Deindividualization

For the first time, the French sociologist G. Lebon spoke of a change in human behavior under the influence of the crowd. He believed that every gathering of people is a "mass", the main feature of which is the loss of ability to observe.

In a crowd occurs:

• depersonalization (which leads to the dominance of impulsive, instinctive reactions),
• a sharp predominance of the role of feelings over intelligence (which leads to exposure to various influences),
• loss of intelligence (which leads to the rejection of logic),
• loss of personal responsibility (which leads to a lack of control over passions). ^[2]

An explanation of the behavior at the level of the masses inspired other authors. His ideas were developed by Z. Freud , G. Blumer and G. Olport , and in 1952, L. Festinger , A. Pepioun and T. Newcome introduced the term “de-individualization” to describe a situation in which people within a group are not considered as individuals . According to the authors, the focus of attention is directed to the group itself, while its members themselves remain out of focus, including their moral qualities. Therefore, deindividualization contributes to the involvement of a person in illegal and antisocial actions, which is usually constrained by moral prohibitions and norms. ^[3]

As an alternative, R. Ziller argued that group members are subject to de-individualization in more specific situational conditions. For example, people eventually begin to associate individualization with situations of reward, and de-individualization with situations of punishment. A person learns to expect rewards for good behavior, so he feels responsible for his actions. However, when he realizes the high probability of punishment, he will have a tendency to hide or share responsibility between the members of the group by going to the background.

In turn, Zimbardo suggested that there may be other factors that influence deindividualization, in addition to focusing on the group or the desire to avoid a negative assessment of moral responsibility. Such factors are anonymity, group size, level of emotional arousal, novelty and uncertainty of the situation, altered time perspective (for example, due to drug and alcohol use), degree of involvement in groups. activity, etc. ^[3] As a result, a person loses cognitive control over emotions and motivations and relies on external stimuli.

Further, Diner undertook to associate the concept of de-individualization with self-awareness. People with a reduced level of self-awareness are unable to monitor and analyze their behavior and, as a result, to extract behavioral norms from long-term memory.

All cases of de-individualization are associated with the individual being in the group. That is, the groups themselves “provoke” the individual to commit non-standard actions, as they generate a feeling of involvement and excitement in a person. A striking example is human behavior at a rock concert. But the groups themselves are not the only source of depersonalization. Also may affect:

1. The number of groups

As a result of independent experiments by Mann and Mullen, a relationship was revealed: the larger the group, the more noticeable is a decrease in the level of self-awareness and an increase in willingness to commit illegal actions. ^[1] In this case, participants tend to attribute their behavior to the situation than to themselves.

2. Physical anonymity

In one of Zimbardo's experiments, a check was made to see if anonymity really promotes permissiveness. To do this, he dressed women in identical white hoodies with hoods. Then he asked to shock another woman by pressing a button. Women in hoodies held their finger on the button longer than women who had a name plate on their neck.

The Zimbardo study is one of the many studies on this topic. However, a meta-analysis of 60 studies of de-individualization shows that a person begins to become less conscious of himself and more a group. Moreover, a person becomes more sensitive to the signs of the situation.

3. Stimulating and distracting actions

As a rule, aggressive behavior is preceded by a situation in which aggression could manifest itself, but to a small extent. For example, it can be screams, clapping, etc. The Diener experiment showed that joint actions of group members become prerequisites for larger-scale actions. This can be explained by the fact that people like to watch others doing the same things that they do. In addition, impulsive actions attract attention.

4. Weakened Consciousness

Collective experience weakens not only self-awareness, but also the relationship between human behavior and attitudes. The results of the experiments of Diener, Prentice-Dunn and Rogers show that de-individualized people are less restrained, more prone to rash actions. It has also been experimentally proven that self-awareness is the opposite of de-individualization. People with a high level of self-awareness who were in front of a mirror or camera showed enhanced self-control. For example, when trying various cheeses, people chose the least fatty, being at the mirror. ^[one]

• In 1967, a student at Oklahoma State University threatened to commit suicide by jumping from a tower. A crowd of 200 students chanted “Jump!”, After which the young man jumped and crashed to death. ^[one]

• In 1991, a witness filmed as four policemen beat an unarmed R. King. While he was receiving severe beatings, there were 23 police officers nearby who watched the massacre without taking any action. This case has launched a series of discussions about the causes of such behavior in the crowd. ^[one]

• Crowd psychology
• Depersonalization
• Anonymity