A social identity perspective on interoperability in the emergency services: Emergency responders' experiences of multi-agency working during the COVID-19 response in the UK

Recent research has shown that multi-agency emergency response is beset by a range of problems, calling for a greater understanding of the way in which these teams work together to improve future multi-agency working. Social psychological research shows that a shared identity within a group can improve the way in which that group works together and can facilitate effective outcomes. In the present study, 52 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 strategic and tactical responders during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand the possible role of shared identity in the multi-agency response to COVID-19. Findings suggest that two forms of group relations were particularly relevant: horizontal intergroup relations – the relationships among responders at the local level;and vertical intergroup relations – the relationship between responders at the local level and national level. Three key factors appeared to contribute to an effective multi-agency response. First, pre-existing relationships with other responders facilitated the ease with which responders were able to work together initially. Second, a sense of ‘common fate' helped bring responders together, and finally, Chairs of groups were able to strategically reinforce a sense of shared identity within the group.

Emergency responders' experiences of multi-agency working during the COVID-19 response in the UK: Social identity as part of the problem and part of the solution

Recent research has shown that multi-agency emergency response is beset by a range of problems, calling for a greater understanding of the way in which these teams work together to improve future multi-agency working. Social psychological research shows that a shared identity within a group can improve the way in which that group works together and can facilitate effective outcomes. Thus, seventeen semi-structured interviews were conducted with strategic and tactical responders during the COVID-19 pandemic to explore whether there was any evidence that a shared identity was part of the solution to challenges faced, and if so, how and when shared identity arose. Findings suggest that two forms of group relations were particularly relevant: horizontal intergroup relations – the relationships among responders at the local level;and vertical intergroup relations – the relationship between responders at the local level and national level. Three key factors appeared to contribute to a shared identity amongst responders. First, pre-existing relationships with other responders facilitated the ease with which responders were able to work together initially. Second, a sense of ‘common fate' helped bring responders together, and finally, Chairs of groups were able to strategically reinforce a sense of shared identity.

On order and disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In this paper, we analyse the conditions under which the COVID-19 pandemic will lead either to social order (adherence to measures put in place by authorities to control the pandemic) or to social disorder (resistance to such measures and the emergence of open conflict). Using examples from different countries (principally the United Kingdom, the United States, and France), we first isolate three factors which determine whether people accept or reject control measures. These are the historical context of state-public relations, the nature of leadership during the pandemic and procedural justice in the development and operation of these measures. Second, we analyse the way the crisis is policed and how forms of policing determine whether dissent will escalate into open conflict. We conclude by considering the prospects for order/disorder as the pandemic unfolds.

Group processes and interoperability: A longitudinal case study analysis of the UK's civil contingency response to Covid‐19

Our case study explored a Local Resilience Forum's (LRF) civil contingency response to COVID‐19 in the United Kingdom. We undertook 19 semistructured ethnographic longitudinal interviews, between March 25, 2020 and February 17, 2021, with a Director of a Civil Contingencies Unit and a Chief Fire Officer who both played key roles within their LRF. Within these interviews, we focused on their strategic level decision‐making and how their relationship with national government impacted on local processes and outcomes. Using a form of grounded theory, our data describe the chronological evolution of an increasingly effective localized approach toward outbreak control and a growing resilience in dealing with concurrent emergency incidents. However, we also highlight how national government organizations imposed central control on aspects of the response in ways that undermined or misaligned with local preparedness. Thus, during emergencies, central governments can undermine the principle of subsidiarity and damage the ways in which LRFs can help scaffold local resilience. Our work contributes to the theoretical understanding of the social psychological factors that can shape the behaviour of responder agencies during a prolonged crisis. In particular, the implications of our analysis for advancing our conceptual understanding of strategic decision‐making during emergencies are discussed.

