DQ 1 : Could deindividuation lead to positive outcomes?
PSY 663 Topic 7 DQ 1 looks like a two-line opinion prompt, but the expected answer runs against the riot-and-mob version of deindividuation most students arrive with — so the work is knowing which evidence overturned it and how to fit that into a 200-word APA 7 post that cannot use a single quotation.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · July 28, 2026
What is PSY 663 Topic 7 DQ 1 really testing?
Four questions are stacked in this prompt, but the third one — could deindividuation lead to positive outcomes? — is the one that separates a strong post from an average one, and it is a trap for anyone answering from memory.
The defensible answer is yes, and not out of optimism. The classical account you have probably met in the course reading (Le Bon's crowd mind, Festinger's submergence, Zimbardo's anonymity work) says immersion in a group dissolves the self, and a dissolved self is an uninhibited one — so crowds trend antisocial. If that account were right, this question would be close to nonsense. The revision says something structurally different: anonymity does not remove normative control, it relocates it. Immersed in a crowd you stop regulating against your personal standards and start regulating against whichever norm the situation makes salient.
That is why Johnson and Downing (1979) matters more here than any riot example. The same deindividuating manipulation — hoods, no name tags — produced more shocks when participants wore Ku Klux Klan-style robes and fewer when they wore nurses' uniforms. The anonymity was constant; the salient cue flipped, and so did the behaviour. Postmes and Spears (1998) then ran sixty studies through a meta-analysis and found little support for either a deindividuated state or a reliable antinormative effect. So the honest answer to the prompt is that deindividuation is norm-amplifying rather than norm-destroying, and a crowd whose salient identity is prosocial produces prosocial behaviour.
The fourth question hides a second problem: it has two correct answers, and they contradict each other. The classical answer is to restore self-awareness and identifiability — name badges, cameras, mirrors, visible accountability — on the premise that individuals behave better when they can see themselves being individuals. The SIDE answer is close to the opposite: do not try to de-anonymise the crowd, change which identity is salient, because anonymity is what lets a shared identity govern in the first place. Naming only one of these, without saying which model you are reasoning from, is the shallow version of this answer. Naming both and choosing is the graded version.
One more signal worth catching: the instructor put "normal" values in scare quotes. That is a hint that the framing itself is in question. Under the social identity reading, crowd behaviour is not a departure from a person's values at all — it is governance by a different, equally real set of values. A post that notices the quotation marks and says something about them is engaging with the prompt rather than processing it.
Finally, an administrative collision that costs marks quietly. The discussion-question instructions set a 150-word minimum; the welcome announcement in the same posting sets 200 words for an initial post and requires at least two references. Write to 200. The announcement also caps sources at five years old unless recommended for the class — and the evidence this question actually turns on is from 1979, 1995 and 1998. Pair each seminal citation with a current source, or state plainly that you are citing it as a seminal work.
Likely learning objectives
- Distinguish the classical deindividuation account (Le Bon, Festinger, Zimbardo) from the social identity revision, since the assessor is likely rewarding awareness that the 'loss of self' mechanism has been contested rather than a fluent restatement of it.
- Argue from evidence that deindividuation amplifies whichever norm is situationally salient, rather than asserting a position on the prosocial question and leaving it unsupported.
- Apply the theory to one concrete crowd you can describe, so the 'how does being in a group change your behaviour' half is grounded rather than hypothetical.
- Recognise that the intervention question has competing answers under competing models, and commit to one while acknowledging the other — a discrimination the marker can see and a hedge cannot fake.
- Practise the paraphrase-only citation discipline this brief requires, which is a harder skill than quoting and is explicitly graded here.
Assignment instructions
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
PSY 663 Topic 7 Discussions GCU DQ 1 : Could deindividuation lead to positive outcomes? Consider how being part of a crowd or group changes your behavior. How can deindividuation change people’s behavior? Could deindividuation lead to positive outcomes? What is a way to encourage members of a crowd to behave in line with their “normal” values?
