Why Doesn’t Someone Evacuate When the Fire Alarm Goes Off?

Some employees take irresponsible risks. Is this caused by inadequate instruction from the employer? Or by a suboptimal safety culture among colleagues? According to Juni Daalmans, the causes likely run deeper—embedded in the human brain. When you map those causes, you encounter surprising solutions.

Every emergency response officer has experienced it. On Monday morning, the fire alarm sounds, and within ten minutes everyone should be outside at the designated assembly point. But reality is stubborn. When evacuation marshals enter the open-plan office, several employees are still calmly working at their computers. “Yes, you know, this is just a drill. And I need to finish this task before noon.”

Annoying, of course—but Juni Daalmans also finds it understandable. He is a neuropsychological safety professional and the author of Grip op Gedrag. In the case described above, he immediately looks for the sources of human behavior. Daalmans distinguishes three levels:

Innate
Learned: the influence of upbringing and learning processes
Activated: the immediate physical and social context in which someone operates

Let’s start with innate. How can this cause someone to keep working despite the fire alarm?

Juni Daalmans: “Our innate reflexes and fears can push us in two directions. On the one hand, there is instinctive fear of certain dangers, such as heights and fire. That fear is deeply embedded in our brain, particularly in the amygdala—our fear center. You would therefore expect the innate system to drive everyone outside, away from fire. But there’s something else at play. Humans also have a deep need to belong to the group. That makes sense, because for hundreds of thousands of years you literally needed the group to survive. As a result, you will do almost anything to remain socially accepted. If a few people stay seated, you tend to do the same.”

Okay—but shouldn’t your education and training ensure that you evacuate immediately?

“Unfortunately, that can also lead to different outcomes. Yes, many employees receive safety training during their working lives. And of course, everyone knows that when the fire alarm goes off, you should drop everything. But here, too, there is another side. Which age groups have the most car accidents? Indeed—people under 25, but that’s not the whole story. There is another peak among people over 50.”

Is that because their reaction speed declines?

“That plays a role, but not only that. They start to self-overestimate their driving skills. They have so much experience—so many years without accidents. What could possibly go wrong? And so they take slightly more risk every day. At work as well—also when the fire alarm sounds. They believe they know it’s just another drill, so there is no real danger. We call this habituation to a risky stimulus.”

And the third component—the physical and social context—what role does that play?

“It can amplify or weaken the other two drivers. We already talked about the desire for group approval. That becomes even stronger when colleagues or supervisors signal that work needs to be finished quickly. Then someone may be tempted to ignore the alarm and keep working. In addition, behavior is influenced by how the workplace is designed.”

How exactly?

“Imagine someone needs to replace a ceiling light. They set up a ladder—but it’s not a good one. Once on top, they realize it’s quite unstable. Of course, they should climb down, get a rolling scaffold, and go back up—but that takes time. So the temptation grows to stay on the shaky ladder. The voice of efficiency wins over safety. Exactly—that’s the physical and social context at work. The employer should simply ensure that a rolling scaffold is readily available. Then that voice never gets a chance.”

I can also imagine colleagues’ reactions matter a lot.

“They matter more than you think. A recent rat experiment sheds light on the different ‘voices’ in our heads. The experiment starts by teaching danger. Rats are placed one by one on a metal plate and given an electric shock. Unsurprisingly, they quickly learn the plate is dangerous. When placed on it, their fear level rises—we can see this in their posture, standing high on their legs.”

Mirroring

“But the fear of surrounding rats also increases, even though they themselves are not in danger. They empathize with the neighbor who is about to receive a shock. This empathy arises in a so-called mirror center for risk. All rats mirror the observed rat’s fear and stand high on their legs. That fear among bystanders actually increases the fear of the rat on the plate.”

Conflict between mirroring and risk awareness

“The third step is the most fascinating. It is possible to locally anesthetize the brains of the bystanders via an injection through the skull. After such an injection, their fear disappears—the fear center temporarily stops responding to environmental threats. They calmly watch the rat on the plate receive a shock. But what happens to the rat on the plate? It knows a shock is coming, but it also sees everyone else staying relaxed. A conflict arises between anticipatory fear and mirroring the relaxed bystanders. What happens? The rat on the plate also remains relaxed! In other words, mirroring others’ emotions overrides learned fear. Group behavior wins over risk awareness.”

How can this be applied in the workplace?

“Very simply. If someone starts balancing on a ladder, they should immediately see from colleagues’ reactions that this is not acceptable. The same applies to the employee who keeps working calmly during a fire alarm. If they notice colleagues immediately dropping everything, ending phone calls, and heading outside, that sends a powerful signal. It’s crucial to realize that the effects of good onboarding are minimal if the team does not act accordingly.”

This is an adapted version of an article by Peter Passenier, published on www.vakbladveiligheid.nl on March 11, 2025.