Fight, flight or freeze · Fight, flight or freeze Assumed reaction of the public in a crisis Misse...

Fight, flight or freeze Assumed reaction of the public in a crisis

Misse Wester misse.wester@foi.se

Swedish Defence Research Agency Department of Societal Safety and Security

First – an experiment! Rate the likelihood of you experiencing the following reactions (scale goes from 1 - not probable to 5 - very probable) in a crisis situation:

1. Emotional 2. Denial 3. Anger 4. Sorrow 5. Shock 6. Fear 7. Panic

8. Irrationally 9. Rationally

10. Logical

Structure

• Risk and crisis: some definitions • The role of the media • Expectations on human behavior • Examples of human behavior • Conclusions (?)

The character of risk

Natural or Man-made not so important any more: heading towards a new ‘collection’ of risks The psychometric paradigm: Dread, catastrophic potential,

new or unknown (Slovic, 1987)

Risk perception

How we percieve risks depend on who we are:

• Age • Gender • Education • Values and ideologies • Experiences

Other factors that can explain risk perception: Tampering with nature Optimistic bias Trust

Risk perception

How we perceive risks depends on the cause

Natural event

Human error

Human illwill, evil

Human negligence

Stre

ngth

of t

he re

actio

n

(after Weisaeth, 2002)

Crises and disasters

• What is a crisis? What is a disaster? 220 natural catastrophes, 70 technological disasters and 3 new armed conflicts per year (Alexander, 2005). But statistics rely on definitions! Consensus and conflict type of crises: • Consensus crises are natural and technological risks/crises • Conflict crises are riots, terrorist attacks and intergroup clashes

(Quarantelli et al., 2006)

”A crisis is an urgent threat to the core functions of a social system. A disaster is a crisis with a bad ending.” (Quarantelli et al again) New risks – new crises Must be handled by the same authorities Expert judgments in defining risks and managing crises

Media and crisis reporting

• ’Command post’ reporting

• New media gives new paths of communication

• Information needs to be released fast – the role of reliable information

Depends on the goal of communication!

What information?

• Facts about what happened

• Who to contact

• Reassuring information (for others?)

• Why this crisis has occurred

• Who or what is responsible

• How to help!

Social media in a crisis

Media sources during the financial crisis 2008

Most influential media….

London bombings 2005

The BBC received 1000 pictures, 20 video clips, 4000 text messages and 20 0000 e-mails in the hours following the bombings from private citizens Calls for a debate on ethics and reporting

Some challenges to preparedness

• Risk information overload

• Lack of resources, other priorities

• Unrealistic optimism, ”it won´t happen here”

• Lack of feedback on preparedness measures

• Reluctance to raise false alarm

• Over-reliance on authorities

• Over-reliance of stereotypes

Experiment - part 2! • Rate the likelihood of the public experiencing the following reactions

(scale goes from 1 - not probable to 5 - very probable) in a crisis situation:

1. Emotional 2. Denial 3. Anger 4. Sorrow 5. Shock 6. Fear 7. Panic

8. Irrationally 9. Rationally

10. Logical

Compare the scores - are they the same?

Study

• Two surveys – one to experts and one to lay people

• Measure probability of ten different reactions: Emotional, Denial, Shock, Grief, Anger, Fear, Panic, Irrational, Rational, Logical

• Reactions on three levels: Mine, My peers, The publics

• Three scenarios: Accident, Terrorist, Unknown

Results – My reactions

1

2

3

4

5

Denial Shock Emotional Sorrow Anger Fear Panic Irrational Rational Logical

Accident Terrorist Unknown

Peers

1

2

3

4

5

Denial Shock Emotional Sorrow Anger Fear Panic Irrational Rational Logical

Accident Terrorist Unknown

The public

1

2

3

4

5

Denial Shock Emotional Sorrow Anger Fear Panic Irrational Rational Logical

Accident Terrorist Unknown

Experts about the public – the public about themselves

1

2

3

4

5

Denial Shock Emotional Sorrow Anger Fear Panic Irrational Rational Logical

Lay people Experts

Assumptions about the public

• Outbursts of worry or panic

• Looting and break down of social norms

• The public is helpless

• Trust will increase communicators chances of being successful (whatever that means)

• Uncertainty is not discussed – speak with one voice, if not confusion will emerge

Some examples

• Beverly Hills Supper club fire • Station fire • Katrina

Beverly Hills Supper Club

How serious?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Not at all serious Only slightly serious Moderately serious Extremely serious

Perc

ent

Cabaret room

All other rooms

Experiences evacuating

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Locked doors

Confusing employee

instructions

Invalid employee instruction

No employee instruction

Access to exits

blocked by people

Aisles blocked by tables and

chairs

Poor visability due to heavy smoke

Poorly identified exit signs

Inadequate lighting

Beverly Hills Supper Club

Cabaret room All other rooms

Bonded fatalities – Cornwell (2003)

Investigated the following factors: • Number of social bonds (people in group) • Group member fatality – face same obstacles • Social bonds strenght (spouse or in-law)

Fatalities occur in blocks – if one member dies, probabilities are others will too

Station nightclub fire

Exits

Station nightclub fire

M Torres: Every man for himself? (2010)

Katrina – Looting or Surviving?

When myths and misconceptions guide emergency management: consequences in the case of Katrina

(Tierney, 2006)

• People refused to evacuate (risk of looting)

• Atmosphere of fear and suspicion

• Curfews limited natural social contacts and assistance

• Goodwill and altruism were not used to full advantage

• Resources were assigned to control rather than lifesaving

• Conflicts created between agencies and disaster victims

• Outside organizations hesitated to mobilize assistance

So how do we behave? • Panic is rare!

• Aid and collaboration more common – need to stick together,

prevents anxiety

• Perception of threat – should panic!

• Poor preparedness from authorities – e.g. blood donors or food donations

• Experiences changes people - needs to be acknowledged

Conclusions!

So what? Why is this important?

• Myths not a good ground for disaster planning

• Can predict human behavior with some degree of

certainty and need to plan for this

• Limited resources needs to be spend wisely