Disaster and Catastrophe - Veitch and Arkkelin's "Environmental Psychology"

The second stage of Tyhurts model is the Period of Recoil, which also contain sub-sections. Firstly Rationalisation, according to Leach (1994), once immediate danger has passed, the period of recoil occurs, which starts usually with survivors in a state of confusion. They start to observe the extent of the damage and loss of life and begin to ask questions about the situation. These questions require no answer but are asked in order to rationalise what has happened into some form of perspective. Affiliation occurs also in the Period of Recoil, in that during this period survivors cling to each other for support. Families are of crucial importance and the first choice in terms of providing support. Survivors even cling to strangers who were also involved in the event as they can relate. These groups form to help each other understand what has happened and why. Another form of behaviour within the Period of Recoil is Scapegoating, this is a time when people become angry at what has happened and, as a way of diffusing that anger try to find a scapegoat, this is someone to blame. Evidence from Rubinois and Bickman (1991) has shown that stress is lower when the survivor has someone else to blame. It is simply a way of projecting our anger, scapegoating can often lead to people not finding the real genuine answer, so like Osma Bin Laden was blamed instantly for 9/11, although at the time there was little evidence.

        After a disaster or catastrophe there are the after-effects that the disaster has on people. One such framework has been produced by Gleser et el (1981) it was produced after study on psychiatric patients all victims of the Buffalo Creek disaster of 1972, there are six elements to this but I will concentrate on two.

• To what degree was the life of the person threatened
• How much bereavement did the person experience
• How long did the person suffer for
• Did the person have to move home
• How much of the community was affected
• What was the underlying cause – Man made or natural?

I will be looking at two of the six I mentioned, these being: To what degree was the life of the person threatened, and did the person have to move home.  

Gleser claimed people who live through the experience of a traumatic life-threatening events which they are able to observe ( e.g. explosions or earthquakes) are more likely to suffer effects. This makes sense as unlike an event with life-threatening toxins the images of the event is stored in memory and can be recalled with appropriate cues, this was suggested  by Hall and Baum (1995). An example of this was in the Paddington railway crash (1999), as there was a diesel spillage, and some of the survivors get flashbacks of the event when they smell diesel, an everyday activity if they owned a car. Furthermore the effects of a person having to leave their home produces even greater long-term problems. Leaving the place people are attached to, leaving a place where people feel secure and warm was researched by Eriksson (1976). He suggested that many of the symptoms shown by the victims come from the destruction of the community and consequently “the lack of connection”. Bell et al (1996) suggest that older people may feel acutely the loss of the familiar aspects of their old environment, such as buildings or trees which were importance to them when they were younger.

Other major factors are personality, if a person feels they have control over a situation and they can effect the changes in their circumstance they will find it easier to deal with. So therefore people with an internal locus of control and high-self efficacy are likely to suffer lower stress levels. In addition to this age of the victim, various studies have found that children respond to disasters in the same way as adults but recover more quickly. But this does depend on nature of the event and how much social support is available. Crawshaw (1963) reported that children sometimes take their cues on how to react from their parents, along with further studies finding that middle aged groups show more negative effects than the young or old. And gender has shown female’s tend to be more affected than men and young girls, and Seroke et al (1986) found that adolescent girls reported more nightmares and fear of being alone than adolescent boys.

First one being social support, this could be lost though if their families are lost as well. There is considerable evidence that strong social support can help people suffering from stress. Having to deal with a traumatic experience and then having nobody to turn to would increase the despair as nobody to discharge the emotions felt. In Tyhurts model we see how affiliation in the period of aftermath, as survivors who were all originally strangers now have something in common and can help each other overcome the trauma, as they have both been through the same thing. Only problem is the other person has also been through the same experience and may not be as effective as a family member who hasn’t. Dealing with the grief, anger and depression is difficult but both individual and group counselling have proved effective and its important to start trying to deal with the problems after a disaster straight away rather than leaving it to linger on your mind. Survivors are taught methods of relaxation and taught to keep their minds off the event, also taught to talk about their problems with ease rather than keeping them stored up inside.