Communicating Earthquake Preparedness: The Influence of Induced Mood, Perceived Risk, and Gain or Loss Frames on Homeowners’ Attitudes Toward General Precautionary Measures for Earthquakes

Despite global efforts to reduce seismic risk, actual preparedness levels remain universally low. Although earthquake-resistant building design is the most efficient way to decrease potential losses, its application is not a legal requirement across all earthquake-prone countries and even if, often not strictly enforced. Risk communication encouraging homeowners to take precautionary measures is therefore an important means to enhance a country's earthquake resilience. Our study illustrates that specific interactions of mood, perceived risk, and frame type significantly affect homeowners' attitudes toward general precautionary measures for earthquakes. The interdependencies of the variables mood, risk information, and frame type were tested in an experimental 2 × 2 × 2 design (N = 156). Only in combination and not on their own, these variables effectively influence attitudes toward general precautionary measures for earthquakes. The control variables gender, "trait anxiety" index, and alteration of perceived risk adjust the effect. Overall, the group with the strongest attitudes toward general precautionary actions for earthquakes are homeowners with induced negative mood who process high-risk information and gain-framed messages. However, the conditions comprising induced negative mood, low-risk information and loss-frame and induced positive mood, low-risk information and gain-framed messages both also significantly influence homeowners' attitudes toward general precautionary measures for earthquakes. These results mostly confirm previous findings in the field of health communication. For practitioners, our study emphasizes that carefully compiled communication measures are a powerful means to encourage precautionary attitudes among homeowners, especially for those with an elevated perceived risk.

[1]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Mood management across affective states: the hedonic contingency hypothesis. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  Bob G. Knight,et al.  Social and Personal Factors as Predictors of Earthquake Preparation: The Role of Support Provision, Network Discussion, Negative Affect, Age, and Education1 , 2005 .

[3]  Anja S. Göritz,et al.  Web-based mood induction , 2006 .

[4]  J. Dillard,et al.  The Effects of Mood, Message Framing, and Behavioral Advocacy on Persuasion , 2010 .

[5]  Robin L. Nabi,et al.  The Persuasive Influence of Emotion in Cancer Prevention and Detection Messages , 2006 .

[6]  Tiziana Rossetto,et al.  The social psychology of seismic hazard adjustment: re-evaluating the international literature , 2010 .

[7]  Michael K Lindell,et al.  Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment , 2008, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[8]  P. Salovey,et al.  Message Framing in the Prevention and Early Detection of Illness , 2002 .

[9]  William D. Schafer,et al.  Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. , 1999 .

[10]  G. Robert J. Hockey,et al.  Effects of negative mood states on risk in everyday decision making , 2000 .

[11]  M. Siegrist,et al.  The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication , 2006, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Emotion and the Framing of Risky Choice , 2008 .

[13]  Helene Joffe,et al.  An Intervention To Increase Earthquake And Fire Preparedness , 2015 .

[14]  Ian M. Handley,et al.  Affect and automatic mood maintenance , 2004 .

[15]  D. Mileti,et al.  The Causal Sequence of Risk Communication in the Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Experiment , 1992 .

[16]  Chris G. Sibley,et al.  Framing effects on preparation intentions: distinguishing actions and outcomes , 2009 .

[17]  Thomas E. Nygren,et al.  Reacting to Perceived High- and Low-Risk Win–Lose Opportunities in a Risky Decision-Making Task: Is It Framing or Affect or Both? , 1998 .

[18]  Kate Crowley,et al.  Earthquake disasters and resilience in the global North: lessons from New Zealand and Japan , 2012 .

[19]  Sue-Huei Chen,et al.  Perception of Earthquake Risk in Taiwan: Effects of Gender and Past Earthquake Experience , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[20]  W. Botzen,et al.  You Have Been Framed! How Antecedents of Information Need Mediate the Effects of Risk Communication Messages , 2014, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[21]  M. Lindell,et al.  Household Adjustment to Earthquake Hazard , 2000 .

[22]  Isaac M. Lipkus,et al.  Affect, Framing, and Persuasion , 2003 .

[23]  Alexander J. Rothman,et al.  Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. , 1997, Psychological bulletin.

[24]  Tatia M.C. Lee,et al.  Could mood state affect risk-taking decisions? , 2003, Journal of affective disorders.

[25]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Risk Analysis and Risk Management in an Uncertain World 1 , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[26]  Carmen Keller,et al.  Using a Familiar Risk Comparison Within a Risk Ladder to Improve Risk Understanding by Low Numerates: A Study of Visual Attention , 2011, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[27]  D. Paton,et al.  Preparing for natural hazards: normative and attitudinal influences , 2007 .

[28]  Charles Kenny,et al.  Construction, Corruption, and Developing Countries , 2007 .

[29]  Chun-Tuan Chang Interactive Effects of Message Framing, Product Perceived Risk, and Mood—The Case of Travel Healthcare Product Advertising , 2007, Journal of Advertising Research.

[30]  Suzanne Wilkinson,et al.  Challenges to successful seismic retrofit implementation: a socio-behavioural perspective , 2011 .

[31]  R. Meertens,et al.  How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks , 2007, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[32]  F. Hesse,et al.  Relative effectiveness and validity of mood induction procedures : a meta-analysis , 1996 .

[33]  Alexander J. Rothman,et al.  The Strategic Use of Gain- and Loss-Framed Messages to Promote Healthy Behavior: How Theory Can Inform Practice , 2006 .

[34]  M. Buchecker,et al.  Ergebnisbericht über die Bevölkerungsbefragung «Leben mit Naturgefahren» , 2016 .

[35]  M. Lindell,et al.  Earthquake Beliefs and Adoption of Seismic Hazard Adjustments , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[36]  Suzanne Wilkinson,et al.  Economic impediments to successful seismic retrofitting decisions , 2014 .

[37]  Megumi Kano,et al.  Communicating Actionable Risk for Terrorism and Other Hazards⋆ , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[38]  Xiaofei Xie,et al.  The Role of Emotions in Risk Communication , 2011, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[39]  A. Kollmuss,et al.  Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? , 2002 .

[40]  Douglas Paton,et al.  Salient Beliefs About Earthquake Hazards and Household Preparedness , 2013, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[41]  I. Levin,et al.  A New Look at Framing Effects: Distribution of Effect Sizes, Individual Differences, and Independence of Types of Effects , 2002 .

[42]  P. Sheeran Intention—Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review , 2002 .

[43]  Craig R. Hullett,et al.  The Impact of Mood on Persuasion , 2005, Commun. Res..