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
[email protected]
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



19th 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 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
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)
7th 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 meaningfulMore 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 helpingThose in authority should encourage a sense of collective
identity in the public- don’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 strangersThe 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 some- e.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.