Individual differences in psychological rigidity and beliefs about system fitness predict attitudes about social determinants of disaster risk

Abstract

Although events triggered by phenomena such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and landslides are routinely referred to as “natural disasters”, scholars have long argued that they are not natural at all; rather their disastrous consequences are a result of sociopolitical decisions surrounding the accumulation of risk. In the current work, we seek to understand who is more likely to accept or reject the importance of risk reduction by examining two constructs:1) perceived blamelessness in the face of disasters, and 2) lack of support for disaster risk reduction. Across two studies (combined n = 1732), higher perceived blamelessness and lower support for risk reduction via socio-political means were reliably related to individual difference measures of psychological rigidity as well as beliefs about socio-economic system fitness. Specifically, higher levels of system justification, belief in a just world, fair market ideology, need for cognitive closure, intolerance of ambiguity, social dominance orientation, and right-wing authoritarianism were consistently related to lower likelihood of assigning human blame for disaster damages as well as less endorsement of socio-political interventions to stem disaster risks. Both blamelessness and intervention-avoidance were also related positively to political conservatism. Importantly, observed relationships remained significant after controlling for political ideology which correlates with each of the measured variables. We argue that observed relationships between individual difference variables and support for risk reduction policies around natural hazards that are not reducible to co-relationships with political ideology may be particularly important to consider when crafting successful interventions.