Deindividuation theory
- Created by: mollskie49
- Created on: 09-06-13 13:00
View mindmap
- Deindividuation (DDD) theory
- Lack of support for DDD
- Postmes and Spears – meta analysis (MA) 60 studies – concluded there is insignificant supp for major claims of DDD theory
- Dis-inhibition and anti-social behaviour not more common in large groups/anon settings
- Postmes and Spears – meta analysis (MA) 60 studies – concluded there is insignificant supp for major claims of DDD theory
- Importance of local group norms
- Johnson and Downing – rather than DDD automatically increasing instance of aggressive behaviour, the behaviour could be the product of local group norms
- Same conditions as Zimbardo – one group dressed as KKK others as nurses. The KKK people were more aggressive than the nurses
- Felt that aggressive behaviour was more appropriate
- Same conditions as Zimbardo – one group dressed as KKK others as nurses. The KKK people were more aggressive than the nurses
- Johnson and Downing – rather than DDD automatically increasing instance of aggressive behaviour, the behaviour could be the product of local group norms
- Process of DDD
- People refrain from acting in aggressive manner because social norms inhibit such uncivilised behaviour and also because they are easily identifiable
- Being anon therefore unaccountable has psych
consequence of reducing inner restraint and increasing behaviour usually
inhibited
- Large crowd; each person faceless and anon – the larger the group the greater the anonymity
- Reduced sense of guilt and negative evaluation
- Conditions that increase anonymity minimise concerns about above and weaken barriers to antisocial behaviour
- Reduced sense of guilt and negative evaluation
- Large crowd; each person faceless and anon – the larger the group the greater the anonymity
- Being anon therefore unaccountable has psych
consequence of reducing inner restraint and increasing behaviour usually
inhibited
- People refrain from acting in aggressive manner because social norms inhibit such uncivilised behaviour and also because they are easily identifiable
- Nature of DDD
- Psych state characterised by lowered self-evaluation and lowered concern about eval by others
- Increase in behaviour normally inhibited by social/personal norms
- DDD - aroused when ind joins large group/crowd
- Contributing factors - anonymity e.g. wearing uniform and altered consciousness due drugs/alcohol – Zimbardo
- Stressed that this could also lead to increased pro-social behaviour e.g. religious gatherings
- Focus of DDD theory exclusively on anti-social
- Stressed that this could also lead to increased pro-social behaviour e.g. religious gatherings
- Contributing factors - anonymity e.g. wearing uniform and altered consciousness due drugs/alcohol – Zimbardo
- DDD - aroused when ind joins large group/crowd
- Increase in behaviour normally inhibited by social/personal norms
- Psych state characterised by lowered self-evaluation and lowered concern about eval by others
- Based on classic crowd theory (Gustave le Bon).
- Described how individual transforms when part of crowd
- Combination of anonymity, suggestibility, contagion - collective mind possesses individual (IND)
- Ind loses self-control, capable of acting in way against personal or social norms.
- Combination of anonymity, suggestibility, contagion - collective mind possesses individual (IND)
- Described how individual transforms when part of crowd
- Gender bias - IDA
- Cannavale et al – fe/males respond differently
- Males show increase in aggression only – Diener et al
- Greater dis-inhibition of aggression in males indicating males more prone to aggressive behaviour in DDD
- Males show increase in aggression only – Diener et al
- Cannavale et al – fe/males respond differently
- Real World Application – IDA
- Mann – 21 suicide leaps reported in newspapers and found in 10/21 where baiting had occurred
- Lack of support for DDD
Comments
No comments have yet been made