Table 1.

The preliminary conceptual model of human behaviour in fire

Phase	Behavioral Statement
Pre-Decisional Processes	[1] Previous experience of false alarms or frequent drills can reduce sensitivity to alarm signals, inhibiting perception processes. (21)
	[2] Some individuals exhibit hypervigilance that makes them particularly sensitive to certain cues. (10)
	[3] Habituation, focus and stress can narrow the perceptual field, and thus, not all available cues will be internalised. (22)
	[4] Sensory and cognitive impairments can inhibit the perception of cues. (23)
	[5] Content and clarity of the cue matters. The more clearly presented, without jargon, the more likely it will be comprehended accurately. (24)
[Stages 1 and 2] Assess Situation/Risk	[6] The precision, credibility, consistency, comprehensiveness, intensity and specificity of the external cues will affect the assessment of the situation and perception of risk. (24)
	[7] Authority of the information source affects the perceived credibility of the information, and in turn the assessment of the situation and risk. (25)
	[8] Normalcy bias and optimism bias are commonplace. In other words, people often think that nothing serious is taking place, and that nothing bad will happen to them, respectively. (26,27)
	[9] Training on and/or experience with a particular incident type may allow a similar incident to be defined more quickly by the evacuee. (28)
	[10] The actions of the surrounding population can influence the internal processes of the individual. (29)
[Stage 3 and 4] Protective Action Search and Selection	[11] People tend to satisfice rather than optimise. (30)
	[12] Pre-event commitment to a particular activity may cause individuals to decide against taking protective action. (31)
	[13] Authority of the source… affects the perceived credibility of the action. (25)
	[14] The actions of the surrounding population can influence the options of actions developed by the individual. (29)
	[15] Gender can influence the selection of actions to protect property. (10)
	[16] Social and authoritative roles, and social connections, can influence the selection of actions to help others. (10)
	[17] Training and experience in previous fire/evacuation events can influence the search for and selection of a particular action or set of actions. (28)
[Stage 5] Protective Action Implementation	[18] The appearance of a route can influence its use. (32,33)
	[19] The presence of smoke does not always preclude the use of a route, but can influence movement along a route. (34)
	[20] Training and experience may increase an individual’s familiarity with the use of components/devices and subsequently improve their use. (35)
	[21] People have different abilities that influence actions taken. (23)
	[221] People seek information in situations where information is lacking or incomplete. (10,34,35)
	[23] People engage in protective actions, including preparing to move to safety or helping to protect others from harm, before they initiate a movement towards safety. (34,36) These actions can also occur while moving to safety.
	[24] People move towards the familiar, such as other people, places and things. (31)
	[25] People may re-enter a structure, especially if there is an emotional attachment to the structure, the contents and/or the inhabitants. (34)
General	[26] People will behave in a rational AND altruistic manner; panic is rare. (11,34,37,38)
	[27] Evacuation is a social process, in that groups are likely to form during an evacuation. (39)
	[28] Social norms (or rules) in place prior to a fire event form the basis of those employed during the event. (40)