Do Lifeguards Monitor the Events They Should?

International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education Volume 4 | Number 3 Article 4 8-1-2010 Do Lifeguards Monitor the Events They Should? Lyndsey K. Lanagan-Leitzel Eastern Connecticut State University, Cathleen M. Moore The University of Iowa Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare Recommended Citation Lanagan-Leitzel, Lyndsey K. and Moore, Cathleen M. (2010) "Do Lifeguards Monitor the Events They Should?," International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education: Vol. 4 : No. 3 , Article 4. DOI: 10.25035/ijare.04.03.04 Available at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol4/iss3/4 This Research Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@BGSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@BGSU. Lanagan-Leitzel and Moore: Do Lifeguards Monitor the Events They Should? Research International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, 2010, 4, 241-256 © 2010 Human Kinetics, Inc. Do Lifeguards Monitor the Events They Should? Lyndsey K. Lanagan-Leitzel and Cathleen M. Moore Lifeguard training texts suggest that a lifeguard should continually scan their zone of coverage, carefully examining patrons whose behavior is consistent with drowning or distress. The current study examined whether lifeguard performance is consistent with these specifications and whether these behaviors have enough visual interest to attract the gaze of non-lifeguards looking for drowning behaviors (“trained”) or those who were given no specified target (“naïve”). Participants viewed video clips of natural swimming taken from three aquatic locations while an eye-tracker recorded their eye position. Lifeguard performance was to some extent consistent with the specifications above, although on many measures it was not statistically better than briefly-trained participants. Implications for future research and training are considered. Swimming is a popular sport, enjoyed for leisure and for exercise. Beach and pool attendance has been climbing steadily since the beginning of the 20th century (see Branche & Stewart, 2001, for a review). During 2007, the United States Lifesaving Association (2009) reported that over 281 million swimmers attended their affiliated beaches. Swimming, however, can pose a risk: the World Health Organization (2003) reported that over 400,000 people died from accidental drowning in 2000. It is thought that having trained and certified lifeguards monitor swimming areas can reduce the incidence of drowning. Although detailed records are not kept for every swimming establishment, the United States Lifesaving Association compiles records for their affiliated lifeguard-staffed beaches (estimated to be 95% of all lifeguarded beaches in the U.S.) and some lifeguarded pools (Branche & Stewart, 2001). They reported that during 2007, only 20 people died from drowning at these locations, while over 74,000 people were rescued (United States Lifesaving Association, 2009). When swimming first became popular in the 1800s, there were many more instances of drowning than there are today (see Branche & Stewart, 2001, for a review). The early lifeguard was seen as a lifesaver—a person responsible for rescuing people who were drowning. More recently, the role of the lifeguard has changed to that seen today—a person responsible for keeping patrons safe by trying to prevent drowning, but being prepared to respond with a rescue should the threat of drowning occur (Branche & Stewart, 2001). Lifeguards thus engage in constant Lyndsey K. Lanagan-Leitzel is with the Department of Psychology at Eastern Connecticut State University in Willimantic, CT. Cathleen M. Moore is with the Department of Psychology at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. Published by ScholarWorks@BGSU, 2010 241 1 International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, Vol. 4, No. 3 [2010], Art. 4 242   Lanagan-Leitzel and Moore surveillance of their assigned zone in the water. Although an occasional rescue may be warranted, surveillance is still the primary component of their day-to-day work experience. If surveillance is the primary component of the lifeguard’s job, one would expect extensive coverage of proper surveillance methods in the lifeguard training manuals. The American Red Cross is a leader in lifeguard training and certification, training approximately 140,000 lifeguards each year (American Red Cross, 1995). In their most recent training manual (containing 11 chapters), only one is devoted to patron surveillance, while six are devoted to rescue technique and first aid (American Red Cross, 2007). Rescue technique and first aid also are a predominant factor in the certification process, while surveillance plays a less crucial role. It is possible that lifeguards lose sight of the importance of surveillance when the focus is so much upon the rescue and first aid techniques. The degree of coverage dedicated to surveillance methods in other popular certification training texts is similar to the Red Cross. The training manual published by Ellis and Associates (2007) includes 14 chapters, with only one detailing drowning recognition. Both the United States Lifesaving Association (2003) manual (26 chapters) and the Starfish Aquatics Institute training manual (White, 2006; 15 chapters) are slightly better in that they each have one chapter focused on surveillance/scanning and one chapter focused on identifying a drowning. Reviewing each of these manuals reinforces the perception that the predominant focus of training is on rescue and first aid, not on surveillance. The way that these training manuals examine surveillance is very similar, although there are a few notable differences among the approaches. The coverage of surveillance in each text focuses on two basic processes—how to scan the zone of coverage and how to identify a drowning when it occurs. Proper scanning ensures that each swimmer is monitored and no swimmer is ignored. Yet, even with proper scanning, lifeguards must also be able to identify a drowning when it occurs and identify precursors that allow them to take preventative action to ensure that a drowning does not occur. Different manuals have different approaches to the task of scanning. The American Red Cross manual (American Red Cross, 2007) teaches its readers to “scan from point to point, rapidly watching all movements of the patrons in the area” (p. 31). Although readers are told to devote less of their attention to people who appear to be strong swimmers, they are told to continue to monitor them nonetheless. This approach may lead to a haphazard scanning process, where it may be difficult to keep track of which swimmers have been monitored. In the Starfish Aquatics Institute training manual (White, 2006), on the other hand, scanning is covered in two ways. First, the Starfish Aquatics Institute advocates a “3-D triage scanning,” prioritizing th (...truncated)