Why do we undergo the three-stage process when facing a disaster and what happens when we survive?

Name:
Tutor:
Course:
Date:
Why Do We Undergo the Three-Stage Process When Facing A Disaster and What Happens When We Survive
Disasters are quite common in the recent world ranging from terror attacks to natural calamities like earthquakes. Both man-made and natural calamities are fatal and require people to act with efficiency during such situations to save a life. However, regardless of the imminent danger posed by disasters, people often hesitate from taking the right action thus leading a high number of casualties that would have been avoided had people reacted to the danger immediately. Different researchers have studies human behavior to determine why this slowness of response happens during life-threatening situations and they have come up with three main stages that people go through when in a difficult moment. The three stages include denial, deliberation, and decisive moment (Ripley 65). People go through these stages because they are unable to reconcile the truth, which is an imminent threat, with what they know to be true. People go through these stages because they are faced with a dilemma of deciding what is right between the inborn survival instincts and the societal imprint of being strong and facing danger with courage. Moreover, the process of breaking free from childhood limitations has affected people’s ability to perceive danger and act accordingly.
The time taken to perceive the disaster as a real situation determines how fast people respond to these conditions, and ultimately, their survival chances.

Genetic and cultural evolution affects how people respond to disasters including their ability to shift from one stage to the other (Stein and Rawles 41). The society has taught people how to be resilient and to face dangers with confidence. Therefore, people have become fearless and willing to engage in dangerous situations with the aim of proving their strengths. The current society has overemphasized the need for people to overcome odds. The continued mention of difficulties in everyday life has made it hard for people to differentiate a real threat and a normal situation. As a result, people tend to normalize difficult conditions thus leading to a longer response time in times of real threat. Research indicates that people who are closest to the danger are less frightened by the situation (Ripley 93). The magnitude of the disaster is better felt by those away from it as well as the victims after surviving the experience. The confusion between reality and perception is the major reason why people go through the three-stage process while faced with a dilemma.
Cognitive skills have a very profound effect on how people react during difficult moments. Cognitive skills of people are shaped by the society in which they live. Moreover, certain life survival skills are shaped by the conditions and the situations surrounding an individual. Therefore, the amount of time taken for the brain to process information depends on the psychological development of an individual (Whitbourne 14).
The brain receives and analyzes information within a period of ten seconds in a normal state. During stressful moments, the time taken to analyses and process information lengthens thus keeping a person in a denial state. Further, the brain can fail to register reality if the reality is too difficult to handle. For instance, a person might fail to recognize the magnitude of a danger because seeing the weight of the situation would make him a coward. To cope with the unbearable situation, people normalize the situation and make it appear as an everyday state (Bonabeau and Stephenson 72). Underestimating the effects of the situation delays the person’s ability to make the right decisions at the time danger, which can be dangerous. In addition, the societal perception of danger prevents the brain from adjusting to the new truth at the right time. This aspect keeps people at the denial stage for a longer period thus increasing their potential for harm.
The society has instilled courage skills in people; therefore, the information about a situation that is beyond human control is overwhelming and difficult for the brain to process. As a result, a person stays at the state of denial for a longer time. If such a person manages to accept the situation and move to the deliberation stage, more time might be taken at this stage as the person tries to find a reasonable mechanism to overcome the situation. The society has programmed people and made them believe that every situation has a man-made solution. However, some disaster situations are unpreventable and unstoppable. If a person is unable to find a viable solution to the problem, then moving to the last stage of the process becomes problematic leading to higher risk of harm for that individual. People are preprogrammed, and if normalcy is disrupted, they become static and unable to process the new reality (Siebert 159).
Unpreparedness is also another reason as to why people go through the three stages process during a disaster. Research indicates the people who have encountered disaster have a better coping mechanism in comparison to their counterparts. A disaster has a way of bringing out a level of strength in people that they did not realize they had prior to the difficult condition. During the deliberation stage, one taps into the deeper strength reservoir ignited by the fear of death (Stein 64). In some situation, if an individual is unable to reach these reservoirs, he or she end up collapsing or losing control of other systems of the body. Moreover, when people survive a disaster, they become better prepared for a similar situation or any other life threatening condition in the future. For instance, a person who has survived a terror attack understands the dangers associated with the situation and the consequent effects of the attack. Such a person will not underestimate the situation and will have a quicker response to the danger if faced with a similar situation (Ripley 127). As such, lack of preparedness hinders people from acting immediately to the dangers, which prolongs the response process time. Moreover, the brain takes a lot of time to respond to unfamiliar situations. Therefore, people new to the hazard situation will take longer to process the new information hence the three-stage process.
Most of the people in the world are quite optimistic and do not see life threatening situations as reality. Therefore, the three-stage process helps people to reconcile optimism with the imminent danger. Oversimplifying the problem, anxiety, and suppressed working memory are also factors that lead to the three-stage process when people are faced with danger (Stein 106). Normalcy bias as mentioned earlier makes it difficult for people to see the hazardous situation as a new situation that requires new skills to handle. Moreover, oversimplifying issues is a common response that people take to avoid getting into trouble in normal situations. The cognitive bias of avoidance to action taking affects the ability of people to respond to disasters hence the three-stage process.
What happens after people survive a disaster depends on the attitude that one entertains (Stein and Rawles 59). Some people see themselves as victims of the situation, which leads them to a life of fear and complaint. Others see an opportunity to thrive and do something new thus creating an overcoming attitude. People who thrive after a disaster have a better chance of helping the society understand the dangers of such situations and the best course of action to take when faced with a hazardous situation. In addition, people who show a positive attitude towards the situation become better prepared for such states in the future, which give them a better survival chance than their counterparts.
On the other hand, the victim mentality can have adverse effects on a person. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and other mental illnesses can affect an individual who keeps a negative attitude after a disaster. Such people tend to blame the government and any other responsible person for the situation without taking into consideration the parts that they played in the disaster and its effects. Although some disasters happen without any human interference, people are often partly responsible for the effects of the disaster, especially those who take longer times at the denial stage. The inability of the people to perceive danger and the inability to take the right action in time is what makes the effects of a disaster bearable or horrific. This is not to mean that people are always responsible for the effects of a disaster because in some situations, no matter how prepared one is, the effects of the disaster will be horrific. The inborn ability of a person to cope with difficult situations determines how well they live after the disaster and the ability of the individual to act better in a similar situation in the future (Bonabeau and Stephenson 18).
The society has taught people how to normalize situations, fight every battle and to conquer all difficulties. As a result, the inborn survival instincts of people have disappeared leaving the human race unable to perceive danger (Ripley 90). As disasters continue to affect the world, people are becoming more vulnerable because of these tenets planted in people’s minds through cultural evolution. There is a need to change these life ideals to ensure that people are well prepared to deal with disastrous situations as they arise. As it has been reported, avoiding or stopping some disastrous situations is impossible; therefore, the best way of dealing with such hazards is to ensure that people are prepared to handle such difficulties by re-igniting the survival skills that will cause people to respond to danger and act effectively.
Changing people’s attitude after surviving a disaster is an ideal way of ensuring a healthy society that knows how to ride on challenges without embracing the victim mentality. Survivors who embrace positivity have a great opportunity of teaching the rest of the world the best coping mechanism thus reducing the number of casualties in the case of a future danger. Disasters are costly and disruptive; therefore, there is a need to have better systems of dealing with these issues as they arise. Understanding these factors of survival and disaster preparedness will go a long way in helping policy makers to come up with effective disaster management mechanism, and ultimately protecting the economic, social, and political stability of a society.

Works Cited
Bonabeau, Eric, and W. David Stephenson. “Expecting the Unexpected: The Need for a Networked Terrorism and Disaster Response Strategy.” Homeland Security Affairs 3, Article 3 (February 2007). https://www.hsaj.org/articles/151
Ripley, Amanda. The Unthinkable: who Survives When Disaster Strikes and Why. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2009. Print.
Siebert, Al. The Survivor Personality: Why Some People Are Stronger, Smarter, And More Skillful At Handling Life’s Difficulties … And How You Can Be, Too. New York, NY: Berkeley Pub. Group, 1996. Print.
Stein, Mathew. “When technology fails: a manual for self-reliance, sustainability, and surviving the long emergency.” Paperback (2008). Web. 13 Dec, 2016.
Stein, Matthew R., and James W. Rawles. When Disaster Strikes: A Comprehensive Guide For Emergency Planning And Crisis Survival. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2011. Print.
Whitbourne, Susan. When disaster strikes others: how your brain responds. 15 Mar 2011. Web. 13 Dec 2016.