PSY558:

Lesson 1: Introduction and Orientation

Introduction and Orientation (1 of 10)
Introduction and Orientation

Introduction and Orientation

Overview

The “psychology of disasters” describes a fairly wide range of issues, including the way people perceive and experience disasters, the way they react to them and the way they recover from them. This course focuses on six key topics that will be covered in depth during the remaining lessons:

In this lesson, you will briefly explore an overview of each of the six topics.

Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

Introduction and Orientation: Road Map (2 of 10)
Introduction and Orientation: Road Map

Introduction and Orientation: Road Map

Note: The purpose of the Lesson Road Map is to give you an idea of what will be expected of you for this lesson. You will be directed to specific tasks as you proceed through the lesson. Each activity in the To Do: section will be identified as individual (I), team (T), graded (G), ungraded (U), or pass/fail (P/F).

To Read

To Do

In this lesson you will complete the following activities:

  1. Academic Integrity Form (I, U)
  2. Initial Team Assignment (T, P/F)
  3. Natural and Man-made Disasters Activity (I, P/F)

Topics

Psychological Processes Relevant to Disasters (3 of 10)
Psychological Processes Relevant to Disasters

Psychological Processes Relevant to Disasters

The topics outlined below detail the psychological processes relevant to disasters that will be covered in this course. The pages that follow in this lesson provide an expanded overview of each topic.

Anticipation and Preparation

Some disasters strike without warning, but in most cases, people know that a disaster is coming or that it could come. It is useful to understand how people anticipate disasters, how and why they adapt to (and sometimes ignore) looming disasters, and how they prepare for disasters. Topics covered in this section include:

Perceptions of Risk

One of the reasons for many of the failures in planning, preparation and responses to disasters is that people have a very bad understanding of risk. Topics covered in this
section include:

Perception of Disaster Events

People who experience disasters often come away with very different perceptions of what has happened and how it has affected and will affect them. Topics covered in this section include:

Reactions to Disasters

Disasters cause tremendous loss, physical harm and psychological harm. We will focus on psychological effects, particularly:

Resilience and Recovery

Despite the tremendous damage done, people and communities can and do recover from disaster. It is important to understand the variables that influence recovery. Topics covered in this section include:

Organizational Responses to Disasters

Examination of how governments and organizations respond before, during and after disasters is important to understanding the impact disasters will have on individuals
and communities. Topics covered in this section include:

Anticipation and Preparation (4 of 10)
Anticipation and Preparation

Anticipation and Preparation

Few disasters, natural or man-made, strike with no warning whatsoever. There were numerous smaller-scale terrorist attacks on U.S. interests before 9/11. People live in areas where natural disasters are often common and predictable (e.g., flood plains, “Tornado Alley”, U.S. Gulf Coast). One implication is that disasters are often anticipated, at least in a general way. Yet, there are important differences in the way individuals vs. organizations prepare for disasters, and these differences are important for understanding what people do and what people fail to do in preparing for disasters.

First, it is important to ask how people deal with, and why they often choose to ignore the likelihood of disasters. Chronic exposure to the possibility of disasters is likely to lead to reactions of habituation and discounting. That is, people who live with a constant but low-level of exposure to specific risks (e.g., people living in earthquake zones in the Los Angeles or San Francisco areas) are likely to systematically underestimate the likelihood and the seriousness of the risks they face, but new visitors to the same zone are likely to overestimate these same risks.

Chronic exposure to disaster risks can lead to a combination of fatalism (i.e., a belief that the disaster will strike at some point) and an unrealistic sense that the disaster will not strike soon. This can lead individuals to continually defer making serious preparations, either in terms of putting together appropriate disaster supplies of in terms of being psychologically prepared for the disaster when it strikes.

Organizations, on the other hand, are often strongly invested in, and sometimes required to prepare for a wide range of disasters. A great deal of time and effort is devoted to developing contingency plans for predictable disasters, and there are clear indications that these plans can be at least partly effective (e.g., in New Orleans, plans to implement counterflow lanes on major highways made it possible for virtually all citizens who had adequate transportation to leave the city – the major failings of their plan involved a lack of preparation for transporting people who did not have adequate access to cars or buses). However, there is often a major disconnect between the plan and the behavior of organization members when a disaster actually strikes. An important part of the psychology of disasters is an understanding of why plans succeed and fail.

Perceptions of Risk (5 of 10)
Perceptions of Risk

Perceptions of Risk

There are many ways of describing or thinking about risks.  Risks can be described as:

There are also both objective measures and subjective definitions of risk, and these sometimes lead to highly inconsistent conclusions about risk.  For example, people in general tend to rate nuclear power as highly risky, whereas experts are more likely to rank everyday activities (e.g., driving in a car, climbing a ladder) as risky.

Public perceptions of risks appear to reflect two broad dimensions, dread (i.e., the perception that a particular event would have large and dreadful effects – e.g., a nuclear bomb) and familiarity (i.e., the perception that the consequences of an event are not known or understood – e.g., genetic modification of foods).  Furthermore, the perception of risk is at least in part emotional.  That is, it is not solely the information about a risk that leads to a response, it is also the way people feel when they receive this information.

Studies of the relationship between risk perceptions and peoples’ willingness to prepare to deal with risks suggests that impact of risk perceptions on preparedness is limited to specific environmental disasters and strongest for those preparedness behaviors that are more immediate, concrete, and easy to achieve.

Effective communication about the risks posed by potential man-made and natural disasters much take into account the subjective, emotional, and at times irrational way in which risks are perceived and misunderstood.  In particular, providing objective information will not always be effective, or at least will not be enough. It is important to recognize the public perceptions of risks have to do more with the vividness of a potential event than with its objective probability.

Effective risk communications are likely to provide useful and concrete information about the steps that should be taken.  The most widely cited set of examples comes from the National Weather Service, which can often tell residents of a town what to expect and when, and what steps to take to maximize their safety.  In comparison, the color-coded threat warning system developed but the Department of Homeland Security does little to direct people about the threats that are or should be important to them or about the specific post-disaster plans that are most likely to succeed.

Perception of Disaster Events (6 of 10)
Perception of Disaster Events

Perception of Disaster Events

Perceptions of disaster events depend on a number of factors, but two of the most important may be whether the disaster occurred suddenly or whether is has developed over time, and whether one is directly affected by a disaster or perceiving disasters from afar.  For example, during slow-onset crises (e.g., a drought), some communities are highly effective in adapting to changing conditions and others are not.  Slow-onset crises might not be viewed as disasters, even thought their net effects can be considerably larger and more widespread than more spectacular disaster events.

Perceptions of disaster differ between those at risk and those trying to help. Evidence suggests that everyday threats to livelihoods are a greater concern to most poor communities than 'one-off' disasters. Meanwhile, local consensus and cooperation are as important in protecting communities as concrete walls. Experts argue that a more developmental approach to creating disaster resilience is needed, which puts communities in charge of defining their needs and crafting the right solutions.

Reactions to Disasters (7 of 10)
Reactions to Disasters

Reactions to Disasters

There is no single pattern of reactions to disasters.  Rather, a wide range of physiological and psychological reactions to disasters have been reported, including:

Following disasters, feelings can become intense and unpredictable. People may become more irritable than usual, and their mood may change back and forth dramatically.  Thoughts and behavior patterns are also affected by the trauma. Some individuals have repeated and vivid memories of the event. These flashbacks may occur for no apparent reason and may lead to physical reactions such as rapid heart beat or sweating. Others may find it difficult to concentrate or make decisions, or become more easily confused. Sleep and eating patterns also may be disrupted.

Recurring emotional reactions are common after experiencing a disaster. Anniversaries of the event, such as at one month or one year, as well as reminders such as aftershocks from earthquakes or the sounds of sirens, can trigger upsetting memories of the traumatic experience. These 'triggers' may be accompanied by fears that the stressful event will be repeated.

Interpersonal relationships often become strained as the result of experiencing a disaster. Greater conflict, such as more frequent arguments with family members and coworkers, is common. On the other hand, some people will become withdrawn and isolated and avoid their usual activities. Physical symptoms may accompany the extreme stress. Pre-existing medical conditions may worsen due to the stress.

Resilience and Recovery (8 of 10)
Resilience and Recovery

Resilience and Recovery

Disasters are extremely stressful, and can have profound effects on individuals and communities.  However, many people recover from these experiences.  A combination of factors contribute to resilience and recovery. One important factor in resilience is having caring and supportive relationships within and outside the family. Relationships that create love and trust, provide role models, and offer encouragement and reassurance help bolster a person's resilience.

Several additional factors are associated with resilience, including:

Recovery from disasters often require a combination of physical (e.g., rebuilding homes, businesses, infrastructure) and psychological strategies.  Recovery from disasters required dealing with the disorientation, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress reactions that are likely to be present in populations that have experienced or participated in disasters.  Recovery is most likely to be effective when it is based on a multi-pronged and multi-disciplinary approach. 

Both individuals and communities recover from disasters, but the recovery processes are likely to be quite different for the two groups.  Community recovery often comes later (if at all), because a healthy and functioning community requires healthy and functioning members.

The process of seeking help from government, voluntary agencies, and insurance companies after a disaster exposes disaster survivors to a confusing array of rules, red tape, hassles, delays, and disappointment. Feelings of helplessness and anger are common. The difficulty in obtaining help and in dealing with bureaucracy is sometimes labeled the “second disaster”, and individuals often need assistance in dealing with this second disaster, especially because the first disaster is likely to have depleted their physical and psychological resources.

Organizational Responses to Disasters (9 of 10)
Organizational Responses to Disasters

Organizational Responses to Disasters

Organizations often draw up detailed plans for coping with disasters, and may have members who have special responsibilities for responding to disasters.  There are two issues that are likely to be especially critical in understanding organizational responses to disasters.  First, a disaster may present unforeseen challenges to an organization, making it impossible of unwise to implement a plan that had been drawn up prior to a disaster.  Thus flexibility is an important issue in thinking about how an organization will respond to a disaster.  In general, organizations that are rigidly structured and that rely on authoritarian methods of leadership and control are highly vulnerable to disruption if disasters unfold in ways that do not correspond with existing plans.  Second, disasters are likely to destroy or degrade organizational resources, and may undermine the organization’s capability to respond effectively.

It is common for different organizations to have overlapping responsibilities in a disaster and for lines of authority to be murky.  Jurisdictional disputes and conflict among organizations that should cooperate are likely, and may disrupt the plans of multiple organizations. 

Effective response to disasters probably requires extensive practice and overlearning.  Some military and paramilitary organizations (e.g., fire departments) devote considerable time to practice and rehearsal, and this might facility their responses to real emergencies.  However, there are no clear, evidence-based standards for determining how much practice and of what type is needed before organizations can be reasonably certain of responding appropriately in a crisis.

Introduction and Orientation: Activities (10 of 10)
Introduction and Orientation: Activities

Introduction and Orientation: Activities

Academic Integrity Form

Familiarize yourself with the information located in the course's Academic Integrity Form and be sure you have submitted it. (I, U)

Initial Team Assignment

Check the class roster to see what team you have been assigned to and post an introductory message to your team's discussion area.(Note that these posts will be visible to the instructor and your fellow team members.) Once everyone has been introduced, the team leader for Lesson 1 should make a summary post showing the team leader assignments for the remainder of the course. (T, P/F)

Natural and Man-made Disasters Activity

In this activity, you will learn about the scope and variety of disasters. Each year, there are a number of Federal Disaster Declarations posted on the FEMA web site (http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema). For the purpose of this activity, go to this web page and choose two disasters you think are different in important ways. Find out more about each by searching the internet and other public-access resources. Based on your exploration, write a 100-word summary of the nature and impact of each disaster.

In the remainder of your document, write a 200-word statement comparing these two natural disasters with a man-made disaster, for example the ongoing genocide in Darfur. (Wikipedia provides a very good summary of these events at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict.) In your comparison, address how you think the natural and man-made disasters are likely to be similar and different in terms of the psychology of disasters. When you have completed your document, submit it to the Lesson 1 (Individual) - Natural and Man-made Disasters Drop Box. (I, P/F)

Works Cited

N/A


Top of page