Deindividuation

The previous chapter contained many examples of individuals responding in unedifying ways, whether out of a reluctance to take responsibility, a wish to preserve what they see as deserved better fortune, or a willingness to accept the directions of another person in authority. But what of the behaviour of groups, and the actions of individuals as members of a group?

An approach which seems to start from the assumption that group behaviour is qualitatively different from other social psychological phenomena is that of Zimbardo (1969a, b). His basic distinction is between ‘individuated’ and ‘deindividuated’ behaviour. The individuated person is viewed as acting rationally and consistently, in control of his or her own behaviour and, as far as possible, of the environment: ‘consistency becomes a self-imposed principle in order for the individual to maintain a conception of himself as a normal member of society who, in behaving as others expect him to, gains their social recognition (the most potent of all reinforcers) as a rational decision-maker, whose decisions help him to control his environment’ (1969a: 280).

This familiar picture is contrasted with that of the deindividuated person, acting on unrestrained primitive impulses, engaging in orgies of rape, murder, torture, theft and vandalism, or indeed any evil or delinquent act that is not easily explained in other ways (Zimbardo, 1969b). Although not proposed as an absolutely necessary, let alone sufficient, condition for these effects, anonymous membership of a group is assumed to be an important antecedent of the ‘deindividuation process’.