Scholarlink

<p>Natural hazards are intensifying globally, necessitating public emergency preparedness to safeguard individuals and society. Yet, many citizens remain inadequately prepared. Here, we synthesized the current knowledge on public emergency preparedness by conducting a series of meta-analyses across 33 socio-psychological correlates of preparedness and their interplay in meta-analytic structural equation modeling. The dataset included 1,123 effect sizes from 167 independent samples spanning three decades, 30 countries, and 110,683 individuals facing hazards such as heatwaves and earthquakes. Results identified four key factors of public (un)preparedness: (1) social norms regarding preparedness, (2) efficacy beliefs and attitudes toward specific preparedness actions, preliminary – (3) information dissemination sources, and (4) barriers to preparedness. Notably, the effects considerably varied across studies. For researchers, we recommend refined conceptualizations and measurements of preparedness and focus on heat-related hazards. For practitioners, this synthesis provides insights to improve risk communication, inform policy decisions, and build resilient communities.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Meta-analytic evidence identifies efficacy beliefs and social norms as key correlates of public emergency preparedness

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月8日

查看全文
  • Sofiia Skipor,
  • Magnus Bergquist

摘要

Natural hazards are intensifying globally, necessitating public emergency preparedness to safeguard individuals and society. Yet, many citizens remain inadequately prepared. Here, we synthesized the current knowledge on public emergency preparedness by conducting a series of meta-analyses across 33 socio-psychological correlates of preparedness and their interplay in meta-analytic structural equation modeling. The dataset included 1,123 effect sizes from 167 independent samples spanning three decades, 30 countries, and 110,683 individuals facing hazards such as heatwaves and earthquakes. Results identified four key factors of public (un)preparedness: (1) social norms regarding preparedness, (2) efficacy beliefs and attitudes toward specific preparedness actions, preliminary – (3) information dissemination sources, and (4) barriers to preparedness. Notably, the effects considerably varied across studies. For researchers, we recommend refined conceptualizations and measurements of preparedness and focus on heat-related hazards. For practitioners, this synthesis provides insights to improve risk communication, inform policy decisions, and build resilient communities.