Anonymity and Anti-Social Behavior

[ladsin]

Anonymity has long been considered a factor in promoting anti-social behavior. Many hypothesize that this may be the case because of a lower probability or perception of probability of getting caught on the part of the actor. This may indeed be the case. Today I'm just going to discuss some of the research on the subject. Read on if you enjoy this sort of thing.

Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters by Diener, E., Fraser, S. C., Beaman, A. L., & Kelem, R. T. (1976) is an interesting look into the various causes of antisocial behavior amongst children. In this particular study children were invited into an individuals home during Halloween and asked to take only one piece of candy/ coin and then an excuse was given for why the researcher had to walk away. In order to test for varying levels of theft (antisocial behavior) three variables were observed.

The first variable was whether or not the child was anonymous, rather, whether or not the researcher had asked for the child's name and address prior to leaving. The second was whether or not the child was alone or in a group, and the last was whether or not the blame had been shifted to a particular individual. This third variable was determined by the researcher saying something akin to, "if any extra candy/ coins are missing person X will be held responsible."

* I DO NOT OWN*

As can be seen by the graph anonymity was highly correlated with a child's likelihood to steal, and this trend could be skyrocket under different conditions.

Milgram's Various Studies I talked about these earlier in, https://www.girlsaskguys.com/social-relationships/a51500-just-following-orders but I'd like to point out here that anonymity was one of the factors looked into by Milgram, and those who had some semblance of anonymity, namely distance and physical separation, were far more likely to electrocute the other participant.

The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos by Zimbardo showed similar findings to the Milgram experiments, but in this particular study he looked at women who had more overt signs of anonymity. In this particular study their were two groups. One group of women had their faces with a mask similar to a KKK hood and were assigned a number and referred to only as their number; whereas, the other group of women had their faces revealed and were frequently called by their name. According to Zimbardo the women in the former condition were far more likely to shock their counterparts and did so for a longer period of time. An interesting caveat to this study was that these trends were reversed among military personnel which Zimbardo hypothesized was because they felt separated from their group when covered.

PS: I'm sure many of you would like me to point out the Stanford Experiments here as well. I won't because I'm not your puppet.

Robbers in the classroom: a deindividuation exercise by Dodd was a self report study which asked individuals what they would do if they were guaranteed anonymity. These responses were then categorized into antisocial, prosocial, nonnormative, and neutral. Perhaps not surprisingly, the results were that quite a lot of people reported that they would act in antisocial ways, despite socially desirable responses the statistics were, "36% of the responses were antisocial, 19% nonnormative, 36% neutral and only 9% prosocial."

Anyway, that's enough for today. As always, thanks if you made it this far, criticisms would be appreciated. Perhaps I'll do my next Take on deindividuation as a whole. We'll see.

[Good_Behavior]

I don't think anonymity has this effect.

I look at the children and note that those in an identified group seemed more willing to commit a crime than those who were disassociated with the person who would be blamed. While groups that weren't identified committed the crime more often than those who were something must be noted of the fact that identification somehow prevented individuals from "blaming" another person.

In short it wasn't anonymity but pure collusion that granted a greater bravery and both instances were group based which creates a standard for actual behavior in my opinion. The amount that thievery went up by individuals who were alone wasn't as significant so anonymity would be the weakest suggestion overall, or rather, being alone itself is preclusion to avoidance of criminal activity despite anonymity.

I would pose that instead of anonymity there's a distinct type of integrity that forms when information is given. In fact this is well documented where you can give a very small amount of information to get people to open up and trust you and in turn they will be more likely to reciprocate respect and not as likely to act as though you were anonymous and a stranger. In other words it isn't the children who acted due to anonymity but instead the fact that the researcher was anonymous to the children and therefore it became more or less a victimless crime. The same thing would be plausible for the blaming problem, and the extreme difference in the experiments, where when each child states where they live etc. and introduces themselves they are sharing with the group and thus the group recognizes them as an actual member. In the event where no names are taken there's no value or the scapegoat is merely a by-stander.

I think this is a significantly greater and more encompassing explanation for why people act as they do online. The reason I say this is that everyone here is anonymous, double-anonymity however does not seem to bring out greater voracious behavior but instead seems to be more prone to appearance with expression of more intimate knowledge. In short, it's a distancing mechanism, people post most anonymously so that they can share details they don't want to be identified or connected with even in covert anonymity.

GaG's double anonymity has always fascinated me because the depth of which people are willing to go under the covert position is significantly greater. Furthermore people tend to be more compassionate when...

[Good_Behavior]

distanced from concepts that bring shame. For instance you'll get anonymity regarding topics like dishonesty in relationships or abuse or anything in which, especially in the sense of justification of a wrong, there is sympathy. While most people notice anonymity in cruelty generally speaking that doesn't seem to be the overarching case in my point of view.

I think that anonymity, especially double-anonymity, allows people to actually maintain individual integrity while also deriving the distance required to be able to comfortably come forward.

[ladsin]

Cool, I'm glad to see that you put thought into it. Did you look at the other studies?

Im not sure if you saw this, and didn't find it compelling, but in the graph I gave it is shown that those in the "anonymous" situation were at a minimum ~three times more likely than their identified peers on each variable.

[Good_Behavior]

I did see that misbehavior increased when anonymity was allowed and that doesn't surprise me so I am not saying that anonymity has no effect, just not this effect, or rather the greatest and grossest behaviors seemed to be group-based meaning that when there was a stooge and anonymity people were far more likely to act up than when there was no stooge BUT groups who seemed cohesive ALSO seemed to act worse under anonymity which tells me that there's far more weight in the cases themselves (quantitatively versus behavior by ratio) in which groups are present.

If anonymity were the main cause everything should rise directly proportionately which means that the essentially 8:1 ratio of maladaptive behaviors when there's a stooge shouldn't exist and the explosion of group-based behavior also shouldn't exist unless we acknowledge that collusion exists which is far more indicative of the "victimless crime" mentality.

[Good_Behavior]

To be frank it seems to me that groups work in two different ways. The first is that groups tend to take care of those that they know of, hence trust, hence the distinctly lower value for the stooge problem and then groups tend to collude better against an unknown entity, in this case the researcher, with an overall cohesive ability to lower the imperative good of others for the good of the group.

Makes total sense with how people tend to behave in real-life; white collar criminals for instance often have collusions where they are harming "faceless victims" while making a lot of money or acquiring a lot of power. In the case where we can frame someone else that collusion only worsens.

In the case of working alone while risk behavior goes up (and this may be more true of males than females, I don't know, didn't look that closely) in general it stays far more stable between cases.

[ladsin]

Ah. Perhaps there's some confusion. I didn't claim it was the only or greatest factor...

Peer Influence on Deviant Behavior in Youth ↗
Last nights

[Good_Behavior]

So the idea here is just to show that anonymity can cause deviance? Because then, yes, anonymity will cause some deviance.

[ladsin]

I just write a myTake a night. I tend to read 4-5 articles about a subject that interests me, summarize, an redistribute that information. I'm doing this to get back into the habit as I'm preparing to apply to graduate programs.

Additionally I think the subject matter interesting.

The idea of this was to look into one factor involved in antisocial behavior.

[Good_Behavior]

That's a good way to keep the mind healthy and expand!

[ladsin]

I try

[cherryphi82]

This is true. You see this type of behavior right here on GAG. The anonymous posters are usually the negative ones and the people who attack, personal name calling, etc.

[jakeforfun]

Oh, I totally agree. It happened to me here.

[cherryphi82]

@jakeforfun Sorry to hear. That's no fun.

[nightdrot]

As we discussed this elswhere, I don't have a lot to add. This is actually a really well understood phenomenon - and has been. It has, interestingly, very significant political implications, too.

See also Edmund Burke: " But where popular authority is absolute and unrestrained, the people have an infinitely greater, because a far better founded confidence in their own power. They are themselves, in a great measure, their own instruments. They are nearer to their objects. Besides, they are less under responsibility to one of the greatest controlling powers on earth, the sense of fame and estimation. The share of infamy that is likely to fall to the lot of each individual in public acts, is small indeed; the operation of opinion being in inverse ratio to the number of those who abuse power. Their own approbation of their own acts has to them the appearance of a public judgment in their favour. A perfect democracy is therefore the most shameless thing in the world. As it is the most shameless, it is also the most fearless. No man apprehends in his person he can be made subject to punishment. Certainly the people at large never ought: for as all punishments are for example towards the conservation of the people at large, the people at large can never become the subject of punishment by any human hand."

