Psychological dimensions of risk
perception and disaster preparedness
for natural disasters in Canada
An Gie Yong Ph.D.(c) in experimental psychology, B.Sc.
Louise Lemyre, Celine Pinsent, Tim Dugas, & Daniel Krewski
GAP-Santé, Faculty of Social Sciences
University of Ottawa
Canada
World Weather Open Science Conference 2014, Montreal, QC – 18 August 2014
1
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Context
Targeted
approach
Risk
perception
How individuals
understand and
evaluate hazards
Risk
communication
Enhancing
well-being
• Preparedness
behaviours
• Empowerment
• Resilience
Individual
Collective
2
© Lemyre et al., 2014
What does ‘psychosocial’ mean?
• Descriptive term for all
human processes involving
both psychological and
social components.
• It relates to the way we
think, feel, and behave.
(cognitive,
affective, behavioral)
• It includes risk perception
and preparedness.
• Psychosocial applies to
both individual and
collective processes.
(It drives behaviour)
© Lemyre et al., 2013
The social environment
Gibson & Lemyre (2012)
Socio-political Context
Social Inequities
Preparedness Policies
Individual preparedness
External Information Sources
Access to Emergency
Services
Collective preparedness
Neighbourhood
Organization
Neighbourhood Relations
Social Networks
Social Support
Social Norms
Housing
Health
Sociodemo
Previous
Experience
Social Environment)
© Lemyre et al., 2014
4
Canada and extreme environmental events
Slave Lake Wildfire (2011)
Flash Flood Toronto (2013)
Goderich Tornado (2011)
Alberta Flood (2013)
5
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Research questions
What are the psychological dimensions underlying
the Canadian public’s risk perceptions for natural
disasters and extreme weather events?
How do these psychological dimensions relate
to…
socio-demographic characteristics?
disaster preparedness behaviours?
the level of perceived risk for natural hazards?
6
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Method
National Study on Risk Perception in Canada 2012
Information Sources






Experts
Friends and family
Government
Traditional media
Social media
Official internet
webpages
Trust
E
S
K
Knowledge
Cause-effect and prevention
Understanding hazard
Technical knowledge
Control
Chance-fate
Governmental
Internal-choice
T
Best-benevolence government
Truth government
Experts
Friends and family
Government
Traditional media
Social media
Official internet webpages
Belief System
World Views
Personal Epistemology
Anecdotal/science base
Other knowing
Science base
C
Risk Perception
Likelihood / probability
Susceptibility
B
Behaviour
Attitude Belief
Uncertainty
P
U
Complexity
Predictability
Understood by science
A
Hopeless randomness
Value system
Science-tech enthusiasm
Avoidance or absence
Planned, thought, or intent
Observable
N
O
Tolerance Acceptance
Social Norm
People in general
Compliance
Threshold
Trade-off or risk-benefit
D
Socio-Demographics
Other
Z
Stress
CPR / First aid training
Community engagement
Awareness of CCS
7
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Method
National Study on Risk Perception in Canada 2012
• Representative of the Canadian public (N = 3,263)
• Merged online (n = 1,569) and telephone samples (n =
1,694)
• ≈ 30 minutes
• Nested design with generic core section plus
3 topical case studies: Natural disaster, radiation, vaccine
• Natural disaster case study (n = 1,089)
• 18 statements on natural disaster risks and issues
• 5 items on disaster preparedness behaviours
• 3 items on level of perceived risk for natural hazards
8
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Method
Data analysis
Phase 1: Identify and validate the psychological dimensions
Factor analysis (EFA and CFA)
Phase 2: See variations in psychological dimensions by sociodemographics
Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs)
Phase 3: Link psychological dimensions with preparedness behaviours
and level of perceived risk
Multivariate linear regressions
9
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Results: Phase 1
What are the psychological dimensions
underlying the Canadian public’s risk
perceptions for natural disasters and
extreme weather event?
10
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Results: EFA-CFA
3 main factors
.43
Selfpreparedness
belief
.23
(F1)
.56
.53
-.04
.35
.56
.75***
Illusiveness of
preparedness
(F2)
.35
E1
The negative consequences of natural disasters can be decreased by
being well prepared.
E2
The main thing that determines my exposure to natural disaster risks is
what I myself do.
E3
The benefits of preparing for a natural disaster outweigh the costs.
E4
If a natural disaster has recently occurred, it is less likely to happen again
soon.
E5
Preparation is useless to protect oneself from natural disasters.
E6
Fate will decide if I am in a natural disaster.
E7
It is unlikely that I will be a victim of a natural disaster.
E8
Information about natural disasters is confusing.
E9
It is the government’s responsibility to plan effectively for natural disasters.
E10
Even if I didn’t understand why, I would likely follow the recommendations
from government authorities during a natural disaster.
E11
Organizations should help people learn about disaster preparedness.
E12
.39
.43
.33
.04
External
responsibility
for disaster
management
(F3)
It is an individual's responsibility to be prepared for a major natural disaster.
.50
.47
.52
S-Bχ2 (44) = 58.49, p = .07, *CFI = .97, *RMSEA = .025 [90% C.I. (.000, .040)]
11
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Results: Phase 2
How do these 3 psychological dimensions
relate to socio-demographic
characteristics?
Education
Gender
Age
Household
income
Region
Parental
status
12
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Results: ANOVAs
Self-preparedness belief by socio-demographics
Age (n.s.)
Education (n.s.)
Household income (n.s.)
Parental status (n.s.)
Region
Gender (n.s.)
*
*
p < .001
13
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Results: ANOVAs
Illusiveness of preparedness by socio-demographics
Age
**
**
*
Education
*
*
*
*
*
p < .001
Parental status
*
Household income
*
*
p < .001
Region (n.s.)
*
p < .001
Gender (n.s.)
*
p < .01
14
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Results: ANOVAs
External responsibility for disaster management by socio-demographics
Age
Education (n.s.)
Income
*
*
p < .001
Parental status
*
p < .05
Region (n.s.)
*
Gender
*
p < .05
*
p < .001
15
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Results: Phase 3
Disaster preparedness
How do these 3 psychological
dimensions relate to disaster
preparedness behaviours?
16
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Results: Regressions
“Discuss preparedness information with others”
Self-preparedness belief
(β = .28***)
Discuss preparedness
information with others
Illusiveness of
preparedness
External
responsibility
for disaster
management
(β = .16***)
R2 = .13***
17
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Results: Regressions
“Have an emergency supply kit”
Self-preparedness belief
(β = .28***)
Have an emergency
supply kit
Illusiveness of
preparedness
External
responsibility
for disaster
management
R2 = .07***
18
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Results: Regressions
“Have an evacuation plan”
Self-preparedness belief
(β = .33***)
Have an evacuation
plan
Illusiveness of
preparedness
External
responsibility
for disaster
management
R2 = .10***
19
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Results: Regressions
“Discuss with others to search for me”
Self-preparedness belief
(β = .19***)
Discuss with others to
search for me within 48hours post-disaster
Illusiveness of
preparedness
(β = -.08***)
External
responsibility
for disaster
management
(β = .14***)
R2 = .06***
20
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Results: Regressions
“Intend to comply with evacuation recommendations”
Self-preparedness belief
(β = .09***)
Intend to comply with
evacuation
recommendations
Illusiveness of
preparedness
(β = -.09***)
External
responsibility
for disaster
management
(β = .48***)
R2 = .25***
21
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Results: Phase 3
Perceived risk for natural hazards
How do these psychological dimensions
relate to the level of perceived risk for
natural hazards?
22
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Results: Regressions
Perceived risk for natural hazards
Major flooding
Self-preparedness belief
Illusiveness of
preparedness
External
responsibility
for disaster
management
(β = .09**)
R2 = .09***
23
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Future directions
• Subpopulation analyses –
e.g., immigrants compared
to Canadian-born
individuals
• My doctoral dissertation 
• Multilevel analyses – e.g.,
community engagement
and social capital
• Qualitative interviews
• Spatial analyses using GIS
• Poster  UAS-POM3010
24
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Implications
• Perceptions of natural hazards are multifaceted
(more consequence-driven than hazard-driven)
• Different social groups look at the same hazard
differently
• Beliefs affect behavioural response and risk
perception
25
© Lemyre et al., 2014
Implications
3 main messages
More risk communication on preparedness
behaviours should move towards to:
People and their community
‘Process’ in addition to ‘the hazard’
Capacity building
26
© Lemyre et al., 2014
An Gie Yong Ph.D(c) in experimental psychology, B.Sc.
GAP-Santé, Faculty of Social Sciences
University of Ottawa
Canada
[email protected]
www.gapsante.uottawa.ca
27
© Lemyre et al., 2014