The Psychology of Cyberspace: how can nice people say such nasty things?
Meet Joe: average Joe, a little on the shy side but friendly enough. So how come he writes offensive comments on strangers’ blogs and occasionally posts revealing photos of himself on Facebook?
How come Britain’s first youth crime commissioner found herself at the centre of a media frenzy over alleged racist tweets?
It’s all due to the disinhibition effect, that sense of freedom that overtakes cyberâ€spacers. Actions in cyberspace can be seen as isolated incidents that bear little relation to the rest of one’s life and make people behave in ways they wouldn’t in the “real world”. People can open up and reveal intimate details to those they barely know, (benign disinhibition) or on the flipside say hurtful things in a very public forum (toxic disinhibition).
There are seven key factors that can cause this unexpected behaviour:
1) “You don’t know me” (dissociative anonymity)
The ability to remain relatively hidden can mean Joe feels less vulnerable. There is a degree of anonymity, which can encourage disclosure and fewer worries about the consequences.
2) “You can’t see me” (invisibility)
Physical invisibility heightens the sense of freedom; facial expressions cannot be seen, which can contribute to a more freely flowing conversation. Joe may say something over text or email that he would feel too awkward to say face to face.
3) “See you later” (asynchronicity)
Cyberspace offers a delayed version of interaction. Online Joe says something and his addressee may reply instantly, in a few minutes, hours, days, or even months. If Joe doesn’t want to read the reply he’ll turn his computer off and come back when he’s ready. This lack of immediate response in cyber conversations can result in an outpouring that would be naturally censored in a real life conversation (through the other person’s reactions).
4) “It’s all in my head” (solipsistic introjection)
The asynchronicity and invisibility can mean that Joe merges his voice subconsciously with that of the person he is talking/typing to. As Joe reads Sarah’s messages he subtly builds an image of her; a ‘character’ that is both her textual representation and Joe’s own expectations.
5) “It’s just a game” (dissociative imagination)
Joe’s constructed character, Sarah, can now produce an entire world of (online) make believe. The belief that online life is not as “real” can result in a further separation (dissociation) from actions. Joe may now say or do things he wouldn’t normally consider, possibly even going so far as to commit a crime like incitement to racial hatred. The justification needed to commit a crime is reduced when the world you inhabit is not a real one.
6) “We’re equals” (minimizing authority)
Unseen, unknown, the temptation for Joe to be whoever he wants to be is high. In theory, online interaction is a level playingâ€field; the ability to present oneself as one wishes is what counts. The Internet exists without centralised control.
7) Personality variables
Joe’s personality does inevitably have some influence on how he behaves online and there is the potential for these behaviours to be exaggerated according to the disinhibition effect.
When online, the boundary of what is me and what is not me can be easily blurred. The disinhibition effect is all about that separation of selves – whether the ‘true’ self is being revealed or one just behaves differently online, all of the actions are performed by the same person – and the consequences will descend on that person.
This sheds some light on the story of Paris Brown, Britain’s first youth crime commissioner. Here was a young person with enough social responsibility to apply for and be appointed to a public post that was to act as an official conduit between the police and young people of Kent. Yet she did not take up the post after a media storm erupted over her earlier tweets which at best could be described as inappropriate and at worst homophobic or racist.
She would not have gone to a job interview with the police while wearing a badge proclaiming, “I really wanna make a batch of hash brownies” and yet the disinhibition effect allowed her to tweet it.
The danger for organisations is that any media storm is bound to spread beyond the individual concerned. Paris Brown’s involvement with Kent Police put them in the spotlight as well.
To avoid these negative associations and to reduce legal exposure, organisations both need to have appropriate policies in place and to make sure their people understand the personal and professional consequences of communicating across cyberspace.
If you would like to talk over any of the issues raised here, please get in touch through www.expertâ€messaging.com