Buzz
Yesterday evening, we invited readers to send in their burning questions about hurricanes. @BrothaDom and @michellesipics both requested insight into the minds of those who resist evacuation orders, even when it seems completely unreasonable to do so.
Just hours before Hurricane Sandy struck New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie reprimanded residents who had remained on the barrier islands, despite mandatory evacuation orders and official warnings. He also criticized local officials who had encouraged this decision. He made it clear that rescue efforts would be postponed until morning, citing the risks to first responders. He warned, “For those elected officials who decided to ignore my admonition, this is now your responsibility.”
What motivates some individuals to stay in the direct path of a storm, long after others have left, the roads have been closed or flooded, and rescuers can no longer assist? Why do they risk their own lives and the safety of those who would attempt to save them?
To answer this inquiry, psychologists turned to the ultimate experts on the matter: the residents of New Orleans who chose to stay behind and endure the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.
Leavers vs. Stayers
The researchers, hailing from Stanford University and Princeton University, conducted interviews with four distinct groups: those who stayed in New Orleans to face the storm, those who evacuated, rescue workers who came in from outside the city to assist, and individuals from across the country who followed the situation through the media.
They uncovered two significant insights. First, among the survivors they spoke with, there were numerous factors that influenced their decision to either leave or remain. A major influence was finances and available resources. “Leavers” typically had the financial means and transportation to evacuate, along with connections to friends or family outside the path of the storm. In contrast, “Stayers” generally had lower incomes, limited or no transportation options, and lacked a support system beyond the city. For many, staying was the only option due to a lack of resources.
However, finances and accommodations were not the sole factors in these decisions. The researchers also identified psychological and social influences—such as a distrust of outsiders (particularly those from outside the city who were advising residents to leave), a desire to stay close to neighbors, friends, and others from the community for emotional support, and a perceived responsibility to stay and assist others in need—that contributed to the decision to remain.
Another key finding was how the different groups in the study perceived both the evacuees and the stayers, as well as their own self-perception. Similar to how Christie criticized survivors for staying behind, both state and federal officials, along with pundits, condemned the choice to remain during Katrina. When the stayers were described by the other groups, terms like “lazy,” “stubborn,” and “negligent” were commonly used. In contrast, the evacuees were referred to as “hardworking,” “self-reliant,” and “responsible.”
Conjoint vs. Disjoint Model Citizens
According to the researchers, these groups viewed the stayers through certain assumptions about human behavior: that individuals are independent, that their choices influence their environment, and that these choices reflect personal goals. This perspective is known as the disjoint model of human agency, a framework that predominates in mainstream American culture, especially among the middle class.
However, interviews with those who stayed revealed that they were guided by a different set of principles. The researchers found that their actions were more consistent with the conjoint model of human agency, which emphasizes interdependence and the notion that people make choices to adapt to their environment. This model is often found among working-class Americans, according to psychologists.
Despite the harsh judgments from outsiders and commentators about those who decide to stay during a disaster, this research indicates that many stayers don’t truly have a choice. When they do, they are not avoiding action but are instead making decisions that fit their circumstances and worldview, even if these actions are difficult for others to understand.
