Deindividuation

Written By Dr. Marubian Affinii

Firstly, deindividuation refers to a process whereby individuals ignore their own individuality and social norms. When deindividuation occurs, people are presumed to be less susceptible to feelings of guilt and fear, and less concerned with “accepted social standards” and the consequences of ignoring them.

Among the contributing factors that have resonance with this observation are increased arousal, feeling anonymous, being in a group, focusing on the here and now (and not longer-term plans or consequences), and diffused responsibility.

Secondly, the idea of how the actions of others can limit individual responsibility for antisocial behavior is also a key premise in the self-threat model/observation.

This observation assumes that people are motivated to protect and enhance their feelings of self-worth. Therefore, when their “positive self-concept “is threatened, people will act in ways to counter that threat. In addition, the more acute the threat to a positive sense of self, the more self-serving an

individual’s attributions will be. Common examples of self-serving attributions to justify antisocial behavior are rationalizations that “I was not the only person to do X” or “seeing others behave like Y made me feel it was OK to behave that way also”. Also conceptualized as cognitive dissonance, understanding how individuals can process information to justify illegal or harmful actions has potential utility for a fuller understanding of the motivations underpinning involvement in the riots and protests.

Why Did Young People Get Involved?

Why did young people get involved (or not)? The first key part of answering this question is what motivated young people. Young people were motivated to get involved in rioting or looting by what they thought they might gain, but whether they chose to get involved or not was affected by a range of situational, personal, and contextual influences.

Motivations related to benefits

Was it something exciting to do:

· the riots or protests were seen as an exciting event – a day like no other – described in terms of a wild party or “like a rave”. The party atmosphere, adrenaline, and hype were/are seen as encouraging and explaining young people’s involvement by young people themselves and community stakeholders.

Perhaps the opportunity to get free stuff:

· the excitement of the events is also tied up with the thrill of getting “free stuff” – things they wouldn’t otherwise be able to have.

A chance to get back at police:

· in communities throughout the USA, (and around the world) the rioting is described as a direct response to the police handling of the shooting of (unarmed men and women) (George Floyd) and other people of color. Here and elsewhere in the USA, the George Floyd case is also described as the origin of the riots, and the way it was handled was seen as an example of a lack of respect by the police that is common in the experience of young black people in parts of the USA. The rioting is not generally attributed to the George Floyd case. However, the attitude and behavior of the police locally were consistently cited as a trigger outside as well as within the USA.

Factors that facilitated or inhibited involvement

It is clear, however, that more than motivation is required for action. Young people will describe some factors which helped to “nudge” them into getting involved (facilitators) and others which they felt had helped to “tug” them away from involvement (inhibitors).

These factors can be categorized as situational, personal, family/community, and societal. Situational factors are related to events and the actions of others:

Group processes:

· young people who would normally think that such behaviors were wrong were encouraged to join in by seeing many others cause damage and steal – either witnessing this in person or through news and social media.

A rapid flow of information:

· news and social media sped up the exchange of information. Young people will be honest with themselves and say that watching events unfold in real-time showing “people getting away with it” and thinking that if all these people are doing it, then it must be OK.

Locality:

· where the rioting was happening could encourage involvement or act as an inhibitor depending on the proximity to young people

#iSurvived2020

#Immersionstepintothefuture

#1Millionsurvivalstories

What the young person was doing:

· boredom, “nothing better to do”, was an important “nudge” factor. Conversely, being occupied through work, an apprenticeship or some other activity was an inhibitor to involvement.

What friends and peers were doing:

· few young people got involved in the riots on their own. Most went along with friends and both influenced and were influenced by their peers in terms of how far they went in their involvement. However, peer influence is also seen as a “tug” factor by young people whose friends were not involved.

What authority figures were doing:

· the presence of adults, particularly parents, at the time of the riots is described as playing an important role in preventing some young people from getting involved.

While situational “nudge” and “tug” factors give some insight into why some young people got involved and others did not, the extent to which young people were susceptible to these factors depended on a range of other underlying factors that they brought with them to riots. These are related to personal, family, community, and societal circumstances. Personal factors related to young people’s values, experiences, and prospects:

A criminal history:

· previous criminal behavior is a facilitating factor in involvement in rioting and looting, though the prior experience of being in trouble also acted as a deterrent.

Experience of the police:

· young people will cite previous negative experiences of the police as a significant “nudge” factor that got them involved in the riots.

Attitudes towards those with power and authority:

· there are expressions of anger and resentment about authority figures, particularly politicians. Engagement in formal politics is seen as irrelevant to young people. However, there is an awareness of political issues among young people and particular anger about the perceived greed of Corporate America.

· young people and community stakeholders will make a distinction between young people who had a personal stake in society and a sense of something to lose from any involvement in the riots and those who did not. The hope of a better future through current education and employment or an aspiration to work is seen as the main constituent of having something to lose. Alternatively, some young people felt that their prospects are so bleak that they had little to lose by their involvement. Family and community factors’ influence relationships and identity:

· young people and community stakeholders will make a distinction between young people who had a personal stake in society and a sense of something to lose from any involvement in the riots and those who did not. Hope of a better future through current education and employment or an aspiration to work is seen as the main constituent of having something to lose. Alternatively, some young people felt that their prospects are so bleak that they had little to lose by their involvement. Family and community factors’ influence relationships and identity:

#iSurvived2020

#Immersionstepintothefuture

Family attitudes and behavior:

· how young people are brought up is viewed as very important both in preventing and encouraging bad behavior: “My mom said: ‘Don’t you dare go outside the house.’ I was joking: ‘I could go and get myself some new trainers, I could get you some new trainers.’ And she just looked at me and I just put my head down in shame. She took it very seriously. I was raised up properly.”

Attachment to a community:

· young people and community stakeholders will describe some neighborhoods as having a prevailing culture of low-level criminality with negative attitudes towards the police and authority.

Even young people who did not get involved themselves can talk about criminal behavior being normalized: “Half of their moms and dads don’t work, half of them are bent, even I get to think it’s normal, just how it is and … I wasn’t brought up like that.” (Male, 18 and over)

In contrast, young people will talk about the importance of belonging to a community (or a group or family within it) that opposed criminal behavior. In particular, religion is mentioned as protecting them from getting involved: “If I did this, my God wouldn’t be happy, my parents wouldn’t be happy. I have a bright future, my record is good. Imagine I did something that stupid, spoil my good reputation.”

Societal factors related to broader social issues:

Having a stake in the local area:

· young people who were involved in voluntary and community work alongside older people are clear that they had not wanted “to trash their own backyard”. Other young people and community stakeholders will also identify a feeling that they are written off in their communities, a lost cause: “[They feel] excluded – no expectations/aspirations and lack of support … called scum – told it enough they believe it.”

Youth Provision:

· the immediate trigger of boredom and the desire for excitement will be and is linked to a lack of legitimate things to do and places to go. Young people felt that they are a particular target for cuts in government spending with youth services.

Poverty and materialism:

· life for some people will be described as a constant struggle. Young people can talk about the difficulty of managing the money they received when out of work or in training. At the same time, a materialistic culture will be cited as having contributed to looting by both young people and community stakeholders. People from the unaffected areas most likely will suggest that the starker contrast between rich and poor in America might mean that the disparity between young people’s material desires and what they could afford might be more pronounced.

Young people both involved and not involved in the riots or protests were exposed to the factors I’ve spoken to above yet made different decisions about whether to get involved. These decisions were influenced by a combination of the factors above. Although some young people barely made a conscious choice at all, others appeared to have asked themselves one, or both, of two key questions when making their decisions:

1. What do I think is right and wrong?

2. What do I risk if I get involved?

Beliefs about right and wrong:

· beliefs on right and wrong ranged from a very explicit moral code that said that all criminal behavior is wrong, though to a much more nuanced set of values where certain criminal behaviors are “more wrong” or “less wrong” than others. Young people will attribute their beliefs both to personal characteristics (e.g. being “strong minded”) and upbringing. However, they also observed that situational factors could “nudge” people into behavior they would not normally consider. Taking “free stuff” was not always considered entirely wrong, even where young people didn’t and wouldn’t do it themselves. There is also a view that some targets of the riots were more “legitimate” than others: “When they hit the local shops, they went too far.” Some behaviors are seen as much more wrong than others, with strong disapproval of behavior that hurt people, put vulnerable people at risk, or destroyed small family businesses.

Assessing the risks:

· the risks of being caught, what that might mean for your future, and whether it was “worth” it will be themes that featured heavily in interviews. Fear of getting caught – through CCTV and DNA evidence, or serial numbers of stolen goods – was a key protective factor for young people.

There were young people who made this calculation and decided they would be “smart” – e.g. cover their faces. Others said seeing the media coverage, the sheer numbers involved and the police not doing anything made them confident their chances of getting caught were low enough to reduce the risk sufficiently to get involved. A different calculation was made by young people who saw themselves as having too much to lose, even if the attractions were great and the risks low.

#iSurvived2020

#Immersionstepintothefuture

#1Millionsurvivalstories

Aims and objectives.

The overall aim of this observation is to explore the triggers of youth involvement in the riots from the perspective of those involved and affected. It focuses particularly on young people, for two reasons: first, young people clearly played a significant role in the riots; and second, their perspectives are less likely to be heard in other ways. The observation had five key objectives:

1. To understand the motives of young people who were involved in the riots

2. To gather the perspectives of young people from affected areas who chose not to get involved

3. To elicit the voices of other community members – residents, parents, business owners, and community stakeholders – to capture their views about what led to the riots and why young people became involved

4. To engage young people

5. To offer viable solutions that work

Now, that we are “Where We Are” Now What?” Subscribe for the update or tune in live for the

#iSurvived2020

#Immersionstepintothefuture

#1Millionsurvivalstories