Advertisement

Auswirkungen von Macht auf das Überleben in Extremsituationen: Ein Vergleich der Titanic und Lusitania Schiffskatastrophen

  • Sascha L. SchmidtEmail author
  • Bruno S. Frey
  • David A. Savage
  • Benno Torgler
Abhandlungen

Zusammenfassung

Am Beispiel des Untergangs der Lusitania und der Titanic wird analysiert, ob und in welchem Maße finanzielle und physische Macht sowie soziale Normen über Leben und Tod entscheiden. In einem quasi-natürlichen Experiment werden multivariate Probit-Schätzungen von öffentlich verfügbaren Sekundärdaten der Schiffsuntergänge durchgeführt. Die Analyse kommt zum Ergebnis, dass es im Wesentlichen von der Zeitspanne zwischen der Beschädigung des Schiffes und seinem Untergang abhängt, welche Rolle physische Stärke, gesellschaftlicher Status oder soziale Normen in lebensbedrohenden Situationen spielen. In zeitlich eng begrenzten Extremsituationen verdrängen Angst und Stress wertbezogenes, rationales Handeln. Es kommt zu einem rücksichtslosen Kampf ums eigene Überleben. Bleibt jedoch in Empfinden und Wahrnehmung der Betroffenen ein größerer Zeitraum bis zum endgültigen Versinken des Schiffes, bestimmen in stärkerem Maße soziale und ethische Werte das Verhalten der Menschen.

Schlüsselwörter

Macht Überleben Tragische Ereignisse Katastrophe Quasi-natürliches Experiment Soziale Normen 

Implications of power on survival in tragic events: a comparison of the Titanic and Lusitania sinking

Abstract

Comparing the Titanic and Lusitania disaster the impact of financial and physical power as well as the emergence of social norms on survival during life-and-death situations is analyzed. Despite the fact that some maritime disasters have become famous, a quantitative understanding of survival in life-and-death situations is still lacking. In a quasi-natural experiment multivariate probit estimations are conducted based on publicly available data. The paper suggests that in life-and-death situations differences in time restrictions are crucial. When time is scarce individual self-interested fight-or-flight behavior will predominate and result in a stronger competition for survival. In contrast, altruism and adherence to social norms emerge when there is sufficient time to reflect on the event and circumstances: Social norms require time to evolve, and they loose against physical strength in a shorter window of opportunity.

