The mass psychology of disasters and emergency evacuations: Implications for the emergency services Presentation for the BPS annual conference, Dublin 2/4/2008 Chris Cocking, John Drury & Steve Reicher: London Metropolitan University, University of Sussex & University of St. Andrews Funded by ESRC ( Ref no: RES )

Outline of Presentation Background and aims of research Data from interview studies Implications for emergency planners

Development of crowd behaviour theories over time 19 th Century- The irrationalist approach (Le Bon, 1895) 1960s - 70s more rationalist approaches Emergent Norm Theory (Turner R., 1974) From 1980s to present- The Social Identity Model (Reicher, 2001)

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 This has implications for emergency planning

Iroquois fire 1903 ‘most of the dead were trampled or smothered, though many jumped or fell to the floor of the foyer. In places on the stairways, particularly where a turn caused a jam, bodies were piled 7 or 8 feet deep. Fireman and Police confronted a sickening task in disentangling them.[ ] The heel prints on the dead faces mutely testified to the cruel fact that human animals stricken by terror are as mad and ruthless as stampeding cattle’ (in Latané & Darley 1970 p. 53)

Under-reaction rather than over-reaction ‘When people die in fires, it’s not because of panic, it’s more likely to be the lack of panic’ p.73 Neil Townsend, Divisional Officer, London Fire Rescue Service (in Kemp, 2003) Supported by evidence of behaviour in fires that people are often unwilling to deviate from familiar activity, leading them to continue with existing behaviours or evacuate along known routes, even in the face of danger (Canter, 1990)

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 behaviour during fatal fires (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?

The self-categorisation approach ( Turner et al., 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

Interview studies 21 survivors of 11 different emergencies 12 survivors of 7/7/2005 Open–ended interviews Tape-recorded and transcribed Analysed using Content Analysis and IPA

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

Research into 7/7/2005 Data from Press reports and web-logs Web based questionnaire study for eye- witnesses of bombings Interviews with 12 survivors

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

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

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

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

Implications for emergency services 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 crowd’s co-operative nature - don’t assume they will behave selfishly or panic Practice evacuations- don’t assume it won’t happen to you!

Crowds can be part of the solution rather than part of the problem People may delay own escape to help others Appeal to the crowd’s common humanity- ‘We’re in this together’ Don’t address commuters as atomised ‘customers’ Influential leader figures may emerge from crowd, who can help rescue effort

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 html html

References: Blake et al. (2004). Proceedings of Third International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire Canter, D. (ed.) (1990) Fires and human behaviour (pp ). London: David Fulton Cornwell, B. (2001). The Sociological Quarterly, 44, Kemp R (2003) Homeland Security: best practices for local government. Le Bon, G. (1968)The crowd: A study of the popular mind. (Originally published 1895) Mawson, A.R. (2005) Psychiatry, 68, (2) Proulx, G. & Sime, J.D. (1991). Fire Safety Science: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium, Reicher, S. (2001). The psychology of crowd dynamics. In M.A. Hogg and R.S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp ). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Turner J et al (1987) Rediscovering the social group Turner, R.H. (1974). Collective behavior. In R.E.L. Faris (ed.), Handbook of Modern Sociology. Chicago: Rand McNally.