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts. Contact me if you have any questions. Important information on Writing a Discussion Question Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references) There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article. Include in-text citations in your response Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information Follow APA-7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week. Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references) Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count. Follow APA 7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points. Here are some helpful links Student paper example Citing Sources The Writing Center is a great resource Welcome to class Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to. I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you. Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations. Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements. Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week. I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course! PSY 663 Topic 7 Discussions GCU Grading Rubric Guidelines Performance Category 10 9 8 4 0 Scholarliness Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional and academic decisions. Provides relevant evidence of scholarly inquiry clearly stating how the evidence informed or changed professional or academic decisions Evaluates literature resources to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. Uses valid, relevant, and reliable outside sources to contribute to the threaded discussion Provides relevant evidence of scholarly inquiry but does not clearly state how the evidence informed or changed professional or academic decisions. Evaluates information from source(s) to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Uses some valid, relevant, reliable outside sources to contribute to the threaded discussion. Discusses using scholarly inquiry but does not state how scholarly inquiry informed or changed professional or academic decisions. Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Little valid, relevant, or reliable outside sources are used to contribute to the threaded discussion. Demonstrates little or no understanding of the topic. Discusses using scholarly inquiry but does not state how scholarly inquiry informed or changed professional or academic decisions. Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/evaluation. The posting uses information that is not valid, relevant, or reliable No evidence of the use of scholarly inquiry to inform or change professional or academic decisions. Information is not valid, relevant, or reliable Performance Category 10 9 8 4 0 Application of Course Knowledge – Demonstrate the ability to analyze, synthesize, and/or apply principles and concepts learned in the course lesson and outside readings and relate them to real-life professional situations Posts make direct reference to concepts discussed in the lesson or drawn from relevant outside sources; Applies concepts to personal experience in the professional setting and or relevant application to real life. Posts make direct reference to concepts discussed in the lesson or drawn from relevant outside sources. Applies concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life Interactions with classmates are relevant to the discussion topic but do not make direct reference to lesson content Posts are generally on topic but do not build knowledge by incorporating concepts and principles from the lesson. Does not attempt to apply lesson concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life Does not demonstrate a solid understanding of the principles and concepts presented in the lesson Posts do not adequately address the question posed either by the discussion prompt or the instructor’s launch post. Posts are superficial and do not reflect an understanding of the lesson content Does not attempt to apply lesson concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life Posts are not related to the topics provided by the discussion prompt or by the instructor; attempts by the instructor to redirect the student are ignored No discussion of lesson concepts to personal experience in the professional setting and or relevant application to real life Performance Category 5 4 3 2 0 Interactive Dialogue Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts a minimum of two times in each graded thread, on separate days. (5 points possible per graded thread) Exceeds minimum post requirements Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts three or more times in each graded thread, over three separate days. Replies to a post posed by faculty and to a peer Summarizes what was learned from the lesson, readings, and other student posts for the week. Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts a minimum of two times in each graded thread, on separate days Replies to a question posed by a peer Summarizes what was learned from the lesson, readings, and other student posts for the week. Meets expectations of 2 posts on 2 different days. The main post is not made by the Wednesday deadline Does not reply to a question posed by a peer or faculty Has only one post for the week Discussion posts contain few, if any, new ideas or applications; often are a rehashing or summary of other students’ comments Does not post to the thread No connections are made to the topic Minus 1 Point Minus 2 Point Minus 3 Point Minus 4 Point Minus 5 Point Grammar, Syntax, APA Note: if there are only a few errors in these criteria, please note this for the student in as an area for improvement. If the student does not make the needed corrections in upcoming weeks, then points should be deducted. Points deducted for improper grammar, syntax and APA style of writing. The source of information is the APA Manual 6th Edition 2-3 errors in APA format. Written responses have 2-3 grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors. Writing style is generally clear, focused, and facilitates communication. 4-5 errors in APA format. Writing responses have 4-5 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing style is somewhat focused. 6-7 errors in APA format. Writing responses have 6-7 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing style is slightly focused making discussion difficult to understand. 8-10 errors in APA format. Writing responses have 8-10 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing style is not focused, making discussion difficult to understand. Post contains greater than 10 errors in APA format. Written responses have more than 10 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing style does not facilitate communication. The student continues to make repeated mistakes in any of the above areas after written correction by the instructor 0 points lost -5 points lost Total Participation Requirements per discussion thread The student answers the threaded discussion question or topic on one day and posts a second response on another day. The student does not meet the minimum requirement of two postings on two different days Early Participation Requirement per discussion thread The student must provide a substantive answer to the graded discussion question(s) or topic(s), posted by the course instructor (not a response to a peer), by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week. The student does not meet the requirement of a substantive response to the stated question or topic by Wednesday at 11:59 pm MT.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01An initial response of at least 150 words excluding references, per the discussion-question instructions — but the class welcome announcement sets 200 words for initial posts, so write to 200 to satisfy both.
