On Deindividuation, Crowd Violence
Reflections of a Medicine Woman Combat Veteran
After my separation from the United States Air Force, I was on track to receive my Masters in Counterterrorism Studies and continue along my professional post-service path; initially this was in alignment with my field of expertise in this area, along with my passion for psychology, sociology, anthropology, and others. I had served as a Senior Religious, Cultural and Security Advisor and Analyst, and a Subject Matter Expert (SME) for areas of interest such as the Middle Eastern Terrorist organizations; Central and South American insurgencies such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC); terrorism / counterterrorism and insurgency / counterinsurgency as a whole; indoctrination and radicalization of religious and/or secular youth; and so on.
Eventually I chose to adjust my career path as I began to focus more closely on understanding, working with and healing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, honoring the Medicine of my BIPOC ancestral peoples and moving towards establishing my private practice, that latter of which is now transforming into a Wellness, Healing and Resource Center. The collective foundation established in those areas continues to inform the lens through which I see and understanding the world around me, and the challenges my clients experience on a daily basis. This was another primary reason I chose to adjust my career path out of security and into Healing, to help individuals remember themselves, heal their traumas and meet their resource needs; I knew from trying to make a difference at the levels I worked in, that the individuals who made up the populations being utilized as pawns in the war games of rich patriarchal men.
During my studies in 2011, I remained in a continuously evolving inner space. The more I studied and expanded my knowledge base across the board, the more I understood why my military mindset had always appeared so counterbalanced to that of most who I worked with and for. Having voluntarily spent time overseas as both civilian and military embedded in impoverished populations trampled by greed-fed wars characterized by uneven and inequitable resource acquisition, deeply rooted racism and xenophobia, genocide and so on, I was deeply passionate about and involved in understanding the core issues which led to individual radicalization and deindividuation. It was my immediate nature to witness unfoldings and focus on the humanitarian crises, to see things from each perspective, and generally side with underrepresented, unprotected and marginalized populations. I always looked for the original points of trauma, patterns of continued trauma compressions intended to silence, manipulate and break those in protest to what was withheld or inflicted unjustly, and what unmet needs caused extraordinary behaviors and acts of various levels of violence as final resorts to demand change.
Where in the military spheres I worked in, it was often stressed that localized insurgency, rioting and misconduct were unacceptable and to be dealt with swiftly or ignored altogether. But I had begun to understand from the inside out that these would never have occurred in the first place had the leadership in place not been wildly corrupt, or had genuinely protected, served and fought for the marginialized communities that their nations were comprised of. Centralized focus on serving those with deep pockets and connections will always lead to destabilized violence, one way or another.
The last several years in the US alone have shown to the privileged the underbelly of what has run rampant on a global level for as long as history itself has unfolded. Deindividuation, however controversial of a theory it may argued to be, has become apparently visible in ways never seen before thanks to the age of technology we live in today. (See “The Crowd Made Me Do It”, AP.) Polarized issues that seem to many to be baffling at their core, such as COVID vaccinations and intellgent safety protocols such as wearing PPE (protective equipment), masking and distancing, violent white supremacist power struggles such as that which most visibly occurred within our government for four years (and long before, as in always and the foundation the nation was built upon), wild conspiriacy theories (aka truly “fake news”) and so on continue to stream across the ever accessible internet, pour into our lives through our phones, laptops and televisions. It’s nearly unheard of these days to remain up to date on news without seeing stories about people seemingly losing themselves in mass chaos. Conversations are routinely confusing, with individuals who may have always seemed logical, screaming illogical frusrtations into the void. Which, in and of itself is rooted in trauma, which will be explored in another post.
With all of this considered, I want to share an academic paper I wrote on Crowd Violence Behavior and Individuation. Keep in mind that this fact-based paper was written for an assignment given in a class that was part of my Counterterrorism studies. I am posting it as is, with binary gendered language, and indications of thought patterns which do not necessarily represent the entirety of way I think now. It may be a potentially helpful academic paper to review with a shrewd eye and an ability to identify relevant data to help contextualize community behaviors that may have seemed confusing to the inexperienced. As before, I continue to evolve as I study, learn and grow, and hope my audience will do the same.
