Journal of Personality and Social Psychology A

1980, Vol. 39. No. 1, 104-113 ^

Effects of Deindividuating Situational Cues and Aggressive

Models on Subjective Deindividuation and Aggression
Steven Prentice-Dunn and Ronald W. Rogers
University of Alabama

This experiment demonstrated that a subjective state of deindividuation medi-

ates the effect df deindividuating situational cues on aggression displayed by
small groups (n — A) of coacting aggressors. The deindividuated state was
composed of two factors, Self-Awareness and. Altered Experiencing, both of
which had a causal influence on aggressive behavior. These data' are inter-
preted in terms of deindividuation theories which assume that certain' input
variables redure self-awareness andtforkcern about social evaluation and thereby
weaken the restraints against expressing .antisocial behavior. Also as predicted,
compared with a nb-model control condition, a high-aggressive model dis-
inhibited overt displays of aggression, whereas a low-aggressive model inhibited
aggression, among, both individuated and deindividuated group members. '

Myths may be interpreted as emotional Le Bon's (1896) analysis of the antisocial

jjrojections of our internal processes, trans- aspect of crowd behavior led Festinger, Pepi-
lated into visual images. They present exis- tone, and Newcomb (1952) to formulate and
tential dilemmas in a concise, essential form. investigate the seminal concept of "deindi-
Mythical figures have been created, for ex-, viduation." Recently, Zimbardo (1969) and
ample, to help us understand and reconcile Diener (1977) conceptualized deindividuation
the dilemma of our dualistic. nature, human as a process in which antecedent social condi-
and animal. Thus the Minotaur1, although half tions lessen self-awareness and reduce concern
with evaluation by others, thereby weakening
human, was half bull, a monster that had to
restraints against the expression of Undesira-
be appeased by devouring human sacrifices. ble behavior. More recently, Diener (1977,
The roots of such myths have a powerful hold 1979a) integrated Duval and Wicklund's
on the human imagination. Thus, 32 centuries •(1972) objective self-awareness theory with
after the Minotaur was slain, Le Bon. (1896) • deindividuation theory. This theory empha-
confronted our dualistic nature in his study of sizes that the antecedent social conditions
crowds, in which our humanitarian quality (I.e.,' Zimbardo's "input" variables) must
can be submerged by the bestial. Character- operate through reduced self-awareness to
ized in terms more palatable to the times, the produce aggression. Loss of self-awareness,
image of' the Minotaur became the "group dissolution of identity, and diminished, ca-
mind," part rational (humanistic) and part pacity for self-regulation increase the likeli-
primordial, destructive instincts (animalistic). hood that people will engage in antinormative
behavior.
The weak link in this tricomponential'
The preparation of this article was partially sup- model is the absence of evidence for the ex-
ported by Research Grants Committee of the Uni-
versity of Alabama Grant 1011 to the second author. istence of a deindividuated state and its
The authors gratefully acknowledge David Speed and role in mediating between input and output
Todd Peebles for their assistance in the collection of variables. Zimbardo (1969) inferred the in-
the data.
ternal state from stimulus conditions and
Requests for reprints should be sent to Ronald W.
Rogers, Department of Psychology, University of response variables. Diener's (e.g., 1976) re-
Alabama, University, Alabama 35486. search program, which has revealed evidence

Copyright 1980 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. OO22-3S14/8O/39O1-O104J0O.75

104
 DEINDIVIDUATION AND AGGRESSION
of a deindividuated state, has consistently
denied the subjective state a causal role in the
release of aggressive behavior. Nevertheless,
the existence of an internal state of deindi-
viduation and its role in mediating aggression
must be demonstrated to support deindividu-
ation theory and to rule out plausible rival
interpretations such as an operant explana-
tion that "Zimbardo's 'input variables' are a
summary list of discriminative cues which
release unrestrained behavior" (Diener, 1977,
p. 144). Thus, the important research task is
to identify the natnre of, the internal state
and determine-if it can be linked to observable
antecedent conditions, and measurable re-
sponses.
Three published studies have investigated
whether deindividuating situational cues are
accompanied by an internal state of deindi-
viduation. Diener, Dineen, Endresen, Beaman,
and Fraser (1975) used a retrospective ques-
tionnaire but found no evidence of a deindi-
viduated state or of any relationship between
the questionnaire data and aggression. These
authors attributed the, null findings to the
fact that the input variables were not suf-
ficient to produce the relevant state. In a
subsequent study, Diener (1976) obtained
evidence of a multifactor subjective state;
however, the measures of the state were not
correlated with the aggression data. Thus,
the observed deindividuated state did not
mediate, oc cause, the observed aggression. In
the third study, Diener (1979b) examined
the -effects of deindividuating cues on socially
inappropriate but nonaggressive behaviors
(e.g., eating mud, listing friends' faults). A
factor analysis ol the self-report data yielded
a two-factor solution.. The first factor was
interpreted as lack of, self-awareness, labeled
Deindividuation, and the second factor was
labeled Altered Experiencing. Thus, some evi-
dence for a deindividuated state is emerging,
but this' state has not yet been causally re-
lated to aggression. As Diener (1976, 1977)
noted, confirmation of the theory of deindi-
viduation requires more than the demonstra-
tion of a relationship between independent and
dependent variables; evidence of the media-
tional role of a deindividuated state is of cru-
cial importance.
105
Therefore, the first purpose of the present
experiment was to determine if deindividuat-
ing situational cues produce an internal de-
individuated state ajid if this state, in turn,
mediates aggressive behavior among individu-
als in small groups. Several manipulations
were combined to maximize the likelihood of
producing the theoretically relevant state. The
deindividuating input variables, all of which
have been demonstrated to facilitate aggres-
sion (see reviews by Diener, 1977; Dipboye,
1977), were (a) ajjonymity to the experi-
menter, (b) ^honymity to the victim, (c) no
responsibility for harm doing, (d) dim light-
ing, and (e) noise-induced arousal. I t was
predicted that deindividuating situational cues
would produce more aggression than individu-
ating cues. Furthermore, it was anticipated
that a factor analysis of p retrospective ques^ ;
tionnaire designed to assess the hypothesized
subjective state would yield two factors simi-
lar to those reported by Diener (1979b). To
investigate the causal role of the deindividu-
ated state, we used structural equation mod* •
els, especially path analysis, which are hjfciflg
used with increasing frequency, by social psy-
chologists to, investigate causal networks
among nonexperimental data (e.g., Rogers &
Mewborn, 1976; Simonton, 1977; Tesser &
Paulhus, 1976). Path analysis is useful .for
evaluating a priori theory by determining-if
the obtained correlations among the relevant
variables are consistent with the causal model;
it can be valuable when used in conjunction
with an experimental design.. Based on-, the
deindividuation theories of Zimbardo (1969)
and Diener (1977, 1979a), it was assumed
that the internal state of deindividuation
would have a' causal influence on aggression.
Thus, the path analysis addressed the ques-
tion, Does the deindividuation state mediate
the effects, of the situational variables on ag-
gressive behavior?
Although deindividuation lowers the thresh-
old for expressing normally inhibited behavior,
it does not automatically produce aggressive
behavior. The behavior that ensues depends,
in large measure, on other situational variables.
Collective violence frequently occurs in situa-
tions in which aggressive models are readily
106 STEVEN PRENTICE-DUNN AND RONALD W. ROGERS
available:
Without conscious thought of his action he darted
into Ihe street and hurled the empty pop bottle in
his h«nd toward the last of the departing black-and-
white cars. Striking the rear fender of Sgt. Rankin's
car, it shattered, and it was as if in that shattering
the thousand people lining the street found their
oyfa 'release . . . . Amidst the rending sounds of
tearing metal, splintering glass, cries of bewilder-
ment and shouts of triumph, the Los Angeles up-
rising had begun. (Conot, 1967, p. 29)
On the other hand, potentially disastrous
crowd situations can be averted by a person
exhibiting calm, restrained actions. A aggressively. This prediction was based on the
Therefore, the second purpose of the present
experiment was to investigate the effects of
aggressive and nonaggressive modeling cues
on aggression, especially ihe aggression dis-
played by people experiencing the internal
state of deindividuation. According to social
learning theory (e.g., Bandura, 1977), models
"(a) make behavioral alternatives salient, (b)
sijgntfy what is appropriate behavior in a situa-
tiqn, and (c) provide information about the
consequences of an act. The aggression-disin-
hibiting effects of aggressive models and the
aggression-inhibiting effects of nonaggressive
models have been well established in dyads
in which one individual harms another (see
reviews by Bandura, 1973; Baron, 1977).
