68 Journalists Journal of Sports and Social Issues (1989), 13(2): 69-91

Schudson, Michael. 1978. Discovering the News: A Social History of A Study of Sports Crowd Behavior: The Case American Newspapers. New York: Basic Books. Solomon, George. 1988. Telephone interview. (December 11). of the Great Pumpkin Incident Stevens, John D. and Garcia, Hazel D. 1980. Communication History . Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Linda Levy Surface, Bill. 1972. "The Shame of the Sports Beat." Columbia Department of Sociology Journalism Review, (January/Febmary): 48-55. Rutgers University Temple, Wick. 1977. "Sportswriting: A Whole New Ballgame." ASNE Bulletin, (September): 3-6. ABSTRACT Tuchman, Gaye. 1972. "Objectivity as a~trate~icRitual: An Examination of Newsmen's Notions of Objectivity." Disagreement on which theory of collective behavior best American Journal of Sociology, 77: 660-679. predicts or explains how crowd processes work prompted this Weaver, David H. and Wilhoit, G. Cleveland. 1986. The American case study. By closely examining, through participant Journalist: A Portrait of U.S. News People and Their Work. observation, the unfolding of one episode of nonviolent Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press. collective behavior at a professional football game, four Weinthal, Donald S.. and O'Keefe, Garrett J. 1974. "Professionalism among frequently applied theories of collective behavior are tested for Broadcast Newsmen in an Urban Area." Journal of Broadcasting. 18: their utility in sports crowd situations. Each theory is 193-209. assessed for strengths and weaknesses. "Findings show Windahl, Sven and Rosengren, Karl E. 1978. "Newsmen's contagion theory, convergence theory, emergent norm theory, Professionalization: Some Methodological Problems." and value-added theory all valuable in explaining some facets Journalism Quarterly, 55: 466-473. of observed spectator behavior; therefore a synthesis of theories Wulfemeyer, K. Tim. 1985-86. "Ethics in Sports Journalism." Journal of might prove more useful than applying theories separately. A Mass Media Ethics, 1 (Fall-Winter): 57-67. methodological problem emerged during evaluation, concerning difficulty in distinguishing among the indicators for each theory. Several overlapping theoretical concepts confounded attempts to operationalize unique empirical measures and hence, to compare the theories satisfactorily. Further research is needed to provide adequate measures.

Controversy exists among social scientists about which theory of collective behavior, if any, proves most applicable to sports crowd situations. Researchers debate the utility of different theories as concern centers around how and why collective processes sometime operate to escalate spectator behavior beyond conventional limits. This paper tests four of the most frequently applied theories of collective behavior on an observed nonviolent collective spectator incident. The purpose is to learn more about sports crowd dynamics and to shed light on which perspective(s) might best predict and explain collective behavior in the sports context. THEORIES OF COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR The foundations of crowd theory were laid at the end of the nineteenth century in Europe by Gustave LeBon who first called attention to the crowd as a social ohenomen. Livine: in a time of 70 Sports Crowd Behavior JSSI, Levy 71 revolutionary upheaval, LeBon took a pathological view, in that Later theorists, Ralph Turner and Lewis Killian, drew from under given circumstances he found crowd behavior not only insight scattered throughout the literature upon which they built a different from but intellectually inferior to individual behavior. new theory of collective behavior (Wright, 1978). Turner and LeBon asserted that rather than interpreting phenomena rationally, Killian (1957) theorized that instead of crowd behavior being individuals in crowd situations become dominated by their normless, individual crowd members were simply following new unconscious personalities. Suggestion, imitation, and contagion norms rather than traditional ones. It was the mood and imagery result in the infectious spread of emotion, whereby crowd members particular to an immediate situation which caused these new norms fall under the influence of a collective mind. Individuals have shed to emerge that were then transmitted to others through social responsibility for their actions in the sea of anonymity (LeBon, interaction. When a unique circumstance arises, people lack 1895). This conceptualization formed a framework for what would guidelines for defining appropriate action to follow; therefore, they later be called contagion theory. look to see what others are doing and model their own behavior In the mid-twentieth century Herbert Blumer refined accordingly. In this way, individuals communicate the shared contagion theory by introducing the notion of a circular reaction, definition, pressuring others around them to conform (Turner and adapting the earlier ideas of Floyd Allport (Brown and Goldin, Killian, 1957). 