Reactions to Disaster: 50 Years
of Social Science
Lee Clarke
Department of Sociology
Rutgers University
leeclarke.com
Three Main Points
Disasters, warnings, & bad news do not
induce panic
There’s a crucial difference between
“official” responders and “first” responders
Trust is the key to effective risk
communication
The image of panic
The reality of non-panic
Non-panic finding is robust
•Research from US Strategic Bombing Survey
•Plane crashes
•Natural disasters
•Biologically threatening events
1793 yellow fever in Philadelphia
1918 Spanish flu
1984 Rajneesh cult attack
1932-1945 Japanese attacks on China
Who are “first responders”?
Construction workers
next to Cypress
Viaduct, Loma Prieta
earthquake
Who are “first responders”?
The stranger next to you in a restaurant.
The coworker in the next cubicle.
Neighbors, friends, passersby.
Teachers: 20% of American population is
in K-12 for ½ the year.
Bad risk communication
Milwaukee smallpox riots, 1894
From: J. W. Leavitt, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 2003, 1(3).
Good risk communication
NYC smallpox vaccinations, 1947
From: J. W. Leavitt, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 2003, 1(3).
Take aways
Give more & detailed information, even if it is
frightening
Avoid slogans and condescension
People die the same way they live: in families,
faith based organizations, networks, etc.
Push disaster resources to local level
People are also “critical infrastructure”
People don’t typically overreact to bad news—
unless they perceive the messenger is
untrustworthy. Leaders must earn the trust.