However, only one published study has exam-
ined aggressive modeling cues in a group con-
text. Diener et al. (1975) found that sub-
jects exposed to a filmed aggressive model
behaved more aggressively than subjects who
viewed a nonaggressive model. The present
study sought to extend this finding in several
respects: (a) A live model was substituted
for the filmed model, (b) administration of
shock was substituted for Diener's procedures,
which allowed noninjurious assault, and (c)
a no-model control condition was added to
determine if differences in aggressive behavior
were produced by the disinhibiting effects of
aggressive models or by the inhibiting effects
of nonaggressive models. Thus, the present
study sought to determine if individuals in
small groups would behave more aggressively
when exposed to a live high-aggressive model
and less violently when exposed to a live low-
aggressive model.
In summary, small groups Were exposed to
either deindividuating or individuating situa-
tional cues. Based oji deindividuation theory,
it was predicted that the deindividuating
cues would not only increase aggressive re-
sponding but also would produce an internal
state of deindividuation that mediates the
effect of the situational cues on aggression. In
addition, it was predicted that, compared with
a no-model control condition, subjects ex-
posed to a high-aggressive model would be-
have more aggressively, whereas subjects ex-
posed to a low-aggressive model would act less
assumption that a high-aggressive model
makes aggressive acts salient and appropriate,
whereas a low-aggressive model signifies that
aggressive responses are not appropriate.
Method
Design and Subjects
A 2 X 3 factorial design was used, with two
between-subjects experimental manipulations: (a)
deindividuating cues versus individuating cues and
(b) high-aggressive model versus low-aggressive
model versus no model. The research participants
were 75 males enrolled in the introductory psychol-
ogy courses who volunteered to earn extra credit. In
one replication, 3 subjects failed to follow instruc-
tions, and thus these data were deleted. The femain-
ing 72 males were assigned randomly to each of the
experimental conditions, yielding 12 subjects per cell.
Apparatus
The shock apparatuses were modified Buss ag-
gression machines connected to a polygraph. Each of
the four aggression machines had 10 push-button
switches that could be depressed to deliver "shocks"
of progressively increasing intensity. Of course,
shocks were not actually delivered. A Grason-Stadler
noise generator (Model "No. '901A) was used to
produce white noise in the deindividuating cues
condition.
Procedure
Subjects arrived and were tested in groups of
four; three were naive participants, and one was our
assistant. The study was explained as a combination
of two experiments. The naive subjects had signed
up for an experiment entitled "Behavior Modifica-
tion." The other study was "Biofeedback." After
explaining the concepts of behavior modification and
biofeedback, we indicated that the response of interest
 f'l
DEINDIVIDUATION AND AGGRESSION
in both studies was heart rate. It was explained that
another male student from the introductory psy-
chology course had volunteered for the biofeedback
study. (Actually, he was another assistant of the
experimenter's.) This student, who would arrive
later, would be attempting to maintain his heart
rate at a predesignated high level. Whenever his heart
rate fell below the predetermined level, the subjects
in the behavior modification study would admin-
ister an electric shock. The purpose of having groups
of four behavior modifiers was explained as an
attempt to establish a laboratory analog of a ward
at the local state hospital in which behavior modi-
fiers actually worked in small groups.
We explained to all subjects that they received
their extra credit points for simply showing up and
that they could discontinue at any time. Each sub-
ject was asked if he had any questions about or
any objections to the use of electric shock. All ques-
tions were answered, and no one declined to par-
ticipate. In addition, written informed consent was
obtained. Two mild sample shocks were admin-
istered to the behavior modifiers (i.e., the naive
subjects) via finger electrode. The shocks were frdm
Switches 4 (.3 mA) and 6 (.45 mA) on the aggres-
sion machine, and each lasted for 1 sec. These sam-
ples were administered to convince the subjects that
the apparatus really worked and to give them some
idea of the intensities they would be delivering.
The subjects were then taken to an adjoining
room, seated at the aggression machines with parti-
tions that blocked observation of others' responses
(thus, responses were experimentally independent),
and given instructions for operating the shock appa-
ratus. Each time the biofeedback subject's heart
rate fell below the predetermined level, a signal light
would be illuminated on their panel. Then they
were to select and depress 1 of the 10 switches on
their panels. It was explained that the higher the
level chosen, the stronger the shock administered.
The "shock" received by the biofeedback subject
was alleged to be the average of the intensities se-
lected by the four behavior modifiers. Although the
duration of the shock was not mentioned, it was
implicit that each shock would last for the same
length of time as the sample shocks. Because of the
emphasis placed on the shock intensities, they were
the primary measure of aggression.
