Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Public Understanding of Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Atwood, L. E.
Right arrow Articles by Major, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Optimism, pessimism, and communication behavior in response to an earthquake prediction

L. Erwin Atwood

College of Communications at The Pennsylvania State University at University Park, PA, lea2{at}psu.edu

Ann M. Major

College of Communications at The Pennsylvania State University at University Park, PA, amm17{at}psu.edu

This analysis examines the public response to the 1990 Iben Browning earthquake prediction within the framework of social comparisons theory, which provides a context for examining people's beliefs about their own vulnerability compared with their beliefs about the vulnerability of most other people. Social comparisons do influence people's response to threat. Pessimistic respondents believed they were at greater risk than others and were more likely to believe the prediction. Optimistic respondents were less likely than pessimists to seek information, and their lack of information about the risk may have led to denial of the threat. When beliefs about vulnerability were compared in terms of death, serious injury, and property damage, only 57 percent of the respondents fell into the same grouping of optimist, pessimist, and realist in both analyses. These shifts in group membership provide support for the assertion that beliefs about vulnerability change in response to situational contingencies.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 9, No. 4, 417-431 (2000)
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/9/4/305


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?