This article explores and specifies the impact of risk perception on household preparedness for terrorism based on a representative sample of households in the United States. This was done by constructing a path model, which included factors that both predict risk perception and others that mediate its effect on preparedness behaviors. An unweighted sample of the nation was randomly split to allow a path model to be developed on a calibration sample, confirmed on a cross-validation sample, and rerun on the full sample using Mplus. Analyses were conducted on the unweighted samples. Results led to the conclusion that risk perception does not have a significant direct effect on preparedness behavior and that its effect is largely meditated by knowledge, perceived efficacy, and milling behavior. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed and recommendations are offered for future research.
AblahE.KondaK.KelleyC. L. (2009). Factors predicting individual emergency preparedness: A multi-state analysis of 2006 BRFSS data. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice and Science, 7, 317-330.
American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2009). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (6th ed.). Lenexa, KS: Author.
4.
AneshenselC. S. (2002). Theory-based data analysis for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
5.
BakerE. J. (1991). Hurricane evacuation behavior. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 9, 287-310.
6.
BasoloV.SteinbergL. J.BurbyR. J.LevineJ.CruzA. M.HuangC. (2009). The effects of confidence in government and information on perceived and actual preparedness for disasters. Environment and Behavior, 41, 338-364.
7.
BeckerM. H.JanzN. K. (1987). On the effectiveness and utility of health/hazard risk appraisal in clinical and nonclinical settings. Health Services Research, 22, 537-551.
8.
BentlerP. M. (2006). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
9.
BentlerP. M.BonettD. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
10.
BethelJ. W.ForemanA. N.BurkeS. C. (2011). Disaster preparedness among medically vulnerable populations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40, 139-143.
11.
Blanchard-BoehmR. D.CookM. J. (2004). Risk communication and public education in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada on the 10th anniversary of the “Black Friday” Tornado. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 13, 38-54.
12.
BourqueL. B.MiletiD. S.KanoM.WoodM. M. (2010). Who prepares for terrorism?Environment & Behavior, Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0013916510390318
13.
BurnsW. J.SlovicP.KaspersonR. E.KaspersonJ. X.RennO.EmaniS. (1993). Incorporating structural models into research on the social amplification of risk: Implications for theory construction and decision making. Risk Analysis, 13, 611-623.
14.
CaubergheV.De PelsmackerP.JanssensW.DensN. (2009). Fear, threat and efficacy in threat appeals: Message involvement as a key mediator to message acceptance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41, 276-285.
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
17.
DashN.GladwinH. (2007). Evacuation decision making and behavioral responses: Individual and household. Natural Hazards Review, 8, 69-77.
18.
DohleS.KellerC.SiegristM. (2010). Examining the relationship between affect and implicit associations: Implications for risk perception. Risk Analysis, 30, 1116-1128.
19.
DuvalT. S.MulilisJ.-P. (1999). A person-relative-to-event (PrE) approach to negative threat appeals and earthquake preparedness: A field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 495-516.
20.
EisenmanD. P.WoldC.FieldingJ.LongA.SetodjiC.HickeyS.GelbergL. (2006). Differences in individual-level terrorism preparedness in Los Angeles County. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30, 1-6.
21.
FinucaneM. L.SlovicP.MertzC. K.FlynnJ.SatterfieldT. A. (2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The “White male” effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2, 159-172.
22.
FischhoffB. (2002, April). Assessing and communicating the risks of terrorism. Symposium conducted at the 27th Annual AAAS Colloquium on Science and Technology Policy, Washington, D.C.
23.
FischhoffB.GonzalezR. M.SmallD. A.LernerJ. S. (2003a). Evaluating the success of terror risk communications. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 1, 255-258.
24.
FischhoffB.GonzalezR. M.SmallD. A.LernerJ. S. (2003b). Judged terror risk and proximity to the world trade center. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 137-151.
25.
FischhoffB.SlovicP.LichtensteinS.ReadS.CombsB. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127-152.
26.
FlynnJ.SlovicP.MertzC. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101-1108.
27.
GlikD. C. (2007). Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annual Review of Public Health, 28, 33-54.
28.
GrothmannT.ReusswigF. (2006). People at risk of flooding: Why some residents take precautionary action while others do not?Natural Hazards, 38, 101-120.
29.
HoM.-C.ShawD.LinS.ChiuY.-C. (2008). How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception?Risk Analysis, 28, 635-643.
30.
HuangC.VaneckovaP.WangX.FitzGeraldG.GuoY.TongS. (2011). Constraints and barriers to public health adaptation to climate change: A review of the literature. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40, 183-190.
