Psychological Theory as Intergroup Perspective: A Comparative Analysis of “Scientific” and “Lay” Accounts of Crowd Events

Abstract

The central argument of this paper is that the popular success of crowd psychology is in part due to its correspondence with the perspective of outgroup members. This is supported by a comparative analysis of traditional crowd psychology and lay accounts of crowd events drawn from street disturbances in St. Pauls, Bristol, in 1980. Five basic types of error are identified in crowd psychology past and present. These are: (1) the abstraction of crowd episodes from their intergroup conflicts, (2) the failure to deal with underlying dynamic processes, (3) exaggeration of the anonymity of crowd members, (4) failure to understand the motives of crowd members, and (5) an overwhelming emphasis on the negativity of crowd events. Analysis of accounts of the St. Pauls disturbance reveals the centrality of these forms of error in outgroup members' versions of events. In contrast, crowd members tended to draw upon very different accounts which stress the meaningfulness of crowd action, solidarity, and positive emotional feelings. The implication of these findings for crowd psychology, the study of everyday accounts, and the genesis of ideological explanations is discussed.