Essay: Are emotions, cognitions and actions affected in a way that opposes how we expect victims to respond?

Are emotions, cognitions and actions, in response to disasters, affected in a way that opposes how we expect victims to respond?
Abstract
Terror attacks are on the rise now more than ever and we look to eyewitness accounts to build an image of the details of the events. Theory and previous research findings suggest that, when in emergency situations, individuals will behave in certain ways and this is often in contradiction with common beliefs of behaviour within such situations. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether the responses of individuals to the London transport bombings (2005) differs from how we expect victims to behave, based on our own beliefs as well research findings and theory. A thematic analysis was used to explore eyewitness accounts, producing qualitative data. Six main themes were identified: fixation on trivial details, delayed realisation, negative emotional responses, logical and rational responses, leadership and community, and tunnel vision focus on survival. These findings provide evidence, both for and against, expectations of responses to disasters.
Introduction
On July 7th 2005, three bombs detonated on three Underground trains with an additional bomb detonating on a bus in London killing 52 people and leaving hundreds more injured (Rodgers & Qurashi & Connor, 2015). This is one of many terror attacks that have since hit not only London, but various cities worldwide. In a time where such disasters are so common, it seems apt to explore and interpret the responses and experiences of the victims to such adverse situations in favour of taking this information at face value. We may hypothesise within our minds how we think we would react in such situations and may believe that during such stressful situations, many people would simply freeze. However, previous research has found that most people do not react with paralysing shock but instead act to behave in a way that they think is best and it is interesting to see how this emerged through the emotions, cognitions and actions in the eyewitness accounts (Perry & Lindell, 2003). Further theory proposes the concept of ‘mass panic’ whereby in emergency situations, rationality is reduced due to ‘high emotional tension’ and ‘heightened imagination’ and this then aids in causing panic amongst the crowd (Strauss, 1944). Additionally, theory suggests that when in these panicked states, personal survival becomes the main driving force of the individual, rejecting the rest of the crowd (Strauss, 1944). However, despite theory pointing to responses of panic when in emergency situations, empirical evidence has found that reactions of panic are uncommon – though they can occur in certain conditions, such as the ‘perception of immediate and serious danger’ (Perry & Lindell, 2003). With this in mind, it is then logical to explore whether such theoretical behaviours emerge within real-life disasters. To investigate the research question, a thematic analysis of eyewitness accounts of victims of the London bombings was conducted. The qualitative nature of this method allowed for an in-depth understanding of the victims’ emotions, cognitions and actions providing a descriptive overview that cannot be gained through quantitative methods. This involved reading the accounts several times and then identifying themes (recurring ideas) that naturally emerged within and between accounts. Through this investigation, it not only helps to create an awareness of the internal states of victims in emergency situations which is particularly relevant in regard to current affairs, but it also allows the possibility of potentially disproving or proving theories of responses to disasters, such as the behaviours attached to the notion of ‘mass panic’ (Le Bon, 1968).
Method
Sample
The sample involved 6 survivors of the London bombings in 2005.
Materials
Six first-hand eyewitness accounts, recorded shortly after the London bombings and published in the mainstream press, were obtained from various online sources.
Procedure
Thematic analysis, a qualitative method, was used to examine all eyewitness accounts for their thoughts, emotions and actions as well that of other victims. The purpose of this method was to identify themes, which are recurring ideas and patterns within or between accounts. This involved reading each account several times firstly, to gain familiarity with all accounts, taking notes on the experiences and secondly, to identify themes. A key element of this was to ensure that themes emerged naturally and were not imposed onto the eyewitnesses. Each subsequent reading of the accounts allowed for the fine-tuning of themes by grouping together similar ideas into larger themes, identifying sub-themes, selecting appropriate names for themes and extracting quotations from the extracts to ensure that there was adequate evidence to support the existence of each theme.
Results
Six main themes were identified, ordered in a way that represents the overall sequence in which each experience appeared both within and between each account.
1. Fixation on trivial details
A recall of mundane, seemingly unimportant specific details despite the severity of the situation.
‘I was on the southbound Piccadilly line, between King’s Cross and Russell Square.’ (J.S)
‘the lady who was sat in seat 22’ (G.Q)
2. Delayed realisation
A momentary obliviousness or shock before an awareness of the dangerous situation surfaced.
2.1. Disbelief followed by realisation
‘There was that initial silence… then there was lots of panicked screaming from our carriage.’ (M.H)
2.2. Annoyance followed by realisation
‘people were grumbling to begin with and then we noticed that there was a sort of dust or smoke coming in through the door’ (E.K)
3. Negative emotional responses
Following the realisation of the severity of the situation, many responded with extreme emotions.
