Factors Influencing Human Behaviour in Fire - Case Study Example

Human Behaviour in Fire Literature Review Human Generic Behaviour Concepts in human development suggest that development is systematic changes and continuities that occur from conception to death (Louw, 1998, p.3). For instance, according to Sigelman & Rider (2011), changes are systematic because these changes are orderly, patterned and relatively enduring. Similarly, it involves continuities because some people remain the same or continue to behave in similar manner that reflect his or he past behaviour (p.2). Although not all changes are necessarily as seen development, most changes occurring in human beings during their lifetime are developments (Louw, 1998, p.3; Damon & Lerner, 2006, p.22). In psychology, changes in behaviour and associate processes such intending, thinking, perceiving, and feeling are positive developments that are based on cognitive processes (O’Donnell & Yamauchi, 2006, p.23). For instance, panic is caused by the belief that an imminent danger exists which usually results to safety-seeking behaviours or avoidance of feared situations (O’Donnell & Yamauchi, 2006, p.23). A person’s biological make-up, psychological characteristics, and response to social demands are called human adaptation (Asford et al, 2009, p.8). Human adaptation in the sense that humans have the capacity to adjust to their material environment. For instance, humans are able to live and survive in extreme cold, heat, and high altitude. Moreover, some of these biological adaptations are in the genetic makeup of a particular population such as shape of human body. In contrast, physiological adaptations are short-term changes such as a person who used to live a peaceful community will undergo some physiological responses when transferred to a noisy city (Haviland, et al, 2007, p.9). Culture according to Muehlenbein (2010) is the primary component of the human adaptive strategy as there are a number of cases showing culture as responsible for human genetic diversity (p.582). For instance, human’s ability to survive most conditions is due to considerable flexibility in cultural behaviour. According to Nanda & Warms (2010) human adaptation is “biocultural” as it involves biological and cultural dimensions such as shown by man’s unique evolution that resulted in the development of its biological structure and the human brain that can invent and learn. Cultural adaptation on the other hand enables man to deal with problems almost instantly or adopt solutions from other culture (p.8). Human actions and their environment are connected as the latter can place limits on human behaviour. For instance, people are becoming what they are at a given point in time not because of their knowledge and free will but due to pressure of circumstances that limit their choices -i.e. fire, flooding, stranded, etc. (Ashford et al, 2009, p.16). Similarly, a person’s behaviour is subject to modification as the occurrence of behaviour affects the environment in which it occurs (Miltenberger, 2008, p.2). For instance, when a student raises his hand in class, the teacher reacts by calling him or her. Similarly, when a person runs towards the stairs because there is a fire somewhere in the floor, others who saw him will also run towards the stairs. According to Hergenhahn (2008), the source of one’s action is not coming from the person himself but in the environment. Moreover, in order to understand how environmental events affects behaviour better, one must understand that desires, goals, intentions, and others are replaced by entirely different orientation when an unfamiliar environmental events occur (p.15). Although individual behaviour is affected by factors within himself such as instincts, personality traits, feelings, and others, his external environment such as weather conditions, information conveyed, and other people’s behaviour affects him. In other words, the environment acts as stimulus, which an individual respond. However, not all people respond the same way as their behaviour is determined by other factors such as age, sex, education, intelligence, personality, physical characteristics, experience, values, family, and cultural background (Mishra, 2008, p.230). In cultural anthropology, human behaviour, thoughts, and feelings are influenced by shared and socially transmitted ideas, values, and perceptions. In this perspective, behaviour is socially learned rather than biological inheritance as evidenced by different thought and emotional patterns of a particularly society, activities, and ideas (Haviland et al, 2007, p.9). According to Richerson & Boyd (2004), opinion, beliefs, attitudes, artistic styles, tools and technology, social rules, and political orientation are culturally acquired. For instance, in a study conducted by Richard Nisbeett and Dov Cohen (as presented by Richerson & Boyd, 2004) about the Southern and Northern population of the United States, they found Southerners to be more violent than the North because they acquired a different cultural belief that a person’s reputation is important and worth dying for. Moreover, the difference in beliefs between North and South is influenced by their cultural and economic histories, as Southerners were originally Scot-Irish livestock herders while the Northerners originate from English, German, and Dutch peasant farmers (p.3). Self-concept according to Zastrow & Kirst-Asthman (2012) is the individual’s perception of himself including his personality, strengths, weaknesses, and relationships with others. His self-concept is a product of his experience and perception of this experience (p.111). Self-concept