1. SOCI 3006 – Collective Behaviour July 2006 Review #1

2. 1. Administrative all materials for test are on website password for website is cjrocks

3. SOCI 3006 – Collective Behaviour July 2006 Lecture 1

4. 1. What is collective behaviour? any event during which a group of people engages in unusual behaviour – that is, ‘non-normative’ behaviour behaviour that falls outside the usual, ‘normative’ expectations for behaviour norms – the rules regulating people’s behaviour in particular situations – they are situation-specific, and may over time become institutionalized (folkways, mores, laws) e.g. riots, fads, fashions, social movements, rumours examples???

5. 1. What is collective behaviour? (cont’d) originally thought collective behaviour mostly mob behaviour or mass hysteria – because it was assumed that collective behaviour was largely irrational, a function of biological/ psychological factors that emerge in a crowd situation and cause individuals to act in irrational ways (note Durkheim here, along with Le Bon) collective behaviour can take a wide variety of forms (e.g. ‘swarming’ and bullying behaviour; sports riots) like other forms of behaviour, collective behaviour can become institutionalized – it can become normative itself – e.g. ‘goal-posting’ at college football games – or ‘streaking’ in the 1960’s

6. 1. What is collective behaviour? (cont’d) the key question from a sociological perspective: how does collective behaviour, behaviour in groups that did not exist before and is outside the norms, arise? What causes it? What effect does it have? How does it change over time? What does it tell us about social behaviour generally? collective behaviour can have both positive and negative effects – any examples you can think of?

7. 2. Why study collective behaviour? most of the time people do what we expect them to do – why? the importance of culture – socialization, the internalization of beliefs, values, norms (folkways, mores, laws) and the impact on personality. what does collective behaviour tells us about behaviour in general? to understand why it happens (e.g. rumours) to be able to predict when it will happen to be able to control it it is interesting reveals information about ‘typical’ behaviour

8. 3. History of the Study of Collective Behaviour Mackay (1841) – Extraordinary Popular Delusions & The Madness of Crowds Le Bon (1895) – The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind – note here influence of French Revolution, and the events stemming from this – the origins of ‘contagion theory’ – that collective behaviour can cause animal instincts to be brought out Robert Park, Ernest Burgess (1921) An Introduction to the Science of Sociology – another version of contagion theory Herbert Blumer – the concept of the ‘acting crowd’ Contagion Theory fell out of favour beginning in the 50’s and in particular in the 1960’s

9. 3. History of the Study of Collective Behaviour (cont’d) Turner and Killian (1957) Collective Behaviour – development of the ‘emergent norm’ perspective – that collective behaviour is a product of new norms that emerge from novel situations – note here W.I. Thomas and the ‘definition of the situation’ example – new norms emerging in an situation of violent behaviour, or in a university dormitory individuals have their own reasons for involvement – but the group is the catalyst for the new emergent norms the Asch experiments

10. 3. History of the Study of Collective Behaviour (cont’d) Smelser (1962) – Theory of Collective Behavior - development of the ‘value-added’ perspective – collective behaviour as a response to social conditions that leads to unusual behaviour (e.g. joining a protest group) – the behaviour though is rational to the participants 6 steps: structural conduciveness, structural strain, generalized belief, precipitating factors, mobilization of participants, reactions of agents of social control (note: MADD) collective behaviour can work to relieve social strain

11. 3. History of the Study of Collective Behaviour (cont’d) SBI/Sociocybernetic Perspective (McPhail) – emphasis on understanding how people control, regulate their own behaviour, how this influences the behaviour of others in interaction, and how this can ‘spread’ to form the basis for collective behaviour Individualist Theories – ‘Convergence Theory’, ‘Learning Theory’, Social Identity Theory’ – focus on individual personality traits, the coming together of these in combination with one another, igniting group behaviour (e.g. a bunch of gullible people coming together). Miller and Dollard (1941) Social Leaning and Imitation, also Hogg and Abrams (1988), Social Identifications group behaviour as the sum of the parts?

