外文翻译----人和群体在紧急出口处的行为

《外文翻译----人和群体在紧急出口处的行为》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外文翻译----人和群体在紧急出口处的行为（8页珍藏版）》请在毕设资料网上搜索。

1、附录 外文文献 Emergency systems CHAPTER 3. HUMAN AND SOCIAL BEHAVIORS IN EMERGENCY EGRESS 3.2.3 Emergency Egress Systems Emergency egress systems provide guidance to evacuees during an evacuation. These systems include, but are not limited to exit signs, alarm system, emergency communication system, and e

2、mergency illumination system. Such systems may be essential to successful emergency egress, particularly to those unfamiliar with the facility. Uncertainty and confusion during initial stages of an emergency, for example, might cause individuals to (1) delay evacuation from a deadly threat, which co

3、uld prove ultimately fatal, or (2) behave nonadaptively and trigger a stampede. Exposure to an effective emergency communication system, on the other hand, which provides information about the emergency and safe egress, could decrease uncertainty and confusion. The abovementioned characteristics are

4、 interdependent, and may simultaneously impact occupants behaviors during an emergency. Much development on the subject can be referred to the work of Sime (1984), Bryan (1997), Proulx and Sime (1991), and Shields and Proulx (2000). 3.3 Psychological and Social Characteristics Human and social behav

5、iors in emergency situations may be described sychologically and sociologically at three levels: individual, interaction among individuals, and group. These three levels of categorization are intimately related and interdependent. 3.3.1 Individual A crowd is a collection of individuals. In order to

6、understand crowd behaviors, we need to first study the individuals behaviors. From a human cognitive psychological perspective, individuals behaviors can be viewed as the outcomes of the individuals decision-making processes. We conjecture that an individuals decision-making processes follow three b

7、asic conventions: instinct, experience, and bounded rationality. An individual may select one or a combination of these basic conventions when faced with emergencies, depending on the specifics of the situation. Instinct. Instinct refers to inborn patterns of behavior responsive to specific stimuli.

8、 Executing an instinct does not require conscious thought process. Examples of human instincts are fear, death and survival. While human infants typically function by instinct, Wills (1998) claims that adult behavior can also be largely explained in terms of instinct, and that human adults can exper

9、ience and act on instincts without being conscious of them. Adult nowledge learned through life experience can be viewed as extension of instinct. When there is a need to make decisions under high stress, following ones instincts is the most primitive way that an individual relies on in making insta

10、ntaneous and quick decisions. According to Quarantelli (1954), if an individual perceives that he/she is in an extreme life-threatening situation, his/her behaviors are likely to be driven by the fear instinct such as fight or flight. Behaviors, such as pushing others down, jumping out of windows, a

11、nd fleeing towards deadly blocked exits, occur because of fear. Experience. An individual often relies heavily on his/her personal experiences in making decisions. Because many life events are highly repetitive, an individual usually develops a set of relatively standard routines over time or from p

12、ast experience and then applies them to similar situations in the future. In the case of emergency egress, it is widely recognized that an individuals experiences can significantly impact his/her behavior (Bryan, 2003； Society of Fire Protection Engineers, 2002； Horiuchi et al., 1986； Sime, 1986), s

13、uch as the familiarity of the surroundings, safety procedures, and fire drills. However, “using prior evacuation experience to guide future evacuation decisions, may or may not produce better outcomes” (Averill et al., 2005, p.146). One observed phenomenon is that most people tend to exit a building

14、 following the route with which they are most familiar and ignore alternate routes. Decision-making in terms of following experience is usually straightforward and quick. The process typically follows three basic steps: (1) recognize a situation that is the same as or similar to an experience in the

15、 past； (2) retrieve the routines that were successful according to prior experience； and (3) carry out the routines. Bounded rationality. The idea of bounded rationality has been integrated into many conventional social theories and come to dominate most theories of individual decision making (March

16、, 1994). Rational decision-making assumes decisions are based on evaluation of alternatives in terms of their consequences for preferences. The process involves four basic steps: (1) search for possible options； (2) anticipate consequences of each option； (3) weigh each consequence against preferenc

17、es； and (4) choose the most favorable option. Such a decision process is bounded because typically, not all options are known, not all consequences are considered, and not all preferences are evoked simultaneously. Decision-making in terms of bounded rationality is concerned with combining new facts

18、 with existing knowledge for problem-solving, and it is one of the fundamental characteristics that constitute human intelligence. The resulting solution usually is more appropriate for the given situation compared to a solution obtained through either following instinct or experience； but the “rati

19、onal” decision making process does require a longer processing time. In an emergency situation where decisions need to be made instantly, an individual may opt for a faster method by simply following instincts or experiences, resulting at times to what is referred to as irrational behaviors (Le Bon,

20、 1960). On the other hand, altruistic and prosocial behaviors are commonly observed in emergencies (Bryan,2003； Horiuchi et al. 1986) which would seem to imply rational thinking during emergencies. Rational or irrational behaviors, thus depend significantly on time and severity as perceived by each

21、individual. Emergency decision-making differs from other types of decision-making in at least three ways: (1) higher stakes, (2) higher uncertainty, and (3) limited time (Proulx, 2002). According to the crisis model developed by Billings et al (1980), these would lead to increased stress. Making dec

22、isions under severe stress is different from normal situations, and different levels of stress usually give rise to different decision patterns. According to Sime (1997), when an individual is under increasing stress, there is a decrease in productive thoughts and an increase in distractive thoughts. When stress reaches a certain level, an individual may only consider immediate survival goals. Such observations are supported by the Inverted-U Hypothesis and the Signal Detection Theory (Welford,