Context (archaeology)

2019-20 coronavirus outbreak

Argument (complex analysis)

Social psychology

Virology

Archaeology

Economics

Outbreak

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Psychology

Politics

Political science

Solidarity

Infectious disease (medical specialty)

Criminology

Internal medicine

Sociology

Medicine

Positive economics

Selfishness

Pandemic

Disease

Pathology

History

British Journal of Social Psychology

Notions of psychological frailty have been at the forefront of debates around the public response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. In particular, there is the argument that collective selfishness, thoughtless behaviour, and over‐reaction would make the effects of COVID‐19 much worse. The same kinds of claims have been made in relation to other kinds of emergencies, such as fires, earthquakes, and sinking ships. We argue that in these cases as well as in the case of the COVID‐19 pandemic, other factors are better explanations for fatalities – namely under‐reaction to threat, systemic or structural factors, and mismanagement. Psychologizing disasters serves to distract from the real causes and thus from who might be held responsible. Far from being the problem, collective behaviour in emergencies – including the solidarity and cooperation so commonly witnessed among survivors – is the solution, one that should be harnessed more effectively in policy and practice.

COVID‐19 in context: Why do people die in emergencies? It’s probably not because of collective psychology