“CROWD VIOLENCE: DEFINITIONS, THEORIES AND CONCLUSIONS
Siobhan Barrett
PSY 310.3: Psychology of Violence; Dale Comstock
January 14, 2011
The driving factors behind crowd behavior have been documented subjects of interest since the late 19th century. Theories surrounding the phenomena have evolved over the years, and take into consideration environmental, biological, social, and personal influences. These theories include group mind, pre-disposition, de-individuation, emergent norm and social identity. Reicher’s Elaborated Social Identity Model has taken the positive and negative aspects of each into consideration, detailed the significance of the “in-group / out-group” relationship, and has proven to be one of the most comprehensive and well supported models to date. Many reports and writings contain stereotypes surrounding those who are involved in violent crowd behavior; these have been challenged in recent studies. Finally, recent studies have provided constructive recommendations for effectively assessing crowd behavior and employing methods of prevention of, peaceful negotiations during, and successful intervention techniques for violent crowd behavior[1].
Definition of crowds and crowd behavior do vary amongst social psychology sources; Katheryn M. Zeitz., Heather M. Tan, and Christopher J. Zietz explain the relationships: “It is believed that crowd refers to the gathering of a large number of people not dependent on the reason for the gathering. Crowd type is an environmental descriptor of the demographics of a crowd. Crowd mood hails from the crowd type and is more of a psychosocial descriptor of crowd. Crowd type, crowd dynamics, and crowd mood impact crowd behavior. Crowd behavior is the demonstrable factor that requires assessment and monitoring to underpin management actions[2].”
Violent crowd behavior manifesting itself through riots, or “violence against person or property by one or more individuals in a gathering[3]”, has been associated with religious differences, economic deprivation (to include food shortages), political motivations, social unrest, racial and ethnic differences and segregation, and perceivably unfair labor practices; often rioting has been associated with alcohol consumption[4].
Crowd behavior varies globally, and what may be considered “hooliganism” in one culture may be the norm in another. For instance, “…the standard behavior of 5,000 women in Sarejevo every other Sunday. They sat and blocked traffic to protest the loss of male relatives in the Bosnian war.” Violent international crowd behaviors revolving around political, religious, ethnic, social, and economic factors are frequently reported in international news[5]; however, the majority of crowd behaviour research and documentation has been dedicated to Western society[6].
Modern crowd gatherings in the United States do not typically result in violent behavior. In fact, since the 1960s, records have shown less than 10 percent of crowd gatherings resulted in riots. These riots are typically celebratory, and often sports related; alcohol consumption and drug use leading to intoxication has clearly played a significant role[7][8][9]. “Such riots occurred after the Chicago Bulls NBA championships in 1992, the Denver Broncos Super Bowl victory in 1999, the Michigan State NCAA championship in 1999 and Los Angeles Lakers NBA championship in 2000[10].”
Throughout the years, stereotypes of young, poor, frustrated, underrepresented, and typically male-dominated minorities have been used to describe those comprising violent crowds. The supposition that males are more aggressive and therefore more likely to engage in violent activity has been supported by studies: “…a qualitative examination of gender differences in crowd behaviours across three different situations — prior to a rock concert, prior to a sports event, and at a political rally — revealed that men engaged in more verbally aggressive behaviour and were more likely to incite both violence and forced entry into venues than their female counterparts (Webb, Neale & Phillips, 1995)[11].”
Taking into consideration the afore-mentioned binary gender differences, evidence does however suggest that crowds are largely heterogenous. “No socioeconomic or political attribute of communities consistently predicted the intensity of these riots….Individuals that were politically and/or economically deprived were not more likely to aggress to reduce the frustration resulting from their deprivation….Extensive research was done on participants in the civil rights movements in the 1960s and ’70s. When the civil rights movement began, many assumed that the people who were the most deprived would participate. In reality, upper middle- class individuals were the initial participants in the civil rights demonstrations. The social networks and organizations, to which they belonged, were better predictors of participation than were any socioeconomic or demographic characteristics[12].” Reicher commented, “Riots tended to happen in towns and in areas that were stable and had well established social networks. Feagin and Hahn (1973) provide similar evidence for the American urban revolts of the 1960's….rioters were typically members of cohesive groups from the more ‘respectable’ strata of society[13].”
To further understand what leads to crowd violence, it is helpful to have a basic understanding of the theories which attempt to explain crowd behavior. Notable perspectives include the Group Mind tradition, Contagion Theory, Convergence Theory, Emergent Norm Theory, and the Elaborated Social Identity Model.
Gustav Le Bon first discussed crowd behavior in 1895, and focused much attention on how to manipulate those involved. Reicher notes Le Bon’s writings were highly influential amongst the dictators of the 20th century, such as Hitler and Mussolini[14]. Le Bon’s Group Mind tradition postulated, “Simply by being part of the crowd, individuals lose all sense of self and all sense of responsibility. Yet, at the same time, they gain a sentiment of invincible power due to their numbers. Once individual identity, and the capability to control behaviour disappears, crowd members become subject to contagion. That is, they are unable to resist and passing idea or, more particularly and because the intellect is all but obliterated, any passing emotion[15]. ” As Levy notes, Le Bon’s ideas set the stage for the eventual Contagion Theory, which is summarized as looking “at psychological aspects of irrationality and impulsiveness, describing how individuals immersed in a crowd become infected by a mob mentality[16].”
