Social identity model of deindividuation effects

Last updated

The social identity model of deindividuation effects (or SIDE model) is a theory developed in social psychology and communication studies. SIDE explains the effects of anonymity and identifiability on group behavior. It has become one of several theories of technology that describe social effects of computer-mediated communication.

Contents

The SIDE model provides an alternative explanation for effects of anonymity and other "deindividuating" factors that classic deindividuation theory [1] [2] cannot adequately explain. The model suggests that anonymity changes the relative salience of personal vs. social identity, and thereby can have a profound effect on group behavior.

With the advance of technology, it is becoming increasingly researched how having the control of being incognito on the web and having profiles that represent one's person is affecting relationships and communication in our lives.[ clarification needed ] The model of deindividuation[ clarification needed ] is described by scholarly articles as "the situation in which individuals act in groups and do not see themselves as individuals, thereby facilitating antinormative behavior". [3] Furthermore, research on the SIDE model investigates prosocial behavior, prevention of social disturbance, and prevention of child prejudice. [3] It is said that conformity to group norms is a large part of deindividuation when understanding social identity within it. [4] [ clarification needed ] Other studies suggest that the identification of self through online groups lessens ones actual idea of personal identity outside of online spaces; concluding that even when personal identity is seemingly salient in online spaces it still further disassociates the person with themselves outside of online communities. [5]

Background

SIDE developed as a critique of deindividuation theory. Deindividuation theory was developed to explain the phenomenon that in crowds, people become capable of acts that rational individuals would not normally endorse (see also Crowd psychology). In the crowd, so it would seem, humans become disinhibited and behave anti-normatively. Early versions of deindividuation theory [2] saw this as a consequence of reduced self-awareness and accountability. Diener [1] and others later focused more exclusively on loss of self as the core psychological process underlying deindividuation.

Reicher [6] criticized deindividuation theory for several reasons. Among others, historical evidence and case studies strongly suggested that the psychological process proposed by deindividuation theory (a loss of self) did not occur in the crowd. [7] A meta-analysis of empirical deindividuation research confirmed there was no consistent empirical evidence for the processes it proposed. [8] To the contrary: anonymity and reduced self-awareness enhanced sensitivity to local norms. SIDE researchers concluded that there is no good empirical support for the process of deindividuation, and factors that should produce deindividuation have highly variable effects on behavior. [9] To account for this, SIDE proposes that there are no blanket indiscriminate effects of anonymity, but that anonymity effects are influenced by, and can only be understood through, their interaction with the social context.

Reicher [6] [10] also challenged the conceptualization of deindividuation as a loss of self. This process assumes that individuals have a unitary self-concept that they can be more or less aware of. Reicher and others argued that individuals do not have a unitary sense of self. Social identity theory, for instance, points out that one's sense of self is made up of personal identity and multiple social identities, all of which combine to shape one's personality. Social identities are likely to become the basis for self-definition when that social identity is salient, such as when making comparisons between "them" and "us". One consequence of salience is "depersonalization". In social identity research, the term depersonalization refers to a switch to a group level of self-categorization in which self and others are seen in terms of their group identities. (Note: in research on social identity, depersonalization is not the same as deindividuation or a loss of self.)

According to self-categorization theory, [11] depersonalization makes perceptions of the outgroup more stereotypical. Self-perceptions also shift: self and other ingroup members become interchangeable, and the individual self-stereotypes in terms of group attributes. Depersonalization thus transforms individuals into group members who regulate their behavior according to ingroup norms. Importantly, and in contrast to deindividuation, the psychological state of depersonalization does not imply a loss of rationality or behavioural disinhibition; rather, the individual behaves rationally and regulates behaviour according to ingroup standards. These ideas from social identity theory and self-categorization theory provided key ingredients for Reicher's critique of deindividuation theory, and are also the foundations upon which SIDE was modelled.

Deindividuation is basically when one person does not think of themselves as an individual being, but rather as a group or more than one being. [12]

This does not necessarily mean bad or inappropriate behavior. This means that the group norms are changed. [13] [ clarification needed ]

There has been recent studies on the SIDE model may put an end to racism in growing children, as well as social awkwardness.[ clarification needed ] With fresh minds and our growing world of technology, the SIDE model is becoming a more researched topic.

The SIDE model tells us that people change their behavior when introduced into groups. For example, when a person engages in an activity, such as a party or social event, they change their behavior. They become less individualized and unique, and merge themselves with the surrounding people to become almost one person. They can act and do things as a group. [14] [ clarification needed ]

Development

The model was first named by Lea and Spears [15] and later developed in a series of publications. [16] [17] [18] The SIDE model took Reicher's ideas about the crowd, and applied and extended them to computer-mediated communication. Early research in this domain suggested that, similarly to deindividuation theory, users of online computers were prone to flaming and other disinhibitions due to a reduction in social cues. [19] The SIDE model was developed, in first instance, to account for contradictory effects of social cues in online groups. SIDE thus assumed that effects in the crowd and in online environments showed some similar properties.

The first comprehensive statement of SIDE was by Reicher, Spears, and Postmes. [9] According to SIDE, a social identity approach can account for many of the effects observed in deindividuation research and in crowd psychology, as well as in computer-mediated communication. For example, deindividuation has been found to foster group identification and to induce greater opinion polarization in small groups communicating online. [20] In order to understand effects of factors such as anonymity and reduced cues on group behavior, one needs to take the social and inter-group context into account. SIDE argues that anonymity and social context in interaction have cognitive and strategic consequences.

Cognitive SIDE

Group immersion and anonymity have cognitive consequences that affect the relative salience of personal and social identities. These factors do not produce a loss of self as proposed by deindividuation theory. Rather, anonymity and immersion in the group can enhance the salience of social identity and thereby depersonalize social perceptions of others and the self. SIDE argues this occurs principally because (visual) anonymity obscures individual features and interpersonal differences. As a result of the decreased visibility of the individual within anonymous groups, the process of depersonalization is accentuated, and cognitive efforts to perceive the group as an entity are amplified. Provided that there is some basis to perceive self and others as members of one group, anonymity therefore enhances the salience of the shared social identity. The net result is that people will tend to perceive self and others in terms of stereotypic group features, and are influenced accordingly. [17]

It is important to note that anonymity does not automatically or mechanically influence the salience of social identities. An individual can be identified in such a way that it promotes a more individuated person-perception, or, alternatively, that it promotes a stronger social categorization. In some instances, making the individual more identifiable may strengthen social categorization. This may happen particularly in contexts within which these social categories are potentially meaningful and therefore accessible, and when group memberships are visually clearly identifiable (as is the case for gender, certain racial characteristics, disabilities, etc. [21] ).

SIDE thus describes the cognitive process by which the salience of social identity is affected by the absence or presence of individuating information. It is important to note that this process can only operate to the extent that some sense of groupness exists from the outset. If individuals interact anonymously in the absence of any specific social identity or group boundaries, anonymity would have the reverse effect of accentuating one’s isolation from the group or by further obscuring group boundaries. [15] [22] [ clarification needed ] Juxtaposing the two possibilities, anonymity in the group either has the effect of amplifying a shared social identity that, however rudimentary, is already in place, or it can amplify the individual independence which exists in contexts in which no shared identity is available. The latter process, whereby anonymity provides the opportunities for people to express and develop identities independent of the social influence of the group, is further elaborated in the Strategic SIDE.

Strategic SIDE

Anonymity also has strategic consequences: it affects the ability to express personal and social identities. [18] Strategic concerns come into play when an out-group has more power than the ingroup, and where the norms of both groups are at odds with each other. In such cases, the identifiability of ingroup members towards the outgroup will shift the power balance between groups: identifiability towards a more powerful outgroup limits the degree to which the ingroup's identity can be expressed freely and without sanction on those dimensions where ingroup norms conflict with out-group standards and values, and which are punishable or otherwise sanctionable. Conversely, anonymity towards a more powerful outgroup may be a convenient instrument for the ingroup to express itself on those same dimensions.

The strategic SIDE thus proposes that anonymity may be "used" by less powerful groups to express aspects of their identity. This may appear to be similar to the effects that anonymity has for accountability in classic deindividuation theory. However, unlike deindividuation theory, SIDE takes account of the inter-group context within which identifiability and anonymity occur. By implication, a loss of accountability does not result in the disinhibited or random anti-normative behaviour of individuals that deindividuation theory is concerned with. Rather, according to SIDE, anonymity affects the ability for a group to express its identity, and thus to engage in targeted and ingroup normative behaviour, thereby changing power relations between groups. The close connection between identity expression and power proposed by SIDE may explain the patterned and targeted behaviour of crowds whose violent actions (if they occur) are very often symbolic, not random. [9]

In addition to anonymity between groups, SIDE also considers strategic effects of anonymity within groups. Here, SIDE has particularly explored the consequences of anonymity (as well as isolation) from other ingroup members: On the one hand this deprives individual group members of social support from their fellows, and this may hinder their ability to express their ingroup identity in the face of a powerful and unsympathetic outgroup. On the other hand, the knowledge that other ingroup members are unable to identify the self may have consequences for (in particular) low identifiers to feel less committed to ingroup norms.

Applications

Today, SIDE is used to explain the effects of anonymity and social isolation in various contexts. Research on SIDE has particularly focused on crowds and collective action, [23] on online teams, [24] electronic relationships and virtual communities, [25] knowledge sharing,[ citation needed ] and more recently on social effects of surveillance[ citation needed ] (e.g., by means of CCTV or electronic tagging).

See also

Related Research Articles

Group dynamics is a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group, or between social groups. The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behaviour, tracking the spread of diseases in society, creating effective therapy techniques, and following the emergence and popularity of new ideas and technologies. These applications of the field are studied in psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work, leadership studies, business and managerial studies, as well as communication studies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crowd psychology</span> Branch of social psychology

Crowd psychology is a branch of social psychology that deals with the ways in which the psychology of a crowd is different from the psychology of the individual persons who are in the crowd. The field of crowd psychology enquires into the behaviors and thought processes of both the individual members of the crowd and the crowd as a collective social entity. The behavior of a crowd is much influenced by deindividuation, a person's loss of responsibility, and the person's impression of the universality of behavior, both of which conditions increase in magnitude with size of the crowd. Notable theorists in crowd psychology include Gustave Le Bon, Gabriel Tarde, and Sigmund Freud.

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

In social psychology, group polarization refers to the tendency for a group to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members. These more extreme decisions are towards greater risk if individuals' initial tendencies are to be risky and towards greater caution if individuals' initial tendencies are to be cautious. The phenomenon also holds that a group's attitude toward a situation may change in the sense that the individuals' initial attitudes have strengthened and intensified after group discussion, a phenomenon known as attitude polarization.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

Deindividuation is a concept in social psychology that is generally thought of as the loss of self-awareness in groups, although this is a matter of contention. For the social psychologist, the level of analysis is the individual in the context of a social situation. As such, social psychologists emphasize the role of internal psychological processes. Other social scientists, such as sociologists, are more concerned with broad social, economic, political, and historical factors that influence events in a given society.

Theories of technological change and innovation attempt to explain the factors that shape technological innovation as well as the impact of technology on society and culture. Some of the most contemporary theories of technological change reject two of the previous views: the linear model of technological innovation and other, the technological determinism. To challenge the linear model, some of today's theories of technological change and innovation point to the history of technology, where they find evidence that technological innovation often gives rise to new scientific fields, and emphasizes the important role that social networks and cultural values play in creating and shaping technological artifacts. To challenge the so-called "technological determinism", today's theories of technological change emphasize the scope of the need of technical choice, which they find to be greater than most laypeople can realize; as scientists in philosophy of science, and further science and technology often like to say about this "It could have been different." For this reason, theorists who take these positions often argue that a greater public involvement in technological decision-making is desired.

System justification theory is a theory within social psychology that system-justifying beliefs serve a psychologically palliative function. It proposes that people have several underlying needs, which vary from individual to individual, that can be satisfied by the defense and justification of the status quo, even when the system may be disadvantageous to certain people. People have epistemic, existential, and relational needs that are met by and manifest as ideological support for the prevailing structure of social, economic, and political norms. Need for order and stability, and thus resistance to change or alternatives, for example, can be a motivator for individuals to see the status quo as good, legitimate, and even desirable.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

In social psychology, social salience is the extent to which a particular target draws the attention of an observer or group. The target may be a physical object or a person. If the target is a person, they may be alone or a member of a group or else in a situation of interpersonal communication. It is based on the way a particular feature can be linked to a certain type of speaker, who is then associated with social and emotional evaluations. These evaluations are then transferred to the linguistic feature.

Stephen David Reicher is Bishop Wardlaw Professor of Social Psychology at the University of St Andrews.

Optimal distinctiveness is a social psychological theory seeking to understand ingroup–outgroup differences. It asserts that individuals desire to attain an optimal balance of inclusion and distinctiveness within and between social groups and situations. These two motives are in constant opposition with each other; when there is too much of one motive, the other must increase in order to counterbalance it and vice versa. The theory of optimal distinctiveness was first proposed by Dr. Marilynn B. Brewer in 1991 and extensively reviewed in 2010 by Drs. Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Cynthia L. Pickett, and Marilynn Brewer.

The hyperpersonal model is a model of interpersonal communication that suggests computer-mediated communication (CMC) can become hyperpersonal because it "exceeds [face-to-face] interaction", thus affording message senders a host of communicative advantages over traditional face-to-face (FtF) interaction. The hyperpersonal model demonstrates how individuals communicate uniquely, while representing themselves to others, how others interpret them, and how the interactions create a reciprocal spiral of FtF communication. Compared to ordinary FtF situations, a hyperpersonal message sender has a greater ability to strategically develop and edit self-presentation, enabling a selective and optimized presentation of one's self to others.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

The Proteus effect describes a phenomenon in which the behavior of an individual, within virtual worlds, is changed by the characteristics of their avatar. This change is due to the individual's knowledge about the behaviors that other users who are part of that virtual environment typically associate with those characteristics. Like the adjective protean, the concept's name is an allusion to the shape changing abilities of the Greek god Proteus. The Proteus effect was first introduced by researchers Nick Yee and Jeremy Bailenson at Stanford University in June 2007. It is considered an area of research concerned with the examination of the behavioral effects of changing a user's embodied avatar.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social identity approach</span> Research and theory pertaining to two intertwined, but distinct, social psychological theories.[

"Social identity approach" is an umbrella term designed to show that there are two methods used by academics to describe certain complex social phenomena- namely the dynamics between groups and individuals. Those two theoretical methods are called social identity theory and self-categorization theory. Experts describe them as two intertwined, but distinct, social psychological theories. The term "social identity approach" arose as an attempt to mitigate against the tendency to conflate the two theories, as well as the tendency to mistakenly believe one theory to be a component of the other. These theories should be thought of as overlapping. While there are similarities, self categorisation theory has greater explanatory scope and has been investigated in a broader range of empirical conditions. Self-categorization theory can also be thought of as developed to address limitations of social identity theory. Specifically the limited manner in which social identity theory deals with the cognitive processes that underpin the behaviour it describes. Although this term may be useful when contrasting broad social psychological movements, when applying either theory it is thought of as beneficial to distinguish carefully between the two theories in such a way that their specific characteristics can be retained.

Intergroup anxiety is the social phenomenon identified by Walter and Cookie Stephan in 1985 that describes the ambiguous feelings of discomfort or anxiety when interacting with members of other groups. Such emotions also constitute intergroup anxiety when one is merely anticipating interaction with members of an outgroup. Expectations that interactions with foreign members of outgroups will result in an aversive experience is believed to be the cause of intergroup anxiety, with an affected individual being anxious or unsure about a number of issues. Methods of reducing intergroup anxiety and stress including facilitating positive intergroup contact.

The common ingroup identity model is a theoretical model proposed by Samuel L. Gaertner and John F. Dovidio that outlines the processes through which intergroup bias may be reduced. Intergroup bias is a preference for one's in-group over the out-group. Derived from the social identity approach to intergroup behaviour, the common ingroup identity model is rooted in the process of social categorization, or how people conceive of group boundaries. The model describes how intergroup bias can be reduced if members of different groups can be induced to conceive of themselves to be part of the same group, then they would develop more positive attitudes of the former outgroup members. An individual will change the way they view the out-group through a social categorization process called recategorization where former out-group members become incorporated into individual's representations of the in-group.

An empathy gap, sometimes referred to as an empathy bias, is a breakdown or reduction in empathy where it might otherwise be expected to occur. Empathy gaps may occur due to a failure in the process of empathizing or as a consequence of stable personality characteristics, and may reflect either a lack of ability or motivation to empathize.

Social identity threat is a theory in social psychology derived from social identity theory to explain the different types of threats that arise from group identity being threatened as opposed to personal identity. This theory distinguishes between four distinct types of social identity threats: categorization threat, distinctiveness threat, threats to the value of social identity, and acceptance threat. Each type is associated with particular social contexts that make the threats more or less likely to occur. This theory emphasizes how the level of commitment with the social identity shapes the nature of the threat experienced.

References

  1. 1 2 Diener, E. (1980). Deindividuation: The absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), The psychology of group influence (pp. 209–242). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  2. 1 2 Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order vs. Deindividuation, impulse and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 237–307). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
  3. 1 2 Kim, Kyung Kyu; Lee, Ae Ri; Lee, Un-Kon (July 2018). "Impact of anonymity on roles of personal and group identities in online communities". Information & Management. 56: 109–121. doi:10.1016/j.im.2018.07.005. ISSN   0378-7206. S2CID   57764929.
  4. ↑ Vilanova, Felipe; Beria, Francielle Machado; Costa, Ângelo Brandelli; Koller, Silvia Helena (2017-03-18). "Deindividuation: From Le Bon to the social identity model of deindividuation effects". Cogent Psychology. 4 (1). doi: 10.1080/23311908.2017.1308104 . hdl: 10923/21745 . ISSN   2331-1908.
  5. ↑ Lee, Eun-Ju (April 2004). "Effects of Visual Representation on Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication". Human Communication Research. 30 (2): 234–259. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00732.x. ISSN   0360-3989.
  6. 1 2 Reicher, S.D. (1982) The determination of collective behaviour. In Tajfel (Ed.) Social Identity and Intergroup Relations Cambridge, CUP, and Paris, Maison des Sciences de l'Homme.
  7. ↑ McPhail, C. (1991). The myth of the madding crowd. New York: de Gruyter.
  8. ↑ Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and anti-normative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238–259.
  9. 1 2 3 Reicher, S., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161–198.
  10. ↑ Reicher, S. (1987). Crowd behaviour as social action. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. Reicher & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 171–202). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
  11. ↑ Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
  12. ↑ Vilanova, Felipe; Beria, Francielle Machado; Costa, Ângelo Brandelli; Koller, Silvia Helena (2017). "Deindividuation: From le Bon to the social identity model of deindividuation effects". Cogent Psychology. 4. doi: 10.1080/23311908.2017.1308104 . hdl: 10923/21745 .
  13. ↑ Reicher, Stephen David; Spears, Russell; Postmes, Tom; Kende, Anna (Jan 2016). "Disputing deindividuation: Why negative group behaviours derive from group norms, not group immersion". The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 39: e161. doi:10.1017/S0140525X15001491. ISSN   1469-1825. PMID   28355799. S2CID   206263604.
  14. ↑ Vilanova, Felipe; Beria, Francielle Machado; Costa, Ângelo Brandelli; Koller, Silvia Helena (2017). "Deindividuation: From Le Bon to the social identity model of deindividuation effects". Cogent Psychology. 4. doi: 10.1080/23311908.2017.1308104 . hdl: 10923/21745 .
  15. 1 2 Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 34, 283–301.
  16. ↑ Lea, M., & Spears R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321–341.
  17. 1 2 Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689–715.
  18. 1 2 Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427–459.
  19. ↑ Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.
  20. ↑ Lee, Eun-Ju (2007). "Deindividuation Effects on Group Polarization in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Role of Group Identification, Public-Self-Awareness, and Perceived Argument Quality". Journal of Communication. 57 (2): 385. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00348.x.
  21. ↑ Spears, R., Postmes, T., Lea, M., & Wolbert, A. (2002). The power of influence and the influence of power in virtual groups: A SIDE look at CMC and the Internet. The Journal of Social Issues, 58, 91–108.
  22. ↑ Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & De Groot, D. (2001). Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1242–1254.
  23. ↑ Chan, M. (2010). The impact of email on collective action: A field application of the SIDE model. New Media & Society, 12(8), 1313-1330.
  24. ↑ Lea, M., Rogers, P., & Postmes, T. (2002). SIDE-VIEW: Evaluation of a system to develop team players and improve productivity in internet collaborative learning groups. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 54-64.
  25. ↑ Brennan, Linda (2008). Computer-mediated relationships and trust : managerial and organizational effects / Linda L. Brennan, Victoria E. Johnson. Hershey, PA : Information Science Reference. ISBN   9781599044958.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.