Each group was presented with 20 signal lights
over the course of the experiment. The interval
between the appearance of any two signal lights was
initially chosen randomly, ranging from 45 to 75
seconds. The intervals were then held constant across
subsequent replications
The final instruction given to the subjects was that
any of the 10 shock switches would be sufficient
for the purposes of the experiment. It was explained
that the equipment had been designed with different
shock intensities because we had not known how
strong the shocks would have to be to increase
heart rate. We explained we had discovered that the
different intensities all had equal effects on the bio-
feedback subject's heart rate, so the naive subjects
107
could choose any intensity they wished on each trial.
These instructions were designed to eliminate any
potential altruistic motivation, and they made clear
that use of the lowest possible intensity on every
trial would fulfill the. requirements of tie experi-
menter. Use of any intensity greater than that of
Switch 1 would only result in additional pain to the
biofeedback subject.
The experimenter then left to bring the biofeed-
back subject from a waiting room to the experi-
mental room. By leaving the doors open, the subjects
heard the instructions given by the experimenter to
the biofeedback subject about his role. Thus, the
naive subjects would easily hear but not see their
future victim.
Experimental Manipulations
The first manipulation attempted to differentiate
maximally between deindividuating situational cue*
and individuating ones. In the deindividuating cues
condition, subjects were not addressed by name by
the experimenter. They were informed that the
shock intensities they used were of no interest to
the experimenter and that he would not know which^
intensities they selected (anonymity to the experi-1'
mentcr). Subjects were further informed that th«y
would not meet or see the biofeedback subject
(anonymity to the victim). The experimenter iwli-
cated that he assumed full responsibility. for. the
biofeedback subject's well-being (no responsibility
for harm doing). Finally, white noise (65 dB
fSPL]) was played in the dimly lit room under the
guise of eliminating any extraneous noise from the
hall or other experimental rooms (arousal). Thus, as
in Zimbardo's (1969) first experiment, the subjects'
identlfiability was minimized.
In the individuating cues condition, the subjects
wore name tags and were addressed by their first
names. As in Zimbardo's (1969) study, the "unique
reactions" of each subject were emphasized, and
the experimenter expressed his interest in the shock
intensities used by the subjects. Subjects were in-
formed that they would meet the biofeedback sub-
ject on completion of the study. It was emphasized
that the biofeedback subject's well-being was the
responsibility of each individual behavior modifier.
The room was well lit, and no white noise was
broadcast.
After delivering all instructions, the experimenter
stated that an equipment check was needed before
proceeding with the actual studies. It was noted that
the check would also give the biofeedback subject
the opportunity to experience several shocks before
the session actually began. One of the behavior
modification subjects (our assistant) was asked to
deliver five sample shocks while the others watched
him The signal light was illuminated five times at
10-sec intervals. In the high-aggressive model con-
dition, our model pressed, in order, Switches 9, 10,
8, 9, and 10 for approximately 1.5 sec each. In the
low-aggressive model condition, our assistant de-
pressed, in order, Switches 2, 1, 3, 2, and 1 for
 108 I STEVEN PRENTICE-DUNN AND RONALD W. ROGERS
*ble 1
n Shock Intensities as a Function of the
10 Independent Variables
Efperimlntal condition Mean shock intensities
Modeling condition
Low-aggressive model • 4.5
, N o model 5.4
High-aggressive model 6.2
Situational cues
Individuating cues 4.3
"Deindividuating cues 6.4
approximately .25 sec each. In the no-model condi-
tion, this equipment check phase was omitted. After
this manipulation, the actual session began and con-
tinued for a total of 20 trials.
Postexperimental Session
Following the last shock trial, subjects completed
a questionnaire containing 19 items designed to
assess (on 10-point Liken rating scales) an in-
ternal state of deindividuation. A second question-
naire assessed suspicions about the experiment. Six
subjects suspected that shocks were not actually de-
livered, and one -correctly. guessed that the model
was our assistant. These subjects were deleted from
the data analyses. The data in this unequal n design
were analyzed with the complete least squares model
recommended by Overall, Spiegel, and Cohen (1975)
because this model meets the criterion of estimating
the same parameters as those .estimated in ah pr-
thogonal design. After each experimental session,
each subject was thanked and given a full debriefing
that was based on Mill's (1976) recommendations.
Finally, a questionnaire was given to each student'
in a stamped envelope addressed to the Department
of Psychology Committee on Ethics. These anony-
mous responses were returned by 65% of the sub-
jects. Of the respondents, 100% understood why the
deception had been necessary and did not resent it.
Abo, everyone stated they would be willing to par-
ticipate in another, similar experiment.
