Effects of exposure to a severe weather disaster on perceived future vulnerability were assessed in college students, local residents contacted through random-digit dialing, and community residents of affected versus unaffected neighborhoods. Students and community residents reported being less vulnerable than their peers at 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year after the disaster. In Studies 1 and 2, absolute risk estimates were more optimistic with time, whereas comparative vulnerability was stable. Residents of affected neighborhoods (Study 3), surprisingly, reported less comparative vulnerability and lower "gut-level" numerical likelihood estimates at 6 months, but later their estimates resembled the unaffected residents. Likelihood estimates (10%-12%), however, exceeded the 1% risk calculated by storm experts, and gut-level versus statistical-level estimates were more optimistic. Although people believed they had approximately a 1-in-10 chance of injury from future tornadoes (i.e., an overestimate), they thought their risk was lower than peers.
AbstractEffects of exposure to a severe weather disaster on perceived future vulnerability were assessed in college students, local residents contacted through random-digit dialing, and community residents of affected versus unaffected neighborhoods. Students and community residents reported being less vulnerable than their peers at 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year after the disaster. In Studies 1 and 2, absolute risk estimates were more optimistic with time, whereas comparative vulnerability was stable. Residents of affected neighborhoods (Study 3), surprisingly, reported less comparative vulnerability and lower "gutlevel" numerical likelihood estimates at 6 months, but later their estimates resembled the unaffected residents. Likelihood estimates (10%-12%), however, exceeded the 1% risk calculated by storm experts, and gut-level versus statistical-level estimates were more optimistic. Although people believed they had approximately a 1-in-10 chance of injury from future tornadoes (i.e., an overestimate), they thought their risk was lower than peers.