Abstract

Reactions to danger have been depicted as antisocial but research has shown that supportive behaviors (e.g., helping injured others, giving information or reassuring others) prevail in life-threatening circumstances. Why is it so? Previous accounts have put the emphasis on the role of psychosocial factors, such as the maintenance of social norms or the degree of identification between hostages. Other determinants, such as the possibility to escape and distance to danger may also greatly contribute to shaping people's reactions to deadly danger. To examine the role of those specific physical constraints, we interviewed 32 survivors of the attacks at 'Le Bataclan' (on the evening of 13-11-2015 in Paris, France). Consistent with previous findings, supportive behaviors were frequently reported. We also found that impossibility to egress, minimal protection from danger and interpersonal closeness with other crowd members were associated with higher report of supportive behaviors. As we delved into the motives behind reported supportive behaviors, we found that they were mostly described as manifesting cooperative (benefits for both interactants) or altruistic (benefits for other(s) at cost for oneself) tendencies, rather than individualistic (benefits for oneself at cost for other(s)) ones. Our results show that supportive behaviors occur during mass shootings, particularly if people cannot escape, are under minimal protection from the danger, and feel interpersonal closeness with others. Crucially, supportive behaviors underpin a diversity of motives. This last finding calls for a clear-cut distinction between the social strategies people use when exposed to deadly danger, and the psychological motivations underlying them.

Highlights

  • Popular belief holds that danger brings out the worst in us: people panic and display antisocial behavior [1,2,3]

  • Our own data corroborate those findings by showing that supportive actions were commonly reported by people who were hostages in a mass shooting

  • Our method does not allow for a direct comparison between the frequencies of supportive and unsupportive actions

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Popular belief holds that danger brings out the worst in us: people panic and display antisocial behavior [1,2,3]. Research based on testimonies from survivors to a diversity of disasters has shown that socially supportive responses prevail in life-and-death situations [1, 2, 4,5,6,7]. One stipulates that pre-existing social norms (such as the respect for physically weaker others) continue to prevail [5, 6]. Helping older people could remain the norm even in the face of immediate danger. One problem with this explanation is that no ordinary rule stipulates that one should endanger their own life to the benefit of others. The continuous prevalence of ordinary social norms has failed to explain the commonplace supererogatory behaviors witnessed in emergency contexts

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call