The essay discusses the application of deindividuation theory in explaining the looting behavior displayed during crowd riots. It examines the concept, evaluates supporting evidence, and explores how it can be utilized to understand the occurrence of looting in terms of timing, motivation, and reasons.
The discussion naturally leads to the highlighting of strengths and weaknesses of the approach to understanding collective behaviour. In addition, reference is made to a contrasting approach, Social identity theory, in order to demonstrate ways in which an alternative approach might equally account for the behaviour.
Festinger et al. who proposed the concept of ‘deindividuation’ define it as ‘a process of immersion within a group such that members cease to view themselves as separate.. [caused] [by].. anonymity.. leading] to disinhibited, impulsive behaviour that is responsive to the immediate demands of the situation’ (cited in Dixon et al. , 2012, p. 6). They and others were inspired by the work of Le Bon who argued that ‘individual rationality is lost in crowds’ (cited in Dixon et al. , 2012, p. 5) and put forward a process he termed ‘contagion’ to explain how ideas and emotions spread through a crowd (Dixon et al. , 2012).
A number of studies have examined the links between group immersion, anonymity, and behaviour outcomes with many focussing on ‘anti- normative’ behaviour, such as aggression.
Zimbardo conducted experiments where participants acted as teachers who administered electric shocks to learners when they made errors. One group wore hoods and gowns without name tags, while the other group was plainly clothed and named. The former group administered shocks for longer durations (cited in Dixon et al., 2012, p. 8). Another study focused on stealing behavior and found that during Halloween, children in a group without names engaged in higher levels of stealing compared to individuals with names (cited in Dixon et al., 2012, p. 9). Deindividuation theory can explain how and when looting occurs during riots. According to this theory, contextual factors, group immersion, and anonymity lead individuals to experience a loss of self-awareness, resulting in anti-normative behavior (Dixon et al., 2012). While these studies demonstrate that factors like anonymity and group immersion intensify anti-normative behavior, they do not provide a definitive explanation for its occurrence.
Zimbardo’s claim that deindividuation is accompanied by a ‘diffusion of responsibility’ (cited in Dixon et al., 2012, p.7) is an intriguing notion to consider. In the context of deindividuation, looting behavior can occur because individuals who are ‘lost in a social group’ feel less accountable for any harm caused. Consequently, moral responsibility is seen as being spread out among the group (cited in Dixon et al., 2012, p.7). Additionally, individuals may perceive potential punishment as being shared among the group, causing them to feel less identifiable within a larger group.
In this instance, it is uncertain whether individuals have temporarily lost their minds or if criminal opportunists are involved. Without evidence, it cannot be confirmed that deindividuation has occurred. However, research in the deindividuation tradition has exaggerated the negative aspects of collective behavior (Dixon et al., 2012). According to a study by Gergen, Gergen, and Barton, anonymity and group immersion actually resulted in an “increase in affection and curiosity” (Dixon et al., 2012, p. 10). In an experiment where mixed gender groups were placed in either a well-lit room or a dark room to maintain anonymity for an hour, those in the dark room showed increased intimate behavior and physical contact (cited in Dixon et al., 2012, p. 10). The excessive focus on negative outcomes in deindividuation research may create bias and serve its own agenda. Dixon et al. (2012) suggest that social cues determine whether factors like anonymity lead to negative behaviors. Deindividuation theory includes social cues by proposing that behavior is responsive to the immediate demands of the situation (cited in Dixon et al., 2012, p. 6).
The deindividuation theory fails to address the specific social cues present in various situations, thereby disregarding the social factors and psychological motives behind the behavior. Elaborate explanations could provide insight into why individuals or groups engage in looting. Additionally, the description implies that individuals act impulsively and without premeditation. Consequently, deindividuation theory portrays crowds as powerful social structures that overpower individuals and make them appear to lack personal agency.
According to Holloway (2012, p. 52), the deindividuation theory can be seen as favoring one side of the agency-structure binary. This suggests that if behavior is solely attributed to the social context, without considering the rational meanings behind mass behavior (Dixon et al., 2012, p. 11), there is no need for further investigation or communication with those involved. Consequently, valuable insights about the situation may be overlooked or disregarded.
According to Postmes and Spears (cited in Dixon et al., 2012, p. 10), deindividuation is often difficult to measure and isolate, leading to it being inferred. In a replication of Zimbardo’s study, Johnson and Downing (cited in Dixon et al., 2012, p. 10) discovered that participants split into groups wearing either Ku-Klux Klan or nurses uniforms displayed significantly different levels of aggression, with those in the nurse’s condition being less aggressive. Dixon et al. (2012) propose that this could indicate individuals conforming to group norms rather than breaking social rules, as the nurses may have acted according to their group identity. This challenges the validity of the deindividuation theory and suggests that a social identity approach may be more favorable. Henri Tajfel and John Turner’s social identity theory posits that our sense of self is derived from belonging to specific groups, consequently influencing our behavior within a crowd (Dixon et al., 2012, p. 13-14). It is worth questioning why individuals would desire membership in a group engaged in rioting and looting behaviors.
