The positive role of social identity in mass emergencies:
Survivors’ experiences of the
London bombs July 2005
The positive crowd: Psychological and social dimensions June 13th 2008
Chris Cocking, John Drury, & Steve Reicher c.cocking@londonmet.ac.uk
Funded by ESRC grant (Ref no: RES-000-23-0446) April
2004-7

Outline of Presentation
 Background and aims of research
 Research findings
 Implications for emergency planning

Development of crowd behaviour theories
 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

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 J., 1987)



Disasters create a common identity or sense of ‘weness’- Clarke (2002)
This can result in orderly, altruistic behaviour as people escape common threat
Increased threat can enhance common identity

7/7: primary data-set
1) 12 face-to-face interviews
2) 7 e-mail responses
3) 14 on-line questionnaire responses

7/7: Secondary data-set
1) ‘Contemporaneous’ interviews with survivors and witnesses, from 141 different articles in
10 different national daily newspapers.
2) 114 detailed personal accounts of survivors
(web, London Assembly enquiry, books or retrospective newspaper features.
Data from at least 145 people, most of whom
(90) were actually caught up in the explosions (c. 5% of those directly affected)

7 th July terrorist attacks





Rough chronology of events on the tube
1) Blast followed by darkness and silence
2) Screams of fear and distress- passengers try to find out what’s going on
3) Smoke & soot clear- attempts to help/ comfort others, & escape- some delay because of fear that tracks are live
4) Passengers wait approx 30 mins. for rescue, and walk in orderly fashion along tracks when directed

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’

Implications: 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

Practical implications: during incident

If ‘panic’ is wrong and crowd behaviour is social and meaningful-
More emphasis is needed on communicating with the crowd and less on the crowd as a physical entity (exit widths)
 If shared social identity is the basis of much helping-
Those in authority should encourage a sense of collective identity in the publicdon’t address them as atomised customers
Crowds can be part of the solution rather than part of the problem

Practical implications: post incident



If there is a potential for resilience among strangers-
The authorities and emergency services need to allow and cater for people’s willingness to help each other
Survivors’ need for mutual support groups may be therapeutic and need to be researched in more detail
Although it is possible mutual support may be maladaptive for somee.g. ‘victim’ identity

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:









Blake et al (2004). Proceedings of Third International Symposium on Human
Behaviour in Fire
Canter, D. (ed.) (1990) Fires and human behaviour (pp. 15-30). London: David
Fulton
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
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.
182-208). 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.