DEINDIVIDUALIZATION

From a phenomenological interpretation to a cognitive-behavioral approach

Puiu MIHAI *
Titu Maiorescu University of Bucureti
Abstract
The aim of this research is to decipher the theoretical fundaments and their experimental
expression, regarding a phenomenon that lies at the limit between two research areas: the psychology of
the individual and his reactions under the influence of group factors. In this context we also monitored the
main psychological modifications that appear connected to the deindividualization process, defined as a
relative loss of social responsibility, a consequence of the diminution of the self-evaluation activity.
Conceived as a state with a significant reversibility margin, the passage from anonymity to a person in
full action made the object of our analyses, and eventually we will focus on the finalization of certain
methodologies of cognitive behavioral interest that will amplify the individualization process. The tension
between group education (that develops beliefs and convictions) and the individual reactions (that
determine emotions), represents an interesting binominal for the research focused on cognitive-behavioral
therapies.
The passage from the eclectic techniques for the solution of deindividualization problems to valid
procedures must be supported by credible explanations that offer solid arguments.
Key words: self-evaluation, personality development, anonymity, self-awareness, individual.

1. An affect of B - DEINDIVIDUALIZATION
In the vision of cognitive theories any human action is determined by subjective interpretations of
the environmental influences. We integrate this vision in the form of a system with inter-connected
elements of ABC type where A represents the environment factors (stimuli) B represents the mental
processes (the subjective factors) C represents the possible reactions (behavior).
Starting from these considerations we want to approach from an analytical point of view, the
subject that aims the B side of this scheme, meaning the subjective one, bringing into debate the
deindividualization concept.
Defined as the state characterized by the reduction of the self-evaluation activity and the
diminution of the evaluation fear, a psychological state that produces anti-normative and disinhibate
behaviors (Postmes and Spears, 1998, p. 238) deindividualization proves to represent the state where
normal mental processes like inhibition, censorship are reduced, often to a state with anti-normative
and disinhibite behavioral results.
Gustave le Bon in Psychologie des foules (1895; 1991) considers that in certain group contextsm
the individual loses their social responsibility feeling, retrogressing to an inferior evolution form.
Anonymity, combined with suggestibility and rapid contagion of ideas and emotions can be the premises
for the development of antisocial, violent and instinctive behaviors.
Sigmund Freud considered rather important the role that the leader of the crowd plays. With a
hypnotic and control function over the basic impulses of the crowd members, the leaders discourse and
behavior gradually reduce the personal super-egos many times until the identification with the leader and
sharing the same ideal and devotion object.
_________________________
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to : Dr. Puiu MIHAI,
No. 187 Vcreti St., 040051, Bucureti, Romania ;
E-mail : mihai.puiu@utm.ro ; mihaipuiu27@yahoo.com

Experimental social psychologists give rise to the concept of deindividualization by the

