Understanding collective flight responses to (mis)perceived hostile threats in Britain 2010-2019: a systematic review of ten years of false alarms in crowded spaces
Understanding collective flight responses to (mis)perceived hostile threats in Britain 2010-2019: a systematic review of ten years of false alarms in crowded spaces
复制标题
了解 2010-2019 年英国对（错误）感知的敌对威胁的集体飞行反应：对拥挤空间中十年误报的系统回顾
DOI：
10.1080/13669877.2022.2049622
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
5.1
通讯作者：
Barr D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barr D
从（错误）感知威胁的人群飞行事件是重要的社会、心理和政治现象，在以前的研究中被忽视。它们具有潜在的致命性、经济破坏性和个体痛苦性，可能导致武装警察的反应。尽管这些现象很严重，但我们对它们在英国的发生情况却知之甚少。我们利用PRISMA原则对Nexis媒体数据库进行了系统审查，以分析这些假警报事件的性质以及假警报与其他变量（特别是真实的恐怖袭击）之间的关系。“紧急”人群逃离反应，通常被称为“踩踏”，被发现是罕见的，导致相对较少的严重伤害。不同的公众行为被记录下来，竞争行为相对罕见。假警报事件主要发生在已知的恐怖主义软目标地点，这些事件与本世纪后五年的国家威胁级别有关，并在2017年达到顶峰。他们还与欧洲发生的与心理相关的袭击有关，尤其是不分青红皂白的伊斯兰袭击，而不是右翼恐怖主义。讨论了发展对这些事件的社会心理学理解的含义。
Crowd flight incidents from (mis)perceived threats are important social, psychological, and political phenomena that have been neglected in previous research. They are potentially deadly, economically disruptive, and individually distressing incidents that may result in armed police responses. Despite the seriousness of these phenomena, we know little about their occurrence in Britain. We carried out a systematic review using PRISMA principles on the Nexis media database to analyse the nature of these false alarm incidents and the relationship between false alarms and other variables, in particular real terror attacks. ‘Urgent’ crowd flight responses, often called ‘stampedes’, were found to be rare, and resulted in relatively few serious injuries. Diverse public behaviour was recorded, and competitive behaviour was relatively rare. False alarm incidents were mainly reported in locations known to be soft targets for terrorism, and incidents were associated with the National Threat Level in the second half of the decade, peaking in 2017. They were also associated with psychologically-relevant attacks in Europe, particularly indiscriminate Islamist attacks, rather than right-wing terrorism. Implications for developing a social psychological understanding of these events are discussed.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Page MJ;McKenzie JE;Bossuyt PM;Boutron I;Hoffmann TC;Mulrow CD;Shamseer L;Tetzlaff JM;Akl EA;Brennan SE;Chou R;Glanville J;Grimshaw JM;Hróbjartsson A;Lalu MM;Li T;Loder EW;Mayo-Wilson E;McDonald S;McGuinness LA;Stewart LA;Thomas J;Tricco AC;Welch VA;Whiting P;Moher D
通讯作者：
Moher D
影响因子：
6.1
作者：
van der Wal, C. Natalie;Robinson, Mark A.;de Bruin, Wandi Bruine;Gwynne, Steven
通讯作者：
Gwynne, Steven
人群因警察驱散技术而逃跑：暂时的理性失误？
影响因子：
1
作者：
C. Cocking
通讯作者：
C. Cocking
火灾疏散过程中决策中的认知偏差
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
M. Kinsey;S. Gwynne;E. Kuligowski;M. Kinateder
通讯作者：
M. Kinateder
与公众就抢劫性恐怖枪械袭击进行沟通：对英国和丹麦“逃跑、隐藏、告密”意图影响因素的调查实验结果
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
J. Pearce;Lasse Lindekilde;David Parker;M. Rogers
通讯作者：
M. Rogers