I used to think I had it all figured out. There were 3 classifiers to deal with
Local or Widespread? If local (ice storm, tornado, hurricane, quake), then one might reasonably expect help from other parts of the country. We do that pretty well as a nation, the response to Katrina nothwithstanding. If it's very widespread (think: asteroid strike, war, etc.) then attitudes will change.
Short term or long term? If "everyone knows" the problem is going to be limited in duration, then there's a much more cooperative attitude among those at ground zero. During an unprecendented winter storm in Alabama, people were very quick to share resources like firewood, food, and other help. The anticipation was that he local utilities would be back on in a week or so, and that the grocery stores would be there when the roads were passable.
Where is the problem occuring? Is it a major metro area, where there is little or no natural societal cohesion, or is it in the proverbial "Amish countly", where voluntary cooperative effort is the norm?
All this analysis went right down the pooper when I saw the response of NYC to the 09/11 attacks. Crime fell to near zero. Compare that to Katrina, where it all went rodeo in the areas most affected. In both scenes, there were highly localized, short term disruptions in major metro areas. In NYC, people reacted well, on the whole. In the Big Easy, it was a time of Great Suckage.
Needless to say, I no longer thing I understand anything about this.
