Emergent-Norm Theory

This article examines the emergent norm theory of collective behavior. Emergent norm addresses several perceived deficiencies in prior theories of collective behavior, including contagion theory and convergence theory. A description of what is collective behavior is included, as well as a description of norms, followed by an examination of the major points of emergent norm theory. This includes a discussion of the social organization of crowds, a discussion of the role of anonymity and familiarity in crowd behavior, and the process of emergent norms in the public. A short discussion of the applicability of the theory for sociologists, authorities, and social movement leaders is also included. Finally, there is a discussion of the critiques and potential shortfalls of the theory. These include the lack of emphasis on preexisting social relationships and power structures.

Keywords Collective Behavior; Contagion Theory; Convergence Theory; Crowd; Keynoter; Norm; Protests; Riots; Social Structure; Symbolic Interactionism; The Public

Emergent Norm Theory

Overview

The behavior of crowds and other acting collectivities has interested social scientists since Gustav Le Bon wrote The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind in 1896. In this work, Le Bon focuses in on the pathology of the individuals within a crowd and their tendency toward violence. To him, the highly emotional and often violent behavior of crowds is seen in terms of a contagion. In this analysis of crowd behavior, the crowd has undue influence over otherwise rational people who then become infected with the excitement of the crowd, leading to antisocial and destructive behavior. This theory of crowd behavior is known as contagion theory because of its emphasis on the contagiousness of crowd excitement (Macionis, 2001; Marx & Wood, 1975).

Later research on crowd behavior emphasized that crowd excitement does not necessarily infect otherwise rational people and make them act irrationally, but instead it emphasizes that crowds are made up of like-minded individuals who come together to act on preexisting tendencies. This theory of crowd behavior is known as convergence theory. This theory of crowds does not see crowd excitement as contagious, but it still assumes that crowd behavior is deviant or irrational. Early research suggested that more psychological strains of convergence theory emphasize that individuals come together in crowds in order to act out preexisting instinctual and violent tendencies. More recent sociological approaches, however, emphasize the similarity of social characteristics of crowds and social movement participants. This approach emphasizes that crowds are instances of like-minded individuals coming together to act on collective grievances rather than on instinctual tendencies (Macionis, 2001; Morrison & Steeves, 1967; Turner & Killian, 1972).

As a response to both contagion theory and convergence theory, both of which view crowd behavior as pathological, Turner & Killian (1972) developed the emergent norm approach to the study of collective behavior. They explain that, "a common view of collective behavior implies that it consists simply of the violation of usual norms by a large number of people at the same time—that it is disorganized, deviant behavior" (p. 4). Instead, they argue that "collective behavior is regulated by a norm, but a norm that arises in a special situation" (p. 4). Thus, following the model of symbolic interactionism, they argue, rather than norm violation, the interaction of individuals within collective behavior episodes produces emergent norms, or norms that are appropriate to the changing and often chaotic situations of collective behavior episodes.

Description of Collective Behavior

Collective behavior as a distinct field within sociology is wide-ranging. It encompasses everything from crowds in disaster situations to social movements (although the study of social movements has increasingly become its own distinct division within the discipline). Collective behavior can be localized in its orientation, such as a crowd situation, or very broad, as would be the case with fads or fashions. Therefore, it is sometimes hard to clearly delineate its boundaries. One of the key distinctions of collective behavior is that it refers to the study of collectivities. Turner and Killian (1972) explain, "collective behavior refers to the action of collectivities, not to a type of individual behavior" (p. 4-5). They further explain, "As a group, a collectivity is more than simply a number of individuals. A group always consists of people who are in interaction and whose interaction is affected by some sense that they constitute a unit" (p. 5). A collectivity, then, shares sense of identity and acts in concert with one another. The action is not necessarily planned ahead of time, but it can be.

Three traits of collectivities have been defined in order to make more clear the distinctions between them and other social groupings. These three traits are:

1. Collectivities are based on limited social interaction;
2. Collectivities have no clear social boundaries; and
3. Collectivities generate weak and unconventional norms (Macionis, 2001, p. 600).

As these three traits make clear, the study of collective behavior is focused on non-institutionalized groups. This means that the groups under investigation do not usually constitute a formal organization such as a business, political party, or even family. Instead, collectivities are groups that are often fleeting and emergent. For example an acting crowd at a political demonstration may come together for a short period of time and then disperse. Further, the demonstration participants may come and go as they please without officially joining some organization, or even the movement. Finally, participants in the demonstration may cheer or "boo" speakers because it is expected of them, not just because they agree or disagree with what is being said. This final point of behavior is what emergent norm theory addresses.

Emergent Norm Theory & Collective Behavior

Emergent norm theory addresses many of the perceived weaknesses in both contagion and convergence theories. Firstly, emergent norm theory does not presuppose unanimity of the crowd either in action or disposition. Nor does it assume that crowd behavior is pathological, as is implicit in both contagion and convergence theories. Instead, emergent norm assumes that all human interaction is guided by norms, and that collective behavior is not exceptional in this regard. During episodes of collective behavior, social norms and social organization emerge as a result of various factors including the behavior of keynoters, and interaction between individuals in the crowd. Secondly, an emergent norm approach addresses the supposition that individual action within crowds is a result of anonymity. Emergent social structures often guide the action of individuals as well as constrain them. Finally, the emergent norm approach can be applied to both localized collectivities and diffuse collectivities, whereas both contagion and convergence assume localized collectivities. To understand emergent norm theory, it is first helpful to understand what a norm is.

Social Norms & Behavior

Social norms are rules of behavior that individuals within any given society or social situation are expected to follow. Norms can be either proscriptive or prescriptive. Proscriptive norms tell individuals how they should not act, while prescriptive norms offer guidance on how individuals should act. Norms are not encoded in law, but there are often social repercussions when they are broken (Macionis, 2001).

Turner and Killian (1972) offer a notable psychological experiment conducted by S. E. Asch as an example of the power of norms. The Asch experiment involved individuals in a laboratory environment who were set up to be in a minority position regarding their opinion on the length of three different lines. The experiment involved groups of seven to nine students who were shown three lines of different lengths. Only one student was not an associate in the experiment. They were then asked to compare the three lines to a forth, separate line and decide which of the three was the same length of the fourth, separate line. In the experiment, it was clear that none of the three lines was the same length as the fourth.

The goal of the experiment was to gauge to what degree the unknowing student in the group would be influenced by the other students who were instructed beforehand to unanimously choose a line that matched the fourth. In the experiment, one third of the students went along with the majority opinion of the crowd despite the clearly different lengths of the lines. In follow-up interviews with the subjects, Asch discovered that nearly all of the subjects felt the pressure of the group to go along with their decision, including those that did not choose the same line as the rest. Further, they considered themselves to be the source of trouble rather than the rest of the members of the group, despite the fact that their senses told them the lines were clearly different. A number of subjects even became confused and began to doubt their own senses. Subjects also reported going along with the group even if they did not necessarily agree with their judgments (Turner & Killian, 1972). This experiment illustrates the power that group norms can have over individuals. As was explained, some began to doubt their own judgment, while others (even if they did not submit) felt the pressure of the group to go along and began to feel like troublemakers. This illustrates that people may often follow the group in order to get along.

Social Organization & Crowds

The Asch experiment and the differing responses to group pressure not only express the power of norms, but also illustrate the variety of actions and dispositions that are present in episodes of collective behavior. While contagion and convergence theory both assume the crowd is acting as one unanimous unit, the emergent norm model assumes that there are a number of different actions and dispositions within any given collective behavior episode. As Turner and Killian explain, "the crowd is characterized not by unanimity but by differential expression, with different individuals in the crowd feeling differently, participating because of diverse motives, and even acting differently" (1972, p. 22). Rather than seeing individuals in the crowd acting out in a uniform manner, this theory argues that crowd motives and crowd behavior differ among different individuals. Even when crowds seem to be acting in unison they are often just behaving according to an emergent norm or emergent social structure.

Turner and Killian (1972) also argue that because collective behavior is usually episodic, meaning that it is non-standardized and non-institutionalized, the norms produced during these episodes are emergent. Part of the process of emerging norms is the existence of leaders and the presence of keynoters. Additional empirical research on crowds has also noted that the interaction of existing social networks or social structures influences the behavior of the crowd and subsequent emergence of norms and emergent social structures. The crowd, then, is not just a formless mass awaiting the introduction of some stimuli, but instead exhibits norms and organization including a division of labor. This division of labor and emergence of norms is often a result of leaders or keynoting. Turner and Killian (1972) explain that keynoting is a symbolic gesture or utterance that encourages the crowd to reorient itself to the emerging situation in a particular way (p. 47). Others have noted the importance of this phenomenon as well (Aguirre, Wenger & Vigo, 1998; Neal & Phillips, 1988).

Research on crowds, demonstrations, and riots has confirmed many of the hypotheses of emergent norm theory regarding the emergence of norms as well as emergent social structures. Many researchers have noted the emergence of a division of labor within crowds. For example, the influence of keynoters has been noted in many studies. McPhail and Wohlstein (1983) discuss the use of shills and agent provocateurs to provoke a specific response within certain collective behavior situations. Similarly, Auyero and Moran (2007), in their examination of food riots in Argentina, discovered the presence of either the police or local political brokers known as punteros was highly correlated to the type of action that was taken by the food rioters. For example, rioters were more likely to loot grocery stores if punteros were present and police were not. Thus, punteros served as keynoters for the crowd, often guiding them to loot smaller grocery stores.

Neal and Phillips (1988) in their examination of crowds that gathered to listen to traveling preachers on a university campus also note the presence of keynoters. They describe individuals that would gather closely to the preachers and egg them on or engage them in other ways. The behavior of these individuals often set the tone for the rest of the crowd and their reactions to the preachers. Further, they noted that crowd structures emerged. The structures included the creation of three relatively stable categories of group participants. The categories were:

• Active participants, this included keynotes and others who engaged the preachers,

• Interested participants, and

• Passive observers with each group behaving according specific norms.

They also noted that while the interactions with the preachers were often combative, if individuals took actions too far they were censured by the crowd. This illustrates an important aspect of emergent norm theory: that crowd norms regulate behavior as well as encourage it. So while crowds are often thought of as acting without any regard to any rule of behavior, emergent norm theory points out that a crowd can also punish behavior it deems unacceptable.

Anonymity & Social Control

Although it is often thought that the behavior of individuals within crowds is a result of anonymity, emergent norm theory suggests that this is not the case. Because norms emerge from social interaction, it is not likely that participants are anonymous to one another. Turner and Killian (1972) explain:

[Anonymity] is a factor that is strongly emphasized in contagion and convergence approaches. If crowd behavior results from the absence of social control or the release of repressed tendencies, then anonymity would indeed be of primary importance in accounting for the elimination of controls that ordinarily keep impulses in check. If, however crowd behavior is subject to social control under an emergent norm, it is important that the individual have an identity so that control of the crowd can be effective (p. 25).

As illustrated in the above example of the crowds who gathered to listen to the traveling preachers, individuals took their actions beyond the prescribed norms and were reprimanded in one way or another. This means, as Turner and Killian point out, that there must be a level of familiarity between participants in the crowd. Indeed, during the observation of the crowds gathered to listen to the preachers, Neal and Phillips (1988) explain that as a result of the social structures that emerged during these crowds, both the crowd members, and especially those within the same social groupings, became familiar with one another. Further, Aguirre, Wenger, and Vigo (1998) in their study of crowd behavior during the February 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center found that often individuals sought out people they knew in order to make sure they were safe. They also found that it was more common for people to act cooperatively rather than competitively and norms of cooperation emerge according to individuals' perception of threat and their interaction with coworkers and emergency workers. So, rather than individuals taking advantage of crowds to anonymously act out, it is more likely that individuals will seek guidance from others in the crowd.

Emergent Norm & the Public

Collective behavior does not necessarily just occur in crowds, demonstrations, or riots; it can also occur across a broad geographic area where participants are not in direct contact with one another. The diffuse collectivity is known as a public. The public is a diffuse group of individuals who share a similar framework for defining an issue. An issue, as Turner and Killian (1972) explain, "is not merely a matter on which people disagree. It is a matter over which people acknowledge the right to disagree" (p. 180). They further state that, the public:

1. Defines the issue about which people disagree and
2. The alternative positions that people can take with respect to the issue (p. 180).

Publics, then, are collectivities of people who engage with an issue. Even if the individuals do not agree, they are aware that the issue is something that people can legitimately disagree on. Thus, the engagement over the issue is governed by a set of rules or norms about how people will engage with that issue. Accordingly, publics are also governed by emergent norms as issues become more or less important. The process of norm construction for the public is carried through mass media rather than through individuals within the crowd.

