Public Knows Little About Detectors, Fire Dangers, Toledo Survey Shows
features
Some conclusions about the effectiveness of smoke detectors in private dwellings have been reached as a result of a nine-month research project in Toledo, Ohio. Attitudes, beliefs, behavior and demographic variables related to the ownership and non-ownership of detectors were examined.
The project took two separate approaches. One entailed an experimental design type of survey comparing a convenience sample of 200 households having smoke detectors with a matched sample of non-owners. The second approach consisted of collecting data at the scenes of fires in private dwellings. These data included behavioral information on fire victims plus professional evaluations by senior fire officers on property and injury reduction relative to the presence or absence of smoke detectors.
In the analysis of findings for the survey, sub-samples were identified and compared according to whether the detector owners had voluntarily purchased their devices or had them installed as part of a federal home improvement loan. The control group of non-owners was similarly subdivided. This resulted in four groups which were labeled: owner-loan, owner-voluntary, non-loan, non-voluntary.
Loan factor impact
It was soon discovered that the matching criteria did not result in perfectly matched groups, due largely to the nature of the federal loan requirements. These differences, particularly with respect to the loan group, became important in nearly all comparisons and consequently had to be constantly reemphasized throughout the analysis.
The effect of these differences can probably best be demonstrated by constructing demographic profiles of each group and then making comparisons with the profiles in mind.
The owner-loan group, as might be expected, was at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, largely as the result of the means test for loan qualification. Heads of household were older, more often widowed, female, unemployed or if employed, service workers, lower incomes, lower educational levels, few children, more retirees, and more one and two-person households.
The owner-voluntary group was found to represent the other end of the socioeconomic spectrum with the highest incomes, educational levels, employment and so on. The matched sample for this group, like the matched sample for the loan group, most nearly approximated the same demographic profile, but there were some important differences. One of the most significant of these was that the top and bottom of the status hierarchy, i.e., owner-loan and owner-voluntary were more often owners of their place of residence (almost 100 percent) which probably accounts in some degree for the fact of smoke detector ownership.
A similarly related finding was that non-owner households had a greater number of individuals who smoke tobacco products. It is fairly common belief that smoke detectors are subject to false alarms from smoking tobacco and this, too, might inhibit detector installation.
Differences noted
In general, although the differences among groups were seldom remarkable, those who voluntarily purchased smoke detectors demonstrated more fire hazard awareness and were more tuned in to fire prevention strategies. The owner-voluntary group had better fire insurance protection, owned more fire fighting equipment which was more often readily available, reported more fire exit plans and was inclined to have the fire department number posted on or near the phone.
Those owners whose detectors were not purchased voluntarily were less apt than other groups to be interested in information about fire dangers or fire prevention.
Control groups in general most nearly approximated the groups with which they were matched. None of the groups reported enough recent fire experiences to make pursuing this avenue of research fruitful.
In the analysis of owners, it was found that those who voluntarily purchased detectors most often installed their own and, it appears, many times incorrectly—more often on the wall, in the kitchen and in other, what seem to be, inappropriate locations. They also reported more false alarms.
Owners whose purchase was mandated through loan requirements knew less about their equipment, less often cleaned and tested the devices and, in general, expressed less interest in fire prevention.
Most non-owners knew of the devices. The source of information was mostly television commercials. However, the higher socioeconomic group (non-voluntary) twice as often reported reading as their source of information.
When asked if they planned to purchase a detector, the majority either gave an outright “no” response or was undecided. The most often cited reason was price, but when price estimates were solicited, the guesses were much higher than actual costs for detectors.
Information collected during fire incidents is thus far inconclusive due to the low frequency of smoke detectors involved. This might well be evidence of detector effectiveness. Estimates made by senior fire officers indicated that substantial reduction of property loss and injuries would have occurred had detectors been present in each.instance.
