Collective Behavior

Collective redefinition

Collective processes and forms

Crowd behavior as process

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Collective behavior is the field of sociology that focuses on the

sequences and patterns of interaction that emerge in problematic
situations. The phenomena studied range from responses to
disaster, the disorderly street mob, or the radical social upheaval to
the peaceful and comparatively trivial shifts in the orientations of
individuals and small groups that, occurring en masse, can produce
major changes in taste, fashion, or public opinion. Indeed, subtle
shifts of sentiment and opinion, in themselves difficult to detect, are
often the first signs of more explosive occurrences such as panics,
booms, crazes, psychic epidemics, and revolutionary uprisings.

Problematic situations are defined here as those in which

participants lack adequate guides to conduct. Whenever imagery
that is conventionally accepted or officially sanctioned fails to take
account of, or runs counter to, deeply felt sentiments or common
perceptions of reality, people create currents of agitation by their
actions. They are stirred from the planes along which they normally
move and remain agitated until they settle back again into a pattern
resistant to further change. What takes place during the interlude
is elementarycollective problem solving rather than structured social
action.

What initially attracted much interest to collective behavior was the

element of drama almost invariably present in certain “mass”
phenomena, whether in the form of novelty, bizarre behavior,
exaggerated emotionality, violence, extremist ideology, or some
kind of oddity. But fascination with and criticism of these unusual
and “irrational” aspects of collective behavior soon gave way to
more basic sociological concerns. Collective problem solving, it was
observed, occurred not only in the midst of widespread chaos,
confusion, and uncertainty but also in the most highly
institutionalized settings. Some elementary aspect is actually
present in every social encounter, since the behavior of the
participants is never completely determined by prior expectations
associated with the positions they occupy in stable social structures.
Therefore, in this more theoretical sense, collective behavior is in
fact ubiquitous, and every analysis that focuses on the dynamic
(and therefore problematic) aspects of interaction deals to that
extent with collective behavior phenomena.

The nature of collective behavior.Every elementary collective

behavior episode involves a partial derailment of social interaction
from its normatively structured or expected course. The significance
of the derailment is more evident when it affects a large number of
people who are agitated and actively concerned over some
condition that they are trying to alleviate or redress. Although
normative standards continue to have some influence on the
direction in which activities unfold, the interaction is characterized
by relatively greater spontaneity, volatility, and transitoriness than it
would be if the behavior of the participants were more securely
anchored in recognized norms.

To say that elementary collective behavior occurs spontaneously is

to point to the role played in its initiation by individuals who
experience greater subjective freedom or psychological compulsion
to express unconventional ideas, to engage in unconventional
behavior, or otherwise to deviate from established standards. But a
lowering of the threshold of inhibition does not imply a total loss of
the capacity for critical self-appraisal, even in states of extreme
agitation. Few participants even in a highly excited crowd are acting
either randomly or blindly; fewer still are governed by an impulse
irresistible in any absolute sense. In fact, collective behavior can be,
and often is, the product of highly self-conscious individual actions;
for instance, bizarre as a fad may appear to the outsider, faddists
themselves often act deliberately and see nothing strange in their
actions. Hence, what happens in collective behavior is spontaneous
in that it is rarely the product of prior consensus or design.

Volatility refers to the explosive force with which intense affect,

intemperate opinions, or clear misapprehensions of reality are
sometimes communicated and acted out. It also refers to the
instability of responses under these conditions. Once the situation is
“unfrozen” and orientations are no longer firmly anchored in
conventions, participants begin to pay more attention to cues
directly inferred from the behavior of others. Leadership passes to
individuals because their actions are congruent with the prevailing
psychological atmosphere. As a collective mood develops, the
responses to directives from established authorities become
uncertain and participants can get caught up in a vicious cycle of
self-validating definitions. Thus, the more widespread a rumor, the
more acceptance it gains; or fashions, once adopted, can reach the
height of absurdity—yet both may be abandoned and forgotten not
long after.

