Assuming there is one :-) Well, there is some nuance. You can still die in the way Leach describes:
I (he...)prefer to talk of psychogenic death: a biological process takes place as in natural death, but it is triggered at a premature stage in the person’s life when they are under duress. (from the article I mentioned earlier). Call that moment.."not having the will to live".
[Ivo] The question here is why. Not having the will is not sufficient and not proven in that scientific sense. Is a human able to have "the will to live" under certain circumstances, and/or can it be influenced. The process is not fully understood.
He talks about extrinsic survival (in a situation not previously experienced), in which you have to adapt our behaviour. This ..required goal directed behaviour. What he tells in the article is that this capability (goal directed behaviour) is the first thing to shut down under threat. (not fail..shut down). There...the cognitive approach to survival was born.
Quote, also explained in his book: Analysis of disaster incidents show that survival behaviour follows a pattern reflected in the following psychodynamic sequence: pre-impact, impact, recovery,
rescue and post-trauma (Leach, 1994). During this sequence, victims will commonly show cognitive paralysis, stereotypical behaviour, perseveration, hyperactivity and hypoactivity.
This paralysis (mainly in the impact and recovery phase) is well documented according to Leach. The deaths, as a result of this paralysis (psychogenic death) happens (psch very often within the three days, exactly the time which is needed to recoil from a disaster in general. So, you can ask yourself how fair it is to just say : the person did not have the will to live.
Same as..he did not pick up his coffee (leaving out the fact that he does not have arms or legs), rendering is nearly impossible. IN other words, getting back to your goal oriented behaviour is BLOCKED.
In the article from robinson and bridges, it says;
If cognitive and physiological changes under threat lead to a reduction in cognitive functions such as working memory, then utilisation of areas of the brain that are more likely to be unaffected
by exposure to stressful events would be useful. For example, training that reduces the burden on working memory by laying down procedural memories on how to use safety equipment could help lead to purposeful action during an emergency. This highlights the need for safety training to incorporate a practical element, not just to rely on reading a book or watching a video.
MY PERSONAL TAKE: Having no knowledge on how our mind actually works...I do know that keeping stresslevels down will help. That means that being prepared in skill and to some extend in your mind, can help. How you respond in a real disaster (shipwreck, bombing, hostage taking, aircrash, etc.) is almost impossible to predict I would say. So..summarized, training for specific situations, simulating disasters, etc, thereby lowering the impact on working memory.
What is not addressed (a bit in the second article) is the long-term survival, for that I am not sure, if I read the information in the article. So, I think we need to conceptualize and thereby re-think the current approach on "will to survive" as a generic concept:
- immediate impact < e.g. 2 hours
- short term < 3 days
- longer term > 3 days
Or, of course, use the stages Leach describes and put "operationalize" them for the "end user to be", giving it hands and feet.
I have not read about a definite concept. I do see that for longer term, the psychological affects are quite clear, the question I have there is..how would you cope with things like boredom. Say to yourself...I have to keep busy. Whether it really works like that, in the mind, I do not know.