Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Psychological disaster myths in the perception and management of mass emergencies

Psychological disaster myths in the perception and management of mass emergencies Disaster myths are said to be widespread and consequential. However, there has been little research on whether those involved in public safety and emergency response believe them. A survey examined how far police officers, civilian safety professionals, sports event stewards and comparison samples from the public believe the myths “mass panic,” “civil disorder,” and “helplessness.” Respondents endorsed the first two myths. However, they rejected the myth of helplessness and endorsed the view that emergency crowds display resilience. Despite these contradictions in stated beliefs, there was also evidence of ideological coherence: each model of mass emergency behavior (maladaptive vs. resilient) was linked to a model of crowd management (coercive and paternalistic vs. mass‐democratic). The practical implications of these findings are discussed. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Applied Social Psychology Wiley

Psychological disaster myths in the perception and management of mass emergencies

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/psychological-disaster-myths-in-the-perception-and-management-of-mass-5WGaBnEEAI

References (64)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc
ISSN
0021-9029
eISSN
1559-1816
DOI
10.1111/jasp.12176
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Disaster myths are said to be widespread and consequential. However, there has been little research on whether those involved in public safety and emergency response believe them. A survey examined how far police officers, civilian safety professionals, sports event stewards and comparison samples from the public believe the myths “mass panic,” “civil disorder,” and “helplessness.” Respondents endorsed the first two myths. However, they rejected the myth of helplessness and endorsed the view that emergency crowds display resilience. Despite these contradictions in stated beliefs, there was also evidence of ideological coherence: each model of mass emergency behavior (maladaptive vs. resilient) was linked to a model of crowd management (coercive and paternalistic vs. mass‐democratic). The practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Journal

Journal of Applied Social PsychologyWiley

Published: Nov 1, 2013

There are no references for this article.