"Outside Agitators" and Crowds: Results from a Computer Simulation Model

Computer simulation is used to investigate the success of an specifically the likelihood of a persistent extremist leading into action a gathering of moderates not otherwise disposed to militancy. The theoretical frame work and computer simulation translation on which this work is based (Johnson & Feinberg forthcoming) assumes an ambiguous situation confronting a gathering in which each member can be located on a 10-point scale of action-choices. In the ensuing milling process, cues for action are offered and crowd members respond by shifting their choices andlor physical locations; thus, consensus for action is achieved and crowd structure emerges. In this test we generated a gathering of moderates and a persistently radical influence source, and varied whether gatherings initially maintained physical distance between themselves and the agitators. Results generally suggest that outside agitators usually cannot influence a crowd of moderates to take radical action. The variables most related to agitator success are crowd suggestibility, the action-choice advocated by the agitator, and the probability of movement within the physical space. Thus, the agitator is likely to be successful only in the specific and infrequent circumstances of a small gathering in a highly ambiguous situation in which the crowd members are not suspicious of the outsider. Outcomes showing the effects of microstructural conditions for emergent structure are also presented and discussed. *This paper describes an equal joint effort and is a revision of a paper presented at tne 1986 meetings of the North Central Sociological Association. Our work has been supported in part by Taft Faculty Summer Fellowships and by the University of Cincinnati Computer Center. Drue Johnston conducted a library search that contributed to this paper. Cecil Craig provided a mathematical solution to a problem in the design of the simulation model's operation. We are especially grateful for the contribution of Pamela Oliver. Her many thoughtful questions forced us to search for answers that we believe considerably improved this paper and the entire project. We retain responsibility for any errors of omission or commission. Direct correspondence to either author, Department of Sociology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0378. C 1988 The University of North Carolina Press