Data Analysis
Should the unit of analysis be the individual or
the group? We selected the individual for theo-
retical and statistical reasons. Theoretically, we
conceptualized deindividuation as did Singer, Brush,
and Lublin (1%S) and Zimbardo (1969): Deindi-
viduation is an intraindividuil phenomenon that
occurs within a group context. In addition, parti-
tions made it impossible for a subject to determine
what shock intensities the others were selecting;
thus, the responses were experimentally independent,
permitting the individual to be the unit of analysis.
However, any event (e.g., time of day, biasing
conversation, other extraneous factors) that affected
individuals participating in the experiment at the
same time, thus rendering their responses dependent,
would appear as a significant departure from _the
remaining replications within that treatment cett. 8ta
multivariate analyses of variance (one per experi-
mental cell) were computed among the replications
(groups) within each cell. This analysis yielded no
significant effects (mean p > .25), confirming the
independence of the responses.
Results
Aggression
A multivariate analysis of variance was per-
formed on .the sums of the shock intensity and
duration scores. This analysis yielded a main
effect associated with the situational cues
manipulation; Wilks's lambda (A) was .636,
F(2 V 116) = 14.76, p < .0001. T*he type-of-
model variable also had a main effect, A =
.780, F(4,116) = .3.84, p < .01. The inter-
action effect was not significant (p > .5). The
two effects significant in the multivariate
analysis were then examined by univariate
analyses of variance. These univariate analy-
ses revealed a main effect for the situational
cues variable on shock intensity, F ( l , 59) =
24.73, p < .0001, and on shock duration,
F ( l , 5 9 ) = *,44, p < .01. An inspection Of
the mean intensity scores presented in-Table
t indicates that subjects in the deindividuat-
ing cues condition used higher shock intensi-
ties than those in the individuating cues con-
dition. A comparison of the duration scores
indicated that slightly longer durations were
used in the individuating cues condition than
in the deindividuating cues condition (.2 sec).
Table 1 also shows that the model variable
had the predicted effect on shock intensity,
F(2,59) = 5.26, p < .01. An identical pat-
tern of results was obtained on the measure
. of shock duration, F(2, 59) = 3.49, p < .05.
A Duncan multiple-range test (p < .05) re-
vealed that, compared with the no-model
(baseline) condition, the low-aggressive model
suppressed aggression, whereas the high-aggres-
sive model intensified aggressive responding.
Internal State of Deindividuation
The 19 retrospective self-report items de-
signed to assess the subjective state of deindi-
 DEINDIVlDCATION AND AGGRESSION 109

viduation proposed by Diener (1979b) and Table 2

Zimbardo (1969) were factor analyzed to Factor Loadings on the Rotated Factors
ascertain the existence of a state that might
be labeled deindividuation. A scree plot of item Factor loadfyg
figienvalues (Cattell, 1966), provided by a
Factor 1 (Altered Experience)
principal-axis factor analysis, indicated a two-
factor solution. Thus, two factors were ro- Thinking was somewhat altered .74 •
Emotions were different from
tated using the varirrtax method. The factor normal .63
loadings, which were greater than or equal to Felt aroused .72
.4 on only one of the factors, are shown in Responsibility was shared .44
Table 2. The factors were stable (reliabilities Time seemed to go quickly .69
were .85). (An analysis of only subjects in Thoughts were concentrated on
the moment .68
the deindividuation condition yielded the same Session was enjoyable .72 •
two factors.) The only items that did not load Willing to volunteer for similar
clearly on only one factor were the two^ items s\udy .65
Liked other group members .70
that assessed anonymity to the experimenter
Feeding of togetherness among
and anonymity to the victim, hoth of. which .- -group members .61
loaded positively (greater than .4) on the first
factor and,Begatively (greater than .4) on the Factor 2 (Self-Awareness)
second fartor. The first factor w^as composed Felt self-conscious .74
of variables that might be labeled Altered Ex- Heightened sense of individual
perience. It is highly simHar to Diener's identity .45
(1979b) factor, Altered Experiencing. The Felt inhibited .6.?
I had responsibility for harm doing .83
second factor might be labeled Self-Awareness Concerned with what experimenter
because the items loading on it assess self- thought of me • .81
consciousness and the ensuing inhibition and Concerned with what victim
thought of me .75
concern with evaluation by others. Diener's
Concerned with what other group
(1979b) second factor, which he called Dein- members thought of me .71
dividuation, contained some of- these same
items in addition to several that. loaded on Note. For Factor 1, reliability (coefficient alpha) was
our Altered Experience factor. Although the .854, and 26% of total variance was accounted for.
