« Assorted links | Main | Singapore fact of the day »
Who survived the Titanic and why?
Bruno Frey, David Savage, and Benno Torgler report:
You'll find a more speculative treatment here:
British passengers on the Titanic died in disproportionate numbers because they queued politely for lifeboats while Americans elbowed their way on, an Australian researcher believes.
David Savage, a behavioural economist at the Queensland University of Technology, studied four 20th-century maritime disasters to determine how people react in life and death situations. He concluded that, on the whole, behaviour is influenced by altruism and social norms, rather than a "survival of the fittest" mentality. However, on the Titanic he noted Americans were 8.5 per cent more likely to survive than other nationalities, while British passengers were 7 per cent less likely to survive.
"The only things I can put that down to are: there would have been very few Americans in steerage or third class; and the British tend to be very polite and queue." (The ship's first-class staterooms were closest to the lifeboat deck.)
Savage admits there is no direct evidence for his hypothesis concerning the Americans.
I thank Leonardo Monasterio, a loyal MR reader, for the pointer. Here is Leonardo's post on Greg Clark.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 21, 2009 at 01:19 PM in History | Permalink
Comments
An endorsement for John Galt?
Posted by: Economic Geographer at Jan 21, 2009 1:51:20 PM
When are we going to stop with this "women & children first" nonsense that is leftover from our evolutionary history? We no longer need to protect women & children (in accidents like the Titanic) for the survival of the species.
If women want to be equal to men, they can wait in line like the rest of 'em! Children have the weakest claim of all; they have no responsibilities and are not supporting anyone.
Posted by: GU at Jan 21, 2009 2:08:22 PM
Since when was our evolutionary history concerned with the survival of the species?
Posted by: Barbar at Jan 21, 2009 2:11:24 PM
"the British tend to be very polite and queue"
I would amend that to "the British tended to be very polite and queue back in 1912".
Posted by: dzot at Jan 21, 2009 2:18:57 PM
Leonardo disses Gregory Clark for referring to Dierdre McCloskey, a transgendered person, as a man.
Posted by: as at Jan 21, 2009 2:23:42 PM
Economic Logic posted on this yesterday as well, and seems less tentative in its conclusions.
Posted by: toto at Jan 21, 2009 2:52:25 PM
I'm shocked, SHOCKED to hear that James Cameron's "Titanic" reflected modern prejudices rather than historical reality.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jan 21, 2009 2:56:28 PM
"When are we going to stop with this "women & children first" nonsense that is leftover from our evolutionary history?"
I suspect it will be the same time we get over affirmative action, never. Groups like the feminazis waver from their principles when it is beneficial for themselves. Anyone that starts from the premise that we are all greedy selfish individuals will accurately predict this outcome.
Posted by: Jay at Jan 21, 2009 4:47:25 PM
Interesting--completely makes sense that Americans were always pushy as hell, but how can i blame anyone when life and death is at stake I would be on the lifeboat as well.
jh
http://www.bodaweightloss.com
Posted by: jh at Jan 21, 2009 4:47:43 PM
One thing that caught my eye is that this:
British passengers on the Titanic died in disproportionate numbers because they queued politely for lifeboats while Americans elbowed their way on, an Australian researcher believes.
is a false statement, in that Savage does not in fact appear to believe that. He speculates that it might be true, but also offers another explanation. This is a good example of how scientific results are distorted when they are reported on.
Posted by: rpl at Jan 21, 2009 5:15:00 PM
There may not be a lot of evidence to support Savage's claim that the English are nicer than Americans, but there is evidence of the exact opposite being true:
http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2006/07/polite.php
Posted by: David C at Jan 21, 2009 5:27:15 PM
The Titanic was too unusual a disaster to be a good datapoint. The ship took three hours to sink.
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at Jan 21, 2009 6:00:33 PM
This paper is now forthcoming in JEBO.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Jan 21, 2009 6:19:47 PM
The destruction of the World Trade Center was another good natural experiment. But they should probably wait another 50 years or so before they publish the analysis.
Posted by: mobile at Jan 21, 2009 6:52:23 PM
Maybe Brits made up a larger proportion of the lower class ticketholders.
Posted by: Mercutio.Mont at Jan 21, 2009 7:33:40 PM
Not only did the ship take a long time to sink, I am under the impression that:
1. There wes disbelief that the unsinkable would actually sink.
2. Thus many early life boats went out less than full.
If true this might explain crew members surviving disproportionately as they could be ordered to the life boats and one had to be on each life boat even a relatively empty lifeboat.
The length of time that it took this unsinkable ship to sink also means that those with the greatest faith in technology and doubt of human authority figures also might have been more likely to remain on the ship. I am not sure if men 100 years ago had more faith in technology and doubt in authority than woman but that is certainly a possibility. Put another way if you are the type of person who doubts technology and who obey authority then you went to the lifeboats when the alarm was first sounded and had a better chance to survive.
Still maybe this analysis is all wet and my impressions come more from the movie than the History Channel shows on the Titanic.
Posted by: JLS at Jan 21, 2009 11:56:48 PM
Michael, it is just because it took time for the Titanic to sink that pro-social behaviour could influence
the probability of survival. If this would have happened in seconds, only luck or physical factors would have
had an influence.
Posted by: vic at Jan 22, 2009 3:50:08 AM
The WTC would not make a good natural experiment because there was no escape bottleneck (shortage of lifeboats) as in the Titanic. Pretty much everyone who was able to walk and able to reach an unblocked stairwell made it out.
Posted by: anonymous at Jan 22, 2009 12:34:41 PM
In traffic theory, orderly traffic has better throughput than aggressive traffic. How is it different such that it breaks down here?
Posted by: anomdebus at Jan 22, 2009 2:18:09 PM
there have been other situations where being "polite" was harmful - in another article I read there was mention of a poison gas released in Japan in 1995 that people were too polite to move away from or comment on, and they ended up getting really hurt (see below).
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/international/2009/jan/Death-by-Politeness-How-Brits-on-the-Titanic-Met-Their-Doom.html
Posted by: Hal at Jan 23, 2009 12:36:11 PM
