In my previous comment I examined how administrative systems need to prepare to respond to disasters and I emphasized the importance of team work, practice and flexibility. I would like to now consider a few factors that I believe impact on the psychological responses we have to disasters. Obviously, at the simplest level, those most deeply impacted by virtue of having sustained greater loss and those who are emotionally vulnerable because of pre-existing susceptibility (whether family or personal history of psychiatric illness) are at greatest risk for ongoing emotional difficulties including PTSD, anxiety or affective disorders. I would like to focus though on some of the subtler psychological and sociological issues which I believe will also have an impact on how people manage the aftermath of disasters such as Hurricane Sandy (or the 9/11 tragedy or for that matter, campus suicides).
Every disaster or crisis involves an element of loss and often they involve multiple losses and types of loss. In Sandy, lives were lost and property was damaged and lost as well. Time and much money were lost to individuals, groups and businesses. But many disasters also lead us to other more conceptual losses: our sense of stability and predictability and at worst, our sense of hope for the future. A central contributor to these conceptual feelings of loss is the extent to which the disaster is experienced as a surprise. Surprise shakes our sense of the world being stable and predictable-that it works along rational lines. And this can be quite unsettling to any of us. It is worth noting that an event may be surprising for different reasons. The attacks of 9/11, the shooting at Virginia Tech, most campus suicides, take those most impacted by surprise because they were not (generally) anticipated in any way. Hurricane Sandy took us by surprise because most of us did not expect the storm to be so powerful (the TV weather people always seem to be talking up some “major” storm) or destructive. The storm itself was anticipated, the results were a terrible surprise.
The social context and structure of those facing disaster can also have an impact on the psychological response of individuals. After 9/11, many in New York seemed to take solace in the sense that there was a clear feeling of “our city”, “our way of life”, “our family” having been attacked. There was an intense sense of social cohesiveness after the attacks. Many people have noted the degree to which crime and suicide decreased in New York for a time after 9/11. People were unusually tolerant, gracious and helpful to each other. So when a disaster impacts groups who experience themselves as part of a community, there is some attenuation of the sense of psychological assault-there is a feeling that “we’ve got each other’s backs” and this makes us feel somewhat safer.
Finally, when our sense of safety and stability is shaken by a disaster, we often react psychologically as we do to any stress-we look toward leaders to provide us a sense of safety and comfort. Governor Christie and President Obama’s visits to Sandy-ravaged towns on the Jersey shore was helpful because it made it more likely that concrete support would arrive sooner-but I would suggest that a more powerful impact came from leaders being there and showing they were concerned and emotionally involved. People felt cared for; they felt that they mattered to important and powerful leaders who would want to help. Strong leadership can help us feel safe-but this role is tricky for leaders in the midst of a crisis. If leaders provide empty information and reassurances or present information that is clearly false, they will lose the trust of the people and they can no longer lead in a reassuring way.
So, what can we take from this? Does this help us to manage crises better? First, I would suggest that this analysis highlights the importance of information sharing before, during and after a crisis. Information can help people anticipate and prepare for a disaster when this is possible; but reliability and tone matter. It may be that over-reporting by weather-people inured many people to the seriousness and danger of Sandy (we have to be careful not to “cry wolf” too often). This is a very difficult balance to strike-conveying information accurately and seriously while not adding unnecessarily to anxiety or undermining the reliability or trust in the information or leadership is a formidable challenge while situations are evolving. Fortunately there are groups such as the DART Center (http://dartcenter.org/) working to educate journalists in reporting on crisis and disaster. This is a good start.
Further, these thoughts again highlight how important and powerful supportive communities and groups can be in promoting mental health and safety. Leaders in college mental health should be regularly reminding colleges of the importance of promoting social connections and community on campus. It is important to remember that it need not be a campus community or a single local community but, people often belong to multiple sub-communities. In small groups we should always be cognizant of those who do not seem to belong or be connected-it is likely they are at higher risk for emotional problems and are certainly more vulnerable.
Leaders need to recognize their important roles in a crisis. While they need to make sure they have competence in managing crises and have competent teams, they need to also understand their important psychological role in a crisis. They need to think dynamically about how to balance the roles of hands on management with being an emotional presence in order to provide comfort and reassurance (and information) to the victims of a disaster. And finally, by providing steady leadership, they can provide the sense that things are “under control” and this helps victims regain a feeling that things make sense and will likely improve. Hopefulness is a powerful counterbalance to fear and despair.
