Understanding crowd behaviour is key to being able to communicate with and manage crowds effectively. Crowd psychologists from the UK, continental Europe, and several fellow scientists from overseas came together for an inspiring two days to discuss what we need to know more about crowds. We present some of the key takeaways, focusing on contentious crowds (protesters).
On 27 and 28 August 2026, the University of St Andrews in Scotland was the setting for a two-day conference called CP3: Crowds, Psychology, Policy and Practice. The organisers were the renowned Steve Reicher (University of St Andrews), John Drury (University of Sussex), Anne Templeton (University of Edinburgh), and Sara Vestergren (University of Reading).
The fact that over 40 crowd scientists joined in made it a unique occasion in itself. They were joined by a dozen practitioners from private and public organisations that work with crowds. The conference was held to discuss the current state of crowd psychology research and the desired path forward. To explore both subjects, discussions were held from both scientific and practical perspectives. Central to the conference were three questions:
- What do we know?
- What don’t we know?
- What do we need to know?
In this blog, I will address several points that interested me personally. Much more was said and discussed, but this blog aims to inform our readers about some of the main takeaways. I will focus on what the conference contributed to our scientific knowledge of contentious crowds.
Contentious Crowds: What We Know
Steven Reicher and several other speakers at the conference pointed out that we have come a long way since Le Bon’s theories were dominant in the study of crowds. Le Bon’s book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind”, published in 1895, reflected the predominant view of the crowd as a dangerous force. At that time, crowds often took to protest because of the way they were treated by their employers in factories or because of a lack of social security. These protests often got out of hand, with crowds opposing the police, and this seems to have influenced the predominant theory that Le Bon developed. He argued that individuals would lose their rationality when joining a crowd. They would revert to primitive behaviour and do things they would normally never do as individuals. Emotions within a crowd would even be contagious, so that everyone in a crowd would eventually become prone to primitive and subconscious behaviour, while needing leaders to guide them.
Contemporary crowd psychology research has shown that these ideas are outdated and, in some respects, false. The dominant current theory is the Social Identity Model. This theory suggests that crowds are quite rational and goal-oriented. When people act together, they experience a sense of shared identity and therefore seek to coordinate their actions. They will help each other when needed. If they are treated as an irrational and dangerous group by the police or other authorities, they can develop a shared identity around having a common enemy and act accordingly. But if they are well informed and respected, if their needs are addressed, and if they are given the opportunity to express their norms and values, a psychological crowd can be very effective.
Contentious Crowds: What We Don’t Know
Many social-psychological studies over the last few decades have focused on contentious crowds, and that makes sense, since this is an area in which scientists and practitioners have had, and still have, a direct need to understand more about crowds’ intentions, processes within crowds, and their reactions to interventions by authorities. Many of these protests have had a social agenda, and many crowd psychologists have identified strongly with these crowds.
Currently, there is a wave of protests across many countries focused on anti-immigration and anti-globalisation. These protesters have different backgrounds, they seem to be organised in different ways, and their relationship with the authorities sometimes appears to be more complicated than that of, for example, social reform protesters. Some do not trust the government, some engage with conspiracy theories, and media and event scientists can be seen by them as “part of the system” they are opposing. This, combined with the fact that some crowd scientists find these protests immoral, makes it harder to gain clear scientific insights into the crowd psychology of these “right-wing” protesters, as they are often referred to. Let’s be clear, however, that they can come from any political side, can be well organised, and can have an ideological agenda. At the same time, there may also be a large group of concerned citizens among them with no shared ideology whatsoever. This is exactly what we do not know.
Another point concerning what we don’t know about contentious crowds is how to use scientific insights more effectively in daily practice. How can we translate theory into applied training concepts? How can we use these insights to inform policymakers, particularly when quick action is needed? Different social scientists were asked to assist the UK government during COVID, and some of them are still involved, for example when protests evolve into crises that require a response from the national government.
Text continues below the image.
What We Need to Know About Contentious Crowds
During the discussions, the group identified quite a few blind spots in our current knowledge of crowd behaviour, some more general and others specifically related to contentious crowds. One is the need to gain a better understanding of the digital world of crowd behaviour. The days of Twitter and Facebook are far behind us, and the number of channels and the features they offer for interaction have expanded rapidly. Young people seem to live in two parallel worlds, the digital and the physical, a development with so many implications that practitioners and policymakers from older generations may not be aware of. Even social scientists still seem to view social media primarily as a source of mobilisation, rather than as a parallel reality in its own right. We need to know more about the processes of digital social identity construction and their implications for the behaviour of contentious crowds.
Another area we need to explore is how to gain a better understanding of crowds from within. When a specific crowd can be understood more thoroughly, crowd psychologists could be better equipped to pinpoint what is happening during a protest (or afterwards, to evaluate how the whole situation developed over time). They could also provide better assistance to policymakers and practitioners by offering specific guidance and advice on a more differentiated approach to different types of crowds.
Engagement
One remark that I found particularly interesting was the suggestion to stop using the term “crowd management” when we want to influence crowds by building a relationship or even forming a shared identity. In many countries, the term “crowd management” has a strong connotation with security management and crowd control strategies. The suggestion was to use the term “crowd engagement” when deploying a strategy aimed at winning the hearts and minds of a crowd so that they want to cooperate and share our goals.
Next Steps
We will definitely hear more from the initiators of this CP3 conference. Meanwhile, we will further develop our three-day Crowd Psychology course with the latest insights we gained at St Andrews. We will also write an additional blog about the key insights from the conference concerning the behaviour of non-contentious crowds soon.