A-level AQA Psychology 7182
A/A* level practice essay
3.3 Issues and options in Psychology
Option: Aggression
One social psychological explanation for aggression is the deindividuation theory. It was first
referred to by LeBon in 1895 and later coined by Festinger in 1952. It explores the
impersonal nature of aggression and explains reactive aggression as a consequence of
becoming immersed in a group. When we are in a large group the ‘collective mind’ takes
over and the crowd begins to act as one unit. This in turn leads to a loss of personal identity
and sense of responsibility for our actions. We therefore start to act irrationally and in a way
that deviates from social norms and standards. The conditions that promote deindividuation
include: masks, uniforms and anonymity - with anonymity being seen as the major motivator
because it means we are less identifiable and so less likely to face the consequences for our
behaviour. This is evident in real-life groups like the KKK who conceal their identity. For
example, John is aggressive because once he joined his mates, he became deindividuated
and his inhibitions were lowered. It also led to an ‘us’ and ‘them’ or ‘in-group/out-group’ effect
as he joined his own (in) football group to fight the rival (out) group.
Although the deindividuation theory is a plausible explanation for real-life examples of group
aggression like the violence of the KKK or the London riots of 2011, it is a limited explanation
for John’s aggression. This is because it is very difficult to separate the effects of
deindividuation from other explanations of aggression such as social learning. Some
sporting events such as football which attract huge crowds have had a long history of
violence and aggression on the pitch and from fans. For example, Millwall fans in the UK are
notorious for such violent behaviour. Yet, sports such as rugby and cricket also attract huge
crowds yet have not experienced these problems with anti-social behaviour that football fans
have witnessed. This suggests that the deindividuation theory is unlikely to be a plausible
explanation for John fighting his rival football team. His behaviour may be better explained
by cultural factors internalised through the process of social learning. The fact that we have
to consider another social psychological explanation of aggression to better understand
A/A* level practice essay
3.3 Issues and options in Psychology
Option: Aggression
One social psychological explanation for aggression is the deindividuation theory. It was first
referred to by LeBon in 1895 and later coined by Festinger in 1952. It explores the
impersonal nature of aggression and explains reactive aggression as a consequence of
becoming immersed in a group. When we are in a large group the ‘collective mind’ takes
over and the crowd begins to act as one unit. This in turn leads to a loss of personal identity
and sense of responsibility for our actions. We therefore start to act irrationally and in a way
that deviates from social norms and standards. The conditions that promote deindividuation
include: masks, uniforms and anonymity - with anonymity being seen as the major motivator
because it means we are less identifiable and so less likely to face the consequences for our
behaviour. This is evident in real-life groups like the KKK who conceal their identity. For
example, John is aggressive because once he joined his mates, he became deindividuated
and his inhibitions were lowered. It also led to an ‘us’ and ‘them’ or ‘in-group/out-group’ effect
as he joined his own (in) football group to fight the rival (out) group.
Although the deindividuation theory is a plausible explanation for real-life examples of group
aggression like the violence of the KKK or the London riots of 2011, it is a limited explanation
for John’s aggression. This is because it is very difficult to separate the effects of
deindividuation from other explanations of aggression such as social learning. Some
sporting events such as football which attract huge crowds have had a long history of
violence and aggression on the pitch and from fans. For example, Millwall fans in the UK are
notorious for such violent behaviour. Yet, sports such as rugby and cricket also attract huge
crowds yet have not experienced these problems with anti-social behaviour that football fans
have witnessed. This suggests that the deindividuation theory is unlikely to be a plausible
explanation for John fighting his rival football team. His behaviour may be better explained
by cultural factors internalised through the process of social learning. The fact that we have
to consider another social psychological explanation of aggression to better understand