- 02At least TWO references, with at least ONE a peer-reviewed professional journal article.
- 03In-text citations in the body of the response, APA 7th edition throughout.
- 04No direct quotations at all — the brief instructs you to summarise and paraphrase instead, and states that points are deducted otherwise.
- 05All four sub-questions answered: how being in a crowd changes your behaviour; how deindividuation changes behaviour; whether it can lead to positive outcomes; and a way to encourage crowd members to behave in line with their 'normal' values.
- 06Participation beyond the initial post: a minimum of six responses per week across at least three days, each at least 75 words with at least one cited reference.
How do you structure the deindividuation post?
State your position on the positive-outcomes question
Open with a direct answer — deindividuation can produce positive outcomes because it amplifies the salient norm rather than removing normative control — so the marker knows within two sentences that you are arguing, not surveying.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Whether the post commits to a claim about the mechanism, rather than describing deindividuation neutrally and leaving the 'could it be positive' question implicitly unanswered.
Define deindividuation and name the mechanism you are working from
Give the construct in one or two sentences and identify whether you are using reduced self-awareness or shifted identity salience as the operative mechanism, because everything after this depends on which one you chose.
What the assessor is likely looking for
That deindividuation is defined as a specific psychological process with a named theoretical lineage, not paraphrased as 'people act differently in groups'.
Evidence that the outcome follows the salient cue
Cite the study that decides the question — the same anonymity producing more aggression under Klan-style robes and less under nurses' uniforms — and, if space allows, the meta-analytic finding that the antinormative effect is not reliable.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Use of a peer-reviewed empirical source to carry the argument, with the finding paraphrased accurately rather than a citation appended to a claim it does not actually support.
One concrete crowd, positive or negative
Ground the abstraction in a describable case — an emergency evacuation where strangers coordinated, a protest, a stadium, a workplace huddle — and say which norm was salient and why that predicted what people did.
What the assessor is likely looking for
That the example is analysed through the mechanism you named, rather than narrated and then labelled 'deindividuation' after the fact.
How to realign a crowd with its 'normal' values
Answer the fourth sub-question by proposing one intervention and stating the model behind it — restore identifiability and self-awareness under the classical view, or make a different shared identity salient under SIDE — then note in a clause that the rival model would advise differently.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Whether the recommendation is theoretically derived and internally consistent with the mechanism named earlier, rather than a list of generic crowd-control measures.
Which evidence overturned the mob-behaviour view?
Recommended databases
- APA PsycInfo / PsycArticles via the GCU Library
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
- University of Groningen research portal (research.rug.nl) for open records of the Postmes, Spears and Reicher papers
Search sequence
- 1.Search PsycInfo for deindividuation AND (prosocial OR antinormative) with the peer-reviewed limiter on — this is the fastest route to the one journal article the brief requires.
- 2.Retrieve Johnson and Downing (1979) directly; it is the single study that most efficiently answers 'could deindividuation lead to positive outcomes' with an experimental result rather than an assertion.
- 3.Read the abstract of the Postmes and Spears (1998) meta-analysis so you can say what sixty studies collectively showed, which is stronger in a 200-word post than describing one more experiment.
- 4.Skim the SIDE model record for the argument that anonymity enables collective identity rather than dissolving self-control — you need this to make the intervention answer non-obvious.
- 5.Run one recency search limited to the last five years on deindividuation, online anonymity or crowd behaviour, so you can pair a seminal citation with a current one and satisfy the class source-age rule.
