Drivers of Household Risk Perceptions and Adjustment Intentions to Tornado Hazards in Oklahoma

Abstract

Tornadoes are responsible for considerable property damage and loss of life across the state of Oklahoma. While several studies have explored drivers of tornado adjustment behaviors, their results are not consistent in terms of their significance and direction. To address this shortcoming in the literature, we surveyed households using a disproportionate stratified sampling procedure from counties in Oklahoma that frequently experience tornado threats to explore drivers of adjustments. We used Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to explore relationships among variables highlighted in the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) and related literature that affect adjustment intentions and risk perceptions. Overall, we found the factors highlighted in the PMT are effective at explaining households’ intentions of adopting adjustment behaviors associated with tornado hazards. Threat appraisals, however, were less important than coping appraisals in explaining tornado hazard adjustment intentions. In further analysis, we grouped adjustments as 1) basic (e.g., flashlight, food and water supply) and 2) complex (e.g., insurance, storm shelter), and found that while coping appraisals are significant drivers of both adjustment categories, the effect of threat appraisals is only significant for complex adjustment intentions. We also found that emotional responses to hazards are major drivers of threat appraisals, stronger than perceived knowledge and hazard salience. Moreover, we found that demographic characteristics affect both adjustment intentions and threat appraisals. The additions to the PMT and categorization of adjustment activities improve our understanding of the PMT in different contexts. Such insights provide scholars and emergency managers with strategies for risk communication efforts.

Applying the extended parallel process model to understand households’ responses to tornado and earthquake risks in Oklahoma

“…In addition to the EPPM components, as suggested in the literature, we also found multi‐use to strongly and positively affect the number of households’ danger control responses (Bourque et al., 2012; Huntsman et al., 2021; Lindell & Prater, 2002; Lindell & Perry, 2000; Lindell & Whitney, 2000; Westcott et al., 2020). While studies suggest that response costs influence the response behavior when the response is perceived as more complex and costly (Bubeck et al., 2013; Huntsman et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022; Poussin et al., 2014), we did not find such relationship between the monetary cost and the number of danger control responses. This may be due to our conjoint measure of the danger control responses regardless of their costs.…”

“…Our study extends beyond Li and colleagues’ (2023) and (2022) study of induced earthquakes and tornadoes. While these two studies rely on the PMT, this current study employs Witte's (1992) EPPM and Rimal's (2001) attitudinal groups to categorize households based on their threat appraisals and coping appraisals.…”

“…In addition, being married, owning the home, and having a higher income also directly correlate with tornado danger control responses, lending support to Li et al. (2022)’s tornado study in Oklahoma. Our regression results show that being homeowners leads to higher tornado and earthquake danger control responses.…”

“…Being male and having a lower income are both associated with an indifference attitude for tornadoes, which potentially make them less likely to adopt danger control responses. In addition, being married, owning the home, and having a higher income also directly correlate with tornado danger control responses, lending support to Li et al (2022)'s tornado study in Oklahoma. Our regression results show that being homeowners leads to higher tornado and earthquake danger control responses.…”

“…As for the perceived attributes toward each danger control response, these questions included perceived response efficacy (the extent to which a danger control response can protect persons and protect property), self-efficacy (the extent to which a danger control response requires special knowledge, cooperation, and effort), and response costs (the extent to which a danger control response can be used for other types of hazards (multi-use) and its monetary cost) (1 = Not at all to 5 = Very great extent). Consistent with previous studies (Huntsman et al, 2021;Li et al, 2022;Weber et al, 2018), we averaged the efficacy variables (response efficacy, self-efficacy) of tornado-specific and common danger control responses to calculate tornadorelated efficacy variables (tornado response efficacy, tornado self-efficacy); we also averaged the efficacy variables of earthquake-specific and common danger control responses to calculate earthquake-related efficacy variables (earthquake response efficacy, earthquake self-efficacy).…”