also includes attitudes, beliefs, self-evaluation, and definition of own identity. It combines ideal (they way a person want to be) and real self-image (the true perception of himself) and since human behaviour is greatly affected by self-concept, people tend to protected their identity, image, personality, and lifestyle which is a reflection of a person’s interest, activities, and opinions (Lamb, 2009, p.76). Social process such as motivation involves both instinctive and rational behaviour where a person strive to satisfy his basic drives, needs, and goals. For this reason, there is common belief that hunger and desire for company are stimulus, that can either result to satisfaction or frustration, which is recognized, in affective science as emotion. Humans express emotions in different ways but it often involves movements such as running away when fearful, striking when angry, laughing when happy, and so on. Emotion indicates that something important is going on inside the emotional person which is often behavioural change in preparation to a certain event (Davidson et al, 2003, p.747). Learning and other social processes such as perception, attribution, and so on are in essence constructed through the habit and responses (Jarvis et al, 2003, p.50) and according to Ashford et al, (2009), people learn new ways to behave when responding to situations and they pass these behaviours to others (p.55). Factors Influencing Human Behaviour in Fire Literature particularly those that dealt with human behaviour during a fire suggest that people’s behaviour before, during, and after a fire can be predicted. For instance, study conducted by the National Fire Protection Association (2005) suggest that people behaviour in fire is affected by a number of factors such as physical limitations, cognitive comprehension limitations, knowledge of the physical setting, group size, group structure and permanence. For instance, individual actions in fire are determined by physical limitations such as the inability to move faster because of old age or physical disabilities. Similarly, a person who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs can suffer from cognitive limitations resulting to delayed response time. In contrast, an individual who is familiar with the physical setting of a building where the fire occurs is more likely to escape compared to strangers who will instinctively take the same route they took when entering the building. In group dynamics, a person’s reaction to fire is not only affected by his circumstances but the behaviour of the group. For instance, although eager to go, individuals in a group tend to wait and avoid disrupting the working of the group particularly when these individuals perceived themselves as members of a family, sport team, clubs, and so on with roles and norms to follow (p.118). These roles and norms are dependent on gender, social class, occupation, education, and others. For instance, studies conducted on the behaviour of people in fire or explosion suggests that males are more active in terms of suppressing or defusing the threat than females. Females on the other hand are more active in reporting the threat than males (International Association of Arson Investigators, 2011, p.129). Human behaviour in fires is generally a logical attempt to avoid a dangerous situation (Cote & Bugbee, 1988, p.26). However, success of attempts is dependent on factors that will affect people that are involved. The physical setting or the characteristics of the burning structure such as location and number of exits, height of the structure, fire warning and suppression system for instance may hinder escape considerably. According to the International Association of Arson Investigators (2011), unfamiliar occupants will likely experience panic and stress when they cannot find the exit. Similarly, escaping occupants (regardless of familiarity) will panic when they found out that the exits are blocked or too few to accommodate them all at the same time. The height of the structure is another important factor since some people think that they are unlikely to escape when fire occurs in a tall building. This false perception alone can lead to a number of unpredictable and dangerous behaviour such as jumping out of windows (p.130). Another problematic situation occurs when the occupants get use to repeated false alarms and wait until the actual fire emergency is confirmed. This delay can lead to a number of dangerous situations such as occupants being trapped, unable to escape, or caught by the fire itself. In contrast, although fire suppression systems can positively affect the behaviour of occupants during a fire because they feel more secured, it can also lead to exaggeration up to the point they will remain in building until the situation gets worse or becomes critical (International Association of Arson Investigators, 2011, p.130). Study of fire fatalities reveal some interesting facts about why a person did or did not do something during a fire. For instance, there are cases when dead bodies are found close to a window or door where escape is so evident (Chandler, 2009 p.473). Although carbon monoxide explains a person’s inability to reason and make the escape, some of other causes are behaviour related such as the inability to recognize the hazard, inability to react, familiarity with the surroundings, and group dynamics (Chandler, 2009, p.473). In fire situation, individuals are expected to recognize the hazard or danger that needs their attention but others do not have the mental capacity to make the proper decision and suffer the consequences. Similarly, although they can recognize the hazard, people with physical limitations cannot properly react such as the bed ridden or people with limited mobility. In contrast, those who are physically capable but unfamiliar with the surroundings may find it difficult to escape and more often than not, these people are taking the longer route and travel along the path where they entered the structure. Smaller group as mentioned earlier tend to react to fire faster while larger group seems slow as there tendencies to wait for everybody to react (Chandler, 2009, p.473). Study of human behaviour in fire in the United Kingdom similarly highlighted the presence of dead bodies in unlikely locations, which investigators confirm was due to disorientation caused by heat and smoke. Similarly, experiments on the behaviour of humans during a fire suggest that humans behave irrationally when faced with danger. Their situation is further intensified by toxic gases and in some cases alcohol and drugs, age, and disabilities (Payne-James et al, 2003, p. 356). Study of the human aspects of fire in buildings in the United Kingdom suggest that awareness of hazard and beliefs about the risk are related as participants in the study consider only consider themselves aware when the risk is greater. The study also shows that greater risk result to worry and anger which is a rational response (Harmathy, 1985, p.386). Risk-related issues were also considered in the study conducted by Prager & Rosteck (2006) where human behaviour varies during a fire. For instance, the risk is often underestimated in the developing stage of a fire, human behaviour is usually affected by curiosity and fear, and children do not flee but hide because they believe they can escape by hiding. They also found some factors affecting positive human behaviour during a fire such as familiarity with all possible escape routes, people familiar with the environment are 1.5 faster that inexperienced people, excellent visibility improve human behaviour, good physical condition, being calm and avoiding panic (p.59). Analysis and Identification of Human Behaviour in Case Studies Northwick Hospital Fire – February 11, 2009 The Northwick Hospital Fire occurred early afternoon of February 11, 2009. The fire started in an electrical plant room resulting to partial evacuation including those that are in the critical care unit. By 14:35, smoke was already escaping over the fire doors and affecting a number of patient areas. The fire was also funnelling up the side of the building, spreading through vertical services ducts and across landings near the ward block (NHS, 2009, p.16). Horizontal evacuation commenced 15 minutes after the fire broke out. 123 patients were evacuated in 23 minutes including brain injured and immobile patients, and those under coronary care. No staff and patients died but according to the report, the clinical areas and other sections were left inoperative due to the large amount of smoke that entered the area and fire fighting complications on heating, electrical, and water supply to the hospital (NHS, 2009, p.16). Analysis of the report suggests that staff were well prepared for this type of emergency as evidenced by their coordination and teamwork in evacuating 123 patients in 23 minutes (NHS, 2009, p.31). In terms of human behaviour however, there are some confusion due to lack of knowledge and idea of the exact responsibilities among hospital management. Although hospital staff was able to act using lessons learned from a fire in neighbouring university, they lack the equipment and training to use them. They are well aware of the designated escape routes (a positive human behaviour) but these routes were partially obstructed suggesting that management underestimated the risk. This is a human behaviour found by Prager & Rostek (2006); false perception of risk and source of panic and stress (International Association of Arson Investigators, 2011); a behaviour affecting the environment and other people (Miltenberger, 2008); and social transmitted values and orientations (Haviland et al, 2007) contributing to further danger. In addition, management behaviour may be influenced by self-concept (Zastrow & Kirst-Asthman, 2012), a sort of “we are in control” attitude that in reality is an ideal image (Lamb, 2009) reflecting management’s lack of concern for fire safety. Details of fire-related human behaviour in this fire incident What actually happened in this fire incident in terms of human behaviour in fires is somewhat typical and expected. For instance, patients in clinical areas suffered “anxiety” (NHS, 2009, p.29) because hearing a loud fire alarm and seeing smoke plumes escaping over the doors and funnelling, up the side of the building is undoubtedly scary particularly when you are in a hospital getting treatment. One likely reason for this anxiety is the reality that they are sick while another imminent danger is just on the other side of the door. In essence, this situation doubles their difficulty and further decreases their chances of getting well. The “familiarity” factor discussed earlier about human behaviour in fires is another reason and undoubtedly affects these patients in a number of ways. For instance, people usually come to the hospital when they are sick or visiting a sick relative or friend and therefore mostly unfamiliar with the hospital environment. Seeing fire and smoke while at the 10th floor of a building is not easy for people to deal with particularly when one is already worrying about his or her health and do not know exactly where to escape. Moreover, those who saw the fire and smoke were reasonably sick (otherwise they should be in outpatient’s area) thus a bit disoriented, bewildered by this unexpected event, and with limited mobility. It is important to note that literatures reviewed earlier are generally concern with physical and cognitive limitations along with familiarity in the environment settings which in this case were shared by most hospital patients. In contrast, familiarity with environment setting is shared by hospital staff that successfully assisted these patients out of the building. Aside from being trained in fire-related incidents, hospital staff was well-aware of the environment setting and able to travel safety throughout the building because they are familiar with the escape routes. Moreover, the hospital personnel was also influenced with what Haviland et al. (2007) termed as socially transmitted values and orientation as their behaviour was somewhat contrary to behaviour shown by nearby university staff during a recent fire incident. For instance, they were not affected by panic as evidenced by coordination and teamwork, zero casualties, and evacuation that only took 23 minutes to complete. Another fire-related behaviour shown in this incident were behaviours associated with a group of people sharing similar characteristic. For instance, although most patients were not related to each other, they were actually a group of people with physical and cognitive limitations. They belong to a group of patients whose actions depend on hospital leadership. These group-related behaviours include “waiting” for others to make the first move and tendencies to “stay” until someone tell them to do so. For instance, report concerning the incident suggests that patients only moved towards the sheltering areas when the staff arrived. Note that this transfer took the staff 90 minutes to complete suggesting the presence of limited mobility and group dynamics associated with fire. Individual patient was clearly acting as members of a group and waiting for others otherwise transfer to the sheltering areas will be short. Similarly, if individual behaviour is dominant then there should some reports that patients were running towards the hospital’s main entrance as this is the common tendency of those who are unfamiliar with environment settings. Moreover, there should be some indication that they were escaping on their own and trying to get out of the building in panic. Another fire-related human behaviour shown in this incident but contrary to common belief is that people tend to think “illogically” when faced with danger. For instance, although patients in clinical areas in the 10th floor were worried and troubled (aside from their health, mobility limitations, and behavioural impact of structure height) when they saw the flames and smoke, there is no indication that they became irrational or out of control. Moreover, escape routes were reported partially blocked with chairs and clutter (NHS, 2009) but there were no signs of panic for both staff and evacuating patients. The behaviour shown here although contrary to common belief is somewhat correct as these people were acting as a group and confident that the hospital will take good care of them. For instance, majority of the more than 100 people patiently wait for staff assistance 15 minutes after the alarm was activated. The NHS (2009) report even includes a statement from a hospital executive thanking patients and their relatives for their understanding. The fact that not a single patient or staff loss their lives or injured in the incident suggest rationality in the face of danger. Further analysis of the fire incident and the behaviour shown by the people also reveal some of the most influential factor that affects human behaviour in fire – education, class, occupation, and gender. These are group roles and norms mentioned in the previous section but a little different than expected. Normally, literature see female as the escaping and reporting type of person contrary to male’s general active behaviour against the threat. In this incident however female patients (Northwick Park Hospital is a paediatric and maternity hospital and therefore large majority of patients are female) seems acting as if they can handle the situation as instead panicking and escaping they waited patiently for help. Note that the fire situation during that time was unimaginable but they chose to wait and remain calm. Moreover, female patients’ behaviour demonstrated in this fire incident seems extraordinary in the sense that historically, this gender never behave like this. The reason probably is the fact that as patients in one hospital seeking similar medical attention, these women were involuntarily becomes members of a large informal group that is bound to act according to typical group dynamics identified earlier. This behaviour actually contradicts the common perception but in the process proved that people even on large informal group with no permanence can act rationally in the face of danger. For instance, the common perception is that people familiar with each other such as families, sport groups, and others respond and escape faster than non-established group (International Association of Arson Investigators, 2011). In this fire incident, although the reaction was to calm down and wait for help, this non-established group responded more positively compared to the behaviour of those with relational permanence. Similarly, gender did not stop these female patients from taking the most rational decision and act as a group all the way to their safety. Education and social class also plays an important role in shaping positive behaviour in this fire incident. Although there is no available evidence in literature to prove this, the fact that people working in a hospital are mostly professional (particularly those that are in the evacuation team) their actions seems organized and well-informed. For instance, horizontal evacuation of those in clinical areas occurred way before the management’s declaration of major incident. In fact, staff commenced evacuation the moment they noticed the smoke, some of them even stayed beyond their working hours, they were accommodating despite increasing workloads, and they were praised for their flexibility and teamwork (NHS, 2009). Similarly, the patients were all seems educated and belongs to the higher order of society as evidenced by their rational and cooperative behaviour. As shown in Figure 1 below, these patients (although seems in pain due to pregnancy, age, and others) they escaped in the most organize manner. Some of them were even smiling as they walk outside the Northwick hospital and happily accept their transfer to a nearby hospital. Figure 1 – Patients and relatives lined-up during fire evacuation (Wardrop, 2009) Although female, their behaviour seems positive or minimally affected by the incident may be because they are well-informed people and socially aware individuals taking their safety seriously. Compared to the case study in the following sections, the behaviour of patients in the Northwick hospital is similar to those of Sidney Stringer School but very different from the Bradford Stadium. For instance, evacuation of students in the Sidney Stringer School was undoubtedly successful because school staff and school children behaved in an educated manner. In contrast, people in Bradford Stadium were overwhelmed by the game and exhibited behaviours that are typical to people facing danger – panic- a behaviour that was never experience in both Northwick and Sidney Stringer. In summary, the actual fire-related human behaviour demonstrated in Northwick Hospital fire is in some aspect different from the common belief. First, fire and smoke do not always result to panic or irrational behaviour. Second, female can be patient in the face of danger and not always the escaping type. Third, people with education often behave and react in a well-informed and organized manner. Fourth, positive response does not always come from group permanence as non-established group can be more organized. Lastly, limited mobility is not always a problem for as long as they remain calm and trustful of those who will lead them to safety. The Northwick Hospital case study demonstrates how appropriate human behaviour can actually influence the outcome of a fire incident positively. It also demonstrated that not all people behave in similar way particularly in the face of danger. Sidney Stringer School Fire – September 25, 2007 At 1530 BST, a fire broke out in the two-storey Sidney Stringer School. The fire lasted for 3 hours but destroyed around forty percent of the building. Based on the initial findings, fire fighters and the police suspect arson as the cause of the fire. Thousands of students were already moving out of the burning building when the fire fighters arrived and nobody was reported injured or trapped inside the affected building (BBC News, 2007, p.1). By analysis, the building has no fire sprinkler system and asbestos (a health hazard) was found in the building despite the fact that it is used to accommodate thousands of children. The main concern here is the fact that school management is not that serious with fire safety and considering the fact that building contains around 1, 150 books, such attitude seems unacceptable. As mentioned earlier, although individuals are affected by internal and external factors such as the environment, their responses are different (Mishra, 2008). In this case, management’s behaviour is influenced by either experience or cultural background as despite the presence of stimulus (young children and piles of combustible books), their behaviour did not change. In fact, fire sprinkler and interests of pupils was only considered after the fire (BBC News, 2007, p.1). Note that experience and perception of this experience produce self-concept (Zastrow & Kirst-Asthman, 2012) which in this case resulted in overconfidence and false perception that fire is unlikely to occur in the school. However, similar to Northwick Park, school staff seems prepared and acting in a manner expected. For instance, people become what they are in a certain point in time when they are under pressure (Ashford et al, 2009) which in this case are circumstances associated with a burning building. Harlow House Fire – October 15, 2012 The blaze in the early hours of October 15, 2012 killed six members of Abdul Shakoor’s family. The police suspect that malicious ignition caused the fire that killed five young children and their mother. Dr. Shakoor, the head of the family who discovered the fire fought to save his loved ones from the blaze and dense smoke survived with minor burns. Evidence gathered from the scene suggests burglary but still requires some more evidence and witnesses to confirm (The Guardian, 2012, p.1). By analysis, the six family members were killed by a fire that started while they are asleep. There was no reported explosion or injury caused by a burglar or other person. There seems no fire alarm or fire suppression system installed because residents appeared unaware of the growing fire. Moreover, since it is not a tall building, their death from fire is an indication that they were unaware of the fire, trapped, suffocated by dense smoke, and unable to escape. Familiarity with environment, availability or number of exit routes, attitude towards safety, self-concept, and