To what extent, if any, does deindividuation explain group behaviour?
Deindividuation as an explanation for group behaviour is important as it is crucial in understanding the relationship between the individual and the group and is a prime concern of social psychology which is still being studied today. It is a theory that has been discussed and researched over many decades, and as a result has gained a variety of definitions. Zimbardo describes deindividuation as a “psychological state” aroused when individuals join crowds, diminishing their awareness of selves and producing “behaviours in violation of established norms of appropriateness” (Postmes & Spears, 1998). He focuses on situational and social norms, supported by influential researchers …show more content…
Zimbardo states there are a number of deindividuation factors which affect a group’s behaviour such as autonomic arousal, diffused responsibility and anonymity (Diener, Fraser, Beaman, & Kelem, 1976). Diener et al. manipulated these independent variables in order to measure the effect they had on the children’s behaviour when presented with the opportunity to steal money and candy. In groups children transgressed significantly more compared to those who went alone, with 20.8% transgression in non-anonymous groups compared to 7.5% non-anonymous children alone. When the variable of anonymity was tested, it was evident that the interaction between group presence and anonymity was the strongest impact on group behaviour with an increase of 36% compared to alone anonymous children (Diener, Fraser, Beaman, & Kelem, 1976). Non- anonymous and alone were identified and so, according to Festinger et al (1952 cited by Postmes & Spears, 1998) had an increase in “private self-awareness” meaning they were likely to be aware of the consequences resulting in a lower percentage of transgression. The highest level of transgression was recorded with 64 out of the 80 subjects stealing when all subjects were anonymous and the responsibility was shifted onto the smallest child (Diener, Fraser, Beaman, & Kelem, 1976). Diener therefore was able to reject his null …show more content…
When considering Postmes and Spears meta-analysis, results illustrate deindividuation factors such as anonymity in fact do not impact antinormative behaviour in terms of general social norms but essentially lead to social regulation, contradicting the classical theories of deindividuation. Reicher et al stated that crowd behaviour may be the result of local norms and introduced the ‘social identity model of deindividuation effects model (SIDE) (Postmes & Spears, 1998). The SIDE model argued it is not the loss of identity and control that leads to antinormative behaviour, but rather the social and situational norms the group has adhered to, contradicting zimbardo as individuals are aware of their actions, they are more likely following the groups norms in order to fit in (Reicher, 1984, 1987; Reicher et al., 1995; Spears and Lea, 1992, 1994 cited by Postmes & Spears, 1998). Ziller (1964) argued a similar theory in that deindividuation is closely linked to the group or environment when considering impact on the groups behaviour rather than each separate individual (Postmes & Spears,
Deindividuation as an explanation for group behaviour is important as it is crucial in understanding the relationship between the individual and the group and is a prime concern of social psychology which is still being studied today. It is a theory that has been discussed and researched over many decades, and as a result has gained a variety of definitions. Zimbardo describes deindividuation as a “psychological state” aroused when individuals join crowds, diminishing their awareness of selves and producing “behaviours in violation of established norms of appropriateness” (Postmes & Spears, 1998). He focuses on situational and social norms, supported by influential researchers …show more content…
Zimbardo states there are a number of deindividuation factors which affect a group’s behaviour such as autonomic arousal, diffused responsibility and anonymity (Diener, Fraser, Beaman, & Kelem, 1976). Diener et al. manipulated these independent variables in order to measure the effect they had on the children’s behaviour when presented with the opportunity to steal money and candy. In groups children transgressed significantly more compared to those who went alone, with 20.8% transgression in non-anonymous groups compared to 7.5% non-anonymous children alone. When the variable of anonymity was tested, it was evident that the interaction between group presence and anonymity was the strongest impact on group behaviour with an increase of 36% compared to alone anonymous children (Diener, Fraser, Beaman, & Kelem, 1976). Non- anonymous and alone were identified and so, according to Festinger et al (1952 cited by Postmes & Spears, 1998) had an increase in “private self-awareness” meaning they were likely to be aware of the consequences resulting in a lower percentage of transgression. The highest level of transgression was recorded with 64 out of the 80 subjects stealing when all subjects were anonymous and the responsibility was shifted onto the smallest child (Diener, Fraser, Beaman, & Kelem, 1976). Diener therefore was able to reject his null …show more content…
When considering Postmes and Spears meta-analysis, results illustrate deindividuation factors such as anonymity in fact do not impact antinormative behaviour in terms of general social norms but essentially lead to social regulation, contradicting the classical theories of deindividuation. Reicher et al stated that crowd behaviour may be the result of local norms and introduced the ‘social identity model of deindividuation effects model (SIDE) (Postmes & Spears, 1998). The SIDE model argued it is not the loss of identity and control that leads to antinormative behaviour, but rather the social and situational norms the group has adhered to, contradicting zimbardo as individuals are aware of their actions, they are more likely following the groups norms in order to fit in (Reicher, 1984, 1987; Reicher et al., 1995; Spears and Lea, 1992, 1994 cited by Postmes & Spears, 1998). Ziller (1964) argued a similar theory in that deindividuation is closely linked to the group or environment when considering impact on the groups behaviour rather than each separate individual (Postmes & Spears,