Deindividuation Theory, a Major Contribution to Social Psychology - Essay Example

? Deindividuation theory: A major contribution to social psychology of the of the Introduction Looting behaviour by crowd is one of the most threatening aspects of riots or mob attacks. Looting behaviour results not only in loss of money and business, but also in destruction of the public property. It has been observed that when in crowd, individuals become violent and indulge in uncivilized behaviour, in which they would not indulge in otherwise. The crowd behaviour and its potential to become destructive and violent have led the social psychologists to research the psychology behind the crowd behaviour in depth. Looting is one such behaviour which brings shame and guilt to human beings. However, when in crowd, people tend to forget it and join the group and indulge unabashedly in looting. The intensity and the impact of crowd behaviour have known to bring the human being to the most primitive and lowest possible state of his behaviour. Hence, different social psychology theories have been developed to understand and explain the looting behaviour of the crowd. One such theory is deindividuation theory. Deindividuation theory is based on the concept that loss of self-identify in crowd leads to aggression in crowd behaviour. Even though some of the concepts of deindividuation theory have been found weak, its core concept that reduction in guilt and shame, and decrease in sense of responsibility leads to aggression in crowd, has proved to be a major contribution in understanding the psychology behind crowd behaviour. Definition The theory of ‘deindividuation’ was proposed by Festinger, Pepitone and Newcomb (Dixon & Mahendran, 2007, p. 6). According to Festinger et al., ‘deindividuation’ can be defined as “a process of immersion within a group such that members cease to view themselves as separate and distinct individuals” (Dixon & Mahendran, 2007, p. 6). Later, Fraser and Burchell (2001) provided another definition focusing on the behaviour and described deindividuation “as a process whereby normal constraints on behaviour are weakened as persons lose their sense of individuality” (Cardwell & Flanagan, 2003, p.34). Festinger et al. based their theory on the understanding that a person behaves impulsively and in disinhibited way in the crowd as he loses his fear f being noticed and evaluated personally due to the psychological ‘sense of anonymity’ (Dixon & Mahendran, 2007, p. 6). Festinger et al. were able to refine the vague notion of ‘group mind’ provided by Le Bon and presented the psychology of crowd behaviour in clear and measurable way (Dixon & Mahendran, 2007, p. 6). In a clear and objective manner, they described how the antecedent aspects like ‘anonymity’ and ‘group immersion’ in crowd behaviour, brings a psychological shift in individual’s self-perception, which they called ‘deindividuation,’ which in turn results in the ‘consequent’ behaviour of the crowd (Dixon & Mahendran, 2007, p. 6). However, it was Zimbardo (1969), who further modified the theory to explain why people become aggressive when they are in crowd (Dixon & Mahendran, 2007, p. 6). Deindividuation Theory Zimbardo argued that ‘diffusion of responsibility’ due to deindividuation explains how the anonymity is related to aggression in crowd behavior (Dixon & Mahendran, 2007, p. 7). According to Zimbardo, people usually avoid behaving in uncivilized and aggressive behaviour as social norms inhibit such behaviour (Cardwell & Flanagan, 2003, p.34). However, the behaviour that is inhibited usually tends to increase when in crowd as the anonymity that an individual perceives in crowd reduces his inner restraint (Cardwell & Flanagan, 2003, p.34). Moreover, the sense of guilt and fear of being evaluated negatively gets reduced when in crowd as the individual is almost faceless and anonymous in crowd (Cardwell & Flanagan, 2003, p.34). According to Zimbardo, the immediate causes of typical behaviour seen in crowd are the factors like very little self-awareness, anonymity and immunization to self-evaluation (Forsyth, 2010, p. 520). This can explain the looting behaviour that sometimes accompanies the crowd riots. Deindividuation Theory and Looting Behaviour The core concept of deindividuation theory is that it is the anonymity that the individuals in the crowd feel which leads to reduction in inhibitions and loosening of aggressive and instinctual behaviour. The theory states that indulgence in behaviour which is impulsive and which violates social norms becomes easy for a person when he becomes a part of the crowd and experiences deindividuation (DeLamater & Myers, 2011, p.412). Hence, the deindividuation theory explains the looting behaviour as a random act resulting from primitive aspect of a person surfacing due to deindividuation. However, it has been found that looting behaviour is not always ‘anonymous’ and ‘random,’ as deindividuation theory says. In fact, it is quite planned and intended. According to study by McPhail (1991), most people in crowd do not experience a marked degree of deindividuation as they attend the gathering as part of friends or family members and hence, display their identity (DeLamater & Myers, 2011, p.412). This shows that anonymity is not the driving force of crowd behaviour. The evidence of this can be found in studies on violent behaviour by people belonging to Black community. Myers (2000) found that the people belonging to Black community, who engaged in looting behaviour, vandalism and other collective behaviour, were doing so as a result of heightened racial awareness and identification with other Blacks (DeLamater & Myers, 2011, p.423). This shows that looting behaviour can, in fact, become a means of showing strong support to particular group, and hence, a heightened state of identity. Moreover, it has also been found that looting behaviour is not always random but is done with some aim (DeLamater & Myers, 2011, p.425). For example, during the 1992 racial disorders in Los Angeles, primarily the retail stores were the target of the property damage by the mob (DeLamater & Myers, 2011, p.425). The mob did not affect the “residences, public buildings such as schools, and medical facilities such clinics and hospitals” (DeLamater & Myers, 2011, p.425). It is interesting to note that mobs are selective