Sociological Forum, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1998

A Test of the Emergent Norm Theory ofCollective Behavior

B. E. Aguirre,2,3 Dennis Wenger,4 and Gabriela Vigo5

Objective: The paper uses the timing of evacuation behavior of occupants ofthe World Trade Center at the time of the explosion of February 26, 1993, totest predictions from Emergent Norm Theory. Method: It uses ordinary leastsquare multiple regression analysis to examine data from a survey done in thefirst week in May 1993 of 415 people who worked at the World Trade Center.Results: The theory's predictions regarding the additive effects of size of groupand preexisting social relationships on the timing of evacuation are supported.However, the findings document important and unexpected interaction effectsof these two variables on the effects of perceived threat, resources, andcooperativeness on the timing of evacuation. Conclusion: The results augmentthe theory by showing the continued importance of enduring social relationshipsas determinants of collective behavior. Enduring social relationships are notonly useful to differentiate collective behavior from institutionalized behaviorbut also specify the dynamics attending the occurrence of collective behavior.

INTRODUCTION

Emergent Norm Theory (ENT) posits that nontraditional, collectivebehavior emerges from the crucible of a normative crisis (Turner, 1964;Turner and Killian, 1972/1987). A precipitating event occurs that, dependingupon how the event is collectively interpreted by the participants, createsa normative crisis. The crisis destroys, neutralizes, or no longer allows the

'The authors would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of Professor Ralph Turner.Department of Sociology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843.3To whom correspondence should be addressed.4Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843.'Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843.

ti

KEY WORDS: disaster; collective behavior; evacuation timing; emergent norm.

301

0884-8971/98/0600-0301$15.00/0 e 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation

traditional normative guidelines to be collectively defined as appropriateguides for action. The crisis creates a sense of uncertainty and urgency forc-ing people to act even as they create meaning through symbolic interactionprocesses. They interact and create a new, emergent normative structurethat guides their behavior. This new normative structure is explained bythe theory as a product of the milling and keynodng process that the par-ticipants undergo as they attempt to define the situation, propose cues forappropriate action, and try out alternate schemes of social action.

According to ENT, collective behavior occurs as people are forced bythe crisis to abandon their previously established conceptions regarding le-gitimate ways of acting. In contrast to other theories of collective behaviorsuch as contagion, ENT assumes the presence of heterogeneous actors withdifferent backgrounds, perceptual abilities, and motives about what is goingon, what should be done to respond to the crisis, and who should do it.ENT assumes that collective behavior is not irrational but social, normativebehavior (Tierney, 1980). ENT offers a symbolic interactionist explanationof collective behavior. It uses concepts such as the "definition of the situ-ation" reminiscent of W. I. Thomas and H. Blumer's earlier contributions(for a thorough discussion of the symbolic interactionism background ofENT, see McPhail, 1991:61-102). ENT is often used in the sociology ofdisasters. It emphasizes the transformations of the normative structure ofcommunities impacted by hazards (Gillespie and Perry, 1976).

In the most recent version of ENT (turner and Killian, 1987:9-11; seealso turner, 1996), the emergent norm is defined not as a precise rule guid-ing collective action but as an emergent revised definition of the situation.It originates in out-of-the-ordinary "extramundane" social situations inwhich people may come to feel their emergent collective behavior is fea-sible, timely, permissible, necessary, or duty-bound behavior. Their collec-tive action is seen as appropriate.

For this revised version of ENT, the search for a dominant reviseddefinition of the situation occurs in either of two social contexts, whetherpreexisting or emergent social relationships. Thus, social relations are usedin conjunction with norms to identify collective behavior and differentiateit from conventional behavior. The emergence of social relationships as wellas norms characterizes the "pure" form of collective behavior. There are"mixed" forms in which one of the two types of emergence take place, andthere is conventional behavior in which neither occur (Weller and Quar-antelli, 1973). The present paper tests predictions from this revised versionof the theory. It shows the importance of enduring social relations in in-stances of collective behavior.

This test focuses on one of the three types of collective behavior iden-tified by ENT, the solidaristic compact acting crowd. It is a collectivity of

302 Aguirre et al.

people in close physical proximity and exhibiting a division of labor and adesire to change its external environment (Turner and Killian,1972/1987:79-95). We lack information on crowd dynamics that would allowus to measure the extent to which the mostly work-related groups of per-sons evacuating as a result of the massive explosion that rocked New York'sWorld Trade Center on February 26,1973, became solidaristic crowds. Nev-ertheless, it is plausible to assume that such transformations occurred. Theevacuees were in close physical proximity, were socially bounded and lim-ited by preexisting sociocultural arrangements, experienced the effects ofthe explosion and resulting smoke, and had to adjust to it.

The bombing at the World Trade Center (WTC) and the subsequentevacuation of its buildings created compact crowds that enacted nontradi-tional and emergent collective behavior and provided us the opportunityto test predictions derived from ENT These predictions cannot be testedthrough the direct observation of norms. Instead, the test depends on theobservation of behavior Tierney, 1980) with known temporal attributes. Asin other instances of social organization, collective behavior in crisis settingshas a normative organization that structures it.

We now turn to the predictions derived from ENT regarding precrisisand crisis factors that would have influenced the timing of the initiation ofnew, nontraditional normative behavior involved in evacuating the WTCbuildings. This is followed by the methods used in this research, the extentto which the predictions are supported by the findings, and the implicationsof the results for the theory.

