McMullan, Caroline

DCU Online Research Access Service

 Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) & Links to DCU Based Research  Dr Caroline McMullan Origins & Basis of  PMT • Protection motivation theory founded by Rogers (1975) – based on expectancy-value theory • Originally to better understand “fear appeals”. • “Fear Appeals” are “Communications that attempt to change our attitudes by appealing to that unpleasant emotion of  fear” (Rogers, 1983, p153) • PMT was extended by Rogers (1983) to a more general theory of  persuasive communication by adding reward & self  efficacy components  • Protection motivation stems from both the threat appraisal and the coping appraisal.  • Protection Motivation Theory suggests that individuals protect themselves based on 4 factors: 1. the perceived probability of  the occurrence 2. the perceived severity of  a threatening event 3. the efficacy of  the recommended preventive behaviour  4. perceived self  efficacy    Sometimes a 5th is added 5. response cost  Protection Motivation & Action • These cognitive processes “mediate the effects of  the components of  fear appeals on attitudes by arousing what has been termed “protection motivation”. (Rogers, 1983, p158) • “The intent to adopt the communicator’s recommendation is a function of  the amount of  protection motivation aroused.” (Rogers, 1983, p158)   A Schema of  PMT(Poong, 2016) Threat Appraisal -  perceived probability of  the occurrence • Sometimes term perceived vulnerability is used • Refers to perceived expectation of  being exposed to a particular threat/risk • Akin to likelihood when completing a risk assessment Threat Appraisal - perceived severity of  a threatening event • Also referred to as magnitude of  noxiousness • Estimate of  how harmful the consequences of  exposure will be • Akin to Impact when completing a risk assessment Coping Appraisal • Takes place only after a threat appraisal has been undertaken • An individual will only complete a coping appraisal once a certain threshold of  threat appraisal has been reached • “a minimum level of  threat or concern must exist before people start contemplating the benefits of  possible actions and ruminate their competence to actually perform them” (Schwarzer, 1992. In: Grothmann & Reusswig, 2006, pp105-6) Efficacy of  the Preventive Action & Perceived Self  Efficacy  • Coping Appraisal has 3 components: 1. A belief  that the recommended action will be effective – will protect against harm (efficacy of  the recommended preventive behaviour)  2. A belief  that the individual can actually perform or complete the recommended action(s) – (perceived self  efficacy) 3. Perceived cost of  the recommended action  Basically… • “any source of  information about a threat… initiates a threat appraisal process and a coping appraisal process”. (Rogers, 1983, p173) • Widely used theory in preventive health. • Examples include anti smoking campaigns, diabetes, campaigns centred on limiting alcohol consumption. • Based on the idea that disease prevention campaigns are more effective when negative appeals are utilised. • “studies of  fear-arousing communications published between 1953 and 1980 showed that increases in the perceived level of  fear consistently resulted in increases in acceptance of  the proposed adaptive behaviour or intention. Also, increments in perceived response efficacy increased the intentions to select the adaptive  response.” (Floyd, Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 2000, p.409)  Move from Health to Emergency Management   Studies in Areas Such As: Flooding • Risk Perception & Flood Mitigation Behaviour • People at Risk of  Flooding – why some take action and some do not (Cologne, Germany) • Perception & Communication of  Flood Risk • Factors influencing flood damage mitigation • Flooding Experiences in the Netherlands Wildland Fires • What motivates people to protect themselves against wildland fires Earthquake Preparedness • Earthquake preparedness in the USA  Factors Which May* Influence Protection Motivation Action • Age • Gender • Marital Status • Education • Proximity to Risk (eg close to river, volcano) • Rural/Urban divide • Household Income • Household Ownership • Previous Experience of  Emergency • Worry or Dread of  specific Emergency * conflicting evidence from different studies     Factors Which May* Decrease PM Action • Denial • Wishful Thinking • Fatalism • Lack of  Knowledge • Financial Constraints • Reliance on Public Mitigation (such as flood defences) * conflicting evidence from different studies     In An Irish Context   Risk Perception & Emergency Preparedness in Ireland: Gender Differences Gavin D. Brown  Dr Ann Largey  Dr Caroline McMullan,  DCU Business School  Studies of  Risk Perception “examine the judgements people make when they are asked to characterize and evaluate hazardous activities and technologies.” (Slovic, 1987, p.280)  In this case risk perception in relation to 17 risks which could impact on individuals and/or their homes    Literature Review – Gender & Risk   • Risks tend to be judged as lower by men than by women (see, for example, Brody, 1984; Gutteling and Wiegman, 1993; Stem et al. 1993; Flynn et al, 1994).  • "Men and women …seem to worry about the same risks, but women constantly worry a bit more…The differences are seldom very large, but systematic.” (Gustafson, 1998, p.806)   Literature Review – Gender & Risk   • Women tended to have higher disaster expectations, more worry, and higher loss estimations.   • Furthermore, household property and being married were related to threat perceptions, showing that the more individuals have at  stake the more threat they perceive. (Karanci et al, 2005, p.255) In a similar US Study… • By Flynn et al (1994), 1,512 Americans were asked to rate 25 risks & indicate whether the risk posed: (1) little or no; (2) slight; (3) moderate; or (4) high risk to society.  • Results showed that the percentage of  high-risk responses was greater for women than men on every item. Preparedness & Gender • Males think that they have a greater ability to protect themselves from the effects of  a volcano and rate their level of  self  preparedness as significantly higher than females. (Barberi et al, 2008)  Some Conflicting Studies • Gender was a significant predictor for technological hazards, but not for non-technological hazards. (Siegrist et al, 2005)  • Tekeli‐Yeşil et al (2010) also found that gender did not show a significant association in the final model. Demographics  • Data gathered via questionnaire • 1584 Usable Responses Received  • Male 49% (n=776) • Female 51% (n=808)    Note 25.9% (n=553) did not declare gender Analysis Aim:  Estimate the impact of  being female on  (i) Perceived likelihood  (ii) Perceived impact and  (iii) Overall risk assessment     controlling for other socioeconomic factors   (age, income, children, household size, rural location, renter, length of  occupation)   Analysis • Perceived Likelihood and Perceived Impact • Likert scale (1 to 5) • Ordered Probit  • Overall Risk Rating – Treated as continuous variable (1 to 25) – OLS regression  Natural Risks (impact of  female) Likelihood Impact Overall risk Flooding    0.247***    0.0001    0.643** Drought    0.206***    0.053    0.749** Severe Snow    0.091    0.127**    0.628** Storm    0.163**    0.174***    0.970*** High Temperature    0.069    0.079    0.439* Low Temperature    0.110*    0.194***    0.849*** Technological Risks (impact of  female) Likelihood Impact Overall risk Fire    0.145**   -0.089    0.245 Disruption to Energy     0.199***    0.214***    1.338*** Nuclear (Abroad)    0.187***    0.102*    1.089*** Radiation (Domestic)    0.304***    0.164***    1.596*** Cyber incident    0.069    0.139**    0.557* Civil Risks (Impact of  female) Likelihood Impact Overall risk Loss  of Critical Infrastructure    0.152***   0.240***    1.281*** Infectious Disease (humans)    0.137**    0.034    0.737** Infectious Disease (livestock)    0.051    0.1    0.646** Water borne disease outbreak    0.183***    0.146**    1.041*** Food borne disease outbreak    0.167***    0.095    0.852*** Terrorism    0.222***    0.144**    1.241*** Marginal Impact of  Female on Perceived Likelihood of  Flooding Extremely Unlikely Very Unlikely Unlikely Likely Very Likely - 0.082 -0.017 0.039 0.044 0.016 -8% -2% +4% +4% +2% i.e. What is the difference in the probability a female  will state each risk category compared to a man,  assuming the same values for all other variables? Perceived Preparedness - Analysis Aim: Estimate the impact of  being female on  (i) Perceived preparedness  (ii) Action to protect     controlling for other socioeconomic factors   (age, income, children, household size, rural location, homeowner/renter, length of  occupation)   Coefficients and significance of  ‘Female’ Dependent variable Coefficient  (significance) Preparedness -0.475 *** Action to protect -0.145* Marginal impact of  ‘Female’ Effect of ‘female’ on probability of perceived preparedness No   Somewhat Yes 0.132 -0.024 -0.107 13% -2% -11% Effect of ‘female’ on probability of having taken action to protect =  - 6% Reason for Lack of  Action Reason Male  (n=320) Female (n=389) Total (n=709) Don’t  know what to do (***) 105 (31%) 180 (46%) 285 Haven’t had time 60 (19%) 57 (15%) 117 Don’t  want to think 62 (19%) 60 (15%) 122 Expense 84 (26%) 90 (23%) 174 Won’t  make a difference (***) 78 (24%) 65 (17%) 143 Emergency services will help 69 (22%) 98 (25%) 167 NB: % refers to the percentage of males (females) who indicated the reason applied to him (her).  Very Low Very High Extremely Unlikely Very Likely Males Risk Perception Matrix C, O V, W  M, N, Q, R IMPACT LIKELIHOOD E, G, T, X Mode A: Flooding F: High Temp. B: Drought G: Low Temp. Q: Water Borne Outbreak V: Fire C: Snow M: Loss Critical Infrastructure R: Food Borne Outbreak W: Nuclear (Abroad) N: Infectious Disease X: Cyber Incident E: Storm O: Animal Disease T: Disruption to Energy Supply Y: Radiation (Domestic) Z: Terrorist Activity B A, Y, Z F Very Low Very High Extremely Unlikely Very Likely Females Risk Perception Matrix B A, F, O V, W,Y, Z  T M, N, Q, R  IMPACT LIKELIHOOD C,E,G, X Mode A: Flooding F: High Temp. B: Drought G: Low Temp. Q: Water Borne Outbreak V: Fire C: Snow M: Loss Critical Infrastructure R: Food Borne Outbreak W: Nuclear (Abroad) N: Infectious Disease X: Cyber Incident E: Storm O: Animal Disease T: Disruption to Energy Supply Y: Radiation (Domestic) Z: Terrorist Activity Conclusions • Gender significantly influences the perceived likelihood, impact and/or overall risk assessment of  each of  the 17 risks. • Unlike the Siegrist et al (2005) study, our results indicate that gender is a significant predictor for technological hazards AND for non-technological hazards.   