Explain Le Bon's contagion theory of collective behavior, ...

[urbanoutfitters]

Explain Le Bon's contagion theory of collective behavior, including the major criticisms of it.
 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

Describe Blumer's typology of crowds, including the more recent inclusion of protest crowds.
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[chem1s3]

Answer to Question 1

French scholar Gustave Le Bon developed a social psychological theory of collective

behavior called contagion theory. Contagion theory attempts to explain how moods,

attitudes, and behavior are communicated rapidly within a collectivity and why they are

accepted by others. According to Le Bon, people are more likely to engage in

antisocial behavior in a crowd because they are anonymous and feel invulnerable. A

crowd takes on a life of its own that is larger than the beliefs or actions of any one

person. Because of its anonymity, the crowd transforms individuals from rational beings

into a single organism with a collective mind. Emotions such as fear and hate are

contagious in crowds because people experience a decline in personal responsibility

they will do things as a collectivity that they would never do when acting alone. Critics

of contagion theory, such as those who support emergent norm theory, point out that

crowds are not irrational. Rather, new norms are developed in a rational way to fit the

immediate situation.

Answer to Question 2

Blumer developed a typology in which crowds are divided into four categories: (1)

Casual crowds are relatively large gatherings of people who happen to be in the same

place at the same time if they interact at all, it is only briefly. People in a shopping mall

or a subway car are examples of casual crowds. Members of a casual crowd have

nothing in common. (2) Conventional crowds are made up of people who come

together for a scheduled event and thus share a common focus. Examples include

religious services, graduation ceremonies, concerts, and college lectures. Each of these

events has preestablished schedules and norms. Because these events occur regularly,

interaction among participants is much more likely in turn, the events would not occur

without the crowd, which is essential to the event. (3) Expressive crowds provide

opportunities for the expression of some strong emotion (such as joy, excitement, or

grief). People release their pent-up emotions in conjunction with other persons

experiencing similar emotions. Examples include worshippers at religious revival

services mourners lining the streets when a celebrity, public official, or religious leader

has died and revelers assembled at Mardi Gras in New Orleans or on New Year's

Eve at Times Square in New York. (4) Acting crowds are collectivities so intensely

focused on a specific purpose or object that they may erupt into violent or destructive

behavior. Mobs, riots, and panics are examples of acting crowds. A mob is a highly

emotional crowd whose members engage in, or are ready to engage in, violence against

a specific targeta person, a category of people, or physical property. Mob behavior in

the United States has included lynching, fire bombings, effigy hangings, and hate

crimes. Mob violence tends to dissipate relatively quickly once a target has been

injured, killed, or destroyed. Compared with mob actions, riots may be of somewhat

longer duration. A riot is violent crowd behavior that is fueled by deep-seated emotions

but not directed at one specific target. Riots are often triggered by fear, anger, and

hostility. A panic is a form of crowd behavior that occurs when a large number of

people react to a real or perceived threat with strong emotions and self-destructive

behavior. McPhail and Wohlstein added protest crowds to the four types of crowds

identified by Blumer. Protest crowds engage in activities intended to achieve specific

political goals. Examples include sit-ins, marches, boycotts, blockades, and strikes.

Some protests take the form of civil disobediencenonviol ent action that seeks to

change a policy or law by refusing to comply with it.