Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe 2020 hurricane season threatened millions of Americans concurrently grappling with COVID‐19. Processes guiding individual‐level mitigation for these conceptually distinct threats, one novel and chronic (COVID‐19), the other familiar and episodic (hurricanes), are unknown. Theories of health protective behaviors suggest that inputs from external stimuli (e.g., traditional and social media) lead to threat processing, including perceived efficacy (self‐ and response) and perceived threat (susceptibility and severity), guiding mitigation behavior. We surveyed a representative sample of Florida and Texas residents (N = 1846) between April 14, 2020 and April 27, 2020; many had previous hurricane exposure; all were previously assessed between September 8, 2017 and September 11, 2017. Using preregistered analyses, two generalized structural equation models tested direct and indirect effects of media exposure (traditional media, social media) on self‐reported (1) COVID‐19 mitigation (handwashing, mask‐wearing, social distancing) and (2) hurricane mitigation (preparation behaviors), as mediated through perceived efficacy (self‐ and response) and perceived threat (susceptibility and severity). Self‐efficacy and response efficacy were associated with social distancing (p = .002), handwashing, mask‐wearing, and hurricane preparation (ps < 0.001). Perceived susceptibility was positively associated with social distancing (p = 0.017) and hurricane preparation (p < 0.001). Perceived severity was positively associated with social distancing (p < 0.001). Traditional media exhibited indirect effects on COVID‐19 mitigation through increased response efficacy (ps < 0.05), and to a lesser extent self‐efficacy (p < 0.05), and on hurricane preparation through increased self‐efficacy and response efficacy and perceived susceptibility (ps < 0.05). Social media did not exhibit indirect effects on COVID‐19 or hurricane mitigation. Communications targeting efficacy and susceptibility may encourage mitigation behavior; research should explore how social media campaigns can more effectively target threat processing, guiding protective actions.

Research on evacuation from natural disasters has been published across the peer‐reviewed literature among several disparate disciplinary outlets and has suggested a wide variety of predictors of evacuation behavior. We conducted a systematic review to summarize and evaluate the current literature on demographic, storm‐related, and psychosocial correlates of natural disaster evacuation behavior. Eighty‐three eligible papers utilizing 83 independent samples were identified. Risk perception was a consistent positive predictor of evacuation, as were several demographic indicators, prior evacuation behavior, and having an evacuation plan. The influence of prior experiences, self‐efficacy, personality, and links between expected and actual behavior were examined less frequently. Prospective, longitudinal designs are relatively uncommon. Although difficult to conduct in postdisaster settings, more prospective, methodologically rigorous studies would bolster inferences. Results synthesize the current body of literature on evacuation behavior and can help inform the design of more effective predisaster evacuation warnings and procedures.

Humans seek consistency between their internal thoughts and the outside world. Thus, when legal authorities make decisions, people are likely to accept and obey these decisions in order to remain consistent with the societies in which they live. Few studies have explored these biases in an applied context. We examined the relationship between the sentencing of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (the Boston Marathon bomber) and Americans' opinions about his punishment in a natural quasi-experiment. We expected that Tsarnaev's sentencing would be associated with increased support for his death penalty sentence, in a manner consistent with the legitimization literature. A survey of a representative U.S. national sample (N=3,341; 78.13% total response rate) was conducted between April 29 and June 26, 2015. We assessed views about Tsarnaev's sentencing (i.e., whether he should receive the death penalty), political party, demographics, and psychological indicators; 81.77% of our sample completed the survey prior to Tsarnaev's sentencing and 18.23% completed the survey afterwards. Multiple logistic regression analyses indicated that those who completed the survey after Tsarnaev was sentenced to death were more likely to support a death penalty sentence than were those who took the survey prior to the sentencing (OR=1.48, p=.007; 95% confidence [1.11, 1.96]). These results remained significant after adjusting for significant covariates, including male gender, White race, Protestant-Christian religious affiliation, Boston residency, beliefs in a just world, and Republican political party identification. Results of this quasi-experiment suggest that people adjust their opinions to be consistent with the fait accompli, particularly once the outcome is widely known.