Deindividuation and Anger-Mediated Interracial Aggression: Unmasking Regressive Racism Ronald W. Rogers and Steven Prentice-Dunn University of Alabama A factorial experiment investigated the effects of deindividuation, anger, and race-of-victim on aggression displayed by groups of whites. Deindividuating situational cues produced an internal state of deindividuation that mediated aggressive behavior. Deindividuation theories were extended by the finding that the internal state of deindividuation was composed not only of the factors SelfAwareness and Altered Experience, but also Group Cohesiveness, Responsibility, and Time Distortion. As predicted, nonangered whites were less aggressive toward black than white victims, but angered whites were more aggressive toward blacks than whites. Interracial behavior was consistent with new, egalitarian norms if anger was not aroused, but regressed to the old, historical pattern of racial discrimination if anger was aroused. This pattern of interracial behavior was interpreted in terms of a new form of racism: regressive racism. Mob violence that has occurred since the time of the Roman republic has been attributed typically to short-term economic motives and political issues (cf. Rude, 1964). Economic and political motives, however, were inadequate to explain the torture, mutilation, and burning that frequently occurred in outbursts of interracial violence. Lynch mobs convinced social scientists that "the fundamental need was for a better understanding of the causes underlying the resort to mob violence" (Southern Commission on the Study of Lynching, 1931, p. 5). The major purpose of the present experiment was to examine interracial aggression within a group context, especially a context conducive to deindividuation. Deindividuation is a process in which antecedent social conditions lessen self-awareness and reduce concern with evaluation by others, thereby weakening restraints against the expression of undesirable behaviors (e.g., Diener, 1977; Zimbardo, 1970). Prentice- Dunn and Rogers (1980) provided the first confirmation of deindividuation theory's major assumption that deindividuating situational cues produce an internal state of deindividuation that mediates the display of aggressive behavior. The deindividuating cues lowered self-awareness and altered cognitive and affective experiences. This deindividuated state weakened restraints against behaving aggressively that are normally maintained by internal and external norms of social propriety. In the present study, therefore, we hypothesized that deindividuating situational cues would produce more aggression than individuating cues, and that an internal state of deindividuation would mediate the effects of deindividuating cues on antisocial behavior. Many problematic forms of interracial conflict occur in group contexts. The major contribution to our understanding of interracial aggression has come from the Donnersteins' research program (cf. Donnerstein & Donnerstein, 1976), which has focused on The authors gratefully acknowledge Kevin O'Brien, situations involving one aggressor and one Henry Mixon, George Smith, and Rod Walls for their victim; no published studies have examined assistance in collecting the data. Requests for reprints should be sent to Ronald W. interracial agression displayed by a group Rogers, Department of Psychology, University of Ala- of whites toward a black individual. The bama, University, Alabama 35486. present experiment examined interracial Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1981, Vol. 41, No. 1, 63-73 Copyright 1981 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/81/410I-0063S00.75 63 64 RONALD W. ROGERS AND STEVEN PRENTICE-DUNN aggression in a group setting in which angry aggressors were deindividuated. This social situation approximates many naturalistic situations. Studies of interracial aggression have consistently shown that the strength of aggression directed toward a different-race victim varies as a function of, for example, potential censure (Donnerstein & Donnerstein, 1973), threatened retaliation (Donnerstein, Donnerstein, Simon, & Ditrichs, 1972), and the victim's expression of suffering (Baron, 1979; Griffin & Rogers, 1977). Donnerstein and Donnerstein (1976) have reported that, in a variety of conditions, white subjects manifest less direct aggression toward black than white victims. Griffin and Rogers (1977) interpreted their white subjects' more lenient treatment of blacks than whites in terms of "reverse discrimination" (cf. Dutton, 1976): To avoid appearing prejudiced, whites treated blacks more favorably (i.e., less aggressively) than they treated whites. Reverse discrimination is the overt manifestation of white people's viewing themselves as egalitarian and feeling threatened by the prospect of appearing prejudiced. Blacks would not be expected to display reverse discrimination, and studies of blacks' aggression have confirmed they do not (Wilson & Rogers, 1975). Both blacks' and whites' behavior, however, can be traced to the same underlying source: Both races seem to be "reacting against the older, traditional patterns for their races" (Griffin & Rogers, 1977, p. 157). For whites, the historical pattern of appropriate behavior toward blacks was racial discrimination and inferior treatment. Although whites may have negative attitudes on several specific issues such as blacks' economic gains (Ross, Vanneman, & Pettigrew, 1976) and race riots (Davis & Fine, 1975), survey data indicate that the new norm is an egalitarian view of the races (Brigham & Wrightsman, in press; Campbell, 1971; Taylor, Sheatsley, & Greeley, 1978). This new norm is especially prevalent among college students. Surveys at the university where the present study was conducted confirmed that the current norm among white students is an unprejudiced, egalitarian view of the races (Rosenberg, Note 1). Theoretically, reverse discrimination is a product of this relatively new egalitarian view of blacks (Dutton, 1976). For blacks, the historical pattern of appropriate interracial behavior was to inhibit aggression toward whites and to displace it to fellow blacks. The new norms favor more militancy, antiwhite attitudes, and overt hostility toward whites (Caplan, 1970; Wilson & Rogers, 1975). The new norms for blacks and whites represent dramatic departures from the deep-rooted values of the past. Both races have been found to act on these new norms if they are not emotionally aroused by a verbal insult. Thus, blacks are more aggressive towards white than black targets (Wilson & Rogers, 1975), and whites are more aggressive toward white than black targets (Griffin & Rogers, 1977). But what happens to behavior based on these new norms if the aggressors are insulted? Baron (1979) reported a three-way interaction effect among race-of-victim, insult, and pain cues. An examination of the conditions comparble to those to be studied in the present experiment (i.e., Baron's nopain-cues condition) indicated that when white subjects were not insulted, black victims received less aggression than white victims (i.e., reverse discrimination); if insulted, the level of aggression expressed toward blacks increased, but did not significantly differ from the level directed toward the white victims. Since we wish to understand interracial aggression in general and not merely whites' behavior toward blacks, let us also examine blacks' aggression toward whites. To interpret the interracial aggressive behavior of blacks, Wilson and Rogers (1975) suggested that emotional arousal produced a regression to a chronologically earlier mode of responding. The data from that experiment were interpreted as evidence that blacks' behavior could be understood as a product of "the conflict between new militant norms and the residue of oppression" (p. 857). Anger-mediated aggression should not be as firmly under the cognitive control of new norms of in-group solidarity and pride. The black students had been exposed to the traditional DEINDIVIDUATION AND INTERRACIAL AGGRESSION 65 values of in-group rejection and out-group however, the effects of anger in a group conpreference for many years before the ap- text have not been investigated. Virtually all pearance of the Black Power movement. studies of deindividuation and aggression They undoubtedly retained some residual have involved unprovoked aggression. Yet, symptoms. Thus, when they became emo- anger adds an important theoretical and aptionally aroused, the new values, which had plied dimension to our understanding of mob not been fully internalized, gave way to the violence. It was hypothesized that insult, or older, more traditional pattern. Similarly, anger arousal, would facilitate the expresthe young white adults in the present study sion of aggression among members of small had been exposed during their socialization groups. to the older tradition of belief in black inOne class of deindividuation theories posferiority. tulates that deindividuated behavior is not The foregoing considerations converge to influenced by usual discriminative stimuli. suggest an interaction between race-of-vic- It may be derived from these theories that tim and insult variables. If whites are not prior insult would have less impact on deangered, we predicted that they would dis- individuated than individuated group memplay reverse discrimination, directing weaker bers. On the other hand, it may be derived attacks against blacks than against whites. from Diener's (1980) theory that "because If angered, we hypothesized that whites self-regulation is minimized or eliminated would regress to the traditional pattern, dis- the deindividuated person is more susceptiplaying more aggression toward blacks than ble to the influences of immediate stimuli, toward whites. emotions [e.g., anger], and motivations" (p. One class of deindividuation theories sug- 211, italics added). gests that victim characteristics (e.g., difThere are several limitations to deriving ferent race) become less salient under con- predictions of interaction effects from these ditions of deindividuation. For Festinger, two classes of deindividuation theories. First, Pepitone, and Newcomb (1952), the defin- neither theory explicitly states how the variing characteristic of deindividuation is that ables of insult or different-race victim would individuals are not paid attention to as in- interact with deindividuation. Thus, other dividuals. As elaborated by Zimbardo interpretations are possible. Second, the (1970), deindividuated behavior is not under form of the interaction effect may vary as the controlling influence of usual discrimi- a function of the strength of the deindividnative stimuli; it is "unresponsive to features uation state. The present study is certainly of the situation, the target, the victim" (p. not an experimentum crucis, but perhaps it 259). Based upon this theoretical position, can shed light on the interaction of deindiany differential treatment of different-race viduation and anger-mediated interracial victims should vanish when group members aggression. become deindividuated. On the other hand, Diener's (1980) theory of less extreme forms Method of deindividuation postulates that crowd members are more responsive to external Design and Subjects stimuli as a result of the focus of attention A 2 X 2 X 2 factorial design was employed with three shifting away from the self. It is plausible between-subjects manipulations: (a) deindividuating versus individuating cues, (b) white versus black to infer that any differential treatment of cues victim, and (c) no insult versus insult. Ninety-six male different-race victims should be enhanced by introductory psychology students participated in the deindividuation. Therefore, the present study experiment to earn extra credit. Twelve subjects were was designed to test these two alternative randomly assigned to each cell. predictions. Verbal attack, or insult, is a potent and Apparatus well-established antecedent of aggression in The shock apparatuses were modified Buss aggression dyadic situations involving one aggressor machines connected to a polygraph. Each of the four and one victim (see review by Baron, 1977); aggression machines had 10 pushbutton switches that 66 RONALD W. ROGERS AND STEVEN PRENTICE-DUNN could be depressed to deliver "shocks" of progressively increasing intensity. Of course, shocks were not actually delivered. A Grason-Stadler noise generator (Model 901 A) was used to produce white noise in the deindividuating cues