This is a link to a PDF document from a larger piece but it's well worth reading by itself.

The book it came from is here: http://fireservicebooks.com/osb/itemdetails.cfm?ID=2712

and the chapter cited below is
ANTICIPATING HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN DISASTERS
Myths, Exaggerations, and Realities

http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/45/EHEP0007/EHEP000745.pdf

Quick Excerpt:

INTRODUCTION
In order to respond to a disaster effectively, it is imperative that you understand
people’s misperceptions about human behavior. Much of this comes from Hollywood films and the mass media. Unfortunately the information presented in movies and by reporters focuses on sensational and unusual stories. For this reason, it is vital that you are aware of the research findings about human behavior in disasters. At the same time, you must also recognize that there is some degree of truth in the public’s perception of post-disaster behavior. One way to ensure successful response and recovery operations is to understand exactly how people behave after disasters.

3.1 The Impact of Hollywood and the Media
Most people get their views about human disaster behavior from films and the
media (Fischer 1998). Movies are entertaining, of course, and media reports can
keep one riveted to a disaster as it unfolds. Unfortunately, such views are almost always inaccurate. Scholars have labeled these inaccuracies as “myths.” A myth is defined in many dictionaries as a false belief. It is difficult to counter such incorrect portrayals about disaster behavior that are quickly spread through modern video footage.

3.1.1 Hollywood
Hollywood is one of the major contributors to the public’s perceptions about disasters. There are several movies that portray people’s behavior in a negative and fictitious light.
Dante’s Peak is a good example. This movie relays the story about a volcanic
eruption in the Northwestern United States. After several deaths result from the
emission of dangerous gasses from the volcano, community leaders hold a meeting to calm the public. During this gathering, an earthquake occurs and people panic as a result. They run haphazardly out of the building and begin to evacuate in droves as the volcano explodes from the mountain above them. Cars and trucks run into each other as their occupants drive frantically to escape the oozing lava and falling ash. Roads become clogged, and people do all they can to protect themselves while ignoring the needs of others. The movie suggests that when disaster strikes, people behave erratically.
Volcano is another disaster movie. It provides an amusing, but not completely
accurate, view of human behavior in extreme events. After workers die in an
underground utility tunnel in Los Angeles, a scientist named Dr. Amy Barnes
discovers a growing volcanic threat. While investigating the source of deadly
gasses below ground, the volcano becomes active. Dr. Barnes climbs out of the
hole to save her life. When she arrives on the surface, she takes off her breathing apparatus and sets it down nearby. As she turns around, a bystander grabs her mask and runs off with it. This film gives the impression that theft and looting are common in disasters.
The movie Asteroid also provides an interesting portrayal of disasters. Upon
learning that an asteroid is about to hit the United States, the government begins a massive evacuation. As people leave the target area, one person becomes irate because of the government’s decisions and shoots a FEMA official at an airport hangar. This movie, like many others, presents lawlessness and violence as the norm in disasters.
...

3.2 Research on Myths
Many sociologists have studied human behavior in disaster (see Table 3-1), and
a great deal of literature has thus been written about the topic of disaster
“myths.” As an emergency manager, you should be familiar with this literature.
Much of this research is dated, but prior studies reveal “most persons held preconceived notions about disaster behavior that were essentially untrue.” (Quarantelli and Dynes 1972, p. 67). In other words, “many common beliefs and
perceptions about disaster response and post-impact behavior are not empirically valid” (Wenger, Dykes, and Sebok 1975, p. 33). Recent research continues to reiterate previous findings (Tierney, Lindell, and Perry 2001). New
investigations are being undertaken after Hurricane Katrina and should be out
shortly.

One of the most widely held myths according to the literature is that people act irrationally in disaster situations. It is believed that people always panic.
Panic is people’s inability to think clearly or their tendency to run frantically
from buildings or the disaster scene. Another related belief is masses of people
evacuating at once.
It is true that many people will leave the scene of a disaster. This need not
result in panic, however. Research suggests that....

(Continues in the book.)

Available on Amazon

What a coincidence: I've just plowed through Amanda Ripley's book "The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes - and Why". I have just skimmed the abstract, but it seems to be conveying exactly the same message: People in general are calm and civilized in face of disaster. If anything, they are TOO calm - and will need leadership to snap out of the "denial" phase and into the "action" phase.

Mass panic does happen - but it is rare, and occurs only under a very limited set of circumstances.

Martin: I'll read this with great interest. And for anyone interested in this topic I can highly recomend Amanda Ripley's book.

Interesting and informative. I was surprised at the assertion that martial law had never been imposed in a US disaster. What about the 1906 San Francisco earthquake? The mayor of San Francisco requested military assistance from the Presidio and the soldiers were give "shoot to kill" orders in order to deal with looters. If that isn't martial law, it is close enough for government work.

That is just an academic quibble. The piece is a very useful bit of work.

I hate the knee-jerk references to "Price Gouging".

I'll let a couple of economists explain why:

My main beef is the people who sit on their ample behinds and loudly wonder where "the Government" is and "why they are taking so long" to help. This was said to me, while I was in uniform no less, passing out food and water. Said lardbutt was whining about having to walk 250m to pick up food/water. Guess he thought we were Dominoes and would deliver to his door, fresh and hot in 30 minutes after the disaster.

These are the people who need a swift kick to their hindquarters to get moving and do something for themselves.

I would hope that you met more than a few people who appreciated your services.

My suspicion given the target audience for the book is that it tends to seriously overstate just how well government has handled past disasters.

I don't recall that the document addresses the issue of "how well government has handled past disasters" it is relating to how the affected population reacts to the situation - alleged panic, looting, etc. It does mention how individual public workers - police, fire , medics, individually respond, and it does come to a favorable conclusion, althou definitely citing adverse examples.

In that regard, I think of the motorcycle patrolman, speeding to his duty station in the predawn darkness immediately after the initial shock in the 1994 Northridge quake, found that a highway overpass had collapsed - the hard way. From what I have seen of the public service workers around here, they are pretty darn competent and go all out in emergencies.

Martial Law was NOT declared in the 1906 Earthquake, but it basically was imposed, illegally.

Citations:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Q_71JLwlm-kC&lpg=PA64&ots=Dnp6xYAthG&dq=Was%20martial%20law%20declared%20in%201906%3F&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q=Was%20martial%20law%20declared%20in%201906?&f=false

http://comstockhousehistory.blogspot.com/2009/09/martial-law.html

Amen to that.

There's the Katrina Exception and then there's literally everything else. We have a pretty good country, here, we really do, and despite all of our griping and such about government being this bad thing or that bad thing, the reality is that I don't know anyone who goes into emergency services in government who does not genuinely want to help, and that goes all the way up the chain. We all have our quibbles with how things are run, but in the end, to quote Bruce Springsteen in his latest song, "We take care of our own...wherever this flag is flown."

Thanks for the link.

I can vouch for people being almost too calm during disasters. During the 9/11 attack in Arlington, I was staying at a hotel a couple blocks away. What was my first reaction? To take a quick shower, dress, gather my things for an appointment, and walk outside to see if there was anything I could do to help.

There was smoke and sirens, but no panic. People were slowly filing out of buildings, some of them in uniform, sitting on the grass and being counted like it was an elementary school fire drill.

Others were walking along the roads, carrying their work jackets, shoes, and briefcases. No one was freaking out. There were very long but orderly lines at payphones, as no one's cells were working.

I do remember that the shops suddenly were closing, with hastily scribbled signs taped to the doors. I found one guy who'd wandered from section "E" of the Pentagon who was in a bit of a daze, and we went looking for something for him to drink. The Starbucks was now closed, as were other places, so we kept on walking. I kiddingly said, "If the MacDonalds down the street is closed, then we'll know it's the end of the world." But happily it was open, packed with quietly murmuring people.

Even the foreigners who were stepping off tour buses on the street were calm, if a bit confused. The only people who seemed outwardly worried were the evacuating USA Today employees, one of whom -- a short, frazzled middle-aged woman -- bumped into me and exclaimed I should get away from their building because, "It could be next!"



I'm sure every disaster is different, but it's somewhat reassuring to know that people don't always act like what we see in films, etc.

Looking back, I'm still amazed that I didn't drop everything and get out of the hotel A.S.A.P. It's like there was a bit of a lag in my mental process, something that went along the lines of, "Yes, there is some sort of danger going on, but I need to do this first."

You might think you'll know how you'll react in any given situation, but this taught me that you don't REALLY know until the moment something happens.

In just the past decade or so, the pace and scale of disasters we have witnessed has really seemed to have ramped up. Events we have never seen or which only happen once every century or two seem to be coming with more frequency. Many of these mega disasters are beyond any ability to effectively cope with, so you just try to do the best you can, but we remember them because we saw the minute-by-minute coverage on CNN and wondered where the cavalry was.

For the more "normal" stuff, I agree. I think organized emergency response and relief has worked remarkably well for us.

