The decision to evacuate: a study of the motivations which contribute to evacuation in the event of fire

Fire Safety Journal, 9 (1985) 257 - 265 257

The Decision to Evacuate: a Study of the Motivations which Contribute to Evacuation in the Event of Fire*

DAVID TONG and DAVID CANTER

Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH (U.K.)

(Received October 25, 1984)

SUMMARY

This paper reviews the literature relevant to the issue o f motivation to evacuate a building in the event o f fire. Two traditional approaches to evacuation research, the physical science and 'panic' approaches are considered critically. I t is argued that they lead to a mechanistic explanation o f motivation. The findings o f three recent psychological studies are then presented. These introduce a model o f human action which illustrates that evacuation is not motivated by discrete factors but is derived from information processing and decision making. The implications o f this new analysis for future research are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this report is to review the literature which is relevant to the problem of motivating evacuation from a building in the event of fire. The report draws mainly on the findings of those research programmes under- taken within the last decade to build a general understanding of the types of behaviour adopted by victims to cope with fires. Much of this research has addressed issues associated with evacuation, however, it has not presented a unified account of the motivations which lead to people leaving a building which is on fire. This report is intended to present such an account.

*This report was prepared under a contract granted to the University of Surrey by the Department of the Environment]Fire Research Station of the Building Research Establishment, Borehamwood, Herts. WD6 2BL, U.K., Project Number FS 204.

Commonly, it is simply thought that people evacuate when they know that a fire exists. It is argued here that events are more complex than this in that people are known to cope differently with fire; some, for example, by not evacuating. If the motivations involved in evacuation are to be understood there is a need to examine closely how people develop their own individual responses. There is a need to understand what information is sought when people decide what to do, and what is most important to them when they make choices between the different, possible options for coping.

By including human information processing and decision making within the framework which is used to analyse evacuation, a depar- ture is made from the tradition of explaining motivation by the psychological theory of stimulus and response. It allows evacuation to be treated as a process into which mental activity is integrated, rather than as a simple physical movement away from fire {stimulus- response theory) views evacuation as an instinctive, primitive, 'flight' response to a threatening stimulus. This cannot account for the complexities of human actions which result in diverse responses to the same, dan- gerous stimuli.

The failure to develop an account of motivation to evacuate more sophisticated than that provided by stimulus-response psychology has resulted in what can be described as (a) the 'panic' approach, and (b) the physical science approach. They will be reviewed in turn, and their validity will be challenged to make way for an analysis of motivation where less at tention is paid to the uncritical influence of external factors upon behaviour; rather, the emphasis will be on the individual as the controller of action.

© Crown copyright 1984 © Elsevier Sequoia/Printed in The Netherlands

258

THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE APPROACH TO EVACUATION

The literature concentrates on people evacuating buildings within specific time periods. This research is based on a model of human behaviour which suggests that when people are evacuating they behave like neutral objects such as ball bearings. The model is analogous to those used in the physical sciences, and ignores the significance of individual characteristics and fails to take account of the fact that behaviour is influenced by personal evaluations of the socio- physical environment.

The research carried out within the physical science approach focuses on issues such as the flow rate of an evacuating populat ion, the evacuation time and certain building variables, for example, exit width and maximum travel distance. A number of the studies which investigate these variables have achieved a degree of consensus in their findings but considerable disparities are also evident. Since these studies have been widely reviewed [ 1 - 4], detailed comments will not be repeated here but the general validity of the research will be discussed.

Essentially the research is questionable on two counts. It is built on invalid theoretical assumptions and has been conducted in in- appropriate investigative conditions.

Methodological deficiencies The methodological flaws are very basic in

that none of the studies collected data during emergency conditions or using heterogeneous building populations. For example, Togawa's [5] measurements were gathered from ob- servations of peoples' movements during normal occupancy. Similarly, Peschl [6], carried out studies under controlled labo- ra tory conditions, with a homogeneous, fit and young populat ion. Neither of these studies accurately reflect the conditions which prevail during an emergency. Further criticism is offered by Pauls [7], who contests the way in which test data has been used to contr ibute to design standards. Often, re- ported maximum or peak flow rates are mis- interpreted and used in standards where mean sustainable flow is the more appropriate figure to be applied for fire planning pur- poses.

Theoretical deficiencies Pauls [7] develops a thorough critique of

the physical science approach with a theoretical analysis of the 'unit width' concept. It is widely believed that crowd movement in emergencies is compatible with unit width. This measurement assumes that an adult male with average shoulder dimensions requires an exit width of 530 mm and, therefore, two similar males exiting at the same time will need 1060 mm. Calculations of evacuation flow based on this measure thus imply that people move shoulder-to-shoulder, in straight lines and that t ime is lost by males who are broader than average and this loss is directly compensated for by males with narrow shoulders.

Pauls argues that calculations based on 'unit width' are inaccurate because people do not always move shoulder-to-shoulder during evacuation; rather, they a t tempt to maintain their requirements for personal space. In ob- servations of movement on staircases he found that an evacuating populat ion did not use the full width of the space available. They typically left a 150 mm zone unoccupied at either side of the staircase. Consequently, predictions of evacuation flow are more precise when based on movement through the space actually used. This is calculated by subtracting 300 mm from the width of the escape route to produce a measure termed the 'effective stair width' .

In addition to this finding, Pauls has iden- tified a number of factors which influence evacuation flow. These are not physical constraints but relate to the characteristics of the evacuating population. It appears, for example, that the size of the evacuating populat ion has an effect on flow rates, in that increases in populat ion numbers cause higher rates of flow. This effect is most dramatic when fluctuations occur in the overall size of generally small populations. Thus, it can be predicted that egress routes which carry small populations will not achieve optimal flow rates. The effect is described by Pauls as analogous to pressure in the hydraulic model, which illustrates that his work retains the influence of the physical science approach. In seeking a psychological explana- t ion it may be suggested that larger populations introduce an 'urgency factor ' . Clearly, this important positive effect needs to be

given a fuller explanation, especially when it is considered that behaviour in fires is commonly described in terms of a panic reponse which is naively associated with large populations [8].

Perhaps Pauls' most interesting break from the physical science tradition lies in his discovery that patterns of building use which are found in normal circumstances have an effect on evacuation behaviour. His evidence points to the fact that exit routes which carry high loads in normal use are used most frequently for evacuation. These larger egress populations cause a 14% increase in mean evacuation flow as a result of the effect described above. Similarly Pauls found a 9% increase in flow when the exit route led to the main lobby or reception area of a building. The popularity of routes leading through a reception area is again due to their frequent use in normal conditions and because a reception area is often a centre of communications. People are known to actively seek information during an emergency [9, 10] in an at tempt to clarify what is usually an ambiguous situation, and a reception area can form a useful source of information.

The identification of these factors repre- sents an important and influential advance in our understanding of evacuation. There are indications that some researchers working with the physical science approach have recognised the need to broaden the scope of evacuation research. For example, Melinek and Booth [2] point out,

" t h e d i f fe rence b e t w e e n observed and predicted evacuat ion t imes . . . is p r o b a b l y due to t he t ime t a k e n to r e spond to t he a la rm and reach the staircase. People will o f t en no t r e spond ini t ia l ly to an e m e r g e n c y alarm. I t is i m p o r t a n t to ensure t h a t t hey do re- s p o n d . " (p. 9)

This type of comment illustrates the im- portance of psychological studies which explore the early, motivational stages of response and provide a fuller account of evacuation behaviour than was at tempted by Pauls. It must be noted that this report does not consider the motivational effects of fire alarm warnings since this is regarded as a separate issue.

259

THE PANIC APPROACH TO EVACUATION

There has been a resistance to psychological studies of human action in fire because of the belief [11, 12] that the term 'panic' provides a sufficiently accurate description of people's response to hazardous events. Sime [8] has pointed to the essential dif- ficulty associated with the use of the term 'panic', in that it has "ruled out attempts to examine directly people's experiences of coping in a fire situation". It is a term used as a general, global description which ignores the potential diversity of the human response and its simplicity at this level has linked it with the physical science approach to evacuation.

It is commonly stated or implied in the regulatory literature that panic is caused by a number of physical constraints, of which Sime [8] produces an exhaustive list. Because there is a belief that behaviour is controlled by the environment in this way, no account is taken of the social context of behaviour. Thus, in turn, panic has been associated with individualistic responses and characterised by "self-preservation at all costs, by 'irrational' animalistic behaviour involving the break- down of group ties (i.e. 'non-social' behaviour: ignoring of group members, or 'anti- social' behaviour: kicking, trampling)" [13]. Evidence will be presented to show that this is an inaccurate generalisation; however, this type of description has implications for the ways in which motivation to escape is explained.

E X P L A I N I N G M O T I V A T I O N TO E V A C U A T E WITH THE P H Y S I C A L SCIENCE AND PANIC A P P R O A C H E S

It is assumed in the 'panic' approach that people cease to act rationally when they are faced with fire conditions which, because they are unique, are held to be a completely independent event in the life of the fire victim. The past experience of the victim and their activities prior to the fire are ignored. Within this framework the victim is viewed as inert until the fire arises as an external stimulus. The genesis of action is attributed to an energising effect which is either associated with the stimulus, for example it may be

260

threa tening, or associated with the person w ho is driven to fulfil a 'need ' , such as a need for safety. Ostensibly this perspect ive ignores the in terpre ta t ive capabili t ies o f people , as does the physical science approach , and suggests tha t the abil i ty to cons t rue the wor ld and ant ic ipate events are no t i m p o r t a n t inf luences on behaviour . As such these t radi t ional approaches have lit t le to say a b o u t the psychological an teceden t s o f evacuat ion.

The deficiencies of this t ype o f stimulus- response psycho logy have been widely n o t e d and several a l ternat ive theor ies deve loped , fo r example , by Kelly [14] . In the present con- t e x t the inadequacy o f the s t imulus-response t heo r y will be demons t r a t ed with evidence drawn f rom empirical studies o f behaviour in fires. The need to explain mot iva t ion with this t ype o f research, which fully investigates the cond i t ions f rom which a par t icular t y p e o f behaviour such as evacuat ion emerges, has been made clear by Ve rnon [15] . She argues

".. . we must admit we can say little as to the nature of these (motivational) forces. Thus it seems best to consider the various types of human behaviour commonly regarded as motivated, and the circumstances in which they arise. When more is known of these, it may be possible to classify them adequately and to seek for their underlying physiological and psychological causes." (p. 11)

With this r e q u i r e m e n t in mind it is appro- pr ia te to tu rn to the detai led studies which deal d i rec t ly with the substant ive issues relat ing to mo t iva t ion to evacuate.

D E V E L O P I N G A PROCESS M O D E L OF EVACUATION

There fol lows a review of th ree studies, each o f which has deve loped our knowledge o f evacuat ion in a un ique and i m p o r t a n t way. Cumulat ively t hey i l lustrate the inadequacy o f regarding fire victims as iner t beings who are inst inct ively mot iva ted to evacuate when they are th rea tened . The studies make clear the fact tha t evacua t ion canno t accura te ly be descr ibed as ' f l ight ' behaviour , since this ignores the considerable menta l or cognit ive act ivi ty which accompanies any complex piece o f behaviour . Evacua t ion emerges over t ime as the selected coping s t ra tegy and this

sequential deve lopmen t means tha t it is more precise to regard evacuat ion as a process.

Wood's questionnaire study [ 16 ] Wood carried ou t the first sys temat ic

exp lo ra t ion of behaviour in fires with research based on ques t ionnai re interviews of fire victims. His results i l lustrate tha t mot iva t ion to evacuate is re la ted to the fol lowing variables.

Gender Women are more l ikely to evacuate imme-

dia te ly than men, w h o initially t end to f ight the fire. This implies tha t decisions relate to social behaviour and gender roles.

Knowledge o f an escape route If people are aware tha t an escape rou te

exists then they are less l ikely to leave, because they feel less t h r ea t ened by the fire. Thus, the mot iva t ion to escape is on ly dom- inant when o the r object ives, such as ext in- guishing the fire, are perceived as unat ta in- able.

Intensity and spread o f smoke The presence and dens i ty o f smoke is

d i rec t ly re la ted to the level of perceived th rea t so tha t smoke encourages people to leave. This re la t ionship outweighs the in- creased diff icul t ies in mobi l i ty which are con- t ingent with the presence o f smoke , which might de te r escape a t t empts .

Previous experience o f fire People are less likely to leave if t h ey have

exper ienced a fire previously. I t would appear tha t people w h o have learnt t ha t t hey can cope wi th a fire th rea t believe tha t t hey can pursue object ives o the r than evacuat ion.

Training The more training an individual has re-

ceived, the m o re the person is l ikely to a t t e m p t to con t ro l the th rea t and so is less l ikely to leave. Again, the learning fac to r is impor t an t , bu t it is l ikely tha t fire t raining in occupancies such as hospitals will give the individual a set o f organisat ional responsibil- ities to which t h ey are also responding, in- d e p e n d e n t l y o f the in tens i ty o f the threat .

Direct threat perception If a fire is judged to be extremely serious

then those facing the threat are more likely to leave.

These findings are a useful background in a field where previously very little was known. Wood has found that behaviour during fires is influenced by social roles and that different groups within the sample displayed distinctive patterns of response. This would suggest that evacuation is not a random, irrational 'panic' response even though people are acting under stress.

Despite these useful contributions, Wood's work has a number of shortcomings leaving m a n y patterns of behaviour contained within the data unexplored. For example, the manner in which the factors listed above operate in combination with each other is unknown. It is also unknown whether some variables have a more profound effect on motivation than others. An additional omission was the failure to produce an account of the development of a response strategy over time. It was, therefore, im- possible for him to examine how responses developed with respect to the changing fire conditions. Finally, Wood took as the starting point of his investigation the moment when a person knew that a fire existed, but, subse- quent research has shown that this overlooks one of the critical periods of response when an initially ambiguous situation is clarified.

Wood's questionnaire approach has been repeated by Bryan [17] and Haber [18]. Haber's concentration on hospital fires, in contrast to Wood and Bryan's work with domestic incidents, showed that decisions were taken which responded to institutional and organisational goals. In the main, Bryan repeated Wood's findings except that he did not find gender or previous experience of a fire to affect response clearly one way or the other.

Canter, Breaux and Sime's general model of human behaviour in fires [19]

To rectify the weaknesses of the research methods discussed above, a number of studies were carried out. For example, Edelman, Herz and Bickman [20] used an interview technique which was a more flexible and inter- active method of data collection than had

261

previously been used. Similarly, Canter, Breaux and Sime [19] conducted open-ended interviews with fire victims to obtain their data. This technique did not artificially break up accounts of the evacuation process in the way that questionnaires do. Rather, the sequential flow of events which occurred during the fire could be recorded directly.

This methodological innovation allowed Canter et al. to follow the development of a response strategy from the point at which an initial alerting cue was perceived to the time when the sequence was concluded, by rescue or evacuation for example. It became clear that in the early stages of a fire people have to cope with a prevailing state of uncertainty. This uncertainty results from the ambiguous nature of the information available so that fire victims consistently become involved in investigative and exploratory actions to deter- mine the nature of the threat they are facing. The cues which most commonly motivated an initial inquiry by building occupants were strange noises, unaccustomed behaviour of others, such as running, and occasionally there was a direct encounter with smoke or flames. Consequently, in many cases, there was no initial motivation to evacuate but a strong commitment to reduce the uncertainty introduced by these perceptual cues.

Uncertainty reduction is thus an important theme describing behaviour, particularly in the initial stages of a fire. A second major theme has arisen from the work of Canter et al. who have argued that behaviour in fires relates to a role-rule model. This can best be understood in the context of the general be- havioural model they produced (Fig. 1).

This general model provides a strong basis on which to refute the 'panic' description of behaviour. It supports and refines Wood's [16] earlier finding that fire victims do not behave in an irrational manner; rather, as their responses develop sequentially through the model, from ' interpretation' to 'action', consistencies could be found in the behaviour of various groups. These consistencies can be explained in terms of the role-rule model. This model postulates that people's conduct is guided by a set of expectations they have about their purpose in a particular context. The general framework formed by these expectations is known as their 'role'. The activities which they engage in to fulfil their role

262

Stages

1) Interpret

2) Prepare

3) Act

Receive Information

Ignore ~ Investigate

Instruct Explore Withdraw

Evacuate Fight Warn Wait

Fig. 1. General model of human behaviour in fires.

are influenced by guiding principles or 'rules'. Canter et al. argue that when faced with a fire threat, an individual's behaviour contin- ues to be guided by the role-rule influences which had been operating prior to the emer- gence of the threat.

Sime's analysis of affiliation during evacuation [21, 22]

Sime added further sophistication to the developing account of evacuation with a study using the witness statements of fire victims involved in the Summerland fire [21, 22]. He found that there was a distant, uninvolved relationship between staff and customers which resulted in different evacua- t ion behaviour between the two groups. The staff almost exclusively left by the fire exits, whereas a considerable propor t ion of customers left by the main building exit.

