Do framing messages increase support for earthquake legislation?

Vinnell, Lauren J.; McClure, John; Milfont, Taciano L.

doi:10.1108/dpm-06-2016-0127

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study adapted the questionnaire on judgments about earthquake legislation used in Vinnell, McClure, and Milfont (2017) by adding normative information to a scenario about earthquake-prone buildings. Four versions of the scenario presented the same background details of the earthquake legislation (e.g., number and types of buildings affected, and the time frame for strengthening) and stated that 703 buildings were deemed earthquake-prone.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The percentage of buildings that would be strengthened in the time frame of the legislation was derived from this strengthening rate. The injunctive norm represented the number of responses of five or higher on a 7-point scale to the question on support for the legislation in Vinnell et al (2017). A Wellington City Council (n.d.) pamphlet on earthquake-prone buildings provided the information for the control condition.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do Social Norms Affect Support for Earthquake-Strengthening Legislation? Comparing the Effects of Descriptive and Injunctive Norms

Vinnell

Milfont

McClure

2018

Environment and Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social norms have been successfully applied in health promotion and environmental conservation, but their potential for encouraging natural hazard preparation is relatively untested. This research extends the focus theory of normative conduct to natural hazards and cognitive-behavioral outcomes by examining whether focusing individuals on descriptive and injunctive norms increases their support for earthquake-strengthening legislation in a seismically active city: Wellington, New Zealand. In a large community sample ( N = 690), the injunctive norm condition increased support for the legislation compared with the control, whereas the descriptive norm condition did not. In contrast, the descriptive norm condition raised judgments of the feasibility of the strengthening work compared with the control, whereas the injunctive norm condition did not. These findings support previous research demonstrating the differing effects of descriptive and injunctive forms of normative information, and suggest that using both in the same communication is the best strategy for enhancing support for earthquake-strengthening legislation.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Social Norms Affect Support for Earthquake-Strengthening Legislation? Comparing the Effects of Descriptive and Injunctive Norms

Vinnell

Milfont

McClure

2018

Environment and Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, previous research consistently demonstrates that experience of past events relates to earthquake preparation (e.g., Becker et al, 2015;Solberg et al, 2010;Vinnell, McClure, & Milfont, 2017). However, this association is not found consistently (Bourque et al, 2012;Lindell, 2013) and likely acts via risk perception (Lindell & Hwang, 2008).…”

Section: Natural Hazard Preparation Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Canterbury earthquake sequence (O 'Conner, Johnston, & Evans, 2011) and the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake (Vinnell, Orchiston, Becker, & Johnston, 2019). Other research has explored the ways in which New Zealander's perceive risk (e.g., Fraser et al, 2016;McClure, Ferrick, Henrich, & Johnston, 2019;McClure, Henrich, Johnston, & Doyle, 2016;McClure, Johnston, Henrich, Milfont, & Becker, 2015), existing levels of preparedness (e.g., Blake, Tippler, Garden, Johnston, & Becker, 2018), factors which relate to preparedness and resilience (e.g., Blake, Marlowe, & Johnston, 2017;Doyle et al, 2018;Gowan, Kirk, & Sloan, 2014;Kwok, Becker, Paton, Doyle, & Johnston, 2019;Tuohy & Stephens, 2016), and the effects of communication decisions such as message framing (e.g., Henrich, McClure, & Crozier, 2015; McClure, Doyle, & Velluppillai, 2015;Vinnell et al, 2017Vinnell et al, , 2018. Many of these studies explore how significant events impact risk perception and preparedness; while this research is vital, it is also important to understand why people choose to prepare without the direct motivation of a recent event.…”

Section: Newmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Zealand by using a behavioural theory framework and exploring predictors of behaviour with a longitudinal method. Some studies in New Zealand have used behavioural follow-ups (e.g., , pre-and post-test intervention designs (Macdonald, Johnson, Gillies, & Johnston, (2017), or natural experiments (Vinnell, Milfont, & McClure, 2019); however, the bulk of the existing literature uses cross-sectional surveys, with some comparisons between geographical locations (e.g., McClure, Henrich, Johnston, & Doyle, 2016;McClure, Johnston, Henrich, Milfont, & Becker, 2015) or experimental manipulations (e.g., McClure & Sibley, 2011;Vinnell et al, 2017Vinnell et al, , 2018.…”

Section: Newmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why do people prepare for natural hazards? An application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to household preparation

