1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

13. Research into 7/7/2005 Data from Press reports and web-logs
Web- based questionnaire study for eye-witnesses of bombings;
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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Panic on 9/11?

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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

21. References:
Cornwell, B. (2001). The Sociological Quarterly, 44,
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,
Turner J et al (1987) Rediscovering the social group