An example of the emergent norm process in the public setting can be seen in the way people discuss a number of issues, including abortion, war, and the definition of family. Norms about how to engage in debate about these issues have become ingrained in the public. For example, many critics of the Iraq War (2003–2011) argued that it was best for American troops to come home as soon as possible, while supporters argued that a clear victory had to be accomplished first. Rarely, though, was the debate framed in terms of the benefit to those the American troops were fighting. While at the same time in Iraq, the issue of the war was likely framed as a matter of what was better for Iraqis rather than what was best for Americans. Thus, in this situation there existed an American public and an Iraqi public. Both engaged the issue according to norms for each setting.

Applications

Nearly everyone has encountered a crowd or engaged with an issue, and many have participated in crowds, demonstrations, or rallies. Many have probably also noticed that these situations do seem to be different from normal social settings. Therefore, the understanding of collective behavior has widespread appeal.

Sociologists are especially interested in collective behavior because it is out of the ordinary. The study of crowds and riots as well as political and religious rallies has led to a broader understanding of how people behave in various social settings. It has further helped sociologists understand formal and organizational behavior by researching collective behavior. Sociologists and others can apply the emergent norm approach in order to better understand collective behavior, not as irrational or deviant, but as a unique social event.

On many college campuses, crowds occur for many reasons, including sporting events and political demonstrations. The emergent norm approach can help make sense of why people and crowds behave the way they do at these different events. For example, is there more or less respect for authority figures at a sporting event or a political demonstration? Why might this be different at these two events?

Authorities and social movement leaders may also find emergent norm theory useful. For example, Marx (1970) observed in his research about the policing of racial disturbances that too often police officers have an antiquated notion of crowd behavior. Police often assume that people participating in disturbances are being infected by crowd behavior or taking advantage of anonymity to burn and loot stores. Instead, emergent norm theory would point to the importance of normative behavior and the presence of different types of participants. Rather than putting down crowds through the use of brute force, police could use emergent norm theory to discover what norms have emerged, why, and to what end. Thus, they could potentially dissuade violent behavior. Social movement leaders could potentially take advantage of emergent norm theory for similar reasons. After all, it is in the best interest of those who organize demonstrations to understand what affects crowd behavior.

Viewpoints & Discussion

Since emergent norm theory is in the tradition of symbolic interactionism, it is focused on the micro-level interactions between individuals. This often means that analysis of broad social structures or power differentials is left out of the analysis. Further, although emergent norm theory addresses the seeming irrationality of the crowd better than previous theories of crowd behavior, it discounts the rational decision-making of crowd participants (Macionis, 2001).

Since emergent norm theory is so focused on the crowd and interaction within the crowd, it downplays the role of existing social structures and the role that preexisting power differentials in society can play in shaping these emergent norms. Aguirre, Wenger, and Vigo (1998) discuss this lack of emphasis on preexisting social structures. They argue that preexisting relationships should be considered in emergent norm theory. They explain that the emergent norm process is facilitated by familiarity of individuals, stating that, "enduring social relationships facilitate the sharing of a repertoire of experiences and common vocabulary that enable people to communicate easier in problematic situations and to mobilize" (p. 304). The emergence of norms, then, can be affected by participants' outside relationships.

Other research has found that crowd behavior is affected by the outside status of keynoters as well. For example, police and political leaders can act as keynoters. But keynoters may also have an informal social status that crowd members are aware of. Crowd behavior is not just a result of the emergence of norms based exclusively on those interactions within the crowd; it is affected by outside relationships and the power or social status of those individuals who are seeking to create new norms among the competing emergent norms (Aguirre, Wenger & Vigo, 1998; Auyero and Moran, 2007; Neal & Phillips, 1988; McPhail & Wohlstein, 1983)

Conclusion

Collective behavior has been and will continue to be an important part of societies and social change. Emergent norm theory emerged as a theory of collective behavior to address the deficiencies in both contagion and convergence theory. This theory does not assume that all crowd behavior is deviant or out of control. Instead, it emphasizes that even crowd behavior is guided by social norms. But rather than norms based on everyday interaction, they are based on fleeting and unfamiliar interactions that are emergent in nature. Emergent norm theory also addresses the idea that crowd behavior is out of control because individuals are anonymous. It argues that crowd norms act to constrain individuals as well as to cue them to action, and only by familiarity can social constraints work. Finally, emergent norm theory can be applied to diffuse collectives as well as localized collectivities. Publics can be seen to be engaging in collective activities according to norms related to issues. Critiques of emergent norm are that it does not take into account the importance of preexisting relationships and power structures. Overall, the theory addresses the seemingly irrational behavior of crowds by focusing on normative behavior rather than pathology.

