Characteristics Affecting the Cause and Outcome of a Fire - Essay Example

FIRE INVESTIGATION Aspects of Human Behaviour and Characteristics Affecting the Cause and Outcome of a Fire 1. Factors that are relevant to the individual Initially, before discussing the behaviours affecting the outcome of fires, it is worth noting that behaviour is a function of socialisation of an individual and they learn to either be an abiding citizen or not depending on their association with others (Williams 2005, p.33). For instance, criminal behaviour according to Williams (2005, p.34) was either encouraged by friends or copied by the individual from a friend. Similarly, fire setting behaviour in children is a delinquent attitude that can be traced from different factors associated with children. According to Sparta & Koocher (2006, p.384), although children at their early age can set fire and be involved in fire setting activities, the attitude is generally found among older children. This behaviour can be attributed to their way of life and the life of the children’s family. For instance, a study conducted in children’s fire setting behaviour reveals that older children who set fire are exhibiting externalising behaviour, more aggressive, cruel, and possesses less social skill competencies than others (Sparta & Koocher 2006, p.385). Sociological studies also shows that aggression, constricted emotional disclosures, family background, methods of punishments and reward, environmental conditions encourage fire setting in children (Moynihan & Pagkiaro 2006, p.33). In another study about socioeconomic relation of fire setting in children, results shows that poverty is correlated with fire setting. This is because families below poverty line tend to have less supervision and ineffective parenting due to life difficulties and stress brought by unemployment. In addition, these families typically have less education thus insufficient knowledge in the importance of safe environment (Cote 2003, p.547). Individual characteristics of a fire setter include demographic, physical, emotional, motivation, and psychiatric descriptors. These can be the tendency toward aggression, levels of delinquency, and the expression of emotion through the use of fire. Aggression is generally viewed as a failure in development unless it is identified with non-compliance and destructive behaviour (Slavkin 2000, p.24). Similarly, individual behaviour in a fire incident is affected by various variables present at the time of detection (Cote & Bugbee 1988, p.21). For instance, if they become aware of the presence or smell of smoke and the perception of the fire protection being provided by the building. It person’s behaviour during is associated with their roles, past experience, level of education, and personality. It may be also his perception of the threat and the behaviour of everyone with him. Typically, when an individual discover a fire, his next reaction would be either to alert others, notify the authorities, fight the fire, or a combination of all. However, these reactions still depends on the situation and other factors such as those mentioned above thus the resulting effects of fire depends on actions taken by humans at a particularly point before, during, and after the fire. According to Fitzgerald (2005, p.220), “humans actions or inactions are a major factor in fire losses”. Similarly, the ability of an individual to react properly to a fire is affected by physical limitations, cognitive or mental limitations. Some factors that may limit the person cognitive ability to react properly is their age, level of rest, alcohol use, drug use, mental illness, and inhalation of smoke and toxic gases. These factors can contribute to the significant delay in person’s response during a fire which consequently increased his or her chances of getting injured or die (National Fire Protection Association 2005, p.118). 2. Factors that are relevant to groups and when family members are assembled together As mentioned in the previous section, there are social factors that effect fire setting behaviour includes family, peer, and social descriptors. Again, considering human behaviours that affect the initiation and outcome of fire, descriptions of children’s motives were often used to determine the different types of fire setter groups. For example, “Curiosity Fire” setters is a group who set fire that appears accidental and due to curiosity or experimentation which is also seems the typically motivation for children. “Pathological” fire setters are those with serious fire setting problems marked by frequent intentional, concealed, and destructive incidents. On the other hand, the “Cry for Help” fire setters are those seeking attention while the “Delinquent” fire setter possesses anti-social behaviour caused by peer pressure and delinquency (Kolko 2002, p.38). In one study according to Hassel & Hersen (1999, p.98), a sever fire setter’s behaviour is associated with family variables such as rage felt because of insult, being impulsive, deficiencies in social judgement, being neglect and abuse, lost of identity or being confused of his or her true identity, lack of understanding, remorse, and regret. In addition, fire setters are often coming from physically abusive households or those with step-parent and other non-parental adult in their home. They are likely to an alcoholic or drug dependent mother. In contrast, non-fire setters are often those who already received intervention for physical abuse and those that are capable of expressing their anger. The only difference between a fire setter and a non-fire setter according to Schlesinger (2000, p.86) is the presence of their biological mother in the home. Juvenile fire setters are highly identified with unstable family and stress. The view their parents as depressed, unable to give affection, do not have the capability to supervise, and not available when they need them. Consequently, young fire setters feel rejected, bitter, and upset (McShane & Williams 2003, p.14). Similar to the effects of individual behaviour to set a fire, a person’s reaction to a fire is not only influenced by his or her own situation but the size and structure, the permanence, and the roles and norms of the group he or she belongs (National Fire Protection Association 2005, p.118). For instance, if an individual belongs to a much larger group, the tendency is not to respond sooner than the others. This is because members of group of people are typically waiting others to be first or hesitating to disrupt the activities of the group. Similarly, members of the group who perceived themselves as just members and much of a follower than a leader tend to delay their reactions or response until the perceived leader reacts or respond to the circumstances. In the same way, the extent of familiarity in each and every member of the group affects the behaviour and response time of individual. According the National Fire Protection Association (2005, p.118), the reaction of members in a long established group is much faster than newly formed group because everybody is already familiar with each other. For instance, groups that are likely to have better permanence are families, a long time established sports team, choir, and clubs. These groups have a much faster response than those attending a party or a gathering since they do not really know each other very well. Another factor affecting an individual behaviour during a fire is roles and norms of the group. The National Fire Protection Association (2005, p.119), explains that a group’s roles and norms particularly in terms of gender, social class, education, and so on can influence a person’s reaction to a threat. For instance, males are traditionally expected to react first and respond or counter a threat than women. Similarly, the women are expected to react by notifying others and escape. 