CROWDS AND RIOTSthis research is the view that social interaction
among relevant sets of actors, rather than the
background characteristics and cognitive states of
individuals, holds the key to understanding the
course and character of crowd behavior (Snow
and Anderson 1985; Turner 1994; Waddington,
Jones, and Critcher 1989).
THE CORRELATES AND PREDICTORS OF
PARTICIPATIONCrowd phenomena associated with collective be-
havior have been distinguished from everyday,
conventionalized crowds, the characteristic fea-
tures of crowds have been elaborated, the major
sets of conditions that facilitate the emergence or
occurrence of crowds and riots have been identi-
fied, and the issue of behavioral coordination in
crowd contexts has been explored. In addressing
these orienting issues, only passing reference has
been made to factors that make some individuals
more likely than other individuals to participate in
crowd episodes. For example, it is clear that the
odds of participating in some crowd episodes are
greater with increasing spatial proximity and ac-
cess to those episodes, schedule congruence, and
discretionary time (McPhail and Miller 1973). As
well, individuals whose daily routines and expectancies
have been rendered ambiguous or who share griev-
ances that are linked to the occurrence of a crowd
episode would appear to be more likely candidates
for participation. But both of these sets of condi-
tions typically hold for a far greater number of
individuals than those who end up participating in
a crowd episode in some capacity other than a
social control agent or media representative. So
what can be said about the personal and interper-
sonal correlates or predictors of participation?
There is no simple answer to this question or
standard formula for predicting crowd participa-
tion. However, research on this question suggests
at least four general, sensitizing observations, par-
ticularly with respect to participation in protest
crowds and riots. The first general observation is
that commonsensical psychological indicators of
protest and riot participation, such as intense frus-
tration or strong feelings of deprivation, have not
been found to be valid or reliable predictors. For
example, studies of individual riot participation,
which have been numerous, have failed to find
consistently significant empirical correlations be-
tween measures of frustration or deprivation and
participation (McPhail 1994). This is not to suggest
that riot or protest participants may not some-
times feel deeply frustrated or deprived as com-
pared to others, but that these psychological states
do not reliably explain their participation or typi-
cally differentiate them from nonparticipants. Such
findings are consistent with the second general
observation: There are a diversity of motivations
for participation in crowd episodes, ranging from
curiosity to exploitation of the situation for per-
sonal gain (e.g., fun, material goods) to sympathy
with the issue for which the episode is a marker or
carrier to embracement of and identification with
the cause from either a self-interested or altruistic
standpoint (Turner and Killian 1987). That nei-
ther a distinctive psychological state or deficit nor
a dominant motive have been found to be associat-
ed with crowd and riot participation does not
mean that psychological or personality factors are
without relevance to this issue. To the contrary,
one such factor that appears to be consistently
associated with participation as a main task per-
former in protest crowds and riots is the existence
of a sense of ‘‘personal efficacy’’—the belief that
one’s participation will make a difference, the
confidence that one’s efforts will contribute to the
larger cause (Snow and Oliver 1995). This finding,
which constitutes the third general observation
regarding participation correlates, makes good
sense when considered in conjunction with the
fourth general observation: Participants in crowd
episodes—whether they are victory celebrations,
protest events, or riots—seldom participate alone.
Instead, rather than being isolates or loners, they
are typically in the company of friends or acquain-
tances; they are, in other words, part of a social
network. Additionally, recruitment into many
crowd episodes occurs through the very same
social networks (Snow and Oliver 1995). Thus,
participation in crowd episodes, particularly planned
ones such as protest events, tends to be embedded
in social networks, which also function to nurture
a greater sense of both personal and collective
efficacy. When these factors are coupled with the
previously mentioned conditions for assemblage,
and either ambiguity or target-specific grievances,
participation becomes more likely and perhaps
even more predictable.