Pre-disaster social bonds cannot explain solidarity among strangers during crises.

Evidence

First, social capital operates on a descriptive or sociological level and cannot adequately explain the psychological processes through which social networks become relevant for those involved in an emergency or a disaster and the microprocesses through which they are mobilised (Drury et al., 2019; Ntontis, 2018; Shreve & Fordham, 2019; Wickes et al., 2017). Second, neither social capital nor interpersonal bonds account for the evidence of emergence of social bonds between strangers during crises (Drury, 2018; Drury et al., 2019; Uekusha, 2017). In other words, a psychological explanation is needed for emergent solidarity that does not rely on predisaster social bonds. — John Drury and Evangelos Ntontis, A SOCIAL IDENTITY MODEL OF COLLECTIVE…, 15

Categorization

  • XREF: Directly connects to the reader’s running thesis on pro-sociality crowding out enemy-based solidarity models in the emergency-psychology literature. — connects to: Post-disaster solidarity toward strangers stems from emergent shared social identity, not prior personal ties. — John Drury and Rupert Brown and Roberto González and Daniel Miranda, Emergent social identity and observing…, 118; Disasters forge new social bonds via shared external threat. — John Drury and Chris Cocking and Steve Reicher, Everyone for themselves? A comparative…, 16; Shared social identity is the causal variable predicting solidarity among disaster strangers. — John Drury and Evangelos Ntontis, A SOCIAL IDENTITY MODEL OF COLLECTIVE…, 26 (+7 more)

Broader Connections