Major conclusions
- Although group matching was somewhat less accurate than most methodologists would consider desirable, it did serve to point up differences among sub-societal groupings which may prove valuable to those interested in fire prevention and fire behavior education.
- The purchase of an early warning smoke detection device is not an isolated behavior, but seems to be related to general awareness of fire as an everpresent hazard. This awareness is apparently somewhat enhanced by home ownership and higher levels of education.
- Individuals who voluntarily purchase smoke detectors usually place and install their own, and more often than is desirable, incorrectly. The high rate of resulting false alarms contributed to some of the current myths being circulated. Given that most people do seem to read the instructions that accompany the device, efforts should be pursued to emphasize correct placement in these instructions.
- Education efforts, insofar as possible, should utilize the television media. Most people are aware of smoke detectors because of TV commercials, but most tune into these messages with only one ear. Spot public announcements, similar to Smokey the Bear, that introduce a cartoon character likely to be remembered might well be effective.
- Because of the myriad incorrect beliefs associated with smoke detectors, educational materials need to emphasize price, low incidents of false alarms with correct placement, and particularly the high improbability that, cigarette smoking will trigger an alarm.
- Although educational programs for school children are undoubtedly valuable for them, such programs appear to have little effect on the parents’ awareness of fire dangers and the need for preventive measures. More effort should be directed toward the middleaged groupings.
- Very few families were aware of t heir need, with or without detectors, for a well-planned and practiced exit in case of fire. Information is sorely needed on what constitutes a good plan as well as on life-saving behaviors, such as testing doors prior to opening, stuffing cracks and staying low in smoke.
- legislation mandating the installation of detectors, as in Montgomery County, Md., might well serve a useful purpose. However, this approach does not seem to be an unmixed blessing. Mandated installation appears to be accompanied by complacency. Given that situation, such programs should require line-powered equipment as opposed to battery because of the possibility of battery failure without replacement.
- Too large a percentage of the population, and this is particularly true of those at or near the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy, believe that fire prevention is the responsibility of the fire department. Just as crime prevention cannot be exclusively the responsibility of police departments, neither can fire prevention be accomplished if only fire departments work at it. This fallacy needs vigorous eradication.
- This study has not yet established the effectiveness of smoke detection devices except in an inferential manner, i.e., the incidence of reported fires where smoke detectors were present seems to be lower than the frequency of installed detectors according to the evidence thus far accumulated. Additionally, professional judgments made at the scenes of fires unquestionably corroborate this inference of effectiveness. Part of the problem, of course, is the relative newness of these devices. Data still being collected as a result of this study will undoubtedly demonstrate the value of detectors.
- A number of persons mentioned deciding to buy their detectors because they were available at a reduced cost through volume purchases sponsored by an employer or a group of friends. Consequently, a good way to increase detector ownership might be to urge corporations and other large employers to purchase the devices for resale to employees at lower cost.
- Whatever else this study has accomplished, it has given empirical evidence to the belief that the general population knows little about the imminent danger of fire and does almost nothing by way of preparing for such an eventuality as fire. There is an extraordinary need for a comprehensive public educational program designed to alleviate this situation.
Behavioral Highlights
- People who buy smoke detectors voluntarily usually install them and more often than is desirable-incorrectly.
- Educational programs for school children appear to have little effect on their parents’ awareness of fire dangers and prevention.
- Few families are aware of their need for planned exits from the home and safety practices in a fire.
- Legislation requiring the installation of smoke detectors appears to be accompanied by complacency, so line-powered rather than battery-powered detectors should be mandated.
- Too many people, especially those at or near the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, believe fire prevention is the sole responsibility of the fire department.
- The survey developed empirical evidence that the general public knows little about the danger of fire and does almost nothing to prepare for it.
The research an smoke detectors in private dwellings was sponsored by the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration through a grant funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Headers interested in obtaining a copy of the complete report may write to Dr. L. Noel Moyer, Department of Sociology, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606.
