One of our recent blog posts discussed the common
mistake that people make when they describe human behavior as “stupid” or
something similar after someone makes a mistake of some sort. This line of
thinking doesn’t only apply to normal operations, but also applies to human
behavior in emergency and disaster scenarios. One of the enduring beliefs
people have regarding people’s behavior in these types of situations can be
summed up with the word panic.
What is Panic?
One of the problems with the concept of panic is that the
word doesn’t have a very good definition. Many times people mean “fear” when
they talk about panic. So, for example, if you say that everyone was panicking,
that typically means that everyone was very afraid and was reacting to that
fear.
Panic is also used to describe what people believe is
extreme irrational, anti-social behavior that they see following an emergency
or disaster. So, for example, irrational running away (known as flight
behavior), disregard for others, and even looting or other criminal behaviors
get described as “panic” by some.
This latter definition of panic is the one we want to focus
on in this blog, because if this is true it has significant implications. The
first definition is very meaningful or surprising (saying that people get
really scared in disasters isn’t telling us anything we couldn’t have guessed
at). However, if people do typically respond in emergencies and disasters in
irrational and anti-social ways that means that people become part of the
problem following a disaster and effective planning would require protecting
people from themselves. For example, we would see withholding information from
the public until they “need to know,” emergency planning would be based on
public response agencies saving the day for the helpless citizens, and a need
for significant command and control, including law enforcement, to stop
anti-social behaviors.
Do People Panic?
Well, research in emergency and disaster scenarios and
people’s behaviors shows that panic does happen, but nearly as often as people
think. Panic, again, defined as irrational and anti-social behavior, is the
exception, but not the rule. Research shows that panic is typically an
individual behavior, not a group behavior, and that individuals are likely to
panic when three conditions exist:
- There is a perception of an immediate threat,
- The belief that escape is possible, but that the person’s ability to escape is diminishing, and
- The belief that others nearby are unable to help them and the individual does not have the resources to handle the situation themselves.
A couple notes on the above conditions. First, note that it
is based not on reality but the individual’s perception of reality. So, one
person may perceive an immediate threat in a situation where no real threat
exists. But whether the threat exists or not, it’s the perception of the threat
that matters.
Second, note that the person must perceive that there is
potential to escape the situation. In situations where escape is impossible it
is rare to see panic behaviors, such as in a cave in or a submarine disaster.
However, we must stress that panic is the exception, not the
rule. To illustrate this, consider the following case studies:
- At the Beverley Hills Supper Club fire in 1977 the National Fire Protection Association investigation identified that there was no evidence of panic. Rather, the majority of the deaths occurred in a room where rather than evacuating a comedian continued to his act while the building was on fire.
- On September 11th, 70% of all survivors in the World Trade Center reported that they spoke to someone before evacuating the building, taking an average of 6 minutes before deciding to leave the World Trade Center.
- During Orson Welles War of the Worlds broadcast where many reported wide spread panic, 85% of all listeners reported knowing it was a radio broadcast, not a real alien invasion.
Or, consider the following quote by a fire department
official following the Oklahoma City Bombing:
Absolute, unrestrained panic was rampant in the building during the first hour to hour and half of the incident. The building had so many access points that it was very difficult to keep anyone from entering.
Look at the examples above and consider the picture that it
paints. Do we see people acting in their own self-interest, anti-socially? Or
do we see people responding in pro-social ways, trying to engage with and help
others or hold on to some level of normalcy?
Consider these questions a bit and feel free to leave your
comments and questions. We’ll go further into how people behave and how we can
better plan for that behavior in next week’s blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.