PREDICTIONS FROM THEORY

The present test's emphasis on ENT does not preclude the possibilitythat some of the predictions derived from it can also be derived from otherexplanations not included in this test. Rather, our approach to theory testingis a multiple testing strategy in which a number of complementary hypothesesare derived from ENT and tested (Brewer and Hunter, 1989:37). The pre-dictions derived from ENT involve both social structure and social interaction.

Social Structure

Size of Group and Social Relationships

The size of collectivities has long being used to differentiate the col-lective behavior of large collectivities from the dynamics of small group

Emergent Norm Theory 303

interaction. Given the nature of the milling process assumed by ENT, peo-ple in large groups should take longer to organize and mobilize on the basisof their emergent social organization than people in smaller groups.

Weller and Quarantelli (1973), while theorizing about the collectivebehavior of large collectivities, do not specify the direction of the effectsof social relationships, whether enduring or emergent, on the timing of col-lective behavior. It is unclear whether enduring preestablished social rela-tions would delay it. Two opposite effects can be anticipated. It is plausibleto argue that people who are detached from others in their groups willjoin the collective behavior quicker than those who have preestablished so-cial relationships with others in their group. No social tie holds them totheir groups, and they can act as free agents. It is also plausible to claimthat prior social relationships among participants facilitate communicationamong them during the milling process (as they interact to find a solutionto their collective problem) and may facilitate their early collective behav-ior. This is the case since according to ENT such communication is essentialto normative emergence as well as to people's ability to act concertedlyduring a crisis. Enduring social relationships facilitate the sharing of a rep-ertoire of experiences and a common vocabulary that enable people to com-municate easier in problematic situations and to mobilize.

Social Interaction

ENT emphasizes the nature of the communication that is occurringwithin the milling process in large collectivities. Milling is the concept usedin ENT to describe the social interaction that takes place among partici-pants in a crisis setting as they attempt to define the situation, proposeand adopt new, appropriate norms for behavior, and seek coordinated, col-lective action to find a solution to shared a problems (Turner and Killian,1972/1987). From the perspective of the theory, anything that facilitatescommunication among the participants in a crisis setting can and often doesfacilitate the emergence of new norms structuring collective behavior. How-ever, the theory is unclear about how emergent or enduring social relation-ships impact the symbolic interaction processes that are hypothesized toproduce the emergent norm. Keeping in mind this absence in ENT, it isstill possible to identify four testable propositions:

1. The greater the search for meaning in the milling process focusesupon defining the situation as serious, the quicker should be the mobiliza-tion of people and the initiation of collective behavior. Similarly, the greater

304 Aguirrc et al.

the degree of perceived danger, the quicker should be the emergence ofnorms and the mobilization of the participants.

2. While not explicitly or systematically addressed by ENT, it is plau-sible to derive from its treatment of the milling process the predictionthat resources available to groups responding to crises make for more ef-ficient and effective collective response. However, they also have the ef-fect of increasing the complexity of the collective deliberation of thegroups, thus delaying the emergence of crisis norms. The prediction is ofa positive association between the extent of resources available to groupsand the amount of time it takes people in them to begin acting collec-tively.

3. The greater the extent to which the search for meaning inherent inthe milling process focuses upon proposed cues for emergent action, suchas discussions among people as to what to do, the longer it should takethem to agree on a course of action such as joining the evacuation.

ENT argues that the appearance of unanimity among the participantsin incidents of collective behavior accompanies the emergence of dominantnorms. According to this theory, once a dominant norm emerges group mem-bers disagreeing with it keep quiet out of fear of group censure. Their ac-quiescence with the dominant norm masks disagreements among themabout how to proceed and produce the perception of unanimity typical ofcrowds. The prediction is that the presence of opinions among group mem-bers about social practices reflecting agreement among them—such as dis-cussions as to what needs to be done and helpful behavior among groupmembers—typifies social groups in which a dominant definition as to howto behave has emerged. It should be associated with delayed participationof the members of these groups in collective behavior.

4. ENT does not consider in any systematic way the impact, on theemergent norm, of intergroup interaction in instances of collective behav-ior. Brown and Goldin (1973:150-163) used E. Goffman's dramatist theoryto refer to it as a process of proselitization among groups in a gathering.Such groups compete in their attempt to impose their collective definitionof the situation on the gathering. Such proselitization is part of the millingand keynoting that occurs prior to the emergence of the dominant norm.Thus, the prediction is that people's timing of evacuation behavior is im-pacted by the presence of other groups nearby that may have alternativedefinitions of when to begin to behave collectively. In the present case,intergroup proselitization takes time and should delay the start of evacu-ation.

The next section presents the methods used to test these predictionsderived from ENT

Emergent Norm Theory 305

METHOD

The information comes from a survey done in the first week in May1993 of people who worked at the World Trade Center (WTC) during theexplosion of February 26, 1993. It is supplemented by field work and acontent analysis of New York Time articles on the incident published duringthe first month after the event.

Field Work

In early March 1993, one of the authors went to the WTC and estab-lished contact with authorities in it and the City of New York responsiblefor disaster response. A subsequent site visit, during the second week inApril and the first week in May, involved six researchers representing thedisciplines of emergency medicine, engineering, and sociology. We inter-viewed representatives from 43 agencies involved in the incident as well as23 victims, mostly people who were at or near the garage where the explo-sion occurred. We used these interviews to prepare some of the questionsused in the survey instrument and to help us interpret the statistical findings.

Survey

The World trade Center is a complex of seven buildings, including sixoffice structures and the Vista Hotel. The vast majority of the approxi-mately 25,000 tenants reside in one of the two 110 floor towers of the WTC.The survey focused on the response of those people who were in the towersat the time of the explosion.

The two towers are large, complex social systems. For purposes of sam-pling, we thought of them as communities of approximately 13,000 resi-dents. Respondents were selected using a random sample of floors stratifiedby height. Initially nine floors were randomly selected in each tower and690 questionnaires were distributed to management representatives throughthe various firms and offices in these floors. These firms representativesdistributed and collected the completed questionnaires.

Three hundred and sixty-three questionnaires (53 percent) were re-turned. Two hundred and fifty-four questionnaires were from Tower 2 and109 from lower 1. Subsequently, in an attempt to increase the size of thesample in Tower 1, additional floors were randomly selected. Eighty-sixquestionnaires were distributed; 60.4% were returned. Overall, the totalsample includes 415 respondents. Two hundred and fifty-four respondentsare from Tower 2 and 161 from Tower 1. The response rate in Tower 2 is

Aguirre et al.306

61% and 44% in Tower 1. The overall response rate is 53.4%. Because ofthe theoretically derived interest in studying collective behavior processesspecified in ENT, responses from 35 respondents who were alone at thetime of the explosion are dropped from this analysis.

We do not have information on the people who opted not to partici-pate in the study. Our assumption is that an unknown proportion were newemployees who were not present during the explosion and thus could notanswer the questions. Others were on vacation or professional travel anddid not have the time available to answer the questions. Still other nonre-sponses occurred among employees of companies that, unbeknown to us,decided to curtail participation in the study. A consequence is that we donot know the implications, if any, of these nonresponses for the theoreticalconclusions made in this paper.

Variables

The dependent variable, Minutes, (mean = 56, SD = 42) presents thenumber of minutes after the explosion (12 PM) that it took the respondentsto join the evacuation (not to exit the buildings). Sixty-eight percent of therespondents had joined the evacuation during the first hour after the ex-plosion and 91% had done so after two and a half hours. Thirty-three re-spondents with scores higher than 150 minutes were assigned consecutivelyhigher scores beginning with 151. In this way we preserved their relativerankings while leaving most of the distribution of scores undisturbed. Thiswas done to normalize the distribution of scores in this variable and tosolve the presence of six outliers in the ordinary least squares (OLS) mul-tivariate regression analysis with very high untransformed scores in Minutes.

The following concepts were used to generate predictors of the timingof the initiation of evacuation: size of the evacuating groups, the scope andextent of the respondents' social relations, perception of the threat, re-sources, and measures of social interaction during the crisis.

Large Group is a dichotomous variable, scored one for collectivities oftwenty or more people who collectively moved to a stairway to begin ex-isting the building and zero otherwise. Forty-two percent of the respondentsevacuated in large groups. In comparison to smaller groups in which faceto face interaction is possible, large groups necessitate different processesof communication, different techniques for coordinating the collective be-havior of people in them, and different styles of leadership.

Social Relationship (mean = 8, SD = 3) is an ordinal level variableranging from 0 if the respondents did not know anyone in the groups in

Emergent Norm Theory 307

which they found themselves to 11 if they knew everyone in the groupsvery well.

In order to simplify the presentation of the results, both size of evacu-ating groups and extent of social relations are combined in one multiplicativeterm (BIGSOC, mean = 3.3, SD = 4.4, range 0-11). It measures the extentto which respondents were in large groups and knew everyone in thosegroups very well. The OLS regression analysis includes the multiplicativeterms of each of the other predictors (see below) with Bigsoc. This was doneto determine how social relationships and size of evacuating groups will af-fect the patterns of social interaction involved in the emergence of dominantnorms, in the present case joining the evacuation of the WTC.

This test of ENT uses four measures of the threat as experienced bythe respondents. These include whether they reported that they were indanger immediately after the explosion (Danger, 1 = no danger whatsoever,through 11 = life threatening danger, mean = 5.3, SD = 3.2) nothing se-rious had happened (Serious, 0 = no, 1 = yes, 22%), presence of smokein their rooms (Smoke, 1 = no smoke, 4 = thick, dense smoke, mean =2.17, SD = .92), and injuries (Injured, 0 = no, 1 = yes, 15%).

Measures of resources used in this test are respondents' contact withformal Rescuers (0 = no, 1 = yes, 65%); knowledge of others on theirfloors with emergency medical training (EMT, 0 = no, 1 = yes, 22%); andrespondents' Familiarity with WTC, measuring whether or not they had pre-vious evacuation experience at the WTC and had worked for more thantwo years at the WTC. It ranges from one for respondents with no previousevacuation experience and less than three years of employment, to threefor respondents with evacuation experience and more than two years ofwork at the WTC (mean = 2.3, SD = .8).

