Disaster preparedness: a social‐cognitive perspective

By Douglas Paton. 2003

662 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Despite considerable effort and expenditure on public hazard education, levels of disaster preparedness remain low. By integrating and expanding on natural hazards and health research on protective behaviour, this paper proposes a social cognitive model of disaster preparedness. The model describes a developmental process that commences with factors that motivate people to prepare, progresses through the formation of intentions, and culminates in decisions to prepare. Following their critical appraisal, variables implicated at each stage are identified and their role in the preparedness process described. The implications of the model for the conceptualisation and assessment of preparedness is discussed, as is its implications for risk reduction and communication strategies.

Subfields: Emergency Medical Services, Infectious Diseases, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d54ff040bab3f5fa6b5983ec5401abcca2099294

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Emergency Medical Services

In Infectious Diseases

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Predictors of Two Types of Earthquake Preparation (2008, background): “…mitigation actions relate to perceptions of control more than risk propensity, interventions should target these control perceptions, and show people that they can obtain the resources to deal with the threat imposed by natural hazards (Duval & Mulilis, 1999; McClure et al., 2001; Paton, 2003).”
Measuring Tsunami Preparedness in Coastal Washington, United States (2005, methodology): “An explanation for low preparedness has previously been discussed using a process model of preparedness (Paton, 2003; Paton et al., 2003b) that comprised three distinct, but related, stages (Figure 2).”
Adaptive capacity: exploring the research frontier (2017, background): “Risk Attitudes Risk attitudes consist of the ways in which individuals perceive the probability and severity of climate risk (risk appraisal), the way in which they perceive their capacity to perform those options (self-efficacy), the perceived costs and benefits associated with adapting (adaptation”
As the climate changes: Intergenerational action-based learning in relation to flood education (2017, methodology): “Social cognitive theories (Bandura, 1986; Paton, 2003) aid theoretical exploration, and have been used in research concerning preparedness (Becker, Paton, Johnston, & Ronan, 2012Paton, 2003).”
A model of household preparedness for earthquakes: how individuals make meaning of earthquake information and how this influences preparedness (2012, background): “…issues, which is consistent with previous research identifying critical awareness as a key part of the preparedness process (McIvor and Paton 2007; Paton 2003, 2007; Paton et al. 2003, 2005, 2006a, b; Lindell and Perry 2011; Lindell and Prater 2000; Mileti and Darlington 1995, 1997; Mileti and…”
The disruption of the international supply chain: Firm resilience and knowledge preparedness to tackle the COVID-19 outbreak (2021, neutral): “Despite that this process can also be partially non-cognitive (Seligman, 1971) – at least in the phase of individual motivation and intention – it follows an explicit decision to prepare for disasters (Coombs and Laufer, 2018; Paton, 2003; Paton and Johnston, 2001).”
Resilience isn't the same for all: Comparing subjective and objective approaches to resilience measurement (2018, background): “More importantly, while a wide body of literature exists exploring normative and societal influences on people's response to risk (Paton, 2003), as well as the importance of heuristics in decision-making and human behaviors (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), few resilience measurement toolkits have…”
Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour (2019, background): “21, .36]).”