opposition to the individualization concept from (Jung, 1946). If Jung defines individualization as a
differentiation process that aims at the individual personality development (Jung, 1946, p. 561, apud.
Dipboye, 1977), deindividualization corresponds to the process of loss of distinctiveness and of
individuality. It is essentially harmful, dysfunctional for both the individual and society.
The experimental evolution of the deindividualization concept can be practically divided into three
periods: the classic period (the remarkable contributions of Philip Zimbardo), the intermediary period
(circumscribed to Edward Dieners efforts to refine Zimbardos conception) and the contemporary period.
For the latter the theory of Steven Prentice-Dunn and Ronald Rogers is representative.
Zimbardo conceived deindividualization as an extraordinary psychological process.
Deindividualization is a state modified by extreme consciousness, where the persons transforms radically.
The behavior of the deindividualized individual has extraordinary characteristics: irrational, regressive,
without any connection to the stimuli within the situation. From the point of view of the self regulation,
the conception of the American social psychologistis is close to that of Le Bon.
2. Experimental research of the deindividualization
The first experiments considered as definitive for the state of deindividualization the feeling of loss
of identity. In specific social contexts, where anonymity becomes possible, the individual does not want
to be a distinct stimulus within the social area, to define his ego as unique. On the contrary, in such
contexts, he is characterized by a low self awareness which releases the behaviors inhibited by social
norms.
The researches of the classic period were organized around the idea of identifiability. Briefly,
deindividualization is caused by the impossibility of identification. Deindividualization, as it is also
defined by Chelcea (1998, p. 91) represents the psychological condition of individuals who consider
that, due to physical factors (for example, darkness) or social ones (for example, the crowd state), they
cannot be identified anymore. The main hypothesis argues that the deindividualized individual, who
doesnt feel unique, able to be found, and responsible anymore is more likely to express impulsive and
uncontrolled behaviors.
It is interesting the fact that the existence of disinhibited behaviors does not appear only in crowds,
but also in groups of all sizes and all kinds (Festinger, Pepitone and Newcomb 1952, p. 382).
Obviously, this conceptualization made possible the study of deindividualization inside the laboratory.
The three authors aimed to emphasize that the phenomenon of group deindividualization brings a
reduction of the internal constraints and, in addition, members feel more attracted to the group that
facilitated them deindividualization.
Festinger and his co-workers handled deindividualization by tasks. They asked the subject-students
to discuss in groups (of four up to seven members) the feelings that they had for their parents, based on a
survey that showed that the rejection and the hostility towards parents are the most frequent feelings
among youngsters. The dependent variability of experiments was represented by the capacity of the group
members to remember what each of the others said during the discussion. The authors observed that in the
groups where parents were strongly criticized, where the internal constraints disappeared, the subjects
could hardly reproduce the collective discussion. The incapacity of the subjects to remember was due to
deindividualization in this state they focused their attention on the group as a whole and not on the
individuals. At the same time, each participant felt that they were not the center of the others attention,
which encouraged them to express feelings that they used to hide. In this vision, the group has an
essential role: deindividualization appears because the group captivates the entire attention of the
members and exercises a ritual kind of pressure with a strong emotional effect: the abandonment of the
ego.
Singer, Brush and Lublin (1965) used an experimental procedure simplified as compared to the
previous research. They come directly on deindividualization: the subjects are invited to put on identical
laboratory loose overalls. The experimenters offered them a definition of the pornographic literature
stated by the Supreme Court of the United States and announced them that their task was to appreciate,
within a group discussion, if a certain fragment of the novel Lady Chatterleys Lover by D. H. Lawrence