Keywords

Power Tragic events Disasters Survival Quasi-natural experiment Social norms 

Literatur

  1. Aguirre, Benigno E., Dennis Wenger, Gabriela Vigo, und Stephen B. Withey. 1957. Withdrawal behavior in disasters: Escape, flight, and evacuation movements. Sociological Forum 13:301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amato, Paul R. 1990. Personality and social network involvement as predictors of helping behavior in everyday life. Social Psychology Quarterly 53:31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, Thomas A., und Paul B. Ryan. 1975. The Lusitania disaster: An episode in modern warfare and diplomacy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ballard, Robert D., und Rick Archbold. 2000. Das Geheimnis der Titanic. Berlin: Ullstein.Google Scholar
  5. Balzer, Wolfgang. 1993. Formen der Macht. In Soziale Institutionen, Hrsg. Wolfgang Balzer, 185–201. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Beavis, Debbie. 2002. Who sailed on Titanic? The definitive passenger list. Hersham: Ian Allan Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. Bjorklund, David, und Todd Shackelford. 1999. Differences in parental investment contribute to important differences between men and women. Current Directions in Psychological Science 8:86–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, Roger. 1965. Social psychology. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bryceson, Dave. 1997. The Titanic disaster: As reported in the British national press april–july 1912. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  10. Camerer, Colin F. 2003. Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Camerer, Colin F., George Loewenstein, und Matthew Rabin. 2004. Advances in behavioral economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cannon, Walter B. 1929. Organization for physiological homeostasis. Physiological Reviews 9:399–431.Google Scholar
  13. Carpenter, Charli R. 2003. “Women and children first”: Gender, norms and humanitarian evacuation in the Balkans, 1991–1995. International Organization 57:661–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Committee on Commerce. 1912. The causes leading to the wreck of the White Star Liner Titanic. New York: U.S. Senate (U.S. Senate inquiry).Google Scholar
  15. Dahl, Robert A. 1957. The concept of power. Behavioral Science 2:201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dahl, Robert A. 1986. Power as the control of behavior. In Power, Hrsg. Steven Lukes, 37–58. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.Google Scholar
  17. Davis, Diane E. 1993. Political power and social theory. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  18. Drabek, Thomas E. 1986. Human system responses to disaster: An inventory of sociological findings. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Eagly, Alice H., und Maureen Crowley. 1986. Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin 100:283–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eaton, John P., und Charles A. Haas. 1994. Titanic: Triumph and tragedy. London: Patrick Stephens Ltd.Google Scholar
  21. Eaton, John P., und Charles A. Haas. 1997. Titanic – Legende und Wahrheit. München: Heyne.Google Scholar
  22. Elster, Jon. 1985. Rationality, morality, and collective action. Ethics 96:136–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elster, Jon. 2006. Fairness and norms. Social Research 73:365–376.Google Scholar
  24. Encyclopedia Titanica. 2008. RMS Titanic passenger and crew biography, Titanic history, research and discussions. http://www.encylopedia-titanica.org. Zugegriffen: 1. März 2011.
  25. Everly, George S., und Jeffrey M. Lating. 2002. A clinical guide to the treatment of the human stress response. New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. Fehr, Ernst, und Klaus M. Schmidt. 1999. A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114:817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Felson, Richard B. 2000. The normative protection of women from violence. Sociological Forum 15:91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fiske, Susan T., und Jennifer Berdahl. 2007. Social power. In Social psychology. Handbook of basic principles, Hrsg. Arie W. Kruglanski und Tory E. Higgins, 678–692. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. French, John R. P., und Bertram Raven. 1959. The bases of social power. In Studies in social power, Hrsg. Dorwin Cartwright, 150–167. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  30. Frey, Dieter, und Martin Irle. 2002. Theorien der Sozialpsychologie Band II. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  31. Frey, Bruno S., und Stephan Meier. 2004. Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: Testing "conditional cooperation" in a field experiment. American Economic Review 94:1717–1722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Frey, Bruno S., David A. Savage, und Benno Torgler. 2010a. Interaction of natural survival instincts and internalized social norms exploring the Titanic and Lusitania Disasters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 107:4862–4865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Frey, Bruno S., David A. Savage, und Benno Torgler. 2010b. Noblesse oblige? Determinants of survival in a life and death situation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 74:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Galbraith, John K. 1984. The anatomy of power. London: Hamish Hamilton.Google Scholar
  35. Geller, Judith B. 1998. Titanic: Women and children first. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  36. Gentile, Gary. 1998. The Lusitania controversies. Philadelphia: Gary Gentile Productions.Google Scholar
  37. Goldthorpe, John H. 1998. Rational action theory for sociology. The British Journal of Sociology 49:167–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gray, Jeffrey A. 1988. The psychology of fear and stress. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hancock, Peter A., und James L. Szalma. 2008. Performance under stress. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  40. Henry, James P., und Sheila Wang. 1998. Effects of early stress on adult affiliative behaviour. Psychoneuroendocrinology 23:863–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Herzog, Bodo, und Günter Schomaekers. 1976. Ritter der Tiefe – graue Wölfe. Die erfolgreichsten U-Boot-Kommandanten der Welt. Wels: Verlag Welsermühl.Google Scholar
  42. Howells, Richard. 1999. The myth of the Titanic. New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Imbusch, Peter. 1998. Macht und Herrschaft. Sozialwissenschaftliche Konzeptionen und Theorien. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  44. Johnson, Norris R. 1988. Fire in a crowded theater: A descriptive analysis of the emergence of panic. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disaster 6:7–26.Google Scholar
