Influence of Dispositional and 

Situational Factors on Human 

Perceptions of Fire Risk

Justin W. Bonny

Isaac T. Leventon

Some of the data in this

presentation has not been

through the NIST review

process and should be

considered experimental

and/or draft results.
Pre-Evacuation Behavior 

During Egress 

• A growing number of fire and life safety 

codes provide performance-based design 

options1

– Egress calculations are increasingly a part of 

performance-based analyses2

• Pre-action processes play an important role 

in egress planning 

– Can lead to delays in taking action in response 

to an emergency21

– May be a more important element of required 

escape time than the time needed to move to 

a safe place 7,8

• Significant impact on required safe egress time (RSET)

2 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Pre-Evacuation Behavior 

During Egress 

• Comprehensive egress models exist that 

account for individual differences in 

occupant decision making processes 4–6

– Fidelity of human behavior in response to fire 

cues incorporated within models is still limited16

– Including behavioral theories of human 

decision making can improve the timing of 

pre-evacuation actions in egress models 

regarding 17

• Humans can fail to perceive signs of a hazardous event as 

indicative of risk 19

• Normalcy bias: tendency of individuals to fail to recognize 

aberrant signals (e.g., smoke) as abnormal

• Can lead to delays in responding to an emergency 17

– Further research is needed to identify 

individual differences that influence decision 

making 12

3 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Framework for Occupant 

Response During Emergency

• The Protective Action Decision Model 

(PADM) describes processes that 

individuals may engage in when 

encountering hazard cues18

4 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Framework for Occupant 

Response During Emergency

• Dispositional traits and situational 

factors can affect:

– Perception of cues as indicative of risk20

– Decision making regarding whether such 

cues warrant taking protective action21

• Supporting evidence for the order of 

PADM processes consists of post-hoc 

interviews and observational data17

– Open questions remain regarding the 

extent to which perceptions and 

judgments when viewing fire cues are 

influenced by dispositional traits and 

situational factors

5 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Focus of this Study

• Psychophysical models used to assess 

the point during fire growth at which 

individuals viewing developing fires 

reliably perceived:

– Deviation from normalcy

– Risk was present 

– Protective action required

• Correlational analyses examined 

whether individual differences in 

judgments were connected to 

variations in dispositional traits (e.g., 

temperament, risk-taking)

6 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Impact of this Study

• Develop a framework to quantify

occupant perceptions of fire 

scenarios 

• Use results to inform models of risk 

perception in emergency scenarios

– May enable prediction of evacuee 

behavior, accounting for individual 

differences in dispositional traits

• Hypothesis: As intensity of fire cues 

increase in room fires, the point at 

which changes in judgments occur 

will align with the PADM

7 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Judgment Task

8 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work

Participants presented with room fire 

images and asked whether a presented 

word did or did not match the image 

0.8 s

4.0 s
Judgment Task

9 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work

Each participant completed task on all 216 

combinations of 36 images (4 scenes, 9 images 

per scene) and 6 stimuli (prompt words)

0.8 s

4.0 s
Judgment Task

• Images were taken during different 

stages of fire development in 

realistically furnished rooms

– Two bedroom scenes and two kitchen scenes

10 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Judgment Task

• Images were taken during different 

stages of fire development in 

realistically furnished rooms

– Nine images per scene

– Apparent fire size/intensity varied

11 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work

time
Judgment Task

• Aflame calculated for two scenes

– Proportion of image area occupied by visible 

flames (Min = 0.00; Max = 0.80)

– Metric for quantifying apparent flame size

12 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Judgment Task

• Tobii X3-120 eye tracker and software 

used to present task

– Eye fixation data was collected, beyond 

scope of talk

• Words presented following each image, 

were selected to reflect earlier versus 

later processes associated with human 

responses to emergencies

13 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work

Category Stimuli

Normalcy Normal Ordinary

Risk Danger Emergency

Protective Action Evacuate Flee
Participant Information

• Forty participants 

– Undergraduate students from mid-sized 

university in the Baltimore-Washington 

metropolitan area (USA)

– Received course credit for completing study 

• Demographics

– Age = 20.6 ± 2.3 years

– Sex: Female, N = 35; Male, N = 5

– Race: 

• Black (N = 37 including 4 Hispanic) 

• White (N = 2 including 0 Hispanic) 

• Mixed race (N = 1 including 0 Hispanic). 

• Research protocol was approved by 

an institutional review board (IRB)

14 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Dispositional Measures

• Adult Temperament Questionnaire

– 77-item questionnaire used to assess 

aspects of adult temperament 26

– For each item, individuals judged the 

extent to which a statement described 

themselves

– Focused on four factors 27: 

• Fear 

• Discomfort 

• Attentional control 

• Neutral perceptual sensitivity

15 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Dispositional Measures

• Risk-Taking Questionnaire 

– 18 item questionnaire, observed to reliably 

assess25 the extent to which young adults 

engage in risky behaviors

– For each item, participants indicated 

whether they agreed or disagreed that a 

statement applied to themselves

– Scores were summed into two subscales

• Behavior 

• Assessment

16 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Eye Fixations

17 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Eye Fixations

• Time to first fixation

– Elapsed time to initial eye fixation to visible 

flame in image

• Linear regression

– Sequence: t(4132.739) = -14.560, p < .001

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work

18 Interflam 2019 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8/23/2019

Time to first fixation (ms)
Eye Fixations

• Total Fixation Duration

– Total duration of eye fixations to visible 

flame in image

• Linear regression

– Sequence: t(7630.540) = 33.022, p < .001

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work

19 Interflam 2019 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8/23/2019

Fixation duration (ms)
Responses on Judgment Task

20 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work

1 5 9
Responses on Judgment Task

21 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work

• Response coding:

– Normalcy, no risk, no protective action = 0

– Deviation from normalcy, risk, protective action = 1
Responses on Judgment Task

22 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work

• Binomial Regression

– Sequence N: χ

2

(1) = 70.936, p < 0.001

– Word type: χ

2

(2) = 70.947, p < 0.001

– Sequence N  Word type: χ

2

(2) = 29.871, p < 0.001
Responses on Judgment Task

23 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work

• Planned Contrasts (p’s < .001)

– Word type (Intercept):

• Deviation from Normalcy > Risk > Protective Action

– Sequence N  Word type (Slope):

• Deviation from Normalcy > Risk > Protective Action
Responses on Judgment Task

24 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Responses on Judgment Task

• Evidence of situational effects

– Slopes / intercepts varied by scene

– Can analyze effects of word type on slope, intercept 

using the average across scenes

25 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Threshold Analysis

• Threshold:

– Point at which participants reliably (75%) judged a 

word applied to an image

26 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Threshold Analysis

• Planned Contrast (Sequence Number)

– t(58.948) = 7.400, p < 0.001

– Deviation from Normalcy < Risk < Protective 

Action

27 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Responses on Judgment Task

28 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work

• Binomial Regression

– Sequence N: χ

2

(1) = 70.936, p < 0.001

– Word type: χ

2

(2) = 70.947, p < 0.001

– Sequence N  Word type: χ

2

(2) = 29.871, p < 0.001
Threshold Analysis

• Bootstrap analysis (Aflame)

– Bedroom 1 and Kitchen 1

– 973 iterations

29 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Correlational Analyses

• Significant correlations:

– Deviation from normalcy and risk thresholds 

– Risk and protective action thresholds

30 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work

Factor 1 2

1-Deviation from 

normalcy Threshold --- ---

2-Risk Threshold 0.502 ---

3-Action Threshold 0.289 0.545

Correlational analyses (Pearson r statistic) examined 

the strength of linear relations between individual 

variations in word type thresholds and scores on 

temperament and risk taking questionnaires
Correlational Analyses

• Significant correlations:

– Risk threshold and Discomfort

31 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work

Factor 1-Normalcy 2-Risk 3-Action

4-ATQ Fear 0.075 0.199 0.05

5- ATQ Discomfort 0.248 0.381 0.178

6-ATQ Attentional 

Control 0.236 0.095 -0.055

7-ATQ Neutral 

Perceptual Sensitivity 0.238 0.036 0.042

8-RT-18 Assessment 0.036 0.112 -0.001

9-RT-18 Behavior -0.048 0.012 0.075
Conclusions

• Methodology developed to quantify 

decision making when presented with 

visual fire cues

• Results suggest judgments of visual cues 

can be used to examine how humans 

perceive a fire-related emergency

– Performance aligns with earlier and later 

stages of the PADM17 as well as previous 

observational and self-report evidence 

collected from fire-related emergencies20

32 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Conclusions

• Strong positive correlation between:

– Deviation from normalcy and risk thresholds 

• Indicates that participants who judged images with 

less intense fire cues as indicative of risk also judged 

images as indicative of protective action with less 

intense cues

• Demonstrates that normalcy biases can influence 

when individuals identify cues as indicative of an 

emergency 21

– Risk and protective action thresholds

• Aligns with stages of the PADM: when individuals 

decide a situation poses an imminent risk, they are 

more likely to take protective action 17

– Risk threshold and discomfort temperament

• Greater negativity towards sensory stimulation 

→ more time needed to identify images as 

indicative of risk

33 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Future Work

• Decision making during emergencies 

can be influenced by perceived risk of 

the hazard22

– Provide participants with scenarios that 

emphasize the potential risk to others 

• May better determine whether temperament 

of individuals influences judgment

– Virtual reality can increase perceived 

presence in an environment 29

• 3D immersive videos available (e.g., wildfires, 

in-room kitchen fires)

– Can an artificial environment simulate 

real videos?

• Ability to control exact fire size, environment

34 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Future Work

• Determination of which stages of PADM 

judgment words most directly align with

– Consider different words to elucidate more refined 

differentiations in stages of the process, beyond 

broad steps of normal/risk/take protective actions

• Compare vs. actual fire size (i.e., Heat 

Release Rate, HRR, not Aflame)

• Use study to separately determine 

participants’ perception/estimation of rate 

of fire growth

• Move Survey online

– Larger numbers of participants, better statistical 

information regarding impact of dispositional factors

35 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Future Work

• Fire risk often perceived by non-visual 

cues (e.g., other sensory modalities, such 

as smell)8

– Open questions remain as to whether 

patterns in performance observed in the 

present study would be observed when using 

fire cues of different, or multiple, sensory 

modalities

• Incorporate these results into actual 

egress models

– Impact on response (i.e., predicted egress time, 

calculation of RSET)

36 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
References

37 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work

1 G. V. Hadjisophocleous, N. Benichou, A.S. Tamim, Literature review of performance-based fire 

codes and design environment, J. Fire Prot. Eng. 9 (1998) 12–40. 

doi:10.1177/104239159800900102.

2 B.J. Meacham, R.L.P. Custer, Performance-based fire safety engineering: An introduction of basic 

concepts, J. Fire Prot. Eng. 7 (2007) 35–54. doi:10.1177/104239159500700201.

3 S. Gwynne, E.R. Rosenbaum, Employing the hydraulic model in assessing emergency movement, in: 

M. Hurley (Ed.), SFPE Handb. Fire Prot. Eng. Fifth Ed., 2016: pp. 2115–2151. doi:10.1007/978-1-

4939-2565-0_59.

4 P. Reneke, Evacuation Decision Model (NIST IR 7914), Gaithersburg, MD, 2013.

5 R. Lovreglio, E. Ronchi, D. Nilsson, An Evacuation Decision Model based on perceived risk, social 

influence and behavioural uncertainty, Simul. Model. Pract. Theory. 66 (2016) 226–242. 

doi:10.1016/j.simpat.2016.03.006.

6 R. Lovreglio, E. Ronchi, D. Nilsson, A model of the decision-making process during pre-evacuation, 

Fire Saf. J. 78 (2015) 168–179. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2015.07.001.

7

J. Bryan, A selected historical review of human behavior in fire, Fire Prot. Eng. 16 (2002) 4–10.

8 M. Kobes, I. Helsloot, B. de Vries, J.G. Post, Building safety and human behaviour in fire: A 

literature review, Fire Saf. J. 45 (2010) 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2009.08.005.

9 P. Brennan, Timing Human Response In Real Fires, in: Proc. Fifth Int. Symp. Fire Saf. Sci. (IAFSS 

5), International Association for Fire Safety Science, 1997: pp. 807–818. doi:10.3801/iafss.fss.5-807.

10 P. Brennan, Modelling cue recognition and pre-evacuation response, in: Proc. Sixth Int. Symp. Fire 

Saf. Sci. (IAFSS 6), International Association for Fire Safety Science, 2000: pp. 1029–1040. 

doi:10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.6-1029.

11 M. Liu, S.M. Lo, The quantitative investigation on people’s pre-evacuation behavior under fire, 

Autom. Constr. 20 (2011) 620–628. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2010.12.004.

12 E. Kuligowski, Burning down the silos: Integrating new perspectives from the social sciences into 

human behavior in fire research, Fire Mater. 41 (2017) 389–411. doi:10.1002/fam.2392.

13 P.G. Wood, The Behaviour of People in Fires, 1972.

14 J. Bryan, Smoke as a determinant of human behavior in fire situations, University of Maryland, 

College Park, 1977.

