Abstract
This study explores the features and structure of laypeople’s risk perceptions of natural disasters using a psychometric paradigm (PP) that employs three-mode principal component analysis (3MPCA) in Japan, a country with high vulnerability to various natural disasters. Laypeople (n = 825) and natural disaster experts (n = 22) living in Japan answered a questionnaire on judgments of 11 risk characteristics (e.g., extent of dread, personal controllability, scientific knowledge) and four risk perception items (subjective risk assessment, need for government measures, need for individual mitigation, and risk acceptance) regarding nine natural disasters. 3MPCA revealed a three-mode dimension structure that consists of three scale components (dread, controllability, and unknown), three target components (localized catastrophic, drastic, and gradual disasters) that are interpreted as cognitive disaster types and seven person components (each dimension of dread or controllability according to the target components and common dimension of unknown of all hazards). Furthermore, the cognitive disaster types varied between laypeople and experts. Multiple regression analysis revealed that dread determined risk perception items, except for risk acceptance, which was determined by controllability. Importantly, the effect of risk characteristics judgment varies according to the cognitive disaster type. This result indicates that the structure of natural disaster risk perceptions differs according to people’s recognition of hazard properties. Therefore, 3MPCA is a useful method for exploring such a structure to obtain a deeper understanding of the nature of hazards.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For clarity, the names of the scale components are italicized hereafter.
References
Al-Rawad M, Al Khattab A (2015) Risk perception in a developing country: the case of Jordan. Int Bus Res 8:81–96. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v8n1p81
Bronfman NC, Cifuentes LA (2003) Risk perception in a developing country: the case of Chile. Risk Anal 23:1271–1285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00400.x
Bronfman NC, Cifuentes LA, Dekay ML, Willis HH (2007) Accounting for variation in the explanatory power of the psychometric paradigm: the effects of aggregation and focus. J Risk Res 10:527–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870701315872
Brun W (1992) Cognitive components in risk perception: Natural versus manmade risks. J Behav Decis Mak 5:117–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960050204
Cabinet Office Japan (2019) Disaster management in Japan. https://www.bousai.go.jp/kaigirep/hakusho/h31/honbun/0b_1s_01_01.html Accessed 20 June 2022
Ceulemans E, Kiers HA (2006) Selecting among three-mode principal component models of different types and complexities: a numerical convex hull based method. Br J Math Stat Psychol 59:133–150. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711005X64817
Cha YJ (2000) Risk perception in Korea: a comparison with Japan and the United States. J Risk Res 3:321–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870050132540
CRED (n.d.) EM-DAT: General Classification https://www.emdat.be/classification Accessed 19 June 2022
Fife-Schaw C, Rowe G (1996) Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a psychometric study. Risk Anal 16:487–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01095.x
Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9:127–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739
Fox-Glassman KT (2015) Natural hazards and climate change as dread risk. Diss Columbia Univ. https://doi.org/10.7916/D80G3JB3
Giordani P, Kiers HAL, Ferraro MAD (2014) Three-Way Component Analysis Using the R Package ThreeWay. J Stat Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v057.i07
Goszczynska M, Tyszka T, Slovic P (1991) Risk perception in Poland: a comparison with three other countries. J Behav Decis Mak 4:179–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960040305
Ho MC, Shaw D, Lin S, Chiu YC (2008) How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception? Risk Anal 28:635–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01040.x
Kiers HAL (1998) Joint orthomax rotation of the core and component matrices resulting from three-mode principal components analysis. J Classif 15:245–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003579900033
Kiers HAL, Van Mechelen I (2001) Three-way component analysis: principles and illustrative application. Psychol Methods 6:84–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.1.84
Kleinhesselink RR, Rosa EA (1991) Cognitive representation of risk perceptions: a comparison of Japan and the United States. J Cross-Cult Psychol 22:11–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022191221004
Kollmann J, Benyamini Y, Lages NC, Renner B (2021) The role of personal risk experience—an investigation of health and terrorism risk perception in Germany and Israel. Risk Anal 42:818–829. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13804
Kraus NN, Slovic P (1988) Taxonomic analysis of perceived risk: modeling individual and group perceptions within homogeneous hazard domains. Risk Anal 8:435–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb00508.x
Kroonenberg PM (2008) Applied multiway data analysis. Wiley, Hoboken
Kroonenberg PM, De Leeuw J (1980) Principal component analysis of three-mode data by means of alternating least squares algorithms. Psychometrika 45:69–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293599