is or is not pornographic. The non-identifiable subjects used more obscene expressions during the
discussion. Singer and his colleagues considered that this was due to the loss of self-awareness in the state
of deindividualization. This time, the group is only an environment where anonymous individuals
develop. Deindividualization obtained by the handling of the identity of the ego states is obvious in the
undesirable psycho-social behavior of the subjects.
The one who marked decisively the research on deindividualization was Philip Zimbardo. In 1969
he published an complex article where he proposed a relatively precise theoretical framework, mentioning
the variables that produce deindividualization, the main characteristics of the psychological state as well
as behaviors determined by deindividualization. Among the input variables there are: anonymity, lower
responsibility, group activity, the size of the group, the modified temporal perspective (an exaggerated
accent on present, ignoring the future and the past), the psycho-physiological excitement, overmeasured
sensory input (for example, intense music), physical implication in the act, modified consciousness states
(by alcohol, drugs, etc.). Each of these initial conditions can determine deindividualized behaviors:
impulsive, emotional, irrational, regressive, out of the control of external stimuli. For the American social
psychologist, deindividualization represents a complex hypothetic process where a series of social
conditions lead to changes of the perception of the ego and of others and to behaviors that used to be
otherwise repressed (Zimbardo, 1969, p. 251).
The main concern of Zimbardo were the conditions that favor the appearance of the
deindividualization state. For example, regarding the size of the group, the reported a field experiment on
vandalism, but it is the study that did not have much experimental control. The hypothesis of this study
was that big cities represent favorable environments for deindividualization. Zimbardo abandoned a ten
year old car on a street close to New York University and an identical one in the town of Palo Alto of
California. He took the registration marks of the vehicles and lifted their hood. Zimbardo mentions that
the first vandalic act on the New York car happened ten minutes later: two adults and a child took the
battery and the radiator. Three days later, and after 23 such contacts, only the car body was left. By
contrast, the car abandoned in Palo Alto remained intact. The only one who got close to it was a passer by
who brought down the hoof as it had started to rain!
The observed differences between the two groups (towns) of different sizes can be as well
explained by other factors. In his article Zimbardo described an interesting collective violence case, that
reflected the degradation of the value of life itself: the crowd encouraging the one who wanted to commit
suicide. In 1967, 200 students of the Oklahoma University bolstered one of their colleagues who wanted
to jump off, to jump out of a tower. Leon Mann (1981) studied the New York Times collection for the
period 1964-1979 and discovered 21 cases of public suicide; for ten of them the phenomenon mentioned
by Zimbardo could be found. Mann discovers a few factors that determined the aggressive reaction of the
crowds: darkness, the physical distance (the one who wants to jump off the 40th floor cannot hear the
shouts of those who are down), the high temperature. An important characteristic seems to have been the
size of the group: only crowds with more than 300 members ironized the one who wanted to commit
suicide and asked him to go the whole way to his intention. The author considers that such crowds offer
the individuals anonymity, favoring deindividualization.
After having studied the crowds that killed without any judgment individuals accused of having
committed antisocial acts, Brian Mullen (1986) formulated this conclusion. Mullen analyzed 60 cases on
lynching, that took place between 1899 and 1946. He defines deindividualization as the lack of focused
attention on the self and identifies an inverse proportional ratio between the size of the group and the selffocused attention: the larger the group, the less focus of the members on themselves. In the case of
popular execution, the size of the group influenced atrocity. The more numerous the crowd (Mullen
calculated an average of 1492 members), the highest the probability of atrocities: the victim was not only
killed, but they were also burnt, carved out, etc.
The input variable that received the most of Zimbardos attention was of course anonymity. The
most important experiment, presented in the 1969 article, appealed female subjects, students of New York
University. On entering the laboratory the students were asked to put on white vey loose overalls and to
put a cowl on their head; thus the anonymity feeling was induced. Another group of subjects was applied
an individualization treatment these wore on their chest badges with their names. The subjects
listened to an interview with a student, who was either honest and sincere, or arrogant and selfish. The
author measured the shocks that the subjects applied to this victim and observed that anonymous
subjects showed greater aggressiveness. In addition, if the students in the individualization condition

