Why the way we talk and think about crisis response matters, especially if we are in a position of influence
"In almost all cases, as you probably know, and when even a single bullet is fired, just a single bullet, and we had many bullets that were being fired, crowds run for the exits or stampede, but not in this case. It’s very unusual. This massive crowd of tens of thousands of people stood by and didn’t move an inch. In fact, many of them bravely but automatically stood up looking for where the sniper would be; they knew immediately there was a sniper. And then they began pointing at him. You can see that if you look at the group behind me. That was just a small group compared to what was in front. Nobody ran and by not stampeding, many lives were saved [audience applause]."
These are the exact words Donald Trump spoke as part of his speech during the 2024 Republican National Convention, which took place only a few days after an assassination attempt against him during a rally in Pennsylvania. Disclaimer first, this is not a political opinion. Rather, we are looking at this purely from a emergency management perspective, as I think there are lessons here that we cannot dismiss.
In an earlier article, I analysed the response from both Trump and the audience following the shooting at his rally. I discussed the cognitive biases that were on display and the counter-to-safety responses that we observed from both Trump and many members of the audience.
I argued how these cognitive biases and counterproductive responses can often occur during acute emergencies and why it is important to develop mental preparedness during peacetime.
Here, however, the story is different. We see a contemplated condoning and encouragement of the very response we talked about. This shows one thing: some of these responses are, in fact, rooted in our (mis)beliefs about emergency response. As I mentioned in my previous piece, “some of the spectators standing directly behind Trump are seen standing and looking around. We often discuss human panic during moments of crisis with contempt and negative connotations, leading to a cultural shift whereby this natural, survival-critical response is replaced by an arguably counterproductive sense of calm. No one wants to be the person who bolts at the sound of a loud bang and be labeled as the one who needlessly panicked.”
Of course, Trump’s reaction—to want to clench his fist and make a gesture to the crowd to capitalise on the historical political opportunity that had emerged—was a personal choice. One could argue that, in that moment of crisis, he could not be absolutely sure that there would not be a second attempt at shooting him. Therefore, poking his head out from the protection of the Secret Service was certainly counter to all principles of safety and security and overall, survival. But that is a personal choice, and you may argue that it was a choice where the potential political benefits may have played a role in balancing out the safety risk. That does not affect the public.
领英推荐
However, the way crowd response is framed here as the action that saved lives has consequences for the future, for how a person exposed to this speech may react if they potentially find themselves in a critical situation like this.
There is no reason to believe that poking your head out to check what is happening, as opposed to ducking on the ground, is a form of bravery or the right action in this instance. I am all for utilising the role of active bystanders in crisis response and I have extensively written about it in the past (https://theconversation.com/you-could-help-minimise-harm-in-a-public-attack-heres-what-it-means-to-be-a-zero-responder-227860 ). But for a crowd of unarmed people, in an active shooting position, poking your head out to see where the sniper is will do absolutely no good. It will have no effect other than potentially endangering the person’s life, as evidenced by the fact that one member of the audience, in fact, lost his life during the crossfire.
The idea that many lives were saved as a result of people staying put here (and not “stampeding”) is an absolute farce and just another propagation of the debunked fallacy that any attempt by the crowd to flee from a danger zone (i.e., the natural flight response) is “bad.”
And this is, of course, not an isolated story. There are other cases that also show how leaders' perceptions and beliefs about the collective reaction to emergencies can influence their actions, decisions, and policies, potentially affecting many lives. Recall the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic and the escalating death toll in the United States. Bob Woodward’s interviews with then-President Trump revealed a deliberate downplaying of the pandemic’s severity. Trump’s explanation, “I did not want people to panic,” highlights a critical point: these views about mass behaviour can have real-world consequences. Often, they are used as an excuse for withholding vital information from the public during crises, as seen in the pandemic response.
That is why the language we use, the way we refer to and think about emergencies, matters. They have significant consequences, albeit often subtle and unnoticed, on how we react to cases of acute public emergencies, both as victims and as leaders and authorities. Your thinking and philosophy in that regard can potentially affect many lives, especially if you are in a position of authority and decision-making.
?