crowd behaviour Flashcards
crowd definition
groups in which:
- people are face to face
- may involve novelty
- no formal means of collective decision-making (unlike an army for example)
- act as one
crowd examples
- music and sports events
- mass religious events
- protests
- riots
three theories of crowd behaviour
- group mind
- group norms
- self-categorisation theory
Why did we feel the need to explain group behaviour?
- earliest attempt to explain crowd behaviour - 19th cent France
- a response to the social problem of the crowd
- saw crowds like revolutions, anonymity and workers unions as a threat to civilisation
- ‘when people come together as a group they lose themselves and become violent’
Group Mind theories
Le Bon 1895
- crowd behaviour = mindless violence
- unconscious group collective action becomes more important than the individual
–> because people become anonymous in crowds
group mind ideologies TAKE OVER the individual mind
primordial - existing from beginning of time
individual mind is replaced by: ‘racial unconscious’
spreads quickly through ‘contagion’
racial unconscious
group mentality, and primitive instincts which are believed to be destructive
problems of group mind: assumption
- Le Bon links crowd behaviour with mindless violence and this can not easily explain non-violent crowds such as MLK’ssupporters
- most crowds are NOT violent
problems of group mind: evidence
- “Arm-Chair Evidence” - found through reading books and taking information out of context from other groups.
- Relied on secondary, selective and partial evidence.
-Took ‘crowd violence’ out of context made it out to be meaningless outbursts
deindividuation theory
- modern version of ‘group mind’ - same but experimented in a lab
- same idea of anonymity –> people lose their sense of ‘self’
- therefore losing self-control
- so are more likely to be violent and dis-inhibited
- main theory:
individuals lose their sense of self when in groups –> more likely to be influenced by group mentality to behave in these primitive and violent ways
evidence for deindividuation theory
Metanalysis
60 experiements
weak evidence that societally anti-normative behaviours result from anonymity
little evidence that reduced self-awareness/deinduviduated state predicts behaviours
STRONG relation between anonymity and conformity to local social norms
Group norms: Interactionism
Asch 1955
- an element takes its meaning from its place in the whole
- individual behaviour is understandable in terms of group membership
Sherif 1936
- norms: a groups code or standards or rules
- produced within the group then INTERNALISED and used as a frame of reference on how to behave
Group norms: emergent norm theory
Turner and Killian
- extraordinary situation or sudden incident = real from normal life/everyday norms
- interaction: people search for a definition of the situation and a guide to conduct
- norm emerges
- norm allows behaviour to become collective
BASICALLY LOOK TO OTHERS TO CREATE A NORM OF HOW TO ACT IN UNCERTAINTY
Autokinetic effect
- ‘Moving light’ in darkened room (uncertainty)
- Estimate the amount of movement individually
- Group (public) interaction and estimate of movement
- Convergence of individual judgements to group median
- Changed individual estimate indicated that group estimate had been internalized
gestalt / group norms key ideas
- Rejecting mindless ‘mob mentality’ assumption
- Norms as shared, internalized representations in each individual enables collective behaviour
- Norms come about through interpersonal interaction – talking to each other
The minimal group paradigm Taijel 1971
what are the minimal conditions for intergroup behaviour
- boys favoured their ingroup over outgroup in allocation of points EVEN THO:
- they didn’t know any of their fellow ingroup members
- the division into ingroup and outgroup was arbitrary
- there was no interpersonal interaction among ingroup members
The minimal group behaviour paradigm LED TO
John C Turner 1982
self-categorisation theory
self-categorisation theory
- process whereby social identities shape collective behaviour
key principles:
1: social identities consist of self-categories –> we identify ourselves in relation to others
2: self-categories exist at different levels of abstraction
- vary from exclusive –> inclusive
e.g. inclusive = staff faculty
e.g. exclusive = John Smith
- prominance of self-categories operates though fit x perceiver readiness
Fit = comparative fit/normative fit
comparative fit: differences within a group = less than differences between one group and another group
normative fit:
do group members act the way we’d expect e.g. academics = scholarly
- social influence - operates through shared self-categorisation
comparative fit
differences within a group = less than differences between one group and another group
normative fit
do group members act the way we’d expect e.g. academics = scholarly
comparative fit and the london bombings
normal train journey:
BEFORE:
low unity
getting from A to B
‘me’ VS ‘others’
AFTER:
unity, together, would have thought we knew each other, earmnes
‘us’
shared self-categorisation
- we follow others’ behaviour to the extent that they are ingroup members
- most influential = those that best embody the category (us) over the salient group (them)
- ‘prototypes’
how is collective behaviour possible?
