dressed in uniform may trigger norms associated with fighting and aggression), aggression and antisocial behaviour may result. However, when norms and standards instead promote positive nonaggressive behaviour (e.g., nurses dressed in uniform may trigger norms associated with caring and helping), the resulting behaviour may be far from negative. In other words, deindividuated behaviour increases adherence to the salient norms of the situation. The Austrian-born psychologist Gustav Jahoda pointed out a real-life example of this effect of deindividuation. In some Islamic countries, women wear the full-length dark-coloured chador, which, instead of allowing them to engage in antinormative behaviour, implies a strong system of norms of behaviour to which women adhere.
Following that line of reasoning, some critics of traditional deindividuation theories argue that while group membership can have both prosocial and antisocial consequences, those consequences should not necessarily be attributed to a loss of individual selfhood. The British psychologists Steve Reicher, Russell Spears, and Tom Postmes argued that the notion of a loss of selfhood relies, inaccurately, on an individualistic conception of the self; rational action is equated with the individual self, and group membership is equated with the loss of identity and of rationality. According to Reicher and his colleagues, that position limits understanding of deindividuation phenomena.
Drawing on social identity theory and self-categorization, Reicher and his colleagues proposed that group membership does not automatically entail a loss of self. An individual has many levels of self. The self is not only the individual’s personal identity, or what separates that individual from other individuals. The self also encompasses a range of possible social identities related to group memberships and properties that are shared with others, such as race, gender, and age. When people feel part of a group, they will be attuned to the norms of that group. For that to occur, people do not need to be physically present with the group or to be physically marked as a group member in any way. In turn, knowledge of the group’s norms will guide people’s behaviour. Reicher and his colleagues argued that those social identity principles determine how people will behave in deindividuated situations.
Revisiting Zimbardo’s paradigm in which participants were asked to wear Klan-style hoods and cloaks, Reicher and his colleagues argued that asking people to wear such garments should have different effects on behaviour depending on the salient social identity and what is happening in the deindividuated context. They argued that manipulating deindividuation by immersion in a group should reinforce the salience of a prominent social identity at the expense of personal identity. So if personal identity is salient, wearing Klan outfits may increase personal focus, and people will rely on their own individual norms to guide their behaviour. But if a group identity is salient, the deindividuation manipulation is more likely to have the effect of promoting behaviour consistent with the norms of the group that people feel part of at the time, whether they are prosocial or antisocial.
Deindividuation phenomena in action can be seen in computer-mediated communication (CMC—for example, Twitter, e-mail, blogs, social networking sites, or chat rooms. People can use CMC, unlike many other media, to communicate anonymously if they so wish. Just as traditional research on deindividuation predicts, CMC is often characterized by hostile negative interactions (known as trolling or flaming) and increased levels of personal disclosure.
Theorists typically attribute such behaviour to the physical anonymity afforded by CMC. It is argued that the anonymity of CMC frees people from normal constraints on behaviour, allowing people to behave impulsively and often antisocially. However, some research shows that, although the deindividuated context of CMC blurs people’s individual characteristics, an important consequence is that it also enhances the salience of groups and their associated norms.
Accordingly, some research shows that people who are deindividuated by being anonymous on the Internet often adhere more closely to the norms of their groups than they do when they and others are identifiable. For example, research by Spears and his colleagues showed that group polarization, or the heightened expression of attitudes consonant with in-group prototypical norms, occurs under anonymous CMC conditions. People’s views, expressed anonymously, become more grouplike and therefore more normative than antinormative. This is increased further if group identity is made salient.Karen M. DouglasThe Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Deindividuation is when people lose their sense of individual identity. Most individuals would normally refrain from aggression because they don’t want to be held to blame for their actions – but in situations such as crowds, social restraints and personal responsibility are perceived to be lessened, so displays of aggressive behaviour occur.
It can be said that as a result of normative social influence, deindividuation causes people to unquestioningly follow group norms instead of personal norms, which sometimes leads individuals to display aggressive behaviour.
Zimbardo sees people in crowds as being anonymous, with lessened awareness of individuality and a reduced sense of guilt, or fear of punishment. The bigger the crowd, the more this will be.
Prentice-Dunn and Rogers (1982) believe that individuals normally have awareness of personal moral codes, but being in a crowd diminishes private awareness, so instead they follow the group norms.
+ Research support – There has been a great deal of research supporting this theory, for example:
- Malmuth and Check (1981) – found that nearly a third of male university students in the US would rape if there was no chance of them getting caught.
- Zimbardo (1963) – replicated Milgram’s electric shock study, but the participant was either individuated with a name tag or deindividuated by wearing a hood. The deindividuated participants gave more shocks, supporting the idea of deindividuation.
- Diener et al (1976) – found that anonymous ‘trick-or-treating’ children in the USA took more money or sweets than non-anonymous children, supporting the notion of deindividuation.
- Watson (1973) – conducted a cross-cultural study and found that warriors who disguised their appearance – for example, through face paint – tended to be more aggressive, suggesting that deindividuation effects are universal.
+ Application of theory – The theory of deindividuation can help us reduce aggression, for example using obvious CCTV cameras at events such as football matches has been shown to reduce violence levels.
– Pro-social behaviour – Deindividuation in crowds can lead to increased pro-social behaviour, for example religious gatherings.
– Doesn’t affect everyone – The idea that people lose their personal moral codes when deindividuated is evidently not true, as many people are not negatively affected by crowds.
– Football hooliganism and ritualised behaviour – Deindividuation has been used to explain the phenomenon of football hooliganism. However, Marsh et al (1978) found that mainly ritualised behaviour occurred at football matches, with actual violence being rare. So football crowds aren’t acting aggressively, but just in a ritualised way.