Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 75, Issue 1, pp 635–652 | Cite as

When a hazard occurs where it is not expected: risk judgments about different regions after the Christchurch earthquakes

  • John McClure
  • David Johnston
  • Liv Henrich
  • Taciano L. Milfont
  • Julia Becker
Original Paper

Abstract

Research on risk judgments about hazards has not examined risk perception inside and outside the affected regions when a disaster occurs in an unexpected location. This research examined preparedness and judgments of earthquake risk after the 2011 Christchurch earthquake in three New Zealand cities: Christchurch, Wellington, and Palmerston North. We selected Christchurch, because its citizens did not expect an earthquake (but it occurred there); Wellington, because its citizens expected an earthquake (but it did not occur there); and Palmerston North, because its citizens did not expect an earthquake (and it did not occur there) and is thus comparable to Christchurch before the earthquakes. The research examined the relation of participant city to risk assessments for before (recall) and after the earthquakes, participants’ attributions for their risk judgments and for (not) preparing, and earthquake damage for Christchurch participants. Participants reported that prior to the earthquakes, they saw an earthquake as more likely in Wellington than in Christchurch and Palmerston North. In all three samples, expectations of another earthquake in Christchurch were significantly higher after the Christchurch earthquakes. Palmerston North expectancies of a local earthquake were also higher after the earthquakes, whereas Wellington citizens’ expectancies of a local earthquake were only marginally higher. Preparations increased after the earthquakes, particularly in Christchurch. These findings suggest that prior expectancies and disaster experiences affect earthquake risk judgments and preparation inside and outside the affected region.

Keywords

Risk judgment Optimism Earthquakes Personal experience Expectancy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Charlotte Gutenbrunner, Tess McClure, Peter Ranger, and Justin Velluppillai for collecting data, and Sana Oshika for entering data and assistance with the analyses. This research was funded by an EQC (Earthquake Commission) grant to John McClure and David Johnston. We acknowledge grants from the EQC (Earthquake Commission) and a Foundation of Research Science and Technology (FRST) subcontract to GNS Science: CO5X0402.

