This article presents a theoretical model of emergency decision making that focuses on the decision maker's answers to basic questions evoked by warnings or signs of danger. Effective emergency decisions are most likely to be made, according to the theory, when a vigilant coping pattern is dominant, which requires that the following four mediating conditions are met: 1) awareness of serious risks if no protective action is taken; 2) awareness of serious risks if any of the salient protective actions is taken; 3) moderate or high degree of hope that a search for information and advice will lead to a better (i.e., less risky) solution; and 4) belief that there is sufficient time to search and deliberate before any serious threat will materialize. When one or another of these conditions is not met, a defective coping pattern, such as defensive avoidance or hypervigilance, will be dominant, which generally leads to maladaptive actions. In addition to suggesting new interventions for facilitating adaptive behavior in emergencies, the theoretical model provides a basis for integrating disparate findings from psychological research on the effects of warnings and confrontations with danger.