History of collective behavior

Mark Gado is a police detective with the City of New Rochelle Police Department in New York where he has been employed for nearly 25 years. He was a federal agent assigned to the Westchester County D.E.A. Task Force in WhitePlains, N.Y. from 1997 to 1999. He received the International Award of Honor from the Narcotic Enforcement Officers Association in New Orleans, LA in 1998. Mark was also named Investigator of the Year 2000 and received dozens of other awards and commendations during his long police career. He has been a freelance writer for over 20 years and his work has appeared on numerous websites and in many publications, including Law Enforcement Journal, Cobblestone, A History Magazine for Young People and several cover stories for Strange Days magazine. Mark holds a Bachelors Degree in Criminal Justice 1998 and a Masters in Criminal Justice from Iona College 2001.

According to Latane and Darley's research, helping behavior only takes place under very specific conditions. Please read their research findings here.

Threshold Model: (Sullivan 1977; Granovetter 1978). This is very similar to Gaming Theory but is premised on specific conditions:

1. 
   There must be a good flow of communication
   
2. 
   Behavior must be binary (acting or not acting)
   
3. 
   The act must be clear and discrete
   
4. 
   The act must be nonroutine (unusual)
   
5. 
   The cost or benefit of an action is dependent on how many others make a similar or different choice
   

Consider a more likely example…

You want to go out for dinner. You heard about a new restaurant that opened in Moscow about a month ago. When you arrive on a Friday night, there is only one car parked out front and it looks like nobody is inside. Hmmm. Will you chance eating there?

Or, what if you arrive and the line of potential diners is snaking out the door, around the building, and down the street. There are no parking places left on the entire street.

In each case, there are costs. With an empty restaurant, one runs the risk of a bad experience (based on the perception that a moderately full restaurant indicates good food and service). On the other hand, the cost of waiting for 3 hours to eat might exceed the level of cost one is willing to endure for a good meal.
___________________________________________________________________________

Think about your own personal restaurant measurement. In other words, what is your THRESHOLD? Think of a personal example where you made a choice based on costs and benefits (note: it might have been a film, party, or other social situation besides a restaurant). Do not turn this in.

In all variations of exchange, rational choice, threshold, and game theories, the assumption is that people weigh costs and benefits--carefully calculating how certain means will get them to their goals with the least cost. If the cost is too high, they will refrain from participating.

SBI (Social Behavioral/Interactionist Theory): This is the most micro/psychological of all the CB theories. Developed in the 1960s by Clark McPhail and David Miller, SBI focuses on assembling processes, general gathering phenomena, and dispersal more than giving us an actual explanation as to why people engage in collective behavior in the first place.

SBI concentrates on the study of compact collectivities. It assumes that there is heterogeneity of participants and behavior in most gatherings. This perspective also assumes that physical setting and crowd-management are relevant factors. In other words, SBI focuses on what gets people together, what they do when they are together, and how, when, and why they disperse. SBI examines factors such as participant availability, time of day, weather, architecture, geography, leadership, communication, social control, etc. Clearly, this is a very specific micro theory, useful under limited conditions.

Resource Mobilization Perspective (McCarthy & Zald 1973). We will use this approach more during our unit on social movements and SMOs (social movement organizations). RM focuses on how resources are mobilized by a movement. Resources would include: time, money, media exposure, charismatic leadership, members, member commitment, etc.

A successful movement is one where the leadership is able to rally member energy and commitment to gain power, organize, and use the media.

As you can see from this extensive list, there is no single theory to explain all of collective behavior. Part of the reason for this is that CB events are so varied. Our job over the next few months will be to determine when, where, why, how, and under what conditions these theories are applicable.

Because CB tends to be unanticipated, spontaneous, loosely structured, extrainstitutional, and relatively short-lived, it is often difficult to study. Few CB events may be replicated in the laboratory or studied under controlled conditions. Often, researchers must study CB "after-the-fact."

It should be noted that some forms of collective behavior are dangerous (riots, panics, stampedes, lynching, cults, etc.,) and in the study of these phenomena, the researcher may put him/herself in jeopardy.

The following methods are the most common in CB research:

• 
  Historical Data/ Official Statistics: Since most CB episodes are spontaneous, we are forced to examine events after they occur. This is especially true in the case of disaster, riot, stampede, panic, and other short-lived events.
  
  
  
• 
  Survey: Over 65% of all sociological research involves data collection using some form of survey. CB research is no exception. The following represent the most common forms of survey research:
  

• 
  Questionnaire: A “paper and pencil” data collection method that may be mailed to respondents or distributed in person. This type of instrument usually contains close-ended questions, yielding quantitative data.
  
  
• 
  Interview: A very common method because of its ease and low cost. With proper sampling, it is possible to generalize findings to a larger population. The most common methods in sociology now are telephone interviews. Face-to-face interviews, while being more labor-intensive, provide a wealth of rich data not available on the phone or online (nonverbal cues). Focus group research falls under the heading of survey research as well.
  

• 
  Observation
  

• 
  Direct Observation: (film/video) here the goal is to be unobtrusive.
  

• 
  Participant Observation: This method is used when the researcher seeks an “insider’s point of view. Studying a cult or social movement often involves some element of participant observation.
  

• 
  Experiment
  

• 
  Beyond a few controlled studies in the areas of panic, bystander intervention, and rumoring, the field is virtually devoid of experimental methodologies. Spontaneity and the non-normative nature of collective behavior events make experimental control virtually impossible. Besides, we know that studying human behavior in a controlled laboratory environment tends to alter behavior.
  

Alexander Mintz conducted one of the most widely cited experiments in collective behavior in 1951 (Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology). He designed a simulation of an emergency escape situation to determine the conditions under which group cooperation breaks down and individualistic (selfish) responses occur. Mintz placed 15-21 aluminum cones in a large glass jug, the neck of which was large enough to accommodate only a single cone. Each cone had a string attached to it. The bottom of the jug was fitted with a valve that allowed water to enter.

Subjects were handed a string and told that as soon as water started to enter the jug, they could withdraw their cones. Subjects were shown that only one cone at a time could escape from the jug and that maladaptive jam-ups would occur if this procedure were violated. After repeated trials, the only incidences of jam-ups occurred when pre-trial conversation was forbidden and subjects were not allowed to see each other during the trial. From this early experiment, it is clear that factors of communication and lack of mutual sensory access are the most critical variables in emergency escape and the minimization of panic.

Variables affecting rate of escape.

1. 
   rewards/fines decrease escape
   
2. 
   prior discussion increases escape
   
3. 
   isolation increases escape,
   
4. 
   communication decreases
   

• 
  artificial experiment
  
• 
  does not show that irrational behavior might not occur in real panic situation.
  
• 
  Seemingly irrational behavior - could have a rational basis
  

This is really the first area of collective behavior that caught the attention of early sociologists.  Gustave LeBon (1841-1931) is the name we usually associate with the early study of crowd behavior. He is also called "The Father of Collective Behavior." His view of crowds was quite negative. Basically, crowds scared him. He believed that the compact collectivity took on a mind of its own (mental unity) and emotion spread through the crowd like wildfire (contagion). Further, he said that normal, rational human beings became “…like savages, women, and children” in a crowd. Remember, he was living in France during a time of great social upheaval--he saw the incredible power in crowds (he also saw his social position as an aristocratic, right-wing, antidemocratic thinker threatened by those same crowds). Be sure to read his classic essay on the crowd on E-Reserve.

Crowds aren't automatically considered to be collective. It is only when the actions of the compact collectivity move outside the normative order that behavior has the potential to become collective. While there exists no clear line of demarcation, Herbert Blumer (1969) helps us to classify crowds:

1. 
   Casual: loosely structured; folks who happen to be in the same place at the same time (aggregate).
   
2. 
   Conventional: Like our class, these people come together for a common purpose.  Norms still guide behavior.
   
3. 
   Expressive: Here, the main goal of the crowd is intrinsic…to belong to the crowd itself. Now, we are moving into the realm of collective behavior, especially in the case of the protest and riot.
   
4. 
   Acting: This is the most volatile of the crowd types. Another name for this type of crowd is "mob."This is a crowd that participates in some overt behavior. It may have been planned (e.g., revolution) or relatively spontaneous (e.g., riot, lynch mob).
   

While we won't spend a great deal of time in class discussing this specific kind of crowd, it is important to understand the unique dynamics of an ecstatic crowd.

In the ecstatic crowd, audiences are outside their ordinary, everyday reality; charisma plays a major role. While being less common in Western society, ecstatic crowds may be found at sporting events, religious gatherings (e.g., revival meetings), and in some political settings. Strong emotion and contagion are prominent features of ecstatic crowds.