  45. Johnson, Norris R., William E. Feinberg, und Drue M. Johnston. 1994. Microstructure and panic: The impact of social bonds on individual action in collective flight from the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire. In Disasters, collective behavior and social organizations, Hrsg. Russell R. Dynes und Kathleen J. Tierney, 168–189. Newark: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
  46. Konow, James. 2003. Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature 41:1188–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kreutz, Henrik. 2001. Das Überleben des Untergangs der Titanic. Eine nichtreaktive Messung sozialer Ungleichheit. Angewandte Sozialwissenschaft 22:10–20.Google Scholar
  48. Kuntz, Tom. 1998. The Titanic disaster hearings: The official transcripts of the 1912 Senate Investigation. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  49. Lehman, Edward W. 1969. Toward a macrosociology of power. American Sociological Review 34:453–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Levitt, Steven D., und John A. List. 2008. Field experiments in economics: The past, the present and the future. European Economic Review 53:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. List, John A., und David H. Reiley. 2008. Field experiments. In The new palgrave dictionary of economics, Hrsg. Steven N. Durlauf und Lawrence E. Blume. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  52. Lord, Walter. 1955. A night to remember. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  53. Lord, Walter. 1998. Titanic – Wie es wirklich war. München: Heyne.Google Scholar
  54. Lord, Walter. 2002. Die Titanic-Katastrophe. München: Heyne.Google Scholar
  55. Lukes, Steven. 1986. Power. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Mann, Michael. 1986. The sources of social power: Volume 1, a history of power from the beginning to AD 1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Mann, Michael. 1993. The sources of social power: The rise of classes and nation states, 1760–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Mawson, Anthony R. 2005. Understanding mass panic and other collective responses to threat and disaster. Psychiatry 68:95–113.Google Scholar
  59. Mawson, Anthony R. 2007. Mass panic and social attachment: The dynamics of human behavior. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  60. Meier, Stephen. 2006. The economics of non-selfish behaviour. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  61. Meier, Stephen. 2007. A survey of economic theories and field evidence on pro-social behavior. In Economics and psychology: A promising new cross- disciplinary field, Hrsg. Bruno S. Frey und Alois Stutzer, 51–88. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  62. Nesler, Mitchel S., Herman Aguinis, Brian M. Quigley, Suk-Jae Lee, und James T. Tedeschi. 1999. The development and validation of a scale measuring global social power based on French and Raven’s power taxonomy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29:750–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. O’Sullivan, Patrick. 1999. Die Lusitania: Mythos und Wirklichkeit. Hamburg: Mittler.Google Scholar
  64. Parsons, Talcott. 1963. On the concept of influence. Public Opinion Quarterly 27:37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Piliavin, Jane A., und Hong-Wen Chang. 1990. Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology 16:27–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Polinsky, A. Mitchell, und Steven Shavell. 2000. The economic theory of public enforcement of law. Journal of Economic Literature 38:45–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Popitz, Heinrich. 1992. Phänomene der Macht. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  68. Powers, Rebecca S., und Christa Reiser. 2005. Gender and self-perceptions of social power. Social Behavior and Personality 33:553–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Quarantelli, Enrico L. 2001. The sociology of panic. In International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, Hrsg. Neil J. Smelser und Paul B. Baltes, 11020–11030. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  70. Quinn, Paul J. 1999. Dusk to dawn: Survivor accounts of the last night on the Titanic. Johnson City: Fantail.Google Scholar
  71. Raven, Bertram H. 1993. The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues 49:227–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Raven, Bertram H. 2001. Power/interaction and interpersonal influence: Experimental investigations and case studies. In The use and abuse of power, Hrsg. Annette Y. Lee-Chai und John A. Bargh, 217–240. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  73. Ripley, Amanda. 2009. Survive: Katastrophen – wer sie überlebt und warum. Frankfurt a. M.: Scherz Verlag.Google Scholar
  74. Ruffman, Alan. 2000. Titanic remembered: The unsinkable ship and Halifax. Halifax: Formac.Google Scholar
  75. Sauder, Eric. 2009. RMS Lusitania. The ship and her record. Stroud: The History Press.Google Scholar
  76. Schubert, Klaus, und Martina Klein. 2001. Das Politiklexikon. Bonn: Verlag J. H. W. Dietz.Google Scholar
  77. Simpson, Colin. 1987. Die Lusitania: Amerikas Eintritt in den Ersten Weltkrieg. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.Google Scholar
  78. Störmer, Susanne. 1998. Titanic – Mythos und Wirklichkeit. Berlin: Henschel.Google Scholar
  79. Tedeschi, James T. 2008. Social power and political influence. New Jersey: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  80. U.S. Senate 62nd Congress. 1912. Titanic disaster. Subcommittee hearings of the committee on commerce. Washington.Google Scholar
  81. Weber, Max. 1922. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck.Google Scholar
  82. Worman, B., C. Daniel Batson, Suzanne Pate, Harold Lawless, Paul Sparkman, und Scott Lambers. 1979. Helping under conditions of common threat: Increased “We-Feeling” or ensuring reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly 42:410–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wreck Commissioner’s Court. 1998. Formal investigation into the loss of the S.S. Titanic, evidence, appendices and index (1912). London: Public Records Office.Google Scholar
  84. Wreck Commissioner’s Report. 1915. Formal investigation into the loss of the Lusitania. London: Office of Public Records.Google Scholar
  85. Wrong, Dennis H. 1979. Power, its forms, bases and uses. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sascha L. Schmidt
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Bruno S. Frey
    • 2
    • 4
    • 5
  • David A. Savage
    • 3
  • Benno Torgler
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Institute for Sports, Business & SocietyEBS Business SchoolOestrich-WinkelDeutschland
  2. 2.Institut für empirische WirtschaftsforschungUniversität ZürichZürichSchweiz
  3. 3.The School of Economics and FinanceQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralien
  4. 4.Management and the ArtsCREMA – Center for Research in EconomicsBaselSchweiz
  5. 5.CESifoDeutschland
  6. 6.NCER – National Centre for Econometric ResearchBrisbaneAustralien

Personalised recommendations