The mass psychology of disasters and emergency evacuations: A research report and implications for practice

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 c.cocking@londonmet.ac.uk

2. Outline of Presentation • Background and aims of research • Examples of how behaviour in emergencies support our theories • Implications for emergency planners

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

4. The ‘Panic’ model • Part of the irrationalist tradition in crowd psychology • a) Threat causesemotion 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!

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?

6. 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

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

13. 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

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

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

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

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

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!

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 • http://www.sussex.ac.uk/affiliates/panic/applications.html

21. 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