31.
KanoM.WoodM. M.BourqueL. B.MiletiD. S. (2011). Terrorism preparedness and exposure reduction since 9/11: The status of public readiness in the United States. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8(1), Article 37. doi:10.2202/1547-7355.1807. Retrieved from http://www.bepress.com/jhsem/vol8/iss1/37
32.
KaspersonR. E.RennO.SlovicP.BrownH. S.EmilJ.GobleR.. . .RatickS. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8, 177-187.
33.
KellerC.SiegristM.GutscherH. (2006). The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 26, 631-639.
KnockeE. T.KolivrasK. N. (2007). Flash flood awareness in southwest Virginia. Risk Analysis, 27, 155-169.
36.
KobbeltvedT.BrunW.JohnsenB. H.EidJ. (2005). Risk as feelings or risk and feelings? A cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Risk Research, 8, 417-437.
37.
KornE. L.GraubardB. I. (1999). Analysis of health surveys. New York: John Wiley.
38.
LeeJ. E. C.LemyreL. (2009). A social-cognitive perspective of terrorism risk perception and individual response in Canada. Risk Analysis, 29, 1265-1280.
39.
LernerJ. S.GonzalezR. M.SmallD. A.FischhoffB. (2003). Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science, 14, 144-150.
40.
LinS.ShawD.HoM.-C. (2008). Why are flood and landslide victims less willing to take mitigation measures than the public?Natural Hazards, 44, 305-314.
41.
LindellM. K.ArlikattiS.PraterC. S. (2009). Why people do what they do to protect against earthquake risk: Perceptions of hazard adjustment attributes. Risk Analysis, 29, 1072-1088.
42.
LindellM. K.HwangS. N. (2008). Households’ perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment. Risk Analysis, 28, 539-556.
43.
LindellM. K.PerryR. W. (1992). Behavioral Foundations of Community Emergency Planning. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Press.
44.
LindellM. K.PerryR. W. (2000). Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: A review of research. Environment & Behavior, 32, 590-630.
45.
LindellM. K.PraterC. S. (2000). Household adoption of seismic hazard adjustments: A comparison of residents in two states. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 18, 317-338.
46.
LindellM. K.PraterC. S. (2002). Risk area residents’ perceptions and adoption of seismic hazard adjustments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2377-2392.
47.
LindellM. K.WhitneyD. J. (2000). Correlates of household seismic hazard adjustment adoption. Risk Analysis, 20, 13-25.
48.
MartinI. M.BenderH.RaishC. (2007). What motivates individuals to protect themselves from risks: The case of wildland fires. Risk Analysis, 27, 887-900.
49.
MartinW. E.MartinI. M.KentB. (2009).The role of risk perceptions in the risk mitigation process: The case of wildfire in high risk communities. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 489-498.
50.
MiletiD. S. (1999). Disasters by Design, A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
51.
MiletiD. S.DarlingtonJ. D. (1997). The role of searching in shaping reactions to earthquake risk information. Social Problems, 44, 89-103.
52.
MiletiD. S.FitzpatrickC. (1992). The causal sequence of risk communication in the Parkfield earthquake prediction experiment. Risk Analysis, 12, 393-400.
53.
MishraS.SuarD. (2007). Do lessons people learn determine disaster cognition and preparedness?Psychology & Developing Societies, 2, 143-159.
54.
MotlR. W.DishmanR. K.SaundersR.DowdaM.FeltonG.PateR. R. (2001). Measuring enjoyment of physical activity in adolescent girls. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21, 110-117.
55.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998-2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
56.
NguyenL. H.ShenH.ErshoffD.AfifiA. A.BourqueL. B. (2006). Exploring the causal relationship between exposure to the 1994 Northridge earthquake and pre- and post-earthquake preparedness activities. Earthquake Spectra, 22, 569-587.
57.
OzdemirO.YilmazC. (2011). Factors affecting risk mitigation revisited: The case of earthquake in Turkey. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 17-46.
58.
PatonD. (2008). Risk communication and natural hazard mitigation: How trust influences its effectiveness. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 8, 2-16.
59.
PatonD.BajekR.OkadaN.McIvorD. (2010). Predicting community earthquake preparedness: A cross-cultural comparison of Japan and New Zealand. Natural Hazards, 54, 765-781. doi:10.1007/s11069-010-9500-2
60.
PatonD.SmithL.JohnsonD. (2005).When good intentions turn bad: Promoting natural hazard preparedness. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 20, 25-30.
61.