Conclusions Women are: (i) more likely to perceive a risk,  (ii) less likely to feel prepared and  (iii)less likely to have taken action to protect themselves and/or their home.     Conclusions • Our results support the finding: "Men and women …seem to worry about the same risks, but women constantly worry a bit more…The differences are seldom very large, but systematic.” (Gustafson, 1998, p.806)     Citation • If  citing the results of  this survey/presentation, please use the following format:  Brown, D.G., Largey, A., McMullan, C., 2016, “Risk Perception & Emergency Preparedness in Ireland: Gender Differences in Risk Assessment”. Emergency Management Research Symposium. Dublin, Ireland.   Gender References • Barberi, F., Davis, M.S., Isaia, R., Nave, R. And Ricci, T., 2008. Volcanic Risk Perception in the Vesuvius Population. Journal of  Volcanology And Geothermal Research, 172(3), pp.244-258. • Brody, C.J. 1984. Differences by Sex in Support for Nuclear Power, Social Forces, 63, pp. 209-228. • Brown, D.G., Largey, A., McMullan, C., 2016, “Risk Perception & Emergency Preparedness in Ireland: Gender Differences in Risk Assessment”. Emergency Management Research Symposium. Dublin, Ireland. • Flynn, J., Slovic, P. And Mertz, C.K. 1994. Gender, Race, and Perception Of  Environmental Healdi Risks. • Gustafson, P.E., 1998. Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical And Methodological Perspectives. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 18(6), pp.805–811. • Gutteung, J.M. And Wiegman, O. 1993. Gender-Specific Reactions To Environmental Hazards In The Netherlands, Sex Roles, 28, pp. 433-447.   • Karanci, A.N., Aksit, B. And Dirik, G., 2005. Impact Of  A Community Disaster Awareness Training Program In Turkey: Does It Influence Hazard-Related Cognitions And Preparedness Behaviors. Social Behavior And Personality: An International Journal, 33(3), pp.243-258. • Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of  Risk. Science, 236 (4799), pp.280-285 • Slovic, P. Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S. 1982. “Why study risk perception?” Risk Analysis, 2(2), pp.83-93. • Paul C.S., Dietz, T. and Kalof, L. 1993. Value Orientations, Gender, And Environmental Concern. Environment And Behavior 25(5), pp.322-348. • Tekeli‐Yeşil, S., Dedeoğlu, N., Braun‐Fahrlaender, C. And Tanner, M., 2010. Factors Motivating Individuals To Take Precautionary Action For An Expected Earthquake In Istanbul. Risk Analysis, 30(8), pp.1181-1195.  Gender References 2017 Irish Study - Interim Results    Have you taken any action to protect yourself or your home in case of an emergency? # Answer % Count 1 Yes 58.19% 2945 2 No 41.81% 2116 Total 100% 5061 (Source: Brown, McMullan, Largey, 2017, DCU) Why have you not taken action to protect yourself or your home in case of an emergency? (Source: Brown, McMullan, Largey, 2017, DCU) References • Brown, G. D., Corbet, S., McMullan, C., & Sharma, R. (2015).  Do industrial incidents in the chemical sector create equity market contagion?   Journal of  Safety Research, 55, 115-119.  • Brown, D.G., Largey, A., McMullan, C., 2016, “Risk Perception & Emergency Preparedness in Ireland: Gender Differences in Risk Assessment”. Emergency Management Research Symposium. Dublin, Ireland. • Grothmann T, Reusswig F, (2006) People at risk of  flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Natural hazards 38(1): 101-120 • Floyd, D. L., Prentice-Dunn, S. and Rogers, R. W. 2000. “A Meta-Analysis of  Research on Protection Motivation Theory”. Journal of  Applied Social Psychology, 30: 407–429.  • Poong, Y.S. 2016. Study of  Perceptions on Behavioral Expectation to Preserve World Heritage Site through Mobile Learning Application in Luang Prabang, Lao PDR. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299330900_Study_of_Perceptions_on_Behavioral_Expectation_to_Preserve_World_Heritage_Site_through_Mobile_Learning_Application_in_Luang_Prabang_Lao_PDR/figures?lo=1  • Rogers, R. W. 1975. "A protection motivation theory of  fear appeals and attitude change". Journal of  Psychology. 91: 93–114.  • Rogers, R.W. 1983. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A Revised theory of  protection motivation. In J. Cacioppo & R. Petty (Eds.), Social Psychophysiology. New York: Guilford Press. 

Protection motivation theory(PMT) & links to DCU based research

Irish Universities

Name not available

http://doras.dcu.ie/22222/1/PMT_%26_2017_DCU_Research.pdf

Protection motivation theory(PMT) & links to DCU based research

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DCU Online Research Access Service

Irish Universities

Name not available