1973). During a circular reaction, responses of individuals within a Emergent norm theory received praise for contributing crowd reproduce the responses of others around them, reflecting insight about normative implications and for its view of collective stimulation back and forth and thereby causing its intensification. behavior as interactionally produced (Brovfn and Goldin, 1973; Circular reactions signal the existence of a state of social unrest, Wright, 1978). However, Brown and Goldin (1973) characterized which according to Blumer (1951), is the initial process of emergent norm theory as incomplete and lacking in scope, while elementary collective behavior. During social unrest people may Wright (1978) argued that not enough attention was given to become engaged by the occurrence of some exciting event, and nonverbal processes by Turner and Killian. successively caught up in milling, collective excitement, and finally Recognizing the shortcomings inherent in each of the in social contagion as arousal intensifies. Individuals become preceding theories, Neil Smelser (1963) constructed value-added sensitized to one another, experiencing rapport which induces the theory to improve analysis by logically patterning determinants of lowering of social resistance and a loss of normal individual control. collective behavior from least to most specific. The focus narrows Blumer maintains that at this point, infected individuals are most as a new value is added at each stage, redefining social action and likely to engage in impulsive, non-rational behavior (Blumer, 1951). ultimately producing only one possible outcome. The first stage is Contagion theory met wide criticism due to later empirical structural conduciveness: social conditions must favor collective findings. LeBon's notion of a group mind was rejected by most action. Second is structural strain: failure of some aspect of the subsequent scholars, as was the concept of irrationality. Some social system to function effectively, with several sources of strain social scientists also questioned uniformity of behavior, the process often occurring in combination. Third is the growth and spread of a of spontaneous social contagion, and how to account for collective shared generalized belief: a belief which identifies and attributes behavior's termination (Turner, 1964; Smelser, 1963; Berk, 1974). characteristics to the source(s) of strain and then determines an A less popular conception of collective behavior, appropriate response. Fourth are precipitating factors: factors which convergence theory, stems from early psychological theories of confirm and give substance to the belief as well as intensifying the Sigmund Freud and Floyd Allport, and was further developed by previous determinants. The fifth stage is mobilizing the collectivity Neal Miller and John Dollard. Convergence theory maintains that for action: leaders emerge as a division of labor takes place, and the crowd behavior develops because individuals with shared type of collective behavior is determined. The sixth stage, social predispositons have converged at the same location (Turner,1964). control overarches all: either preventive or interventive measures Social facilitation then ensues when all respond in a similar manner taken by agencies of social control may interfere with the foregoing toward a common stimulus (Wright, 1978). Although convergence determinants at any stage. Smelser applied the preceding stages to theory added a new dimension, it received criticism for lacking a several forms of collective behavior. His "hostile outburst" structural framework and not explaining certain crowd dynamics category, to be tested here, is described as "action mobilized on the such as behavioral shifts, multiple predispositions, or role basis of a generalized belief assigning responsibility for an acauisition (Turner. 1964: Berk. 1974) r*nAan;vohla rr+o+n -F nFL;-c tn 0n-n nnnmt" IlnLq n 72 Sports Crowd Behavior JSSI, Levy 73

Criticism of Smelser's theory is mixed. Evans (1969) Mann (1979, 1989) also took an eclectic approach. He lauded its significance as did Marx (1972) who approved of value- attributed uninhibited, impulsive, antisocial behavior stemming from added theory's conventional rather than abnormal behavioral the extreme emotional arousal of either a victory or loss at game's categories. Brown and Goldin (1973) pointed to Smelser's end to contagion. , aggression and violence perpetrated importance in demonstrating collective behavior's multiple by associated young British males attending soccer contests, is determinants and for his emphasis on shifts in crowd organization consistent with the convergence model. Regulated, normative over time. Difficulties however, arose over empirically testing the behavior among spectators assembled in ticket lines supports an principles of value-added theory. Quarantelli and Hundley's (1969) emergent norm perspective. Distorted perceptions of a game by research findings showed only limited support for Smelser's theory. losing fans can lead to shared, generalized beliefs, held a necessary Cume and Skolnick (1972) challenged the theory's defining determinant for hostile outbursts according value-added theory.' characteristics as ambiguous and simplistic, deeming Smelser's own Kutcher (1983), however, discarded contagion theory as use of supportive evidence often prejudgemental and biased. outdated, and depicted emergent norm theory as that most applicable Furthermore, Turner (1964) claimed that when applying value- to sports crowd behavior. Likening sports events to carnivals, added theory the researcher loses richness of data, since conclusions Kutcher concluded that many sports events produce unique can only be drawn about the success or lack of success in reaching circumstances for spectators. Conventional roles and norms become one of the final collective behavior forms. relaxed, allowing deviant behavior to emerge that would be To summarize, each of the above theories views crowd negatively sanctioned elsewhere. White (1975), on the other hand, behavior from a different point of departure. Contagion theory found value-added theory useful in explaining spectator riots, as did looks at psychological aspects of irrationality and impulsiveness, Smith (1975), who demonstrated violence to be the primary describing how individuals immersed in a crowd become infected by precipitating factor in collective episodes at sporting events. In a mob mentality. Convergence theory emphasizes how like-minded contrast, Lewis' (1982) case-history studies showed little evidence individuals converging to a crowd situation tend to respond to of the structural strains, central to Smelser's theory, associated with stimuli in a similar manner. Emergent norm theory focuses on how violence. Guttman also described value-added theory as social interaction creates new ways of behaving in unusual disappointing when applied to "dozens of episodes" of spectator circumstances. Value-added theory analyzes those determinants collective behavior (1986, p. 167). He further argued that no single which limit the possible consequences of a crowd situation. Each theory adequately explains sports-crowd violence, but found some seems to address only particular elements of crowd behavior. utility in the emergent norm model. Several scholars agree that explanations remain incomplete (Evans, The present approach reinvestigates the strengths and 1969; Cunie and Skolnick, 1972; Berk,1974). weaknesses of all mentioned theories by applying each to a single sports crowd incident. Are any useful? How do they contribute to THEORETICAL APPLICATIONS our understanding of crowd behavior? What are their shortcomings TO SPORTS CROWDS when empirical application is attempted? Is anything left unexplained? Systematic analysis of a closely observed sports Applying the preceding theories and others to spectator crowd episode may supply insight not only about how collective crowd behavior, sports scholars found differential utility among behavior theories fare in explaining this particular incident, but also models. Hocking (1982), when viewing conventional spectator about their utility in predicting or explaining sports crowd behavior behavior rather than deviant behavior, reached some impressionistic in general. conclusions. He saw value in each theory he examined. In describing an exciting basketball game, Hocking found convergent RESEARCH METHODS theory significant in explaining parallel behaviors within a highly partisan crowd, contagion theory best in accounting for the spread One problem with studying the dynamics of crowd behavior of responsive to an ambiguous officiating decision, and lies in predicting when or where disturbances will erupt. It is easy emergent norm theory important in revealing why spectators rose for to collect data about conditions preceding deviant acts and about the the national anthem. results of misbehavior, but little can be gathered on the group nrnrpceec themet-lv~c Crnwd Pvpntc nrrnr with oreat C~PPAare 74 Sports Crowd Behavior JSSI, Levy 75 difficult to anticipate, often happen several at one time, sometimes heightened arousal were sought. Kutcher (1983, p.39) described cover a broad geographic area, have processes leaving few traces, the American event as "... a celebration, an escape into fantasy are not conducive to the interviewing of members during the and revelry," depicting the aura of an exciting situation. Both process, frequently produce unreliably remembered accounts, and Kutcher (1983) and Eitzen (1981) compared the mood and imagery create a risk of injury to the observer (Berk, 1974). Therefore, most of sports events to festivals or carnivals. Each social scientist used a data on sports crowd violence are reconstructed from official records different inclusive term but conveyed the same meaning. and media accounts (Lang,198 1). Combining the characteristics separately specified in both Eitzen's As a student of sports crowd behavior, my attending a and Kutcher's parallels, carnivals or festivals incorporate: professional football game during which the spectator crowd became