Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 90, Issue 3, pp 1329–1348 | Cite as

Effects of providing measures against earthquakes: experimental studies on the perceived risks of disasters and disaster preparedness intentions in Japan

  • Kazuya NakayachiEmail author
Original Paper
  • 235 Downloads

Abstract

This research examined the effects of providing measures against disasters on recipients’ perceived risks and preparedness intentions by conducting two experimental studies. A provision of a set of emergency food was manipulated in the first experiment. Participants (N = 143) were randomly assigned to the provided condition or non-provided condition. In the second experiment (N = 123), provision of an emergency toilet kit was manipulated. The results of the two experiments consistently indicated that (1) the provision of a measure increased the recipients’ perceived risks of the disaster concerned, (2) it increased their preparedness intentions for the disaster, and (3) it had no effects on perceived risks of or preparedness intentions against disasters unrelated to the measure provided. These results were contrary to the prediction deduced from the protection effect and single action effect. The findings in this study encourage promoting the risk management policy of providing people with disaster measures as the first step in disaster preparedness.

Keywords

Risk perception Preparedness intention Protection effect Single action bias Earthquakes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Ayumi Tanaka and the participants in the M9 All-Hands seminar for their valuable comments. This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Grant Number JP24330189, JP16H03729.

Supplementary material

11069_2017_3099_MOESM1_ESM.csv (19 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (CSV 18 kb)
11069_2017_3099_MOESM2_ESM.csv (18 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (CSV 18 kb)

References

  1. Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C, Vohs KD (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Rev General Psychol 5(4):323–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaman AL, Cole CM, Preston M, Klentz B, Steblay NM (1983) Fifteen years of foot-in-the door research: a meta-analysis. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 9(2):181–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak 13(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S (1978) Fault trees: sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. J Exp Psychol Hum 4(2):330–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Freedman JL, Fraser SC (1966) Compliance without pressure: the foot-in-the-door technique. J Pers Soc Psychol 4(2):195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hansen J, Marx S, Weber EU (2004) The role of climate perceptions, expectations, and forecasts in farmer decision making: the Argentine Pampas and South Florida. Palisades [technical report 04–01], International Research Institute for Climate Prediction, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Lindell MK, Perry RW (1992) Behavioral foundations of community emergency planning. Hemisphere Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. Lindell MK, Perry RW (2012) The protective action decision model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Anal 32(4):616–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127(2):267–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nakayachi K (2013) The unintended effects of risk-refuting information on anxiety. Risk Anal 33(1):80–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nakayachi K, Shimada T (2010) Public concern about hazards in Japan and a method for their reduction (in Japanese). Jpn J Risk Anal 20(2):125–133Google Scholar
  12. Risen JL, Gilovich T (2008) Why people are reluctant to tempt fate. J Pers Soc Psychol 95(2):293–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rogers RW (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol 91(1):93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rogers RW (1983) Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo J, Petty R (eds) Social psychophysiology. Guilford Press, New York, pp 153–176Google Scholar
  15. Rothbart M, Park B (1986) On the confirmability and disconfirmability of trait concepts. J Pers Soc Psychol 50(1):131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shreve C, Fordham M, Anson S, Watson H, Hagen K et al (2014) Report on risk perception and preparedness. TACTIC report. https://www.tacticproject.eu/sites/default/files/publications/Deliverable_D1.1_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 21 Jul 2017
  17. Slovic P (2007) If I look at the mass I will never act: psychic numbing and genocide. Judgm Decis Mak 2(2):79–95Google Scholar
  18. Slovic S, Slovic P (2015) Numbers and nerves: information, emotion, and meaning in a world of data. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, ORGoogle Scholar
  19. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2002) The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 397–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 24(2):311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Slovic P, Västfjäll D, Erlandsson A, Gregory R (2017) Iconic photographs and the ebb and flow of empathic response to humanitarian disasters. PNAS 114(8):640–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tykocinski OE (2008) Insurance, risk, and magical thinking. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 34(10):1346–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tykocinski OE (2013) The insurance effect: how the possession of gas masks reduces the likelihood of a missile attack. Judgm Decis Mak 8(2):174–178Google Scholar
  24. Van Wolferen J, Inbar Y, Zeelenberg M (2013) Magical thinking in predictions of negative events: evidence for tempting fate but not for a protection effect. Judgm Decis Mak 8(1):45–54Google Scholar
  25. Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C (2013) The risk perception paradox: implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal 33(6):1049–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wason PC (1959) The processing of positive and negative information. Q J Exp Psychol 11(2):92–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weber EU (1997) Perception and expectation of climate change: Precondition for economic and technological adaptation. In: Bazerman M, Messick D, Tenbrunsel A, Wade-Benzoni K (eds) Psychological perspectives to environmental and ethical issues in management. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 314–341Google Scholar
  28. Weber EU (2006) Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: why global warming does not scare us (yet). Clim Change 77(1–2):103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weinstein ND, Rothman AJ, Sutton SR (1998) Stage theories of health behavior: conceptual and methodological issues. Health Psychol 17(3):290–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wigfield A, Eccles JS (2000) Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(1):68–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PsychologyDoshisha UniversityKyotanabe-shiJapan
  2. 2.Joint Centre for Disaster ResearchMassey UniversityWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations