Does The Concept Of De-Individuation Explain Group Behavior?

Annie Stevenson
Foundations of Social Psychology
9th October 2014

To what extent, if any, does the concept of de-individuation explain group behaviour?

Group behaviour is inevitably a challenging element of social psychology to be explained. Although many theories and ideas exist surrounding group behaviour, the focus of this particular essay will be to explain the behaviour of groups through the concept of de-individuation. According to Diener in ‘The Psychology of Group influence’ (edited by Paul B Paulus) “A deindividuated person is prevented by situational factors in a group from becoming self aware. Deindividuated persons are blocked from awareness of themselves as separate individuals and from managing their own behaviour”. This definition
Each group arrived at one of a number of homes where an experimenter was waiting. In this research, three proposed antecedents to deindividuation were manipulated. These included anonymity, group presence and altered responsibility. The anonymity manipulation included either identifying each child by asking their name and where they live or leaving them anonymous. The group presence antecedent was simply whether the children arrived at the house alone or in a naturally occurring group. Finally, the altered responsibility was manipulated by appointing the smallest child as the group leader (as they had the least influence). This child was to be responsible for the whole groups actions. In the house, a bowl of candy and a bowl of money were laid out on the table. The children were instructed to take one candy only. This was termed the ‘Stated norm” and de-individuation was measured by how many times this norm was exceeded in each condition (e.g. taking more candy or taking money from the
The first key finding that Diener et al (1976) noted was that across all of the anonymous/altered responsibility conditions, the norms being exceeded, (taking extra candy or money or both) were

However, as with any psychological research, there are always criticisms to be noted. Diener et al (1976) state, “The groups were self selected”. As the children arrived in possible friendship groups or with relatives, this could have a significant effect on de-individuation. Diener et al specifically noted this as a problem in the altered responsibility condition as if a friend or relative was appointed the role of group leader, the others may have resisted the urge to display antisocial behaviour in fear of getting their leader ‘into trouble’.

Another important point to make is that Diener et al (1976) appreciate that the manipulated variables (Anonymity, group presence and altered responsibility) may depend on each other. For example, they suggest that, “A loss of self awareness may occur because of group presence and anonymity”. This theory implies that the actual cause of de-individuation is still uncertain, a clear indication for further research. However, it is evident that Diener et al (1976) take the viewpoint that the group is responsible for de-individuation rather than the individual, constructing a clear argument for the concept of de-individuation