Aggression as an adaptive response Group display of aggression in humans

Learning objectives Understand the nature of group display in humans Understand psychologists’ attempts to explain group display in humans Be able to apply the notions of group display to specific examples of crowd behaviour.

Variety of theories Sociologists focus on the media Psychologists focus on the people in the group.

Freud Individual mindset differs when in a crowd Merging of minds Based on same opinion Enthusiasm reduces inhibitions

Evaluation of Freud Freud provided a very early contribution to the analysis of group behaviour. It has provided other researchers with a foundation for their own study. Methodological flaws Did not follow the principles of science (the hypothetico-deductive method).

Le Bon (1896) Pathological viewpoint Crowd behaviour = the result of individual’s personalities. Group ‘contagion’ ‘Collective mind’. Group members are suggestible Take on the views of the group and imitate ‘group mind’

Evaluation of Le Bon Freud criticised Le Bon’s idea that the group had a soul of its own. Freud emphasised the group having identification with a leader. Others criticise because many crowds do not take on a ‘life of their own’ which is different to the individuals who comprise the group. In contrast, as Smelser suggests, specific conditions and situations may be found to be responsible for the behaviour.

Blumer (1939) Developed Le Bon Circular reaction – Individual reproduce the behaviours and emotions of others around them Subsequently intensifies or amplifies original emotion and behaviour. Explains social unrest

Convergence theory Motive behind group behaviour is Convergence on a specific location by like-minded individuals with Similar points of view E.g. a football crowd.

Evaluation of convergence theory Focuses on how individuals are rational and the behaviour of like-minded people is rational when they come together. Contrasts with Le Bon who is more concerned with irrational forces.

Emergent norm theory Turner and Killan (1957) developed the Convergence theory Crowd behaviour is ‘normless’. The situation is unique People look to see what others are doing Base behaviour on that One person with distinctive behaviour will get attention this person’s behaviour stands out and gets attention. Taken on as a norm for the group. Crowds are not a passive group of people. They are a logical mass of individuals This helps to explain the unpredictability of a group.

Evaluation of Emergent norm theory It doesn’t explain exactly how the norms emerge. Not all crowd scenarios can be explained, e.g. Berk (1974) behaviour that looks irrational (e.g. running out of a building) may not be, (the building is on fire). Doesn’t take into account non-verbal processes in crowds.

Value-added theory (Social strain theory in Sociology) Neil Smelser (1963) Prerequisites needed (situations/conditions) for social movement to develop. 6 stages

Stage 1 Structural conduciveness Social situation and conditions must allow for collective action.

Stage 2 Structural strain Some parts of the social system do not function effectively.

Stage 3 Growth and spread of generalised belief. Shared view assigns causes and determines a response or action.

Stage 4 Precipitating factors Collective belief is strengthened, the search for alternatives gathers pace.

Stage 5 Mobilising the collective for action. Leaders and workers emerge. Hierarchy of order is established.

Stage 6 Reaction of agencies of social control. Agencies of social control attempt to interfere with the operation of the collective.

Value-added theory explained Smelser argues Social life and processes we follow in it affect individual behaviour. If society is not well regulated this might change an individual’s view on appropriate behaviour. Individual assesses his or her own needs If society offers incentives and rewards that interest the individual, they may be set out to achieve the goal regardless of how. Self-interest and preservation becomes more important than others.

Evaluation of value-added theory Mixed reception Logical theory Some think it overlooks complexities of crowd behaviour Evans (1969) and Marx (1972) like its positive nature compared with other models, e.g. contagion theory is irrational and negative. But it’s hard to test (Berk, 1974)

Smelser A sociologist from the university of California His theory is based on his own ‘western industrialised, educational and socio- economic background. Ethnocentric.

Berk (1974) Problems with research on crowd events: Great speed Difficult to anticipate Happen several at a time Sometimes over a large geographic area Processes leave few traces Difficult to interview members during the process Frequently produce unreliable accounts Risk of injury to observer.

Sports crowds Hockling (1982) Observed a basketball game. Booing responses to referee decisions (explained by contagion theory) Standing up for national anthem (explained by emergent norms. Different behaviour in same crowd explained by different theories.

Guttman (1986) There is no single theory appropriate to explain the behaviour and violence of sports crowds.

Lynch mobs Various explanations for lynchings of black people. Keeps white control Ensures status differences continue Keeps ‘them’ in their place. Exerts supremacy. Political purpose dehumanises

Zimbardo (2007) Dehumanisation is crucial to understanding ‘man’s inhumanity to man’. Torture and murder is legitimised.

Erving Goffman’s ‘symbolic interactionalism’ People behave in a way that is influenced by their interaction with and interpretation of others. If people are discredited (stigmatised) it becomes possible for the morally upright to perform acts of ‘destructive cruelty’. This explains many acts of cruelty including Abu Ghraib.

Cassidy et al. (2007) Investigated the Mela – A month-long Hindu festival in India Largest gathering of people on earth (over 50 million attended in 2007) Crowds behaved well Increased generosity Orderly behaviour. Common identity and close proximity Crowds need not always lead to aggressive behaviour.

Ethical issue Is it okay to observe such a gathering without the consent of those being observed?