% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Haghani:864575,
      author       = {Haghani, Milad and Cristiani, Emiliano and Bode, Nikolai W.
                      F. and Boltes, Maik and Corbetta, Alessandro},
      title        = {{P}anic, {I}rrationality, and {H}erding: {T}hree
                      {A}mbiguous {T}erms in {C}rowd {D}ynamics {R}esearch},
      journal      = {Journal of advanced transportation},
      volume       = {2019},
      issn         = {2042-3195},
      address      = {London},
      publisher    = {Hindawi},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2019-04294},
      pages        = {1 - 58},
      year         = {2019},
      abstract     = {Background. The three terms “panic”,
                      “irrationality”, and “herding” are ubiquitous in the
                      crowd dynamics literature and have a strong influence on
                      both modelling and management practices. The terms are also
                      commonly shared between the scientific and nonscientific
                      domains. The pervasiveness of the use of these terms is to
                      the point where their underlying assumptions have often been
                      treated as common knowledge by both experts and lay persons.
                      Yet, at the same time, the literature on crowd dynamics
                      presents ample debate, contradiction, and inconsistency on
                      these topics. Method. This review is the first to
                      systematically revisit these three terms in a unified study
                      to highlight the scope of this debate. We extracted from
                      peer-reviewed journal articles direct quotes that offer a
                      definition, conceptualisation, or supporting/contradicting
                      evidence on these terms and/or their underlying theories. To
                      further examine the suitability of the term herding, a
                      secondary and more detailed analysis is also conducted on
                      studies that have specifically investigated this phenomenon
                      in empirical settings. Results. The review shows that (i)
                      there is no consensus on the definition for the terms panic
                      and irrationality and that (ii) the literature is highly
                      divided along discipline lines on how accurate these
                      theories/terminologies are for describing human escape
                      behaviour. The review reveals a complete division and
                      disconnection between studies published by social scientists
                      and those from the physical science domain and also between
                      studies whose main focus is on numerical simulation versus
                      those with empirical focus. (iii) Despite the ambiguity of
                      the definitions and the missing consensus in the literature,
                      these terms are still increasingly and persistently
                      mentioned in crowd evacuation studies. (iv) Different to
                      panic and irrationality, there is relative consistency in
                      definitions of the term herding, with the term usually being
                      associated with ‘(blind) imitation’. However, based on
                      the findings of empirical studies, we argue why, despite the
                      relative consistency in meaning, (v) the term herding itself
                      lacks adequate nuance and accuracy for describing the role
                      of ‘social influence’ in escape behaviour. Our
                      conclusions also emphasise the importance of distinguishing
                      between the social influence on various aspects of
                      evacuation behaviour and avoiding generalisation across
                      various behavioural layers. Conclusions. We argue that the
                      use of these three terms in the scientific literature does
                      not contribute constructively to extending the knowledge or
                      to improving the modelling capabilities in the field of
                      crowd dynamics. This is largely due to the ambiguity of
                      these terms, the overly simplistic nature of their
                      assumptions, or the fact that the theories they represent
                      are not readily verifiable. Recommendations. We suggest that
                      it would be beneficial for advancing this research field
                      that the phenomena related to these three terms are clearly
                      defined by more tangible and quantifiable terms and be
                      formulated as verifiable hypotheses, so they can be
                      operationalized for empirical testing.},
      cin          = {IAS-7},
      ddc          = {380},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IAS-7-20180321},
      pnm          = {511 - Computational Science and Mathematical Methods
                      (POF3-511)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-511},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000481916600001},
      doi          = {10.1155/2019/9267643},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/864575},
}