This behaviour is discussed in terms of an 'affiliative model ' , which his data support. A possible interpretat ion of his findings is that the 'rules' which guided behaviour in the Summerland fire were the rules of affiliation. These predict that people under threat seek security with the familiar; they move to familiar places and people. This explanation accounts for the different choice of exits, in tha t the staff used the fire exits on a daily basis to enter and leave the building. The customers had no familiarity with the fire exits. Only those customers located in an area of the room adjacent to the fire exit received guidance from staff, who encouraged them to select the alternative means of escape.

These results are interesting because they can be contrasted with the findings of an earlier study of the Kentucky Supper Club

fire [23]. In this incident, a close relationship existed between patrons in the dining rooms and the waitresses who served them. When fire broke out, waitresses guided to the exits exactly those patrons for whom they had had responsibility prior to the fire. These con- trasting results show that caution is required if the role-rule model is to be used as a pre- dictive tool. Equivalent role groups will not always display identical patterns of response; rather it is the nature of the relationship between two different role groups that some- times shapes behaviour.

Sime [21, 22] noted that affiliative behaviour had other consequences in that separated individuals responded quickly to ambiguous cues, whereas intact family groups did not begin to evacuate until there was a clear sign of the fire threat. This finding is consistent with the results of an earler study by Latane and Darley [24] who found that lone individuals responded more quickly to smoke. A possible explanation of this is that a feeling of security is gained from being part of a group. In addition there are social pressures of con- formity within a group so that individuals are reluctant to respond because of the possibility that the cues represent a 'false alarm'.

EXPLAINING MOTIVATION TO EVACUATE WITH A PROCESS MODEL

The findings reviewed in the previous sec- t ion represent a radical development in our understanding of evacuation. The main con- clusion which can be drawn from this research is that the simplistic stimulus-response view of evacuation, as a mechanistic withdrawal from danger, can be replaced with a greatly

refined account of behaviour. This account makes it clear that the antecedents of evacuation can be analysed to explore the variety of considerations which fire victims have in mind when responding to a fire. The manner in which coping strategies emerge from investigative activity and develop over time illustrates that a process model relates more accurately to the experience of the fire victim than do the physical science and 'panic' approaches. However, these studies have not produced a concise list of discrete factors which will motivate evacuation in the event of fire.

Wood's [ 16 ] initial investigation revealed a set of relevant variables which influence evacuation, however, being uncoordinated they lacked explanatory power. Canter et al. [19] were able to support Wood's finding that particular groups display consistencies in their behaviour and refine this into a coherent model. This model has facilitated insights into typical features of the coping strategies which can now be interpreted to account for motivation to evacuate.

The discovery that people's response in the early stages of a fire can be characterised as uncertainty reduction provides a firm base from which to refute the 'panic' approach to evacuation as an instinctive response. Evacuation only occurs after information has been collected from investigative activity and appraised in a decision- making process. In this process other options for coping are assessed in relation to the physical limitations imposed upon behaviour by the fire. This explains why it has not been possible to derive a discrete set of conditions which will motivate evacuation. It is the complex interplay of factors; physical constraints, personal intentions, and perceptions of the possibilities for coping which are resolved in a decision-making process which result in the choice to evacuate.

This type of analysis is consistent with Annett 's [25] description of motivation as 'feedback in action' (p. 119), which suggests that people are continuously acting in response to new information rather than being motivated from an inert condition. Another relevant theoretical postulate is White's [26] belief that individuals display an 'autonomous capacity to be interested in the environment' . This interest is termed 'effectance motivation'

263

with behaviour regarded as a continuous at tempt to attain competence through interaction with the environment. It appears that uncertainty reduction is an example of effectance motivation with people investigating ambiguities in the environment to ensure their competence is not threatened.

The operation of role-rule consistency supports this view of motivation, as will be made clear in the following examples. In domestic fires [19] the response of victims relates to the role of the individual in their own home as well as to the proximity of the fire. This gives rise to strong concerns for the safety of others and for the prevention of damage. There is, consequently, a tendency to delay evacuation in order to achieve these goals. This is direct evidence that evacuation will not necessarily be a response to a particular set of fire conditions but will relate to the achievement of alternative objectives and assessment of the developing fire threat. In hotels the possibilities for action are much more diverse but there are still consistencies. There is a tendency for people to first dress, because they expect to encounter others, then to investigate, and finally, to return to their rooms. Canter et al. [19] note,

" f r o m a role-rule perspective this is suggesting that many hotel guests may well associate the role of being a guest with expected actions linked to their hotel room. The r o o m may be regarded as the only setting which is unique to the guest and private to them. Is it perceived as ~ natural place to escape f rom danger ? " (p. 129)

Affiliative rules provide a good example of the way social influences mediate between the physical nature of the fire threat and the choice of a coping strategy. This again makes clear the complexity of the motivation issue; however, the identification of the themes of affiliation, uncertainty reduction and role- rule consistency does support Vernon's [15] contention that the classification of underlying psychological factors is the most fruitful way forward in understanding motivation. Additional research may be expected to reveal other themes so that a more complete account of the evacuation process is given. However, even without further refinement, this new understanding of evacuation offers such considerable advantages of descriptive clarity over the term 'panic' that the latter should be regarded as redundant.

264

DISCUSSION

I t has been argued in this r e p o r t t ha t it is no t possible to iden t i fy a set o f physica l con- d i t ions which will inevi tably m o t i v a t e evacua- t ion. R a t h e r peop le are a ler ted by a var ie ty of aud i to ry , visual or o l f ac to ry cues, t hen be- c o m e involved in a process o f i n f o r m a t i o n search, appraisal and decis ion mak ing f r o m which evacua t ion m a y emerge as the chosen cop ing s t ra tegy. This perspec t ive does n o t ignore the possibi l i ty o f o the r ob jec t ives such as f ight ing the fire and f inding m e m b e r s o f the i r family .

Cur ren t ly , however , there is no deta i led under s t and ing o f the way in which in fo rma- t ion is selected and appra i sed to shape cop ing s trategies dur ing fires. There is no k n o w l e d g e o f w h e t h e r a h ie ra rchy of cop ing objec t ives m a y exist , for example . The works of Janis and Mann [9] and Shalit , Car ls tedt , Car ls ted t and Shali t [27] are in teres t ing a t t e m p t s to mode l decis ion mak i ng unde r stress, however , t h e y are general mode l s and do n o t e luc ida te the heuris t ics which are used in fire condi- t ions. There is a need to deve lop research on the p e r c e p t i o n o f hazards so t ha t the d imen- sions on which fires are eva lua ted b e c o m e m o r e fully u n d e r s t o o d .

The pauc i ty o f knowledge a b o u t hazard p e r c e p t i o n exists in spi te of the cu r r en t p o p u l a r i t y o f research in the area o f risk p e r c e p t i o n [28] . U n d o u b t e d l y this is because o f the pract ical dif f icul t ies [3] o f car ry ing ou t psycholog ica l research in re la t ion to fires. However , Cante r [29] has suggested t ha t the re are new o p p o r t u n i t i e s for research in this area m a d e possible by advances in com- pu te r s imula t ion t e chno logy . S o m e progress has been m a d e in this d i rec t ion by Stahl [30] w h o has deve loped a series o f c o m p u t e r p rog rams which mode l decis ion behav iou r in fires. These do no t , however , shed any light on the initial appraisal o f fire condi t ions . I f i n f o r m a t i o n process ing o f fire v ic t ims is to be invest igated, a m u c h m o r e in terac t ive t y p e o f s imula t ion is requi red and this is a direc- t ion which fu tu re research m u s t m o v e towards .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This pape r f o r m s pa r t o f the w o r k o f the Fire Research S ta t ion , Building Research

Es tab l i shment , D e p a r t m e n t o f the Environ- men t . I t is c o n t r i b u t e d by permiss ion of the Direc tor , BRE.

REFERENCES

1 F. I. Stahl and J. Archea, An Assessment of the Technical Literature on Emergency Egress from Buildings, Report NBSIR 77-1313. National Bureau of Standards, Washington DC, 1977.

2 S. Melinek and S. Booth, An Analysis o f Evacua- tion Times and Movement o f Crowds in Buildings, BRE Current Paper CP 96/75, Borehamwood, 1975.

3 D. Canter and R. Mathews, Behaviour in Fires: the Possibilities for Research, B R E Current Paper CP 11/76, Borehamwood, 1976.