Note that last bit. It is also partly why the Founders created a mixed system. Recognizing that legitimacy derived from democratic consent, but that democracy affords the individual anonymity and a lesser standard of responsibility for his individual choices. In that context, then - as your article very effectively demonstrated - bad things can happen.

Suffice to say, as we discussed elsewhere, this has significant implications, particularly in the age of Twitter and social media and all the rest. In effect, they allow individuals to slip the bonds of individual accountability. On a collective societal scale, that has not insignificant implications.

[JimRSmith]

Plenty of evidence of this on here, every day...

[ladsin]

Yeah, I thought about pointing that out actually XD

As well as an article I read about this phenomena even extending to academic articles, but the research was more about a case study and dealt with the peer review process than specifically antisocial behaviors. Perhaps a little schadenfreude was present as well.

[Anonymous]

The BuzzFeed network, owned by Kenneth Lerer and Jonah Peretti and home of the lowest testosterone levels on the Internet, now focuses on segments trying to normalise the lives of the deranged male and female prostitutes selling themselves on camera.
They recently took a step further by uploading videos where they advertise the clothing line of video procurer and greasy peddler Greg Lansky, while portraying the “porn lifestyle” as normal and fun for their young audience.
Buzzfeed has endorsed Lansky, a particularly deviant character I have written about in the past, as “mainstream” by flaunting his brain-dead circus animals and his cuckoldry-celebrating jewelry and underwear brand on their sites.
The specimens portrayed are described as “adult performers” when the terminology should be “video prostitutes,” but BuzzFeed has to appeal to its audience: soyboys who fantasise about other men banging their love interests.
The women that are celebrated for following this self-destructive path of pseudo-fame, STDs, and narcotic-fuelled binges have collected several hundreds—if not thousands—of sexual partners. Their mental issues come out clearly after only a few seconds of hearing them talk.
The useful idiot (in the purest subversive, cultural Marxist sense of the term) that is the pornographic “actor” accepts money in order to perform sexual tricks on camera, like a circus dog. And instead of being rightfully denounced, the MSM actively tries to normalise them, even allowing them to reach a relative status of fame. These types of parasitic people can only thrive in a gangrenous society.
The long-term goal of pornography is total addiction, the normalisation of marginal sexual practices, and the total disruption of healthy human sexuality. It is a psychological weapon, hence why it is free and has became so widespread.
These women are paraded for a little while and will be replaced once they age, but the rights to exploit their holes online will go on forever and will still be profitable long after they are dead. When they are confronted with these facts, male and female pornographers only follow one line of defense, very feminine in nature: they argue with holes.
This propaganda arm of cultural Marxism is now consolidating its position as Cuck Central, a pact signed with the degeneracy of pornography.

[Opinion Owner]

A channel specifically designed for a large audience of younger viewers with a short attention span. These videos will be seen by tens of thousands of children, who will be brainwashed into seeing pornography as trendy and harmless.
But there is some good news nonetheless. This morbid fashion, just like CuckFeed itself, is bound to die, for their business model of shocking, overtly-partisan fake news and absence of substance simply does not sell. Those videos will also stop at some point, not because they will change their agenda, but they will soon run out of useful idiots to film, considering the fact that video prostitutes tend to end their lives rather frequently.
Buzzfeed is Gawker on life support. But even a wounded parasitic beast can still cause harm.

[ladsin]

Ay. Sex is scary. o.aolcdn.com/.../...+2014-07-01+at+12.45.16+PM.png

[MichaelN1991]

I see a lot of comments in respect to performing bad behavior as a reason to be anonymous or incognito. However, being anti social today is generally avoiding social media, ie. Facebook, Instagram... A lot of people find social media impersonal, and at times cowardly because people will say things that are cruel or offensive in a comment since no one can physically hurt them. In other words people avoid conflicts. I have friends that avoid Facebook, because they don't want people creeping them or random people to know their personal life. For my generation, millennials being anti social is considered not being on every social media site. Yet, when I try to be personal and physically talk to people, it is considered weird. I think technology has certainly changed what is being social in this day and age. Doing business is through email and online exchanges. Social life is just different now!