- 6.Before writing, re-read the APA guidance on paraphrasing, because this brief forbids quotation and the mechanics of citing a paraphrase differ from citing a quote.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Deindividuation and valence of cues: effects on prosocial and antisocial behavior
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (via PubMed) · 1979
The experimental result that answers the prompt's central question: identical anonymity produced more aggression in Klan-style robes and less in nurses' uniforms, so the outcome tracked the salient cue, not the anonymity. Cite this rather than asserting that deindividuation 'can' be positive. PubMed carries the record only — you will need the GCU library for the full text.
Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis
University of Groningen research portal (Psychological Bulletin, 123(3), 238-259) · 1998
Sixty studies showing little support for either a deindividuated state or antinormative behaviour, and that people conform more to situation-specific norms when deindividuated. This is what lets you say the classical account is contested rather than merely offering a counterexample to it.
A Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Phenomena
University of Groningen research portal (European Review of Social Psychology, 6(1), 161-198) · 1995
The source for the intervention half of the prompt. SIDE holds that anonymity within a group maximises the expression of collective identity, which is why 'make people identifiable' and 'change which identity is salient' are rival, not complementary, recommendations. Use it to make your fourth answer theoretically derived.
Mass emergencies
Beyond Contagion project, University of Sussex · 2019
A research-programme page indexing the Drury, Cocking and Reicher work on crowd solidarity and collective resilience — the real-world positive-outcome case, against the mass-panic stereotype. Good for your concrete example. It is a project page, not peer-reviewed itself, so cite the underlying study it points you to rather than the page.
A compact orientation to the construct and to the public/private self-awareness distinction you need for the classical intervention answer. Deliberately included as a foil: it presents deindividuation almost entirely through antisocial outcomes and does not cover the prosocial evidence, which is exactly the one-sided picture your post should improve on. Do not use it as your peer-reviewed source.
Paraphrases
American Psychological Association, APA Style · 2020
The mechanics for the brief's no-quotations rule: how to cite a paraphrase, when a long paraphrase needs the citation reintroduced, and how to handle a paraphrase spanning several sources. Directly serves a stated grading criterion rather than general style advice.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Answering 'no' to the positive-outcomes question by reciting riots, lynch mobs and the Stanford Prison Experiment. The prompt asks 'could', and the evidence base answers yes — a flat no argues against the literature without ever engaging it.
- Presenting the classical deindividuation account as settled fact. Postmes and Spears (1998) found little support for a deindividuated state across sixty studies; a post written as though that meta-analysis does not exist reads as unread rather than as disagreeing.
- Answering the intervention question only with accountability measures — name tags, cameras, identifiability — without noticing that the social identity model recommends the opposite move, and without saying which model you are reasoning from.
- Ignoring the scare quotes around 'normal' values. They are the instructor signalling that the premise is contestable, and a post that treats crowd behaviour as a simple lapse from personal values misses what is being probed.
- Writing to the 150-word minimum in the discussion instructions when the class announcement sets 200 for initial posts. The lower number is the one that gets quoted back after the deduction.
- Using a direct quotation because the source phrasing is neat. This brief bans quotes outright, so even a well-cited quote loses points.
- Citing only a textbook, a course lecture or a psychology website when one source must be a peer-reviewed journal article — and citing Johnson and Downing (1979) or Postmes and Spears (1998) alone against a class rule that caps sources at five years old, without flagging them as seminal.
- Describing a crowd you were personally in and stopping there. The anecdote earns credit only once it is tied to a named mechanism — salient norm, shared identity, reduced private self-awareness.
Submission checklist
- The post takes an explicit position on whether deindividuation can be positive, stated in the first two sentences rather than arrived at in the last one.
- At least one piece of empirical evidence is cited for that position, not just a theory label.
- All four sub-questions are visibly answered; read the prompt back against your draft and point to the sentence that handles each.
- The intervention answer names the model it comes from, and acknowledges that the other model would advise differently.
- Word count is at or above 200 excluding the reference list.
- At least two references, at least one peer-reviewed journal article, and every seminal (pre-2020) source either paired with a current one or flagged as seminal.
- Zero direct quotations anywhere in the post; every borrowed idea is paraphrased and carries an in-text citation.
- APA 7 formatting checked on the reference list — journal title and volume italicised, DOI present where the source has one.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.