in looting and vandalism of the businesses as “some stores are cleared out whereas others in the same block are found untouched” (DeLamater & Myers, 2011, p.425). This shows that people from certain group or race adopt looting behaviour as a means to show their anger and protest against the social norms which are not acceptable to them. Hence, they are not under the influence of deindividuation but in fact, show their identity very strongly. This shows that looting behaviour is not always a result of uninhibited and uncontrollable behaviour but has the elements of identity and control to it. Hence, even though the deindividuation theory is right when it says that the inhibited and uncivilized aspect of person comes out in the crowd phenomenon, it is not right when it says that ‘anonymity’ is the cause of uncivilized behaviour. Moreover, various studies have found that deindividuation does not always lead to uncontrollable or negative behaviour. Limitations of Deindividuation Theory Zimbardo’s theory proposes that individuals in group behave aggressively as they perceive ‘anonymity’. However, this concept has been challenged by a theory called ‘social identity theory’ developed by Steve Reicher and other researchers. These researchers found that individuals in crowd emphasizes their identity by act in terms of their ‘social identity’ (i.e. shift to collective sense of self) rather than experiencing deindividuation (or loss of self) (Dixon & Mahendran, 2007, p. 13). In his notable research study of riots at St Pauls area of Bristol in 1980, Reicher (1984) found that the participants were in control of their actions and targeted only that property which was owned by authority (Dixon & Mahendran, 2007, p. 15). They viewed their own actions positively and were not looking for anonymity (Dixon & Mahendran, 2007, p. 15). This shows that anonymity is not a cause of violence in crown behaviour. In fact, according to the theory of ‘social identity,’ the identity of a person does not get lost but is transformed to the identity of the group (Speras, Ellemers, Doosje, & Branscombe, 2006, p. 176). Also, deindividuation theory states that people in crowd stop conforming to the social norms. However, not all the psychologists agree with this explanation. Various researches in the field of social psychology have revealed that ‘deindividuation’ does not always lead to aggressive behavior. Deindividuation theory says that person loses the idea of social norms regarding aggressive behaviour when he is in mob or crowd. This idea was proved wrong by study conducted by Campbell. In his studies of girls from a young offenders institution (1981) and working-class girl gangs (1984), Campbell found that constraints were imposed on the group membership “on what was thought to be acceptable violence” (Cox, 2010, p.246). This finding showed that group aggression is not uncontrollable as stated by deindividuation theory. On the contrary, in their study ‘Test the Pacifist,’ Diener and his colleagues (1980) found that levels of aggressive behaviour rose when the individual acted alone (Rivers, 2011, p. 49). Postmes and Spears (1998) concluded that anonymous individuals showed less aggression than identified individuals and identified groups showed less aggression than individuals (Rivers, 2011, p. 49). All these findings prove that deindividuation theory’s concept of anonymity leading to aggression makes it a weak theory to explain crowd behaviour. Conclusion The discussion above shows that deindividuation theory has proved to be a major step in insights about psychology behind the crowd behaviour. Even though the ‘social identity theory’ and research studies regarding aggression in crowd behaviour have proved the deindividuation theory’s understanding of anonymity leading to aggression as wrong, the core concept of the theory which is reduction in guilt and individual responsibility towards the act, has maintained the strength of the theory. Hence, deindividuation theory, despite of its weaknesses, has proved to be a major contribution in understanding crowd behaviors. Part 2 Expectations of the module Social psychology is a dynamic field which aims at understanding the human behaviour in its relation to society. Hence, it plays an important role in development of healthy society. Human being is a social being, and his personal life affects the society as a whole. This makes it important to know how the interaction between the personal and social aspects of human being affects the society. At the same time, it is also important to know if social structure can help in bringing happiness and contentment in personal lives of human beings. Social psychology has focused a lot on negative aspects of the society like prejudice, crowd behavior, discrimination, conformity etc. My expectation from the module is to know if there are any positive aspects to social behaviour which contribute in enriching human life. Another aspect of human life that I expect to learn from the module is the effect of child rearing on the development of social image of a person. I strongly believe that psychologically and spiritually healthy human beings have the potential to be a positive force in development of healthy society. However, I am not sure if my belief is right. Hence, I want to learn if a happy personal life can contribute as a positive force in development of a healthy society. References Cardwell, M. & Flanagan, C. (2003). Psychology A2: The Complete Companion. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes Ltd. Cox, E. (2001). Psychology for A level. Oxford, UK: Oxford UP. DeLamater, J.D. & Myers, D.J. (2011). Social Psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Dixon, J. & Mahendran, K. (2007). Crowds. In W. Hollway, H. Lucey, A. Phoenix & G. Lewis (Eds.), Social psychology matters (Book 1). Milton Keynes, UK: The Open University. Forsyth, D.R. (2010). Group Dynamics (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Rivers, I. (2011). Homophobic bullying: Research and theoretical perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford UP. Speras, R., Ellemers, N., Doosje, B. & Branscombe, N.R. (2006). The individual within the Group: Respect! In T.Postmes & J.Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group advances in the social identity. London, UK: Sage Publication Ltd. Read More