The test of ENT also includes two indicators of social interaction ofthe respondents during the crisis. The first is Cooperativeness. It measuresthe extent to which respondents were in groups in which people discussedwhat needed to be done and were helpful to others as opposed to selfcentered. It ranges from 0 (no one discussed and all were self-centered) to5 (everybody discussed and were helpful) (mean 3.2, SD = 1.5). The secondtaps whether or not respondents received Information and Guidance fromfriends, office personnel, and others near them in the aftermath of the ex-plosion. It ranges from 0 to 3 for respondents contacted by people in thethree categories (mean = 1.4, SD = .98).

The number of firms in the floors in which the respondents worked(Firms, 0 = one, 1 = two or more, 43%) is included in the OLS regressionmodels as a proxy of the presence of multiple work groups. It is used totest intergroup proselitizing's hypothesized effect of delaying the initiationof evacuation.

308 Agulrre et al.

Other predictors are included in this test as statistical controls. Theymay be associated with the probability of initiating evacuation and the socialrelationships and patterns of social interaction of the respondents: thepopulation of employees of the floors where respondents worked (Size,mean = 114, SD = 49); the floor number, indicating its location in thebuildings (Floor, mean = 51, SD = 26); and respondents' Age in years(mean = 37, SD = 9) and gender (Female, 0 = male, 1 = female (56%).

Information available in the survey and not otherwise used in the sta-tistical analysis allowed the imputation of missing values (Anderson et al,1983) in six variables: Social Relationships = 11 scores assigned; Largegroup = 6; Helpful = 16; Previous = 8; Look for Others = 6; Serious =17. We also used pairwise deletion of cases in order to preserve samplesize. Results are mostly invariant when listwise deletion of cases is used.

Statistics

OLS multiple regression is used to model the timing of the initiationof the evacuation (the results are replicated when logistic regression is used;not shown, available upon request). The assumptions of OLS regressionare met. Showing the absence of significant multicollinearity, all tolerancevalues of the predictors are above .77, except Floor (.66). Plots of stand-ardized residuals do not show marked deviations from normality. Thereare no multivariate outliers in the OLS analyses. Moreover, its Durbin-Watson statistic (1.51), a test for sequential correlation of adjacent errorterms, is statistically insignificant.

We do not attempt to exclude variables from the models on the basisof their degree of statistical significance. Our intent is to use them to testtheoretically derived predictions. Thus, we do not report standardized re-gression coefficients. The effort is not to show the relative importance ofthe predictors. Instead, we report unstandardized partial regression coeffi-cients. The unstandardized regression coefficients have the advantages ofallowing ease of comparison of the same predictors between the two OLSmodels we present, a particularly important task since we wish to stressthe impact of interaction terms (with Bigsoc) on the effects of each of thepredictors. They also show the number of minutes before initiation ofevacuation (Minutes) per change in original units of each of the predictorsafter controlling for the other predictors in the equations. Finally, by pre-serving the original scales of the predictors, we allow the calculation of theimpact on the dependent variable of combinations of values in the predic-tors which we do not perceive as relevant at present.

309Emergent Norm Theory

The following pages present a description of the terrorist event thatprecipitated the unscheduled and unplanned evacuation of the WTC andthe results of the tests of the predictions.

RESULTS

Description of Event

Evacuation from the WTC buildings, including the two 110 story towers,began immediately after a van packed with high explosives exploded on theB-2 level of the underground parking garage at approximately noon time.The blast created a crater that was approximately 170 feet wide, 180 feetlong, and seven stories deep. The explosion killed six people and injured anunknown number of others. It ignited fires that produced massive amountsof thick, black smoke. The smoke entered the ventilation system, stairways,and elevator shaft of the building, and within 5 minutes, people who were over40 stories above the garage began experiencing smoke in their work areas.

The explosion destroyed both the primary and backup electrical systemsfor the building. As a result, the public address system did not function, therewere no official evacuation orders issued by recognized emergency and build-ing officials, and tenants could not ascertain with ease what had occurred.

Because of the lack of electricity, all 250 elevators in the complexstalled. More than 25,000 people in the buildings were forced into onlythree stairwells and us.ed them as escape routes. These stairways are verynarrow and people had to virtually stand toe-to-toe during evacuation.

Although successful, the evacuation was hindered by the lack of lighting,very limited means of communication among authorities and among authori-ties and tenants, thick smoke, the great height that many respondents hadto traverse, and limited number of exit routes. Despite these difficulties, panicflight did not take place, and more than half of the evacuees had left thebuildings by 3:00 PM. The majority of the respondents joined the evacuationduring the first hour after the explosion. Nevertheless, a sizable minority choseto remain in the office for varying lengths of time before they evacuated. Withinour sample of respondents who were in their office at the time of the explo-sion, 30% reported that they initially decided to remain in their offices.

More than half of the respondents were female. The majority were con-tacted by official rescuers. Their average age was 37. The average respondenthad worked in the Word Trade Center for five and a half year, worked inone-firm floors with average populations of 114 workers, and in floors highabove the ground (Floor, mean = 52). Thirty-six percent had experienced

Aguirre et al.310

previously an emergency evacuation at the World Trade Center. A minorityof the respondents (15% sustained injuries sometime during the incident.

The 380 respondents were in the presence of others at the time. Manywere in sizable groups of people. Indeed, almost half of the respondentsevacuated in Large Groups of 20 people or more, with whom they inter-acted as they moved together to the exits. The majority knew the peoplearound them rather well (Social Relationship, median = 9).

The majority of people near the respondents discussed what neededto be done (Discuss, median = 4). A great deal of milling occurred. Twenty-six percent of the respondents sought information and advice from otherpeople in the area, 25.5% tried to phone for help and/or information, and11.3% turned to the media for information. Only 8.7% stated that theyimmediately left the building without engaging in any confirmation behav-ior.

Most respondents (89%) perceived people near them as helpful ratherthan self-centered. Respondents described the behavior of others near themas rational as opposed to irrational (96%), calm as opposed to excited(60%), cooperative as opposed to competitive (98%), and orderly as op-posed to panicked (86%).

A small percentage (12) of the respondents received instructions fromfriends (Friend). Fifty-six percent did so from office personnel. Most re-spondents (73%) Looked for Others, although unfortunately we do nothave information on the identity of those they searched for. The majority(76%) thought that something serious had occurred (Serious). Indeed, re-spondents report that very few people continued working as if nothing hadhappened (mean of 1.6 in a scale of 1-5).

The explosion created a rather anomic condition for the tenants. Mostrespondents knew that something unusual had happened. They felt the ex-plosion or were alerted by a loss of power and loss of their computers andphone services. However, it simply was not clearly evident to them whathad occurred. As a result, different definitions of the situation were dis-cussed. For example, while 33.7% claimed that they immediately knew thatthere had been an explosion, a larger number (40.5%) stated that they didnot know what had occurred.

The majority of the respondents perceived moderate levels of Danger(median = 5). Analyses indicate that the level of perceived danger washigher for women than men and increased over the course of their presencein the buildings in the aftermath of the explosion. Respondents in Tower1 perceived higher levels of danger than did those in Tower 2. This is alsotrue of respondents in the lower floors, closer to the site of the explosion.

311Emergent Norm Theory

Analysis of the Timing of Initiation of Evacuation Behavior

Two models (see Table I) present the results of the OLS multivariateregression analyses. The first is an additive effects model that includes theeffects of statistical controls and theoretically specified predictors. The sec-ond model also includes the interaction terms of all the predictors withBigsoc. It tests the theoretically specified interaction effect of the size ofevacuating group and extent of social relationship on the other predictorsof the timing of evacuation. Results show that it explains more of the vari-ance of the timing of their evacuation.

As shown in Table I, the overall fits of the additive and interactivemodels as measured by Rz (the percent of the variance in Minutes explainedby the predictors in the models) are .19 and .30 (p < .000), respectively.On the average, as shown by the standard error of estimate in the additivemodel, predicted Minutes scores will deviate from the actual scores by 38.8minutes.

A. The result of this test supports the predicted effect of the size ofevacuating groups on lengthening the time of the initiation of evacuationbehavior. Respondents in large groups took 6.7 minutes longer (P = .12)to initiate their evacuation.

The results also support and clarify the prediction regarding the effectsof Social Relationship. As shown in Table I, the more people respondentsknew in their evacuating groups and the better they knew them the longerit took them to initiate their evacuation (b = 1.24 minutes, p < .10). Theresults of this test support Weller and Quarantelli's (1973) claim regardingthe importance of the effect of preexisting social relationships on collectivebehavior. In the present case, such enduring social relationships delayedthe start of evacuation behavior.

The web of social relationships of respondents and members of theirgroups worked against the espousal and adoption of norms supporting in-dividual, competitive flight behavior, and for the adoption of cooperativebehavior that delayed their exiting the buildings. People who know otherswell tend to concern themselves with their fates. Crowds of known peopleinhibit individualistic solutions in favor of a shared norm. These resultssupport Mawson's (1980) affiliative model of escape behavior rather thancompetitive panic models of escape (see Sime, 1983, for an empirical com-parison of these two models; contrast it to ENT's claim that emergentnorms occur in solidaristic as well as individualistic crowds in which peopledo not help each other).

Bigsoc represents the effect of these two variables on the timing ofevacuation. This multiplicative interaction term is not statistically significantwhen included in the additive model (not shown). However, it is highly

312 Aguirre et al.

Emergent Norm Theory 313

Table I. Timing of the Initiation of Evacuation: Additiveand Interactive Modelsa

Predictors

Large Group

Social Relationship

Bigsoc

Danger

1'

Serious

I

Smoke

I

Injured

I

Rescuers

I

BMT

I

Familiarity

I

Cooperativeness

I

Information and Guidance

I

Firms

I

Population

I

Additive

6.T(4.4)1.24C

(.71)

-.99(.75)

-.76(5.46)

-3.87d

(2-4)

-13.96*(5.75)

10.0*(5.0)

16.2*(5.4)

.20(2.78)

1.35(1.4)

.65(2.2)

12.4*(4.6)

-.12*(.04)

Interactive

14.5(11.5)

1.03(.88)

-17.2*(5.4)-2.6*

(.89).63*

(.18)-8.0(6.8)3.1*

(1.2)-4.8C

(2.8).88

(.60)-18.3*

(6.8).58

(1.4)11.6fc

(6.1).60

(1-17)27.8*(6.9)-3.52*(1.26)3.76

(3.4)-1.14C

(.69)3.95*

(1/7)*-.96*(.32)-.70

(2.6).49

(.52)1.33

(5.8)3.17*

(1.2)-.18(.05).02*

(.01)

Aguirre et al.

statistically and substantively significant in the interactive model (b = -17.2minutes, p < .05). We now discuss how it affects the effects of the otherpredictors of the timing of evacuation.