In a case study of the 2011 England riots, Reicher and Stott (cited in Dixon et al., 2012, p. 20) mentioned various potential psychological motivations for the rioting and looting, such as feelings of grievance towards police actions and socio-economic deprivation. Instead of the concept of ‘contagion,’ social identity theorists propose the idea of ‘inductive categorisation’ to explain the spread of behavior, where an individual representing the group begins a certain behavior that is then seen as how other members should also behave (Dixon et al., 2012). This theory and process offer an equally valid explanation for looting behavior during crowd riots and collective behavior in general.
This approach, which contrasts with others, favors an insider perspective. Reicher’s interviews with St Pauls residents after the riots in the 1980s revealed that the participants themselves did not view the riots as irrational or negative, but rather as a positive and legitimate response to police aggression (cited in Dixon et al., 2012, p. 5). Dixon et al. explain this as collective behavior expressing a shared sense of identity (Dixon et al., 2012, p. 15). Therefore, social identity theory tends to have a more positive view of crowds. In a review of 60 published articles, Postmes and Spears found that the majority of research suggests that behavior in collective settings is more constrained, with actions being shaped by group norms (cited in Dixon et al., 2012, p. 11), which supports the theory.
The explanation of looting behavior during crowd riots and collective behavior in general can be approached through a social identity account. This account focuses on the underlying social motivations and reasons behind such behavior, providing an explanation for the “why.” In contrast, deindividuation theory does not address these social reasons and motivations. However, while social identity theory offers an explanation, it leans towards the agency side of the agency-structure binary, prioritizing individual actions. This implies that actions may be portrayed as more meaningful than they actually are. Thus, neither account offers a perfect fit in understanding this phenomenon.
It is important to consider political ideologies in theories, as knowledge is situated. According to Dixon et al. (2012), Le Bonian accounts represent a conservative ideology while social identity theory represents a leftist one. This highlights the dualism between the individual and society, as the deindividuation approach favors the individual and dislikes the crowd. In this approach, individuals within crowds are seen as becoming mindless or out of control.
Social identity theory, on the other hand, emphasizes society and how collective action challenges injustice (Dixon et al. 2012). In conclusion, this essay has defined ‘deindividuation’ and provided studies that demonstrate associations between its outlined contextual factors and the suggested ‘disinhibited, impulsive behavior’. It has also demonstrated how a deindividuation account can be used to explain when and how looting behavior occurs during a riot involving a crowd, but it does not explain why the behavior is initiated. Weaknesses in its ability to explain looting behavior and collective behavior in general have also been raised.
It has been suggested that deindividuation is often perceived as overly negative and potentially biased, as it overlooks social reasons and psychological motivations for behavior. However, this essay proposes that a contrasting social identity approach may also explain looting behavior and collective behavior in general. The essay emphasizes that evidence supports the notion that behavior in collective settings is more constrained rather than less constrained. Furthermore, the essay states that no single explanation can fully encompass such behavior and concludes by emphasizing the importance of understanding the various political ideologies that influence theories and traditions.
Word count: 1599 References: Dixon,J and Mahendran, K. (2012) ‘Crowds’, in Hollway, W. and Lewis, G. and Lucey, H. and Phoenix, A. (eds) Social Psychology Matters, Milton Keynes, Open University, pp. 1-26. Hollway, W. (2012) ‘Social psychology: past and present’, in Hollway, W. and Lewis, G. and Lucey, H. and Phoenix, A. (eds) Social Psychology Matters, Milton Keynes, Open University, pp. 7-57.
Part 2
I believe that social psychology examines the interplay between individuals and society. My objectives for this course are to understand the material well enough to write high-quality essays for personal satisfaction and to achieve the best possible grade. I am particularly excited about the original research project. My biggest concern is always the exam because it requires extensive preparation and affects my overall grade for the course.
While I may not have enough knowledge to provide an in-depth analysis of the contribution of social psychology to psychology as a whole or its relevance to real-world problems, the reading on ‘crowds’ demonstrates that social psychology tackles genuine issues that impact the lives of individuals. It is intriguing to examine how varying interpretations of individuals and situations result in diverse societal treatment, and to contemplate the practical implications of research conducted in this field. For instance, understanding these findings could potentially aid in enhancing social relations and informing social policy.
