WASHINGTON — As federal immigration agents increasingly conduct enforcement operations with their faces concealed, decades of psychological research raise questions about whether anonymity affects not only the public’s ability to identify officers but also the behavior of the officers themselves.
Studies examining anonymity, group behavior and personal accountability have found that concealing individual identities can alter how people behave, sometimes increasing rule-breaking and reinforcing the prevailing norms of a group.
The findings introduce a psychological dimension to a national controversy that has largely focused on officer safety, public identification and the legal authority of states to regulate federal enforcement practices.
The research concerns a phenomenon known as deindividuation, in which a person’s individual identity becomes less prominent, potentially changing how that person responds to social expectations and personal responsibility.
One of the more revealing studies was conducted in 1976, when researchers examined the behavior of approximately 1,300 children participating in Halloween trick-or-treating.
The experiment, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, found that children whose identities were concealed were significantly more likely to steal candy or money than children who had been identified.
Researchers Edward Diener, Scott C. Fraser, Arthur L. Beaman and Roger T. Kelem designed the experiment to examine the effects of anonymity, group participation and individual responsibility on behavior.
Children arriving at participating homes encountered an adult who directed them to take one piece of candy before leaving the room, creating an opportunity to take additional candy or money.
Some children were asked to provide their names and addresses, while others remained anonymous. Researchers also examined whether children arrived alone or in groups.
The study found significantly higher rates of stealing among anonymous children and those participating in groups, with the highest rates occurring among anonymous groups in which responsibility had been altered.
The results suggested that anonymity and diminished individual accountability could influence behavior even when the underlying moral rules remained unchanged.
The research is discussed by legal scholar Adam Benforado in his 2015 book, Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Injustice, which examines how psychological and environmental influences shape behavior throughout the criminal justice system.
Benforado uses the Halloween experiment to challenge explanations of misconduct that focus exclusively on individual character while overlooking the circumstances in which behavior occurs.
Applied to masked law enforcement, the research raises a consequential question: Whether concealing an officer’s identity could affect the officer’s conduct during encounters with members of the public.
Immigration enforcement officers exercise substantial coercive powers, including the authority to detain individuals and use force under legally defined circumstances. The psychological conditions under which that authority is exercised therefore have implications extending well beyond ordinary social behavior.
Additional research has complicated the original theory that anonymity necessarily encourages antisocial behavior.
In 1998, psychologists Tom Postmes and Russell Spears published a meta-analysis of 60 independent studies examining deindividuation and behavior that violates social norms.
The researchers found limited support for the traditional theory that anonymity and reduced self-awareness automatically lead individuals to violate established standards of conduct.
Instead, their findings suggested that people experiencing deindividuation were more likely to conform to the particular norms operating within their immediate social environment.
That finding has potentially important implications for organizations whose members act collectively while wearing uniforms, tactical equipment or facial coverings.
If an organization maintains strong expectations of restraint, lawful conduct and individual accountability, increased identification with the group could reinforce those standards.
Conversely, if aggressive behavior becomes accepted within a group, the same psychological processes could reinforce conformity to those expectations.
The implications therefore extend beyond the individual wearing the mask to the institutional culture surrounding that person.
These questions have emerged as the federal government challenges state and local attempts to restrict masked immigration enforcement.
On Oct. 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the federal government in a dispute over California’s requirement that nonuniformed federal law enforcement officers display identifying information while conducting enforcement operations.
The state had enacted the No Vigilantes Act, requiring covered federal officers to display their agency affiliation and either a name or badge number, subject to specified exceptions.
The federal government challenged the requirement on constitutional grounds, arguing that California could not directly regulate the manner in which federal officers carried out their duties.
The appellate court concluded that the federal government was likely to succeed on its claim that the identification requirement violated the Supremacy Clause because Congress had not authorized California to impose such restrictions on federal operations.
A separate California law, the No Secret Police Act, sought to restrict the use of facial coverings by law enforcement officers.
A federal district court previously blocked application of the mask prohibition to federal officers after finding that the provision likely violated constitutional principles protecting the federal government against discriminatory state regulation.
The masking provision was not the subject of the October appellate ruling.
The Justice Department has argued that restrictions on facial coverings and identification requirements threaten federal officers and their families by exposing them to harassment, doxing and violence.
Federal officials maintain that decisions concerning protective equipment and operational procedures belong to the federal government rather than state or local authorities.
The administration has pursued similar challenges elsewhere, including an Oct. 8 lawsuit against Denver.
In that case, Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. said, “The Federal Government gets to decide which equipment federal officers may or may not wear when performing their official duties.”
While these legal disputes center on constitutional authority and officer safety, the psychological research points toward another issue: the relationship between anonymity and the exercise of government power.
An officer may remain identifiable to supervisors through employment records, assignments and internal reporting procedures while being unidentifiable to members of the public during an enforcement encounter.
Those forms of identification serve different functions.
Internal identification allows agencies to determine which employees participated in an operation, while public identification enables witnesses and individuals subjected to enforcement actions to identify particular officers when seeking explanations or filing complaints.
Whether internal systems provide effective accountability depends on the availability of reliable records, independent oversight and procedures for investigating allegations of misconduct.
The broader implications of anonymous law enforcement have also attracted attention from legal scholars.
In a 2026 paper titled The Anonymous Officer, Shawn Fields, a professor at California Western School of Law, examines the consequences of masked policing for transparency, accountability and democratic oversight.
Fields argues that increasing anonymity in immigration enforcement creates difficulties for identifying officers and holding government actors responsible for their conduct.
The issue extends beyond formal accountability procedures to the relationship between officers and the communities in which they operate.
Concealed identities can make it more difficult for observers to distinguish legitimate law enforcement officers from individuals falsely claiming governmental authority, particularly when personnel wear plain clothes or operate from unmarked vehicles.
For people subjected to immigration enforcement, the inability to identify officers may also complicate subsequent efforts to challenge detention procedures, report alleged abuses or determine which agency conducted an operation.
The government has countered that exposing officers’ identities creates risks of harassment and retaliation, making facial coverings an important protective measure.
But the competing concerns over public accountability and officer safety leave an additional question largely unexplored: what anonymity does to the psychological experience of exercising authority.
The research by Diener and his colleagues demonstrates how reduced identifiability can influence behavior, while subsequent studies suggest that the prevailing expectations of a group can determine the direction of that influence.
Together, the findings point to the importance of examining not only whether immigration officers can be publicly identified, but also how concealment, group dynamics and institutional culture may shape the decisions they make while exercising government power.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