3.1. Desperation and panic
‘some lady I think started screaming and saying: ‘We’re all going to die, we’re all going to die’ (J.G)
‘You can’t be leaving us, you’re not going to leave us?’ (G.Q)
3.2. Disconnection
‘As people started to panic, I turned to the man on my right and asked his name.’ (J.S)
3.3. Acceptance of the worst and hopelessness
‘I just looked to my left and literally thought that would be it’ (J.G)
4. Logical and rational responses
Where some responded to the situation with negative emotional responses, others took a more level-headed approach in order to help those who were distressed or injured.
‘we mustn’t go out on the track because it might be live, or it will be live’ (E.K)
5. Leadership and community
In relation to these rational responses emerged individuals who took the lead in calming others down, creating a sense of togetherness.
‘and that’s when I got my warrant card out.’ (E.K)
‘we started to reassure the other passengers around us that everything would be ok.’ (J.S)
6. Tunnel vision focus on survival
Amongst the chaos and panic, some of the victims were so focused on their individual survival that they were oblivious to anything else around them.
‘this chap was waiting to help me down because it seemed like quite a long drop and that was the first time that I actually looked to the right’ (G.Q)
Discussion
The themes identified indicate that a range of responses occurred both within individuals over time and between individuals with some, for example, responding with negative emotions whilst others acted more rationally.
The most prominent theme throughout all accounts was the negative emotional responses. In times of emergency, it seems people quickly assume the worst and respond with panic, supporting the concept of ‘mass panic’ where rationality is reduced due to ‘high emotional tension’ (Strauss, 1944). Additionally, disconnection was apparent in a minority of accounts whereby, whilst there was panic and chaos surrounding the individual, they did not engage with this and instead responded rather peculiarly by, for example, asking what people’s names were. Perhaps, this served as a coping mechanism for the victim by blocking out the distress and instead completing what would usually be a very normal action within a rare and unusual situation. Despite previous research disproving the idea of paralysing shock in response to emergencies, this ‘disconnection’ provides evidence for the original supposed misconception of victims being helpless in such situations (Perry & Lindell, 2003). However, it should be noted that this eyewitness did provide some help as they eventually ‘reassure[d] the other passengers’. Therefore, perhaps there is a middle ground between these opposing ideas whereby people are momentarily paralysed by their shock before they can provide a helpful response. To build on this, the experience of ‘delayed realisation’ where silence (inaction) occurs before people begin to act (positively or negatively) may provide additional evidence of the temporary paralysis experienced due to shock.
Furthermore, the ‘fixation on trivial details’ may be another example of a coping mechanism following the traumatic event where one would expect the more important details to be at the forefront of the eyewitnesses’ minds when reporting their experience. Thus, focusing on the smaller details may lessen the trauma within the victims’ minds by normalising this extraordinary situation through, for example, focusing on the exact train journey that the victims perhaps would regularly take.
Moreover, survival instincts were apparent as people focused primarily on their own survival so much so that they were unaware of the destruction surrounding them. Such finding supports the proposed theory of the selfishness that occurs within disasters where social bonds are broken and individuals focus on the individual only – a startling finding (Strauss, 1944).
However, on the other hand, the sense of community in those who took charge in reassuring others provides evidence to refute this focus on individual survival. All accounts reported at least one person who provided emotional or physical support, through reassurance or helping individuals, suggesting humans are not as selfish as we may believe.
Finally, the logical and rational responses that emerged in this emergency situation demonstrates how states of panic are not the only responses to disasters and supports the notion that humans do not tend to react with panic in emergency situations (Perry & Lindell, 2003).
The subjective nature of qualitative analysis means it is unlikely other researchers would identify the same themes if they were to analyse the same eyewitness accounts. This would make proving the reliability of the findings difficult due to the wide range of possible themes that could potentially be identified. Additionally, though measures were taken to allow themes to emerge naturally by reading the eyewitness accounts before reading literature related to responses to disasters, it is still possible that certain intentions or emotions were attributed to the victims that were not true for the victims themselves. To some extent, this is an unavoidable issue as interpretations are subjective and we are unable to contact the victims to clarify.
Though this thematic analysis does point to examples that accept and reject theories and evidence of mass panic, it would be beneficial to do further analysis using a larger sample to gain a solid foundation of evidence. Additionally, it may be useful to use eyewitness accounts from a range of disasters and compare responses between these different situations as it could be that responses to disasters are dependent on the type of situation. We may find that in, for example, natural disasters people show a strong tendency to focus on their own survival as opposed to the mixed findings that emerged from the thematic analysis of this manmade disaster. Thus, we can compare responses not just against pre-existing theory but also between different situations, allowing the creation of a more comprehensive theory of how people respond to disasters.
References
Le Bon, G. (1968). The crowd: A study of the popular mind. Dunwoody, Ga: Norman S. Berg.
Perry, R.W., & Lindell, M.K. (2003). Understanding Citizen Response to Disasters with Implications for Terrorism. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 11(2), 51-52. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33253598
Rodgers, L. Qurashi, S. Connor, S. (2015, July 3). 7 July London bombings: What happened that day? [Article].
Strauss, A. L. (1944). The literature on panic. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 39, 317-328.