Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-v9bzm Total loading time: 1.101 Render date: 2023-02-07T05:33:23.969Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Disputing deindividuation: Why negative group behaviours derive from group norms, not group immersion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2016

Stephen David Reicher
Affiliation:
School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Fife KY169JP, United Kingdomsdr@st-andrews.ac.ukhttps://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/psychology/people/?mode=profile&group=staff&user_id=sdr
Russell Spears
Affiliation:
Department of Social Psychology, University of Groningen, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlandsr.spears@rug.nlt.postmes@rug.nlhttp://www.rug.nl/staff/r.spears/http://www.rug.nl/staff/t.postmes/
Tom Postmes
Affiliation:
Department of Social Psychology, University of Groningen, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlandsr.spears@rug.nlt.postmes@rug.nlhttp://www.rug.nl/staff/r.spears/http://www.rug.nl/staff/t.postmes/
Anna Kende
Affiliation:
Department of Social Psychology, Eotvos Lorand University, 1028 Budapest, Hungary.kende.anna@ppk.elte.hu

Abstract

Strong social identity does not lead to lack of accountability and “bad” behavior in groups and crowds but rather causes group behavior to be driven by group norms. The solution to problematic group behavior is therefore not to individualize the group but rather to change group norms, as underlined by the relational dynamics widely studied in the SIDE tradition.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brown, R. (1988) Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davis, N. Z. (1973) The rites of violence: Religious riot in sixteenth century France. Past and Present 59:5191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diener, E. (1980) Deindividuation: The absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members. In: The psychology of group influence, ed. Paulus, P., pp. 209–42. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Giner, S. (1976) Mass society. Martin Robertson.Google Scholar
Klein, O., Spears, R. & Reicher, S. (2007) Social identity performance: Extending the strategic side of SIDE. Personality and Social Psychology Review 11:2845.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Bon, G. (1896/1960) The crowd: A study of the popular mind [La psychologie des foules]. Viking Press. (Original work published in 1896.)Google Scholar
McPhail, C. (1991) The myth of the madding crowd. Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Postmes, T. & Spears, R. (1998) Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 123:238–59. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.123.3.238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prentice-Dunn, S. & Rogers, R. W. (1989) Deindividuation and the self-regulation of behavior. In: The psychology of group influence, second edition, ed. Paulus, P., pp. 87109. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Reicher, S. D. (2001) The psychology of crowd dynamics. In: Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes, ed. Hogg, M. A. & Tindale, R. S., pp. 182208. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Reicher, S. D., Spears, R. & Postmes, T. (1995) A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology 6:161–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reicher, S. D. & Stott, C. (2011) Mad mobs and Englishmen? Myths and realities of the 2011 riots. Constable and Robinson.Google Scholar
Spears, R. (2010) Group rationale, collective sense: Beyond intergroup bias. Invited position paper. British Journal of Social Psychology 49:120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spears, R. & Lea, M. (1994) Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research 21:427–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, E. P. (1971) The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century. Past and Present 50:76136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, R. H. & Killian, L. M. (1957) Collective behavior. Prentice–Hall.Google Scholar
Van Ginneken, J. (1992) Crowds, psychology and politics, 1871–1899. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Disputing deindividuation: Why negative group behaviours derive from group norms, not group immersion
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Disputing deindividuation: Why negative group behaviours derive from group norms, not group immersion
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Disputing deindividuation: Why negative group behaviours derive from group norms, not group immersion
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *