Normalcy bias

Normalcy bias is a cognitive bias characterized by the refusal to plan for or react to a disaster which has never happened before. This bias leads individuals to underestimate both the likelihood of a disaster occurring and its potential impact, reinforcing a false sense of security.

How it works

Normalcy bias operates under the assumption that since a catastrophe has not occurred in the past, it will not occur in the future. As a cognitive shortcoming in evaluating probabilities, it simplifies the scenario by retaining existing assumptions without accounting for evidence indicating potential risks.

Examples

• Many citizens remained in their homes despite hurricane warnings, believing it would not be as devastating as predicted.
• Organizations often fail to develop comprehensive cybersecurity measures as they assume a major breach is unlikely based solely on past experience.
• Investors might ignore warning signs of a financial bubble burst, assuming markets will always return to normalcy as they have in previous downturns.

Consequences

Normalcy bias can result in inadequate preparation for emergencies, leading to greater damage and loss when a disaster does occur. It also contributes to delayed responses in crises, increasing vulnerability and reducing the effectiveness of potential interventions.

Counteracting

To mitigate normalcy bias, individuals and organizations should engage in scenario planning and regularly update disaster preparedness strategies. Incorporating diverse perspectives and learning from historical events elsewhere can provide realistic assessments of potential risks. Training exercises and simulations can also help in overcoming this bias by creating an environment of realistic awareness and preparedness.

Critiques

Some critics argue that normalcy bias can also have adaptive qualities, enabling people to focus on day-to-day activities without constant anxiety over improbable threats. This perspective suggests that while it can lead to under-preparedness, it also allows for continued social function and psychological stability.

Fields of Impact

Also known as

Relevant Research

• Communication of Emergency Public Warnings: A Social Science Perspective and State-of-the-Art Assessment.

  Mileti, D. S., & Sorensen, J. H. (1990)

  Federal Emergency Management Agency

• Understanding Disaster Warning Responses.

  Drabek, T.E. (1999)

  The Social Science Journal, 36(3): 515-523

• Understanding Citizen Response to Disasters with Implications for Terrorism.

  Perry, R. W., & Lindell, M. K. (2003)

  Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 11(2): 49-60