4 J. Pauls, Building Evacuation: a Review of the Literature, Building Res. Note No. 142, Division of Building Research, National Research Council of Canada, 1979.

5 K. Togawa, Study on Fire Escapes Based on the Observation o f Multitude Currents, Building Research Institute, Ministry of Construction, Tokyo, 1955.

6 I. A. S. Z. Peschl, Flow capacity of door openings in panic situations, Bouw, 26 (2) (1971) 62 - 67.

7 J. Pauls, Building evacuation: research findings and recommendations, in D. Canter (ed.), I~res and Human Behaviour, Wiley, Chichester, 1980, pp. 251 - 276.

8 J. D. Sime, The concept of panic, in D. Canter (ed.), Fires and Human Behaviour, Wiley, Chichester~ 1980, pp. 63 - 82.

9 I. L. Janis and L. Mann, Decision Making, Free Press, New York, 1977.

10 R. W. Mack and G. W. Baker, The Occasion Instant -- The Structure o f Social Responses to Unanticipated Air Raid Warnings, Disaster Study No. 15, NRC Publ. 945, National Research Coun- cil, Washington, DC, 1961.

11 B. G. Phillips, Means of escape from fire: exit widths, J. Inst. Min. Eng., 76 (10) (1950) 633 - 658.

12 B. G. Phillips, Escape from Fire: Methods and Requirements, E. and F. N. Spon, London, 1951.

13 J. D. Sime, Research on exit choice behaviour: implications for escape route design, in D. Joiner, G. Brimilcombe, J. Daish, J. Gray and D. Kernohan (eds.), People and Physical Environ- ment Research, Ministry of Works and Develop- ment, Wellington, 1983.

14 G. Kelly, The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York, 1955.

15 M. D. Vernon, Human Motivation, Cambridge University Press, 1969.

16 P. G. Wood, The Behaviour o f People in Fires, Fire Res. Note No. 953, Fire Research Station, Borehamwood, 1972.

17 J. Bryan, Smoke as a Determinant o f Human Be- haviour in Fire Situations (Project People), Uni- versity of Maryland, 1977.

18 G. M. Haber, Fire as Environment: Study of

Human Interaction with Fire as Environment in Health Care Institutions, U.S. Dept. of Com- merce, National Bureau of Standards, Washington DC, 1976.

19 D. Canter, J. Breaux and J. D. Sime, Domestic multiple occupancy and hospital fires, in D. Canter (ed.), Fires and Human Behaviour, Wiley, Chichester, 1980, pp. 117 - 136.

20 P. Edelman, E. Herz and L. Bickman, A model of behaviour in fires applied to a nursing home fire, in D. Canter (ed.), Fires and Human Behaviour, Wiley, Chichester, 1980, pp. 181 - 204.

21 J. D. Sime, Group affiliative behaviour during flight to building exits, Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on People and Their Physical Surroundings, University o f Barcelona, Spain, 1982.

22 J. D. Sime, Affiliative behaviour during escape to building exits, J. Environ. Psychol., 3 (1) (1983) 21 - 42.

23 R. L. Best, Reconstruction o f a Tragedy: the Beverly Hills Supper Club Fire, NFPA LS-2, National Fire Protection Association, Boston, 1977.

265

24 B. Latane and J. M. Darley, Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 10 (3) (1968) 215 - 221.

25 J. Annett, Feedback and Human Behaviour, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1969.

26 R. W. White, Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence, Psychol. Rev., 66 (5) (1959) 297 - 333.

27 B. Shalit, L. Carlstedt, B. Carlstedt and I. Shalit, Coherence o f Appraisal and Coping: Parachute Jump Effectiveness, FOA report C-55058-H3, Swedish National Defence Research Institute, Stockholm, 1983.

28 T. R. Lee, The public's perception of risk and the question of irrationality, Paper presented to the Royal Society Meeting on The Assessment and Perception o f Risk, November 1980, Royal Society, London, 1981.

29 D. Canter, Studies of Human Behaviour in Fire: Empirical Results and their Implications for Education and Design, (in press).

30 F. I. Stahl, BFIRES-II: a behaviour-based com- puter simulation of emergency egress during fires, Fire Technol., 18 (1) (1982) 49 - 65.

Documents

The decision to evacuate: a study of the motivations which contribute to evacuation in the event of fire