References

  1. Baker EJ (1991) Hurricane evacuation behavior. Int J Mass Emerg Disaster 9:287–310Google Scholar
  2. Beavan J, Fielding EJ, Motagh M, Samsonov S, Donnelly N (2011) Fault location and slip distribution of 22 February 2011 Mw 6.3 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquake from geodetic data. Seismol Res Lett 82(6):789–799Google Scholar
  3. Becker JS (2010) Understanding disaster preparedness and resilience in Canterbury: results of interviews, focus groups and a questionnaire survey. GNS Science, Wellington, Report No. 2010/50Google Scholar
  4. Blank H, Musch J, Pohl RF (2007) Hindsight bias: on being wise after the event. Soc Cognit 25:1–9. doi: 10.1521/soco.2007.25.1.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brody SD, Zahran S, Vedlitz A, Grover H (2007) Examining the relationship between physical vulnerability and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States. Environ Behav 40:72–95. doi: 10.1177/0013916506298800 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buhayar N (2011) Quake adds to pressure for higher reinsurance prices after Australia flood. Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-23/new-zealand-earthquake-may-boost-asia-pacific-reinsurance-prices.html
  7. Burger JM, Palmer ML (1992) Changes in and generalization of unrealistic optimism following experiences with stressful events: reactions to the 1989 California earthquake. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 18(1):29–43. doi: 10.1177/0146167292181006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carroll P, Sweeny K, Shepperd JA (2006) Forsaking optimism. Rev General Psychol 10(1):56–73. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.10.1.56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Celsi R, Wolfinbarger M, Wald D (2005) The effects of earthquake measurement concepts and magnitude anchoring on individuals’ perceptions of earthquake risk. Earthq Spectra 21(4):87–120. doi: 10.1193/1.2099047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman R, Thorson E (2002) The effects of news stories that put crime and violence into context: testing the public health model of reporting. J Health Commun 7(5):401–425. doi: 10.1080/10810730290001783 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowan J, McClure J, Wilson M (2002) What a difference a year makes: how immediate and anniversary media reports influence judgments about earthquake. Asian J Social Psychol 5(3):169–185. doi: 10.1111/1467-839X.00102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillon RL, Tinsley CH (2008) How near-misses influence decision making under risk: a missed opportunity for learning. Manag Sci 54(8):1425–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillon RL, Tinsley CH, Cronin M (2011) Why near-miss events can decrease an individual’s protective response to hurricanes. Risk Anal 31(3):440–449. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01506.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donovan B, Robins T (2008) Aftershock (Television Movie). TV3, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  15. Eiser JR, Pahl S, Orins YRA (2001) Optimism, pessimism and the directions of self-other comparisons. J Exp Soc Psychol 36(1):77–84. doi: 10.1006/jesp.2000.1438 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greening L, Dollinger SJ (1992) Illusions (and shattered illusions) of invulnerability: adolescents in natural disaster. J Trauma Stress 5(1):63–75. doi: 10.1002/jts.2490050107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halpern-Felsher BL, Millstein SG, Ellen JM et al (2001) The role of behavioral experience in judging risks. Health Psychol 20(2):120–126. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.20.2.120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Helweg Larsen M, Shepperd JA (2001) Do moderators of the optimistic bias affect personal or target risk estimates? A review of the literature. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 5(1):74–95. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Helweg-Larsen M (1999) (The lack of) optimistic bias in response to the Northridge earthquake: the role of personal experience. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 21(2):119–129. doi: 10.1207/S15324834BA210204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hurnen F, McClure J (1997) The effect of increased earthquake knowledge on perceived preventability of earthquake damage. Aust J Disaster Trauma Stud 3:1–10Google Scholar
  21. Jackson EL (1981) Response to earthquake hazard: the West Coast of North America. Env Behav 13(4):387–416. doi: 10.1177/0013916581134001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnston DM, Bebbington MS, Lai C-D, Houghton BF, Paton D (1999) Volcanic hazard perceptions: comparative shifts in knowledge and risk. Disaster Prev Manag 8(2):118–126. doi: 10.1108/09653569910266166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnston D, Paton D, Crawford G, Ronan K, Houghton B, Bürgelt PT (2005) Measuring tsunami preparedness in coastal Washington, United States. Nat Hazards 35:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnston DM, Becker JS, McClure J, Paton D, McBride S, Wright K Leonard GS, Hughes M (2013) Community understanding of, and preparedness for, earthquake and tsunami risk in Wellington, New Zealand. In Rosetto T, Joffe H (eds) Cities at risk: living with perils in the 21st century. Risk Perceptions and Behaviours, Dordrecht, pp 131–148Google Scholar
  25. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kunreuther H (1996) Mitigating disaster losses through insurance. J Risk Uncertain 12(2–3):171–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Langridge R, Leonard G, van Dissen R, Wright K (2012) Let’s talk about earthquakes: Wellington Edition. http://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/services/rates-and-property/earthquake-prone-buildings/files/eq-letstalk.pdf
  28. Li S et al (2010) Can overconfidence be debiased by low-probability/high consequence events. Risk Anal 30(4):699–707. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01371.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liberman N, Trope Y (2008) The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science 322(5905):1201–1205. doi: 10.1126/science.1161958 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindell MK (2008) Cross-sectional research. In: Salkind N (ed) Encyclopedia of educational psychology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 206–213Google Scholar
