Convergence Behavior in Disasters¶
Fritz, C. E., & Mathewson, J. H. (1957). Convergence Behavior in Disasters: A Problem in Social Control.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Convergence Failure
- Fritz and Mathewson identified the phenomenon in 1957, naming it convergence behavior, and catalogued its three forms: personal convergence (uninvited responders and spectators), materiel convergence (unsolicited donations and supplies), and informational convergence (calls, media inquiries, rumours)
SupportedVerified against the source
- Fritz and Mathewson identified the phenomenon in 1957, naming it convergence behavior, and catalogued its three forms: personal convergence (uninvited responders and spectators), materiel convergence (unsolicited donations and supplies), and informational convergence (calls, media inquiries, rumours)
- Volunteer-Management Overload
- The pattern is clearest in disaster response, where unaffiliated spontaneous volunteers arrive in the first 72 hours of a flood, fire, or hurricane response faster than formal intake can process them
This sourceFritz and Mathewson's disaster study of convergence behaviour, in which spontaneous help-motivated arrivals from outside the stricken area overload transport and communication and hinder organized relief.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“A striking aspect of human behavior in disaster is the informal, spontaneous movement of people, messages, and supplies toward the disaster area.”
- The pattern is clearest in disaster response, where unaffiliated spontaneous volunteers arrive in the first 72 hours of a flood, fire, or hurricane response faster than formal intake can process them
Mechanisms¶
- Crisis Volunteer Coordination
- This is convergence
This sourceDefines disaster convergence as the movement of people, messages, and supplies toward the affected area, including helpers seeking useful work.
- This is convergence
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 3 citations: 1 supported, 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:a280b460ed10 · see in the full table