h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Interesting information on all counts. I was concerned that so many theories revolved around frustration.

I'd also be surprised if anyone suggested that there should be just one theory of aggression that covers all instances. This would be like looking for an ultimate, underlying joke behind all humour.

My question though is on Deindividuation. Have there been any studies relating this to Maslow's hierarchy of needs (specifically, the need to be accepted by the group), as opposed to personal aggressive tendencies?

i bet you thought no-one was interested in your question didn't you

well, you may find this interesting http://200.69.225.132/init/off-topic/aggression.html they say that deindividulation can only explain aggression in a group by a group but can not explain aggression in an individual acting alone which kinda makes sense as deindividulation is all about losing self awareness to the group.

In.ter.est.ing site

I'm glad for the extra information. I'm still at a bit of a loss, however. The site is written:
'This anonymity means that the subject can act freely with very little chance of feeling the consequences of his or her actions.'

Maslow's theory has me wondering if it's not 'acting freely with little chance of ... consequences for ... action', but fear of consequences of not joining the group actions.

It may be hard to prove that the aggressive behavior is 'free action' made possible by group approval, when it may be that fearing loss of approval forces the un-free or forced aggressive actions necessary to 'fit in' with the group, might it not?

so the actions come from a subconcious fear that they will be expelled from or not fit in with the group? are we verging on free will here?

Actually, any influence, for or against aggression, will affect a persons choices; but, it is always free will to respond or to not respond.

If the aggression is the preference, it could be facilitated by the action of the mob (as in the deindividuation theory).

Or, if non-aggression is the preference, it could be repressed for fear of rejection by not participating with the mob (as perhaps Maslow would argue).

I don't know which theory is correct; or, if neither or both theories contain some validity.

I guess my question is: Do the experts feel that they are certain that it is always one and not ever the other?

Deindividuation is an interesting concept, but perhaps not due to violence. To wit:

I am loony enough to walk in Los Angeles.

Cars are an absolute necesity here, instead of the luxury they'd be in the Bronx. The loss of a car here is a serious thing, and so the social pressures to harm thieves and vandals are pretty strong, too.

Also, I live in West Hollywood. Until the sherriff's department started an anti-hatecrime detail about 3 years ago, broken bottles, eggs, and epithets were flung in my direction on a weekly basis. My experience matches their data, that usually it's not just one man (and yes, it's always a guy) in the car, but 4 or more, in a newly acquired one. Also, usually, the perp looks pretty queer, so I interpret this behaviour even more strongly as a male/female difference, in that men are more acute to humiliation than they are to violence and women vice versa. But I digress, again.

The pride parade in June takes over a huge part of the city with enormous crowds. At the festival itself, it's impossible to go anywhere without bumping into people, and the dance floors are one giant mutual rub. But the event is almost devoid of violence. Personally, it's one of the only times of the year I feel free, and I know it's due to the crowd.

Am I being deindividuated? Is it sometimes a good thing to be a primate?

It sounds like one or both of the theories may be tied to the old aphorism 'safety in numbers'.

I'm glad to here that the anti-hate message seems to be working.

Forgive me if the example of four guys in a car sounds more like simple gang bullying, than mob rule. I have no reason to believe that the dynamics are measurably different; but, it makes me wonder how big the group has to be to make a psychological difference? It must depend on both the individuals predisposition to the action, and how easily swayed they are psychologically.

It would make an interesting study.

Uh, that should have been "I am glad to hear ..."