No abstract

Research has documented that immigrants tend to experience more negative consequences from natural disasters compared to native-born individuals, although research on how immigrants perceive and respond to natural disaster risks is sparse. We investigated how risk perception and disaster preparedness for natural disasters in immigrants compared to Canadian-born individuals as justifications for culturally-adapted risk communication and management. To this end, we analyzed the ratings on natural disaster risk perception beliefs and preparedness behaviors from a nationally representative survey (N = 1,089). Factor analyses revealed three underlying psychological dimensions of risk perception: external responsibility for disaster management, self-preparedness responsibility, and illusiveness of preparedness. Although immigrants and Canadian-born individuals shared the three-factor structure, there were differences in the salience of five risk perception beliefs. Despite these differences, immigrants and Canadian-born individuals were similar in the level of risk perception dimensions and disaster preparedness. Regression analyses revealed self-preparedness responsibility and external responsibility for disaster management positively predicted disaster preparedness whereas illusiveness of preparedness negatively predicted disaster preparedness in both groups. Our results showed that immigrants' risk perception and disaster preparedness were comparable to their Canadian-born counterparts. That is, immigrant status did not necessarily yield differences in risk perception and disaster preparedness. These social groups may benefit from a risk communication and management strategy that addresses these risk perception dimensions to increase disaster preparedness. Given the diversity of the immigrant population, the model remains to be tested by further population segmentation.

No abstract

This study systematically examined the effects of impression management biases on the reporting of dyadic relationship information. In an anonymous mail survey, 196 participants (101 women, 95 men) in marital or cohabiting relationships completed a measure of impression management and several relationship measures. Analyses indicated that impression management biases did not affect women's self-reports. Among men, impression management biases were significantly associated with many of their reports about their relationships. However, statistically controlling for these biases did not reduce the magnitude of correlations between measures of marital quality and the other relationship measures. Furthermore, partners' agreement about observable aspects of their relationship did not change when the influences of these biases were statistically removed. The authors conclude that researchers can generally trust in the veridicality of anonymous self-report data about commonplace aspects of marriage.

No abstract