Deindividuation

Deindividuation During England’s 2011 riots and looting, rioters were disinhibited by social arousal and by the anonymity provided by darkness and their hoods and masks. Later, some of those arrested expressed bewilderment over their own behavior.

The protester is wearing a large jacket and a baseball cap. There are other protesters in the background, two of whom has a hoodie covering his head. The three policemen are wearing full-body, black uniforms and helmets. They have shields and police batons. The policemen have their backs to the camera, while the protester in the center is facing the viewer.

We’ve seen that the presence of others can arouse people (social facilitation), or it can diminish their feelings of responsibility (social loafing). But sometimes the presence of others does both. The uninhibited behavior that results can range from a food fight to vandalism or rioting. Perhaps you can recall following the crowd in yelling at a referee or opposing team? This process of losing self-awareness and self-restraint, called deindividuation, often occurs when group participation makes people both aroused and anonymous. Compared with identifiable women in a control group, New York University women dressed in depersonalizing Ku Klux Klan–style hoods delivered twice as much presumed electric shock to a victim (Zimbardo, 1970).

deindividuation

the loss of self-awareness and self-restraint occurring in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity.

Deindividuation thrives, for better or for worse, in many settings. The anonymity of online discussion boards and blog comment sections can unleash mocking or cruel words. Online bullies, who would never say “You’re the ugliest person I know” to someone’s face, will hide behind their anonymity. Tribal warriors who depersonalize themselves with face paints or masks are more likely than those with exposed faces to kill, torture, or mutilate captured enemies (Watson, 1973). When we shed self-awareness and self-restraint—whether in a mob, at a rock concert, at a ballgame, or at worship—we become more responsive to the group experience—bad or good. For a comparison of social facilitation, social loafing, and deindividuation, see Table 76.2.

TABLE 76.2 Behavior in the Presence of Others: Three Phenomena

Phenomenon	Social context	Psychological effect of others’ presence	Behavioral effect
Social facilitation	Individual being observed	Increased arousal	Amplified dominant behavior, such as doing better what one does well (or doing worse what is difficult)
Social loafing	Group projects	Diminished feelings of responsibility when not individually accountable	Decreased effort
Deindividuation	Group setting that fosters arousal and anonymity	Reduced self-awareness	Lowered self-restraint

Check Your Understanding

Ask Yourself

• How have you experienced social loafing, such as with group projects?

Test Yourself

• What is social facilitation, and why is it more likely to occur with a well-learned task?
• People tend to exert less effort when working with a group than they would alone, which is called ______________ ______________.
• You are organizing a meeting of fiercely competitive political candidates. To add to the fun, friends have suggested handing out masks of the candidates’ faces for supporters to wear. What phenomenon might these masks engage?

Answers to the Test Yourself questions can be found in Appendix E at the end of the book.

* * *

We have examined the conditions under which the presence of others can motivate people to exert themselves or tempt them to free ride on the efforts of others, make easy tasks easier and difficult tasks harder, and enhance humor or fuel mob violence. Research also shows that interacting with others can similarly have both bad and good effects.