Whether curbing anonymity is a necessary component of fighting abuse and/or worth it becomes a further question.
Out of the total corpus of people, there are some who would be abusive if anonymous, however they have enough 'social awareness' to not behave that way when real names are used.
However, there are another subset of this group who lacks the social awareness to curb their abusive behavior even though they are using their real names.
By enforcing a "no anonymity" policy, you filter out the first group effectively but wind up increasing the percentage make-up that the second group has in the overall community.
I'm not aware of such a myth though.
Plenty of abuse happens even from real name accounts. Cough ... LKML.
This is another "study that confirms what everyone sort of knows already".
The ratio of abusive anonymous comments to abusive logged in comments is 6:1
We don't know the ratio of non-abusive anon comments to non-abusive logged-in comments.
Hmm, that actually DOES seem to support the idea the anonymity fosters abuse...