Floyd Allport’s Pre-Disposition / Convergence Theory followed in the 1920s and 1930s, and challenged Le Bon’s group mind theory. He presented a more individualistic explanation: “when it comes to collective action, Allport declared…: “the individual in the crowd behaves just as he would behave alone only more so” (p. 295)…. He saw individuals as behaving on the basis of enduring response tendencies deriving from their conditioning histories[17].” Allport felt the responses of the crowd tended to become “instinctual”, “primitive”, and highly destructive when their goals and desires were hindered.
Deindividuation Theory (Festinger, Pepitone and Newcombe [1952]), which bears resemblance to “mob mentality”, was presented to explain the loss of identity in the crowd which lead to feelings of anonymity and a loss of individual responsibility for collective action. “Deindividuation describes the process whereby individuals’ normal behavioural restraints — based on guilt, shame, commitment and fear — become weakened when part of a group (e.g., Zimbardo, 1970)….Consequently, they become more susceptible to external cues and to the group’s motives and emotions (e.g., Diener, Luck, DeFour & Flax, 1980)[18].” Findings have challenged the idea that individuals lose themselves entirely within the group; although members appear unidentified to those outside the group, their identities are known by others within the group. However, outward anonymity has been documented as encouraging the outward actions of those within the group[19].
The Emergent Norm Theory (Turner & Killian, 1987) suggested that the emerging behavior exhibited by those in crowds was normal (although somewhat untraditional), and not “pathological or irrational[20]”. “Collective behaviour occurs under the governance of emerging norms. Rumor and milling movement of crowds are said to aid the emergence of new norms (emergent norms)[21].” This theory suggests any kind of aggressive behavior exerted by the crowd only occurs after a long period of “milling” about, discussing the present situation and considering possible courses of action, and eventually uniting in those actions. Several issues with this theory were identified by Reicher, to include the difficulty in providing an explanation for the presence of “crowd unity” within a brief timeframe during which discussions to decide upon a course of action have not occurred[22].
Reicher in turn provided an Elaborated Social Identity Model, which emphasized the importance of taking into consideration social identity (which was distinguished from personal identity) and Turner’s self-categorization. “According to Turner…self-categorization constitutes the psychological basis for group behavior. On defining ourselves as category members we participate in a process of self-stereotyping. That is, we seek to determine the relevance of category identity for action in context and we conform accordingly. We expect fellow group members to do likewise and therefore we also expect to agree with them on matters pertaining to our mutual social identity[23].” Also emphasized by the Model is group dynamics and motives, and “inter-group context and intra-group discussion[24]”, or interactive behaviors within and between the “in-group” and “out-group”. The majority of the in-group, or crowd, may originally intend to act in a non-aggressive manner, but may change their behavior in response to the way they are treated by the out-group, say for instance, crowd-control police forces. “Crowds were more likely to become involved in conflict when conflicting behavior is deemed legitimate because out-group behavior is seen to violate proper social practice or when conflict is considered to be an effective way to meet desired ends[25].” Research has largely supported the Elaborated Social Identity Model[26].
Reicher’s Elaborated Social Identity Theory is the theory which makes the most sense to me. If the majority of the in-group has largely peaceful intentions and their causes for gathering are legitimate, but are treated as otherwise by an out-group whose entire purpose is to maintain order, it is understandable that the previously peaceful individuals would take on the mindset of the more aggressive members. This brings to mind the discussion of “dissociative identity disorder” in Criminal Behavior: A Psychosocial Approach. “Everyone to some degree hosts a number of sub-personalities (Slovenko, 1989)….The situation also makes a big difference[27].” This considered, it is understandable how it could be easy to “change your mind” and mirror the behavior of more extreme group members. Additionally, I feel (particularly within Western society) alcohol is the strongest driving force behind typical episodes of crowd violence, particularly those leading to large-scale riots or physical altercations. Research shows alcohol is the “number one drug of abuse[28]”, nearly one-quarter of Americans are binge drinkers, and one-third of violent offenders were “drinking at the time of offense[29]”. While it is repeatedly emphasized that alcohol consumption does not cause violent behavior, it certainly affects judgement and encourages violent manifestations of aggression. As Moore et al, notes, “Social stresses, in particular those resulting from an undesired or uncontrollable event frequently trigger anger (Cohen, 1980; Roseman, 2004; Roseman & Evdokas, 2004) and under certain conditions crowd dynamics can represent undesired or uncontrollable events. For example, competition between crowd members is heightened when crowd density is high and resources scarce (Jain, 1987). Moreover, size and design of licensed premises contribute to their atmosphere. Small enclosed venues can promote inefficient service and overcrowding resulting in impatience, combined with increased physical contact between patrons and therefore, aggressive behavior (Macintyre & Homel, 1997)[30].” When large quantities of alcohol consumption is introduced, the perceptions of these stresses are likely to be heightened. This brings me to the recommendations which have been made to security forces for dealing with aggressive crowds; dealing with those types of crowds in an alcohol-infused environment requires additional sensitivity and attention.
Emphasis has been placed upon the importance of making strong attempts to prevent crowd violence before it occurs. Recommendations include but are not limited to “pre-incident planning” in an attempt to avoid confrontation from the start, gaining “background information and intelligence” on the crowd by constantly assessing the composition (including cultural background), goals, activities, capabilities, assembly locations, destinations, potential targets of violence of the in-group, worst case scenarios, dispersal locations and possible future gatherings , and “encouraging relationships and ownership” by emphasizing negotiations. Additionally, preparing for “points of intervention for individuals” has proven extremely important, as the violent and destructive actions of few are likely to influence the actions of others if not appropriately handled in a timely manner[31]. If these recommendations are taken into consideration, it may prove highly effective in improving the inter-group dynamic as presented by Reicher, and keep violent confrontations largely at bay.
Bibliography
“Bosnia bank seizure sparks riots”, (British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC], April 2001) , Accessed January 05, 2012: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1263928.stm.
Bartol, Curt R. and Annie M. Bartol. “Crime and Mental Disorders: Dissociative Identity Disorder.” In Criminal Behavior, A Psychosocial Approach, 254–266. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc, 2008.
“Chile riot police clash with student protesters”, (Guardian News, August 2011), Accessed January 05, 2012: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/10/chile-riot-student-protest-violence.
Gettleman, Jeffrey, “Riots Batter Kenya as Rivals Declare Victory”, (New York Times, December 2007), Accessed January 05, 2012: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/ world/africa/30kenya.html?pagewanted=all.
Hylander, Ingrid and Kjell Granström, “Organizing for a Peaceful Crowd: An Example of a Football Match”, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(2), Art. 8, http://nbn- resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs100283 [Accessed January 05, 2012].
Kenny, Dr. John M., Dr. Clark McPhail, Dr. Peter Waddington, Lt. Sid Heal, Maj. Steve Ijames, Dr. Donald N. Farrer, Dr. Jim Taylor and Capt. Dick Odenthal, “Crowd Behavior, Crowd Control, and the Use of Non-Lethal Weapons”, Human Effects Advisory Panel Report of Finding, Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies, 2001, Contract No. M67004–99-D-0037, http://www.nldt.org/documents/crowd_control_report.pdf, [Accessed January 05, 2012].
Levy, Linda, “A Study of Sports Crowd Behavior: The Case of the Great Pumpkin Incident”, Journal of Sports and Social Issues (1989), 13(2), Rutgers University, http://people.wku.edu/douglas.smith/Sports%20Crowd%20Behavior.pdf, [Accessed January 06, 2012], 69–91.
Moore, Simon C., Mario Flajslik, Paul L. Rosin, and David Marshall, “A particle model of crowd behavior: Exploring the relationship between alcohol, crowd dynamics and violence”, Aggression and Violent Behavior (13) (2008), pdf.
Reicher, Stephen, “The Psychology of Crowd Dynamics”, 2004, School of Psychology St Andrews, Scotland, http://www.uni-kiel.de/psychologie/ispp/doc_upload/Reicher_crowd%20dynamic.pdf, [Accessed January 05, 2012], pdf..
“Understanding Crowd Behaviours: Volume 2 — Supporting Theory and Evidence”, The Stationary Office, London (March 2010), pdf, http://leeds.academia.edu /RoseChallenger/Books/1164740/Understanding_Crowd_Behaviours_Volume_2_Supporting_Theory_and_Evidence, [Accessed January 05, 2011].
Zietz Katheryn M., Heather M. Tan, and Christopher J. Zietz, “Crowd Behavior at Mass Gatherings: A Literature Review.” Prehospital Disast Med, (2009), 24(1), http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/Volume_24 /issue_1/zeitz.pdf [Accessed January 01, 2012], pdf, 32–38.
Shah, Harmeet, “Thrown pig leads to religious riots in India”, (Cable News Network [CNN], July 2009), Accessed January 05, 2012: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-03/world/ india.pig.religious.riot_1_mysore-rioting-muslims-and-hindus?_s=PM:WORLD.
[1] . Kenny, Dr. John M., Dr. Clark McPhail, Dr. Peter Waddington, Lt. Sid Heal, Maj. Steve Ijames, Dr. Donald N. Farrer, Dr. Jim Taylor and Capt. Dick Odenthal, “Crowd Behavior, Crowd Control, and the Use of Non-Lethal Weapons”, Human Effects Advisory Panel Report of Finding, Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies, 2001, Contract No. M67004–99-D-0037, http://www.nldt.org/documents/crowd_control_report.pdf, [Accessed January 05, 2012].
[2] . Zietz Katheryn M., Heather M. Tan, and Christopher J. Zietz, “Crowd Behavior at Mass Gatherings: A Literature Review.” Prehospital Disast Med, (2009), 24(1), http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/Volume_24 /issue_1/zeitz.pdf [Accessed January 01, 2012], pdf, 32–38.
[3] . Kenny, et al, “Crowd Behavior, Crowd Control, and the Use of Non-Lethal Weapons”, 10.
[4] . Ibid., 6–10.
[5] . Examples include religious rioting in India (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-03/world/ india.pig.religious.riot_1_mysore-rioting-muslims-and-hindus?_s=PM:WORLD), political rioting in Kenya (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/world/africa/30kenya.html?pagewanted=all), economic rioting in Bosnia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1263928.stm), student riots in Chile (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/10/chile-riot-student-protest-violence).
[6] . Kenny, et al, “Crowd Behavior, Crowd Control, and the Use of Non-Lethal Weapons”, 39.
[7] . Levy, Linda, “A Study of Sports Crowd Behavior: The Case of the Great Pumpkin Incident”, 75.
[8] . Kenny, et al, “Crowd Behavior, Crowd Control, and the Use of Non-Lethal Weapons”, 7.
[9] . Zietz, et al, “Crowd Behavior at Mass Gatherings: A Literature Review,” 36.
[10] . Kenny, et al, “Crowd Behavior, Crowd Control, and the Use of Non-Lethal Weapons”, 18
[11] . “Understanding Crowd Behaviours: Volume 2 — Supporting Theory and Evidence”, 83, 84.
[12] . Kenny, et al, “Crowd Behavior, Crowd Control, and the Use of Non-Lethal Weapons”, 19, 20.
[13] . Reicher, Stephen, “The Psychology of Crowd Dynamics”, 9.
[14] . Reicher, Stephen, “The Psychology of Crowd Dynamics” 5.
[15] . Ibid., 6.
[16] . Levy, Linda, “A Study of Sports Crowd Behavior: The Case of the Great Pumpkin Incident”, Journal of Sports and Social Issues (1989), 13(2), Rutgers University, http://people.wku.edu/douglas.smith/Sports%20Crowd%20Behavior.pdf, [Accessed January 06, 2012], 72.
[17] . Reicher, Stephen, “The Psychology of Crowd Dynamics”, 9.
[18] . “Understanding Crowd Behaviours: Volume 2 — Supporting Theory and Evidence”, The Stationary Office, London (March 2010), pdf, http://leeds.academia.edu/RoseChallenger/Books/1164740/Understanding _Crowd_Behaviours_Volume_2_Supporting_Theory_and_Evidence, [Accessed January 05, 2011], 64.
[19] . Ibid., 66.
[20] . Reicher, Stephen, “The Psychology of Crowd Dynamics”, 12.
[21] . Kenny et al, “Crowd Behavior, Crowd Control, and the Use of Non-Lethal Weapons”, 33.
[22] . Reicher, Stephen, “The Psychology of Crowd Dynamics”, 14.
[23] . Ibid., 15.
[24] . Kenny et al, “Crowd Behavior, Crowd Control, and the Use of Non-Lethal Weapons”, 34, 35.
[25] . Ibid.
[26] . Ibid.
[27] . Curt R. Bartol and Annie M. Bartol. “Crime and Mental Disorders: Dissociative Identity Disorder.” In Criminal Behavior, A Psychosocial Approach (New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc, 2008), 266.
[28] . Ibid, 559.
[29] . Ibid., 563.
[30] . Moore, Simon C., Mario Flajslik, Paul L. Rosin, and David Marshall, “A particle model of crowd behavior: Exploring the relationship between alcohol, crowd dynamics and violence”, Aggression and Violent Behavior (13) (2008), pdf.
[31] . Kenny, et al, “Crowd Behavior, Crowd Control, and the Use of Non-Lethal Weapons”, 22–30"