This is a photo from the funeral of Ayatollah Ruholla Khomenei in 1989. Three million people watched during the two-day affair. Some managed to surge past a force of Revolutionary Guards, clambering into the casket to plant kisses on the Imam's face. The corpse spilled to the ground, bare feet protruding from beneath the white shroud. Many mourners tried to touch the body and take pieces of the linen burial shroud. Eight people were crushed to death, more than 440 people had been hospitalized and an additional 10,800 had been treated for injuries.

This is an excellent example of an ecstatic crowd.

Miracles represent an example of ecstatic crowds. Miracles are perceived as a result of a process called the social construction of reality. In other words, an observer (often in the company of others) interprets an event as miraculous. It is a divine or supernatural interpretation of a phenomenon that exists or takes place in the material world. It might be an image, a dream, or even a smell interpreted to have divine significance. One example of a miracle is the Marian apparition. 

Throughout the recent history of the Catholic Church, numerous Marian apparitions have been reported. These are visions of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Some include reports of conversations with Mary, statues or icons crying tears or blood, stigmata, receiving Eucharist, seeing lights, rose petals in the air or the smell of roses, changes in the sun, cloud formations, messages, warnings, etc.

Here are some examples of Marian apparitions recognized by the Catholic Church as falling under our classification of violation miracle. The Church only recognized “supernatural character” in a handful of386 cases reported throughout history: 

1. 
   Violation miracle is one that clearly violates or deviates from the laws of nature. We really don’t have a way to explain it.
   
   
   
2. 
   Contingency miracles could have happened within the laws of science, but they are improbable.
   

It is important to point out that a person not socialized to "recognize" the face of Jesus would not interpret these clouds as miraculous. Our brains look for familiar patterns and for millions of Christians, this cloud formation might resemble how we imagine Jesus to look. To a non-Christian, unaware of the purported appearance of the person, Jesus, they might not see any pattern in the clouds!

These photos have been widely circulated. Do you see Jesus standing in the cloud? If you do, you are experiencing pareidolia

How about the photo below? Do you see a human figure kneeling with arm outstretched?

It's actually an image from Mars...a rock

1. 
   They are rarely homogenous
   Members tend to gather in dyads/triadic friendship groups
   
2. 
   Physical and temporal settings can influence crowd behavior
   For example, riots are more likely in a city than in the country and tend to occur on week-end or summer evenings, especially when it's hot
   
3. 
   Convergence plays a role in the behavior or crowds (e.g., ice hockey or wrestling fans –vs.- a polo match or dressage audience)
   
4. 
   Actions of social control agents not only affect crowd behavior but may be viewed as forms of collective behavior (e.g., Kent State University in 1970)
   
5. 
   Crowd size and density are key factors in understanding CB in the compact collectivity
   

RIOTS

Sometimes, a crowd can become violent. This is the birth of a riot. A riot is defined as relatively spontaneous group violence. Two stereotypes surround riots:

The "Mad Dog" or "Scum-of-the Earth" stereotype holds that the riot is a violent, illegitimate, irrational, uncontrolled, and highly emotional outburst by the dregs of society; those on the margins.

The second stereotype holds the perception of a "Righteous Rioter." This view argues that the riot is a political protest against injustice, oppression, and exploitation. The rioter is educated and politically/socially aware.

The reality differs from both of these stereotypes. Emotion or political beliefs may motivate riots; they may be planned or completely spontaneous. Riots have been started by conservatives, liberals, intellectuals, factory-workers, the weak, the strong, and those in-between. In other words, it is difficult to categorize rioters.

We will be using the 1992 Rodney King/LA Riots as a case study. Please be sure to read both articles on E-Reserve

There are at least four types of riots that we'll be exploring:

1. 
   Purposive: Rioters have a very specific goal here. It might be to "get back" at the police, to lynch a suspect in a crime, to avenge a wrong, etc., Under this heading, we find:
   

• 
  Communal: Violence between opposing racial or religious groups
  
• 
  Political: Focus is on specific government policy
  
• 
  Commodity: Violence is directed toward property
  

2. 
   Symbolic: This is really a protest. The action is not intended to achieve a specific goal. This represents the displacement of anger onto an accessible target.
   
3. 
   Revelous: This is when a celebration goes awry. It might surprise you that it is more common for fans of the winning team to erupt into a riot than for fans of the losing team to be riotous.
   
4. 
   Issueless: These are outbursts of violence for violence sake or the reasons are so individualistic that no clear pattern emerges.
   

Over sixty years ago, the Second District Court of Appeal released twelve defendants from prison in the famous Sleepy Lagoon trial. The proceedings of this case ( People v. Zammora ) took place, much like today, within the context of war-time anxiety and hysteria. One hundred twenty thousand Japanese-Americans (two-thirds of whom where U.S. citizens) were detained and put into internment camps in February 1942. Several months later, a young Mexican national named José Diaz was found dead in Southern California . Local media outlets, most notably the Hearst-owned Herald-Express and The Los Angeles Times , blamed Diaz’s death on a “crime wave” led by Mexican American “Zoot-Suiters” or “ pachucas/os .” The well-known writer, lawyer, and civil rights activist Carey McWilliams noted the links between these issues—World War II, the Japanese-American internment, and the anti-Mexican backlash—“in Los Angeles, where fantasy is a way of life, it was a foregone conclusion that Mexicans would be substituted as the major scapegoat group once the Japanese were removed.”

More than six hundred youth (most of them Mexican American) were arrested after Diaz’s death. Many were detained for the clothes that they wore or their general appearance. Some claimed that such “racial profiling” was necessary for national security because they believed Mexican American “Zoot-suiters” had established “fifth column” (pro-fascist) groups within the United States . Twenty-two youths were eventually subject to a mass trial, complete with an all-white jury. Three were convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison; nine were convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to five-to-life; and five were convicted of assault and released for time served. The defendants began serving their sentences in January 1943.

Defense attorneys (Ben Margolis, Selma Bachelis, and others) immediately appealed this decision on various grounds, most notably, the fact that the defendants were not allowed to speak or confer with counsel during the trial’s proceedings. The defendants were also not allowed to change their clothes and the judge (Charles G. Fricke) repeatedly overruled defense attorney objections and personally ridiculed them. Blatantly racist testimony also played a key role in the trial’s outcome.

The appeal process lasted nearly two years. During the trial, labor activist La Rue McCormick established an ad-hoc committee to publicize the events surrounding the case. After the defendants were sentenced, that organization was re-organized and became known as the Sleepy Lagoon Defense Committee (SLDC) with Carey McWilliams as its chair. The SLDC was a multi-racial, local, grass-roots coalition that included Mexican Americans, whites, and blacks. Defendant family members, Hollywood celebrities, labor officials, and radical political activists (among others) made up the committee. The left, labor, Jewish, Mexican, and black presses (alternative, “non-mainstream” media outlets) covered the trial, the appeal, and the SLDC’s activities. As the war was winding down, Judge Clement Nye dismissed the charges, citing “insufficient evidence,” against the Sleepy Lagoon defendants on October 23, 1944.

The issues of this case were clear—racism and constitutional rights. Members of a particular racial group (along with others who wore “Zoot suits”) were singled out and treated unjustly. With the “war on terrorism” currently unfolding, one can see clear parallels between what happened sixty years ago and what is happening now. Middle Easterners, Sikhs, Muslim immigrants, and other “suspect groups” have been targeted and harassed.

The Los Angeles Zoot Suit Riots of 1943

On the night of June 3, 1943, in response to reports that a sailor had been attacked by a Zoot Suiter, a group of over 200 uniformed sailors chartered 20 cabs and charged into the heart of the Mexican American community in East Los Angeles. Any Zoot Suiter was fair game. On this and the following nights, many Zoot Suiter were beaten and stripped of their suits. Nine sailors were arrested during these disturbances, not one was charged with any crime.

On the following nights of June 4th and 5th, the uniformed servicemen (by this time the sailors had been joined by soldiers) again invaded East Los Angeles, marching down the streets, breaking into bars and theaters, and assaulting anyone in their way. Not one was arrested by the Police or the Sheriff. In fact, the servicemen were portrayed in the local press as heroes stemming the tide of the "Mexican Crime Wave." During the nights of June 6th and 7th, these scenes were again repeated. Time Magazine later reported that, "The police practice was to accompany the caravans of soldiers and sailors in police cars, watch the beatings and jail the victims." According to Rudolpho Acuña in Occupied America, "Seventeen-year-old Enrico Herrera, after he was beaten and arrested, spent three hours at a police station, where he was found by his mother, still naked and bleeding. A 12-year-old boy's jaw was broken. Police arrested over 600 Chicano youths without cause and labeled the arrests 'preventive' action.

Finally, at midnight on June 7th, because the navy believed it had on actual mutiny on hand, the military authorities did what the city of Los Angeles would not, they moved to stop the rioting of their personnel. Los Angeles was declared off limits for all military personnel. Though there were little consequences for the rioters (servicemen and local law enforcement authorities alike), there was some public outcry.