culture is obviously not an issue but there is a strong possibility of panic, a safety seeking behaviour (O’Donnell & Yamauchi, 2006), hindered by disorientation caused by heat and smoke and irrational human behaviour in the presence of danger (Payne-James et al, 2003). The fact they were all trapped in such as small structure suggest that they were unaware, weakened by toxic smoke, and overwhelmed by fear. However, another but stronger possibility is the fact they that those were killed are member of the same family that is subject to group dynamics. For this reason, it can be assumed that some of them were able to escape but returned to save other members. They were probably affected by group permanence, roles, norms, and cultural orientation (National Fire Protection Association, 2005). Bradford City Stadium Fire Around 56 people died while 300 were injured when a fire broke out in Bradford Stadium at about 3:40 in the afternoon of May 11, 1985. The fire occurred in the main grandstand while an approximated 5000 people were watching the football match. Investigation of the incident revealed that the fire started in accumulated trash under the wood bleachers believed to be ignited by smoking materials. There was no public announce made to inform spectators of the fire (Cote, 2003, p.1) and there was little reaction from the nearby crowd where the fire broke out (Silvers, 2008, p.82). It took the fire four minutes to engulf the main stand thus people panic particularly when they found that the doors at the back stand were locked and there was no fire extinguisher around (Silver, 2008, p.82). By analysis, the Bradford Stadium fire suggests that motivation to escape is indeed required. This reality is evident when spectators actually kept watching the match despite developing fire. This according to Thomson (2001) questions the validity of the assumption that people are motivated to escape whenever they see a fire (p.93). The event also shows the instinctive and rational behaviour expected from individuals when faced with a stimulus (the rapidly growing and spreading fire) to run away in fear (Davidson et al, 2003). Moreover, the presence of a large number of spectators in single exit suggests group movement and immediate behavioural modification such as the tendency to follow others (Miltenberger, 2008). Panic was also very evident when spectators became hysterical and jump over barriers, some were crushed while others are struggling to get out (Morrison, 2000, p.102) References: Ashford B, Winston C, & Lortie K, (2009), Human Behaviour in the Social Environment: A Multidimensional Perspective, Cengage Learning, US BBC News, (2007), Blaze leaves children off school, available online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/coventry_warwickshire/7013636.stm Chandler R, (2009), Fire and Arson Investigation, Cengage Learning, US Cole G, (2004), Management: Theory and Practice, Cengage Learning, US Cote A. & Bugbee P, (1988), Principles of Fire Protection 1988, Jones & Bartlett Learning, UK Cote A, (2003), Organizing for Fire and Rescue Services: A Special Edition of the Fire Protection Handbook, Jones & Bartlett Learning, UK Damon W. & Lerner R, (2006), Handbook of Child Psychology, Theoretical Models of Human Development, John Wiley & Sons, US Harmathy T, (1985), Fire Safety, Science and Engineering, ASTM International, US Haviland W, Prins H, & Walrath D, (2007), Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge, Cengage Learning, US Hergenhahn B, (2008), An Introduction to the History of Psychology, Cengage Learning, US International Association of Arson Investigators, (2011), Fire Investigator: Principles and Practice to NFPA 921 and 1033, Jones & Bartlett Publishers, US Jarvis P, Holford J, & Griffin C, (2003), The Theory and Practice of Learning: Second Edition, Routledge, UK Lamb C, (2009), Marketing, Cengage Learning, US Louw D, (1998), Human Development, Peason, South Africa Miltenberger R, (2008), Behaviour Modification: Principles and Procedures, Cengage Learning, US Mishra R, (2008), Industrial Economics and Management Plan, Firewall Media, US Mooij M, (2003), Consumer Behaviour and Culture: Consequence for Global Marketing and Advertising, SAGE, UK Morrison D, (2000), The Search for an Understanding Method, Indiana University Press, US Muehlenbein M, (2010), Human Evolutionary Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK Nandra S. & Warms R, (2010), Cultural Anthropology, Cengage Learning, US National Fire Protection Association, (2005), National Fire Protection Association, Jones & Bartlett Learning, UK NHS, (2009), Review of Five London Hospital Fires and Their Management, NHS, UK, pp. 1-23 O’Donnell C. & Yamauchi L, (2005), Culture & Context in Human Behaviour Change: Theory, Research, and Applications, Peter Lang, US Payne-James J, Busutti A, & Smock W, (2003), Forensic Medicine: Clinical and Pathological Aspects, Cambridge University Press, UK Prager F. & Rosteck H, (2006), Polyurethane and Fire, John Wiley & Sons, US Richerson P. & Boyd R, (2004), Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, University of Chicago Press, US The Guardian, (2012), Harlow house fire: police treating death as murder, available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/21/harlow-house-fire-police Sigelman C. & Rider E, (2011), Life-Span Human Development, Cengage Learning, US Silvers J, (2008), Risk Management for Meetings and Events, Routledge, UK Thomson N, (2001), Fire Hazards in Industry, Elsevier, UK Zastrow C. & Kirst-Ashman, (2012), Brooks/Cole Empowerment Series: Understanding Human Behaviour and the Social Environment, Cengage Learning, US Read More