1.2. Textbook definition.
“The loss of self awareness and evaluation apprehension; occurs in group situations that
foster anonymity and draw attention away from the individual” (p. 239).
1.3. Reworded definition.
Astate of being that occurs within a group environment that causes the loss of self-
identity and self-concept through ambiguity among all members. This results in things
like mobs, protests and riots.
1.4. Why chosen.
I chose this term because, in light of the recent revolutions that have been occurring, it is
evident that this concept is present in many of the protests.Although much of the actions
can be justified by believing that the individuals are just mad and feel that they cannot go
about getting their message across any other way, it is fair to say that the protests have
reached the extent that they have (in terms of murders, police retaliation, rioting and
destruction of cities) as a result of deindividuation on both the protester and military
1.5. Real-life illustration.
As stated previously, deindividuation has been seen in numerous revolutions around the
world. With that being said, it is not only seen in situations such as those.Although this
example was briefly stated in the textbook, I feel that it represents the other side of
deindividuation, in the way that it is not all about political or social unrest. The 2011
Stanley Cup finals brought about riots after the Canucks lost in their hometown of
Vancouver. This ultimately resulted in riots throughout the city; cars being flipped over,
fires, looting and vandalism. I remember watching some news reports in the days
following, where the reporter would interview those involved, many of who were
surprised by their own actions. Some said it was the result of the “spur of the moment”
feeling, which I believe can be confused with the idea of deindividuation. The “spur of
the moment” feeling may be the feeling associated with deindividuation in the sense that
in that moment, all sense of self is lost and the only focus of the individual is to
participate in the activities that those around them are also involved in. I have never been
in a situation where deindividuation occurred, at least to my knowledge on the subject,
but I feel that if I was, this is the feeling I would have. The 2011 Vancouver riots, I feel, is
the best example for deindividuation because many believe that deindividuation-like
behaviour only occurs when there is a common goal/want for change such as a protest or
anger as a result of political or social inequality. The 2011 riots prove that
deindividuation is a behaviour that can flourish from even the smallest upset within a
community, even if the reasoning for the protest can be deemed as insignificant or
Social exchange theory. 2.2. Textbook definition.
“The theory that human interactions are transactions that aim to maximize one's rewards
and minimize one's costs” (p. 277)
2.3. Reworded definition.
Social exchange theory suggests that, as humans, we base our relationships with one
another on how much we can gain in comparison to how much we can lose. If the losses
outweigh the gains, we will end said relationship.
2.4. Why chosen.
I chose this definition because I believe it to an extent, but I also believe it is based on the
individual. I have seen, and obtain, friendships and relationships where we depend on one
another, but do not use one another for gains. I have friendships that are based on
compatibility, affection and respect opposed to what we can or cannot get from each
other. On the other hand, though, I have also seen friendships and obtained friendships
where the social exchange theory was present, if only on one side. I believe in certain
situations where money is a factor in the relationship, the social exchange theory is more
prominent than if money was not involved. This may be as a result of the society that we
are a part of, but I do feel as though it is a circumstantial theory, and that this treatment is
defined by the individual's own values and thoughts on their definition of a friendship or
relationship. Some people base their relationships off of monetary benefits (business
partners, etc.), while others were raised to find friendship in support and respect. I believe
much of what we look for in a relationship is based off of the way we were raised to view
2.5. Real-life illustration.
Currently, I am acquaintances with someone who I lived in residence with last
year. This year, it seems as though he maintains his friendships with people outside of his
friend group in order to make cash when he decides to throw a party. During frosh week,
this guy decided he wanted to throw a kegger with very limited, low quality beer and
charge $10 a person. Within the first hour they broke even, but continued to charge $10 a
person, even if the person was not drinking from the keg.Although we knew him from
last year, my friends and I were never really close with him unless we were all going out
together in a group. This year, though, we have stated to realize that many of his
relationships are based off of money.
Last year, while studying for our Global Studies midterm together, we got on the
topic of the Occupy Movement which ultimately led to our views on the rich and poor.
This guy told me that if he had the chance to steal a couple billion dollars from someone,
leave his wife, children, family and friends behind and move to a country where he
cannot be extradited from, he would. This made me wonder what kind of person he
actually was. When I first met him, he came off as a shy, well-rounded guy but after this
conversation, it became clear that his relationships with people are based off of what he
can get from people.
Although there are instances of people maintaining relationships with people on
an emotional level in relation the social exchange theory, I feel that they are less
damaging than those with finances involved. I have also maintained friendships with people where we have no losses or gains, or we pay little attention to the losses and gains,
and instead focus on helping one another out when needed.
3.2. Textbook definition.
“The theory that frustration triggers a readiness to aggress” (p. 320).
3.3. Reworded definition.
The frustration-aggression theory suggests that we are more likely to be aggressive
following an incident where we feel stressed out or frustrated.
3.4. Why chosen.
I chose this theory to discuss because I have seen it play out, especially within the student
population. Working in retail, I have also seen this play out.
3.5. Real-life illustration.
As stated previously, I work in retail.Around this time of the year, it is clear that
Christmas brings out the worst in people. The weather becomes harsher and harder to
drive in, people are spending copious amounts of money on things we really do not need,
working over time in order to buy these things and ultimately looking for the best deals.
Unfortunately, that means that when their deal fails or they do not save as much as
expected (due to exclusions, fine print, etc.) we (the associates) are the first ones to deal
with the wrath of the customers. I have been yelled at