Emotions and beliefs after a disaster: a comparative analysis of Haiti and Indonesia

Abstract

A number of studies have examined emotional and belief responses following a disaster, yet there has been limited comparative analysis of responses to disasters in different places. This paper reviews the results of 366 questionnaires that evaluated key emotional and belief concepts in Haiti after the earthquake on 12 January 2010 (n=212) and in Indonesia after the earthquake in Yogyakarta on 27 May 2006 (n=154). The results indicate significant differences between the responses in the two settings, particularly in relation to feelings of impunity, self-blame for the disaster, regret about pre-earthquake behaviour, and a sense of justice in the world. Furthermore, the impacts of age, education, and gender on responses also were different in the two case study sites. Overall, the results suggest that understanding the cultural, religious, and social contexts of different disaster locales is important in comprehending the emotions and beliefs that manifest themselves in the wake of a major disaster.

Risk for Revictimization Following Interpersonal and Noninterpersonal Trauma: Clarifying the Role of Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms and Trauma‐Related Cognitions

“…Although negative posttraumatic cognitions are most strongly associated with interpersonal traumas (Lilly, ; Müller et al., ), noninterpersonal traumas can also disrupt beliefs about the self, others, and the world. For example, after an earthquake, individuals may experience self‐blame or regret about preearthquake behaviors (O'Connell, Abbott, & White, ), which could contribute to more general negative views of the self. Individuals may also lose faith in other people after noninterpersonal trauma (O'Connell et al., ); for example, if postdisaster aid is not received.…”

“…Hypothesis 3b. Given that noninterpersonal traumas can also contribute to negative cognitions about the self, others, and the world (O'Connell et al, 2017;Solomon et al, 1997), posttraumatic cognitions were also expected to mediate the association between prior noninterpersonal trauma and subsequent interpersonal victimization (when controlling for past interpersonal trauma).…”

“…For example, after an earthquake, individuals may experience self-blame or regret about preearthquake behaviors (O'Connell, Abbott, & White, 2017), which could contribute to more general negative views of the self. Individuals may also lose faith in other people after noninterpersonal trauma (O'Connell et al, 2017); for example, if postdisaster aid is not received. Noninterpersonal traumas can also contribute to negative beliefs about the safety of the world.…”

Invited Perspective: Building sustainable and resilient communities – Recommended actions for natural hazard scientists

“…We are part of and affected by culture as researchers, and this can shape the way in which we approach ideas or partnerships as natural hazard scientists. Culture can also affect risk, by either increasing or reducing the vulnerability of individuals and communities, shaping the norms by which the acceptability of risk is defined, and influencing how people respond to and cope with disasters (Bankoff, 2003;Schipper and Dekens, 2009;Canon and Schipper, 2014;O'Connell et al, 2017). Examples include:…”

Risk perception and culture: implications for vulnerability and adaptation to climate change

“…While the influence of cultural factors on perceptions of risk is presently being discussed in many fields, such as anthropology and psychology, there is a lack of recognition in the area of climate change adaptation that cultural factors are crucial in understanding why people perceive and respond to climate change risks in particular ways (Adger et al, 2013; Bankoff, 2015; Binder and Baker, 2017; O'Connell et al, 2017; Melo Zurita et al, 2018). Currently, mainstream work on climate change adaptation in relation to policy and practice still tends to take little account of the different cultural interpretations of risk that many people at the local level use to coexist with climate shocks; consequently, attempts by organisations 1 to support at‐risk people are likely to be less effective (Graham et al, 2018).…”