12. 3. History of the Study of Collective Behaviour (cont’d) social movements – a more organized, sustained, goal oriented force for social change Kornhauser (1959) – The Politics of Mass Society - the development of mass society theory – that social movements attract socially isolated, marginalized people to causes relative deprivation theory – Stouffer (1949) – the importance of perceptions of equality resource mobilization theory – Zald and Ash (1966) McAdam (1982) – political process theory – an extension of Smelser’s theory

13. SOCI 3006 – Collective Behaviour July 2006 Lecture 2

14. 2. Review “Collective behaviour may be defined as those forms of social behaviour in which usual conventions cease to guide social action and people collectively transcend, bypass or subvert established institutional patterns and structures” (Turner and Killian, 1987) "an uninstitutionalized mobilization for action in order to modify one or more kinds of strain on the basis of a generalized reconstitution of a component of action" (Smelser)

15. 2. Review we are clearly talking about ”social facts (”exteriority, priority (existing before and after us), constraint in the sense that Durkheim defined these as the subject matter of sociology something that develops out of, exists because of the formation of a group, that changes with the formation of the group - group phenomena, “emergent phenomena”, these are social facts. As distinguished from psychological facts about the individual people that make up the group the whole is greater than the sum of the parts - like a chemical reaction process of hydrogen and oxygen making something new, water. Or, put twenty 4 year olds in a room together and you end up with a collective phenomena to rival a nuclear reaction

16. 3. Social Contagion Theory - LeBon note here the time frame - this is the period of positivism, belief that science could explain everything – tendency to explain all behaviours In biological/medical terms – hence the presumption that ‘mobs’ and the behaviour seen there must have some sort of biological/medical explanation – the use of terms like ‘instinct’ ‘contagion’, ‘social pathology’ Le Bon, Park and Blumer the three major theorists here an assumption that something happens in a crowd situation that can cause people to become irrational or ‘temporarily insane’

17. 3. Social Contagion Theory (cont’d) contagion – ‘a rapidly spreading infection’ (Fracastor, 1546) the social pathology and social contagion perspectives – the idea that someone who already has the affliction (behaviour) can pass it on the someone else, and it can rapidly infect others idea that the ‘infection’ reduces the members of the crowd to the level of ‘its lowest members’ contemporary example: suicide epidemics – note here too Gabrielle Tarde’s work on the ‘laws of imitation’

18. 3. Social Contagion Theory (cont’d) Gustave LeBon (1895) – The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind remember: the post-Revolution period and political disruptions, riots, mobs in Paris how is it possible that otherwise rational people, involved in a crowd, are capable of such irrational behaviour? – for example, the September Massacres of 1792 the concept of the ‘mass’ – note that Noam Chomsky uses a similar concept – the mass, and control of the mass, as an important factor in world history Le Bon witnessed first hand parts of this spread of ‘mob’ contagion

19. 3. Social Contagion Theory (cont’d) when crowds are formed, acccording to LeBon, members’ behaviour is reduced to the lowest common denominator – the roughest, least intelligent, most violent the ‘unconscious activity of crowds’ – the crowd situation creates an energy of its own – in a mob situation, the crowd becomes like a beast on its own – impulsive, irrational, uncontrolled people don’t all have to be in the same place – but they can all be ‘infected’ by the same belief, act in similar ways – e.g. the Dutch Tulip Bulb Mania of 1634 – 1636 – http://www.stock-market-crash.net/tulip-mania.htm or, now, ‘virtual crowds and mobs’ are the spread of rumours related to computer viruses, missing children, collecting pop can tabs, etc.

