The online disinhibition effect is a loosening or complete abandonment of social

restrictions and inhibitions that would otherwise be present in normal face-toface interaction during interactions with others on the Internet. This effect is
caused by many factors, including dissociative anonymity (or, more precisely, t
he appearance thereof), invisibility, asynchronicity, solipsistic introjection,
dissociative imagination, and minimization of authority.
ecause of this loss of inhibition, some users may exhibit benign tendencies, inc
luding becoming more affectionate, more willing to open up to others, and less g
uarded about emotions, all in an attempt to achieve emotional catharsis. Accordi
ng to psychologist John Suler, this particular occurrence is called benign disin
hibition.[1]
With respect to bad behavior, users on the Internet can frequently do or say as
they wish without fear of any kind of meaningful reprisal. In most Internet foru
ms, the worst kind of punishment one can receive for bad behavior is usually bei
ng banned from a particular site. In practice, however, this serves little use;
the person involved can usually circumvent the ban by simply registering another
username and continuing the same behavior as before. Suler calls this toxic dis
inhibition.
There are six primary factors behind why people sometimes act radically differen
tly on the internet from the way they do in normal face-to-face situations:
"You don't know me"
The notion of "You Don't Know Me" comes down to simple anonymity: when the perso
n remains anonymous, it provides a sense of protection; within the framework of
the Internet, this allows the user to move about without any kind of indication
of identity or even distinguishing characteristics other than potentially a user
name. This kind of protection provides a meaningful release for people. They may
feel free to say things they might otherwise be embarrassed by. It also provide
s an outlet for behaviors that others might term antisocial or harmful.
"You can't see me"
The Internet provides a shield to its users; often all one receives when interac
ting with another person on the Internet is a username or pseudonym that may or
may not have anything to do with the real person behind the keyboard. This allow
s for misrepresentation of a person's true self; online a male can pose as a fem
ale and vice versa, for example. Additionally, the invisibility of the Internet
prohibits people from reading standard social cues; small changes in facial expr
ession, tone of voice, aversion of eyes, etc., all have specific connotations in
normal face-to-face interaction. This particular aspect overlaps heavily with a
nonymity, because the two often share attributes. However, even if one's identit
y is known and anonymity is removed from the equation, the inability to see and
respond to physical cues by other individuals causes one's inhibitions to be low
ered. One cannot be physically seen on the Internet, typically: therefore, the n
eed to concern oneself with appearance and tone of voice is dramatically lowered
and sometimes absent.
"See you later"
The asynchronous nature of the Internet can also affect a person's inhibitions.
On Internet message boards, conversations do not happen in real time. A reply ma
y be posted nearly instantly; however, it may take months or longer for someone
to post. Because of this, it's easier for someone to "throw their opinions out"
and then leave;[3] a person can make a single post that might be considered very
personal, emotionally charged, or inflammatory and then "run away" by simply no
t logging in again. In this way, the person achieves catharsis by "voicing" thei
r feelings, even if the audience is just as invisible. However, the asynchronous
nature of the Internet also allows a person to more closely examine what they s
ay and to more carefully choose their words; in this manner, someone who might o
therwise have difficulty in face-to-face interactions can suddenly seem eloquent
and well-mannered when reading message board posts or even in text-chat forums

such as IRC or instant messaging.

