In 2005, David Schweingruber and Ronald T. Wohlstein argued that sociology textbooks should do away with overarching theories of crowd behavior entirely, and look instead to empirical research that has been done on how crowds actually behave.441 They explain that critical thinking about crowds has shifted from seeing them as suggestible, emotional, and irrational to seeing them as “shaped by the same forces that shape other social behavior.”442
Basing their analysis on work by Carl Couch in 1968443 and Clark McPhail in 1991,444 Schweingruber and Wohlstein debunk seven myths about crowd behavior: irrationality, emotionality, suggestibility, destructiveness, spontaneity, anonymity, and unanimity. The myth of irrationality claims that crowds cause people to lose their ability to engage in rational thought; for example, causing panic.445 However, research into emergency dispersal has shown that people in crowds in dangerous situations don't panic, but instead are guided by social relationships and exhibit altruistic behavior.446 The myth of emotionality claims that people in crowds are more governed by their emotions.447 Both Couch's 1968 work and a 1987 study by Turner and Killian argue that emotions are in fact present in many social interactions, and crowds are not exceptional in this regard.448
The third myth is that people in crowds are more likely to obey others. No research supports this conclusion. The fact that crowds usually do not disperse when ordered to by authorities suggests that the myth of suggestibility may in fact be incorrect.449 The fourth myth claims that people in crowds are more likely to be violent. Couch argued that in clashes between crowds and authorities, the authorities in fact commit more violence than the crowds.450 Research has shown that crowd violence is rare,451 and is often carried out by small groups within the gathering.452 Police interaction with crowds may in fact spur crowd violence where it wouldn't otherwise occur.
No research has demonstrated that crowd behavior is more spontaneous than individual behavior.454 In fact, studies have shown that many crowds require planning or rely on “repertoires of collective action” that are understood by other members of the culture, such as strikes or boycotts.455
Deindividuation relies in large part on the idea that people in crowds are anonymous and thus unaccountable for their behavior, which allows them to do things they otherwise would not do. A number of studies have noted that crowds are not composed of anonymous individuals, but of small groups that know each other well.456 Anonymity may exist vis a vis authority figures, but not with respect to other members of the crowd.457 Presumably, then, social norms would still be enforced between these individuals. Individuals gather not because they seek to benefit from anonymity, but because of the social links and common goals they share.
The myth of unanimity claims that crowds act in unison. Research has shown that crowds in fact contain alternating and varying individual and collective actions, with unanimous or near-unanimous behavior being rare and short-lived.458
