COLLECTIVE BEHAVIORreaction, but with persisting concerns they acquire
organization and programs, and interpretative in-
teraction prevails.
Emergent Norm Theory. Ralph Turner and
Lewis Killian [(1957] 1989) criticize convergence
theories for underemphasizing the contribution
of interaction processes in the development of
collective behavior, and found both convergence
and contagion theories at fault for assuming that
participants in collective behavior become homo-
geneous in their moods and attitudes. Instead of
emotional contagion, it is the emergence of a
norm or norms in collective behavior that facili-
tates coordinated action and creates the illusion of
unanimity. The emergent norm is characteristical-
ly based on established norms, but transforms or
applies those norms in ways that would not ordi-
narily be acceptable. What the emergent norm
permits or requires people to believe, feel, and do
corresponds to a disposition that is prevalent but
not universal among the participants. In contrast
to convergence theories, however, it is assumed
that participants are usually somewhat ambivalent,
so that people could have felt and acted in quite
different ways if the emergent norm had been
different. For example, many rioters also have
beliefs in law and order and fair play that might
have been converted into action had the emergent
norm been different. Striking events, symbols, and
keynoting—a gesture or symbolic utterance that
crystallizes sentiment in an undecided and ambiva-
lent audience—shape the norm and supply the
normative power, introducing an element of un-
predictability into the development and direction
of all collective behavior.
Emergent norm theory differs from conta-
gion theories in at least six important and empiri-
cally testable ways. First, the appearance of una-
nimity in crowds, social movements, and other
forms of collective behavior is an illusion, pro-
duced by the effect of the emergent norm in
silencing dissent. Second, while the collectivity’s
mood and definition of the situation are spontane-
ously induced in some of the participants, many
participants experience group pressure first and
only later, if at all, come to share the collectivity’s
mood and definition of the situation. Third, un-
like collective excitement and contagion, norma-
tive pressure is as applicable to quiet states such as
dread and sorrow as it is to excited states. Fourth,
according to emergent norm theory, a conspicu-
ous component in the symbolic exchange connect-
ed with the development of collective behavior
should consist of seeking and supplying justifica-
tions for the collectivity’s definition of the situa-
tion and action, whereas there should be no need
for justifications if the feelings were spontaneously
induced through contagion. Fifth, a norm not only
requires or permits certain definitions and behav-
iors; it also sets acceptable limits, while limits are
difficult to explain in terms of a circular reaction
spiral. Finally, while contagion theories stress ano-
nymity within the collectivity as facilitating the
diffusion of definitions and behavior that deviate
from conventional norms, emergent norm theory
asserts that familiarity among participants in col-
lective behavior enhances the controlling effect of
the emergent norm.Emergent norm theory has been broadened
to make explicit the answers to all three of the key
questions microlevel theories must answer: The
emergent normative process as just described pro-
vides the principal answer to the question, why
people adopt definitions and behavior that tran-
scend, bypass, or contravene established social
norms; participants translate their attitudes into
overt action rather than remaining passive princi-
pally because they see action as feasible and timely;
and action is collective rather than individual pri-
marily because of preexisting groupings and net-
works and because an event or events that chal-
lenge conventional understandings impel people
to turn to others for help in fashioning a convinc-
ing definition of the problematic situation. In
addition, these three sets of processes interact and
are mutually reinforcing in the development and
maintenance of collective behavior. This elabora-
tion of the emergent norm approach is presented
as equally applicable to elementary forms of collec-
tive behavior such as crowds and to highly devel-
oped and organized forms such as social movements.Other Interaction Theories. Although all
interactional theories presume that collective be-
havior develops through a cumulative process,
Max Heirich (1964) makes this central to his theo-
ry of collective conflict, formulated to explain the
1964–1965 year of spiraling conflict between stu-
dents and the administration at the University of
California, Berkeley. Common action occurs when
observers perceive a situation as critical, with limit-
ed time for action, with the crisis having a simple