Is it true that Deindividuation always leads people to act negatively or violently?

Abstract

Strong social identity does not lead to lack of accountability and “bad” behavior in groups and crowds but rather causes group behavior to be driven by group norms. The solution to problematic group behavior is therefore not to individualize the group but rather to change group norms, as underlined by the relational dynamics widely studied in the SIDE tradition.

Type

Open Peer Commentary

Copyright

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

References

Brown, R. (1988) Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Davis, N. Z. (1973) The rites of violence: Religious riot in sixteenth century France. Past and Present 59:5191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diener, E. (1980) Deindividuation: The absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members. In: The psychology of group influence, ed. Paulus, P., pp. 209–42. Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Klein, O., Spears, R. & Reicher, S. (2007) Social identity performance: Extending the strategic side of SIDE. Personality and Social Psychology Review 11:2845.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Le Bon, G. (1896/1960) The crowd: A study of the popular mind [La psychologie des foules]. Viking Press. (Original work published in 1896.)Google Scholar

McPhail, C. (1991) The myth of the madding crowd. Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Postmes, T. & Spears, R. (1998) Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 123:238–59. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.123.3.238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prentice-Dunn, S. & Rogers, R. W. (1989) Deindividuation and the self-regulation of behavior. In: The psychology of group influence, second edition, ed. Paulus, P., pp. 87109. Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Reicher, S. D. (2001) The psychology of crowd dynamics. In: Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes, ed. Hogg, M. A. & Tindale, R. S., pp. 182208. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Reicher, S. D., Spears, R. & Postmes, T. (1995) A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology 6:161–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reicher, S. D. & Stott, C. (2011) Mad mobs and Englishmen? Myths and realities of the 2011 riots. Constable and Robinson.Google Scholar

Spears, R. (2010) Group rationale, collective sense: Beyond intergroup bias. Invited position paper. British Journal of Social Psychology 49:120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spears, R. & Lea, M. (1994) Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research 21:427–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thompson, E. P. (1971) The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century. Past and Present 50:76136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Turner, R. H. & Killian, L. M. (1957) Collective behavior. Prentice–Hall.Google Scholar

Van Ginneken, J. (1992) Crowds, psychology and politics, 1871–1899. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

What are two reasons for deindividuation?

The SIDE model is another attempt to make sense of all the different definitions and theorized effects of deindividuation. According to this theory, there are three main factors that create deindividuation: (1) group immersion, (2) anonymity and (3) reduced identifiability (self-awareness and self-regulation).

What is deindividuation in psychology quizlet?

Deindividuation. The loss of personal identity and responsibility as a result of being in a crowd of people, wearing uniform, being in darkness or being in an altered state.

Which scenario is deindividuation most likely to occur?

Lowered sense of responsibility: Deindividuation is more likely when people feel that other people are also responsible in a situation, or when someone else (such as a group leader) has taken responsibility.

What do deindividuation and social loafing have in common quizlet?

What do deindividuation and social loafing have in common? In both, individuals' actions are not identifiable.

Toplist

Neuester Beitrag

Stichworte