masquerading, music, feasting, merrymaking, liberal consumption unruly afforded the rare opportunity for witnessing collective of alcohol, and relaxation of everyday norms. The preceding processes as they unfolded. I initially participated in the event for elements signal, according to Eitzen, that individuals may be social reasons - to attend a prior to the game and to participating in "relatively unstructured and spontaneous behaviors" watch a sports contest. Although I had no intention of studying (p.401). Not only does the carnival scene evoke a picture of crowd behavior, circumstances soon made it clear that my training in excitement but it signifies that behavior transcends usual limits, field observation should be put to use. Since research was consistent with circumstances under which new norms might regrettably unplanned, it was therefore unsystematic. Notes emerge, and thus carnival elements becoqe representative of two hurriedly written during the event recorded my observations (made perspectives on crowd behavior. both with and without the use of binoculars), while a more detailed Certain crowd dimensions have been previously cited as reconstruction took place in the hours following the game. Informal arousal intensifiers as well. Those used here are size and density conversations with other eyewitnesses (my three companions and (Mann, 1979; Roadburg, 1980; Lang, 1981; Hocking, 1982) and additional nearby spectators), a videotape of the game (as televised noise (Berkowitz, 1972; Mann, 1979; Roadburg, 1980). Dynamic by ABC), and numerous newspaper accounts provided information dimensions elevating arousal include pregame activities (Roadburg, used to supplement and validate my first-hand observations. 1980; Kutcher, 1983), spectator expectations about the game (Lang, Therefore, this research incorporates both participant observation 1981), and observed aggression which has disinhibiting effects methods and archival techniques. (Goldstein and Arms, 1971; Arms, Russell, and Sandilands, 1979; Surprising perhaps will be the choice of a relatively Eitzen, 1981; Harrell, 1981). Alcohol consumption has also been insignificant incident for study, considering the game's many identified as a trigger to uninhibited and aroused behavior (Mark, episodes involving violent behavior. Rationale for the selection lies Bryant, and Lehman, 1983; Vamplew, 1983; Mann, 1979). first, in my singular opportunity for unobsructed observation of this The preceding contagion indicators can correspondingly spontaneous crowd process from the incident's inception to its end. serve as emergent norm independent indicators which establish a In contrast, none of the more extreme behavioral episodes could be unique situational mood. Moreover, two of the above dimensions as fully observed from my vantage point. Second, the incident represent determinants of value-added theory. High crowd density chosen captured not only widespread audience attention, but the indicates open channels of communication, providing structural most protracted and extensive collective participation by the game's conduciveness to the spread of hostile beliefs. And, the presence or sellout crowd. All episodes of violence involved far fewer actual absence of strain, interpreted here in its broadest sense as participants. widespread discontent produced by any factor, may depend on the Selecting indicators presents another problem inherent in the degree to which spectator's expectations are fulfilled by game study of collective behavior. Some guidelines are implicit within action. In addition, it is unusual in contemporary everyday life to theories, but the broadness of propositions makes their interpretation see physical aggression first hand, so observed violence (on or off arbitrary, so no standard sets of indicators exist. Therefore the field) presents both a unique circumstance indicative of emergent empirical measures must be based on what other researchers have norm theory and a precipitating factor for value-added theory. used and on what is implied theoretically. Convergence theory requires the researchers to seek Factors identified as contributors to collective behavior similarities among spectators. The sports crowd under study constitute the independent variables. Contagion theory postulates showed .some ,. degree of homogeneity in sex, partisanship, and a :------:-- 1 ----1- -c - :. . .. .