In this series, I dig a little deeper into the meaning of psychology-related terms. This week’s term is deindividuation.
Every human is a unique individual with self-awareness. Deindividuation is a process by which people start to lose that self-awareness when part of a group.
Oxford Reference defines deindividuation as:
“A psychological state characterized by loss of the sense of individuality and a submerging of personal identity and accountability in a group. In some circumstances it can lead to a relaxation of inhibitions and the release of antisocial behaviour, and it has been used to explain certain forms of mob behaviour.”
Why deindividuation occurs
Contributing factors can include a sense of anonymity, suggestibility, and behavioural contagion. Behaviours that are engaged in may go against the individuals own personal standards, but deindividuation diminishes the sense of personal responsibility for behaviour and produces a more diffuse sense of responsibility within the group.
Early work in this area was done by French psychologist Gustave LeBon. He believed that individual traits are submerged by the collective, and the sense of personal responsibility is lost. This leads to primitive, hedonistic behaviours.
Differing effects from group membership
The validity of the concept of deindividuation isn’t clear-cut. While being part of a cohesive group can promote antisocial behaviour in some cases, in can foster prosocial behaviour in other cases.
The social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE) offers an alternative explanation. It suggests that when people self-stereotype to conform more closely to the group, individual awareness shifts to group identity awareness. This leads to depersonalization (although not in the sense of dissociation as the term is used in psychiatry).
How it happens
Deindividuation can be more likely to occur in groups where there is a strong desire to belong and a strong push for group identity and cohesiveness. Representative symbols can promote this. This can be seen in gangs, the police, the military, sports teams, and cults.
GoodTherpy offers some examples of deindividuation, including:
- a sense of camaraderie and shared mission helps volunteers working together to get more work done
- a political rally stirs up emotions, and some attendees form a mob and commit acts of vandalism
Another example is the Stanford prison experiment, in which university were randomly assigned to be either prisoners or guards in a mock prison. The experiment was terminated early because of sadistic behaviour on the part of the students assigned to be “guards.”
While deindividuation may seem like a mostly negative thing, it can have positive effects, as in the example of volunteers working together. On a military mission, having strong group cohesiveness is very desirable.
A matter of choice
Perhaps what it really comes down to is choice. Getting swept up inadvertently in the moment is likely going to be a lot more problematic than choosing to go through military training knowing how much emphasis there is on group cohesiveness. In terms of getting swept up in a group, my guess would be that people who don’t think they’d get caught up in the crowd are probably at higher risk of problematic behaviours than people who go in knowing there’s a risk and actively maintaining self-awareness.
Have you come across any instances of deindividuation, either good or bad?
- GoodTherapy: Deindividuation
- Oxford Reference: Deindividuation
- Wikipedia: Deindividuation
- Wikipedia: Social identity model of deindividuation effects