Kusakabe O (2007) Land structure, land use and disaster vulnerability [in Japanese]. Trends in the Sciences 12:31–35. https://doi.org/10.5363/tits.12.11_31
Levin J (1965) Three-mode factor analysis. Psychol Bull 64:442–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022603
Lorenzo-Seva U, Morales-Vives F, Vigil-Colet A (2010) Aggressive responses to troubled situations in a sample of adolescents: a three-mode approach. Span J Psychol 13:178–189. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600003760
Marris C, Langford I, Saunderson T, O’Riordan T (1997) Exploring the “psychometric paradigm”: comparisons between aggregate and individual analyses. Risk Anal 17:303–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00868.x
Mitsushita K, Murakoshi S (2020) Educational value in risk: a psychometric study of the relationship between risk perception for physical activities in elementary school and educational value using three-mode factor analysis[in Japanese]. Japn J Phys Educ Hlth Sport Sci 65:19–33. https://doi.org/10.5432/jjpehss.19048
Mitsushita K, Murakoshi S (2021) The analysis of risk perception of natural disaster by three-mode factor analysis [in Japanese]. Proc Japan Risk Anal th Ann Met 34:160–165
National Police Agency (2022) 2011 Tohoku-Pacific Ocean Earthquake Police Measures and Damage Status (March 10, 2022) https://www.npa.go.jp/news/other/earthquake2011/pdf/higaijyoukyou.pdf Accessed 20 June 2022
Odiase O, Wilkinson S, Neef A (2020) Risk of a disaster: Risk knowledge, interpretation and resilience. Jàmbá J Disaster Risk Stud 12:1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v12i1.845
Omer H, Alon N (1994) The continuity principle: A unified approach to disaster and trauma. Am J Community Psychol 22:273–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506866
Osgood CE, Suci GJ, Tannenbaum PH (1957) The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois press, Illinois
Perkovic S, Otterbring T, Schärli C, Pachur T (2022) The perception of food products in adolescents, lay adults, and experts: a psychometric approach. J Exp Psychol Appl Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000384
Plapp T, Werner U (2006) Understanding risk perception from natural hazards: examples from Germany. In: Ammann WJ, Dannenmann S, Vulliet L (eds) RISK21-coping with risks due to natural hazards in the 21st century. CRC Press, Florida, pp 111–118
Siegrist M, Keller C, Kiers HAL (2005) A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Anal 25:211–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00580.x
Siegrist M, Keller C, Kiers HAL (2006) Lay people’s perception of food hazards: comparing aggregated data and individual data. Appetite 47:324–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.05.012
Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27:59–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x
Sjöberg L (1996) A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception. Radiat Prot Dosim 68:219–225. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a031868
Sjöberg L (2000) Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 20:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00001
Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285
Slovic P (1992) Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social Theories of Risk. Praeger, California, pp 117–152
Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1980) Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. In: Schwing RC, Albers WA (eds) Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough? Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, pp 181–216
Starr C (1969) Social benefit versus technological risk: what is our society willing to pay for safety? Science 165:1232–1238
Ten Berge JM (1986) Rotation to perfect congruence and the cross validation of component weights across populations. Multivar Behav Res 21:41–64. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2101_3
Tucker LR (1964) The extension of factor analysis to three-dimensional matrices. In: Frederiksen N, Gulliksen H (eds) Contribution to Mathematical Psychology. Dolt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp 109–127
Tucker LR (1966) Some mathematical notes on three-mode factor analysis. Psychometrika 31:279–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289464
Van Mechelen I, Kiers HA (1999) Individual differences in anxiety responses to stressful situations: a three-mode component analysis model. Eur J Pers 13:409–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199909/10)13:5%3c409::AID-PER360%3e3.0.CO;2-I
Västfjäll D, Peters E, Slovic P (2008) Affect, risk perception and future optimism after the tsunami disaster. Judgm Decis Mak 3:64–72
Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C (2013) The risk perception paradox—implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal 33:1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x
Funding
This research was supported by a research grant from Shizuoka University Center for Integrated Research and Education of Natural Hazards in 2021.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest associated with this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Mitsushita, K., Murakoshi, S. & Koyama, M. How are various natural disasters cognitively represented?: a psychometric study of natural disaster risk perception applying three-mode principal component analysis. Nat Hazards 116, 977–1000 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05708-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05708-x