"It's all in my head"
Lacking any kind of visual face-to-face cues, the human mind assigns characteris
tics and traits to a "person" during digital interactions. Reading another perso
n's message may insert imagined characteristics of what a person looks like or s
ounds like into the mind and assigns an identity to these things. The mind also
assigns traits to a user according to an individual's own desires, needs, and wi
shes: traits that the real person might not actually have. Additionally, this al
lows fantasies to play out in an individual's mind because the user may construc
t an elaborate system of emotions, memories, and images: inserting the user and
the person they are interacting with into a role-play that helps reinforce the r
eality of the person on the other end within the mind of the user.
"It's just a game"
By combining solipsistic introjection with the imagination, a feeling of escapis
m is produced: a way to throw off mundane concerns to address a specific need wi
thout having to worry about consequences. According to Suler's[1] personal discu
ssion with lawyer Emily Finch (a criminal lawyer studying identity theft in cybe
rspace), Finch's observation is that people may see cyberspace as a kind of game
where the normal rules of everyday interaction don't apply to them. In this way
, the user is able to dissociate their online persona from the offline reality,
effectively enabling that person to don that persona or shed it whenever they wi
sh simply by logging on or off.
"Your rules don't apply here"
Online, a person's real life status may not be known to others. If people cannot
see the user, others have no way to know if the user is a head of state, a cele
brity, or a regular private citizen. While real-world status may have a small ef
fect on one's status on the Internet, it rarely has any true bearing. Instead, t
hings such as communication skill, quality of ideas, persistence, and technical
ability determine one's status in cyberspace.[1] Additionally, people can be rel
uctant to speak their minds in front of an authority figure. Fear of reprisal or
disapproval quashes the desire to speak out, and on the Internet, levels of aut
hority that might otherwise be present in real life are often completely absent;
this turns what might otherwise be a superior-inferior relationship into a rela
tionship of equals, and people are far more likely to speak their mind to an equ
al than a superior.
Perhaps one of the most serious consequences of the online disinhibition effect
is the advent of cyberbullying in recent years. The website overcomebullying.org
states that "[with] the advent of modern communications such as email, chat, te
xt messaging and cell phones as well as the ability to publish online on website
s, blogs and social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace making their m
essage instantly available to millions, the bully's reach and powers of social m
anipulation have been increased exponentially".[4] The site goes on to suggest t
hat "[perhaps] the internet lends itself to this indifference. Bullies don't hav
e to see their victims or answer for their actions",[4] which seems to fit with
the You Don't Know Me and You Can't See Me concepts. Cyberbullying may also incl
ude other offensive behaviors such as cyberstalking, revenge porn, and creating
copycat accounts of others.
Likewise, the online disinhibition effect might also be attributable to the cont
roversial state of the comment sections on many online blogs, and on sites like
YouTube. Blogs like Stop Anonymous Online Comments claim that the anonymity gran
ted to Internet users leads to comments "[often] filled with exaggerations, outr
ight lies, threats of violence, and blatant racism",[5] and that "the vast major
ity of these reader comments are published in complete anonymity [...]".[5] "Thi
s anonymity", the author goes on to opine, "fosters an environment that tolerate
s, even encourages, comments and statements that tear at the fabric that holds o
ur society together".[5] The general feeling is that the average internet user w
ould not make such comments or behave in such ways if not for the invisible smok
escreen that online usernames and anonymity provide.[5] According to Norman H. H

olland, "people regress" when communicating online because, among other reasons,
the physical distance from other users and the inability to interpret body lang
uage and physical reactions results in a lack of direct feedback.[6]
The online disinhibition effect can also have potentially deleterious effects on
one's job security and future employment opportunities. Sixteen-year-old Kimber
ley Swann was fired from her job due to negative comments she made about her occ
upation on her Facebook page,[7] while another infamous case involved a woman, H
eather Armstrong, being terminated after "lampooning" her colleagues on the Inte
rnet.[8] These are consequences of certain Internet users believing themselves t
o be unchained from typical social strictures. The author of Six Causes of Onlin
e Disinhibition states that "[c]ompared with face-to-face interactions, online w
e feel freer to do and say what we want and, as a result, often do and say thing
s we shouldn't".[8]
Another possible consequence is that people will learn to distance themselves fr
om interactions on the Internet so that they are not traumatized by those behavi
ors which would be unacceptable in face-to-face interactions but which usually g
o essentially unpunished in interactions over the Internet.
This is also known as the Gyges effect. Gyges was a mythologic figure known for
his ring. Mentioned by the philosopher Plato in Book 2 of his Republic (2.359a 2.3
60d), it granted its owner the power to become invisible at will. Through the st
ory of the ring, Republic considers whether an intelligent person would be moral
if he did not have to fear being caught and punished for doing injustices.