Vinnell¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>Natural hazards impact millions of people globally and lead to billions of dollars of economic loss each year. New Zealand is one of many countries vulnerable to multiple natural hazards including earthquakes, tsunami, volcanic eruption, and high impact weather. Despite these well-known risks, many residents of the capital city of Wellington have taken few steps to be more prepared. This location, therefore, presented an appropriate population for the investigations within this thesis. Decades of social science research has identified a multitude of factors related to preparation behaviour. However, many of these factors, such as risk perception and previous experience of natural hazards, are difficult to manipulate successfully in broad public education campaigns. The first main aim of this thesis was therefore to identify thoughts and beliefs about preparing which predict people’s preparation behaviour, with the aim of identifying specific factors which can be efficiently and effectively targeted in campaigns encouraging preparation. This research was structured using the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) which proposes a specific set of cognitions that affect intention formation as well as beliefs which inform those cognitions. In addition to using this model to structure the investigation, this thesis undertook several refinements and extensions to the model to address inconsistencies within TPB research. The intent of doing so was to provide a set of findings and a questionnaire which are not limited by those inconsistencies and which can be adapted for a range of behavioural contexts. Four empirical studies were carried out, involving a total of 2,298 participants from the general population. Study 1 tested the applicability of this theory to the context of natural disaster preparation and clarified the nature of that context. Using an online survey of 722 residents of the urban Wellington region, Study 1 demonstrated low levels of preparation, identified not “getting around to it” as a main barrier to preparation, and supported a more extensive application of the TPB with the factors explaining approximately 16% of the variance in intentions. Study 2 tested a full TPB questionnaire including both the two-factor distinction (splitting attitudes into instrumental and experiential, norms in descriptive and injunctive, and perceived behaviour control into controllability and self-efficacy) and belief components which are proposed to precede attitudes, norms, and control. This study used an online sample of 603 Wellington residents. All the cognitions within the theory except perceived descriptive norms were significantly associated with either past behaviour or intentions to prepare, explaining approximately 47% of the variance in intentions. This study also included an experimental framing manipulation, demonstrating benefits of referring to “natural hazard” preparation rather than “natural disaster” preparation. Study 3 concluded the development of the TPB questionnaire by assessing intentions, cognitions, and beliefs at one point in time and behaviour one month later to allow for stronger inferences about causality, with a sample of 61 participants across both time points. This study used a different recruitment method than the previous studies: posted survey invites using addresses randomly selected from the electoral roll. Although this method did not produce a more demographically representative sample than the recruitment method used in Studies 1 and 2 as intended, Study 3 reproduced the findings of the “natural hazard” condition in Study 2. Finally, this study identified several key beliefs related to preparing such as the belief that preparing helps people to get through a natural hazard event better, that people can make the effort to prepare, and that preparing can be fun and rewarding. These beliefs offer specific and tangible factors which can be efficiently addressed in public education campaigns. An intervention run previously by the New Zealand National Emergency Agency, the ShakeOut earthquake drill, was retrospectively evaluated in Study 4 by comparing those who did and those who did not participate (N = 480) using the TPB framework. Those who participated in the drill demonstrated better knowledge and use of the protective actions that are the focus of the drill than those who did not participate. Although this intervention was not informed by the findings of the previous studies, drill participants also demonstrated more positive scores for the TPB cognitions and intentions compared to non-participants, although more of the variance in intentions was explained for the latter (approximately 41%) than the former (approximately 31%). Overall, findings from the empirical studies support the recommendation for consistent inclusion of all tested refinements to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (i.e., the two-factor distinction, the inclusion of belief measures, and careful development of behavioural measures). This thesis represents a uniquely thorough test of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to natural hazard preparation with important implications for both the contextual value of the theory and how the theory is applied in research broadly. The research also supports previous findings of the importance of instrumental attitudes and self-efficacy for natural hazard preparation and contributed the novel factor of experiential attitudes as well as identifying new, specific beliefs to target in public education campaigns. These contributions to our understanding of why people prepare for natural hazards can be used to encourage more people in Wellington, in New Zealand, and globally to be more prepared.</p>

show abstract

Why do people prepare for natural hazards? Developing and testing a Theory of Planned Behaviour approach

Vinnell

Milfont

McClure

2021

Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do framing messages increase support for earthquake legislation?

Cited by 15 publications

References 39 publications

Do Social Norms Affect Support for Earthquake-Strengthening Legislation? Comparing the Effects of Descriptive and Injunctive Norms

Do Social Norms Affect Support for Earthquake-Strengthening Legislation? Comparing the Effects of Descriptive and Injunctive Norms

Why do people prepare for natural hazards? An application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to household preparation

Why do people prepare for natural hazards? Developing and testing a Theory of Planned Behaviour approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About