Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive Biases Within Decision Making During Fire Evacuations

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 15 May 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

During a fire evacuation, once an individual perceives cues from a fire event, they must interpret them to assess the new situation and determine whether action is required. It is proposed that this assessment and action selection can employ either an automatic or reflective processing system depending on the nature of the situation and the experiences of the individual involved. This decision-making process is bounded in terms of the information available, the time available, and an individual’s resources to process such information that influences which processing mechanism is adopted. To compensate for such limitations and manage the uncertainty and complexity associated with the decision-making process, people may employ heuristics that reduce decision-making from a cognitively effortful problem-solving task requiring mental reflection, to a less effortful pattern-matching process, where stored conditions and expectations are quickly scanned to identify relevant responses. During this decision-making process cognitive biases may occur which cause an individual to neglect or be biased towards certain information: this may potentially lead to an inappropriate and/or unexpected response. Cognitive biases affect performance without the individual being directly aware of them. This paper identifies cognitive biases from existing literature that may influence a person’s decision-making process during a fire evacuation, along with how these align with general decision-making in the process. The purpose of the article is to promote consideration of cognitive biases in the modeling of evacuee behavior, as well as during the fire safety design of buildings and evacuation procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 15 May 2018

    The Publisher regrets an error in the original version of this article. In Section 5, under PADM (protective action decision model) classification, “Pre-decision stage” was erroneously listed twice.

Notes

  1. These processes are frequently referred to as systems in the literature [2]. There is some debate over the appropriateness of the terminology which is acknowledged here.

  2. In a deliberate attempt to exploit the more rapid appraisal of specific situations and response selection.

  3. These stages are not addressed in detail in Fig. 2, only an indication that numerous stages are required.

References

  1. Sime J (1984) Escape behaviour. In: Fire: panic’ or affiliation? Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Surrey

  2. Kuligowski ED (2011) Terror defeated: occupant sense-making, decision-making and protective action in the 2001 World Trade Center Disaster. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Colorado

  3. Gwynne SMV, Kuligowski ED, Kinsey MJ (2015) Human behaviour in fire—model development and application. In: Proceedings of the human behaviour in fire conference

  4. Kuligowski ED, Gwynne SMV, Kinsey MJ, Hulse L (2017) Guidance for the model user on representing human behaviour in egress models. Fire Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-016-0586-2

  5. Canter D (1980) Fires and human behaviour. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kahneman D, Klein G (2009) Conditions for intuitive expertise, american psychologist. Am Psychol Assoc, 64(6):515–526

  7. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (Eds.) (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  8. Kahneman D (2012) Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan

  9. Petty R, Cacioppo J (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 19:123–181

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sun R (2002) Duality of the mind. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dolan P, Hallsworth M, Halpern D, Dominic K, Vlaev I (2010) MINDSPACE: influencing behaviour through public policy. Institute for Government, Cabinet Office

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fennel D (1988) Investigation into the king’s cross underground fire. Technical report, Her Majestys Stationary Office

    Google Scholar 

  13. Evans JSB, Stanovich KE (2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspect Psychol Sci 8(3):223–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Stroop JR (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol 18(6):643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651

  15. Klein GA (1999) Sources of power: how people make decisions. MIT Press, Cambridge

  16. Klein G, Calderwood R, Clinton-Cirocco A (2010) Rapid decision-making on the fire ground: the original study plus a postscript. J Cognit Eng Decision-Making 4:186–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Brunswik E (1952) The conceptual framework of psychology. Int Encycl Unified Sci, vol 1, no 10. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

  18. Benson B (2016) Cognitive bias cheat sheet. Better Humans Blog. https://betterhumans.coach.me/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18. Accessed 16 Feb 2017

  19. Lindell MK, Perry RW (2004) Communicating environmental risk in multiethnic com-munities. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  20. Okabe K, Mikami S (1982) A study on the socio-psychological effect of a false warning of the Tokai earthquake in Japan. A paper presented at the tenth world congress of sociology, Mexico City, Mexico

    Google Scholar 

  21. Drabek TE (1986) Human system responses to disaster: an inventory of sociological findings. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Tierney KJ, Lindell MK, Perry RW (2001) Facing the unexpected: disaster preparedness and response in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kunreuther H (1991) A conceptual framework for managing low probability events. Center for Risk and Decision Processes, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  24. Colman A (2003) Oxford dictionary of psychology. Oxford University Press, New York, p 77

  25. Gwynne SMV, Kuligowski ED, Kinsey MJ, Hulse LM (2016) Modelling and influencing behaviour in fire: modelling and influencing the evacuee. Fire Mater 41(5):412–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2391/abstract

  26. Gwynne SMV, Kuligowski ED, Kinsey MJ, Hulse LM (2015) Guidance for the model developer on representing human behaviour in egress models. Fire Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-015-0501-2

    Google Scholar 

  27. Proulx G (2000) Why building occupants ignore fire alarms. Construction Technology Update, No. 42, December

  28. Baron J (1994) Thinking and deciding, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  29. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schwarz N, Bless H, Strack F, Klumpp G, Rittenauer-Schatka H, Simons A (1991) Ease of retrieval as information: another look at the availability heuristic. J Personal Soc Psychol 61(2):195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gibson D (1977) The theory of affordances. In: Shaw R, Bransford J (eds) Perceiving, acting, and knowing: toward an ecological psychology, 1st ed., Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  32. Nilsson D (2009) Exit choice in fire emergencies—influencing choice of exit with flashing lights. Doctoral Thesis, Lund University

  33. Proulx G (2002) Movement of people: the evacuation timing. In: DiNenno PJ (ed) The SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 3rd edn., National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, pp 3–342–3–365

  34. Zmud M (2007) Public perceptions of high-rise building safety and emergency evacuation procedures research project. The Fire Protection Research Foundation, Quincy

    Google Scholar 

  35. Latane B, Darley JM (1970) The unresponsive bystander: why doesn’t he help? Appleton-Century Crofts, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kinsey MJ (2011) Vertical transport evacuation modelling. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Greenwich

  37. Oswald ME, Grosjean S (2004) Confirmation bias. In: Pohl RF (ed) Cognitive illusions: a handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and Memory. Psychology Press, Hove, pp 79–96

  38. Latane B, Darley J (1966) Bystander apathy. Am Sci, 57:244–268

    Google Scholar 

  39. Huh YE, Vosgerau J, Morewedge CK (2014) Social defaults: observed choices become choice defaults. J Consum Res 41(3):746–760. https://doi.org/10.1086/677315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kahneman D, Krueger AB, Schkade D, Schwarz N, Stone AA (2006) Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion, Sci. 312(5782):1908–1910. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1129688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Thompson SC (1999) Illusions of control: how we overestimate our personal influence. Curr Direc Psychol Sci. Assoc Psychol Sci 8(6):187–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sanna LJ, Schwarz N (2004) Integrating temporal biases: the interplay of focal thoughts and accessibility experiences. Psychol Sci Am Psychol Soc 15(7):474–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Folk L, Gales J, Gwynne SMV, Kinsey MJ (2016) Design for elderly egress fire situations. In: Interflam conference

  44. Folk L, Gales J, Kinsey MJ (2016) Evacuation simulation of the elderly: data collection and model validation. In: Pedestrian and evacuation dynamics conference

  45. Hardman D (2009) Judgment and decision-making: psychological perspectives. Wiley-Blackwell, New York

    Google Scholar 

  46. Okabe K, Mikami S (1982) A study on the socio-psychological effect of a false warning of the Tokai earthquake in Japan. A paper presented at the tenth world congress of sociology, Mexico City, Mexico

    Google Scholar 

  47. Helweg-Larsen M, Shepperd JA (2001) Do moderators of the optimistic bias affect personal or target risk estimates? A review of the literature. Personal Social Psychol Rev 5(1):74–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Geier AB, Rozin P, Doros G (2006) Unit bias: a new heuristic that helps explain the effect of portion size on food intake. J Psychol Sci 17(6):521–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01738.x

  49. The Fire at Woolworth’s (1980) Piccadily, Manchester, on 8 May 1979, Home Office, London

    Google Scholar 

  50. Reneke PA (2013) Evacuation Decision Model. http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7914

  51. Lovreglio R, Ronchi E, Nilsson D (2015) A model of the decision-making process during pre-evacuation. Fire Saf J 78:168–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2015.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lovreglio R, Ronchi E, Nilsson D (2016) An evacuation decision model based on perceived risk, social influence and behavioural uncertainty. Simul Modell Pract Theory, 66:226–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2016.03.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lovreglio R (2016) Modelling decision-making in fire evacuation using the random utility theory. Ph.D. Thesis. Politecnico di Bari, Milan and Turin

  54. Saunders WL (1997) Occupant decision-making in office building fire emergencies: experimental results. Fire Saf Sci 5:771–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Tong D, Canter D (1985) The decision to evacuate: a study of the motivations which contribute to evacuation in the event of fire. Fire Saf J 9:257–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lovreglio R, Fonzone A, Dell’Olio L, Borri D (2016) A study of herding behaviour in exit choice during emergencies based on random utility theory. Saf Sci 82:421–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arup, Shanghai, China

    M. J. Kinsey

  2. National Research Council Canada (NRC), Ottawa, ON, Canada

    S. M. V. Gwynne

  3. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, MD, USA

    E. D. Kuligowski

  4. Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

    M. Kinateder

Authors
  1. M. J. Kinsey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. M. V. Gwynne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. D. Kuligowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Kinateder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. J. Kinsey.

Additional information

The original version of this article was revised: In Section 5, under PADM (protective action decision model) classification, the correct stages are “Pre-decision stage” and “Decision-making stage.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kinsey, M.J., Gwynne, S.M.V., Kuligowski, E.D. et al. Cognitive Biases Within Decision Making During Fire Evacuations. Fire Technol 55, 465–485 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-018-0708-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-018-0708-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation