collective coping (continued) class 17. quake study survey locations

Collective Coping (continued)

Class 17

Quake Study Survey Locations

Timeline of Quake Study

Q WEEK WEEK WEEK WEEK WEEK WEEK WEEK WEEK --- WEEK --- WEEK --- WEEK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 16 28 50

Quake Study Method

Sample size: 789 residents (SF, Sac, S. Cal, Dallas)

Data gathering method:

Phone survey

Random digit dialing

Calls made 6:30 – 9:30, weeknights only

Survey lasts 10 minutes

Survey Content

Communication: Thinking, talking, listening

Emotional reactions

Physical symptoms

Coping tactics: praying, joking, drinking

Rates of Talking and Thinking Following the Loma Prieta Earthquake: Bay Area Only

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Start Week1

Week2

Week3

Week6

Week8

Week16

Thought

Talked

“Thank you for not sharing your earthquake experience with me”

T-shirts in Palo Alto during weeks 3-6 after the quake

Percent Reporting an Earthquake-Related Dream, SF vs. Other Locations

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Start

Wee

k 1

Wee

k 2

Wee

k 3

Wee

k 6

Wee

k 8

Wee

k 16

Per

cent

San Francisco

ComparisonCities

Percent Reporting an Argument with Family or Co-Workers During the Prior Week

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Start

Wee

k 1

Wee

k 2

Wee

k 3

Wee

k 6

Wee

k 8

Wee

k 16

Wee

k 28

Wee

k 50

Pe

rce

nt

San Francisco

ComparisonCities

Percentage Change in Aggravated Assaults From Year Before Quake to Year After Quake

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

Pe

rce

nt

Rates of Quake Related Joking

-0.6-0.4-0.2

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.6

Start

Wee

k 2

Wee

k 6

Wee

k 16

Wee

k 50

Ra

ting

s in

Z u

nits

San Francisco

ComparisonCities

A Need to Be Shaken and Stirred?

“But deep in my heart I know not that a major disaster would be deliverance from my drab, wretched life – salvation from the old week-by-week, a chance for two-bit heroics blown up on the front page … . I’ve talked to others, and I’m not alone. Maybe we crave a chance to be stouthearted for once and have a real situation to cope with.”

Michael Hood, NPR Reporter

Commenting on minor quake in Seattle, WA

05/09/96

The Three Stage Model of Collective Coping

The Three Stage Model of Collective Coping

Persian Gulf War I

500000 US soldiers in harms way

Experts predict 1000s of US casualties

Fears of nuclear weapons, poison gas

Fears of terrorism at home

Yellow ribbons, prayer sessions

Media barrage of war-relate stories

Persian Gulf War Study

Survey nearly identical to that used in Quake Study

Participants contacted randomly

All participants were Dallas, TX residents

No “comparison sample” possible

Rates and Talking and Thinking Following the Persian Gulf War

02468

101214161820

Start

Wee

k 1

Wee

k 2

Wee

k 3

Wee

k 4

Wee

k 5

Wee

k 6

Wee

k 7

Wee

k 8

Wee

k 11

Ra

ting

s in

Z u

nits

Thought

Talked

Rates of Event-Related Dreaming, Following the Quake and Following the War

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Start

Wee

k 1

Wee

k 2

Wee

k 3

Wee

k 4

Wee

k 5

Wee

k 6

Wee

k 7

Wee

k 8

Ra

ting

s in

Z u

nits

Quake (SF)

War (Dallas)

Rate of Increased Aggravated Assaults, Dallas, 1991 (War) vs. 1990 (Pre-War)

-40

-200

20

40

6080

100

Pe

rce

nt

of

Incre

ase

d A

ssa

ults

Implications of Collective Coping Research

1. Coping appears to occur in a three-stage manner

1. Emergency

2. Inhibition

3. Recovery

2. Public safety should be on especial alert during inhibition stage

3. Emotions are negotiated events; we need to share the burden of disclosure and listening.

Why Does Coping Require Disclosure?The Emotional Broadcaster Theory

NOTE: THIS AND REMAINING SLIDES NOT RELEVANT FOR FALL 2010 CLASS

Daily Talking Following the Loma Prieta Earthquake and the Persian Gulf War

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Start Week1

Week2

Week3

Week6

Week8

Week16

War

Quake

Pennebaker & Harber, 1993

Intra-Personal Reasons to Disclose

Schachter Anxiety and Affiliation Studiesa. Clarify causes of distressb. Validate one's own reactions

Sympathetic Listening as Social Supporta. Making sense of Traumab. Perspective c. Insightd. Belongingness, acceptance

Failure to Disclose can be a Health Risk

a. Prolonged suppression → chronic stress.b. Disclosure reduces illness.

The Emotional Broadcaster Theory

Proximal need to disclose Intra-psychic benefits

Distal result of disclosure Information transfer

Personal News is Widely Broadcasted

Disclose copiously after major events Disclose with minimal prompting Disclose when asked not to do so Disclose unconsciously Disclose against self-interest Disclosure is cross-cultural Disclosure is ancient

Well-Told Disclosures are the Most Therapeutic

Disclosures that create “movies” in listeners minds predict success in therapy (Bucci, 1997)

Disclosures with best narrative structure advance illness recovery (Harber & Pennebaker, 1992)

Disclosures Benefit Listeners

Testimony therapy (Agger & Jensen 1990)

Gossip is informative (Baumeister et al., 2004)

Emotions Propel Disclosures“The Social Telegraph”

The Morgue Study

Harber, K.D & Cohen, D., Jou. Language and Soc. Psych, 2005Participants: 33 undergrads (55% female)

Event: Field trip to UM hospital morgue

Self-reported reactions: 3 days after morgue visit

Story tracking exercise

1

2

3

4

5

6

Marlow (M) told 3

Ilana (F) told 2

Deb (F) told 0

Max (M) told 1

Gabe (M) told 0

Andrea (F) told 1

Hannah (F ) 624-8324 told 1

Maja (F ) 873-2345 told 0

Lew (M) 927-8743 told 1

Primary Sharing

Secondary Sharing

Tertiary Sharing

Story Sharing Following Morgue Field Trip

Primary Sharing

(Sharing by students)

(n = 33)

Secondary Sharing

(Sharing by students’ Friends)

(n = 32)

Tertiary Sharing

(Sharing by students’ Friends’ Friends)

(n = 27)

Number/rate of sharing 32.00 (97%) 27.00 (82%) 16.00 (48%)

Mean contacts per sharer 6.21 (4.06) 1.46 (1.21) 1.26 ( 1.20)

Total no. contacts this level 205 299 377

Total hearing about event: ≈ 881

Students’ Emotional Reactions and Story Sharing

Primary Sharing

(Sharing by students)

(n = 33)

Secondary Sharing

(Sharing by students’ Friends)

(n = 32)

Tertiary Sharing

(Sharing by students’ Friends’ Friends)

(n = 26)

Students’ reactions .73** .24 .46*

Students’ disclosures .56** .61**

Note: Students’ disclosures represent proxy index of emotional reaction.

No se vive sin amour.

Class 18: Social Support

One cannot live without love

What is Social Support?

Knowledge that one is not alone when facing stressors.

Harlow "Wire Mother" Studies

Rene' Spitz Foundling Home Study

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvdOe10vrs4

DEPRIVATION DWARFISM

What Are Types of Social Support?

Emotional Informational

Instrumental Tangible

Emotional Informational Instrumental TangibleDisclosure How to get help Transportation Provide funds

Belonging Nature of problem Help clean Provide materials

Worthiness Affection

Poss. solutions Track meds.

Social Support as Non-Specific Resistance

Stress: Non-specific health threat. Why?

Effects cardiovascular, respiratory, digestive, emotional health.

Social Support: Non-specific resistance factor. Why?

Effects cardiovascular, respiratory, digestive, emotional health.

Social Support and Biomedical Model of Health

Social support challenges the bio-med model. Why?

“Over the last 150 years of medical research from Pasteur, Koch onward, research has proceeded successfully along lines of identifying one cause of one disease with the theory of disease specificity being one of the major advances in our thinking over the last century.”

Biomed model predicts 1 cause for illness, specific to illness. Social support indicates multiple, general causes for specific illness.

Prospective Studies on Social Support and Health

What is a "prospective study"?

Sample is identified first, then outcomes measured later on.

Versus Retrospective Study, where outcomes identified first, then characteristics of sample identified.

Which method is more reliable and why?

Prospective: 1. Prospective, so not biased by recall.2. Population based, not based on volunteers but on large population.3. Effects are of large magnitude, both clinically

and statistically significant.

Community Based Studies, 1979-1984Alameda County: Men and women w/o support were 1.9 to 3.1 times more likely to die in 9 year follow up.

What was main cause of death?

___ Heart Disease ___ Stroke

___ Cancer___ Respiratory

___ Gastrointestinal

XXXXX

Problems with this study: Doesn't account for pre-study illness

N. Karelia Study: Focuses only on CHD

Admits only patients with pre-existing CHD/CHD risks

Isolated men (not women) higher CHD mortality

12 Additional Studies Associate Social Isolation with Mortality

Emotional Isolation Pre-MI, Mortality Post Myocardial Infarction (MI)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

NoSupport

OneSupportSource

2 +Support

Mo

rtal

ity

Rat

e

Died in HospitalDied 6 mos. later