Why do people lose their abilities of reasoning and stayingcalm when in crowds?
By Awinds
@Awinds (2468)
United States
July 25, 2011 4:37pm CST
There are only two people in a room. They can think and discuss quite calmly. Both are unlikely to get up and start throwing chairs at each other if they disagree. They might exchange some angry words if they are passionate enough, but violence is another level not often reached. However this changes completely in a crowd situation.
Get a few thousand people together and the ability to reason calmly is gone. One person cries out about a controversial issue and sets off the whole crowed. Emotion explodes and then we get what is known as a riot. Property is damaged and sometimes people die. Getting a riot under control is no easy task either.
Why is it that in small groups people can more easily remain control but when in large groups one spark can set off an eruption? Why does the size of the group make such a difference?
4 people like this
10 responses
@SpikeTheLobster (6399)
•
26 Jul 11
That depends which theory of crowd psychology you believe.
Freud believed that a crowd sort of "merges" the consciousness of everyone in it, forming a melting-pot of the people and reducing their individualism for a variety of reasons (stuff like wanting to be like other people and so on).
Jung believed in a collective unconscious, which affected his theory differently.
Le Bon believed in a "madding crowd", wherein people had anonymity and could therefore be more extreme and emotional.
There's also convergence theory, which works the other way round - that people of similar ideas want to be in groups and thus form them.
Personally, I lean towards Freud and Le Bon here: groups give people a false anonymity and their desire to be "one of the gang" and "like everyone else" reduces their individual sense of propriety (or whatever you want to call "acting normal"). This, in turn, allows the leaders (or a dramatic act) in a group to spark emotions and, well, lead the group in whatever direction they wish, violent or not.
Freud believed that a crowd sort of "merges" the consciousness of everyone in it, forming a melting-pot of the people and reducing their individualism for a variety of reasons (stuff like wanting to be like other people and so on).
Jung believed in a collective unconscious, which affected his theory differently.
Le Bon believed in a "madding crowd", wherein people had anonymity and could therefore be more extreme and emotional.
There's also convergence theory, which works the other way round - that people of similar ideas want to be in groups and thus form them.
Personally, I lean towards Freud and Le Bon here: groups give people a false anonymity and their desire to be "one of the gang" and "like everyone else" reduces their individual sense of propriety (or whatever you want to call "acting normal"). This, in turn, allows the leaders (or a dramatic act) in a group to spark emotions and, well, lead the group in whatever direction they wish, violent or not.1 person likes this

@SpikeTheLobster (6399)
•
26 Jul 11
The worst thing is when people use crowd psychology in marketing. Peer pressure is bad enough but, if you combine it with putting 40+ people in a seminar (including a few "plants" who you're paying), it's possible to get folks to sign up and buy stuff they never wanted.
And people wonder why I hate marketing.
There's a BRILLIANT YouTube video of a prank on a Japanese show where they had 100 people running or ducking or doing something in public: it shows crowd influence perfectly. Linkie time! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNVuVb9jR7Y
There's a BRILLIANT YouTube video of a prank on a Japanese show where they had 100 people running or ducking or doing something in public: it shows crowd influence perfectly. Linkie time! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNVuVb9jR7Y
@CTHanum (8233)
• Malaysia
25 Jul 11
Hi Awinds!
With more people they tend to be more brave and not afraid to say anything they want. They say the size of the group determine the amount of support available..If more people who oppose or support it can help change a decision which has been made. Although a lot of rioting caused their voices heard is not the answer to pressing a matter for negotiation with a small amount represents a large number is better than rioting and damaging public property. I don't agree with or unlawful assembly as it tend to bring more harm than good. Damages greater than the profits made and more time consuming to recover it.
@Awinds (2468)
• United States
26 Jul 11
I tend to agree. It makes me think of Greece. Their economy is so bad, the government can't afford to run. The Greeks rioted and the expected damage followed. Now the government can't run and there is no money to fix the damage. They went from point A to point B, but somehow point B is looking a bit worst than point A. 

1 person likes this
@CTHanum (8233)
• Malaysia
26 Jul 11
Only then they will feel that the point A is better than the point B, right? We don't build a country in just a day but we can destroy it in just a second. It is hard to rebuild that improve what we have. So riot is not the answer. If they want to say no to the government they should show it on the election day..That is what democracy country do.
@KrauseHome (36445)
• United States
29 Jul 11
Personally it can be quite amazing. Sometimes even in smaller groups you will see people start acting like this and wanting to throw things just because they do not agree. Especially when it comes to something Political or Religious. It often is quite amazing and it makes you wonder. I feel that sometimes they just want to make sure they are heard even when no one is listening especially when no one else seems to agree.
@celticeagle (189833)
• Boise, Idaho
26 Jul 11
I think that some want to be excepted and feel they have to agree with the crowd to do that. They are afraid of any confrontation so they conform. Or they are all on the verge of an angry explotion at the slight provication due to stress or other things. And once a bunch of people are mad it is hard to calm them down.

@celticeagle (189833)
• Boise, Idaho
26 Jul 11
For the most part I think that is it. Alpha to the max.

@Princelierocks (817)
• India
26 Jul 11
Hi.. Well it needs a lot of patience to have control on ourselves when such riot,depressing and frustrated situation arises, I totally agree with you that in large crowds two people tend to screw eachother more, the only reason behind this is gossiping, giving false testimony about others, this gives a lot of negative emotions about each other, as in a big group this can also happen in small group they just want to see fun of each other, so be it I a big group or a small group the risk of breaking of two person is equal. So I personally think that in a bigger group or in a smaller one. It matters is the same. Its just the influences and negative thoughts of eachothers.

@Princelierocks (817)
• India
26 Jul 11
Its same in both the only difference in large group is lot of people force negative emotions whearas in small it is lesser

@sender621 (14889)
• United States
26 Jul 11
I think that some people can get easily panicked whrn they are among a crowd. You can quickly lose focus and your imagination can get the best of you. taking a deep breath can restore some of the calmness and reasoning to your life. Keeping a cool head is a wise choice when faced with a crowd of many. @ebuscat (5935)
• Philippines
26 Jul 11
For me it is because the influence of bad is very good for today life you know what Satan is the ruler of this system.
@rameshchow (4426)
• India
26 Jul 11
Emotions are very precious, we have to use our anger rarely, then only it will be valued. I agree with you.