- - ...... F . . - - --- 76 Sports Crowd Behavior JSSI, Levy 77 as relevant to collective behavior. When he delved into explanations newcomers to their seats, blaring through the facility's speakers for spectator deviance, Guttmann (1986) revealed that over 95 prior to start time and then later during intermissions. A festive aura percent of the persons involved in sports crowd disturbances (three of excitement prevailed. studies cited) were male. Lewis' (1982) findings show similar In response to national television coverage received by proportions. Smith (1975) maintained that a partisan attitude Monday night games, some fans garb themselves in intricate denotes emotional attachment to a team, often intense, and costumes hoping to attract the camera's eye. Amidst a sea of Jets frequently contributing to tension and strain among sports green and white, Batman, Robin, and a "conehead" could be spectators. According to Roadburg (1980), heavier drinking at spotted, as could a group of teenagers with their faces painted half- British soccer matches heightens excitement, contributing to green and half-white. One conspicuously flamboyant female attired misbehavior at those contests. herself in team colors with "Amazing Jets" emblazoned in large Observed individual spectator responses and general crowd white letters across her green sweater. Large numbers of more responses act as the dependent variables. Responses receive moderately outfitted spectators appeared in team jerseys, T-shirts, attention in their behavioral context and as each relates to a specific hats, jackets, or other clothing with home-team emblems. By start stimulus to determine which mechanism from which theory might be time at nine p.m., most seats had filled with the sellout crowd of operating. In order to gain a sense of preconditions influencing the 70,218. The national anthem signaled commencement of the sports episode, the following describes the game event from its outset. event. , cheers, and whistles interrupted its singing well Thereby, any factors acting as precursors to collective behavior can before the anthem's conclusion, reflecting the crowd's high level of be examined. arousal. Fans could barely check their excitement in anticipation of a victorious night. THE GREAT PUMPKIN INCIDENT As the evening progressed, a change in crowd emotions became apparent, when during the second quarter the Bills' offense A haze of smoke hung over the parking lots of Giants repeatedly overpowered the Jets' defense. More heckling than Stadium, as food on grills sizzled and beer flowed. At 6:30 p.m. on now echoed through the stands as fans voiced frustration October 17, 1988, two and one-half hours before starting time for with their team's dismal performance. The crowd booed the Jets the Monday night football game betwen the New York Jets and the defensive unit, and several times they chanted: "Joe (Jets coach Joe Buffalo Bills, festivities were well under way. Walton) must go, Joe must go." By halftime, spectators started to At one tailgate party, for example, fresh flowers arranged in exit the stadium as the home-team Jets trailed by 31-7. Following Jets mugs had been placed on three round tables covered with Jets- the half, a few fistfights broke out among young male spectators, green tablecloths, while a more elaborate floral centerpiece sat on the commanding more crowd attention than the one-sided football nearby buffet table. Also on the serving table rested six to eight contest. The score had run up to 34-7 when the pumpkin incident large chafing dishes filled with steaming delicacies. Cases of soda began late in the third quarter. and a keg of beer stood nearby. On yet another table waited a huge In an end-zone lower section, the attention of neighboring sheet cake, decorated as a football field with the slogan "Let's go fans centered on one male spectator blowing into a giant inflatable Jets." The hostess of course wore green and white. Even the pumpkin. Bright orange, it appeared to be about four to five feet potholder and dishtowel she used said "Jets." Many of her guests across and two feet high, sporting a yellow jack-o-lantern face. As were attired in Jets green and white sweaters, jackets, or jerseys. the man puffed into the pumpkin, people nearby chanted, "Blow, A glance around the parking lots showed other groups blow, blow," which quickly drew the attention of others similarly engaged in pregame feasting. Some tailgates consisted of surrounding the area. Spectators in ever-widening circles then sandwiches, some of steak. A party atmosphere prevailed as music picked up the chant. blared from radios while people ate, drank, and were merry. By the time the man fully inflated the pumpkin, a large Expectations ran high with the home-team Jets favored to win. Fans proportion of the stadium's spectators had focused toward that seemed ready for a night of raucous excitement. direction, since the pumpkin was clearly visible from most seats. Upon entry to the stadium proper when kickoff time neared, When inflated, its owner tossed the pumpkin into the air. In each spectator received a promotional green and white Jets painter's accordance with the established practice for circulating footballs, CR~.which man" irnrnpdiatpl~rAnnnmA T nn~V-~L *n*m;n ---+-A heach hall< 2nd nth~tinflntnhl~ tnvc thrnlioh the ctandc at T~tc