Is it really "panic buying"? Public perceptions and experiences of extra buying at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Shopping behaviour in response to extreme events is often characterized as "panic buying" which connotes irrationality and loss of control. However, "panic buying" has been criticized for attributing shopping behaviour to people's alleged psychological frailty while ignoring other psychological and structural factors that might be at play. We report a qualitative exploration of the experiences and understandings of shopping behaviour of members of the public at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Through a thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 23 participants, we developed three themes. The first theme addresses people's understandings of "panic buying". When participants referred to "panic buying" they meant observed product shortages (rather than the underlying psychological processes that can lead to such behaviours), preparedness behaviours, or emotions such as fear and worry. The second theme focuses on the influence of the media and other people's behaviour in shaping subsequent shopping behaviours. The third theme addresses the meaningful motivations behind increased shopping, which participants described in terms of preparedness; some participants reported increased shopping behaviours as a response to other people stockpiling, to reduce their trips to supermarkets, or to prepare for product shortages and longer stays at home. Overall, despite frequently using the term 'panic', the irrationalist connotations of "panic buying" were largely absent from participants' accounts. Thus, "panic buying" is not a useful concept and should not be used as it constructs expected responses to threat as irrational or pathological. It can also facilitate such behaviours, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Group processes and interoperability: A longitudinal case study analysis of the UK's civil contingency response to Covid‐19

Our case study explored a Local Resilience Forum's (LRF) civil contingency response to COVID‐19 in the United Kingdom. We undertook 19 semistructured ethnographic longitudinal interviews, between March 25, 2020 and February 17, 2021, with a Director of a Civil Contingencies Unit and a Chief Fire Officer who both played key roles within their LRF. Within these interviews, we focused on their strategic level decision‐making and how their relationship with national government impacted on local processes and outcomes. Using a form of grounded theory, our data describe the chronological evolution of an increasingly effective localized approach toward outbreak control and a growing resilience in dealing with concurrent emergency incidents. However, we also highlight how national government organizations imposed central control on aspects of the response in ways that undermined or misaligned with local preparedness. Thus, during emergencies, central governments can undermine the principle of subsidiarity and damage the ways in which LRFs can help scaffold local resilience. Our work contributes to the theoretical understanding of the social psychological factors that can shape the behaviour of responder agencies during a prolonged crisis. In particular, the implications of our analysis for advancing our conceptual understanding of strategic decision‐making during emergencies are discussed. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Behavioural responses to Covid-19 health certification: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Covid-status certification - certificates for those who test negative for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, test positive for antibodies, or who have been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 - has been proposed to enable safer access to a range of activities. Realising these benefits will depend in part upon the behavioural and social impacts of certification. The aim of this rapid review was to describe public attitudes towards certification, and its possible impact on uptake of testing and vaccination, protective behaviours, and crime. METHOD: A search was undertaken in peer-reviewed databases, pre-print databases, and the grey literature, from 2000 to December 2020. Studies were included if they measured attitudes towards or behavioural consequences of health certificates based on one of three indices of Covid-19 status: test-negative result for current infectiousness, test-positive for antibodies conferring natural immunity, or vaccination(s) conferring immunity. RESULTS: Thirty-three papers met the inclusion criteria, only three of which were rated as low risk of bias. Public attitudes were generally favourable towards the use of immunity certificates for international travel, but unfavourable towards their use for access to work and other activities. A significant minority was strongly opposed to the use of certificates of immunity for any purpose. The limited evidence suggested that intention to get vaccinated varied with the activity enabled by certification or vaccination (e.g., international travel). Where vaccination is seen as compulsory this could lead to unwillingness to accept a subsequent vaccination. There was some evidence that restricting access to settings and activities to those with antibody test certificates may lead to deliberate exposure to infection in a minority. Behaviours that reduce transmission may decrease upon health certificates based on any of the three indices of Covid-19 status, including physical distancing and handwashing. CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence suggests that health certification in relation to COVID-19 - outside of the context of international travel - has the potential for harm as well as benefit. Realising the benefits while minimising the harms will require real-time evaluations allowing modifications to maximise the potential contribution of certification to enable safer access to a range of activities.

Re-opening live events and large venues after Covid-19 'lockdown': Behavioural risks and their mitigations.

This article reviews the behavioural risks and possible mitigations for re-opening large venues for sports and music events when Covid-19 infection rates and hospitalizations begin to decline. We describe the key variables that we suggest will affect public behaviour relevant to the spread of the virus, drawing upon four sources: (1) relevant evidence and recommendations from the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours produced for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE); (2) research evidence from non-pandemic conditions; (3) research on behaviour during the pandemic; and (4) relevant theory. We first outline some basic risks and a framework for understanding collective behaviour at live events. We then survey some trends in UK public behaviour observed over 2020 and how these might interact with the opening of live events and venues. We present a range of mitigation strategies, based on the framework for collective behaviour and on what is known about non-pharmaceutical (i.e. behavioural) interventions in relation to Covid-19.

COVID-19 in context: Why do people die in emergencies? It's probably not because of collective 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.