On June 16th, 1943, Eleanor Roosevelt commented in her column that, "The question goes deeper than just suits. It is a racial protest. I have been worried for a long time about the Mexican racial situation. It is a problem with roots going a long way back, and we do not always face these problems as we should." Los Angeles' response was typified by the June 18th headlines of the Los Angeles Times, "Mrs. Roosevelt Blindly Stirs Race Discord," and she was accused of communist leanings in the accompanying editorial. Governor Earl Warren (later Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court during their landmark desegregation cases) convened a committee to investigate the riots and recommended punishment for all involved in the riots, servicemen and civilians. Other than the charges filed against the Mexican American victims, no punishment was ever meted out.

Sources: The Mexican American Heritage, Carlos M. Jimenez, 1994, p. 159.

Time Magazine, June 21, 1943.

Occupied America, Rudolph Acuña, 1988, p. 257.

Who Riots??

Individualistic explanations focus on four broad categories:

• 
  Availability
  

• 
  Having free time and few commitments
  
• 
  Riots typically occur on week-ends, after 5pm, and in the summer
  

• 
  Unconventionality
  

• 
  Being daring, willing to take risks, flout convention, and defy authority = more young males tend to participate in riots
  

• 
  Relevance
  

• 
  Radical, militant, angry ideological positions are more common here
  

• 
  SES
  

• 
  (Socio-Economic Status:  education, occupation, income);
  
• 
  Better educated but unemployed, but it also depends on the setting and type of riot
  

• 
  Young
  
• 
  Urban
  
• 
  Minority
  
• 
  Unemployed
  
• 
  Male
  
• 
  Unmarried
  

(Social Conditions)

1. 
   Stress/Breakdown Perspective: Racial tensions, poverty, unemployment, homelessness all represent the deterioration of urban environments. These kinds of conditions have been linked to an increased probability of rioting. The breakdown of traditional societal structures can cause widespread anxiety and discontent, leading to violence. (There is some support for this theory)
   
2. 
   Relative Deprivation Theory: This theory applies to the individual level and societal level. People will feel deprived in comparison with others around them or with their own past living conditions. When this occurs, people are more likely to engage in some form of collective violence--like revolution. (There is marginal support for this theory)
   
3. 
   Political Perspective: This goes back to the Resource Mobilization theory and rests on four points:
   

1. 
   Collective violence and nonviolence exist in normative society
   
2. 
   Participation in collective violence does not reflect anomie
   
3. 
   Collective violence is rational and intentional
   
4. 
   Collective violence represents a struggle for power among groups
   

4. 
   SBI Model: This perspective examines the environment for clues--availability, geography, assembling processes, social control, etc.  We know this answers only part of the question.
   

We will examine the phenomena of panic, stampede, and riot at music concerts and sporting events. These episodes and all stampedes/crowd crush phenomena fall under the broad heading of disaster because injury and loss of life are often associated with these types of collective behavior events. There are many examples of deaths associated with compact collectivities. They mostly involve overcrowding and fire. Note the recent stampede in Egypt where 32 died. Also note the stampede in Iraq that killed over 960 pilgrims. What were the underlying causes of these recent events?

Here is a link to names of concert-goers who never went home again. Be careful, be safe!

• 
  no festival seating
  
• 
  don't go late
  
• 
  take your phone and call 911 immediately should there be an emergency situation (don't worry if others call too, it's OK)
  
• 
  don't use substances that inhibit your ability to think and respond quickly in an emergency
  
• 
  always be aware of at least three exit routes and be able to get out
  
• 
  be sure someone knows where you are
  

• 
  Follow the National Fire Protection Association's Festival Seating Standards.
  
• 
  Isolate the mosh pit from the general audience.
  
• 
  Limit mosh pit capacities.
  
• 
  Reduce density in the pit
  
• 
  Ban alcohol and cigarettes in the mosh pit.
  
• 
  Station special first-aid assistance near the mosh pit.
  
• 
  Restrict moshing to those 18 years of age and older (when appropriate).
  
• 
  Ban stage diving.
  
• 
  Ban body surfing/swimming.
  
• 
  Provide specially trained private security and "peer security".
  
• 
  Provide special ventilation and drinking fountains for moshers.
  
• 
  Pad the floor and all hard surfaces, including barriers and railings.
  
• 
  Ban certain types of clothes and accessories worn by moshers in the pit.
  
• 
  Make mosh pit safety announcements in advance and during shows.
  
• 
  Get Assistance from performers in managing or preventing moshing.
  
•