20. 3. Social Contagion Theory (cont’d) the psychological crowd: 1. individuals feel invincible and anonymous 2. contagion occurs 3. members of group enter state of suggestibility LeBon does not really explain how contagion occurs crowds function on emotion, not reason the power of the crowd can even affect perception (e.g. collective delusions) immediate factors (time, temperature) and remote factors (attitudes, beliefs, predispositions individuals bring to the situation) interact with one another

21. 3. Social Contagion Theory (cont’d) criticisms of LeBon’s theory: 1. not empirical 2. sexist 3. political 4. does not explain how contagion occurs example: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blbyol16.htm

22. 3. Social Contagion Theory - Park Robert Park (1921) – Introduction to the Science of Sociology the concept of ‘emergent action’ - that people will engage in unusually intense interaction during periods of stress or disorder a ‘circular reaction’ is created as this interaction takes place as individuals actions are reinforced, and in turn reinforce those of others (escalation) it is social behaviour because it is ‘referent’ – people are behaving as the take account of and respond to the actions of others (question: is all behaviour social behaviour?)

23. 3. Social Contagion Theory - cont’d crowd members lose their ability to think independently, rationally – the development of a collective mind the crowd suppresses differences among the members the concept of ‘milling behaviour’ – aimless, anxious behaviour, that is a signal to individuals of the emotive state of the crowd sets the stage so that anyone can potentially take on a leadership role that fits with the mood of the crowd also talks about ‘expressive’ crowds that exist to express, experience, release emotions – like religious revivals, sports, rock concerts, etc. (note Durkheim here)

24. 3. Social Contagion Theory - cont’d criticisms of Park 1.introduced concept of emergence, though did not develop it 2. sometimes confusing theory Example: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_ashley_flores_missing.htm

25. 3. Social Contagion Theory - Blumer Herbert Blumer (1969) – “The Field of Collective Behavior” really, defined many of the phenomena to be included here – fads, fashions, social movements, crowds, mobs, panics, manias, dancing crazes, stampedes, mass behavior, public opinion, propaganda, revolutions, reforms (too broad?) usually, people engage in interpretive interaction – but in crowd situations people engage in circular reaction where they stopi interpreting, and merely act in response to others show Blumer’s theory (p. 19 of text)

26. 3. Social Contagion Theory - cont’d milling behaviour – creates anxiety, heightened awareness – a readiness for action (e.g. fight or flight instinct) Blumer’s theory – p. 20 in text social contagion created by excitement, leading to imitation of one another’s behaviour, responding to rumour, innuendo is the absence of other information concept of ‘the mass’ – a group of anonymous individuals, not directly in touch with one another, much more individualistic – e.g. people following the O.J. Simpson trial – but a volatile group in society, a force to be reckoned with (e.g. the end of cyclamates, Dow beer, others?)

27. 3. Social Contagion Theory - cont’d criticisms of Blumer 1.good emphasis on interaction as key component 2. confusing to read 3. does not explain really how contagion takes place overall, social contagion theory influential, but not used in this form any more – because of emphasis on irrationality

28. 3. Emergent Norm Perspective Turner and Killian (1957) Collective Behavior 1.Collective behaviour can occur whenever a group of people find themselves in a situation of uncertainty 2.When people don’t know what to do, they look around to see what other people are doing 3.Members watch the behaviour of others to see what happens – if no negative consequences, will assume those behaviours are acceptable – circular reinforcement 4.Members will conform to these new group norms as they emerge – because it seems to be the socially acceptable, the ‘right’ thing to do in the situation

29. “Collective behaviour may be defined as those forms of social behaviour in which usual conventions cease to guide social action and people collectively transcend, bypass or subvert established institutional patterns and structures” (Turner and Killian, 1987) emphasis is on the way definitions are defined and new norms emerge to make sense of these situations, to guide behaviour (e.g. how do you know when it is a real fire alarm, not just a fire drill?) emergent norms are ‘social facts’, external to and coercive with respect to individual behaviour theory strongly influenced by Symbolic Interactionism, and the W.I. Thomas’s concept of definition of the situation – also the concept of ‘taken for granted reality’

30. note here too C.H. Cooley and the concept of the ‘looking glass self’ – also Goffman, the presentation of self in everyday life – how do interactions with others come to define situations, what are the implications of this for behaviour, how can these definitions be manipulation and altered if situations are believed to be real, they will be real in their consequences (Thomas) – note the significance of this perspective (e.g. religious wars, the broadcast of Wells’ War of the Worlds) the emergent norm process – p. 26