condition. Procedure The procedure was highly similar to one we had used previously (Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1980). Subjects arrived in groups of five; four were naive participants and one was our assistant. The study was explained as a combination of two experiments. The subjects had signed up for an experiment entitled "Behavior Modification" and were to be tested together. Our assistant, ostensibly another introductory psychology student, had volunteered for a study labeled "Biofeedback." After the experimenter determined who had volunteered for each topic, the biofeedback subject was sent to another room to receive detailed instructions for the biofeedback study. After hearing explanations of the concepts of behavior modification and biofeedback, the four white behavior modifiers were told that the response of interest in both studies was heart rate. It was indicated that the biofeedback subject would be attempting to maintain his heart rate at a predesignated, high level. Whenever his heart rate fell below the predetermined level, the behavior modifiers would administer 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 where behavior modifiers 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 subject was asked if he had any quesitons about or any objections to the use of electric shock. All questions were answered and no one declined to participate. In addition, written informed consent was obtained. Two mild sample shocks were administered to the behavior modifiers (i.e., the subjects) via finger electrode. The shocks were from Switches 4 (.3 mA) and 6 (.45 mA) on the aggression machine and each lasted for 1 sec. These samples were administered to convince the subjects that the apparatus really worked and to give them some idea of the shocks they would be delivering. The behavior modification subjects were then taken to an adjoining room, seated at aggression machines with partitions that blocked observation of others' responses (thus, responses were experimentally independent), and given instructions for operating the shock apparatus. Each time the biofeedback subject's heart rate fell below the predetermined level, a signal light would be illuminated on their panels. It was explained that the higher the level chosen and the longer the switch was depressed, the stronger the shock administered would be. The "shock" received by the biofeedback subject was alleged to be the average of the intensities and durations selected by the four behavior modifiers. 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 shocks all had equal effects on the biofeedback subject's heart rate, so the naive subjects 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 the experiment. Use of any intensity greater than "1" would only result in additional pain to the biofeedback subject. Each group was presented with 20 signal lights over the course of the experiment. The interval between the appearance of any two signals was initially chosen randomly, ranging from 20-50 sec. The intervals were then held constant across subsequent trials. The experimenter then left to bring the biofeedback subject from a waiting room to the experimental room. The doors were left open, so that subjects heard the final 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 cues and individuating ones. In the deindividuating cues condition, the experimenter did not address subjects by name. They were informed that the shocks they used were of no interest to the experimenter and that he would not know which intensities and durations they selected (anonymity to the experimenter). Subjects were further informed that they would not meet or see the biofeedback subject (anonymity to the victim). The experimenter indicated that he assumed full responsibility for the biofeedback subject's well-being (no responsibility for harm-doing). Finally, white noise was played at 65 dB (SPL) in the dimly lit room under the guise of eliminating any extraneous noise from the hall or other experimental rooms (arousal). Prentice-Dunn and Rogers (1980) have shown that such manipulations decrease the subjects' feelings of identifiability and self-awareness. In the individuating cues condition, the subjects wore name tags and were addressed on a first-name basis. As in Zimbardo's (1970) study, the "unique reactions" of each subject were emphasized, and the experimenter expressed his interest in the shock intensities and durations used by the subjects. Subjects were informed that they would meet the biofeedback subject on completing 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. A second independent variable, race of victim, was manipulated through the use of four experimental assistants, two whites and two blacks. Assistants were assigned to the treatment cells randomly, with the exception that they appeared an equal number of times in each treatment combination. Analyzing this "assistants" factor as an additional variable in the factorial DEINDIVIDUATION AND INTERRACIAL AGGRESSION design yielded no main or interaction effects. Thus, the data from the assistants of each race were pooled in the analyses reported below. The third independent variable was introduced when the behavior modifiers overheard a conversation in an adjoining room between the experimenter and the biofeedback subject. This conversation took place immediately after the naive subjects received their instructions. This insult manipulation was operationalized as a series of questions and answers between the experimenter and the biofeedback subject (i.e., our assistant). Care was taken that the insulting remarks applied to all of the subjects and were devoid of any racial content or connotation. In the insult condition, the biofeedback subject, when asked if he objected to the behavior modifiers shocking him, responded that the equipment looked complicated and he wondered if people who appeared as dumb as the behavior modifiers did could follow instructions properly. When the experimenter reiterated the biofeedback subject's option to withdraw from the experiment, the biofeedback subject answered that he hoped the behavior modifiers were not as stupid as they appeared. Finally, when asked by the experimen ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment