"The mass, whether it be a crowd or an army, is vile" ~Benito Mussolini How do you imagine an archetypal crowd of people - say at a concert, a sporting event or a demonstration?
If you picture an irrational, spontaneous, suggestible, emotional and even potentially dangerous group then you are in good company.
Sociologists David Schweingruber and Ronald Wohlstein have found this view of crowds is promoted by many authors of introductory sociology textbooks. Indeed the idea that crowds demonstrate bizarre, almost pathological behaviour was championed by eminent French sociologist Gustave LeBon.
Despite these beliefs both in sociology textbooks and in the general public, the actual evidence does not support it. Crowds are not the many-armed destructive monsters of the popular or even fascist imagination.
Here are the seven myths about crowds that Schweingruber and Wohlstein identify, in order of how frequently they appear in introductory sociology textbooks.
1. Crowds are spontaneous
The most common myth about crowds is that they are spontaneous, or worse, that they are hotbeds of violence, with complete chaos only a few ill-judged jostles away.
Research into crowd violence does not support this. One study of riots shows that violence is normally related to the presence of two opposing factions. Mixed crowds - which are the norm - are in fact usually peaceful and only engage in stereotypical crowd-behaviour, e.g. whistling and clapping, face-painting, singing and shouting depending on the occasion.
In reality most people will go to almost any length to avoid actual violence, whether they are in a crowd or not.
2. Crowds are suggestible
The idea that people in crowds have heightened suggestibility is also a relatively common myth. People are said to copy each other, looking for a leader, being open to others' suggestion about how they should behave, perhaps resulting from a lack of social structure.
Schweingruber and Wohlstein simply find no research to back up this claim. If there is some truth to the idea that people in crowds are suggestible, no one has managed to demonstrate it empirically. One scholar has asked why, if crowds are so suggestible, they don't disperse when asked to do so by an authority figure.
3. Crowds are irrational
One type of irrationality frequently attributed to crowds is panic. Faced by emergency situations people are thought to suddenly behave like selfish animals, trampling others in the scramble to escape.
A long line of research into the way people behave in real emergency situations does not support this idea. Two examples are studies on underground station evacuations and the rapid, orderly way in which people evacuated the World Trade Center after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Many lives were saved that day because people resisted the urge to panic. Resisting the urge to irrationality, or panic, is the norm.
4. Crowds increase anonymity
A less common myth, but still popular is the idea that people become more anonymous when they are in a crowd. This anonymity is said to feed into spontaneity and even destructiveness, helping to make crowds violent, dangerous places in which society's laws are transgressed.
Everyday experience, though, is that people usually travel in groups, with their family or friends, and so are not anonymous at all. Research confirms this, for example one study from the 70s found that most people at a football match were with one or more friends. Later research has repeated this finding.
5. Crowds are emotional
Less widespread this myth - nevertheless crowds are thought by some to be particularly emotional. It is argued that increased emotionality is linked to irrationality and perhaps violence.
Modern psychological research, though, doesn't see the emotions as separate to decision-making, but rather as an integral part. To talk about an 'emotional crowd' as opposed to a 'rational crowd', therefore, doesn't make sense. People in crowds make their decisions with input from their emotions, just as they do when they're not in a crowd.
6. Crowds are unanimous
Few of the sociology textbooks endorse the myth of unanimity, but the idea does appear that when people are together they tend to act in unison. Research suggests, though, that this is rarely the case - people remain stubbornly individual.
7. Crowds are destructive
The least common myth in the sociology textbooks, but quite a strong cultural stereotype of crowds, is that they are destructive. This is closely related to the myth of spontaneity and is often connected to violence.
Again Schweingruber and Wohlstein find that the research (like this) shows violence in crowds is extremely rare. And what violence does occur is normally carried out by a small minority - these are the people that make it onto the news.
What do you think?
Crowds obviously vary greatly, but this myth-busting portrayal of crowds certainly agrees with my experience. I assumed all the violent, despotic, spontaneous, dangerous crowds on TV and in films must be elsewhere.
What's your experience of being in a crowd or watching a crowd?
[Image credit: twose]
译文:
七个关于群众心理学的误解
“群众，不管它是一个人群还是一个军队，都是可憎的。”~ Benito Mussolini
你怎样来设想群众的原型呢？在一场演唱会中，一场体育比赛中，或者一个真实的例子中。
如果你描述了一个没有理智的、自发形成的、易受暗示的、感性的甚至有潜在危机的团体，然而你却在一个良好的团体中。
社会科学家David Schweingruber和Ronald Wohlstein已经发现这样的观点是被很多介绍性的社会科学教科书的作家所促进的。事实上，法国著名的社会科学家Gustave LeBon也支持这个群众怪异甚至病态的行为观点。
虽然这样的观点被社会科学教科书和一般公众所接受，但实际的证据却并不支持它。群众并不是流行的甚至法西斯式幻想中的有很多武装的破坏性的怪物。
下面是七个Schweingruber和Wohlstein发现的七个关于群众的误解。它们是按在教科书中被提及的频次来排列的。
1.群众是自发形成的。
最普遍的对群众的误解是他们是自发形成的，更糟的是，他们是暴力的温床，仅仅因为一点点缺乏考虑的冲突。
对群众暴力的研究并不支持这个观点。一个对暴乱的研究表明，暴力普遍的与两个对立的小集团同时在场相关。混合的标准群众实际上通常是非常和平的，他们只会参加一些正常的群体活动，比如节日时吹笛子、鼓掌、化妆、唱歌欢叫。
在现实中，很多人都会避免暴力发生，不管他们是不是在一个团体中。
2.群众是易受暗示的。
在群体中的人们有着更高的易受暗示性的观点也是一个非常普遍的误解。人们被认为会去模仿别人、寻找一个领导、对别人对于他们应该怎样行动的建议开放。这可能是由缺乏一个社会结构造成的。
Schweingruber和Wohlstein发现并没有研究来支持这个观点。如果关于群众是易受暗示的观点存在着一些真实性，但没有人尝试着用经验实证来证实它。一个学者感到疑惑，如果群众是易受暗示的，当受到一个权威人物的指令时，他们便不会反抗。
3.群众是没有理智的。
恐慌经常与群众联系起来。当面临着紧急情况时，人们会突然表现得像自私的动物一样，通过践踏别人来逃生。
关于人们在一个真实的紧急情况中行为表现的一系列研究并不支持这个观点。地下铁车站逃生和人们在911世界贸易中心恐怖袭击逃生的快速出口的两个研究就是很好的例子。因为人们抑制了慌乱，很多生命因此幸存下来。对失去理智和慌乱的抑制是很普遍的。
4.群众发展了匿名性。
当人们处在一个群体中，便会变拥有更强的匿名性。这是一个并不是很普遍但也很流行的误解。人们认为这种匿名性助长了自发性甚至破坏性，促进了群体暴力和违反法律的危险地点。
但日常的经验却是这样的，人们经常和家人和朋友一起去旅行，所以根本就没有匿名性可言。研究已经证实了这点。例如有个对70后的研究发现很多人人都会与一个或多个朋友一起
观看足球比赛。后来的研究也证实了这个发现。
5.群众是感性的
不过群众对某些人来说是特别感性的。这是一个并不普遍的误解。增长中的感性与失去理智和潜在的暴力相关的观点是有争议的。
虽然现代的心理学研究并没有把感性看做在决策中的一个独立成分，但也是一个重要的部分。因此把一个感性的群体看成与一个理性的群体相对的，是毫无意义的。在团体中的人们通过情感的输入来做决定，就跟他们并没有在一个团体中一样。
6.群众是从众的。
很少社会学教科书认可从众性的误区，但这个观点却常常出现。当人们在一起时，他们倾向于一致的表现。研究表明，虽然是少数的情况，但人们还是能在团体中坚持独立。
7.群众是具有破坏性的
群众是具有破坏性的。这是在社会学教科书中出现最少的一个误解，但却是一个很强的团体文化。这个观点与自发性的误区仅仅相连，并且和暴力也有联系。
Schweingruber和Wohlstein再次发现群体的暴力是很少的。暴力仅仅发生在团体中仅仅是小部分，但他们都被人们公布在新闻上了。
你是怎么想的呢？
群众已经改变很多了，但是这个对于团体的描述是与我的经验相符的。我假定所有的在电视和电影中的暴力的、专制的、自发的、危险的团体肯定在别处。