Crowd psychology
Crowd psychology (also mob psychology) is a branch of social psychology that deals with the ways in which the psychology of a crowd is different from the psychology of the individual persons who are in the crowd. The field of crowd psychology enquires into the behaviors and thought processes of both the individual members of the crowd and the crowd as a collective social entity. The behavior of a crowd is much influenced by deindividuation, a person's loss of responsibility, and the person's impression of the universality of behavior, both of which conditions increase in magnitude with size of the crowd.[1][2] Notable theorists in crowd psychology include Gustave Le Bon, Gabriel Tarde, and Sigmund Freud.[3] Many of these theories are today tested or used to simulate crowd behaviors in normal or emergency situations. One of the main focuses in these simulation works is to prevent crowd crushes and stampares.[4][5]
Types of crowds[edit]
There is limited research into the types of crowd and crowd membership and there is no consensus as to the classification of types of crowds. Two recent scholars, Momboisse (1967)[14] and Berlonghi (1995)[15] focused upon purpose of existence to differentiate among crowds. Momboisse developed a system of four types: casual, conventional, expressive, and aggressive. Berlonghi classified crowds as spectator, demonstrator, or escaping, to correlate to the purpose for gathering.
Another approach to classifying crowds is sociologist Herbert Blumer's system of emotional intensity. He distinguishes four types of crowds: casual, conventional, expressive, and acting. His system is dynamic in nature. That is, a crowd changes its level of emotional intensity over time, and therefore, can be classed in any one of the four types.
Generally, researchers in crowd psychology have focused on the negative aspects of crowds,[9] but not all crowds are volatile or negative in nature. For example, in the beginning of the socialist movement crowds were asked to put on their Sunday dress and march silently down the street. A more-modern example involves the sit-ins during the Civil Rights movement. Crowds can reflect and challenge the held ideologies of their sociocultural environment. They can also serve integrative social functions, creating temporary communities.[1][9]
Crowds can be defined as active ("mobs") or passive ("audiences"). Active crowds can be further divided into aggressive, escapist, acquisitive, or expressive mobs.[1] Aggressive mobs are often violent and outwardly focused. Examples are football riots and the Los Angeles riots of 1992. Escapist mobs are characterized by a large number of people trying to get out of a dangerous situation. Incidents involving crowds are often reported by media as the results of "panic",[16][17] but some experts have criticized the media's implication that panic is a main cause of crowd disasters, noting that actual panic is relatively rare in fire situations, and that the major factors in dangerous crowd incidents are infrastructure design, crowd density and breakdowns in communication.[18][19][20] Acquisitive mobs occur when large numbers of people are fighting for limited resources. An expressive mob is any other large group of people gathering for an active purpose. Civil disobedience, rock concerts, and religious revivals all fall under this category.[1]
Theoretical perspectives[edit]
Le Bon[edit]
Gustave Le Bon held that crowds existed in three stages: submergence, contagion, and suggestion.[21] During submergence, the individuals in the crowd lose their sense of individual self and personal responsibility. This is quite heavily induced by the anonymity of the crowd.[21] Contagion refers to the propensity for individuals in a crowd to unquestioningly follow the predominant ideas and emotions of the crowd. In Le Bon's view, this effect is capable of spreading between "submerged" individuals much like a disease.[1] Suggestion refers to the period in which the ideas and emotions of the crowd are primarily drawn from a shared unconscious ideology. Crowd members become susceptible to any passing idea or emotion.[21] This behavior comes from an archaic shared unconscious and is therefore uncivilized in nature. It is limited by the moral and cognitive abilities of the least capable members.[21] Le Bon believed that crowds could be a powerful force only for destruction.[9] Additionally, Le Bon and others have indicated that crowd members feel a lessened sense of legal culpability, due to the difficulty in prosecuting individual members of a mob.[1] In short, the individual submerged in the crowd loses self control as the "collective mind" takes over and makes the crowd member capable of violating personal or social norms.[22]
Le Bon's idea that crowds foster anonymity and generate emotion has been contested by some critics. Clark McPhail points out studies which show that "the madding crowd" does not take on a life of its own, apart from the thoughts and intentions of members.[23] Norris Johnson, after investigating a panic at a 1979 The Who concert concluded that the crowd was composed of many small groups of people mostly trying to help each other. Additionally, Le Bon's theory ignores the socio-cultural context of the crowd, which some theorists argue can disempower social change.[9] R. Brown disputes the assumption that crowds are homogenous, suggesting instead that participants exist on a continuum, differing in their ability to deviate from social norms.[1]
Freudian theory[edit]
Sigmund Freud's crowd behavior theory primarily consists of the idea that becoming a member of a crowd serves to unlock the unconscious mind. This occurs because the super-ego, or moral center of consciousness, is displaced by the larger crowd, to be replaced by a charismatic crowd leader. McDougall argues similarly to Freud, saying that simplistic emotions are widespread, and complex emotions are rarer. In a crowd, the overall shared emotional experience reverts to the least common denominator (LCD), leading to primitive levels of emotional expression.[3] This organizational structure is that of the "primal horde"—pre-civilized society—and Freud states that one must rebel against the leader (re-instate the individual morality) in order to escape from it.[3]
Theodor Adorno criticized the belief in a spontaneity of the masses: according to him, the masses were an artificial product of "administrated" modern life. The Ego of the bourgeois subject dissolved itself, giving way to the Id and the "de-psychologized" subject. Furthermore, Adorno stated the bond linking the masses to the leader through the spectacle is feigned: