The mass psychology of disasters and emergency evacuations: A research report and implications for practice Presentation for the FSC conference 8/11/2007 Chris Cocking & John Drury: London Metropolitan University & University of Sussex c.cocking@londonmet.ac.uk

Outline of Presentation Background and aims of research Examples of how behaviour in emergencies support our theories Implications for emergency planners 1) Mention that theory isn’t covered in detail, but I can elaborate on any points during q.s

Development of crowd behaviour theories over time 19th Century- Le Bon’s irrationalist approach 1960s - 70s more rationalist approach- ENT From 1980s to present- The Social Identity Model we’re not trying to say that all crowds are inherently good- they can do ‘bad’ things, e.g. lynch mobs etc but this is usually reflected by the ID of crowd as a whole, and done in a social context- doesn’t mean that crowds are pathological per se, but they behave in ways or norms that are consistent with their ID crowds can also be dangerous, but this is more down to physical pressures of large numbers of people who may not be aware of or able to act against dangers to them. When there are injuries or deaths in crowds it is more likely to be due to poor management than any ‘panic’ or irrational behaviour by crowd members e.g. Hillsborough and possibly also the recent Baghdad stampede

The ‘Panic’ model Part of the irrationalist tradition in crowd psychology a) Threat causes emotion to overwhelm reason b) Collective identity breaks down c) Selfish behaviours- pushing, trampling d) Contagion-these behaviours spread to crowd as a whole But mass panic is v. rare! Critique panic model here; While there may be fear- people don’t lose all reason Far from breaking down, collective ID can grow in the face of threat selfish behaviour is rare and only usually happens when chance to co-operate has gone Rather than spreading individual distress/ selfishness is usually tempered by others

Social attachment model- Mawson (2005) In emergencies, people seek out attachment figures: social norms rarely break down But, such ties can have fatal consequences- people escape (or die) in groups Improves on panic model, and supported by evidence from disasters, (Cornwell, 2001) but problems remain: a) Implies that panic in a crowd of strangers is more likely b) Why do strangers co-operate in emergencies? There is evidence for social attachment model e.g. Cornwell (2001) and Feinberg and Johnson’s studies of BHSC fire

The self-categorisation approach Turner (1987) Disasters create a common identity or sense of ‘we-ness’- Clarke (2002) This can result in orderly, altruistic behaviour as people escape common threat Increased threat can enhance common identity Mention that results from interview study supports our findings, but was from a wide range of emergencies, with different levels of real and perceived threat, so could be a lot of variability in data. Therefore we decided to look at 1 event- 7/7

Research project Funded by ESRC- April 2004-7 Can existing psychological models of crowd behaviour can be applied to emergencies? 3 different areas of research; interviews, room evacuations, and VR simulations

Results from interviews Common identity quickly emerges Co-operative rather than selfish behaviour predominates If selfish behaviour happens, it is usually isolated and rarely spreads

Hillsborough survivor I don’t think people did lose control of their emotions [ ] they were clearly in control of their own emotions and their own physical insecurity, I mean [] you’re being crushed, you’re beginning to fear for your own personal safety, and yet they were [ ] controlling or tempering their emotions to help try and remedy the situation and help others who were clearly struggling

Room evacuation studies Simulated role-plays of room evacuations with smoke and time pressures Some evidence of common identity emerging in response to shared fate But study suffered from lack of realism

VR evacuation programme Joint project with computing scientists at Universities of Nottingham & RMIT (Australia) Many simulations of crowd flow, but ours was first to consider psychological theories of crowd behaviour Evidence for link between sense of groupness and helping Discussions with potential users (e.g. Home Office/SciTech) to market it as a training tool Doesn’t need to be tube evac- can be other scenarios- explain that it was designed for psych expt, so may appear restrictive, but we may develop it further if users are interested. Run programme off CD on lap-top Ask for questions once you’ve run VR prog

Research into 7/7/2005 Data from Press reports and web-logs Web- based questionnaire study for eye-witnesses of bombings; www.sussex.ac.uk/affiliates/panic/ Interview study of survivors Results support our theories 1) Mention that we were at Royal Soc showing VR prog. when bombs went off 2) Click onto web-link and briefly mention each section of q.s from survivors 3) Interview studies not done yet, cos we’ve only just got ethical clearance

Response to 7/7 Individual fear and distress, but no mass panic Evacuations characterised by orderly, calm behaviour Many reports of altruism, co-operation, and collective spirit of Londoners/ UK as a whole emphasise point that we’re not trying to say that individuals don’t become scared, distressed, or even panic, but that this v rarely becomes mass panic

Panic? There was no real panic - just an overwhelming sense to get out of the station quickly Almost straight away our packed carriage started to fill with smoke, and people panicked immediately. Thankfully there were some level-headed people on the carriage who managed to calm everyone down Some accounts of panic, but mixed and doesn't generalise Liverpool St King’s Cross

Unity One of the things which struck me about this experience is that one minute you are standing around strangers and the next minute they become the closest and most important people in your life. That feeling was quite extraordinary Both quotes from eye-witnesses of King’s Cross tube bomb Normal social inhibitions (not talking on the tube) break down, and a physical crowd becomes a psychological crowd

Panic on 9/11?

The myth of Panic Many accounts of ‘panic’ in emergencies But what actually is panic, and what is logical flight behaviour? Need to look at what people actually do, and decide if it is indeed ‘panic’ More than just semantics, as it could affect emergency evacuation planning 1) Press coverage and eye-witness reports full of mentions of panic 2) We’re not saying that individuals don’t have panic attacks, or that people can fear for their lives, just that the idea of mass, selfish panic is usually a myth 3) Panic model needs improving as it assumes that all crowds will panic in an evac. And doesn’t consider that there will be co-operation, orderly behaviour etc Explain that you’re gonna show 9/11 photo next to look at panic behaviour

Research on emergency evacuations: implications for practice More info rather than less can improve evacuation time and efficiency (Proulx & Sime, 1991) Source of info and whether it’s trusted matters Appeal to crowds’ co-operative nature- don’t assume they will behave selfishly or panic Practice evacuations! The panic model suggests that people shouldn’t be informed (communication de-emphasized since people are irrational) and that the emphasis should instead be on the width of exits.

Summary Crowds in emergencies behave in ways that are consistent with their identities and governed by the social norms of the situation The ‘panic model’ is largely a myth Evidence supports our theories http://www.sussex.ac.uk/affiliates/panic/applications.html

References: Cornwell, B. (2001). The Sociological Quarterly, 44, 617-638. Le Bon, G. (1968)The crowd: A study of the popular mind. (Originally published 1895) Mawson, A.R. (2005) Psychiatry, 68, (2) 95-113. Proulx, G. & Sime, J.D. (1991). Fire Safety Science: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium, 843-852. Turner J et al (1987) Rediscovering the social group