Le Bon had a highly negative view of the group, …show more content…
as compared to individuals he sees the group as irrational, emotional, without reflection, uncontrolled and primitive. For example, being in a group is a step down the evolutionary ladder because they become almost ‘animal like’, acting on instinct with no rational or controlled behaviour. Le Bon identified three issues within a group - anonymity, suggestibility (open to influence), and contagion (ability to spread and transform), These issues are what results in the change in people’s behaviour, from when they are alone to in groups, and so the concept can be used to explain group behaviour. Le Bon called this a transformation theory.
However there are criticisms of Le Bon’s transformation theory, such as the fact that his theory is highly influenced by his personal experience which can alter the validity of his theory. Freud is highly critical of le Bon’s general approach and he formulated his own analysis of the group based on his own theory of the individual. Unlike Le Bon, Freud saw the group as being united by a common identification with the ‘leader’. The group leader is the person that takes the role of the super ego, and this results in anything being ok for the group leader. The restraints that are usually in place are removed, and so there is a transformation resulting from a mass hypnosis. The transformation theory formed the basis of the de-individuation theory and therefore supports the de-individuation theory as an explanation for group behaviour.
A study conducted by Diner and Fraser attempted to make evident how group behaviour can be explained by the concept of de-individuation. Their study was conducted on Halloween and it assessed the effects of three de-individuation variables on children. Over 1300 children were observed and given the opportunity to steal candy and money. The aim of the study was to see whether three independent variables of de-individuation, anonymity, group presence and altered responsibility would affect the behaviour of the group. This means that the concept of de-individuation, would therefore be able to be used to explain the behaviour of the group. All three variables led to an increase in anti-social behaviour which suggests that the de-individuation variables could be used to explain the change in the group’s behaviour. For example, in groups transgression was increased by 36% which shows that a group’s behaviour can be altered by de-individuating individuals in a group. This supports the point that group behaviour can be explained by the concept of de-individuation.
These results are further supported by a number studies conducted by Phillip Zimbardo. One of these studies involved a group of college students who were given anonymity by replacing their names with numbers, covering their faces with masks and giving them a baggy lab coat. The participants were told to shock other participants who were allegedly in a related experiment on the effects of stress on creativity (direct quote). The results were compared with those who had not been de-individuate (names kept, faces not hidden and no change of clothes), it was found that the participants who had been de-individuated delivered twice as much shock as those who were individuated. These results suggest that there is a link between the de-individuation of a group and a change in the group behaviour, which leads to the concept of de-individuation becoming a valid explanation for group behaviour.
It is however, important to note that there are limitations to Diners study, one being that it can be criticised for containing culture bias.
For example, the study uses participants from Seattle, Washington where the participants all have similar behaviours and culture which may affect the way they behave in a group, and the study does not accurately reflect many non-western groups. This limits the external validity of the study as we are not able to use the results to explain group behaviour in other cultures as a result of different factors. As a result of this we cannot say for sure whether the concept of de-individuation can be used to explain group behaviour, and therefore we only have a partial view of how group behaviour can be explained throughout all cultures. The study also fails to control the extraneous variables which could have affected the results of the study. For example, the way that each child has been brought up, will affect whether or not they steal the candy or money. If a child has been brought up with no morals or guidance, then they are likely to steal the candy, whereas a child who has been brought up not to steal is less likely to steal the candy. Therefore the number of children who stole extra candy may not have been as a result of de-individuation in a group but rather because of the way they had been brought up. This lowers the validity of the results of this study, and therefore lowers our ability to use de-individuation as a valid concept …show more content…
to explain group behaviour. A final limitation of this study is that the study excludes a number of participants which could have affected the results of the study. For example, those who were in a group size of 7 or more, and those who were with a parent were excluded from the results.
By increasing the age range in the sample size and including participants from different cultures, the results from the study would have been more generalizable. This would have increased the reliability of the results and given stronger support to the concept of de-individuation as an explanation for group behaviour.
On the other hand, a meta-analysis by Postmes and Spears was carried out in order to review de-individuation as a concept which can be used to explain group behaviour. They looked at 60 individual studies and found that the results of these studies showed little support for the de-individuation theories, suggesting that the concept cannot be used to explain group behaviour. For example, across all of the studies they looked at, not only were the effects of de-individuation manipulations small but they were also highly variable, meaning that de-individuation cannot be used as a valid explanation for group behaviour. Postmes and Spears concluded that it depended more on the setting/situation that the group was in rather than their de-individuated state.
Given the lack of support for the de-individuation theory shown in the Meta analysis, an alternative ‘norm’ theory was put forward by R.H Turner and Killian.
R.H Turner and Killian see a crowd as an “unstructured, heterogeneous, normless assembly of people”. They believe that this group generates their own norms for behaviour and the group will conform to these norms, even though it may seem like anti-normative behaviour to others. This theory explains the collective behaviour displayed within a group, and therefore disagrees that the concept can be used as an explanation for group behaviour. This is because it ignores the idea that groups can create their own norms, and focuses more on the changes in the individual, rather than the group as a
whole.
However, this theory does not explain why de-individuation manipulations can increase the normative behaviour within the group. For example, anonymity within the group would strength the influence of situational norms, but the norm theory suggests that one would have to be identified to be most effective.
In conclusion, there is strong support for the concept of de-individuation in explaining group behaviour. This support is found within the work of Diener in the Halloween study, which showed an increase in the change in group’s behaviour with all three de-individuation manipulations. It is also supported by the work of Zimbardo, which gave similar results and can therefore give evidence to suggest that de-individuation does affect a group’s behaviour. It is important to note, however, that there are many criticisms of Dieners work, for example, there are many factors that could have influenced the outcome of his study and so we cannot say for certain that it is de-individuation that altered the group’s behaviour. This reduces our ability to use the results as support for de-individuation, and lowers the extent to which de-individuation can be used to explain group behaviour. The de-individuation theory is also criticised by Postmes and Spears who introduced alternative theories, as after a meta-analysis of 60 studies they found the support for de-individuation inconsistent and outdated. Despite these criticisms de-individuation is still a highly influential theory, and has many valid points and support that means it can be used to explain group behaviour.