CLOSE
Original image
ThinkStock

Zombies, Fire Drills, and Bad Decision-Making

Original image
ThinkStock

Imagine that the dead have risen from their graves. They’ve gotten into a building you’re hiding out in. You slink down the hallway and enter what you think is a safe room.

It’s empty, and looks like a good place to hide. As you stand in the middle of the room, you look around. There’s only two doors: the one that you came through and one on the opposite side of the room. You should be able to barricade them both with furniture. But, oh no! The zombies have found the room, too. They’re shambling around both doors, with more crowding the doorway you just used, and now you have to get out. Which door do you exit through?

The less crowded one, I’m sure you’re saying. Of course, that makes the most sense. If both doors are the same distance from where you’re standing, why not use the one that’s got fewer obstacles?

Well, science has some bad news for you: You’ll probably wind up as a snack for the living dead, or at least stuck in a crowded doorway. Stress makes us do stupid things, like seek familiar routes even if they’re not the best ones. Over and over, eyewitness reports from real-life evacuations have suggested that, in emergencies, people tend to exit buildings from the main entrance that they used to enter the building, ignoring one or more emergency exits along the way. The crowding at these entryways slows evacuation times and sometimes results in injuries and even deaths.

Earlier this year, the Science Museum of London held a zombie-themed science festival called “ZombieLab.” Researchers Nikolai Bode and Edward Codling, from the University of Essex, took advantage of the event to look at the decisions people make in emergencies. They set up a computer simulation of a room evacuation similar to what I described above. One hundred and eighty-five museum guests took control of a computer person in a virtual environment filled with 80 virtual zombies.

At the start of the experiment, the participants just had to move their person from the hallway and into the central room. Next, they had to move back out again, through one of two doors, to where they started in the hall. During this second part, the researchers presented the visitors with a few different conditions. Some just had to simply exit the room. Others were encouraged to beat the fastest exit time. Others were presented with a crowd of zombies split unevenly between the two exits. A last group had to deal with the crowed exits while trying to beat the best time.

In the normal exit scenario and when they were trying to set the best time, the museum visitors split evenly between the two exit routes and showed no clear preference for one or the other. Faced with zombie-crowded exits, though, the visitors started to show some bias for the doorway they had come through, even if it was more crowded. Presented with the zombie obstacles alone, some of the visitors went for they door they came through, and then changed their mind when they realized how crowded the doorway was. With the added pressure of the time clock, fewer people changed their mind and stuck with trying to get out that exit, even though it was the slowest route.

Bode and Codling’s results fit with what other researchers have found in theoretical models and real-life evacuations. Under stress, people make irrational decisions. Here, the museum visitors under pressure to exit quickly were more likely to stick to the route they knew even if it wound up taking them longer to get out, and were less likely to change their mind and adapt to the situation.

In a real-world situation, the researchers say, their results suggest some strategies for minimizing risks during stressful evacuations. One idea they offer is having people in large, crowded buildings enter from several different locations. If they have to get out quickly, and their preference for the way they came in holds up, they’ll spread out to different routes and avoid overcrowding any one exit.

It’s worth mentioning that the idea that the other virtual characters in the room were zombies was just meant to fit the experiment in with the theme of the festival and keep participants blind to the purpose of the experiment. In the simulation, the zombies didn’t attack participants or pose any danger, but simply blocked the doorways. The study participants didn’t have to treat them as a threat, so they focused on choosing one door or the other without worrying about getting their brains eaten. I wonder if, or how, the results would differ if the “zombies” acted more like zombies, and how decision-making in an evacuation is affected if there are obstacles at exits that pose active threats.

Original image
iStock
arrow
science
This Giant Baking-Soda-and-Vinegar Volcano Tops Any Science Fair Project
Original image
iStock

The baking-soda-and-vinegar volcano, an elementary school staple, has received a super-sized upgrade. As Atlas Obscura reports, the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry revealed their 34-feet version of the classic science project in celebration of their new Pompeii exhibition.

The mountainous structure relied on the same chemical reaction as smaller artificial volcanoes, but this time the reaction was recreated on a much larger scale. After wrapping the three-story scaffolding with brown tarp, museum staff filled it with 66 gallons of vinegar and 50 gallons of baking soda, plus water and red food dye to create two geysers of pink liquid.

While it's still a fraction of the height of Mount Vesuvius, the volcano towers over anything you’d find in an elementary school science fair. After showing off the project in front of a crowd of 3000 people, the museum plans to submit its creation to the Guinness World Records committee for consideration.

[h/t Atlas Obscura]

Original image
ISTOCK
arrow
science
Science Explains Why You're Not a Morning Person
Original image
ISTOCK

Can't get out of bed in the morning? Allow science to tell you why—and whether or not you can change that.

I’m awful in the mornings. Can science fix me?

Maybe not, but it can explain why you’re such a sleepyhead (which may or may not be of interest to your boss). “There are morning people and evening people,” says Sonia Ancoli-Israel, director of education at UC-San Diego’s Sleep Medicine Center. “We call them larks and owls.” Which one you are has to do with your circadian system.

How does my circadian system work?

A region of 20,000 nerve cells in your brain called the suprachiasmatic nucleus keeps your body on schedule throughout the day, regulating everything from hormone levels to when you digest food. And, of course, when you feel sleepy.

How does that explain me?

Larks are “phase advanced,” meaning they feel tired early in the evening. Owls are “phase delayed”—a pattern most common in teens and young adults—and don’t feel tired until late at night.

Should I be concerned?

Larks do have a mental edge. In 2013, a study found that early and late risers have structurally different brains. Larks have more quality white matter, which helps nerve cells communicate.

Can I change that?

A little bit. Your circadian rhythm changes over your lifetime. Babies wake at dawn, while teenagers can’t get out of bed before noon. As adults age, mornings typically get easier. You can also hack your clock by sticking to a regimented sleep schedule and avoiding light before bed. Light receptors in the eye tell your brain when to call it a night.

Can I blame this on genetics?

You bet! In 2012, scientists discovered a single nucleotide near a gene called “Period 1” that determines whether you’re an owl, a lark, or in between.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios