When Hoping for 'Normal' is Dangerous
Photo by Nejc Košir from Pexels
An older pastor once told me the joke that there are only two things we hate in the church: change and the way things are. Certainly it is no surprise that most people, let alone churchgoers, are resistant to change. The last 18 months have forced us into significant change. Like many pastors, I looked at this as an opportunity to be intentional about what we would return to, creating a “new normal.” Yet what I found both in my context, and in talking to other pastors, was a new, significant, aggressive move to return to the old status quo. Even those unhappy with church prior to February 2020 are now aggressively downplaying any concerns and advocating for a return to pre-2020 in as many ways as possible. We want to ignore denominational issues, COVID-related issues, and changes in our community and pretend like nothing in the last year happened. It is reminiscent of the Israelite desire to return to Egypt on their way to the Promised Land. The response from denominational leaders often seems tone deaf and disconnected from the realities of what is happening in the church. Why are we so eager to return to a “normal” that we did not like? The answer lies in how human beings respond to crises. We may have been taught in science classes that the “fight or flight” instinct is hardwired into human beings. Yet humans often respond to crises by ignoring them.
I recently watched the HBO miniseries Chernobyl and found myself captivated by a repeated pattern I am also finding in my ministry. Multiple times before, during, and after the Chernobyl disaster, the crisis could have been prevented or contained if the decision maker could admit the severity of the situation. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, decision makers largely acted as if nothing had happened. As I researched the Chernobyl disaster I found that the pattern of dismissal in the TV show seemed to reflect accurately the real-life patterns of denial. Those in charge could not grasp how significant the accident truly was, and anyone who tried to convince them of the truth was ridiculed and dismissed.
We believe that in a crisis we will react with a “fight or flight” response, but the truth is that in a crisis only about 30 percent of us will respond in that way. Around 70 percent will respond with normalcy bias, a cognitive bias that causes people to downplay or even disbelieve the crisis (“How to Get Out Alive” by Amanda Ripley, Time, April 2005). In both lab and real-world settings, normalcy bias dominates human response.
Psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley ran a series of experiments, the results of which were published in 1968 (“Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention in Emergencies,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, April 1968). Latané and Darley invited subjects to fill out a questionnaire about participating in a study. While the participants filled out the questionnaire, a vent in the room began to smoke dangerously. Latané and Darley determined that when the participants were in the room by themselves, 75 percent left the room to report the smoke to someone in authority. However, when there were two other unknown participants in the room, only 10 percent of participants reported the smoke. Participants continued to ignore the smoke even when the smoke was thick enough that the participants struggled to breathe.
In 1977, two planes collided at an airport on the Spanish island of Tenerife. The survivors on Pan Am Flight 736, described the odd scene on the plane after the collision. A small group of passengers realized they were in great danger and immediately sprang into action exiting the plane on the left wing. A few passengers panicked, but the majority of the passengers acted as if nothing dangerous or abnormal had happened at all. They calmly sat in their seats, even as the plane began to catch fire. These examples demonstrate the same phenomenon that occurred during the Chernobyl disaster. At the moment of crisis, rather than acknowledging the direness of the situation and responding appropriately, the response was to pretend like nothing was happening at all.
Normalcy bias restricts human response. Psychologists offer multiple explanations for normalcy bias, but they can be broadly split into two categories: normative influence and cognitive dissonance. Normative influence refers to the influence our perceptions of others’ beliefs, values, and actions have on us. In a crisis, we do not respond because we do not see others responding. Others may not respond because they do not see us respond. This creates a cycle that discourages any response at all. It takes eight to ten seconds for our brains to process new information, under stress, that time can increase significantly. During that processing time, if an individual sees that everyone else around him or her is calm, he or she may not accurately assess the new information as indicating a crisis. Latané and Darley cited normative influence in their study.
Crises often cause us to confront difficult and contradictory truths about ourselves and our situation, which can cause cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when we encounter contradictory information or hold contradictory beliefs. A crisis often reveals character traits, circumstances, and beliefs about ourselves that run counter to the way we see ourselves; therefore, we create a justification to explain away the difference. One possible justification is the situation is not as serious as others believe.
Cognitive dissonance was common during the Chernobyl disaster. Some lead engineers could not admit the disaster was happening because they could not reconcile their participation in a nuclear disaster that could kill hundreds of thousands of people. To ease the internal tension of cognitive dissonance, they created justifications that dismissed evidence of the disaster unfolding and saw everything as normal. We may perceive ourselves as people who make all the right decisions or as people who are in control of our life circumstances. Crisis reveals our lack of control. Therefore, we deny the crisis, despite overwhelming evidence, to preserve a self-image that aligns with how we see ourselves.
Normalcy bias has been cited as a reason that the citizens of Pompeii watched Mount Vesuvius erupt without evacuating, many people refuse to evacuate during hurricanes, Boeing ignored safety concerns with their 737 Max planes despite two crashes within two years, and the experts at the Fukushima nuclear power plant were convinced a meltdown was impossible. We simply do not believe that a crisis can happen to us. We believe anything that will happen in the future will be as it has happened in the past, and we long for a sense of normalcy, even if normalcy is lost.
When looking through the lens of normalcy bias, we can begin to understand why so many Israelites were eager to return to Egypt while wandering the wilderness. Egypt may have been oppressive, but it was predictable and normal to the Israelites. We can understand some in Jerusalem may have been quick to believe Hananiah instead of Jeremiah. The Israelites longed for those in exile to return and regain a sense of normalcy.
Social psychologists theorize that normalcy bias may be an evolutionary trait. Without the normalcy bias, we may treat minor obstacles like overwhelming crises. Truthfully, most obstacles and challenges tend to have only minor repercussions. The normalcy bias may have a net positive impact on our lives. Yet in the time of crisis, normalcy bias restricts our ability to respond appropriately.
When we consider normalcy bias as a normal human reaction, we can understand why church members may be resistant to even the most advantageous of changes. We can begin to understand why even families who lost loved ones to COVID-19 resist wearing masks in church. We can understand why church members may seem focused on issues that we consider secondary or tertiary, while ignoring primary issues. We can understand at least one reason why, in a time of such church upheaval, our denominational leadership seems to be focused on business-as-normal. These are not odd responses and should be expected.
What can be done to combat normalcy bias? Experts suggest several strategies (for more detail, see “The Corporate Emergency Response Plan: A Smart Strategy” by David B. Graham and Thomas D. Johns, Natural Resources and Environment, 2012). Preparation is often cited as a key strategy to combat normalcy bias. Prepare for crises. Prepare multiple contingency plans, in case a crisis takes an unexpected turn. Talk through these plans with those you lead and help them to practice them. On Pan Am Flight 736, many of the survivors were veterans who had military training. That training prepared them to be able to act decisively during the crash. In a church setting, encourage your church leadership to have plans for inclement weather, for further closings due to another pandemic, and for how your church may change if giving and attendance do not rebound to pre-pandemic rates. If you see a possible crisis in the future, work towards a general plan to deal with the crisis.
Second, experts suggest that leaders increase their communication during a crisis. Issue clear, concise warnings about the situation. Communicate the plan to address the needs revealed by the crisis. Communicate expectations and anticipate the consequences. If your church now has an inclement weather plan, communicate that plan, what triggers that plan, and what triggers a return to “normal.” In situations where normative influence is driving the normalcy bias (people do not react, because they do not see others react), communication is key to overcoming that influence. Constant communication raises the likelihood that a plan will be followed and reduces the potential for a biased response to disaster. These strategies are not infallible. The nuclear team at Chernobyl had training and preparation, but were still slow to react. In natural disasters, the danger is communicated consistently, and yet many refuse to believe the evidence. There is no certain way to overcome normalcy bias.
Leaders who recognize crises and respond appropriately are often ridiculed, ostracized, sabotaged, and accused of overreacting. Moses faced significant resistance from the people of Israel. During the Chernobyl disaster, Yuri Bagdasarov, the shift chief at a reactor next to the disaster, realized that his reactor no longer met safety measures, and the roof was on fire. He was repeatedly denied permission to shut down his reactor, until he eventually defied his superiors and disabled the reactor anyway. His reaction prevented disaster, but at the time, his actions were met with disdain.
There are no shortage of difficulties facing the American church right now. We can cite the decline of orthodox Christian beliefs, even among clergy. We can point to other difficulties as well, such as the misguided focus on entertainment over discipleship, the consumerist mindset of the average American churchgoer, and declining attendance rates. In my denominational context, I can cite the likely impending split of our denominational structure. And most of us see how our churches will inevitably change after COVID-19, even if we do not know where those changes will lead.
In this in-between time after the initial shutdowns of COVID-19, but before we have recovered completely, many are overwhelmed by the changes. We may rely on news sources that undersell the difficulties in front of us. We may struggle with cognitive dissonance created by a global pandemic that was out of our control and struck in ways we do not completely understand. Many church members long for some sense of normalcy and control. Therefore, even small, necessary changes may seem overwhelming. We are all facing our own normalcy bias to accommodate change.
We should expect resistance to actions that acknowledge and face crises head-on. Those that we lead, and those that lead us, likely will under-react to what is happening. People may resist and even sabotage our efforts to address challenges directly. This is not because they are unwise or sinful; this response is entirely human. It is an unpopular time to be a leader who recognizes an emergency and calls for something new. But this is what God calls us to do.
If you are facing heavy resistance now, I encourage you to view it again in light of the normalcy bias. I encourage you to take heart that you are not the only leader facing difficulties, and while your response may not be well-received now, responding to a crisis is always better than ignoring it. We were called to be the church not only in peace and prosperity, but also in crisis and challenge.
Jonathan Hanover is a pastor and ordained elder in the West Ohio Conference of the United Methodist Church. You can follow him on Twitter @jonathanhanover.