Terms & Concepts

Collective Behavior: Behavior that is undertaken by groups of individuals acting together for some end.

Contagion Theory: Theory of group behavior in which the highly emotional and often violent behavior of crowds can infect individuals in the crowd and make them behave irrationally.

Convergence Theory: Theory of collective behavior in which crowd behavior is a result of the coming together of like-minded individuals. This theory emphasizes similarity of participants in collective behavior.

Norm: Rules of behavior that guide individuals' actions in any given society or social setting.

Keynoter: A person who often guides the action of crowds either by action or suggestion.

Social Structure: A stable social pattern or patterned social behavior.

Symbolic Interactionism: Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level sociological perspective, which emphasizes that social behavior is a result of the interaction of and interpretation of everyday behavior. Thus, behavior is always being shaped by how individuals act and react to one another.

The Public: A diffuse collectivity that shares a frame of reference on an issue and engages with the issue, but does not necessarily agree on the issue.

Bibliography

Aguirre, B., Wenger, D., & Vigo, G. (1998). A test of the Emergent Norm Theory of collective behavior. Sociological Forum, 13 , 301–320. Retrieved August 3, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=847808&site=ehost-live

Macionis, J. J. (2001). Sociology (8th ed). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Marx, G. (1970). Civil disorder and the agents of social control. Journal of Social Issues, 26 , 19–57. Retrieved August 4, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=16486857&site=ehost-live

Marx, G. T. & Wood, J. L. (1975). Strands of theory and research in collective behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 1 363–428. Retrieved June 29, 2008 from SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10457449&site=ehost-live

McPhail, C., & Wohlstein, R. (1983). Individual and collective behaviors within gatherings, demonstrations, and riots. Annual Review of Sociology, 9 , 579. Retrieved August 3, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10458293&site=ehost-live

Morrison, D. E. & Steeves, A. D. (1967). Deprivation, discontent, and social movement participation: Evidence on a contemporary farmers' movement, the NFO. Rural Sociology, 32 414–434, Retrieved June 25, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=13193343&site=ehost-live

Murphy, J. P. (2011). Protest or riot?: Interpreting collective action in contemporary France. Anthropological Quarterly, 84 , 977–1009. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=67215846&site=ehost-live

Neal, D., & Phillips, B. (1988). An examination of emergent norms and emergent social structures in collective behavior situations. Sociological Focus, 21 , 233–243. Retrieved August 3, 2008, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=11646009&site=ehost-live

Turner, R.H. & Killian, L.M. (1972). Collective Behavior (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Wahlström, M. (2011). Taking control or losing control? Activist narratives of provocation and collective violence. Social Movement Studies, 10 , 367–385. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=67366738&site=ehost-live

Zamperini, A., Menegatto, M., Travaglino, G. A., & Nulman, E. (2012). Social representations of protest and police after the Genoa G8 Summit: A qualitative analysis of activist accounts of events. Papers on Social Representations, 21 , 1–30. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90538144&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Blumer, H. (1969). Collective behavior. In Lee A. M., (Ed.), Principles of sociology (3rd Ed.). New York: Barnes and Noble Books.

Couch, C. J. (1968). Collective behavior: An examination of some stereotypes. Social Problems, 15 310–322.

Gordon, L. (1983). Aftermath of a race riot: The emergent norm process among black and white community leaders. Sociological Perspectives, 26 , 115–135.

Le Bon, G. (1896). The crowd: A study of the popular mind. New York: The Macmillan Co. Retrieved June 25, 2008 from University of Virginia Library Electronic Text Center: http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/BonCrow.html

Levine, J., & Hogg, M. (Eds.) (2010). Encyclopedia of group processes & intergroup relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Neville, F., & Reicher, S. (2011). The experience of collective participation: Shared identity, relatedness, and emotionality. Contemporary Social Science, 6 , 377–396. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=67285755&site=ehost-live

Schneider, S. (1992). Governmental response to disasters: The conflict between bureaucratic procedures and emergent norms. Public Administration Review, 52 , 135. Retrieved August 4, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9204200675&site=ehost-live

Stott, C. & Reiche, S. (1998). Crowd action as intergroup process: Introducing the police perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology 28, 509–529, Retrieved June 25, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11830098&site=ehost-live