3. The Impact of Physical Setting Many studies about an individual or group behaviour before, during, and after a fire can be predicted and as mentioned earlier, factors that affect these behaviours include the character of the individual or group and the characteristics of the physical setting where the fire occurs (National Fire Protection Association 2005, p.117). The individual’s knowledge of the physical setting can greatly influence his chances to escape a fire. For instance, in a much bigger and complex structure, people are more likely to escape by the route where they came from since this is the only way they are familiar with even it will lead them to the direction of the threat (National Fire Protection Association 2005, p.118). For this reason, signage informing the location of exits in a building is very important since people tend to panic and do some unexpected behaviour when they are not sure where to go. Similarly, a small of number of exits can make people panic because a restricted or blocked exit due to the significant number of people escaping have the same effect as a closed exit. Consequently, people tend to panic and expose themselves to further risk. The height of the structure also affects the behaviour of people since most people perceived that they are less secure in a tall building during a fire. Consequently, as witnessed in some actual incidents before, people were jumping out of windows to escape the fire. Fire alarms also influence how occupants recognise a threat but if there are previously several false alarms, the tendency is to delay their response and wait until the emergency is confirmed. Another factor that can influence whether an individual or group will react quickly to a fire is the fire suppression systems installed on a building. This is because the presence of this system can make occupants more secure and would not escape quickly knowing that they are protected. The characteristic of the fire also can influence a group or individual response to a threat since most people becomes concern when they see flames, smoke, and smell or feel the effects of toxic gases or suffocation (National Fire Protection Association 2005, p.119). 4. The Impact of the Characteristics of the Fire As mentioned in the above section, people react when see some characteristics of a fire. However, the presence of flames for instance, does not necessarily mean a threat particularly if it is considerably small. Some people would not react to small flames believing that it is not a hazard. They tend to ignore and disregard the possibility that this small flame caused by some common materials such as plastics, paper, woods, and so on (Dehaan 2006, p.137) can grow and could be the source of toxic gases in a matter of minutes. Similarly, the presence of smoke in a building or structure is also oftentimes disregarded because of ignorance about the toxic content of smoke. Some people believes that only dark smoke is dangerous thus ignoring the light-coloured ones (National Fire Protection Association 2005, p.120). Not too many people understand the fire tetrahedron and consequently an equal number of people do not know the role of oxygen in the burning process. Particularly, in a place where ventilation is very limited, depletion of oxygen can be fatal to occupants since combustion would release toxic by-products that can affect impaired the mental skill of a person resulting to injury or death (Daeid 2004, p.3; National Fire Protection Association 2005, p.120). 5. Reference and Critique of Specific Fire Incidents where particular characteristic have influenced the outcome. A good example of how people ignore the presence of smoke is the 1987 King Cross underground station fire. On that evening of November 18, there were already reports of a fire on the escalator but even while some of the passengers noticed the obvious sign of fire, they did not bother to make their way to safety. In an inquiry after the incident, a woman told the investigators that she saw dark smoke and suspected that there was fire. However, as she made her way to safety, she also noticed that a lot of people still moving forward to the location of the fire although there was already thick black smoke in the area (Thomson 2001, p.91). Another example is the behaviour of the people in a restaurant in Woolworth’s fire incident in Manchester in 1979. There were about a hundred people dining during the time of the incident but even while the store manager already shouted fire and smoke could be seen from the dining area, some customers ignored the warnings and continued to eat their meals (Thomson 2001, p.91). Both examples suggest that some people tend to ignore warnings and think that it is not serious enough to harm them. In King Cross, dark smoke and people fleeing away from the area is not enough to convince everybody that there was a fire. Some people ignored the warnings and preferred to go on see for themselves. People needs more than one warning or need more evidence as both example suggest, people tend to ignore the first warnings or sight of fire until they themselves feel the effects of fire. 6. Bibliography Cote A. & Bugbee P. 1988. Principles of fire protection. US: Jones & Bartlett Publishers Cote A. 2003. Organizing for Fire and Rescue Services. US: Jones & Bartlett Publishers Daeid N. 2004. Fire investigation. US: CRC Press DeHaan J. D. 2006. Kirk’s Fire Investigation, 6th Edition, US: Prentice Hall Fitzgerald R. 2004. Building fire performance analysis, UK: John Wiley and Sons Hasselt V. & Hersen M. 1999. Handbook of psychological approaches with violent offenders: contemporary strategies and issues, US: Birkhäuser Kolko D. 2002. Handbook on firesetting in children and youth. US: Academic Press McShane M. & Willians F. 2003. Encyclopedia of Juvenile Justice, US: SAGE, 2003 Moynihan B. & Pagliaro E. 2006. Forensic nursing: a handbook for practice. US: Jones & Bartlett Publishers National Fire Protection Association. 2005. User's Manual for Nfpa 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. US: Jones & Bartlett Publishers Schlesinger L. 2000. Serial offenders: current thought, recent findings, US: CRC Press Slavkin M. 2000. Juvenile Firesetting: An Exploration Analysis, US: Universal-Publishers Sparta S. & Koocher G. 2006. Forensic mental health assessment of children and adolescents, US: Oxford University Press US Thomson N. 2001. Fire hazards in industry. UK: Elsevier Williams D. 2005. Understanding the arsonist: from assessment to confession. US: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company Read More