Following major disasters, purchase avoidance behavior toward products that are caused by stigma often results. For example, after the Tohoku Earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster, consumers have avoided products from Fukushima. Attempts have been made to diminish this purchase avoidance behavior, but they have been found to be ineffective. The reasons for ineffectiveness of strategies within this context were empirically examined based on matching and mismatching effects of messages. In two studies (Study 1, N = 113; Study 2, N = 364), the effects of affective messages and cognitive messages were compared, and the effectiveness of affective messages was found to be consistently weaker than that of cognitive messages. Message producers often present affective messages with the expectation of observing the matching effect. However, findings suggest that these presentation strategies will fail, and that the mismatching effect should be used instead. The best method of message presentation to reduce purchase avoidance behavior in a disaster area is discussed.

This research investigated whether the Japanese people’s anxiety about a variety of hazards, including earthquakes and nuclear accidents, has changed over time since the Tohoku Earthquake in 2011. Data from three nationwide surveys conducted in 2008, 2012, and 2015 were compared to see the change in societal levels of anxiety toward 51 types of hazards. The same two-phase stratified random sampling method was used to create the list of participants in each survey. The results showed that anxiety about earthquakes and nuclear accidents had increased for a time after the Tohoku Earthquake, and then decreased after a four-year time frame with no severe earthquakes and nuclear accidents. It was also revealed that the anxiety level for some hazards other than earthquakes and nuclear accidents had decreased at ten months after the Earthquake, and then remained unchanged after the four years. Therefore, ironically, a major disaster might decrease the public anxiety in general at least for several years.

A person's propensity to attribute more weight to a loss than a gain of equal magnitude is known as “loss aversion.” Loss aversion is a component of the prospect theory (which provides a descriptive account of a person's value judgments) and has broad effects in terms of market transactions, intrapersonal decision‐making, and behavioral regulations. Previous studies have considered loss aversion as an omnipresent fundamental psychological bias; however, recent studies have highlighted the limitations of its impact. Accordingly, this paper summarizes the process and boundary conditions of loss aversion in decision‐making under risk, considering four distinct approaches: the absolute magnitude of losses, the bias of attentional allocation, the ranking of losses relative to gains, and the preference for inaction. A comprehensive overview of studies that examined loss aversion from these different perspectives reveals detailed boundary conditions for loss aversion and provides an in‐depth perspective on the mechanism of its occurrence. Based on these findings, specific directions for future loss‐aversion studies are discussed.

Literature in the field of regulatory focus theory argues that individuals who are promotion-focused in creativity-related tasks are more successful than those who are prevention-focused. However, recent studies have shown that prevention-focused individuals are persistent when solving tasks, potentially leading to improved task performance. This study, which considered two kinds of regulatory focus (chronic/situational), investigated the hypothesis that prevention-focused individuals employ a persistent style when performing creative tasks. A Japanese version of the Remote Associates Test (RAT) was used as a creative task, and subjective depletion after the RAT, as well as the time spent deciding to skip RAT items, were measured as indicators of persistence. The results showed that both chronic and situational prevention focuses made participants more depleted than did the promotion focus. Furthermore, in the situational promotion-focus condition, chronic prevention focus made participants more depleted and lengthened the time taken to skip items. Thus, chronic prevention focus promoted persistence in a regulatory nonfit condition (i.e., situational promotion focus).

This study examined whether people's level of basic scientific knowledge is associated with their anxiety levels pertaining to a wide range of hazards. We conducted a nationwide survey and collected data from a highly representative sample (N = 1,073). Participants rated their anxiety level regarding 51 hazards as well as their level of trust in organizations regarding the management of each hazard. Additionally, they answered 11 basic scientific knowledge questions. The results of a hierarchical multiple regression analysis indicated that the level of people's basic scientific knowledge was associated with the level of anxiety they felt about hazards, even after controlling for the effects of sex and trust level. However, the results also suggested that the explanatory power of knowledge was low. The interpretation of these results is discussed with a focus on the deficit model of science communication.