1. According to ENT, the transformation of people's interpretation ofthe meaning of their environment brought about by the crisis is an impor-tant determinant of their subsequent behavior. As predicted, if the respon-dents perceived the situation as serious, they began evacuating somewhatsooner than if they did not (b = -8 minutes, not significant). The oppositeis true, however, if they were in large groups and if they knew more peoplemore intimately in these groups (b = 3.1 minutes, p < .05). For them, thegreater the extent to which the search for meaning inherent in the millingprocess focused upon defining the situation as a serious crisis demandingan out-of-the-ordinary response, the longer it took them to mobilize andinitiate their evacuation.

Three other predictors tap elements of the threat experienced by therespondents and help us elaborate this finding. As shown in Table I, thegreater is the degree of perceived danger generated by the crisis, the quicker

Table I. Continued

Predictors

Floor Number

I

Age

I

Female

I

ConstantR2

Standard errorFP

Additive

.326

(.10)

-(.06).24

-5.74(4.48)

39&.19

38.64.75

< .0000

Interactive

.10(.13).05C

(.03)-.86*(.37).18*

(.07)-18.4*

(5.5)4.06

(1.06)

97.4fc

.3036.84.25

< .0000

"Unstandardized regression coefficients rounded to the nearesthundreth. Standard errors of the is in parentheses.

bp < .05.cp < .10.*p < .12

"I: interaction with Bigsoc.

314

is the mobilization of respondents. However, this is the case only in theinteractive model (b = -2.6 minutes, p < .05). In it, people who perceivedmore danger tended to initiate evacuation earlier. However, the reverse istrue if they were in large evacuating groups and as they knew more peoplemore thoroughly in these groups (b = .63 minutes, p = .05).

A similar pattern is found when a measure of the smoke entering theirroom is used. As predicted, the greater the smoke was the quicker theybegan evacuating (b = -4.8 minutes, p < .10). Somewhat the opposite istrue for those in large evacuating groups who knew more people intimately(b = .88 minutes, but not statistically significant).

Finally, respondents who were injured as a result of the explosiontended to initiate their evacuation quicker than those who were uninjured(b = -18.3 minutes, p < .05), and this is true irrespective of the socialcontext in which they found themselves.

In sum, an enhanced sense of threat as precursor to protective behav-ior is mediated by the effects of social relationships. These results corrobo-rate N. Johnson and his colleagues' finding about the importance ofpro-social behavior in evacuations. They show that people exposed them-selves to great personal risk to try to rescue or otherwise help their friendsand known others.

2. ENT recognizes that the process of symbolic interaction in instancesof collective behavior centers in part on the identification of skills, pastexperiences, and other instrumentalities among the participants. These ele-ments of the situation are the resources employed by people to respondto the challenge they face (McCarthy and Zald, 1997). Their use takes timeand slows down the enactment of collective behavior. We find partial sup-port for this prediction.

The results of this test support the prediction of a positive associationbetween the extent of resources available to groups in the amount of timeit takes people in them to begin evacuating. Contact with rescuers is char-acteristically an important source of information, assistance, and other re-sources for people faced with the need of evacuating. Such contact sloweddown the beginning of evacuation behavior; respondents who came in con-tact with Rescuers delayed their start of the evacuation (b - 11,6 minutes,p < .05). This is also the case for respondents who knew others on theirfloor with EMT (b = 27.8 minutes, p < .05). However, the opposite is true(b = -3.52 minutes, p < .05) if they were in large groups and as they knewmore people more thoroughly in these groups. Respondents' Familiaritywith the WTC is not a statistically significant predictor in the additivemodel. It facilitates the early start of evacuation of respondents who werein large groups and knew others well in these evacuating groups (b = 1.14minutes, p < .10). A possible explanation of these unexpected findings (with

Emergent Norm Theory 315

EMT and Familiarity) is that large groups of people with enduring socialrelationships are able to ascertain and utilize available resources morequickly and effectively.

3. The results of this test partially support the prediction that thegreater the extent to which the search for meaning inherent in the millingprocess focuses upon proposed cues for emergent action (such as discus-sions among people as to what to do and their helpfulness), the longer itshould take them to agree on a course of action such as joining the evacu-ation. In support of this prediction, Cooperativeness is positively associatedwith the timing of evacuation (b = 3.95 minutes, p < .05). However, it isnegatively associated with it (b = -.96 minutes, p < .05) for respondentswho were in large groups and to the extent that they knew everyone wellin those groups; they tended to join the evacuation earlier than their coun-terparts. Enduring social relationships and people who are perceived bythe respondents as helpful and engaged in deciding what to do facilitateearly collective behavior such as joining the evacuation.

Contrary to the prediction, whether respondents received Informationand Guidance from friends, office personnel, and others near them in theaftermath of the explosion is not statistically significantly positively relatedto the initiation of evacuation.

4. Results support the prediction from Brown and Goldin's (1973)elaboration of dramatist theory. Respondents who worked in floors withmore than one firm started their evacuation later than their counterparts(b = 12.4 minutes, p < .05) in floors with one firm. This is also true forrespondents in larger evacuating groups in which they knew everyone (b= 3.17 minutes, p < .05).

Finally, statistical controls are important predictors of the timing ofevacuation and have unexpected relationships with the extent of preexistingsocial relationships in the evacuating groups. Both the size of the popula-tion of floors (b = .02 minutes, p < .05) and the location of the floors inthe buildings (b = .05 minutes, p < .05) are statistically significantly relatedto delaying the timing of the initiation of evacuation only for respondentswho were in large groups and to the extent that they knew others well intheir groups. Indeed, the additive pattern is for people in floors with largepopulations to join the evacuation quickly (b = -.12 minutes, p < .05) andto delay it with higher location in the buildings (b = .32 minutes, p < .05).

Another pattern occurs with the age and gender of the respondents.While neither is statistically significant in the additive model, in the inter-active model older respondents and female respondents tended to initiatetheir evacuation more quickly than younger and male respondents, respec-tively. However, the opposite is true if they were in large evacuating groupsand to the extent that they knew people well in these groups. We can only

316 Agnirre et al.

speculate that such social contexts provided these categories of respondents(also true for respondents in higher floors, b = .05, p < .10) with a greatersense of safety, so that they would delay joining the evacuation of theirbuildings.

CONCLUSION

We are indebted to the authors and critics of ENT for providing uswith sufficiently clear guidance for the conduct of this test. Without theirwork, our own work would not have been possible.

Ours is only one partial test based on one incident. The findings wereport are tentative and should be replicated, hopefully with better dataemploying random, representative, and larger samples. It would be prefer-able to have shorter time delays between the occurrences of the collectivebehavior event and the data collection. We do not know to what extentrespondents' recollections of the events may have become imprecise dueto the weeks that had passed between their evacuation behavior and thecollection of the information. Moreover, the present test depends on surveydata that does not fully capture the processual, dynamic emergence of ten-tative definitions of the situation such as when to evacuate. Despite theseproblems, our hope is to qualify and augment elements of ENT's explana-tion of collective behavior and to contribute to the development of theoryin the field of collective behavior.

ENT is very much centered on people's perception and interpretationof events and on the milling and keynoting process inherent in instancesof collective behavior. In its support, we have shown that the transformationof people's interpretation of the relative safety of their environmentbrought about by the crisis is an important determinant of their collectivebehavior. Moreover, engaging in milling, as reflected in helpful behaviorand discussions about what needed to be done, has the predicted effect ofdelaying evacuation behavior. This is also true of the impact on the timingof evacuation of proselitization between work groups.

Our finding regarding the effect of resources in delaying the initiationof evacuation also supports a prediction derived from ENT It underscoresthe value of recent conceptualization of resources in the social movementliterature for understanding mobilization in instances of collective behavior.

Results also document the validity of Weller and Quarantelli's struc-turalist argument regarding the occurrence of collective behavior. The ex-tent of preexisting social relationships among respondents impacts thetiming of evacuation behavior and the associated processes of social inter-action. Symbolic interaction processes involved in the emergence of domi-

Emergent Norm Theory 317

nant norms are embedded in these structures and must be understood intheir terms.

Social relationships, whether emergent or enduring, are not only help-ful to differentiate collective behavior from institutionalized behavior. En-during social relationships especify the social interactions that areassociated with the emergence of a dominant norm in an instance of col-lective behavior, be it risk taking, the use of resources, or cooperativeness.We have shown that a threat as precursor to protective behavior is mediatedby the effects of the social relationships among the people experiencing it.

It bears repeating that these findings replicate N. Johnson and his col-leagues' finding about the importance of enduring social relationships ineliciting pro-social behavior in crisis evacuations. ENT needs to be ex-panded so as to incorporate these results in a more specified explanationof the emergence of dominant norms in specific types of collective behavior.

A renewed emphasis on preexisting social organization would makeENT a more general theory worthy of a prominent place in the sociologicalspecialty of collective action/behavior. Such needed theoretical elaborationwould recognize that the emergence or creation of norms in instances ofsocial interaction is a common occurrence. Consequently, normative emer-gence cannot be used as the sole differentiating criterion for the identifi-cation of collective behavior (Wrong, 1994:50; see also Gusfield,1994:67-69). "(N)orms grow in unplanned fashion out of ongoing interac-tion" (Wrong, 1994:49; social relationships create habits among participantsthat inform social expectations that have the potential to become new, la-tent norms guiding behavior.

An appreciation of preexisting social organization would facilitatestudying the linkage of the latent norms that may come to guide collectivebehavior and the norms that guide the collective action of social movementsAs Wrong recognizes (1994:53), echoing R. E. Park, some latent norms areadopted by new social actors and continue in operation through time, be-coming institutionalized.

These relatively well-known albeit unsolved difficulties in ENT wouldrequire for their resolution and the continued value of a symbolic interac-tion approach to collective behavior greater emphasis on the socioculturalcontext in which instances of collective behavior occur. Fortunately, suchcontextual specification is offered in Brown and Goldin's (1973) interpre-tation of E. Goffman's writings. From this perspective, social situations orculturally meaningful scenes bringing people together are analytically dif-ferentiated from encounters, or episodes of face to face interaction. Bothare differentiated from the precipitating event that provides the topic forthe ensuing symbolic interaction and the emergence of a shared definitionof the situation and consensus for collective action.

