Think about a time when you did what the group did just because you were part of the group.

Describe the situation. Now look back at it objectively. Why did

you do what you did? Would you normally do this? So why did you do it?

Is immersion in a group to the point at which the individual ceases to be seen as an individual.

Essentially, when a person is in the group and deindividuation occurs, the person is no longer acting as the individual.

What would normally inhibit the actions of a single person acting in a social setting and conforming to social norms is removed. The result is uninhibited behavior which may be harmful or socially disapproved actions (e.g.: looting, vandalism, gang assaults, etc.)

Deindividuation heightens peoples’ responsiveness to external cues, which may be either positive or negative. This responsiveness refers to the situation.

You may see others stealing desirable items and not receiving any punishment or negative outcomes. This may make you more compelled to join the group and engage in the behavior because you see others getting away with it and you believe you won’t be singled out just like they haven’t.

This type of responsiveness may also be positive. For example, you go to a friend’s house and they are having a study group. You are compelled to join the group so that you belong.

Deindividuation increases people’s adherence to norms that emerge with the group.

When deindividuation occurs, new norms are set as the standard for the group. This standard pushes people to conform to the social influence of the group instead of thinking individually about how to comply with social norms.

This can be exemplified in gang activities such as vandalism. Even though it is against a societal norm (and the law, for that matter) to spray paint walls with offensive terms and symbols, the norm set for the group is that it is a typical and endorsed behavior which switches from “damaging property” to “creating artwork and marking the gang’s territory.” This emergence of new group norms often leads to group think, a phenomenon characterized by faulty decision-making in a group.

Study that looked at obedience but also addresses deindividuation.

Video.

His Stanford Prison Experiment is infamous for its blatant display of aggression in deindividuated situations.

Created a mock prison environment in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology building in which he randomly assigned 24 men to undertake the role of either guard or prisoner.

The experiment, originally planned to span over two weeks, ended after only six days because of the sadistic treatment of the prisoners from the guards.

Several elements added to the deindividuation of both guards and prisoners. Prisoners were made to dress alike, wearing stocking caps and

hospital dressing gowns, and also were identified only by a number assigned to them rather than by their name.

Guards were also given uniforms and reflective glasses which hid their faces. The dress of guards and prisoners led to a type of anonymity on both sides because the individual identifying characteristics of the men were taken out of the equation.

Additionally, the guards had the added element of diffusion of responsibility (see models above) which gave them the opportunity to remove personal responsibility and place it on a higher power. Several guards commented that they all believed that someone else would have stopped them if they were truly crossing the line, so they continued with their behavior.

Where has deindividuation occurred in real life? Name three examples that you can think of.

A poignant example of reduction of deindividuation comes from a scene in To Kill a Mockingbird.

Personal Responsibility. By picking Mr. Cunningham out of the group, he could no longer hide within the confines of the cohesive group, but was set apart as an individual who could decide his own actions.

Self-awareness and Self-Evaluation. Scout caused Mr. Cunningham to evaluate his actions and become self-aware that those actions were not desirable to incorporate into his self-concept. Essentially, she forced him to check his own actions and reflect on his behaviors, and realize that his behaviors were wrong, therefore bringing him out of the group and making him aware that he was individual acting within the group.

Identity. While it may seem obvious that identifying individuals would reduce deindividuation in a group, sometimes it is an overlooked element. Simply calling people by their name, recognizing individuals, and encouraging personal differences in a group can reduce harmful effects of deindividuation significantly.

External cues. Many of the above examples have a common theme: the situation led otherwise "good" people to do perceivably "bad" things. Creating unambiguous, non-threatening, non-stressful, and non-distracting situations can help people think more clearly about their own actions instead of being tempted to be swayed by negative group norms.

Humanization. Although not applicable to every situation, in situations like war or in prisons, sometimes people can place blanket terms on a group (e.g.: "the enemy," "a bunch of animals," "barbarians") which can lead one to stop seeing those members as individual people and therefore minimizing their negative thoughts or behaviors toward them.

Group polarization is the tendency of people to make decisions that are more extreme when they are in a group, as opposed to a decision made alone or independently.

The bystander effect refers to cases where individuals do not offer help in an emergency situation when other people are present. The probability of help has in the past been thought to be inversely proportional to the number of bystanders; in other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help.

ABC’s What Would You Do?