|
The social identity model of deindividuation effects (or SIDE model) is a theory developed in social psychology and communication studies. SIDE explains the effects of anonymity and identifiability on group behavior. It has become one of several theories of technology that describe social effects of computer-mediated communication. The SIDE model provides an alternative explanation for effects of anonymity and other "deindividuating" factors that classic deindividuation theory〔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.〕〔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.〕 cannot adequately explain. The model suggests that anonymity changes the relative salience of personal vs. social identity, and thereby can have a profound effect on group behavior. == Background == SIDE developed as a critique of deindividuation theory. Deindividuation theory was developed to explain the phenomenon that in crowds, people become capable of acts that rational individuals would not normally endorse (see also Crowd psychology). In the crowd, so it would seem, humans become disinhibited and behave anti-normatively. Early versions of deindividuation theory〔 saw this as a consequence of reduced self-awareness and accountability. Diener〔 and others later focused more exclusively on loss of self as the core psychological process underlying deindividuation. Reicher〔Reicher, S.D. (1982) The determination of collective behaviour. In Tajfel (Ed.) Social Identity and Intergroup Relations Cambridge, CUP, and Paris, Maison des Sciences de l'Homme.〕 criticized deindividuation theory for several reasons. Among others, historical evidence and case studies strongly suggested that the psychological process proposed by deindividuation theory (a loss of self) did not occur in the crowd.〔McPhail, C. (1991). ''The myth of the madding crowd.'' New York: de Gruyter.〕 A meta-analysis of empirical deindividuation research confirmed there was no consistent empirical evidence for the processes it proposed.〔Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and anti-normative behavior: A meta-analysis. ''Psychological Bulletin, 123'', 238–259.〕 To the contrary: anonymity and reduced self-awareness enhanced sensitivity to local norms. SIDE researchers concluded that there is no good empirical support for the process of deindividuation, and factors that should produce deindividuation have highly variable effects on behavior.〔Reicher, S., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161–198.〕 To account for this, SIDE proposes that there are no blanket indiscriminate effects of anonymity, but that anonymity effects are influenced by, and can only be understood through, their interaction with the social context. Reicher〔〔Reicher, S. (1987). Crowd behaviour as social action. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. Reicher & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), ''Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory'' (pp. 171–202). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.〕 also challenged the conceptualization of deindividuation as a loss of self. This process assumes that individuals have a unitary self-concept that they can be more or less aware of. Reicher and others argued that individuals do not have a unitary sense of self. Social identity theory, for instance, points out that one's sense of self is made up of personal identity and multiple social identities, all of which combine to shape one's personality. Social identities are likely to become the basis for self-definition when that social identity is salient, such as when making comparisons between “them” and “us.” One consequence of salience is “depersonalization.” Note that in research on social identity, depersonalization is not the same as deindividuation or a loss of self (cf. the entry on Depersonalization to read up on what it is not). In social identity research, the term depersonalization refers to a switch to a group level of self-categorization in which self and others are seen in terms of their group identities. According to Self-categorization theory,〔Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). ''Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory.'' Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.〕 depersonalization makes perceptions of the outgroup more stereotypical. Self-perceptions also shift: self and other ingroup members become interchangeable, and the individual self-stereotypes in terms of group attributes. Depersonalization thus transforms individuals into group members who regulate their behavior according to in-group norms. Importantly, and in contrast to deindividuation, the psychological state of depersonalization does not imply a loss of rationality or behavioural disinhibition; rather, the individual behaves rationally and regulates behaviour according to ingroup standards. These ideas from social identity theory and self-categorisation theory provided not only key ingredients for Reicher's critique of deindividuation theory, they are also the foundations upon which SIDE was modelled. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Social identity model of deindividuation effects」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|