318 Aguirre et al.

Emergent Norm Theory 319

We hope to have shown that the often heard argument by the criticsthat ENT could not generate testable hypotheses is incorrect. The rebirthof ENT is needed. Due to a number of reasons often unrelated to its sci-entific value, the last two decades or so has seen its relative popularitydecline vis a vis the various variants of the resource mobilization approachto collective action (Aguirre, 1994; Killian, 1994; Aguirre and Quarantelli,1983). The hoped-for reconsideration of ENT seems timely. New emphaseson culture, collective memory, symbols the mass media, to name a few inthe study of social movements, as well as the dramatic, seemingly unorgan-ized, and unexpected transformations in Eastern European countries be-ginning in 1989, provide a more propitious intellectual context for it.

REFERENCES

Aguirre, B. E.1994 "Collective behavior and social move-

ment theory." In R, R. Dynes and K.J. Tierney (eds.), Disasters, CollectiveBehavior, and Social Organization:257-272. Newark: University of Dela-ware Press.

Aguirre, B. E. and E. L. Quarantelli1983 "Methodological, ideological and con-

ceptual theoretical criticisms of thefield of collective behavior: A criticalevaluation and implications for futurestudies." Sociological Focus 16:195-216.

Anderson, A., A. Basilevsky, andD. P. J. Hum1983 "Missing data: A review of the litera-

ture." In Handbook of Survey Re-search: 415-494. New York: AcademicPress.

Brewer, John and A. Hunter1989 Multimethod Approach. A Synthesis

of Styles. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,Brown, Michael and Amy Goldin1973 Collective Behavior: A Review and

Reinterpretation of the Literature. Pa-cific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publish-ing Company.

Gillespie, David F. and Ronald W. Perry1976 "An integrated systems and emergent

norm approach to mass emergencies."Mass Emergencies 1:303-312.

Gusfield, J. R.1994 "The reflexivity of social movements:

Collective behavior and mass societytheory revisited." In Enrique Larana,

Hank Johnston and J. R. Gusfield(eds.), New Social Movements. FromIdeology to Identity: 58-79. Philadel-phia, PA: Temple University Press.

Johnson, Norris1987 "Panic at 'The Who Concert Stam-

pede': An empirical assessment." So-cial Problems 34:362-373.

Johnson, Norris and W. E. Feinberg1994 "The emergence of competitive flight

from the Beverly Hills Super Clubfire." Unpublished manuscript pre-sented at the ASA Annual Meetings,Los Angeles, CA.

Johnston, D. M. and N. R. Johnson1988 "Role extension in disaster: Employee

behavior at the Beverly Hills Clubfire." Sociological Focus 22:39-51.

Killian, Lewis M.1994 "Are social movements irrational or

are they collective behavior?" In R. R.Dynes and K. J. Tierney (eds.), Disas-ters, Collective Behavior, and SocialOrganization: 273-280. Newark: Uni-versity of Delaware Press.

Kreps, Gary1983 "The organization of disaster re-

sponse: Core concepts and processes."International Journal of Mass Emer-gencies and Disasters 1:439-464.

1985 "Disaster and the social order." Socio-logical Theory 3:49-65.

McCarthy John and Mayer Zald1997 "Resource mobilization and social

movements: A partial theory."In S. M.Buechler and F. K. Cylke, Jr. (eds.),

320 Aguirre et al.

Social Movements: Perspectives andIssues: 149-171. California: MayfieldPublishing Company.

McPhail, Clark1991 The Myth of the Madding Crowd.

New York: Aldine.Mintz, Alexander1951 "Nonadaptive group behavior." The

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-chology 46:150-159.

Mawson, Anthony R.1980 "Is the concept of panic useful for sci-

entific purposes?" In Second Interna-tional Seminar on Human Behaviourin Fire Emergencies 208-211. Wash-ington DC: National Bureau of Stand-ards.

Moscovici, Serge1994 "Three concepts: Minority, conflict,

and behavioral style." In S. Moscovici,A. Mucchi-Faina, and A. Maass (eds.),Minority Influence: 233-251. Chicago,IL: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

Norusis, Marjja1994 SPSS. SPSS Advanced Statistics, 6.1.

Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.Sime, Jonathan D.1980 "The concept of panic." In D. Canter

(eds.), Fires and Human Behavior: 63-81. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

1983 "Affiliative behaviour during escape tobuilding exists." Journal of Environ-mental Psychology 3:21-41.

Sorensen, John H.1991 "When shall we leave? Factors affect-

ing the timing of evacuation depar-tures." International Journal of MassEmergencies and Disasters 9:153-166.

Tierney, K.1980 "Emergent norm theory as theory: An

analysis and critique of Turner's for-mulation." In M. D. Pugh (ed.), Col-lective Behavior: A Source Book:42-53. St. Paul, MN: West PublishingCompany.

Turner, Ralph1964 "Collective behavior." In R. E. L.

Paris (ed.), Handbook of Modern So-ciology: 382-425. Chicago, IL: RandMcNally.

1996 "Normative emergence in collectivebehavior and action." Mobilization1:1-14.

Turner, Ralph and Lewis Killian1987 Collective Behavior. (1972*) Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Weller, Jack and E. L. Quarantelli1973 "Neglected characteristics of collective

behavior." American Journal of Soci-ology 79:665-685.

Wrong, Dennis1994 The Problem of Order. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

"Original publication date.