A Psychological Analysis of Self-Protective Decision-Making during Natural Hazards

During natural hazard situations, the fear experienced as a result of the life-threatening conditions can change our reactions. In particular, people do not always respond as expected; sometimes, people disregard warnings and do not engage in recommended self-protective actions, even in the face of obvious dangers. This research integrated expectancy-value and terror management theories to examine self-protective decision-making among an oftentimes disproportionately impacted population: African Americans. Specifically, this research examined the effects of values, perceived attractiveness (i.e., valence) of available actions, expectations, and mortality reminders on African-American college students’ self-protective choices in response to hypothetical potentially deadly natural hazards.

Participants were undergraduates enrolled at two HBCUs; the aim was to replicate the study among samples with differing previous natural hazard experience. Participants completed questionnaires and a traditional mortality salience manipulation prior to reading three vignettes about hypothetical natural hazard situations (i.e., an incoming hurricane, winter storm, and tornado). Each scenario was presented with two actions that could be taken, one of which was self-protective, along with a series of questions regarding valences, expectations, and barriers to action. Participants were asked to choose which action they would take, which served as the primary dependent variable.

A series of ANOVAs, correlations, and logistic regressions were used to analyze the data. Across the scenarios, the pattern of results were highly similar for both samples. In sum, barriers to action (e.g., financial limitations, fear of risking one’s safety) and valences were significant predictors of choices in the hurricane and winter storm scenarios, but not in the tornado scenario. Also, previous hurricane experience significantly impacted choice among participants attending school in the Gulf Coast.

The findings suggested participants did not use a rational, costs-benefits thought process when making self-protective decisions in response to threatening natural hazards. Instead, considerations of barriers that may prevent self-protective action as well as perceived attractiveness of available options strongly impacted these decisions. Implications of these findings will be discussed.