deindividuation l4

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL

EXPLANATIONS OF AGGRESSION

MODEL ANSWER FOR EXAM QUESTION

DEINDIVIDUATION THEORY

EVALUATION OF DEINDIVIDUATION

MARK SCHEME: A01

MARK SCHEME: A02

MARK SCHEME: A03

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF AGGRESSION

• 1st theory = Social Learning Theory

• 2nd theory = Deindividuation Theory

• “ ”

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY OF AGGRESSION

However… Bandura repeated this experiment but with a Live Clown as opposed to a Bobo doll and still found the same pattern of results!

It lacks Ecological Validity… (unrealistic doll; can’t be applied)

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY OF AGGRESSION• ‘A possible limitation with the Bandura studies is that they use a doll rather than a real person, which is a problem because results may vary if

applied to a real person thus SLT can not be used to explain situations where aggression is displayed toward people in real life. However,

Bandura repeated the experiment using a film of a women beating a live clown, and when children were placed in a room with the live clown they

imitated the aggressive behaviour. This implies that SLT is true for situations regarding props and real life people and thus supports SLT.’

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY

• Can SLT be seen in real life situations? • (Lab study…)

• Philips, (1983) homicide rates in the USA increase following major televised boxing matches

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY OF AGGRESSION• SLT's relevance can be demonstrated by its ability to

explain aggression outside the context of the laboratory. Philips (1983) found that homicide rates in the US increased in the week following a major televised boxing match, suggesting that viewers

were imitating the aggressive behaviour they observed in the fight therefore supporting SLT.

24 MARKER: DISCUSS SLT AS AN EXPLANATION FOR AGGRESSION…

• P1: A01 – SLTKey words

Explain direct / vicarious reinforcement – use example4 components (ARRR)

Factors effecting likelihood of imitation (GAS)

8 marks

LINK TO AGGRESSION!!


• P2: A02 – Evidence

Bobo Doll experiments –Gender & Reinf.Real world application? – Philips/Eron Internal Validity? – Bandura live clown


LINK TO SLT!!


P3 – A03 (IDA)

Cultural Variation? Ethical Issues? Reductionist?

Nature<Nurture?

A02 & A03 = 16 marks… Min. 2x GRENADE


LINK TO SLT!!

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF AGGRESSION

• 1st theory = Social Learning Theory

• 2nd theory = Deindividuation Theory

• “ ”

DEINDIVIDUATION THEORY OF AGGRESSION• In 2005, men on a College Campus in North Dakota filled in a questionnaire

which asked:

“If nobody would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences, would you force a female to engage in sexual intercourse with you?”

What % do you think said yes?31.7%

DEINDIVIDUATION THEORY OF AGGRESSION• In 2005, men on a College Campus in North Dakota filled in a

questionnaire which asked:

“If nobody would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences, would you rape a female?”

What % do you think said yes?13.6%

DEINDIVIDUATION

• A process whereby people lose their sense of individual identity

DEINDIVIDUATION

• People normally refrain from displaying aggressive anti-social behaviour b/c it is unacceptable in social norms.

• However, in situations where identification of an individual is difficult, people are more likely to behave anti-socially.

ONE SITUATION A PERSON MAY FEEL DEINDIVIDUATED…

• Crowds…

LE BON (1895)

• First to recognise how behaviour changed in a group

• Coined the term ‘Group Mind’

• Believed when we are in crowds we automatically lose our individual mind and adopt a more primitive, anti-social, ‘group mind’ which unleashes our instinctive behaviour

FESTINGER, 1952…

• 1st coined the term ‘Deindividuation’

• Disagreed with Le Bon – “Group Mind is not automatic as some members of a group won’t adhere to the collective”

• He believed that Anonymity from a crowd reduces peoples inhibitions (conscious restraints) which then can lead to aggression.

WHAT OTHER SITUATIONS ARE THERE WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL MAY FEEL DEINDIVIDUATED?

• 1. Crowds

• 2. Masked (identity covered)

• 3. In a Uniform

• 4. Drunk

• 5. Acting on behalf of somebody else

• 6. Status

ZIMBARDO, (1971)

• Distinguished between individuated and deindividuated behaviour outside crowds

Individuated = rational; conforms to acceptable social standardsDeindividuated = Based on Primitive Urges; not restrained to societal norms

• When in situations where we are anonymous, we experience diminished awareness of individuality and reduced ‘Public Self Awareness’

ZIMBARDO’S STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT

• Stripped of individuality

• Dehumanised prisoners

ZIMBARDO’S VARIATION OF MILGRAM2 Conditions:

1. Lab coats, hoods addressed in a group

2. Large name tags, introduced by name

Deindividuated ppt’s delivered twice as many shocks as the individuate ppts.

ZIMBARDO, (1971)

• Loss of ‘self-consciousness’ as a result of reduced public self awareness.

• Added ‘situational factors’ to Festinger’s theory and didn’t restrict application to groups but also in murder, suicide and interpersonal hostility.

DEINER (1980)

• “Deindivuation leads to 4 changes…”

• 1. Reduced ability to monitor one’s own behaviour• 2. Reduced ability to inhibit impulsive behaviour• 3. Reduced ability to respond/think clearly• 4. Reduced concern about social judgment

EVALUATION OF DEINDIVIDUATION THEORY…

• Supported by Research

• Watson (1974) evaluated 23 cultures to determine whether warriors who used war paint or masks in battle treated their victims differently



• Mann et al (1981) analysed 21 incidents of suicide in the 60s and 70s.

10 of these cases had people baiting the person to jump.

These all occurred when the crowd was large, it was at night and there was a large distance from the ‘jumper’



• Deiner (1976) • Field study• 1,300 Trick or Treaters • When in large groups, with identities covered

(masks) children were more likely to steal sweets

DEINER (1976)

• Incidents of anti-social behaviour (stealing) went from 8% to 80% when the child is deindividuated!

EVALUATION OF DEINDIVIDUATION THEORY

• Postmes & Spears (1998)

• 1. Deindividuation increases conformity of aggressive behaviour in aggressive crowds

• 2. Reduced focus on individual self, but not total disappearance


• Removes blame from the individual


• Anonymity among in-group or out-group?


• Deindividuation does not always lead to aggression…

• Gergen et al (1973) 12 Ppts taken to a dark room (were unable to identify each

other)First 15 minutes – polite/small talkBy 60 minutes, inhibitions had lowered and ppt’s got physical…

GERGEN’S DARK ROOM EXPERIMENT…

• More than half the participants had cuddled

• 80% of participants claimed to have felt ‘sexually aroused’

deindividuation l4

Science