Deindividuation

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deindividuation describes the phenomenon that an individual, when he is in a certain situation in a group, acts less strongly in accordance with the social behavioral restrictions than when he is alone in the situation.

definition

The social psychologists Aronson , Wilson and Akert define deindividuation as a relaxation of normal behavioral restrictions in the individual when he is in a group , with more impulsive actions that deviate from the social norm . The individual thus performs actions in the group that they would not perform alone. Violent rioting by groups of hooligans at football games can be explained by this phenomenon, and the violent movement of the Ku Klux Klan becomes more understandable. The images of torture and ill-treatment of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghuraib prison , taken in December 2003, bear witness to a de-individualization, as Philip Zimbardo was able to show in the Stanford prison experiment in 1971 .

Zimbardo defines deindividuation as a state that is characterized by:

and as a result

  • an increased likelihood of acting contrary to norms.

Conditions of Deindividuation

Anonymity : Robert Watson investigated the behavior of warriors towards prisoners of war in 1973and found that warriors who wentinto battlewith war paint and therefore anonymously killed, mutilated or tortured prisoners of war significantly more often. In 1987, Rehm, Steinleitner and Lilli examined the influence of anonymization through uniforms on the sense of responsibility and aggressiveness and found here, too, significantly more aggressive behavior under the anonymized condition.

Responsibility diffusion : Describes the phenomenon that the more witnesses there are, the less responsibility the viewer feels. How deindividuation leads to a reduced feeling of responsibility isexplained inmore detail under Factors of Deindividuation .

Group size : In 1986, Brian Mullen analyzed 60 attacks by Ku Klux Klan supporters on Americans of African descent and found that the larger the group of supporters, the more brutal and cruel the killings of the victims. Deindividuation thus correlates positively with group size (Zimbardo, 1969).

Two factors of deindividuation lead to impulsive behavior

1. Decreased sense of responsibility : The likelihood of being discovered in the group and being held accountable is very low, so the individual's sense of responsibility for their own actions decreases. By becoming aware of one's own identity, the sense of responsibility for one's own actions is strengthened again. (Diener, 1980; Postmes & Spears, 1998; Zimbardo, 1970)

2. Strengthening of the group norm : Deindividuation increases the adherence to the group norm , which can deviate from the norms and rules of other groups. But it can also be the norms of society that are followed more closely, whereby deindividuation does not necessarily have to lead to more aggressive and anti-social behavior. The behavior shown depends on the norms accepted in the group. (Gergen; Gergen & Barton, 1973; Johnson & Dowing, 1979)

history

Already Scipio Sighele (1891) and Gustave Le Bon (1895) postulated that the behavior of people in large groups changed. Sighele's interest was of a criminological nature. He assumed that the individual in the crowd changes his consciousness and is therefore only responsible for his actions to a limited extent. Physician and sociologist Gustave LeBon was more interested in the processes responsible for changing behavior, postulating that higher psychological processes in the crowd were weakened and lower ones strengthened. The result is that the mass as a whole is “dumber” than the average individual.

Newer theories

The SIDE model

The global idea that dehumanization takes place in the masses and therefore the potential for aggression is increased in masses is no longer represented in modern social psychology.

A more recent approach to explaining deindividuation is the social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE) by Reicher, Spears and Postmes, 1995. In SIDE, it is assumed that deindividuation is a kind of depersonalization in the sense of self-categorization processes (Turner et al., 1987 ) is. The self-categorization theory implies that the self is categorized in a hierarchical manner and social identities become salient depending on the situational and social conditions . Thus, in a given situation, an individual behaves according to the rules of the group in which he occurs. In addition, the SIDE model is based on the theory of social identity, since individuals define themselves through their group membership through social comparison when an out-group occurs.

It is argued as follows: In a group with which one identifies, self-categorization processes take place through comparisons on an intergroup level. One does not compare oneself with other individuals (personal identity), but the ingroup with outgroups (social identity). As a result, the social identity (group membership to e.g. ethnic groups, age groups and occupational groups) becomes salient. This means that you define yourself by belonging to the corresponding group and by comparing this group with outgroups. Therefore, behavior is oriented more towards group norms than towards individual norms.

The result is that no behavior is encouraged in the group that contradicts the norms, but simply other norms become salient and influence the behavior ( minimal group paradigm ). Thus, deindividuation can lead to socially regulated behavior; this increase in normative behavior is shown by many experiments with regard to deindividuation. In addition to the minimal group paradigm, computer-based communication was also examined as an extension of the SIDE model with regard to the resulting de-individualization. “Group discussions on the basis of computers lead to more extreme opinion polarizations than group discussions that are not carried out with the aid of a computer.” (Kiesler, Siegel & McGuire, 1984; Siegel et al., 1986) The thesis that the discussion using computers increases anonymity has been proven become.

Practical application of the SIDE model

This theory of the SIDE model is more in line with reality than the older assumptions about mass effects, since not every group is aggressive per se (e.g. think of a church choir group). Aggressive behavior can even be reduced by the norms of the group. This is also an approach of social work with club fan groups, to program them in the long term for more peaceful behavior by practicing changed social rules with them as a group.

literature

  • S. Otten, A. Mummendey : Social psychological theories of aggressive behavior. In: Dieter Frey, Marlene Irle (ed.): Group, Interaction and Learning Theories Huber, Bern 2002, ISBN 3-456-83513-2 (Theories of Social Psychology, Volume 2).
  • Helmut E. Lück : History of Psychology. Currents, schools, developments. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1992, ISBN 3-17-014199-6 .
  • SD Reicher, R. Spears, T. Postmes: A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. In: European Review of Social Psychology. 6, 1995, pp. 161-198.
  • E. Aronson , T. Wilson, R. Akert: Social Psychology. 4th edition. Pearson, Munich 2004, ISBN 3-8273-7084-1 , pp. 330–333.