The mass psychology of disasters and emergency evacuations: A

research report and implications for practice

Presentation for the FSC conference 8/11/2007Chris Cocking & John Drury:London Metropolitan University & University of Sussexc.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

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

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!

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?

The self-categorisation approachTurner (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

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

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

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

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

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!

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