Why do people change when anonymous? Two sides of online disinhibition

People change when they put on a mask

In the 1970s, psychologist Philip Zimbardo ran experiments on deindividuation. When he made participants more anonymous by having them wear hoods, their aggressive behavior toward others increased. These experiments were later criticized for their methods, but the basic finding that anonymity changes human behavior has continued to be examined since then.

In 2004, psychologist John Suler laid out this phenomenon systematically as the online disinhibition effect. He explained why people act differently on the internet than they do in everyday life through six factors: dissociative anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity, solipsistic introjection (feeling the other person's voice is inside your head), dissociative imagination (treating online life as a separate game), and minimization of status and authority.

What matters is that Suler divided this effect into benign disinhibition and toxic disinhibition. Anonymity doesn't only make people aggressive. It also works in the direction of opening up about true feelings they normally can't say, or sharing deeply about themselves. A question box is one of the places where these two sides show up most clearly.

Benign disinhibition: where true feelings come out

Face to face, the fear that "They might think I'm weird if I ask this" makes people swallow their questions. In social psychology, this is called evaluation apprehension. People always care about how others judge them, and they avoid actions that risk lowering that judgment.

On an anonymous question box, this evaluation apprehension has a harder time taking hold. Because your name doesn't appear, there's no worry about being labeled "the person who asked a weird question." As a result, frank questions come in that people would never ask face to face.

There are questions that begin with "I've actually wanted to ask this for a while," and requests for advice that begin with "I haven't been able to tell anyone this." These are products of benign disinhibition. Anonymity provides psychological safety, and true feelings and curiosity that are normally held down are set free. The most valuable role of a question box lies in encouraging this benign disinhibition.

For some people, the combination of writing and anonymity makes it easier to bring things up than it would be face to face.

Toxic disinhibition: when aggression is set free

The same anonymity can also bring out aggressive behavior. Abuse, harassment, and questions meant to hurt someone on purpose are typical examples of toxic disinhibition.

Why does the same anonymity bring out opposite behaviors? In Suler's theory, what decides the direction of disinhibition isn't anonymity itself but the desires inside each person. People who normally want to connect with others move toward opening up about themselves when they become anonymous. People who normally carry frustration or aggression move toward letting it out when they become anonymous.

Anonymity is an amplifier, not something that sets the direction. It can amplify good intentions, and it can amplify bad ones. What question box owners should understand is that getting a malicious question isn't a flaw in the question box but a structural feature built into anonymous communication.

What matters isn't trying to completely remove toxic disinhibition but thinking of a design that makes the most of benign disinhibition while keeping the effects of the toxic side as small as possible.

Designing a setting that steers disinhibition

Even in an anonymous setting, the mood of a space can be one of the things that shapes the direction of behavior. In a space with a warm, accepting mood, benign disinhibition wins out, and in a space with an aggressive mood, toxic disinhibition sets off a chain reaction.

What a question box owner can do is shape the mood of the space on purpose. Specifically, the tone of your answers decides the mood of the space. If you react aggressively to aggressive questions, the mood gets worse and draws in even more aggressive questions. On the other hand, if you keep giving polite, thoughtful answers, senders start sending questions that match that tone.

This is an online version of the broken windows theory. A messy setting invites more mess, and a tidy setting keeps order. Your first few answers set the culture of your question box.

Choosing to ignore unpleasant questions also works. By not reacting, you send the signal "There's no reaction to this kind of question," and you can take away the motive for toxic disinhibition. When the goal of an attack is to get a reaction from you, not reacting is one effective way to deal with it.

Protecting the value of anonymity

Rejecting anonymity itself because some people misuse it is like banning cooking because people get hurt with kitchen knives. Anonymity is a valuable tool that makes possible deep conversations that would never happen face to face.

When you run a question box, you may be hurt by heartless questions. But at the same time, you should also come across warm words that reached you because of anonymity, and honest questions people couldn't have asked you to your face.

If you understand the two sides of the disinhibition effect, you can calmly take a malicious question as one of the structural features of an anonymous setting, rather than giving up with "It can't be helped because it's anonymous" or fearing that "Anonymity is dangerous." And you can turn your attention to the value that benign disinhibition creates.

An anonymous question box is a place where people's true feelings show up in their purest form. Among those true feelings are beautiful ones and ugly ones. You need two things: the resolve to accept both, and the skill to guide the mood of the space in a good direction. These two are the key to making your question box a place for rich communication.