Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 81
APPENDIX A
ADMINIS THAT IVE DE TAILS OF THE S T UDY $:
The p roj e ct was initially sugge sled by Harry Williams ~ e ch -
nical Dir e cto r of the Committe e f or Di s as ter Studie s, National
Council, after he read a New York Herald Tribune story de scribing
"panic" in flooded Port Jervis following the rumor of a dam-break.
Pr eliminary Survey
National Re search
.
Before a large scale study was projected, the accuracy of
the story was checked to determine whether, in fact,
perceived and acted on by a large number of people.
Of the staff of the Institute for Research in Human Relations went to
Port Jervis five days after the false report had spread through the
city. Key officials in the city were interviewed. These included the
Chief of Police, the Civil Defense Director, and the Chief of the Fire
Department.
a thee at had be en
Three members
The inve stigator s carried with them a letter from the NRC
Disaster Committee stating that the project director and his staff
were qualified research people. It further testified that the investi-
gators were collecting information to satisfy the needs bow of the
Disaster Committee and the Federal Civil Defense Administration.
This letter was favorably received and prover} valuable in introducing
the investigators. It was also used at later stages of the project with
good effect whenever the purpose of the study was questioned by re-
spondent s .
The investigating team was well received at local Civil De-
fense Headquarters. One of the officials there provided us with a
room adjoining the Civil Defense office. This office was used as
field headquarters for the entire period of study, and appeared to pro-
vide a kind of official stamp to the project in the eyes of the local
citizens.
The detailed description of the problems encountered in the field
are presented here at the specific request of late Committee on Disas-
ter Studies.
81
OCR for page 82
The survey made clear the seriousness of the false report
as perceived by inhabitants of the city, and convinced the investigators
of the value of proceeding with a study of the events which followed
its di s s emination.
Training Interviewers
The interviewers, all trained social scientists with a min-
imum of a master's degree, were given a half-day of intensive train-
ing. They were first briefed concerning the nature of the Port Jervis
disaster from information we had obtained regarding the evacuation
situation. They were given orientation information about the town:
its geography, history, principal industries, etc. They then received
a de scription of the kinds of hypothe se s we wished to te st, and of our
sampling methodology. We took them through the interview form
question by question. The usual criteria for estimating socio-economi,
status were supplied: possession of telephone and automobile, condi-
tion of residence, single or multiple dwelling unit' etc. Using our
secretary (a Port Jervis public stenographer) in the role of an inter-
viewee, we gave the staff an opportunity to observe a complete inter-
view.
At first glance, it might appear preferable to keep the inter-
viewers ignorant of the hypotheses. However, the need for providing
them with a proper basis for deciding when to probe made it essential
that they understand the major objectives of the study.
The alternative, the preparation of detailed instructions re-
garding clas se s of re sponse s demanding probing, require s consider -
able time, more than was available in this situation. Also, such
instructions undoubtedly give definite cues to the interviewer as to the
hypotheses under study. A review of the interviewing and coding pro-
cedures reveals no systematic bias.
Each interviewer was then sent out to conduct a trial inter-
view, which was reviewed with him before he was allowed to continue.
From time to time, the protocols were examined to make sure that
interviewers were getting the requisite information. We met period-
ically with each interviewer to discuss problems encountered in the
field.
82
OCR for page 83
A checklist was printed and clisplayed at headquarters. Each
interviewer was instructed to check off the material which he was to
take win him before leaving on his assignment. This material in-
clucled assignment cards, giving the name and address of each of his
respondents, a map of the city with the locations marked on it, a writ-
ing board, interview forms with the questions in record} form, an
interviewer's identification carcI, and a thank-you letter. At no time
did an interviewer find himself in the field without all the materials
he needed.
The Interv, ew Form
On an intuitive basis, we hac3 decided that defensiveness on
the part of the respondent could best be handled if he were allowed} to
tell the story in his own way. Because of this, only a simple card
listing major items was developed for use in conducting interviews.
After a few trials with re sponclents not include] in the sample, it be -
came apparent that important data were being omitted from the proto-
cols. A second, more detailed, interview form was designed, but
found to be inadequate because it was not flexible enough to permit re-
cording relatively unstructured interviews. A thirc] revision combined
the detail required by the interviewer with a format which simplified
the job of re cowling re spouse s .
This third form is included in this Appendix. A minor re-
vision was made later on, as indicated on the sample copy. We col-
lected the biographical data last, so that the respondent might feel
more freedom from pressure while making the major responses. This
change also simplified the subsequent coding and punching operations.
A separate recording pad was provided, because the inter-
viewers were instructed to record information verbatim as far as was
possible, while following the outline of the questionnaire. The com-
pletec} mimeographed questionnaire was attached to the written materi-
al upon completion of the interview. Checks were made of interviewers
in the field; these checks gave every evidence that the interviewers
were consistently reliable and trustworthy.
Because of the delay in getting a full team of interviewers
into the field, we began to consider discontinuance of the time-con-
suming proce s s of seeking specific respondents . The alternative was
83
OCR for page 84
to take any resident at the assigned address. It was obvious that with
increased passage of time, there was likely to be a decrease in the
validity of the responses. However, we decided to continue with the
original technique in order to ensure a statistically unbiased sample,
and we completed the required number of interviews as rapidly as we
could. A comparison of some of the last interviews with those ob-
tained almost two weeks before failed to disclose any differences which
we could attribute to the difference in tissue.
84
OCR for page 85
DATA SHEET
Name
Addr e s s
Soc-Econ A B
Occupation of Respondent
Di saster -r elated Job
Total No . in Household
Length of re sidence in P. J
e
Evacuated befor e Saturday night ? Y N
P roperty damage by flood ?
IRHR PROJECT DAM PJNY AUG 55
M F Age Date Ward 1 2
D Car Y
X sts.
N Phone Y N
Of Spouse
No. children under 10 at home
Last school grade
Y ~Spe city:
Any relatives or close friends who suffered flood loss? Y N
Specify:
Any flood victims staying with you before or during this report? Y N
Who (relationship)
& _
When
.
Any previous experience similar to this situation?
perience with flood, combat, etc. ~
Specify (probe for prior ex
. . .
Leave Saturday night? Y N
Interviewer
Interview #
Random #
85
OCR for page 86
INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN HUMAN RELATIONS PJNY
A. SITUATION
1. On the Saturday night after the flood, did you hear the report that He
dam had broken? What happened to you at the time ?
(a) Where? (b) What doing? (c) With whom? (Number and relationship)
B. NATURE AND SOURCE OF REPORT
-
1. What did you hear and see? (exactly)
2. Whom did you hear it from?
3. What time was it?
C. REACTION TO REPORT
.
1. What did you think at first when you heard report?
2. How did you feel?
3. Did you feel you or your family were in danger? What did you think
would happen? (If the dam had broken) (Specify which dam)
4. How long did you think it would be befo re the wale r got her e ?
5. What did you do ? (Trace action sequence)
( a) Did you c ontact anyone ?
(1) Who? (2) How? (3) Why? (4) What was said?
(b) Did you le eve place wher e you we r e ?
(c) Where did you go ? (Spe cify)
(d) What did you have in mind?
(e) Who waswithyou?
(f) Did you take anything with you?
86
OCR for page 87
D. REACTIONS OF OTHERS TO REPORT
1. What did people around you do at time you heard report?
2. How were they acting ? (Probe)
3. What were people in your neighborhood doing? (Probe for how many
stayed home)
E. NATURE AND SOURCE OF COUNTER INFORMATION
1. When did you hear r eport was false ?
2. Who told you?
3. How? (Exactly - and medium)
4. How many times did you hear He report was false ? (Probe for sources
and content)
F. REACTIONS TO COUNTER INFORMATION
. .
1. What did you think when you heard the report was false ? (Belief)
2. What did you do when you first heard it was false? Then what? (Trace
action and communication sequence)
3. When did you finally return home (if left)
4. When were you finally sure that everything was all right?
G. BACKGROUND FACTORS
1. Had you heard ably previous rumors that the dam might break? (Describe)
2. What sort of people did an especially good job during the flood? (Probe
for agencies or persons respondent looked to for aid or information)
3. Ar e there any who should have done more ?
4. How did the Civil Defens e do ?
H. RESULT OF EXPERIENCE
. .
1. After the flood, did you Intake any preparations for future emergencies ?
87
OCR for page 88
Z. Do you think you could do anything different if you heard a threaten
ing repor! again? (~robe for specific differences)
3. Did you use We telephone?
Who ? Where ? When ?
In a similar emergency Mom would you call? Why?
4. no you think you learned anything from this that gill be helpful to
others?
88
OCR for page 89
Thank You fo r Your Help !
Your interviewer and the Institute for Research in Human Relations want
to thank you for your help and time. The knowledge which we gained in talking
with you about your experience during the flood will be of great value to other
p eople who may have to face si milar eme rgencie s in the future.
Perhaps you would like to have a written statement concerning some of
the questions that people often ask about the study we are doing.
WHY IS THIS S T UDY B KING MADE ?
The purpose of this study is to get a true picture of what happens to people
in a disaster, so that '~'ore effective plans can be made for meeting the problems
which emergencies bring.
WHO IS SPONSORING THIS STUDY?
. .
The Institute for Research in Human Relations has been asked to make
the study by the Federal Civil Defense "Administration and the Committee on
Disaster Studies, National Research Council, Washington, D. C.
WHAT IS THE INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN HUMAN RELATIONS ?
The Institute is a private non-profit scientific organization, that maintains
offices in Philadelphia and conducts field research in many cities throughout
our country.
WHO ARE THE INTERVIE WERS ?
_ . .
The interviewer s worldng on this study are profe s signal re search people
who have had sp e cial tr aining in inter viewing . They ar e s ele ate ~ f o r the j ob
because they are easy to talk to. The statements you make will not be revealed
to anyone by the interviewer or by the organization. Each interviewer carries
an identification card signed by the Director of the Institute.
HOW WILL THE THINGS I SAY BE REPORTED?
Your answers and statements will be strictly confidential. Your name or
other identification is never used. Only summaries of statements will be pub-
lished -- such as, "one person out of ten reported Hat . . . "
HOW CAN I FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THIS STUDY?
If you have any other questions, we will be glad to answer them for you.
Mr. Elliott Danzig, the study director, and his assistants, Mr. Paul Thayer aunt
Mr. James Keenan maintain offices at Room 1 in the Health Center and will be
happy to talk with you. The telephone number is 4-4072.
89
OCR for page 90
Representative terms from entire chapter:
civil defense