  31. Lindell MK (2013) North American cities at risk: household responses to environmental hazards. In: Rossetto T, Joffe H, Adams J (eds) Cities at risk: living with perils in the 21st century. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 109–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindell MK, Perry RW (2000) Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: a review of research. Environ Behav 32(4):590–630. doi: 10.1177/00139160021972621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McClure J, Hilton D (1998) Are goals or preconditions better explanations: it depends on the question. Eur J Soc Psychol 28(6):897–911. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6<897 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McClure J, Sutton RM, Sibley CG (2007) Listening to reporters or engineers: how different messages about building design affect earthquake fatalism. J App Soc Psychol 37(9):1956–1973. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00245.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McClure J, White J, Sibley CG (2009) Framing effects on preparation intentions: distinguishing actions and outcomes. Disaster Prev Manag 18(2):187–199. doi: 10.1108/09653560910953252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McClure J, Wills C, Johnston D, Recker C (2011) How the 2010 Canterbury (Darfield) earthquake affected earthquake risk perception: comparing citizens inside and outside the earthquake region. Aust J Disaster Trauma Stud 2:3–10Google Scholar
  37. Mileti DS, Darlington JD (1995) Societal response to revised earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay area. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 13(2):119–145Google Scholar
  38. Mileti DS, O’Brien PW (1992) Warnings during disaster: normalizing communicated risk. Soc Prob 39(1):40–57. doi: 10.1525/sp.1992.39.1.03x0062j CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nakashima M, Chusilp P (2003) A partial view of Japanese post-Kobe seismic design and construction practices. Earthq Eng Eng Seismol 4(1):3–13Google Scholar
  40. Neisser U, Winograd E, Bergman ET, Schreiber CA, Palmer SE, Weldon MS (1996) Remembering the earthquake: direct experience vs. hearing the news. Memory 4(4):337–358. doi: 10.1080/096582196388898 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. New Zealand Treasury (2013) Budget policy statement. 13 December 2013. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2014/bps/bps-14.pdf
  42. Paton D, Millar M, Johnston D (2001) Community resilience to volcanic hazard consequences. Nat Hazards 24(2):157–169. doi: 10.1023/A:1011882106373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ronan KR, Johnston DM, Paton D (2001) Communities’ understanding of earthquake risk in the Hawke’s Bay and Manawatu-Wanganui regions, New Zealand. NZ Soc Earthquake Engineering Conference, Taupo New Zealand. Paper No. 1.03.01Google Scholar
  44. Sattler DN, Kaiser CF, Hittner JB (2000) Disaster preparedness: relationships among prior experience, personal characteristics, and distress. J Appl Soc Psychol 30(7):1396–1420. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shepperd JA, Klein WMP, Waters EA, Weinstein ND (2013) Taking stock of unrealistic optimism. Perspect Psychol Sci 8(4):395–411. doi: 10.1177/1745691613485247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2008) Natural hazards and motivation for mitigation behavior: people cannot predict the affect evoked by a severe flood. Risk Anal 28(3):771–778. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01049.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1982) Facts versus fears: understanding perceived risk. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristic & biases. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Solberg C, Rossetto T, Joffe H (2010) The social psychology of seismic hazard adjustment: re-evaluating the international literature. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10:1633–1677. doi: 10.5194/nhess-10-1663-2010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spiegel Online. (2011, January 1) Nuclear phase-out could spell disaster for german energy giants. http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,766095,00.html
  50. Spittal M, Siegert RS, McClure J, Walkey FH (2002) The spheres of control scale; the identification of a clear replicable three-factor structure. Pers Indiv Diff 32(1):121–131. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00010-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spittal MJ, McClure J, Siegert RJ, Walkey FH (2005) Optimistic bias in relation to preparedness for earthquakes. Aust J Disaster Trauma Stud 1:1–10Google Scholar
  52. Spittal M, McClure J, Walkey F, Siegert R (2008) Predictors of two types of earthquake preparation: survival activities and mitigation activities. Environ Behav 40(6):798–817. doi: 10.1177/0013916507309864 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Steelman TA, McCaffrey S (2013) Best practices in risk and crisis communication: implications for natural hazards management. Nat Hazards 65(1):683–705. doi: 10.1007/s11069-012-0386-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stone ER, Yates JF, Parker AM (1994) Risk communication: absolute versus relative expressions of low-probability risks. Org Behav Hum Dec Proc 60(3):387–403. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1994.1091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sudman S (1983) Applied sampling. In: Rossi PH, Wright JD, Anderson AB (eds) Handbook of survey research. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 145–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Suls J, Rose JP, Windshitl PD, Smith AR (2013) Optimism following a tornado disaster. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 39(5):691–702. doi: 10.1177/0146167213477457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Taylor SE, Brown JD (1988) Illusions and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychol Bull 103(2):193–210. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tinsley CH, Dillon RL, Cronin MA (2012) How near-miss events amplify or attenuate risky decision making. Manag Sci 58(9):1596–1613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vasterman P, Yzermans CJ, Dirkzwager AJE (2005) The role of the media and media hypes in the aftermath of disasters. Epidemiol Rev 27(1):107–114. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxi002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Viscusi WK, Zeckhauser RJ (2006) National survey evidence on disasters and reliefs: risk beliefs, self-interest, and compassion. J Risk Uncert 33(1–2):13–36. doi: 10.1007/s11166-006-0169-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weinstein ND (1980) Unrealistic optimism about future life events. J Pers Soc Psychol 39(5):806–820. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.806 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weinstein ND, Klein WM (1995) Resistance of personal risk perceptions to debiasing interventions. Health Psychol 14(2):132–140. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.14.2.132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Weinstein ND, Lyon JE, Rothman AJ, Cuite CL (2000) Changes in perceived vulnerability following natural disaster. J Soc Clin Psychol 19(3):372–395. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2000.19.3.372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • John McClure
    • 1
  • David Johnston
    • 2
  • Liv Henrich
    • 1
  • Taciano L. Milfont
    • 1
  • Julia Becker
    • 2
  1. 1.School of PsychologyVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Joint Centre for Disaster ResearchMassey University/GNS ScienceWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations