Support And Criticisms Of The De-Individuation Theory

Deindividuation is the loss of ones sense of identity and is generally brought on by being part of a majority group of hiding behind a uniform or a mask. This theory believes that the loss of one’s identity leads to a lack of inhibitions and therefore a change in normal standards of behaviour. There have been questions raised as to the validity of the de-individuation theory and whether it can be used to explain group behaviour. This essay will explore the support and criticisms of the de-individuation theory as an explanation for group behaviour. This essay also explores alternative explanations such as the norm theories which can be argued to provide a better explanation for group behaviour.

Le Bon had a highly negative view of the group,
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
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