Abstract
The aim of this study is to assess the determinants of behavioral intention and threat perception in three types of crisis situations (fire, earthquake, and terrorist attack). We considered both individual factors (locus of control, illusion of control, optimism bias, knowledge about crisis management, and institutional trust) and situational ones (the presence vs. absence of significant others). A sample of 249 students was included in the study. The crisis type and the presence of significant others were manipulated through scenarios. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions and filled in self-report scales which assessed individual factors, behavioral intention and threat perception. The results showed that individuals prefer an affiliative behavioral response in all crisis types. Institutional trust, locus of control, and the level of knowledge predicted the affiliative behavior. The implications for crisis situation management of crowded places and risk communication are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – Critical Infrastructure Protection in the fight against terrorism COM/2004/0702 final
Reason, J.: Human Error. Cambridge University Press, New York (1990)
Lazari, A.: European Critical Infrastructure Protection. Springer, Cham (2014)
Helsloot, I., Ruitenberg, A.: Citizen response to disasters: a survey of literature and some practical implications. J. Contingencies Crisis Manage. 12(3), 98–111 (2004)
Grimm, A., Hulse, L., Preiss, M., Schmidt, S.: Behavioural, emotional, and cognitive responses in European disasters: results of survivor interviews. Disasters 38(1), 62–83 (2014)
Mawson, A.R.: Understanding mass panic and other collective responses to threat and disaster. Psychiatry 68(2), 95–113 (2005)
Burroughs, M., Galea, E.R.: Real time, real fire, real response: an analysis of response behaviour in housing for vulnerable people. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire, vol. 6, pp. 477–488. Interscience Communications Ltd (2015)
Petersen, L., Fallou, L., Reilly, P., Serafinelli, E., Carreira, E., Utkin, A.: Social resilience criteria for critical infrastructures during crises. Deliverable 4.1 for IMPROVER (2016)
Rotter, J.B.: Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol. Monogr. Gen. Appl. 80(1), 1 (1966)
Tu, Z., Yuan, Y., Archer, N.: Understanding user behaviour in coping with security threats of mobile device loss and theft. Int. J. Mob. Commun. 12(6), 603–623 (2014)
Weinstein, N.D., Klein, W.M.: Unrealistic optimism: present and future. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 15, 1–8 (1996)
Schwarzer, R.: Optimism, vulnerability, and self-beliefs as health related cognitions: a systematic overview. Psych. Health 9, 161–180 (1994)
Erenberg, E:. What type of disputes are best suited for alternative dispute resolutiondan analysis in the space of the odds of litigation. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meetings of Israeli Law & Economics Association (ILEA) 2005
Langer, E.J.: The illusion of control. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 32, 311–328 (1975)
McKenna, F.P.: It won’t happen to me: unrealistic optimism or illusion of control? Br. J. Psychol. 84, 39–50 (1993)
Gino, F., Sharek, Z., Moore, D.A.: Keeping the illusion of control under control: Ceilings, floors, and imperfect calibration. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 114(2), 104–114 (2011)
Knuth, D., Kehl, D., Galea, E., Hulse, L., Sans, J., Vallès, L., Roiha, M., Seidler, F., Diebe, E., Kecklund, L., Petterson, S.: BeSeCu-S–a self-report instrument for emergency survivors. J. Risk Res. 17(5), 601–620 (2014)
Craig, A.R., Franklin, G.A.: A scale to measure locus of control of behavior. Br. J. Med. Psychol. 57, 173–180 (1984)
Mawson, A.R.: Is the concept of panic useful for study purposes. Behavior in fires [NBS Report NBSIR-802070]. US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC (1980)
Leach, J.: Why people “freeze” in an emergency: temporal and cognitive constraints on survival responses. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 75(6), 539–542 (2004)
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-2872
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Popușoi, S.A., Măirean, C., Havârneanu, G.M. (2017). Behavioral Intentions and Threat Perception During Terrorist, Fire and Earthquake Scenarios. In: Havarneanu, G., Setola, R., Nassopoulos, H., Wolthusen, S. (eds) Critical Information Infrastructures Security. CRITIS 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10242. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71368-7_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71368-7_26
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71367-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71368-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)