Module 3, lesson 4 · 30 minutes
Psychological crowds move differently
People who share an identity walk slower, further and closer together. Crowd models and crowd plans that treat people as independent particles miss that.
You’ll be able to
- distinguish a physical crowd from a psychological crowd;
- state the three behavioural signatures found by Templeton, Drury and Philippides in 2018, and explain Alnabulsi and colleagues’ Hajj findings;
- explain why crowd models and event plans need psychology, and what to change because of it.
Introduction
Module 4 builds crowd models in which each person is a particle with a desired speed and a destination, repelled by walls and by other particles. They are powerful tools. But think about the last time you walked out of a concert with friends. You did not take the shortest path to the station at your own best speed. You stayed together, waited for the slowest, walked close enough to talk.
That is not noise around the particle model. It is a systematic difference in how people move when they move as a group, and it has now been measured. This lesson closes the psychology module by showing that the identities of lessons 2 and 3 are visible in people’s feet.
Physical and psychological crowds
A physical crowd is a set of people who happen to be in the same place: commuters crossing a station, shoppers in a high street.
Templeton, Drury and Philippides reviewed 140 crowd-modelling articles in 2015, under a title that sums up the problem: “From Mindless Masses to Small Groups: Conceptualizing Collective Behavior in Crowd Modeling”
Walking together: three signatures
In 2018 the same authors tracked 280 walking trajectories and compared people who were part of a psychological crowd with people who were not
- walked slower,
- walked further, and
- maintained closer proximity to each other.
In their words, members of a psychological crowd “(i) walked slower, (ii) walked further, and (iii) maintained closer proximity”
A crowd model of a stadium exit assumes everyone walks at a free speed of 1.34 m/s and takes the shortest route. Most of the crowd will leave in groups of friends and families. Which way are the model’s predictions likely to be wrong, and why?
It will probably be optimistic. Group members walk slower and further than the model assumes, so egress takes longer. They also keep closer together, so local densities are higher than an even spread of individuals would give, and groups will not split to use a less crowded route. The model needs slower speeds for groups, cohesion rules, and a check of how sensitive its results are to them.
At the Hajj: identity beats density
Measured trajectories are one thing. Does identity matter in a mass gathering such as the Hajj? Alnabulsi, Drury and Templeton surveyed 1,194 pilgrims at the Hajj, in a study of “place, space and the process of cooperation”
“Shared social identity with the crowd explained more of the variance than both location and density.”
In plain terms: if you wanted to predict how a pilgrim behaved towards the crowd around them, knowing whether they identified with that crowd told you more than knowing where they were or how dense the crowd was. For a field that has spent most of this course on density, that is a striking result. Density sets the physical limits; identity shapes behaviour within them.
Why models and plans need psychology
The argument is now made from inside pedestrian dynamics as well. A 2017 paper by Sieben, Schumann and Seyfried, from the experimental tradition you met in Module 1, is titled “Collective phenomena in crowds—Where pedestrian dynamics need social psychology”
For simulation, the consequences are concrete:
- represent groups, with rules that keep them together;
- give group members speeds that reflect the group, not the individual;
- expect closer spacing within groups, and so higher local densities;
- test how sensitive the results are to these assumptions, as Module 4’s lesson on reading a simulation study will ask you to do.
For event management, they are just as practical:
- groups will not split, so a route or gate that only works if people separate will not work;
- people will wait for each other at pinch points, so allow space before and after them;
- in an evacuation, people will look for the people they came with (lesson 1’s affiliative behaviour), so plan meeting points and messages that tell groups where to regroup.
An event plan routes leaving spectators into two queues: adults to one turnstile bank, under-16s to another, to speed up checks. Using this lesson, what do you expect to happen?
Families and groups will not split. Parents will try to stay with children, people will wait for each other, and the queues will mix or back up as groups reform on the far side. The plan assumes individuals optimising independently; the crowd will behave as groups. Better to design checks that a group can pass through together, with space beyond the turnstiles to regroup.
- “A crowd is a set of individuals each optimising their own route.” Psychological crowds move as groups: slower, further and closer together
. - “Density is all you need to predict crowd behaviour.” At the Hajj, shared identity explained more of the variance than location and density
. - “Group behaviour is a detail models can ignore.” Researchers from inside pedestrian dynamics argue that models need social psychology
.