made the difference between the nice student and the hatable one (treating the latter more aggressively),
the anonymous subjects applied long electrical shocks in both cases. The experimenter proved thus that
the external stimuli (the characteristics of the victim) do not control the behavior oh those
deindividualized.
Zimbardo claimed not only the fact that deindividualization stimulates mostly inhibited behaviors,
but that this happens no matter what the environment stimuli are.
Without ignoring the precious suggestions of Zimbardo, researches after 1975 showed the tendency
to conceptualize deindividualization as a more usual and frequent group process.
3. The psychological deindividualization state
Regarding the actual deindividualization state, a solution became popular in time, that of the theory
of the objective self-consciousness (Duval and Wicklund, 972). Briefly, the two authors claim that the
focus of attention on ones own ego is more likely to detect the discrepancies between the salient
behaviors and the normative standards. The perception of discrepancies (the critical consciousness state)
equals a negative affective experience, which motivates the person to reestablish their behavior, according
to the group, social norms. Wicklund (1975) drew attention on the possible implication of this theory in
the explanation of deindividualization. A way of preventing the unpleasant consciousness state
(dissonance) is deindividualization. The deindividualized person is by definition non-conscious of
themselves, which could lead to the fact that they get involved in antisocial behaviors.
An advocacy for the integration of both theories can be found in Diener and Wallboms article
(1976). The two authors remarked the important role of self-consciousness in the works of Duval and
Wicklund (1972) as well in those of Zimbardo (1969). They wanted to emphasize a connection between
the internal state (self consciousness or deindividualization) and the antinormative behavior, concluding
that self consciousness often inhibits antisocial behavior.
Even in they did not treat deindividualization, Ickes, Layden and Barnes (1978) they offered a
valuable argument in favor of building a conception on this state from the point of view of selfconsciousness. Their demarche is important because it comprises the subjective correlates of the objective
self-consciousness state, creating premises for a phenomenological description of deindividualization.
They varied the self-consciousness of subjects with a camera. The dependent variable of the study was
given by the subjects answers to the Kuhn and McPartland questionnaire (1954), considered a quasiprotective measure of the self concept (Ickes, 1978, p. 148). More exactly, the subjects task was to fill in
15 times the sentence I am either in front of the camera, or without it. The subjects in the
pronounced self-consciousess condition used it mostly for their self-description, using terms that
expressed uniqueness, expressing more individualized self-conceptions. On the contrary, those in the low
self-consciousness condition offered answers that reflected deindividualization. They referred to
themselves using the terms that identified rather certain groups.
Starting from these integration efforts and from these results we support the following
deindividualization definition: The deindividualized person is prevented by situational factors within the
group to become self-conscious. Their consciousness as a separate individual and the monitoring of their
own behavior are blocked (Diener, 1980, p.210). Thus, Diener focused on the factors that reduce selfconsciousness: group cohesion, common activity, the focus of attention on external stimuli, the image of
the group as a whole, the delegation of the personal decision to the group. He does not include anonymity
among these, as it does not contribute to the reduction of self-consciousness, but only to the reduction of
the fear from punishment. According to Diener, a mask, like those worn by burglars, focuses attention on
the ego, and not on the external environment. Deindividualization, as involvement in the group activity
until self consciousness is lowered, is accompanied by a corresponding reduction of self-regulation. The
action planning and the self-regulation become impossible as the person does not make decisions for
themselves, but let the group make them. They are not concerned by the results of their acts, because
from a psychological point of view, they do not exist for individuals who are not aware of themselves as
individuals (Dienes, 1980, p. 229).
Diener accepted that in everyday life there are numerous contexts in which individuals must not
necessarily focus attention on themselves. For example, a person can lose temporarily their selfconsciousness watching a thrilling movie, but they come back easily to the self-regulation condition in the
presence of adequate indices. Deindividualization, that settles in the presence of certain group factors that
prevent self consciousness is different from these states by the fact that self-regulation is blocked: the