80 Sports Crowd Behavior behave in less desirable ways than women and children. Perhaps expected victory produced the observed strain among a majority of then, attendance by higher proportions of men on Monday nights spectators who favored the home team, providing evidence for the produces differential behavior, supportive of convergence theory. fulfillment of value-added theory's second stage. Along with age and gender differences, or possibly because of them, spectators attending on Monday nights consume more The Environment alcohol than those coming on Sunday afternoons. Jets president Gutman contends that alcohol is "woven into the fabric of the If spectator predispositions helped set the scene for collective Monday night game" (Asbury Park Press, October 19, 1988). The behavior, so did other aspects of the environment. Kutcher (1983) warm evening with temperature in the 60s seemed to further argued that much of what influences sports crowd behavior goes exacerbate beer drinking on October 17. In addition to alcohol beyond the game itself. A sporting event is a social happening, of consumed at tailgates, many spectators inside the stadium held the which the contest itself is only a part. Hocking (1982) referred to easily discernible green or brown beer cups. Drunken revelry in the differences between the game event, related to action on the field, stands could be observed as well. and the stadium event, which includes the contest and everything A lowering of inhibitions due to excessive alcohol else occurring within the facility's boundaries. consumption undoubtedly led to some of the unusual behavior that Monday night's sellout audience appeared to play some role took place that night. Following October 17's game, the in escalating the generally aroused state among spectators. First, drinking/spectator deviance relationship received corroboration from immersion in a large rather than small crow3 fosters feelings of stadium managers and team officials, convinced of alcohol's anonymity, which then give rise to a sense of invulnerability, and influence. They agreed to curtail the length of time available for beer hence, individuals become less inhibited about engaging in excited sales, the volume of beer sold in one cup, and the amount of cups a behavior (Mann, 1979; Hocking, 1982). Second, a full stadium patron may purchase at one time (The Star-Ledger, October 27, results in high density. Opportunities for communication increase as 1988). Thus, consistent with convergence theory is this propensity interpersonal space between individuals decreases. In addition, for drinking among Monday night spectators. when people are very close to each other, sudden movements are A final predisposition of importance, although not particular likely to reverberate through the rest of the crowd, sparking arousal to Monday night contests, lies in the vast majority of spectators among the multitude (Mann, 1979). Third, a large crowd naturally present who supported the home team. "Defeat is an intolerable produces another influence, noise. Interstimulating effects build deprivation" according to Smith (1975, p. 308). When a Jets' loss from sounds of many people vocalizing which encourages others to seemed irreversible, the intensity of partisan involvement became join in (Berkowitz, 1972). Consequences of the preceding apparent as fans displayed their feelings of frustration and environmental dimensions uphold at least part of what is disappointment. incorporated into contagion theory. Crowd size, density, and noise A young man seated directly behind me exemplifies the appeared to facilitate interstirnulation, spreading the dominant mood. prevailing mood. He complained to his friends alongside him about Value-added theory's first stage received support as well from the "f---intteam" playing so poorly, about his having spent $40 for findings of high crowd density which provided a structurally tickets, about having to stay up late, about having to drive a long conducive context for the rapid communication of shared, distance home, and finally about having to get up at 4 a.m. the next generalized beliefs. Another source of influence peripheral to the day for work. He seemed bitterly disappointed with the Jet's level contest itself is tailgating. Pregame activities in the parking lots of play, especially because it was costing him so much in time, ranged from elaborate feasts, such as that described at this paper's energy, and money to be there. The young man left the stadium at start, to groups tossing and catching footballs in almost every aisle, half time. His anger and disgust could be heard echoed by other to young people gathered round blaring radios while guzzling beer. fans who had been eager for a home win. Convergence theory's For many spectators, hours spent in parking lot festivities serve as utility is borne out by the similar emotional reactions of other Jets stimuli, causing them to enter the stadium in a highly aroused state. followers, predisposed for a very different game outcome. This prior sensitization permits sights and sounds within the However, the social unrest observed among fans also supports stadium to heighten excitement. Inside the gates, eyes, ears, and contagion theory and can represent the kind of unique situation bodies experience the spectacle. Crowding forces people to push described bv emereent norm thenrv Mnrpnl~pr A~nr;-r-t;n- and rhn~r~oo th~xr mnxra thrn~rmhthn onnpfil.