This week, the government (and the mass media) have
been criticized for promoting ‘panic-buying’ of petrol in the context of a possible tanker drivers strike. Here
at Sussex University, we have been looking at the use of the word ‘panic’, and
at the kinds of behaviours that are sometimes labelled in this way. We have also
worked alongside emergency planners and crowd safety management professionals
on this question of communication in possible emergency situations. Based
on this work, there are three simple points to make about the current situation
of supposed ‘panic-buying’.
Run on the Seamen's Savings' Bank during the so-called ‘panic’ of 1857
(courtesy of Wikipedia commons)
1, Don’t say ‘don’t panic’
The first point is that the advice ‘don’t panic’ is worse than
useless. When those in authority say ‘don’t panic’, or even ‘stay calm’,
the rest of us know by this that there is definitely something we should be
anxious about – for why else would they be warning us in this way? And why else
should they be so concerned about our emotional responses if not because they
think there is something that we might ‘panic’ about? In the present case, the
advice that there was no crisis, but that people should fill up their cars just in case, was as good as advice to act exactly as though a crisis was imminent
and therefore to fill up as much as we can.
2, Belief that there is ‘panic’ makes it logical to act individualistically
The advice ‘don’t panic’ is based on the mistrust by the
government of the (potentially irrational) ‘masses’. In turn it sows mistrust.
It does this in two ways. First, the advice communicates that the government is
holding something (scary) back from the public, so creates mistrust between
public and government. Second, reference to ‘panic’ risks creating mistrust
amongst members of the public themselves. When the government and the mass
media tell us that our neighbours are ‘panic-buying’, we imagine those around
us acting individualistically, rushing to hoard goods for themselves. And if
we imagine that everyone else is acting this way, it becomes foolishly
self-sacrificial to do otherwise oneself. Rather, it becomes completely logical
to look after number one. The result is that we trust our neighbours less to
act patiently and in the collective interest.
3, ‘Panic buying’ is not panic
The third point is that the large queues and the rush to stock up
does not really fit the criteria for panic. Journalists reporting from
the scene of petrol queues note with surprise the calm, boredom and stoicism of
the people waiting in line. ‘Panic’ is a clinical condition marked by an
excessive fear and anxiety reaction, the physiological signs of which include
raised heart rate, shortened breath, sweating and so on. This excessive anxiety
prompts reckless, uncontrolled behaviour. People queuing for petrol
in so-called ‘panic buying’ may be acting in their personal interest
rather than the collective interest, but this is cognitively driven rather than an instinctive ‘flight or fight’ response. The queuing and bulk-buying is logical - given people's reasonable beliefs about others’ behaviour and their reasonable mistrust of the authorities. And there is no spread of irrational beliefs or
emotions through these crowds. As I have argued elsewhere, there is no
evidence to support the argument that crowds are susceptible to the uncritical spread of simple emotions through so-called ‘contagion’:‘mass panic’ is a myth.
It is often the mass media, more than the politicians, who mobilize
the ‘panic’ cliché to describe consumer queuing and stock piling. It is perhaps
encouraging to report, therefore, that not all journalists are so lazy. After
an interview we gave on Radio Leicester to discuss our ESRC research project on mass emergency behaviour, the reporters were so convinced by the argument that
they made it a policy not to use the term in future.
However, we don’t think that solutions to the problems produced by mutual
mistrust and individualism lie only or essentially in changing the messages given out
by those in authority. It was notable that, in his nervous back-tracking, David
Cameron referred to ‘resilience’ as just a quality of the state and its
functionaries. We have been exploring the informal resilience of crowds, which expresses itself in solidarity and is a function of shared social identity among crowd members. We are currently running some experiments to show that, when
people think of themselves in terms of their social identities (e.g., ‘me as a
member of my community’) they will be more cooperative, less ready to push in
to queues, and more willing to share dwindling supplies with strangers than
when they think of themselves in terms of their personal identities (e.g., ‘me
as distinct from others in my community’). If the outcomes of the behaviours labelled as 'panic-buying' are dysfunctional for the collective (e.g., more acute shortages for most as the minority hoard goods) it is precisely because people in the crowd are acting reasonably as individuals, rather than as members of a psychologically united crowd; cf. Mintz, 1951.)
References
Drury, J., Cocking, C., & Reicher, S.
(2009). Everyone for themselves? A comparative
study of crowd solidarity amongst emergency survivors.British Journal of Social
Psychology, 48, 487-506. DOI:10.1348/014466608X357893
Drury, J., Cocking, C., & Reicher, S.
(2009). The nature of collective resilience:
Survivor reactions to the 2005 London bombings. International
Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 27,
66-95.
Mintz, A. (1951). Non-adaptive
group behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 150-159.