31. the concept of the crowd – short lived, loosely knit, and disorderly collectivities note the influence of Durkheim on Turner and Killian as per the constraining nature of norms as social facts other people as ‘reference groups’ in terms of determining what the norms of behaviour are (e.g. how to behave when smoking dope; drinking; laughter norms) under normal circumstances, individuals have little influence over group norms – but in collective behaviour situations, one individuals can establish the norm, if the other members have defined the situation as needing action of some sort

32. not all members of the collective crow will behave in the same way - as in any form of social behaviour, they will assume different roles/statuses any behaviour that does not elicit social disapproval becomes defined as acceptable (e.g. looting) the six conditions for the occurrence of collective behaviour 1. Uncertainty in the situation 2. A sense of urgency 3. Communication of mood and imagery 4. Constraint by emerging norms 5. Selective individual suggestibility 6. Permissiveness

33. Uncertainty the importance of ‘informational influence’ in resolving uncertainty (rumour) e.g. propaganda; scape-goating Urgency milling as both a physical and psychological process, both in close proximity and remote e.g. Y2K; soccer riots; internet viruses; gas prices

34. Communication of mood and urgency both verbal and non-verbal Constraint even the emerging norms constrain, direct behaviour – note here the power then of a leader, initiator here again, the Asch experiments – can you think of any others?

35. Selective Individual Suggestibility the tendency to become more polarized to attitudes of other members of the crowd – and more likely to accept the definition of the situation promoted by the crowd if crowd is expressing violent attitudes, will be more likely to express angry sentiments Permissiveness of behaviours particular to the collective crowd, in the particular situation

36. Classification of participants in collective action: 1. Ego-involved/committed (personally involved) 2. Concerned 3. The insecure (anonymity, righteousness) 4. Spectators (included in counts, audience, may become participants) 5.The ego detached/exploiters (looters, merchants, serial killers)

37. Criticisms of Emergent Norm Perspective too ‘micro’? ignores structural conditions

38. SOCI 3006 – Collective Behaviour July 2006 Lecture 3

39. 2. Value Added Theory Smelser (1962) – Theory of Collective Behavior strong foundation in Structural-Functionalism – and the idea that collective behaviour serves a ‘function’ in society focus on social structural/social institutional sources of strain the causes of social action are social, not psychological the notion of ‘collective seizures’, a release of collective strain

40. 2. Value Added Theory (cont’d) basic components of Smelser’s ‘value added theory’ 1.The causes of collective behaviour can be known 2.The causes of collective behaviour are social 3.Collective behaviour is driven by a collective experience of strain 4.A number of conditions must be present for the collective behaviour to take place: structural conduciveness, structural strain, generalized belief, precipitating factors, mobilization of participants, social control see page 40 for outline of Smelser’s theory

41. 2. Value Added Theory (cont’d) according to Smelser, all social behaviour is driven by one of four components of social action; 1.Values – general, provide legitimacy for behaviour, provide framework for goal-oriented actions 2.Norms – guidelines for social behaviour in specific circumstances – can be formal or informal 3. Individual Mobilization for Action – individual actions that are initiated and unfold within pre-existing social structures and institutions 4.Situational Facilities – means and obstacles that facilitate or hinder attainment of goals – tools, skills, knowledge

42. 2. Value Added Theory (cont’d) “values guide what we as a society desire, norms guide how we go about getting what we desire, individual motivation guides the structure or organization that we create in order to achieve that which we desire, and situational facilities guide how successful we are in achieving it” E.g. – financial independence, respect, beauty, family For any form of social action we can ask: what values legitimate this action?

43. 2. Value Added Theory (cont’d) the ‘value-added’ process and the collective behaviour process: 1.Structural Conduciveness: the conditions in society that promote this novel behaviour – inequality, boredom, lack of social programs, exams, time of year (e.g. Sauble), weather conditions, time of day, presence of alcohol/drugs, social characteristics of participants (e.g. young males; the poor), demographic make-up of society 2.Structural Strain: driving participants to engage in unusual (non-normative) behaviour – poverty, loss of a job, discrimination, natural disaster, war, sudden changes in social circumstances (anomie/anxiety), aging and retirement, etc.

