Experience and the perceived efficacy of cyclone preparedness behaviour

Abstract

PurposeCyclone preparedness activities can significantly reduce household-related property damage and the negative knock-on effects. Research has found, however, that many people do not perform these behaviours. It is, therefore, important to understand why some people do, and others do not, perform such behaviours. This paper aims to investigate whether a commonly applied psychological theory of behaviour change can explain cyclone-specific preparedness behaviour.Design/methodology/approachThis study used a cross-sectional survey design to examine the relationship between demographic factors, cyclone experience, psychological factors and preparedness behaviour. Informed by the protection motivation theory (PMT), it was hypothesised that perceived efficacy, perceived cost and self-efficacy would be the strongest predictors of preparedness behaviour. Data from 356 respondents living in a cyclone-prone region were analysed using multiple regression and mediation analysis with the PROCESS macro in SPSS.FindingsIn support of the hypothesis, it was found that perceived efficacy and perceived cost were the strongest psychological predictors of preparedness behaviour. Contradicting the hypothesis, however, self-efficacy was not a significant predictor of preparedness behaviour. Subsequent analysis indicated that people who have experienced cyclone damage perceive that preparedness measures are more effective for reducing damage, which, in turn, increases preparedness behaviour.Originality/valueThis paper provides empirical support for the application of the protective motivation theory for explaining cyclone-specific preparedness behaviour. More specifically, the results indicate that people are more likely prepare for cyclones if they perceive that preparedness activities are effective for reducing damage and are relatively inexpensive and easy to perform. The findings suggest that to promote cyclone preparedness, risk communicators need to emphasise the efficacy of preparedness and downplay the costs.