[ladsin]

"Antisocial behaviour is defined as “behaviour by a person which causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as the person”

This is more along the lines of what we're talking about in this regard.

[Ahsthen]

Bing bing bing. I'm on none of those sites.

[ladsin]

@Ahsthen hmm?

[stillagoodgirl]

Wow then that really tells you their true colors... doing something bad they know that they'd get away with.

I think I saw something similar on tv where they could shock patients without them being seen through the double sided mirror. It was a fake thing where the patients acted like they were actually being electrocuted but still surprising to see how many people pressed the shock button on a patient who's a stranger.

[ladsin]

The milgram experiments, yeah I mentioned those 😅

[ladsin]

Just Following Orders ↗

[stillagoodgirl]

Oh I guess the show I watched was a spin off from that. The show was recent though and didn't have any KKK looking lady

[ladsin]

No; I was saying that you were referencing the Milgram experiments that I talked about here. In this myTake, the link was just more

[stillagoodgirl]

Oh I thought yours was the original experience and the thing I watched was a reenactment

[RolandCuthbert]

Great take again Ladsin! Anonymity I think drives a lot of disgusting behavior on social media. You are good at this man!

I would like to also add, that this is something I think we all will have to deal with on platforms like Facebook or Twitter. We need to stop the ability of users to post hurtful or disgusting things anonymously.

Thanks for this take!

[ladsin]

I appreciate the compliment.
Yeah, I thought about adding that I was reading in preparation for this Take I read an article about this same phenomena within academic circles, particularly in the peer review process, but I decided not to add it. I just didn't because it was more of a case study/ thought experiment that didn't have any real grounding. I have no doubt that it occurs, it was just that the writer was an English professor talking about it and there was no methodology by which to test it so I left us with what we've got. Plus the author seemed to be talking a good bit about schadenfreude so I don't know

[tek555_pessimist]

Thanks, quite interesting. I suppose it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective to chose outcomes that maximize their own situation (often at the cost of others) when it is guaranteed there will be no cost borne by them. I suspect it also ties into the tragedy of the commons as well.

[ladsin]

That and as can be seen with other methods of deindividuation in preference for the group as opposed to the individual

[WalterRadio]

However, when information about any individual can be known by typing a few keystrokes from anywhere in the world, privacy doesn't exist without anonymity.

[ladsin]

I don't understand the relevance, can you explain?

[WalterRadio]

You have pointed out a negative aspect of anonymity. I pointed out a positive aspect of it.

[ladsin]

Ah, gotcha. Thanks

[jacquesvol]

https://i.imgur.com/gUrk5An.jpg

[ladsin]

Gracias

[jacquesvol]

de nada :)

[Political_dude]

estupendo

[ladsin]

@Political_dude Mucho appreciando

[Waffles731]

globalnerdy.com/.../...internet-fuckwad-theory.jpg

[Kaneki05]

I am anit social until someone goes out of the way to talk to me. And people who post stuff on this site anonymous i find like what is the point it don't make sense.

[Revolver_]

https://i.imgur.com/gUrk5An.jpg

[ShesAmerican]

People who go on anonymous and hate are the biggest pussies I've ever seen

[BigJake]

Yeah, absolutely. That, plus the fact that at least 50% of humanity is scum, makes the internet a nasty place.

[ovi2boss]

I had anti-social behaviour long before I had internet.

[ladsin]

There are more forms of anonymity than the internet. In fact I didn't even mention the internet XD

[ovi2boss]

Oh sorry I didn't read all your take. It seem so long for me 😂😂 I apologize for that, I am really sorry for posting the commnet.

[ladsin]

Haha most people don't it's cool stuff though. You should read it XD

[ladsin]

This is actually a shorter one from me XD

[LegateLanius]

Thank you. That was quite informative.

[CT_CD]

A very interesting myTake

[Nice222]

Great take

[Anonymous]

Dont worry. Privacy is a thing of the past