15 O.F. Thompson, E.R. Galea, L.M. Hulse, A review of the literature on human behaviour in dwelling 

fires, Saf. Sci. 109 (2018) 303–312. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2018.06.016.
References

38 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work

16 E.D. Kuligowski, S.M.V. Gwynne, M.J. Kinsey, L. Hulse, Guidance for the model user on representing 

human behavior in egress models, Fire Technol. 53 (2017) 649–672. doi:10.1007/s10694-016-0586-2.

17 E. Kuligowski, Predicting human behavior during fires, Fire Technol. 49 (2013) 101–120. 

doi:10.1007/s10694-011-0245-6.

18 M.K. Lindell, R.W. Perry, The protective action decision model: Theoretical modifications and additional 

evidence, Risk Anal. 32 (2012) 616–632. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x.

19 N.C. McConnell, K.E. Boyce, J. Shields, E.R. Galea, R.C. Day, L.M. Hulse, The UK 9/11 evacuation 

study: Analysis of survivors’ recognition and response phase in WTC1, Fire Saf. J. 45 (2010) 21–34. 

doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2009.09.001.

20 M.T. Kinateder, E.D. Kuligowski, P.A. Reneke, R.D. Peacock, Risk perception in fire evacuation 

behavior revisited: definitions, related concepts, and empirical evidence, Fire Sci. Rev. 4 (2015) 1–26. 

doi:10.1186/s40038-014-0005-z.

21 M.J. Kinsey, S.M.V. Gwynne, E.D. Kuligowski, M. Kinateder, Cognitive Biases Within Decision 

Making During Fire Evacuations, Fire Technol. (2018) 1–22. doi:10.1007/s10694-018-0708-0.

22 E.D. Kuligowski, The Process of Human Behavior in Fires, 2009.

23 D.C. Schwebel, K.K. Ball, J. Severson, B.K. Barton, M. Rizzo, S.M. Viamonte, Individual difference 

factors in risky driving among older adults, J. Safety Res. 38 (2007) 501–509. 

doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2007.04.005.

24 D.C. Schwebel, D. Stavrinos, E.M. Kongable, Attentional control, high intensity pleasure, and risky 

pedestrian behavior in college students, Accid. Anal. Prev. 41 (2009) 658–661. 

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.03.003.

25 L. de Haan, E. Kuipers, Y. Kuerten, M. van Laar, B. Olivier, J.C. Verster, The RT-18: a new screening 

tool to assess young adult risk-taking behavior., Int. J. Gen. Med. 4 (2011) 575–84. 

doi:10.2147/IJGM.S23603.

26 M.K. Rothbart, D.E. Evans, S.A. Ahadi, Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes, J. Pers. 

Soc. Psychol. (2000). doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.122.

27 D. Derryberry, M.K. Rothbart, Arousal, affect, and attention as components of temperament., J. Pers. Soc. 

Psychol. 55 (1988) 958–966. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.958.

28 K. Knoblauch, L.T. Maloney, Modeling psychophysical data in R, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 

2012. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4475-6.

29 D. Vastfjall, The subjective sense of presence, emotion recognition, and experienced emotions in auditory 

virtual environments, CyberPsychology Behav. 6 (2003) 181–188.
Future Work

39 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
40 Presentation/Conference Name 8/23/2019
Presentation/Conference Name 8/23/2019 41
Results

• Plot of set of curves for one scenario

– Intro each data point, what the solid lines are (logistic 

curves) what the horizontal line is (75% threshold), how 

normalcy is flipped to reflect deviation from normalcy

– If all the same, say so, then so average

– If notable differences, show all four as a split screen

• Task responses

– Effect of sequence number

– Interaction between sequence number and word category

– Linear contrast codes (order of deviation, risk, action)

– Bootstrap analysis

– Discuss limitations + future analysis goals

• Threshold questionnaire scores (individual diffs)

– Model vs. individual response, planned contrast

– Proper description/overview of the math

– Big old table highlighting all the factors

– Highlight/bold key correlations of interest

– Discuss limitations + future analysis goals

42 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Pre-Evacuation Behavior 

During Egress 

• What is the what?

43 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Task Responses

Dispositional Traits

Conclusions and Future Work
Judgment Task

• Fixation (800 ms)

44 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM of 

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Header 1

Header 2

Header 3

Conclusions and Future Work
Judgment Task

• Room Fire Image (4000 ms)

45 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM of 

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Header 1

Header 2

Header 3

Conclusions and Future Work
Judgment Task

• Word Response

46 Interflam 2019 8/23/2019

Introduction

Background

PADM of 

Purpose of Study

Methods

Judgment Task

Participant Information

Results and Discussion

Header 1

Header 2

Header 3

Conclusions and Future Work