The elementary and spontaneous phase of agitation or enthusiasm

is always of transitory duration. Spontaneous acts of defiance can,
to be sure, spark a movement of radical protest; a charismatic
prophet can bring divine inspiration to his following. However,
unless an organized nucleus or core group continues to arouse and
provoke the participants, their interactions are not likely to become
form-defining. The behavior, if satisfying and followed by desirable
consequences, will quickly congeal into new conventions with their
own supporting structure and legitimate basis, though the spirit will
soon pass out of these initially spontaneous forms.

Collective redefinition

All social conduct rests on a fabric of common meanings, on an

imagery shared by relevant persons. This represents the collective
definition of the situation. The processes by which such a definition
arises or changes to support new and disjunctive behavior are best
observed in situations that are inherently unstable, namely, where
the presence of an element of choice, novelty, crisis, attrition,
competitiveness,or conflict creates a problem. The collective
definitions that develop in these situations tend to be highly
dependent upon what participants themselves feel and directly
experience at the given moment.

Choice implies the existence of alternatives and the freedom to

select but no generally accepted criterion for making the selection.
A novel situation is created by unfamiliar circumstances that have
no precedents in the experience of participants. Crisis arises from
extraordinary demands during an emergency that threaten to
overtax the capacity of some organized group. Attrition develops
when collective effort weakens as the result of a persistent and
apparently irremediable difficulty. A competitive situation is one in
which the reward structure, perceived as favoring an individual
solution, interferes with a cooperative solution. Finally, conflictarises
when one party attempts to enforce a dominant claim whose
legitimacy is challenged by another.

When any of the above situations becomes problematic for many

people, the conventionally accepted imagery will lose its
authenticity. It may leave important areas of ambiguity, or it may be
deliberately questioned and contradicted by some of those involved.
The collective redefinition which then takes place provides the key
to the new behavior likely to emerge. Though most problematic
situations combine several elements—choice, novelty, etc.—each of
these entails its own dynamic in generating a particular incident,
episode, or movement clearly recognizable as collective behavior.

Choice

In the pure choice situation, the preference for one or the other of
several alternatives reflects essentially subjective moods or tastes.
Without an accepted utilitarian criterion to govern personal choice,
people will orient themselves to the inferred appraisals of other
persons, that is to say, to some transitory definition of what is
“fitting” or in “good taste.” Such a situation gives rise to fashion. Not
only the choice of dress but also all kinds of consumption, conduct,
and intellectual, artistic, and even political pursuits become subject
to fashion to the extent that the selections are functionally irrelevant,
passing fancies whose chief value lies in the image of up-to-
dateness which they convey. Once the new standard has diffused,
most others will feel compelled to conform.

Novelty

Novel situations brought about by changes in external life conditions

or within the structure of the group also involve choices, but—in
contrast with the pure choice situation—the selection among the
alternatives is sought in terms of functionally relevant assessments.
An innovation compatible with cultural definitions and social
commitments can gain acceptance solely on the basis of its
demonstrated effectiveness, because it requires only minor
modifications in the collective image. Another innovation, whose
acceptance would have far-reaching implications for several areas
of behavior and belief, will need the support of prestigeful
individuals to demonstrate its utility and thus to overcome resistance
and inertia. This is all the more necessary where a collective
decision is the only means of implementation. The propaganda and
proselyting efforts by which images are manipulated to support an
innovation are important attributes of social movements, which by
their collective action seek to reconstitute the social order in some
significant way.

Crisis

The problematic aspects of the crisis situation (and of attrition)

involve not so much choice and decision as coordination and
control. An emergency calls for quick and decisive action. Though
there is always a risk that the initial response to a crisis will be
based on less than a full and accurate assessment of what is
happening and of what needs to be done, the element of novelty in
a crisis caused by an unprecedented situation is likely to aggravate
any confusion. Often communication channels break down from the
overload; activities cannot be fully coordinated. Hence the
interpretations people make will be based to an unusual degree on
chance observations, hearsay, and other unofficial sources of
information. The transmission of “rumors” should be viewed as an
improvised effort to elicit responses that will contribute to a working
definition of the situation, and not primarily as a product of cognitive
error.