44. 2. Value Added Theory (cont’d) 3. Generalized belief: participants must share a common ‘definition of the situation’ – making a particular course of action seem logical or unavoidable. The definition of the situation may be true or untrue – what matters is that it is accepted by the participants, and forms the basis for action -Hysterical beliefs (sun-church worshippers in Quebec) -Wish-fulfillment beliefs (stock market speculation, crazes) -Hostile beliefs (scapegoating, witch-hunts) -Norm-oriented beliefs (war on drugs, McCarthyism) -Value-oriented beliefs (cults, revolution, fundamentalism)

45. 2. Value Added Theory (cont’d) 4. Precipitating factors: an occurrence that sparks the beginning of the episode of collective behaviour – e.g. an arrest, or death, episode of racism, etc. 5. Mobilization of participants: ability to reach participants, gather them together (physically or virtually), ability to communicate, leadership 6. Social control: the counter-response of the agents of social control, the ‘status-quo’ Deterrence: controls aimed at stopping the episode Accommodation: acceptance of the episode Redirection: redirect or ‘co-opt’ the episode

46. 3. Criticisms of Value Added Theory functionalist bias too rigid - assumes value added approach must be completed in a set order may allow prediction too structural

47. SOCI 3006 – Collective Behaviour July 2006 Lecture 4

48. 1. Sociocybernetic Theory McPhail (1991) The Myth of the Madding Crowd an empirical, research based approach to explanation collective behaviour as any organization or coordination of individual activity interest in understanding ‘assembling processes’ where groups are formed, coordinated, and act collectively behaviour is rational theory applies to all social behaviour, not just non-normative

49. 1. Sociocybernetic Theory (cont’d) (A) Assembling Processes (page 57) Assembling instructions (verbal, non-verbal) Access (to the staging area) Distractions (competing demands for time, resources) (B) Assembled Gatherings (small pockets of people who know one another)

50. 1. Sociocybernetic Theory (cont’d) (C) Dispersal Processes Instructions fro dsipersal Competing demands Force

51. 1. Sociocybernetic Theory (cont’d) (E) The Sociocybernetic process Gatherings, rather than ‘crowds’ – but McPhail focuses only on face-to-face interaction Collective behaviour/collective action – defined as: “two or more persons, engaged in one or more behaviours, judged common or concerted, on one or more dimensions” ‘Cybernetic’ systems – ‘self-governing’ – where feedback is used to guide, regulate systems – (p. 62) – the use of ‘reference signals’ and ‘self-instructions’ for action (e.g. knowing when ‘enough is enough’ and telling yourself to leave the situation

52. 1. Sociocybernetic Theory (cont’d) Similarities between sociocybernetic theory and emergent norm theory Criticisms: -Too broad -Focuses only on face to face -Solid empirical orientation

53. SOCI 3006 – Collective Behaviour July 2006 Lecture 5

54. 2. Individualistic Approaches crowds do not ‘create’ behaviour because of some effect of being in a group instead, some types of people, possessing certain personality characteristics, are drawn to crowd situations, and what we see is these individual personality characteristics being demonstrated in a permissive situation convergence theories – if the individual does not already have the tendency, the crowd situation will not make it ‘magically’ appear – instead, the crowd allows people with similar tendencies to ‘converge’, with what appears to be group action taking place p. 72 in text

55. 2. Individualistic Approaches (cont’d) for example: a riot is more likely to occur at a soccer game than at an opera, because of the types of individuals drawn to a soccer game (young males, drinking) since the individuals making up each group have different characteristics, the group behaviour will be different chief assumptions of convergence theory: a) individuals are rational b) even in a crowd, individuals act according to their individual personality disposition c) individuals with certain types of personality dispositions will be attracted to certain types of crowd situations d) collective behaviour is the mass release of individualistic predispositions

