Abstract
In order to study the formation process of Abomb suffers' special attitudes, we investigated the suffers' behavior which arouse immediately after the A-bombing, and thus made a hypothetic sheme of A-bomb suffers' behavior (Fig. 2).
As a character of this study made it necessary for us to select 54 teachers of Hiroshima University with whom we were very familiar as the subjects of the research. We used the following procedures to analyse and organize the data.
(1) Checking the data according to several factors such as respondents' physical and psychological situations, their contact and interference with others, etc. As the result of checking we excluded the unappropriated parts. (2) Investigating respondents' personality as much as possible and examining their ages, profession, and their families then staying in Hiroshima, etc. These were the second checking. (3) Excluding conjunctions and modifications from answers, as well as adjectives obviously attached afterwards. Through this procedure the answers broke up in fragments.
(4) Arranging these fragments in time order.
(5) Organizing these arranged fragments.
At first tremendous flash light came (‘Flash’). Almost all the respondents, perceiving it, took the reflex action (‘Instmctive Action’). After a moment, explosive wind came (‘Wind’), then all buildings were destroyed (‘Destruction’). All the respondents were at a loss (‘Blank I’). Immediately they asked themselves what that could be, and they judged by their frames of reference that their houses were bombed (‘Judgement I’). A few respondents who were under those destroyed building became aware that their situations were very dangerous to them, so they tried to escape (‘Action I’). The judgement that their houses were bombed included three principal factors, and according to them almost all the respondents ran out of doors (‘Action Ib’). The first factor was the counter-measure against bombing, which they were severely trained to do at that time. The second one was anxiety for the security of their families who were staying in Hiroshima. The third one was the care for injuries.
The second cluster of stimuli attacked all respondents continuously and repeatedly. They became aware of their errors of ‘Judgement I’ and then standards of ‘Action Ib’ were completely destroyed. As soon as they were conscious of destruction of their standards, they seem to have tried to find new standards of judgement, but they could not find anything. This situation would be called panic (Stages from ‘Flash’ to ‘Action Ib’ would be pre-panic).
It may be called one of the most awful panics, because it had complication of realistic fear (the first and the second cluster) and unrealistic anxiety (expectations of unexpected catastrophe).
A few respondents were stupefied for a moment (‘Blank II’). Some respondents scarcely perceived that it might be severe bombing, and they tried several actions which apparantly seemed to belong to adjustment mechanisms. But their actions were fragmental and unpurposive and they did not check their actions at all. So we should think their actions could not be included in adjustment mechanisms. On the other hand, other respondents were affected by the first and the second clusters, and so there was an appearance of the security need. To satisfy it, escape actions were taken by them (‘Action II’). In a meantime, the third cluster of stimuli attacked all the respondents repeatedly.
The effect of the third cluster oppeareatd reinforce and highten the catastrophic situation into which all the respondents had already fallen by the effects of the first and second clusters. It seems that some respondents who tried several fragmental actions, transformed from doing such actions to escaping to the directions which they thought were safe
