Introduction
Amanda Ripley’s insight into disbelief, deliberation and action is an insightful piece of investigative journalism. Using examples of some of the disastrous events of our times, Ripley reviews human response to such predicaments. Naturally, human fear is considered a normal occurrence during disasters. However, recent tragedies such as bomb-attacks, earth-wrecking earthquakes and hurricanes, a need to review disaster response are critical. At least 3000 and 200 casualties resulted from New York, Washington and Mumbai terrors attacks in 2001 and 2006 respectively (Herb & Kaplan, 2008). In this context, Ripley unearths the critical stages of human reaction to calamities. The stages include disbelief, deliberation and action. Ripley’s research provides a foundation to establishment government policies in regards to disaster response and management. This research paper focuses on psychology of fear in relation to disaster response.
From Ripley’s research, it is evident that the psychology fear saves or destroys if respective actions are not taken.
Disbelief, deliberation and action
Disbelief is best described through denial evidenced among disaster victims. At this stage, victims procrastinate the expected immediate response. Sometimes, victims actively remain at the same position before evacuating a disaster-stricken area or building. In fact, it takes a while before a victim comes into terms in what is happening. In addition, the disbelief among disaster victims is founded on the normalcy bias. In this regard, victims allege that the predicament is just a bad luck and only happens to other people. Another important element associated with disbelief is lack of information among the victims and those responding to the disaster. Information about the disaster that has just occurred and how to avoid further damage is important for victims. However, with the lack of such information it is difficult make any relevant decision.
Deliberation involves long and thoughtful considerations of factors, consequences and risks. Precisely, deliberation stage focuses on the psychology of fear, resilience and group thinking. Ripley (2009) implies that the deliberation is similar to risk taking or gambling. Deliberation is evoked by acknowledging the fact that disaster will happen. In this context, relevant information is gathered and assimilated to reduce the risks associated with a disastrous event. Making choices of whether to prevent further destruction resulting from a disaster is critical in the deliberation stage. It is important to identify the blind spots that hinder victims from making positive decisions. Deliberation is effectively executed when information from experience and future projections are evaluated.
During deliberations, priorities are determined to ensure minimum risks are accrued from a disaster. Deliberation follows the science of risk assessment. For example, assessment on how the disaster will happen depends on factors such as location, age and lifestyle. The psychology behind how a human processes risk is a pattern of scientific rationale. In this context, deliberations and decision making processes rely on emotional shortcuts that result to accuracy or errors. Deliberation involves hierarchy of fears, where victims seek emotional safety (Ripley, 2009). Therefore, every activity is associated with probable disasters that create different types of fears. Another important aspect affecting deliberation is how victims lean towards overconfidence as an emotional weapon.
The final stage is also referred as the decisive moment phase and requires action (Ripley, 2009). Victims who have undergone both denial and deliberation phases are susceptible to acting immediately when a dangerous event occurs. From a psychological point of view, victims succumb to panic and may fail to make the right decision. Disaster victims who make hasty decisions are prone to stampedes in crowded areas. The immediate decision to vacate a disaster prone-area is dangerous and lacks in terms of deliberate actions. There are disaster victims who opt not to act haphazardly.
For example, the victims succumb to paralysis out of panic and immediately halt any movement until professional help arrives. Playing dead is a common practice advocated for disasters like the bomb-attacks and requires a response from professional recovery teams. Sometimes, the paralysis actions can be effective in different situations. Acts of heroism are considered suicide attempts and require professionalism to execute. Depending on the situation and the psychological state of the victim, acts of heroism are relatively dangerous. The probability of not escalating the risks posed by a disaster using an act of heroism is minimal.
Victims’ behavior
The victim is likely to exhibit milling behavior during the disbelief stage. This behavior is exemplified by a victim moving around in circles, crawling and panic (Perry, 1979). In addition, a victim exhibits procrastination behavior out of panic, loss of power, dignity and security. An overconfident behavior is also possible if the victim is not prone to resignation and apathy. A gathering behavior is exhibited when the victim understands the situation based on relevant information (Tierney, Bevc & Kuligowski, 2006).
Actual disasters
The September 11, 2001 attack on World Trade Center reveals how Elia Zedeno experienced disbelief through procrastination, numbness and denial. However, would have made her more vulnerable to the disaster. With the help of firefighters and policemen, Zedeno was lucky to experience the decisive moment where information was vital in escaping the building.
Diego Ascencio a United States ambassador in Colombia exhibited the milling behavior when he experienced an attack by M-19 rebels in 1980. Ascencio experienced disbelief by succumbing to milling behavior by crawling behind the furniture. However, the show of overconfidence made the victim less vulnerable. The resilience and good negotiation skills provided Ascencio with the right information to negotiate with the rebels and get freed.
During the 1977 KLM plane and Pan Am 747 disaster, Paul and Floy Heck experience a sudden shock. However, Paul’s behavior reduces their vulnerability from the potential risks. Lack of immediate information and preparedness resulted to the collapse of Floy for inhaling smoke. However, the two escaped after Paul studied the plane’s safety diagram and knew where the exits were after the impact.
Policies
To transform national preparedness in disaster management, the government contribution in training victims is necessary. The training programs should focus on the nature of disasters projected to occur. Additional information on probable disaster risks is critical in preparing victims from a psychological perspective. The training programs on disaster preparedness and management should involve simulation drills of actual events (Romano, 1990). Professionalism in training and equipping potential victims is paramount to ensuring success of national disaster management (Ronan & Johnston, 2005). Education basics about disaster, preparedness, recovery and management should be prioritized under a special government agency.
Conclusion
Disaster victims are susceptible to disbelief when such events occur. In this regard, the psychological state of victims determines the vulnerability of individuals to risk posed by disaster. After disbelief and denial, victims require deliberating on the most effective actions to undertake in minimizing risks. In this context, government policies that focus on training and education potential victims are necessary.
References
Herb, G. H. & Kaplan, D. H. (2008). Nations ands nationalism: a global historical overview [4 volumes]: A global historical overview. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Web.
Perry, R. W. (1979). Evacuation decision-making in natural disasters. Mass emergencies, 4(1), 25-38. Web.
Ripley, A. (2009). The unthinkable: Who survives when disaster strikes – and why. Broadway, NY: Three Rivers Press. Web.
Romano, A. T. (1990). Taking charge: Crisis intervention in criminal justice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Web.
Ronan, K. R. & Johnston, D. M. (2005). Promoting community resilience in disasters. New York, NY: Springer. Web.
Tierney, K., Bevc, C. & Kuligowski, E. (2006). Metaphors matter: Disaster myths, media frames, and their consequences in Hurricane Katrina. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604(1), 57-81. Web.