Earthquake Beliefs and Adoption of Seismic Hazard Adjustments

This study investigated the prevalence of both accurate and erroneous earthquake‐related beliefs among a sample of Southern California college students and the relationship between their endorsement of earthquake beliefs and adoption of seismic hazard adjustments. In addition, the study examined the effects of an experimental earthquake education program and the impact of need for cognition on this program. The data revealed a significant degree of agreement with earthquake myths, a generally low level of correlation between earthquake beliefs and the level of hazard adjustments, and a significant effect of hazard information on the endorsement of accurate earthquake beliefs and increases in hazard adjustment. Compared with the “Earthquake Facts (Only)” format, an “Earthquake Myths versus Facts” format was slightly more useful for dispelling erroneous beliefs. Further, there was a tendency for those who were high in need for cognition to have higher levels of hazard adjustment. Finally, there was weak support for the hypothesis that those who were low in need for cognition would develop more accurate earthquake beliefs and higher levels of hazard adjustment in the “Earthquake Myths versus Facts” information condition.

[1]  Michael K. Lindell,et al.  Risk Area Residents’ Perceptions and Adoption of Seismic Hazard Adjustments1 , 2002 .

[2]  Susan L. Cutter,et al.  Catastrophe in Reel Life versus Real Life: Perpetuating Disaster Myth through Hollywood Films , 2000, International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters.

[3]  S. Dunwoody,et al.  Protection Motivation and Risk Communication , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[4]  Michael K. Lindell,et al.  Household Adoption of Seismic Hazard Adjustments: A Comparison of Residents in Two States , 2000, International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters.

[5]  K. Neuwirth,et al.  Impact of Movie Depictions of Volcanic Disaster on Risk Perception and Judgments , 2000, International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters.

[6]  M K Lindell,et al.  Correlates of Household Seismic Hazard Adjustment Adoption , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[7]  Connie R. Wanberg,et al.  Unemployed individuals: motives, job-search competencies, and job-search constraints as predictors of job seeking and reemployment. , 1999, The Journal of applied psychology.

[8]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. , 1999 .

[9]  John McClure,et al.  When Earthquake Damage is Seen as Preventable: Attributions, Locus of Control and Attitudes to Risk , 1999 .

[10]  Dennis S. Mileti,et al.  The Role of Searching in Shaping Reactions to Earthquake Risk Information , 1997 .

[11]  S. Epstein,et al.  Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  John-Paul Mulilis,et al.  Negative Threat Appeals and Earthquake Preparedness: A Person-Relative-to-Event (PrE) Model of Coping With Threat , 1995 .

[13]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  Lisa Wald,et al.  Southern California earthquake data center , 1992 .

[15]  R. Petty,et al.  Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. , 1992 .

[16]  Ronald W. Perry,et al.  Behavioral foundations of community emergency planning , 1992 .

[17]  R. Lippa,et al.  Behavioral Change in Earthquake Preparedness Due to Negative Threat Appeals: A Test of Protection Motivation Theory , 1990 .

[18]  Robert F. Ahlering,et al.  Need for cognition as a moderator of the primacy effect , 1989 .

[19]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[20]  C. Leone,et al.  Self generated attitude change a person by situation analysis of attitude polarization and attenuation , 1986 .

[21]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[22]  J. Kirscht,et al.  A field experiment to evaluate various outcomes of continuity of physician care. , 1974, American journal of public health.

[23]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[24]  E. Stotland,et al.  An experimental investigation of need for cognition. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[25]  M. Kuttschreuter.  Communicating environmental risk in multiethnic communities , 2005 .

[26]  Seymour Epstein,et al.  Individual Differences in Intuitive-Exp eriential and Analytical-Rational Thinking Styles , 1996 .

[27]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Attitude strength, attitude structure, and resistance to change , 1995 .

[28]  Larry E. Toothaker,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions , 1991 .

[29]  Dennis S. Mileti,et al.  The Great Earthquake Experiment: Risk Communication And Public Action , 1993 .

[30]  Dennis S. Mileti,et al.  Taking care: Natural hazards and precautionary behavior , 1987 .

[31]  Joanne M. Nigg,et al.  Waiting for Disaster: Earthquake Watch in California , 1986 .

[32]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The need for cognition. , 1982 .

[33]  M. Sherif,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1946, Psychological review.