Back to Basics: 'The Crowd' by Gustave Le Bon

Back to Basics is a Talk Shoppe series that revisits foundational ideas about human behavior to help consumer researchers and brand marketers make sense of what data alone can’t.

In part one, we explore Gustave Le Bon's groundbreaking The Crowd, which jumpstarted what is now more formally known as social psychology, the study of how individuals' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by others.

Why this book, then

When Gustave Le Bon published The Crowd in 1895 in his native France something fundamental was shifting in public life.

Industrialization had pulled people into cities. Literacy was expanding. Political power was no longer concentrated solely among elites. Large groups of people were beginning to act, visibly and forcefully, on the world around them. We’re talking revolutions, strikes, mass social movements.

For the first time, collective behavior, the physical amassing of ordinary everyday people, was no longer background noise. It was making history itself.

“The individual in a crowd is no longer himself.”

Le Bon was responding to a growing unease. If crowds now shaped outcomes, then the traditional economic model of the "rational individual", that then-still-fresh idea championed by Adam Smith, no longer explained what people were witnessing. Decisions were being made that felt emotional, contagious, and strangely immune to reason.

The tension beneath the book is not academic, it’s existential: if individuals become something else when they gather, then understanding people one by one is no longer enough. A new way of thinking had to emerge.

The core ideas

Le Bon’s central idea is still stark and can be unsettling: when individuals enter a crowd, they do not simply add their opinions together. They change psychologically.

Something shifts in people when they are surrounded by others. Personal identity softens. Accountability fades. Emotion rises. Reason loses its grip. The crowd begins to function as its own entity, guided less by logic than by feeling and imitation.

“An individual immersed for some time in a crowd soon finds himself in a special state.”

Three ideas matter most:

1. First, anonymity weakens restraint. When people feel less visible as individuals, they feel less responsible. Behavior becomes more impulsive and emotionally driven.

2. Second, suggestion replaces reasoning. Ideas spread because they are vivid, repeated, and emotionally resonant, not because they are carefully argued or demonstrably true.

3. Third, emotion is contagious. Fear, excitement, outrage, and confidence move quickly through imitation. The crowd does not need to be persuaded. It needs to feel aligned.

What is often misunderstood about The Crowd is its scope. Le Bon was not writing primarily about mobs or riots. He was describing any situation where individual judgment is submerged in social presence. The underlying insight: people do not think the same way once their thinking becomes social.

Why this book, now

Today, crowd psychology is no longer episodic or restricted to the physical world. Today crowds are an unescapable part of life. Even when we are far away from people we are constantly part of a large crowd every time we go online. Virtual crowds are waiting in the background, always.

The fact that we are in an always-on, always-connected digital crowds means we live in environments where social signals are constant. We see what others endorse, reject, amplify, and ignore. Consensus often appears before conviction. 

“The crowd exercises a magnetic influence that annihilates the conscious personality of the individual.”

The Crowd helps explain modern problems that feel puzzling only if we assume people are thinking alone. Once we realize that they in fact don’t, and some may say increasingly so as we are subject to crowd-like behavior from morning to night, we better understand: 

• Why evidence fails to change minds once opinions are socially anchored

• Why trends feel inevitable after a tipping point

• Why people defend positions they privately question

• And more

What has changed since 1895 is, well, almost everything. But primarily technology, speed, and scale. What has not changed is the human response to social presence. Emotion still leads. Imitation still governs. Reason often arrives later, if at all.

One persistent assumption in modern research and marketing is that more data, better targeting, or greater personalization restores rational choice. Le Bon would challenge that assumption directly. More information does not dissolve crowd dynamics. It often intensifies them.

Three takeaways for brands and insights

“The individual in a crowd is no longer himself, but has become an automaton.”

1 - Adoption is social before it's rational

The principle is simple: suggestion outweighs reasoning in group contexts.

This helps explain why clear functional advantages often fail to persuade. People are not waiting to be convinced. They are waiting to see who else has gone first.

A challenger brand may succeed not because it is objectively better, but because its adoption becomes visible and culturally legible.

The implication for strategy is uncomfortable but clarifying: signals of belonging and momentum often matter more than proof points.

2 - Emotion moves faster than explanation

Crowds are moved by feeling, not argument. This explains why emotionally resonant messaging outperforms careful explanation, even in categories where stakes are high and decisions appear rational.

Financial, health, and insurance brands that address anxiety, reassurance, or control before education are not manipulating consumers. They are meeting them where collective emotion already lives.

The implication for messaging is not to abandon information, but to sequence it - emotion first, explanation second.

3 - People answer research as individuals and act as groups

Social context changes behavior. This helps explain the persistent gap between what people say privately and how they act publicly. Research environments often strip away social presence. Real life does not.

When findings fail to predict sharing, signaling, or boycott behavior, the issue is often not measurement. It is context.

The implication for insights is to treat social influence not as noise but a central variable.

---

The Crowd gives us an old lens to look at modern social dynamics. It explains why individual behavior shifts when they become one of the many. And it challenges one of the most comfortable assumptions in modern insight work: that people are best understood in isolation.

If we took this idea seriously, we might stop asking only what people think. We might start asking who they are thinking with, and what emotional current they are already standing in. What would change if we treated crowd psychology not as a distortion of “true” behavior, but as the condition in which most behavior actually happens?