Research from building fire evacuations has revealed that prior to taking any action; individuals first perceived some cues, then interpreted threat on the basis of the cues and finally made a decision about the action to take according to the interpretations made (Kuligowski, 2009, p. 5). According to the (City University of New York, 2002), there are six techniques that are employed during the decision- making process i.e recognition, validation, definition, evaluation, commitment, and reassessment.
The first step in the technique begins with recognition. This is whereby the individual involved perceives cues which reveal a threat of fire. These cues are often vague and not indicative of a serious fire. In this process, the situation does not feel right to the affected person and the harm is undetected until smoke, a flame or heat is evidenced through either one of the senses. Recognition is then followed by validation which involves efforts by the affected individual to establish the severity of the threat cues.
Here, the person asks questions like “Do I smell smoke” to determine the treat levels. The third step of definition involves efforts to relate the information about the threat to a variable for instance the time context. During this stage, the individual shall decide on a plan by asking questions such as “How much fire can I see” or “How much smoke do I smell?” Step four is evaluation whereby psychological actions are needed so that the person can aptly respond to the fire. The ability of the person to lessen their anxiety and stress levels is crucial.
Here, the decision of whether to face the fire or escape is made and since the fire spreads and grows very quickly, the time during this process is very short, usually just a few seconds long. After evaluation comes the commitment part which comprises of the methods the person involved will use to instigate the behaviour that is needed to execute the plan that was formulated during the evaluation process. Lastly, the decision- making process ends with the reassessment part which is the hardest part since the last process has already failed.
As more failures are experienced, the person will get more frustrated thereby increasing the likelihood of risk and injury substantially. As the probability of success lessens, the decisions made by the individual become less rational (City University Of New York, 2002, p. 9). 3. FACTORS RELEVANT TO GROUPS Group behaviour differs markedly from individual behaviour. This is due to the group and crowd dynamics that come into play. Mob mentality is prevalent within groups and people tend to follow the crowd, whether rightfully or not.
According to Kuusinen (2007), the actions of group members are not independent. As such, the members will follow the actions of the “leader” whoever that may be. In a family set- up, the leader is most likely the head such as the father or an older sibling in case the fire involves the children only. Separated groups like families which are hierarchically organized are very likely to gather together. Instead of instantly escaping to the exits like in the case of individuals, groups gather with familiar people then decide on the action plan as a group.
Individuals who are escaping from a building fire, for instance, to move faster than they usually do. But with groups especially those who are not related, people begin pushing each other and the contact among them turns physical. Group behaviour in fires there fore has the tendency of being violent and frenzied and as Kuusinen (2007) aptly explains, a throttle at the exit route may create clogging and arching causing a jam to build up. In a jam, the crowds’ pushing at the back can lead to fatal pressures being exerted at the front.
In addition, a snowball or domino effect is likely to be experienced whereby the actions of all members boil over and cause a ripple effect to the entire group. Stampedes can easily ensue and in such cases, people are very likely to be killed from being trampled on during the stampede as opposed to burns or smoke inhalation.
Read More