Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 957–970

Cooperation versus competition in a mass emergency evacuation: A new laboratory simulation and a new theoretical model

  • John Drury
  • Chris Cocking
  • Steve Reicher
  • Andy Burton
  • Damian Schofield
  • Andrew Hardwick
  • Danielle Graham
  • Paul Langston
Articles

Abstract

Virtual reality technology is argued to be suitable to the simulation study of mass evacuation behavior, because of the practical and ethical constraints in researching this field. This article describes three studies in which a new virtual reality paradigm was used, in which participants had to escape from a burning underground rail station. Study 1 was carried out in an immersion laboratory and demonstrated that collective identification in the crowd was enhanced by the (shared) threat embodied in emergency itself. In Study 2, high-identification participants were more helpful and pushed less than did low-identification participants. In Study 3, identification and group size were experimentally manipulated, and similar results were obtained. These results support a hypothesis according to which (emergent) collective identity motivates solidarity with strangers. It is concluded that the virtual reality technology developed here represents a promising start, although more can be done to embed it in a traditional psychology laboratory setting.

References

  1. Aguirre, B. E. (2005). Commentary on “Understanding mass panic and other collective responses to threat and disaster”: Emergency evacuations, panic, and social psychology. Psychiatry, 68, 121–129.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguirre, B. E., Wenger, D., & Vigo, G. (1998). A test of the emergent norm theory of collective behavior. Sociological Forum, 13, 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blake, S. J., Galea, E. R., Westeng, H., & Dixon, A. J. P. (2004). An analysis of human behavior during the WTC disaster of 11 September 2001 based on published survivor accounts. In Proceedings of Third International Symposium on Human Behavior in Fire (pp. 181–192). London: InterScience Communications.Google Scholar
  5. Burton, A., & Schofield, D. (2005). Underground station evacuation simulator (Version 3.1). Nottingham: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castano, E. (2004). In case of death, cling to the ingroup. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chertkoff, J. M., & Kushigian, R. H. (1999). Don’t panic: The psychology of emergency egress and ingress. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  9. Chertkoff, J. M., Kushigian, R. H., & McCool, M. A. (1996). Interdependent exiting: The effects of group size, time limit, and gender of the coordination of exiting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke, L. (2002). Panic: Myth or reality? Contexts, 1, 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cornwell, B. (2003). Bonded fatalities: Relational and ecological dimensions of a fire evacuation. Sociological Quarterly, 44, 617–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cornwell, B., Harmon, W., Mason, M., Merz, B., & Lampe, M. (2001). Panic or situational constraints? The case of the M/V Estonia. International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters, 19, 5–25.Google Scholar
  13. Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drury, J., Cocking, C., & Reicher, S. (in press). Everyone for themselves? A comparative study of crowd solidarity among emergency survivors. British Journal of Social Psychology. doi:10.1348/014466608X357893Google Scholar
  15. Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2000). Collective action and psychological change: The emergence of new social identities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 579–604.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Feinberg, W. E., & Johnson, N. R. (2001). Primary group size and fatality risk in a fire disaster. In Human behavior in fire: Understanding human behavior for better fire safety design (pp. 11–22). London: InterScience Communications.Google Scholar
  17. Freud, S. (1985). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego (J. Strachey, Trans.). In A. Dickson (Ed.), Civilization, society and religion (pp. 91–178). Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin. (Original work published 1921)Google Scholar
  18. Fritz, C. E., & Williams, H. B. (1957). The human being in disasters: A research perspective. Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science, 309, 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ginsburg, G. P. (1979). The effective use of role playing in social psychological research. In G. P. Ginsburg (Ed.), Emerging strategies in social psychological research (pp. 117–155). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M., Kirkland, S., & Lyon, D. (1990). Evidence for terror management theory: II. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 58, 308–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Pyszczynski, T. (1997). Terror management theory of self-esteem and cultural worldviews: Empirical assessments and conceptual refinements. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 61–139). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gross, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Kruglanski, A. W., & Patch, M. E. (1972). Contingency of consequences and type of incentive in interdependence escape. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 360–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Haslam, S. A., O’Brien, A., Jetten, J., Vormedal, K., & Penna, S. (2005). Taking the strain: Social identity, social support, and the experience of stress. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 355–370.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2006). Stressing the group: Social identity and the unfolding dynamics of responses to stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1037–1052.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Helbing, D., Farkas, I., & Vicsek, T. (2000). Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature, 407, 487–490.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, N. R. (1987a). Panic and the breakdown of social order: Popular myth, social theory, empirical evidence. Sociological Focus, 20, 171–183.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, N. R. (1987b). Panic at “The Who Concert Stampede”: An empirical assessment. Social Problems, 34, 362–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson, N. R. (1988). Fire in a crowded theatre: A descriptive investigation of the emergence of panic. International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters, 6, 7–26.Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, N. R., Feinberg, W. E., & Johnston, D. M. (1994). Microstructure and panic: The impact of social bonds on individual action in collective flight from the Beverly Hills Supper Club Fire. In R. R. Dynes & K. J. Tierney (Eds.), Disasters, collective behavior, and social organization (pp. 168–189). Newark: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jonas, E., Schimel, J., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2002). The Scrooge effect: Evidence that mortality salience increases prosocial attitudes and behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1342–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelley, H. H., Condrey, J. C., Dahlke, A. E., & Hill, A. H. (1965). Collective behavior in a simulated panic situation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 20–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Klein, A. L. (1976). Changing in leadership appraisal as a function of the stress of a simulated panic situation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 34, 1143–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kugihara, N. (2001). Effects of aggressive behavior and group size on collective escape in an emergency: A test between a social identity model and de-individuation theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 575–598.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Langston, P. A., Masling, R., & Asmar, B. N. (2006). Crowd dynamics discrete element multi-circle model. Safety Science, 44, 395–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Latané, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 308–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Latané, B., & Wolf, S. (1981). The social impact of majorities and minorities. Psychological Review, 88, 438–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levine, M., Cassidy, C., Brazier, G., & Reicher, S. (2002). Selfcategorization and bystander intervention: Two experimental studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1452–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention. How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Levine, M., & Thompson, K. (2004). Identity, place, and bystander intervention: Social categories and helping after natural disasters. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 229–246.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Loomis, J. M., Blascovich, J. J., & Beall, A. C. (1999). Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 557–564.Google Scholar
  42. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Mawson, A. R. (2005). Understanding mass panic and other collective responses to threat and disaster. Psychiatry, 68, 95–113.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. McDougall, W. (1920). The group mind. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
  45. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mintz, A. (1951). Non-adaptive group behavior. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 46, 150–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Muir, H. (1996). Research into the factors influencing survival in aircraft accidents. Aeronautical Journal, 100, 177–181.Google Scholar
  48. Osborn, C. Y., Johnson, B. T., & Fisher, J. D. (2006). After 9/11 at ground zero: The anxiety-buffering effects of worldview support of the first anniversary of 9/11. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 28, 303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.Google Scholar
  50. Proulx, G., & Fahy, R. F. (2003, October). Evacuation of the World Trade Center: What went right? In Proceedings of the CIB-CTBUH International Conference on Tall Buildings (pp. 27–34). Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada.Google Scholar
  51. Quarantelli, E. (1957). The behavior of panic participants. Sociology & Social Research, 41, 187–194.Google Scholar
  52. Reicher, S. (2001). The psychology of crowd dynamics. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 182–208). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ripley, A. (2005, May 16). How to get out alive. Time, 165, 48–52.Google Scholar
  54. Ross, E. A. (1908). Social psychology: An outline and source book. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sime, J. D. (1983). Affiliative behavior during escape to building exits. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C., Barker, C., et al. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLoS ONE, 1, e39. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000039CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Still, K. (2000). Crowd dynamics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Mathematics, University of Warwick, U.K. Available from Crowd Dynamics Web site: www.crowddynamics.com/.Google Scholar
  58. Strauss, A. L. (1944). The literature on panic. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 39, 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  60. Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 77–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  62. Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6–34). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  63. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  64. Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1997). The socially structured mind. In C. McGarty & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The message of social psychology (pp. 355–373). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Drury
    • 5
  • Chris Cocking
    • 1
  • Steve Reicher
    • 2
  • Andy Burton
    • 3
  • Damian Schofield
    • 4
  • Andrew Hardwick
    • 5
  • Danielle Graham
    • 2
  • Paul Langston
    • 3
  1. 1.London Metropolitan UniversityLondonEngland
  2. 2.St. Andrews UniversityFifeScotland
  3. 3.University of NottinghamNottinghamEngland
  4. 4.RMIT UniversityVictoriaAustralia
  5. 5.School of PsychologyUniversity of SussexFalmer, BrightonEngland

Personalised recommendations