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
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 modelMawson (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 approach
Turner (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
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 eyewitnesses 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 levelheaded 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