“Most people act rationally in a threatening situation”

People facing a threat can easily tend to be overwhelmed by their emotions. This makes it more difficult to see other perspectives.

Filip Arnberg is programme director at the National Centre for Disaster Psychiatry in Uppsala. The centre conducts research on psychosocial consequences of traumatic events and disasters. This research also can tell us about how we react to the new threat from the coronavirus Covid19.

“The way people react to a disaster does not differ dramatically from reactions to other threats. We have the biological systems that we have for responding to immediate threats and psychological mechanisms for dealing with threats in the longer term.”

According to Arnberg, one thing that is apparent with major events that threaten many people is that the demand for information skyrockets. “We have an incredible need for information in connection with major threats and for some people it is nearly an insatiable need. It can be important for some people to take a break from the constant flow of news about the spread of the contagion.”

Mental illness makes it worse

Social media have created a faster dynamic with people’s fears and information dissemination. At the same time, there are many people in society who struggle with mental illness.

“There are certain forms of mental illness that can be particularly difficult – if you are an anxious person or have problems dealing with cleanliness, are anxious about health, or have a fear of germs. These aspects can make this very trying.”

People facing a threat can easily tend to be overwhelmed by their emotions. This makes it more difficult to see other perspectives, and they become more impulsive and maybe express things on social media that they otherwise would not.

Everyone does not understand that authorities base their decision on information that the general public does not have, which leads to some people directing their anger at authorities.

“This anger is often based a sincere concern for the safety of others and consideration for them. But when emotions gain an upper hand, those of us who are able to need to stop and think before acting on emotions. Otherwise, we risk causing much more heated feelings than necessary.”

Low risk of panic

He points out that children and young people are also on many of the social forums where adults make comments.

“If adults are able to stop and think and consciously try to control their emotions, then it becomes possible to be a part of the solution instead of making the problem worse.”

How high is the risk of panic and chaos? On this, Filip Arnberg has a reassuring message. Studies show that most people who face this type of danger or are exposed to threats will act in a good way.

“There is often an exaggerated fear that everyone will be overcome by mass hysteria and start acting illogically. But when we look at what happens in these types of situation, we see that this isn’t the case. Most people will react rationally. A small group can panic, but that group usually is most visible so you might think there are more of them than there are.”

Most people are helpful

The majority also react in a helpful way. After the terrorist attack on Drottninggatan in Stockholm, there were lots of headlines about people driving the injured to hospital, but this is nothing to be surprised about, according to Arnberg. “Most people help each other; we’ve seen this in incident after incident.”

Arnberg and his colleagues are currently working on a study about confidence in public authorities and the media. “There seems to be a tendency toward egotistical behaviour becoming more common in societies where confidence in social functions is very low. If confidence in social functions is high, however, individuals will let society do its job.”

Risk of the spread of rumours

This is connected to the fast pace of the flow of news, where people get input from lots of different sources. The risk of disinformation and the spread of rumours – with the intent to cause injury – increases in times of crisis since the demand for information is so high.

“Society’s institutions need to respond to this as best they can, otherwise people will get information from other sources that may be much less reliable. It is also good to be clear about what is not known. When known sources say ‘That’s not correct, because we don’t know’, it can have a positive effect. That’s why it is important that vital social institutions say what they know but also what they are unable to comment on.”