For Factor 2,'reliability (coefficient alpha) was .851,
Self-Awareness factor is highly similar to early and 23% of total variance was accounted for.
definitions of deindividuation (e.g., Festinger
et al., 1952; Singer et al., 1965), we reserve
the term deindividuation to refer to the entire scores on the Altered Experience factor (M —
subjective state. Our data suggest that the 63.9) than, the subjects in the individuating
subjective state of deindividuation Is com- cues condition {M = 52.8) but lower scores
posed of two factors: Altered Experience and on the Self-Awareness factor (Ms = 30.8 and
Self-Awareness. 41.2, respectively).
Now that the existence of *hese two factors
has been established, it might be asked Deindividuation and Aggression
whether the factors reliably discriminate be-
tween the individuating and deindividuating - Pearson product-moment correlations were
cues conditions. The sum of each subject's computed between the raw score sums on the
raw scores on the Altered Experience items Altered Experience and Self-Awareness fac-
and on the Self-Awareness items were sub- tors and shock intensity and duration. For
mitted to a multivariate analysis of variance. Altered Experience and shock intensity, r(63)
A significant difference was found between = .35, p < .01; for Self-Awareness and in-
the two situational cues conditions, A = .806, tensity, r(63) = —.31, p < .02. The correla-
F(2, 124) = 7.06, p < .002. Subjects in the tions between shock duration and each of the
deindividuating cues condition had higher two factors did not differ significantly from
zero.
110 STEVEN PRENTICE-DUNN AND RONALD W. ROGERS

facilitate antisocial behavior without arousing

a deindividuated state (Diener et al., 1975).
Thus the present study provided the first
demonstration that the internal state medi-
ates the effects of deindividuation cues %|J,
antisocial behavior.
The internal state of deindividuation had
two components, Altered Experience and Self-
Awareness, that were highly similar to Dien-
er's (1979b) findings. The presence of the
Figure 1. Structural model of deindividuation add Self-Awareness factor confirms deindividua-
aggression with path coefficients—standardized par' tion theory's (Diener, 1977; Dipboye, 1977;
tial regression coefficients, p < .01. (The double- Zimbardo, 1969) major assumption that a
headed curved arrow denotes a correlation coeffi- reduction in self-awareness and concern for
cient.)
social ^valuation is a crucial mediator in the
deindividuation process. The deindividuating
The correlation matrix among the two fac- cues lowered self-awareness and altered nor-
tors of the state of deindividuation and shock mal cognitive and affective processes. This
intensity was decomposed into components , deindividuated state may have weakened the
corresponding to paths. The significant path restraints against behaving aggressively,
coefficients (standardized partial regression co- which are normally maintained by internal
efficients) are diagrammed in Figure 1. The and external norms of social propriety.
model indicates that both Altered Experience These findings also demonstrate that Al-
and Self-Awareness had a direct effect on tered Experience, the second facet of the de-
shock intensity and that both had an indirect individuated state, had an independent effect
effect via the correlation between the two on aggression. That is, regardless of whether
factors. Thus, it is apparent that the ob- a crowd member loses self-consciousness, if
tained structural model conformed closely to deindividuating cues alter cognitive and af-
the a priori causal model. In addition, it is fective processes, violence may result. Hind-
possible to verify the validity of the structural sight suggests that the Altered Experience
model (cf. Blalock, 1971). First, when shock factor might have been predicted from an in-
intensity was regressed on Altered Experience spection of Zimbardo's (1969, Figure 1) list-
and Self-Awareness, the unstandardized partial ing of input variables. The Self-Awareness fac-
regression coefficients were significant. Thus, tor, or identifiability, would be expected to be
the model was not misspecified. Second, affected by the antecedent conditions of ano-
not only is the obtained causal net- nymity, diffused responsibility, and group
work interpretable, but it conforms to the presence. However, many of the remaining
theoretically predicted model. Finally, the input variables (e.g., altered temporal per-
structural model adequately accounts for the spective, arousal, physical involvement in the
zero-order correlations among the variables; act, novel situation, altered state of conscious-
thus, the structural model can be said to fit ness) were the experiences reported by our
the data. subjects that loaded on the Altered Experi-
ence factor. Finally, liking for the other group
Discussion members, which Festinger et al. (1952)
posited as a consequence of deindividuation,
The results of the present experiment was part of the Altered Experience factor.
clearly supported the hypothesis, derived
from deindividuation theory (Diener, 1977; Although we have emphasized the media-
Zimbardo, 1969), that deindividuating situa- tional role of the deindividuated state, we
tional cues produce an internal state of de- should not overlook the main effect of the situ-
individuation that mediates aggression. It has ational cues variable on aggression: Subjects
been shown that deindividuating cues can in the deindividuating cues condition used
 DEINDIVIDUATION AND AGGRESSION
stronger shock intensifies than those in the
individuating cues condition. Although the
theoretical independent variable of deindividu-
ation has been operationalized in many ways,
Jflts finding corroborates several previous in-
vestigations (see reviews by Diener, 1977;
Dipboye, 1977).
