68 Sports 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. Hooliganism, aggression and violence perpetrated importance in demonstrating collective