Analyzing Zimbardos Account of Deindividuation - Essay Example

Analyzing Zimbardo’s Account of Deindividuation Introduction In The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil, psychologist Philip Zimbardo shows compellingly that human beings bear, as a group, borderline personality disorder. The main argument of the book is somewhat evident: situational forces, in contrast to personal or dispositional aspects, are the root of many evil deeds. Zimbardo argues that the basic attribution inaccuracy, a mainstay in the literature of social psychology, is widespread in most theoretical views of evil. However, one of the most controversial topics discussed by Zimbardo in The Lucifer Effect is deindividuation. It is the contention of this paper that the issue of deindividuation has been inadequately explained and justified by Zimbardo in the book. Zimbardo sets off with a thorough account of the well-known Standford Prison Experiment. He also analyzes numerous social psychological theories and works pertinent to the problem of evil, or the reason individuals take part in dehumanizing, violent, and hostile behaviors. All stages of the study presents further substantiation of his situationist assumption. He afterwards relates it to the US combatants’ mistreatment of Abu Ghraib (Wargo 2006). Even though understandable at some aspects in the book that people have to be culpable for their actions, Zimbardo presents compelling ideas and proofs that systems, as well, have to be culpable. Furthermore, the behavior of an individual should be valued in the perspective of their immediate environment. The Inadequacy of Zimbardo’s Deindividuation Theory However not all scholars would confirm that the research subjects of Zimbardo undergoes deindividuation as such. Several researchers have looked for other reasons for why persons collectively are susceptible to disruptive or aggressive behavior. It is possible that modeling is a critical process (Abelson, Frey, & Gregg 2004). Some of the questions left by Zimbardo in relation to the problem of deindividuation are: (1) does a threatening form of infectivity take place in a group in which members mechanically activate each other’s reckless conduct; (2) when lights are abruptly turned off in a department store, does one quickly begin stealing as much expensive products as possible because other people are seen to be taking part in the same agitated conduct? Scholars have been baffled by the potential contribution of ‘responsibility’. For instance, would deliberately changing the responsibility of a group member drive one to even higher intensities of unrestrained conduct? Being in a group can result in increased stimulation, a feeling of anonymity, decreased self-perception, and the involuntary modeling of the behaviors of other people. This kind of deindividuation can lead to uncontrolled, usually disruptive and violent, behavior (Wortley 2002). It is the contention of this paper that an individual’s behavior reveals predetermined attributes and fundamental behaviors, when we ought to perhaps focus more on social and physical forces. According to Zimbardo, in the case of individual behavior, one is more prone to identify situational forces. The sheer company or presence of other people improves performance on easy tasks but harm performance on complicated or difficult tasks (Wortley 2002). This can take place even without intricate intervening cognitions. Individuals, as well as institutions and groups one is socially related to, are component of one’s identity and affect one’s self-worth and perception (Abelson et al. 2004). People personalize their triumphs and frustrations, shouting out the former and detaching themselves from the latter. To feel affectionate for another individual implies, among other things, to involve that individual in one’s identity. This includes distinguishing, viewing, and, decisively, setting aside resources for that individual as one does for her/himself. Social exclusion brings about violence or hostility. Individuals excluded or discriminated by others are more prone to harm those who insult them, and even people who do not (Wortley 2002). Basically, deindividuation, as defined by Zimbardo, is “reduced self-awareness, and consequent disinhibition, most commonly produced by crowd membership” (Wortley 2002, 26). Deindividuation, in its severest form, is typified by the group mindset and agitated behavior exhibited by mob members. Colman (1991 as cited in Wortley 2002) publicized two court cases in South Africa concerning mob-induced killings where in professional psychological witness on deindividuation was recognized as justifying proof. In the perspective of prison, group aggression, specifically during jail riots, is regarded as the most evident illustration of this form of deindividuation. Deindividuation is perceived to include meddling with two stages of self-awareness. Social or public self-awareness denotes the identification of an individual to a social entity. As a group member, a person is granted an extent of anonymity and turns out to be less worried about the perceptions and potential disapproval of other people (Abelson et al. 2004). At this deindividuation stage, individuals may be conscious of what they are doing yet have less anticipation of any unfavorable outcomes. Personal self-awareness denotes the capacity to concentrate on one’s own beliefs, principles, sentiments, and ideas. As persons become involved in a group they immerse their selves and undergo a reduced capacity to self-assess their conduct (Abelson et al. 2004). In this condition they are especially receptive to situational forces and allow themselves to get involved in behavior that they normally would not act out. At this deindividuation stage, the facility of a person for self-control is basically weakened. Early studies on deindividuation placed substantial emphasis on the function of group self-awarness. Zimbardo (2007), in one investigation, left a car in Palo Alto and another in New York. He discovered that the vehicle left in New York was swiftly ransacked by robbers of all expensive parts whereas the vehicle abandoned in Palo Alto remained intact. Zimbardo (2007) assumed that the New Yorkers’ behavior may be caused by the anonymity that they experienced residing in a grand metropolis and the relative liberty from legal and social implications that this kind of anonymity granted. Zimbardo (2007) also moderately elaborated the findings of the Stanford prison experiment in relation to deindividuation. The uniforms and sunglasses of guards gave cover for their wearers that aided in monitoring their behavior and encouraging a feeling of anonymity. The contribution of personal self-awareness has been the emphasis of further studies. In an adaptation of the experimental plan of Milgram, PrenticeDunn and associates studied the application of shocks by several groups of research participants (Abelson et al. 2004). Personal self-awareness was controlled by differing subjects’ physiological stimulation levels and feeling of group solidarity. The researchers discovered that participants in the deindividuated setting—high stimulation and high group solidarity—applied lengthier and stronger shocks to receivers than participants in the non-deindividuated setting--- low stimulation and low group solidarity (Wortley 2002). Special consideration has to be given when managing groups to deter deindividuation. McKenzie (1982 as cited in Wortley 2002), unlike Zimbardo, summed up a number of methods to disrupt the growth of group aggression, such as segregating the group into smaller divisions, taking out group leaders, and diverting the focus of the group away from the center Conclusions In The Lucifer Effect, Zimbardo successfully demonstrated how social psychology can in fact be stimulating. He claimed, “There will come a time in your life when… you have the power within you, as an ordinary person, as a person who is willing to take a decision, to blow the whistle, to take action, to go to the other direction and do the heroic thing (Wargo 2006, para 20).” That choice is made in opposition to the choices to perform bad things or to do nothing, which he refers to as ‘evil of inaction.’ Zimbardo furthered, “The line between good and evil lies at the center of every human heart. It is not an abstraction out there. It’s a decision you have to make every day in here” (Wargo 2006, para 20). His words became an inspiration for social psychologists but these same academics are also aware of the weaknesses of Zimbardo’s ideas about deindividuation. There are still major questions left to answer. References Abelson, R., K. Frey, & A. Gregg. Experiments with People: Revelations from Social Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. Wargo, E. “Bad Apples or Bad Barrels? Zimbardo on ‘The Lucifer Effect’” Association for Psychological Science (2006): http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2032 Wortley, R. Situational Prison Control: Crime Prevention in Correctional Institutions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Zimbardo, P. The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House, 2007. Read More