Community-level social support responses in a slow-motion technological disaster: the case of Libby, Montana

Our plain-English summary of Community-level social support responses in a slow-motion technological disaster: the case of Libby, Montana, by R.J. Cline, H. Orom, L. Berry-Bobovski, et al (American Journal of Community Psychology, 2010).

The study

• Authors: R.J. Cline, H. Orom, L. Berry-Bobovski, T. Hernandez, C.B. Black, A.G. Schwartz, J.C. Ruckdeschel
• Journal: American Journal of Community Psychology
• Published: 2010;46(1-2):1-18
• Cited by: 25 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

Social support is an important resource for communities experiencing disasters. However, a disaster's nature (rapid- versus slow-onset, natural versus technological) may influence community-level responses. Disaster research on social support focuses primarily on rapid-onset natural disasters and, to a lesser extent, rapid-onset technological disasters. Little research has addressed slow-onset disasters. This study explores social support processes in Libby, MT, a community experiencing a "slow-motion technological disaster" due to widespread amphibole asbestos exposure. A comprehensive social support coding system was applied to focus-group and in-depth-interview transcripts. Results reveal that, although the community has a history of normative supportiveness during community and individual crises, that norm has been violated in the asbestos disaster context. Results are interpreted as a failure to achieve an "emergent altruistic community." Specifically, community-level conflict appears to interfere with previously established social support patterns. The observed phenomenon can be understood as the deterioration of a previously supportive community.

In plain English

This qualitative study examined how residents of Libby, Montana, described social support during what the authors called a slow-motion technological disaster from amphibole asbestos exposure. In all, 71 residents of at least 5 years took part in nine focus groups and five interviews. They were 31 people with asbestos-related disease (ARD), 17 undiagnosed family members of people with ARD, and 23 people with no ARD diagnosis themselves or in family members. The authors divided transcripts into short statements and coded those about social support. Barriers to asbestos-related support were the most discussed category (38.9% of support statements). Excluding institutional sources, statements about needing support outnumbered those about observed (available or enacted) support, 12.7% versus 5.3%. Only 4 of 31 ARD participants (12.9%) called Libby supportive in general, versus 9 of 17 family members (52.9%) and 10 of 23 others (43.5%). Each group raised community conflict. The authors concluded that people with ARD had experienced deterioration of a previously supportive community, with conflict appearing to play a prominent role. They noted that results from volunteers cannot be generalized to all of Libby.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Qualitative study using focus groups and in-depth individual interviews. Transcripts were divided into thought units; those related to social support were selected and coded with a social support coding system. Some groups were compared statistically using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests.
• Who was studied: 71 Libby-area residents who had lived in the area for at least the previous 5 years, in nine focus groups and five in-depth interviews. They were people with ARD (n = 31), undiagnosed family members of people with ARD (n = 17), and people not diagnosed with ARD and with no ARD diagnoses in family members (n = 23). Dates of data collection were not stated.
• Exposure: Community-wide exposure to amphibole asbestos (Libby amphibole asbestos) from a vermiculite mine and processing plants. Routes included work, dust brought home on workers' clothes, ambient air, and contaminated insulation and building materials. The study did not measure exposure; it grouped participants by their experience with asbestos-related disease.
• Main results:
  • Of all 18,959 thought units across all focus groups and interviews, 34.3% addressed social support processes
  • Social support made up a larger share of discussion among those more directly affected by ARD: 36.8% of 8,864 units for ARD participants and 34.1% of 5,729 units for family participants. The share was 29.4% of 4,366 units for non-ARD participants.
  • Among the 6,504 support-related thought units, the most common categories were barriers to asbestos/ARD-related support (38.9%), asbestos/ARD-related support (32.8%), and non-asbestos/ARD-related support (10.7%)
  • Excluding institutional sources, needs for asbestos-related support were discussed more than twice as often as observed (available or enacted) support: 12.7% vs. 5.3% of support thought units
  • Describing Libby as a supportive community in general (outside the asbestos context) was raised by 4 of 31 ARD participants (12.9%), 9 family participants (52.9%), and 10 of 23 non-ARD participants (43.5%)
  • ARD participants were significantly less likely to describe Libby as a supportive community in general than family participants (Fisher's exact p = .004) and non-ARD participants (p = .011)
  • Few participants described the community as providing asbestos-related support: two ARD participants (6.5%), two family participants (11.8%), and three non-ARD participants (13.0%)
  • Community conflict was raised by 45.2% of ARD participants, 64.7% of family participants and 56.5% of non-ARD participants; the likelihood of discussing it did not differ by ARD experience
  • Observed spiritual support related to asbestos was discussed by 34.8% of non-ARD participants, compared with 9.7% of ARD and 5.9% of family participants
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that, despite Libby's history of supporting people in crises, people with ARD experienced the deterioration of a previously supportive community rather than an 'emergent altruistic community'. They wrote that community-level conflict appeared to play a prominent role in that deterioration.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The results suggest community conflict is a prominent factor inhibiting support, but the analyses did not focus on conflict
  • Because the results come from qualitative research with volunteer participants, they cannot be generalized to the Libby community without research that quantifies the disaster's impact
  • The sample was not meant to be representative
  • Libby is only one slow-motion technological disaster, so other such disasters need study to assess whether the findings generalize

Mines named here

Asbestos mines this study is about. Each mine's page says who ran it, when it worked, and what it produced.

• Libby vermiculite mine, Montana

All asbestos mines

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Asbestosis.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Amphibole Asbestos.

Related studies

• Social Support Functions During a Slowly-Evolving Environmental Disaster: The Case of Amphibole Asbestos Exposure in Libby, Montana — R.J. Cline, H. Orom, et al. (2015)
• A Typology of Communication Dynamics in Families Living a Slow-Motion Technological Disaster — H. Orom, R.J. Cline, et al. (2012)
• Technological disasters--towards a preventive strategy: a review — N. Andersson (1991)
• Exposure to asbestos-containing vermiculite ore and respiratory symptoms among individuals who were children while the mine was active in Libby, Montana — L.C. Vinikoor, T.C. Larson, et al. (2010)
• A review of scientific literature examining the mining history, geology, mineralogy, and amphibole asbestos health effects of the Rainy Creek igneous complex, Libby, Montana, USA — B.R. Bandli, M.E. Gunter (2006)
• Exposure to airborne amphibole structures and health risks: Libby, Montana — B. Price (2008)

Browse return to medical research.