Collective behaviour is a function of people self-stereotyping
= applying shared social category characteristics (including the group norms) to themselves
self-stereotyping = depersonalisation
The St Paul’s Riot
Phase 1
- local significant cafe police raid
- police forced to flee, trapped, came reinforced, more and more people attacked them
- police vehicle set alight
- police left area entirely eventually
The St Pauls riot research sources
interviews
media
witnesses pictures
triangulation to create a consensual account of what happened
thematic analysis to get particpants perceptions
The st Paul’s riot
Phase 2
- police left
- crowd took on traffic control - stopping suspected police cars from entering
- some properties were attacked and looted
riot particpants identity
- shared a local identity
- ‘members of the St Paul’s community’
defined terms of:
- locality
- desire for ‘freedom’
- antagonistic relationship with police
crowd behaviour was limited and patterned in line with this identity
riot particpants there identity in line with their behaviour
limits to behaviour: GEOGRAPHICAL
Geographical –> remained within St Pauls, controlled entry into area
riot participants, there identity in line with their behaviour
limits to behaviour: TARGETS
Targets:
–> people: only police, passers by were safe, fire service were helped
–> property: banks, rent/benefits offices, post office + expensive shops owned by ‘outsiders’/chain-stores - symbols of their powerlessness only
- disapproval when someone threw a missile at a bus - outside of identity
homes and local shops = actively protected
riot participants, there identity in line with their behaviour
limits to behaviour: WHO GOT INVOLVED
- only those who shared identity were participated/were influenced by other crowd participants
most influential = those seen by crowd members as prototypical -
the ones that embodied that identity - older individuals who were being the most conflictual
group mind explanation for St Pauls Riot
Le Bon would predict indiscriminate (mindless) violence and ‘contagious’ influence
- But there were clear limits to behaviour
- Only certain behaviours spread through the crowd
- Only certain people were influenced or influential
group norms explanation for st pauls riot
Yes behaviour was normatively structure BUT:
- extended interaction wasn’t necessary:
- group norms (attacking the police) arose quickly
New ‘situational’ norms were controlled by the superordinate social category definition = member of the st pauls
self-cat theory / social identity model for St Pauls riot
Rioters shared new group norm of getting the police out of St Pauls –> based on their shared social identity
norm came from self-stereotypin gas ‘members of St Pauls community’):
They shifted from personal identity (‘me’) to shared social identity (‘us’, ‘we’)
three transformations of crowd psychology
cognitve
relational
affective
cognitive transformation
or ‘self-stereotyping’
shift from seeing self in terms of personal identity to social identity
basically self-cat processes
- no longer think/act on basis of personal beliefs and values
- instead act on their understandings of the groups norms/beliefs/values/interests
example: st pauls riots collective behaviour
relational transformation
- this is where:
if you have the same social identity as me
instead of me seeing you as ‘other’ i see you a spart of ‘we’
can result in sense of connection and intimacy even w strangers
- more accepting of their close physical appearance (NOVELLI 2010)
reduced disgust to their bodily odours (REICHER 2016)
Trust
giving/expecting social support
affective transformation
- social identity is the prism through which people value physical stimuli and experience relational intimacy
- being supported feels good
- support from others for desired goals = empowering
- validation of emotions by others makes them more intense
mass gathering definition
occasion either organised or spontaneous where
the no. of people attending is sufficient to strain the planning and response resources
of the community, city or nation hosting the event
e.g. olympics, world cup, glastobuty
mass gatherings medicine
explores the health effects/risks of mass gatherings
- infectious diseases
- crowd crushes
mass gatherings: crowd crushes
- crowd = pressure on every side = equilibrium
- a shockwave/slip can cause a fall
- fall=sudden gap removing pressure on one side / removing equilibrium
- people fall into the space
panic is a consequence rather than a cause
wellbeing and music events
Dingle 2021
63 study meta analysis
examinign psychosical mechanisms
memory, attention, mood/emotion regulation, social bonding and connection
effects of music AND enjoying music with others
associated with wellbeing
features of relational and affective transformation in mass gatherings that might contribute to health and wellbeing
- expecting/receiving support
- positive emotions
- validation
sense of empowerment
Mela
Hindu festival
1 month long
every year
constant loud noise
low sanitary conditions
20 mill people in tents
longitudinal well-being increase relative to controls
recognition
validation
solidarity
London bombing support vs selfishness
reports of support were associated with reports of a shared social identity
affective transformation in crowds
- often seem to be passionate - joy, anger, loyalty
- some say this is a form of madness or irrationality
strong positive emotions are linked to socially/collectively meaningful activities (Durkheim)
validation and emotion
empowerment and emotion
validation and emotion
Neville & Reicher (2011)
Interviews with 23 Dundee United supporters
When participants felt that others shared their social identity, they:
Reported experiencing a validation of their and emotions, which augmented the strength of them
empowerment and emotion
identity realization at the mela
p’s perceptions of a shared identity with the crowd increased participants sense that they were able to enact their collective identity
e.g. carry out rituals they wouldn’t in daily life
long-term psychological changes and mass gatherings
clingsmith
hajj
clingsmith et al 2009
Premise: Pakistan’s lottery for attending the Hajj
Survey ran 5-8 months after Hajj
Random selection of winners and losers
Broadly representative
Those who attended Hajj:
- Greater commitment to their Muslim identity afterwards
- More positive towards other groups
- More favourable attitudes to women
- Greater belief in equality compared to matched sample
criticism: but why ? no measures of mechanism
contact was suspected
long-term psychological changes and mass gatherings
khan
hajj
data at 3 different time points
Comparing attendees with matched sample afterwards:
- Heightened social identification as a Hindu
Increased frequency of prayer rituals - Mechanisms:
Perceptions of sharing a common identity with other pilgrims - Being able to enact one’s social identity
criticism: didn’t look at changes in positive attitudes to other groups
long-term psychological changes and mass gatherings
hajj
Alnabusi
2019
In line with contact theory, perceived cooperation among pilgrims indirectly predicted more positive outgroup attitudes (as well as enhanced Muslim identification), via identification with the crowd. In line with social identity and identity congruence explanations, positive emotional experience and the perception that the crowd embodied the Muslim value of unity predicted self-change variables through identification with the crowd.
limitations
- Positive effects such as support are not found in every crowds
- Not shopping crowds for example
- High levels of trust and enjoying proximity are also strongly associated with risk of spreading infectious diseases