individual is immune to the stimuli that normally evoke self-regulation. The deindividualized individual
is extremely reactive to emotions, to external indices and to immediate external reinforcements. They
lost their ego in the group being similar to the stimulus-response organism of early behaviorism and
having a reduced conscious mediation (Diener, 1980, p.230). The American author completes his theory,
considering that deindividualization does not necessarily induce antisocial behaviors; its effects can be
prosocial behaviors. The conduct of the deindividualized person depends on their moment motivation and
on the situational stimuli. (David, D.& Szentgotai,A.,2006).
Diener testet carefully his theory. His main concern was to describe the subjective changes
connected to deindividualization and to show that they differ compared to the simple self nonconsciousness. In an extremely complex experiment (Diener, 1979), he contrasted three conditions: the
self-consciousness, the self non-consciousness and deindividualization. In the self-consciousness
condition, the subjects were exposed to group activities meant to make them feel individualized and selfconscious. They formulated a text about their own person, they listened to music and they had to say if
that suited their personality characteristics, etc. The manipulations in the self non-conscious condition
tried to draw the attention of the subjects to the exterior. They were asked to listen to music and
appreciate it, to write a text about the way universities will look in 100 years, to press a pedal
rhythmically, etc. In the deindividualization condition, accomplices tried to create a warm, effusive
atmosphere. The experimenter asked each group to choose a name. The subjects sang in a chorus, listened
to African musing clapping their hands, danced in a circle holding hands, etc. The experimental treatment
produced excitation and group cohesion. The dependent variables aimed the behavioral disinhibition, the
discourse disinhibition, the capacity of the subjects to remember in detail what happened during the
experimental inductions. The subjects also filled in a questionnaire on their attraction to the group, on the
self-consciousness, on the states modified by consciousness. The deindividualized participants perceived
the group they belonged to as unitary and declared more pronounced attraction feelings to the group than
the subjects in the other conditions. They were less conscious, they acted more spontaneously (they
lacked conscious planning) and cared less about the others evaluation. In order to emphasize the
tendency towards antinormative behaviors, Diener gave the subjects a list containing disinhibited or risky
activities (drinking liquids from the nursing bottle, writing obscene words, painting symbols on their
faces, playing in the mud) and inhibited activities (finding solutions for moral dilemmas, rolving
crosswords, reading about disarmament) and asked the subjects to choose two they would like to carry
out. As the author had expected, the deindividualized subjects preferred disinhibited activities. The
overall results of this research confirmed the existence of the connection between the lack of selfconsciousness and deindividualization, as well as that of the connection between the lack of selfconsciousness and the disinhibited behavior.
The main contribution of Edward Diener is situated at the level of description of the
deindividualization sate, proving the validity of the construct. Deindividualization is the process where
social conditions induce self-consciousness and the fear from others evaluation, settling the internal
constraints regarding the development of certain undesired behaviors. For Diener, deindividualization is
essentially a group theory. In a study published in 1980, he prrpoved that by the variation of the group
characteristics like size and homogeneity, we can obtain variations in the self-consciousness and in the
disinhibited behaviors of the members. More precisely, the larger the group and the more homogenous
(for example, formed only by males), the more the disinhibited behaviors and the more reduced the selfconsciousness (Diener, Lusk, DeFour and Flax 1980). Such conclusions represent precious contributions
not only for the deindividualization theory, but also for areas like self-regulation, self-consciousness and
group behavior.
*
We can observe that deindividualization, by the reduction of self-consciousness and the statute of a
disinhibited state without self-control as compared to norms, regress to a minimum level the role of the
psychological processes in human behavior.
Transferring the main role of behavioral determinism from the rational psychological processes, of
inhibitor type to the environmental stimuli, deindividualization can be regarded also as a transition bridge
between two theoretical visions the cognitive and the behaviorist ones.

REFERNCES
Chelcea, S. (coord.) (1998). Memorie social i identitate nationala. Bucureti: Editura INI.
David, D.& Szentagotai, A.(2006) Cognition in cognitive-behavioral psychoterapies;toward an
integrative model.Clinical Psychology Review, 26,284-298.
Diener, E., & Wallbom, M. (1976). Effects of self-awareness on antinormative behavior. Journal of
Research in Personality, 1, 107-111.
Diener, E. (1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 1160-1171.
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.
Diener, E., Lusk, R., DeFour, D., & Flax, R. (1980). Deindividuation: Effects of group size, density,
number of observers, and group member similarity on self-consciousness and disinhibited behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 449-459.
Dipboye, R.L. (1977). Alternative approaches to deindividuation. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 1057-1075.
Duval, S., & Wicklund, R.A. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. New York: Academic Press.
Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of deindividuation in a group.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382-389.
Le Bon, G. (1895). Psychologie des foules. Paris: Felix Alcan.
Ickes, W., Layden, M., & Barnes, R. (1978) Objective self-awarness and individuation: An empirical
link. Journal of Personality, 46, 146-161.
Mann, L., Newton, J.W., & Innes, J.M. (1982). A test between deindividuation and emergent norm
theories of crowd aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 260-272.
Mullen, B. (1986) Atrocity as a function of lynch mob composition: A self-attention perspective.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 187-197.
Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and anti-normative behavior: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238-259.
Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R.W. (1980). Effects of deindividuating situational cues and aggressive
models on subjective deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
39, 104-113.
Singer, J.E., Brush, C.E., & Lublin, S.C. (1965). Some aspects of deindividuation: Identification and
conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 356-378.
Wicklund, R.A. (1975). Objective self-awareness. New York: Academic Press.
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.