+l.n tr\ their cnmtc LnC-rrrn 82 Sports Crowd Behavior JSSI. Levy 83 kickoff. Other spectators jockey for position in food and beverage contributed to increased hostility, adding to spectator strain, and lines. Bright colors appear everywhere. Festive outfits reflect team thus shaped the collective mood. symbols among the many, but at the same time flashy costumes Another determining behavioral factor, expectations about stand out worn by a few. Vendors hawk programs, pretzels, and the game, would undoubtedly go unfulfilled. Jets fans knew the beer, as loud rock music blasts from stadium loudspeakers. Surely game's disposition early that night when the Bills established full like a carnival. Perhaps as Gaskell suggests, "The spectator enters a superiority. Play on the field had taken "the crowd out of the game sphere of unreality in which the rules of everyday life are from the outset" (Asbury Park Press, October 19, 1988), although temporarily suspended" (Gaskell, 1979; 284) demoralization prevailed only due to most fans' partisanship for the Jets. Had the majority of spectators been Bills fans, game interest The Social Psychology would have remained high throughout the contest. By the pumpkin incident's start, the inevitability of a dismal outcome spoiled the Spectators behave in patterns varying with their usual ones; game's entertainment value for Jets fans, creating the previously however, special guidelines for watching sports contests take effect. discussed strain among home-team partisans. Frustration and Attached to the sport spectator role are a set of behavioral boredom prevailed. expectations. These range from shared understandings about standing for national anthems to cheering for one's team, heckling The Dynamics opponents, and booing officials. To some degree behaviors are .L based on those expected of sports audiences in general; but in Perhaps the pumpkin - colorful, oversized, and festive - addition, norms vary by the nature of the sport being viewed. Some became a welcome focus for spectator's attention. The toy added factors enumerated by Lang (1981) as among those stimulating comic relief to a depressing situation. It may have also been differential responses include: type of event, amounts and kinds of symbolic of the victory celebration fans had anticipated, giving violence permissible within its rules, and spectators' expectations spectators something to cheer about since the contest was beyond about the game and its outcome. salvage. Indifference to game play appeared to account for many Researchers have concluded that game aggression intensifies spectators immediately turning their interest toward the man inflating feelings of hostility and aggression among spectators (Goldstein and the pumpkin. And, so did the initial chant of "Blow! Blow! Blow!" Arms, 1971; Smith, 1975; Arms et al., 1979; Eitzen, 1981; Harrell, Communication plays an important role in both contagion and value- 1981). Violence is inherent in several sports, one of which is added theories, and according to Mann (1979), chanting represents football. Since hitting and tackling are integral parts of football the principal channel of communication in sports audiences. games, spectators observed player aggression on the field at What followed seemed dependent on the preceding Monday night's football game. Moreover, many witnessed the conditions surrounding this event, which in joining, set the scene, several spectator altercations which occurred prior to the pumpkin making collective behavior possible. The large, dense, noisy incident. Aroused, hostile states seemed to have been stimulated by crowd, the music, the food, the alcohol, the tailgating, the large both types of observed violence. A gentleman behind me, attired in preponderance of males, the beer drinking, the partisanship, the a business suit and necktie, yelled in response to play on the field: spectator fights, and finally, the game producing violence, "Kill 'em kill'em." Few circumstances other than sporting events frustration, disappointment, and boredom. would likely have caused him to scream those words. On stage in these unique circumstances appeared the new At a different point during the evening, a fight began in one diversion, a toy with which spectators could play. Upon its section of the stands, then a few minutes later in another, until appearance, communication among individuals seemed to increase, brawls erupted in several areas of the stadium at once. When as people could be observed interacting with spectators near them watching fights, some spectators, not even necessarily near the while gesturing toward the pumpkin - ostensibly alerting their melee, began waving their fists, yelling: "get him, hit him, go to it neighbors to its existence. On its initial fall to the field, the man, c'mon." Those closest appeared most animated, although a pumpkin's return to the stands brought understandable cheering. young man sitting next to me stood up with every fight, wildly However, when the toy was later confiscated by a security guard, gesturing with his arms while urging the combatants to fight on. the situation became ambiguous. Bringing the pumpkin back was Witnessing the receding e~isodesof a~~ressinnthen nrnhnhlv -.-6,. :J- ,....A:.-- -.-I,.... (I. --,... ",. ,.c ",.C,..*., ,-,"A +l..m*nc..*n 239% $5 ag.0CD - r g. €2 g * c+O\ " 5.3 WL.P $ ,s.aa ZGy 2. fz -.il 0 3. s > 0 mz ~u"gp2 P, Sf0 9%'-W r -?.o - P, 0 0 2. oZc= En eoz.0 3.g.- s< gg4 ~~ez z.- fi CW063Z ;Y-0 -0 "$ " a-ma, x $.gas "3 9. 3=, -,>g p~ 8. 0.2 B$ E 5-=J 5. . 5;'". ZEO g s-m 2SS 3s 30 g D". g 0 5 3 +,~3s-3 w3 8 wrr- Bg --g 0 g 2 &. &.a* 3'-g -- - 0 gg ?;;to go -. v, 0, vl3 82 ='-, 2000 Or @Q 0 0 -30 3%:. p' gg s. E.0 0 $5 g-p 3x2 gH3 80,26 a