One unexpected finding was that subjects in
the deindividuating cues condition adminis-
tered shocks for .2, sec less than those in the
individuating cues condition. The experimental
instructions never mentioned the duration of
the shocks but referred repeatedly to the dif-
fering shock intensities. (e.g., Subjects could
use any intensities they wished, the shqck re-
ceived by the victim would be the average of
the intensities selected by the group mem-
bers, the sample shocks differed only in inten-
sity, etc.UfcThus, this finding is difficult to
interpret.TJne possible explanation is that in-
tensity and duration were used as compensa-
tory response systems, which occurs in inter-
racial aggression (Wilson & Rogers, 1975).
That is, the deindividuated subjects may have
compensated for the stronger intensities they
delivered by administering them for shorter
periods of time. This interpretatibn suggests
that intensity and duration would be corre-
lated negatively. However, the correlation be-
tween the measures was + .23, nonsignificant,
thus ruling out this interpretation. (The cor-
relation within the individuating cues condi-
tion was + .08.) Furthermore, any interpreta-
tion of the duration data in terms of shorter
durations indicating less motivation to harm
is not consistent with the deindividuated state,
in which the deindividuated subjects felt less
inhibited, less self-conscious, less responsible,
and less concerned about what others thought
of them. Another interpretation is that, be-
cause of the altered experiences and increased
arousal, the deindividuated subjects were more
active and energetic. Hence their physical acts
were both brief and intense, much like vigorous
hitting and stabbing. Whatever the interpre-
tation of this finding, its importance is greatly
diminished by the fact that, in contrast with
the intensity data, shock durations did not
correlate with the Altered Experience or Self-
Awareness factors; that is, the duration data
were not related to the deindividuated state.
111
The data implicating the deindividuated
state as the causal mediator must be interpreted
with caution. The regression and path analy-
ses cannot prove that the proposed theory of
deindividuation is correct, but they did con-
firm that the proposed causal model was con-
sistent with the obtained correlational data.
However, if one wishes to be more conserva-
tive about inferring causality, it is comforting
to recognize that the structural model (see
, Figure' \) is a simple regression model, and in-
terpretatUms can be restricted to that level.
In addition, it might be argued that our a
priori model should have been a nonrecursive
one (e.g., allowing aggression to affect the de-
individuation state). Nevertheless, the sequence
suggested by our data should be regarded as
only a first approximation to a complete de-
scription of the relationship between deindi-
viduation and aggression. Future research (es-
pecially time-series designs with lagged mea-
surements of subjective deindividuation and
aggression) may reveal complex patterns of
chain regressions and feedback loops; how-
ever, neither current theories nor empirical
findings suggest such a model. Also, that sub-
jects knew they were .being observed in a
scientific study undoubtedly attenuated the
strength of the deindividuated state, a con-
dition that, if averted, could make the inter-
nal state and the ensuing aggression' even
more intense. Despite the limitations of trie
present methodology, it is the strongest dem-
onstration yet of the existence of an internal
state of deindividuation and its mediational
role in aggression.
Another limitation of the study is that one
can only get out of a factor analysis what one
puts into it. If additional deindividuating cues
were to be used and if questionnaires con-
tained more diverse items, additional factors
might emerge. One likely candidate is a posi-
tive affect factor, which has been postulated
by some theorists (e.g., Zimbardo, 1969).
However, our factors resembled Diener's
(1979b), despite the fact that we used dif-
ferent deindividuating cues and different anti-
social behaviors (socially deviant behavior
versus shock administration). Taken together,
these data suggest that the internal state of
deindividuation is composed of at least two
 112 STEVEN PRENTICE-DUNN AND RONALD W. ROGERS
stable components.
