 Much of the bushfire safety research in recent years has focused on what it takes for people to act decisively and safely in the event of a bushfire. In many of the most tragic cases, the evidence suggests that lives could have been saved had people acted differently. This sobering fact has led researchers to focus on the factors that influence people's decision making before and during bushfires. What we've learned is that making decisions during a bushfire is extremely difficult. A bushfire confronts people with complex, dynamic, intense, and in most cases unfamiliar circumstances in which they must make critical decisions for themselves and loved ones, each involving different actions and risks. Because we often see evidence of people delaying evacuation or other key decisions, a common conclusion is that, faced with heat and uncertainty and paralyzed by fear, people wait and see what will happen before taking action. But more recent research suggests that this delay is actually an important part of the decision making process. Rather than procrastinating, people are actively engaged in determining their most appropriate course of action. As fires rarely unfold in the ways that are expected or planned for, the delay in decision making reflects a scheduling or prioritising of action in response to the circumstances rather than waiting due to indecision. So, while we might think the safest approach is for people to make rapid decisions and take immediate action, it seems that evacuation occurs at a time and in a manner determined by people's unique circumstances and state of mind. Further to this is the finding that our attitudes and beliefs about the bushfire threat and the most appropriate ways of responding to it vary widely and delay protective action for differing reasons. Researcher Ken Straughn has been working with the Country Fire Authority in Victoria to develop his research and embed it into bushfire engagement and communication activities. Ken has used cluster analysis to identify seven householder archetypes, that is, characteristics that typify people when it comes to their perceptions of and responses to bushfire threat. These archetypes help us to understand why people act in certain ways and shed light on decision making processes that may otherwise be seen as wait and see. Segmentation is important because people do have quite different attitudes to bushfire and the way they react to bushfire. So, the fire authorities need to understand those differences and to use them in their, both their education in their engagement and also when there is a fire to communicate with them in ways that are meaningful. I collected the data by sitting on the phone and talking to 457 people in areas that have been affected recently by bushfire. I then went out and spoke to 60 families and just talked to them about their experiences and that helped to fill in and colour in the information I got through the telephone interviews. Once I had the data, I looked at how many people actually said various things and then I did a more sophisticated analysis which broke down the data and then put it back together into groups, which are the seven archetypes. Ken's data suggests that threat deniers believe and wait for confirmation that there is no bushfire threat. Responsibility deniers and dependent evacuators expect others to take responsibility for them, while community-guided interact with other community members before they decide on their protective action. Considered evacuators leave immediately but may delay while they organise dependents and pets and take last-minute actions to protect their home. Experienced independents are committed to remain but if defending their property is unsuccessful, must evacuate late. Worried waiverers want to be sure that they are unable to defend their home before they can justify abandoning it. By shining a light on the rationales and behaviours that underlie people's decisions and actions in bushfires, researchers like Ken have provided the emergency services with new insights that can be used to enhance community engagement and education approaches. The archetypes reveal considerable differences in the way people perceive and respond to bushfire threat, which in turn determine all aspects of their planning, preparation, response and potential recovery. As a result, community education and engagement programs can be designed and tailored to address the diverse needs that result from these varied perceptions and responses. For example, considered evacuators primarily require assistance with planning safe evacuation and finding reliable sources of information about escape routes. While worried waiverers need to test their planning and even more than others establish clear triggers for evacuation. By clearly identifying and defining the needs of people living in bushfire prone areas, community education and engagement programs can be targeted more effectively, address real and specific needs and support people before and during bushfire events. In order to understand the bushfire response archetypes more deeply, we need look no further than your average Australian community. Across the population we'll see a mix of bushfire experience, risk perception, confidence, knowledge and preparedness. We know that these attributes shape people's relationship with bushfire and we also know that people will let this relationship guide their actions in the event of a bushfire. By honing in on each bushfire archetype we can see how this relationship works both before and during bushfire.