Blumer, Herbert. 1951. "Collective Behavior." in New Outline of the Man, Gary. 1972. "Issueless Riots" in Collective Violence,edited by Principles of Soci~logy~editedby Alfred McClung Lee. New York: James Short, Jr. and Marvin Wolfgang. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. Barnes and Noble. The New York Times. October 19, 1988. Brown, Michael and Amy Goldin. 1973. Collective Behavior: A Review The New York Times. October 3 1, 1988. and Reinterpretation of the Literature. Pacific Palisades, CA: The (Woodbridge,NJ) News Tribune. October 27,1988. Goodyear Publishing. Quarantelli, Enrico L. and James R. Hundley, Jr. 1969. "A Test of Some Currie, Elliott and Jerome H. Skolnick. 1972. "A Critical Note on Propositions About Crowd Formation and Behavior" in Readings Conceptions of Collective Behavior." in Collective Violence, in Collective Behavior, edited by Robert Evans. Chicago: Rand edited by James Short, Jr. and Marvin Wolfgang. Chicago: McNall y . Aldine-Atherton. The (Bergen, NJ) Record. October 19, 1988. Eitzen, D. Stanley. 1981. "Sport and Deviance." Pp. 400-414 in Roadburg, Alan. 1980. "Factors Precipitating Fan Violence: A Comparison Handbook of Social Science of Sport,edited by Gunther of hofessional Soccer in Britain and North America." British R.F. Luschen and George H. Sage. Champaign, Illinois: Stipe Journal of Sociology. 3 I :265-276. Publishing. Smelser, Neil J. 1963. Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: Free Press. Evans, Robert R. 1969. Readings in Collective Behavior. Chicago: Rand Smith, Michael. 1975. "Sport and Collective Violence" Pp. 281-330 in, Sport McNaIly . and the Social Order, edited by Donald W. Ball and John W. Loy. Gaskell, George and Robert Pearton. 1979. "Aggression and Sport" Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. in Sporu, Games and Play, edited by Jeffrey H. Goldstein. The (Newark,NJ) Slar-Ledger. October 19, 1988. m Hillside, N J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. The (Newark,NJ) Star-Ledger. October 27,1988. Goldstein, Jeffrey and Robert L. Arms. "Effects of Observing Turner, Ralph H. 1964. "Collective Behavior." in Handbook of Modern Athletic Contests on Hostility." Sociometry 34:83-90. Sociology, edited by Robert E. Faris. Chicago: Rand McNally. Guttmann, Allen. 1986. Sports Spectalors. New York: Columbia Turner, Ralph H. and Lewis M. Killian. 1957. Collective Behavior. University Press. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Harrell, W. Andrew. 1981. "Verbal Aggressiveness in Spectators at Vamplew, Wray. 1983. "Unsporting Behavior: The Control of Football and Professional Games: The Effects of Tolerance of Violence Horse-Racing Crowds in England. 1875-1914" in Sports Violence, and Amount of Exposure to Hockey." Human Relations34:8:632-655. edited by Jeffrey H. Goldstein. New York: Springer-Verlag. Hocking, John E. 1982. "Sports and Spectators: Inua-Audience Effects." White, G. 1975. "Violence in Spectator Sports." Pp. 189-21 1 in Journal of Communication 32:1:99-108. Administrative Theory and Practice in Physical Education and Kutcher, Louis. 1983. "The American Sport Event as Carnival: An Emergent Athletics, edited by Earle Zeigler and Marcia Spaeth. Englewood Norm Approach to Crowd Behavior." Journal of Popular Culture Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 16:4:34-41. Wright Sam. 1978. Crowds and Riots. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lang, Gladys Engel. 1981. "Riotous Outbursts at Sports Events." Pp. 415- 436 in Handbook of Social Science of Sport. edited by Gunther R.F. Luschen and George H. Sage. Champaign, Illinois: Stipe Publishing. LeBon, Gustave. 1895. The Crowd. London: Ernest Benn. (New York: Ballantine, 1969.). Lewis, Jerry M. 1982. "Fan Violence: An American Social Problem." Pp. 175-206 in Research in Social Problems and Public Policy. edited by Michael Lewis. Greenwich, CO: Jai Press. Mann, Leon. 1979. "Sports Crowds Viewed from the Perspective of Collective Behavior." Pp. 337-368 in Sports, Games and Play, edited by Jeffrey H. Goldstein. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. . . 1989. "Sports Crowds and the Collective Behavior Perspective." PP. 299-332 in Sporu, Games, and Play, edited by Jeffrey H. Goldstein. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mark, Melvin M., Fred B. Bryant, and Darrin R. Lehman. 1983. "Perceived Injustice and Sports Violence" in Sports Violence,edited by Jeffrey H. Goldstein. New York: Springer-Verlag.