PaulB. K.BhuiyanR. H. (2010). Urban earthquake hazard: Perceived seismic risk and preparedness in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Disasters, 34, 337-359.
62.
PeacockW. G. (2003). Hurricane mitigation status and factors influencing mitigation status among Florida’s single-family homeowners. Natural Hazards Review, 4, 149-158.
63.
PerryR. W.LindellM. K. (2008). Volcanic risk perception and adjustment in a multi-hazard environment. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 172, 170-178.
64.
ProchaskaJ. O.DiClementeC. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 390-395.
65.
RennO.BurnsW. J.KaspersonJ. X.KaspersonR. E.SlovicP. (1992). The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical applications. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 137-160.
66.
RiversL.ArvaiJ.SlovicP. (2010). Beyond a simple case of Black and White: Searching for the White male effect in the African-American community. Risk Analysis, 30, 65-77.
67.
RogersR. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology, 91, 93-114.
68.
RussellL. A.GoltzJ. D.BourqueL. B. (1995). Preparedness and hazard mitigation actions before and after two earthquakes. Environment & Behavior, 27, 744-770.
69.
SattlerD. N.KaiserC. F.HittnerJ. B. (2000). Disaster preparedness: Relationships among prior experience, personal characteristics, and distress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1396-1420.
SavaleiV.BentlerP. (2006). Structural equation modeling. In GroverR.VriensM. (Eds.), Handbook of marketing research: Uses, misuses and future advances (pp. 330-365). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
72.
ShortJ. F.Jr. (1984). The social fabric at risk: Toward the social transformation of risk analysis. American Sociological Review, 49, 711-725.
73.
SiegristM.GutscherH. (2006). Flooding risks: A comparison of lay people’s perceptions and expert’s assessments in Switzerland. Risk Analysis, 26, 971-979.
74.
SiegristM.GutscherH. (2008). Natural hazards and motivation for mitigation behavior: People cannot predict the affect evoked by a severe flood. Risk Analysis, 28, 771-778.
75.
SjöbergL. (1999). Consequences of perceived risk: Demand for mitigation. Journal of Risk Research, 2, 129-149.
76.
SjöbergL. (2000). Factor in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 1-11.
77.
SlovicP. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
78.
SlovicP. (1992). Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In KrimskyS.GoldingD. (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 117-152). Westport, CT: Praeger.
79.
SlovicP.FinucaneM. L.PetersE.MacGregorD. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 311-322.
80.
SofferY.GoldbergA.AdiniB.CohenR.Ben-EzraM.PalgiY.EssarN.Bar-DayanY. (2011). The relationship between demographic/educational parameters and perceptions, knowledge and earthquake mitigation in Israel. Disasters, 35, 36-44.
81.
SpittalM. J.McClureJ.SiegertR. J.WalkeyF. H. (2008). Predictors of two types of earthquake preparation: Survival activities and mitigation activities. Environment & Behavior, 40, 798-817.
82.
SteinbergL. J.BasoloV.BurbyR.LevineJ. N.CruzA. M. (2004). Joint seismic and technological disasters: Possible impacts and community preparedness in an urban setting. Natural Hazards Review, 5, 159-169.
83.
SternJ. A. C.SmithG. D. (2001). Sifting the evidence—What’s wrong with significance tests?British Medical Journal, 322, 226-231. doi:10.1136/bmj/322/7280.226
84.
Taylor-GoobyP.ZinnJ. O. (2006). Current directions in risk research: New developments in psychology and sociology. Risk Analysis, 26, 397-411.
85.
Tekeli-YeşilS.DedeoğluN.Braun-FahrlaenderC.TannerM. (2010). Factors motivating individuals to take precautionary action for an expected earthquake in Istanbul. Risk Analysis, 30, 1181-1195.
86.
TerpstraT.LindellM. K.GuttelingJ. M. (2009). Does communicating (flood) risk affect (flood) risk perceptions? Results of a quasi-experimental study. Risk Analysis, 29, 1141-1155.
87.
TrumboC. W.McComasK. A. (2003). The function of credibility in information processing for risk perception. Risk Analysis, 23, 343-353.
88.
WahlbergA. A. F.SjobergL. (2000). Risk perception and the media. Journal of Risk Research, 3, 31-50.
WitteK.AllenM. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 591-615.
91.
WoodM. M.KanoM.MiletiD. S.BourqueL. B. (2008). Questionnaire specifications: Documentation of the National Survey of Disaster Experiences and Preparedness (NSDEP). Los Angeles, CA: Southern California Injury Prevention Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/issr/da/earthquake/erthqkstudies2.bibliography.htm
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