You could fairly accurately say that a form of (limited) Martial Law was instituted in the 1864(?), N.Y.C. ,Civil War Draft Riots (The Five Points War), when the U.S. Navy shelled lower Manhattan from naval vessels in the harbor and regular army toops staged a march, to demonstrate contol, through the Five Points. That was the deadliest riot in all U.S. history.
Again in the wake of the S.F. Earthquake, as noted,and in ~1968, in the Detroit and Newark riots and finally, in post Katrina N.O., there were "imposed" instances of Martial Law, e.g. Federal troops as police, wholesale disarming of civilians, Shoot-to-Kill orders where arson or sniping was suspected. I do not count the use of Federal Troops to enforce school integration , because those actions were taken to enforce lawful orders of the Courts vindicating Civil Rights.
Other than the Whiskey Rebellion and under Reconstruction, in the sucessionest States, those are the only instances of Martial Law I can remember in U.S. history. Albeit, I'm sure I've missed a few. Query if you should count the use of the Army in the West after the Mexican war, against Native Americans in the Indian Wars and against the Huks, et al in the Phillipines Islands. Those were American territory, but won by conquest?

I have only been involved in one disaster in my life. And that was small scale. Two trains came around a bend at normal speed and hit head-on. Evidently, one of them was not supposed to be there. They hit directly under a busy highway overpass that eventually melted into an unusable mess.

I was a paramedic at the time. There was a massive traffic jam. Not of civilian vehicles, but of emergency vehicles. My ambulance and lots more were deadlocked amongst other ambulances, firetrucks, police cars, utility vehicles, etc. It didn't take long for all of us to abandon the roadways and start driving across the fields to get to the scene. I was quite impressed with the speed and size of the response. Unfortunately, there was nobody to save. The people in the front of the trains were long gone, and the ones in the back simply stepped off unharmed after the movement finally stopped (these were long freight trains, not passenger trains, and no hazardous materials thankfully). The front of the trains were piled up into a multi-story teepee looking mess that burned and melted the overpass.

This was a Friday evening. The train people cleaned a hole through the mess and the local road crews built a brand new road through that hole bypassing the melted overpass. This was all constructed and in use by Monday mornings rush hour. That was quite an impressive response from these hard working guys. This was not a dirt road bypass. It was a fully paved and lined four lane bypass.

Don't forget the bonus marchers.

Although DC has different rules about the use of troops in what should be a LE role, the extreme brutality involved (led by none other than General Doug MacArthur (the father of "I will return" MacArther) and one George S. Patton, was a pretty good example of de facto if not actual martial law in action.

A very good find, Martin. Thanks! Stuff like this should be a part of our preparation. We can equip ourselves with tools and materials, but equipping ourselves with knowledge about how they act in disasters can be invaluable. That seems like the missing part of the equation for me. Too many people have Mad Max in their mind when they think about disaster prep. A chapter like this is a much needed corrective.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do like the movie. "Bust a deal, face the wheel" - who could argue with that? But let Hollywood stay on the silver screen.

Hi,

I believe that was "Dugout Doug", not his father...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

My two cents...

I've experienced several earthquakes & hurricanes and industrial explosions (at a distance in my youth). The overwhelming response of those involved was calmness. That said, after August's earthquake in Louisa Co., VA, the customers in my store were confused and very calm, while across the street at WM, the customers began shouting, throwing away their items and ran from the store in a panic.

The media continues to blast the public with cause for panic. Remember the H1N1 Scare? No real threat to most Americans, but it caused a flurry of scared behavior. MRSA? The proportion of those affected was very small. Oddly, "The Simpsons" addressed this in an episode with cat flu.

The dumbing of America continues and the greater public may fall victim to the hype and panic one day. Maybe not,but it concerns me.

A few years ago I was giving an election worker training class (hence mostly middle age or older) and we were struck by an obvious tremor, a sharp sudden jolt that made our projector bounce around and fuzzed up our Powerpoint briefly. Not a peep from anyone as things settled down to normal.

We had a smart phone and accessed the USGS website and announced to the group at the end of the presentation that we had just been smacked by a Richter 4 something, epicenter about forty miles to the north.

Earthquakes are easier to handle if you have some experience with them. The Big One will be a little different, but we will be well practiced.

not to nit-pick the examples given, but my memory (which of course could be faulty) of that scene was that the bystander who took the mask was a ratty street person, the type of person portrayed that would have stole things during good times or bad. i don't believe the thief took it because of any fear of disaster, because at that point in the film, only the Dr Barnes was aware that such dangers even existed. when she got to the surface after personally witnessing the loss of a colleague underground, there were no outward signs above of a possible disaster looming. in fact, there wasn't a "disaster" happening at all.

so if my memory is right, then this is an incorrect example when accusing Hollywood (and an "exaggeration", exactly what the author's thesis was complaining about regarding others), thus brings into question any other statements made by the author.

So you therefore regard Hollywood movies as a reliable guide to disaster behavior? I doubt it very much.

what??? of course not! i'm not defending Hollywood in the least.

but poorly researched and incorrect information does nothing to help the author's credibility.
"Myths, Exaggerations, and Realities" indeed.

how to anticipate behavior,practice i would say is the best and maybe only way.police and Docs seem be good at it because of all the people they come in contact with in their work,plus i would say in different parts of the county behavior is not the same enough to really tip you off to what comes next in a face to face.
all i can say is that in the years i worked with people at a hospital i,and my fellow workies,could watch someone cross a waiting room on a late friday night and say "drug seeker"or whatever.