1 Press, 1977.
The main effect of the modeling cues on ag-
gression revealed that, as predicted, compared
with the no-model baseline condition, (a) the
high-aggressive model disinhibited aggression
* t y . weakening the observers' restraints that
normally inhibit aggression, and (b) the low-
aggresftive model inhibited aggression by
strengthening the observers' restraints against
'expressing aggression. These findings"attend
previous studies by ill Minn li <ljuj) M^it In i
aggressive and nonaggressive mo^lSVaffect
collective behavior in small groups..''.Group
members who were exposed to the deindividu-
ating cues and who experienced the subjective
state were influenced by the social models. The
restraints against expressing aggression, which
had been weakened by the deindividuating
cues, were further weakened by exposure to
a high-aggressive model, but these restraints
were strengthened by exposure to the low-ag-
gressive model. Thus,,in naturalistic settings,
the modeling cues present in a crowd can af-
fect deindividuated individuals as well as indi-
viduated ones by signifying what behaviors,
are appropriate in the situation and what the
consequences will be. The presence.©? a highly
aggressive model in a.crowd of deindividuated
individuals may intensify physical: assaults
against hapless victims. On- the other hand, a
low-aggressive or nonaggressive model could
exert a restraining influence even on. dein-
dividuated individuals, thus suggesting one
method, of controlling potentially violent mobs.
The Minotaur may still reside within us.
Although deindividuating situatfonal cues and
aggressive models may arouse the-bestial half,
individuating cues and calm, restrained models
may, if not slay the beast, at least summon,
the compassionate humanity we possess.
References
Bandura, A. Aggression: A social learning analysis.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
Bandura, A. Social learning theory. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977
Baron, R. A. Human aggreWon. New York: Plenum
Blalock, H. M. (Ed.). Causal models in the social
sciences. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1971.
Cattell, R. B. The scree Jest for the number
factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1966,
1, 245-276.
Conot, R. Rivers of blood,.years *»/ darkness. New
York: Bantam Books, 1967.
Diener, E, Effects of prior destructive behavior,
anonymity, and group presence on deindividua-
tion and aggression. Joitrnal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 497-507.
Diener, E. Dejndividuation: Causes and conse-
. quences. Social Behavior and Personality, 1977, S,
14.1-155.
Diener, E. Deindividuation: The absence o/ self-
awareness and self-regulation in group members.
In p. Paulus ( E d ) , The psychology of group in-
fluence. Hilkdale, N J . : Erlbaum, 1979. (a)
Diener, E. Deindividuation, i If mill, and dis-
inbibitlon: Journal of Personality andoocial Psy-
chology, 1979, 37, 1160-1171. (b)
Diener, E.,: Dineen, J., Endresen, K., Beaman, A. L.,
& Fraser, S. C. Effects of altered responsibility,
cognitive set, and modeling on physical aggression
and deindividuation.- Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 328-337.
Dipboye, R. L. Alternative approaches to deindividu-
ation. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 1057-1075.
Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. A theory of objective
self-awareness. New York: Academic Press, 1972.
Festinger, L., Pepftone, A., & Newcomb, T. Some
consequences of de-individuation in a group.
. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952,
47, 382-389.
Le Bon, G. The crowd. A study of the popular mind.
• London: Ernest Benn, 1896.
Mills, J. A procedure for explaining experiments in-
volving deception. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 1976, 2, 3-13.
Overall, J. E., Spiegel, D. K., & Cohen, J. Equiva-
lence of .orthogonal and nonorthogonal analysis of
variance. Psychological Bulletin, 197S, 82, 182-186.
Rogers, R. W., & Mewborn, C. R. Fear appeals and
attitude change: Effects of a threat's noxiousness,
probability of occurrence, and the efficacy of
coping responses. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 1976, 34, 54-61.
Simonton, D. K. Eminence, creativity, and geo-
graphic marginality: A recursive structural equa-
tion model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1977, 35, 805-816.
Singer, J. E., Brush, C, & Lublin, S. C. Some as-
pects of deindividuation: Identification and con-
formity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy, 1965, 1, 356-378.
 DEINDIVIDUATION A N b AGGRESSION 113

Tester,
ester, A., & Paulhus, IIWL.
^ L . Toward a causal model
mode
of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psy
chology, 19*6, 34, 1095-1105.
iUon, L., & Rogers, R. W The fire this time: Ef
fects of race of target, insult, and potential re
taliation on black aggression. Journal of Person
ality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 85?-«64.
Zimbardo, P. G. The human choice: Individuation,
reason, and order versos" deindividuation, impulse,
and chaos.-In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.),
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 17).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Prew, 1969. -
Received August IS, 1979. f *