DON’T PANIC!
Crowd behaviour in emergencies
Dr Chris Cocking
University of Sussex
cpc20@sussex.ac.uk
6/9/2005
Outline of Presentation
1) Background and aims of research
 2) Examples of how behaviour in
emergencies support our theories
 3) How this may be useful in managing
future crowd evacuations
 4) brief demonstration of VR programme
 5) Any questions/ points for discussion

Context of research




Crowd behaviour theories have developed over
time
19th Century- Le Bon irrationalist approach
1960s - 70s more rationalist approach
From 1980s to present- crowd behaviour
increasingly seen as governed by social normsbeyond rational or irrational as this is a matter of
interpretation -The Social Identity Model
The ‘Panic’ model
 Part
of the irrationalist tradition in crowd
psychology
 Reproduces dominant image:
a)Threat causes emotion to overwhelm reason
 b) Collective identity breaks down
 c) Selfish behaviours- pushing trampling etc
 d) Contagion-these behaviours spread easily to
crowd as a whole

Scope of research project
3 year project funded by ESRC since April
2004 to see if existing psychological models
of crowd behaviour can be applied to
emergencies
 Taking a critical look at the ‘panic model’
 3 different areas of research; interviews,
room evacuations, and VR simulations

Research into
th
7
July
Gathering data from Press reports and weblogs
 Web- based questionnaire study for eyewitnesses of bombings;
http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~dzs/londonbomb/i
ndex.htm
 Interview studies to come
 Results so far support our theories

th
7





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
th
7
July terrorist attacks
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

Why no Mass Panic?
1) British Bulldog spirit meant we were
used to it or even expecting it ?
 2) Information withheld?
 3) Mass Panic is extremely rare anyway?
Only when chance to behave co-operatively
has gone

The myth of Panic
Many accounts of ‘panic’
 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

Panic?


1)’There was no real panic - just an overwhelming
sense to get out of the station quickly’
2) ‘almost straight away our packed carriage
started to fill with smoke, and people panicked
immediately. Thankfully there were some levelheaded people on the carriage who managed to
calm everyone down’
Unity


‘I felt there was a real sense of unity. We were all
trying our best to find a way out of there and
reassure each other’.
‘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’
Co-operative behaviour
1)‘Many people kept calm and tried to help
one another to see if anyone was injured’
 2)‘I was very aware of people helping each
other out and I was being helped myself’
 3) ‘Passengers with medical experience
were found, I found a tool box and we
smashed a window, allowing the medical
guys to enter the other train’

Orderly evacuation?


‘Everyone was pretty calm and no-one made a
rush for the doors in a panicked fashion’
‘About 20 minutes later the message came through
that those who could walk should move to the
front of the train and disembark and walk down
the track. [] after a short distance we were stopped
and told that a person had been blown out of the
train against the tunnel wall and could not be
moved as he was critical’
Since July
th
7
21st July attempted bombings
 22nd July Stockwell shooting
 3rd August smoking bus evacuation
 On each occasion more urgency and distress
reported
 Some reports of pushing/ stampeding
 But is this mass panic?

Definite urgency to evacuate

1) ‘Some people left behind their shoes and
their bags of shopping.’

2) ‘The door to the next carriage burst open
and dozens of people rushed in. Some were
falling’
But is this mass panic?

‘Some people were panicking and
screaming. People still did not know what
was going on, some people did try to get on
to the train on the opposite platform. Some
people tried to stand around asking and
some people just tried to find their way out’
Co-operation

‘The guy just ran and started running up the
escalator everyone was screaming to stop
him’
Stockwell shooting 22/7/05

‘Lots of people at the other end started
shouting "Get off! Get off!" and running
down the platform away from the train. I
heard 5 gun shots, although did not see
anything as I was running away from the
train trying to find an exit. We all followed
each other and reached a dead end on the
Victoria line platform, everyone was very
frightened and didn't know where to go’
Panic as passengers leap from smoking bus’
Guardian 3/8/05
Mechanical failure on bus causes fire but no
bomb
 6 injured as people jump out of emergency
exit, 4 metres up
 ‘passengers were streaming out of the top
window, dropping down and piling on each
other, getting as far away as possible’

Baghdad stampede 31/8/05
Baghdad stampede- incompetence or
conspiracy?

Panic to flee suspected suicide bomber?

Mismanagement of large crowd in confined
area?
Possible applications of my work




1) More information rather than less
Very little evidence supports idea that people will
panic if they know severity of the situation
If information is given in clear ways that people
can safely act upon to escape threat, they usually
do
Consequently, deliberately withholding info could
cause problems in any future emergencies, as
people may not trust accuracy of messages
Possible applications of my work
2) How this information is relayed and by
whom affects whether it is believed and
acted upon
 Information needs to be clear and
unambiguous, and come from believable
source that crowd identifies with
 This could depend on type of crowd; e.g.
commuters, football fans

Possible applications of my work
3) Appealing to the crowds’ collective
identity/ common humanity
Having a common fate can encourage cooperative behaviour- ‘we’re all in this
together’
Sir Ian Blair-‘communities defeat terrorism’
Having out-groups can strengthen in-group
identity, but is a double-edged sword

Can you help with the research?
1) Visit web-site?
 2) Access to CCTV footage?
 3) Interested in developing VR programme
as a training tool?

Summary
1) Crowds in emergencies behave in ways
that are consistent with their social
identities and governed by the social norms
of the situation
 2) The ‘panic model’ is largely a myth
 3)Evidence gathered from July 7th attacks
supports our theories

VR evacuation programme
Joint project with computing scientists at
University of Nottingham who are
experienced in emergency simulations
 We are currently asking potential users what
they would like to see it do with a view to
marketing it as a training tool