I can really recommend Amanda Ripley's book on this subject. I personally think it gives a broader and better treatment on this subject.

One point she emphasizes: People are likely to continue their pre-disaster roles into the disaster scenario. Hotel guests continue "guest"-like behaviour, behaving nice and composed while letting the staff take care of any problems. The staff will do anything within their capabilities to take care of their guests.

People will also bring whatever they usually do into the disaster scenario. Doctors, medics and nurses will tend to the wounded. Expect rescue workers, police officers and military officers to take command, initiative and action.

One of Ripley's conclusions is particular important: Expect the majority of people to become somewhere between passive denial (this can't be happening - or if it is happening I don't want to know about it) and comatose. At the same time, we are wired for cooperation. When we're confused we want someone in control - someone who clearly knows what to do and tells us what it is. But we're dazed, and it takes some effort to get through the haze.

The logical upshot: Train staff to give clear, consise commands - and train them to SHOUT at people to get them moving when nescessary. Plane stewardesses train to shout JUMP so that people can go at a rate of 1 person per second down that slide (otherwise people will hesitate, stop to think "is this the right thing to do? Will I get hurt? What's the best way to jump?" ). You need some shouting to short circuit that kind of mental processing.

Equally important: Tell people what's going on. Don't lie to them about some minor hickups when you're preparing for what might very well be deadly disasterous.

This certainly agrees with what I have observed in wilderness situations. People are often fairly passive when help arrives, ut will respond to clear directions, almost always with gratifying results

The author might have unintentionally misremembered the scene. He might have intentionally exaggerated. Or perhaps your memory isn't what it used to be. But even if the author was incorrect in his summary of the movie, the point still stands that movies tend to sensationalize disasters, and many people without any prior acquaintance of disasters get their impression from popular media.

I agree that exaggeration has no place in good research, but your particular criticism, even if valid, does not affect the truth of the larger claim. Anyone of us can easily think of a large number of disaster movies that exaggerate out of proportion.

Now, if some of the larger claims made in the chapter are wrong, I'd love to hear them for the sake of my own preparation. I don't think one slip up automatically means the rest is junk.

Il Bob!, You're correct, I totally forgot the Bonus Marchers. by the way, Eisenhower was Mcarthur'ssecond in command in that operation, if memory serves. You are also correct that it probably wasn't Martial Law because DC is the Federal City and not a State subject to civil law.

DC is absolutely subject to civil law.

True, and the DC National Guard is subject to the Posse Comitatus Act, limiting the power of the military to enforce the local laws.

During the 1970's anti-war demonstrations, the DC Guard MP units augmented the DC Police in a law enforcement role. To avoid possible violations of that act, the Guard units were sworn in as DC Police, thus having the same law enforcement powers as the regular police.

They even gave us a real adhesive backed stick on DC Metropolitan Police badge to wear on our flack vests.

why am i making an issue of this, and why did i BOLD the use of the word "exaggeration" in my post?
because the author's title of his/her own paper is making a point that such a practice is unacceptable behavior:

ANTICIPATING HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN DISASTERS
Myths, Exaggerations, and Realities

i never said the rest of the article was "junk", just that if my memory of that scene is correct, then everything else in it should be viewed with a suspect perspective until proven correct.

if memory isn't what it used to be and i am incorrect, i was hoping that someone here could set me straight, thus allowing me to feel better about accepting the other premises in the paper.

nor did i in anyway imply that movies should be used as training tools. and if some people believe what they see in dramatic action thriller movies is real, well, you can't fix stupid.

the difference is that movies like Volcano are FICTION, almost always "exaggerated out of proportion" for entertainment-purposes-only, whereas the article is being offered as NON-FICTION and is suppose to contain facts.

and yes, i believe if a single invalid claim is made in a serious research paper, then all other information contained within should be viewed with some suspicion.

so, again i ask everyone here: is my memory correct?

I agree with this to a certain extent, but one holds something in suspicion with the goal of testing it, checking out the claims to ascertain the overall worth. Are we doing that? Critical thinking is a good thing, but if we don't follow through, then we're doing the very opposite of critical thinking: we'd be suspecting something for the sake of suspecting it, without giving it due thought.

Your charge really is that the author might be sloppy and careless. One point doesn't show that. It may just be an innocent mistake, especially if it has no impact on his larger argument. It would be of benefit to those of us reading this if someone could point out examples of carelessness that matter crucially.

i whole-heartedly agree. well said! better than i had tried to say it. that was all i was suggesting: if indeed i found an error, it might be a good idea for everyone else here to pipe-in should they discover more.