|
University of Delaware Library Institutional Repository >
Disaster Research Center >
DRC Miscellaneous Reports >
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://dspace.udel.edu:8080/dspace/handle/19716/4192
|
| Title: | A Brief Summary of Social Science Warning and Response Literature: A Report to COT Netherlands |
| Authors: | Trainor, Joseph
McNeil, Sue |
| Keywords: | Warning Systems
Emergency Response
Disaster Response
Disaster Research |
| Issue Date: | 2008 |
| Publisher: | Disaster Research Center |
| Series/Report no.: | Miscellaneous Report;62 |
| Abstract: | For more than five decades, researchers have explored the dynamics of warnings and warning response in the disaster context. This report is intended to briefly summarize findings related to this topic. The ultimate goal is to provide a basic understanding of how social science research related to warnings and evacuations might inform policy makers and emergency managers.
Before we begin discussing the details of warning messages, the first and most important issue for readers to note is that the decision making processes of most evacuees and even non-evacuees are rational and calculated. Contrary to media depictions and other’s perceptions of the public that suggest animal-like, irrational, or antisocial behavior it is important that we begin this discussion knowing that people typically “rise to the occasion” during disasters. Although it would be wrong to suggest that people never make irrational decisions it is important that we begin this summary by recognizing that when we look at the broad patterns of human behavior documented through scientific/empirical studies, people who are experiencing a disaster far more often than not act in very rational and predictable ways. This finding above all others holds true in social science research. It is important to recognize this truth because it allows policy makers and emergency managers to move beyond the notion that the problem with warning and response is “getting people to be rational and do what we say” and instead allows us to move towards understanding “how can we change our approach so that it takes into account how people process warning
information. While the difference may seem subtle, in practice it is quite important. The first sees overcoming irrationality as the problem while the second sees the institutional/organizational approach to warning as the problem. |
| URI: | http://dspace.udel.edu:8080/dspace/handle/19716/4192 |
| Appears in Collections: | DRC Miscellaneous Reports
|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
|