56. 2. Individualistic Approaches (cont’d) > Allport’s Theory (1924)  “there is no psychology of groups which is not the psychology essentially and entirely a psychology of individuals”  if someone engages in violent behaviour in a crowd, it is because they already had violent tendencies (predisposition)  dispositions explain why certain people gather in certain types of crowd situations (at a Stompin’ Tom concert versus a Billy Talent concert) – predispositions have a lot to do with explaining why people converge where and when they do (e.g. soccer hooligans)

57. 2. Individualistic Approaches (cont’d) > Allport’s Theory  two types of innate human responses: “avoidance” versus “approach” – all human behaviour is a learned modification of these two responses  those least inhibited act first in group situations – acting as a model for others – through this process “social facilitation” occurs  humans are conditioned to submit to the will of the majority – hence the facilitation aspect of group behaviour

58. 2. Individualistic Approaches (cont’d) > Allport’s Theory  rationalization process: - even if I get caught, they can’t punish everybody - such large numbers of people can’t be wrong - since so many will benefit from this act, I am doing a good thing in fact

59. 2. Individualistic Approaches (cont’d) > Miller and Dollard (1941)  responsible for what they called “Learning Theory”  rather than assuming the source of human behaviour is innate, instead most behaviour is a learned response to different innate drives (nature versus nurture) driveresponsereward stimulus

60. 2. Individualistic Approaches (cont’d) > Miller and Dollard (1941)  we learn on the basis of our experience with behaviour and reward/punishment  frustration (leading to violence) is caused when drives are blocked from being satisfied – known as the “Deprivation - Frustration – Aggression Hypothesis”  Dollard and Miller focused on violent crowds  “people in a crowd behave about as they would otherwise, only more so”

61. 2. Individualistic Approaches (cont’d) > Miller and Dollard (1941)  “drive stimuli” refers to the state of excitation an individual experiences  “crowd stimuli” refers to the state of excitation created by other crowd members  these two stimuli interact, modify one another  collective behaviour is a situation when individuals act in concert with one another in unusual ways, often violent p. 78

62. 2. Individualistic Approaches (cont’d) > Miller and Dollard (1941)  crowd stimulus varies by: - interstimulation (excitement created by others – e.g. milling) - proximity (influence increases the closer people are) - numbers (as size increases, protection, permissiveness increases) - anonymity (increases with size) - prestige factor (greater the prestige of the leader, greater the crowd stimulation)  still, no matter how influential the crowd, it cannot evoke behaviour the individual does not already have a predisposition for

63. 2. Individualistic Approaches (cont’d) > Hogg and Abrams (1988) – ‘Social Identity Theory’  much of our behaviour reflects our self-image, and the roles we occupy, and how we have learned to play these roles (e.g. – the aggressive swimming coach, versus the devoted mother)  whatever role we are playing will determine how we behave  collective behaviour is the result of the formation of a group identity within a crowd, and individuals orient their behaviour according to this ‘new’ identity

64. 2. Individualistic Approaches (cont’d) > Hogg and Abrams (1988) – ‘Social Identity Theory’  social acceptance as a strong need to be met, and crowd situations can be very influential in this regard  society as a ‘web of social categories’ (social statuses of different levels of power and influence)  identity based on one’s social categories (status) – there is no innate self, but rather a learned self based on our ‘personal identifications’ and our ‘social identifications’ that emerge from interpersonal relationships  in crowds, a group ‘social identification’ forms, defining what is or is not appropriate behaviour

65. 2. Individualistic Approaches (cont’d) > Hogg and Abrams (1988) – ‘Social Identity Theory’  ‘referent informational influence’ takes place in the crowd, and group members learn the ‘critical attributes’ necessary to fit in as members (e.g. norms)  individuals can decide in advance to be members of a group  ‘crowd behaviour is driven by a new identity – “crowd member”, to which individual identities are subjugated  p. 83

66. 2. Individualistic Approaches (cont’d)  Criticisms -teleology (the event occurred because of the individualistic tendencies of the members; or, if a person behaves violently, it is because they have a predisposition toward violence) -do people really have to be predisposed always? - danger of branding those in crowds as ‘certain types’ of people, as ‘radicals’, ‘nuts’ or ‘uniformed’