This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney]On: 04 September 2014, At: 00:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Urban TechnologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjut20

Social considerations of disaster‐resistant technology:The person‐relative‐to‐event (PrE) model of coping withthreatJohn‐Paul Mulilis a

a Member of the Psychology Department , Penn State UniversityPublished online: 02 May 2007.

To cite this article: John‐Paul Mulilis (1996) Social considerations of disaster‐resistant technology: Theperson‐relative‐to‐event (PrE) model of coping with threat, Journal of Urban Technology, 3:3, 59-70

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630739608724538

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Social Considerations of Disaster-ResistantTechnology 59

Social Considerations ofDisaster-Resistant Technology:The Person-Relative-to-Event (PrE)Model of Coping with Threat

John-Paul Mulilis

Mileti

Gill and Picou

BUILDERS of modern urban housing must face ancient threatsof fire, flood, and earthquake when planning their structures.While recent years have brought technological advances in

both design and construction to combat these threats (e.g., the takinginto account of seismic and wind forces in more rigorous buildingcodes), nevertheless some researchers have outlined how much morestill remains to be learned.

Besides learning more about fundamental aspects of the field,such as the structural problems that occur during earthquakes, research-ers must also take into account the social considerations of disaster-resistant technologies. One researcher, for instance, notes that effec-tively shaping private and public perceptions of disaster-related riskscan determine whether new technologies, processes, or facilities are putinto place, while another argues that perceptions of such risks caninfluence the adoption of policies that may mitigate the effects ofenvironmental disaster. Finally, some state that the methods of avoidingor mitigating disasters caused by human agency (e.g., toxic wastedisposal) are as much socio-political as technological.

One of the weaknesses of studies in the field of disaster-resistanttechnology is that few researchers have analyzed the effects of social

The Journal of Urban Technology, Volume 3, Number 3, pages 59-70.Copyright© 1996by The Society of Urban Technology.All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.ISSN: 1063-0732

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

00:

52 0

4 Se

ptem

ber

2014

60 The Journal of Urban Technology/Summer 1996

variables. Thus, Hallman and Wandersman argue that future researchshould include methodologically sound field studies that examine therelationship of cognitive, emotional, and demographic variables tospecific hazards.

The purpose of the present paper is to address some of the socialconsiderations that affect disaster-resistant technology. Specifically, thepaper will define disasters, discuss the social perception of disaster-related risk from a threat and resources standpoint, present a newapproach to coping with threat, the Person-Relative-to-Event model,that might be useful when considering how technologies can be em-ployed to prevent or ameliorate disasters, and discuss some of the socialissues of disaster-resistant technology in terms of the PrE model and itsspecific areas of application.

CovelloHallman and Wandersman

AntonovskyBanduni

Bates et al.

MuUlis and Duval 1995Mulilis and Ouval, July 1995Mulilis andDuval, August 1995Mulilis andDuval 1996Baumetal.

Disasters

One of the most important considerations for disaster-resistant technol-ogy is the nature of the disaster that the technology is trying to resist.Despite the simplicity of this statement, the literature abounds withnumerous questions concerning basic disaster issues. Should a distinc-tion be made between natural and man-made disasters? Is the issue of"cause" (e.g., avoidable versus unavoidable or man-triggered versusman-caused) important?

While these distinctions may be philosophically interesting, for thepurposes of social considerations of this topic the definition of disastersgiven by Gill and Picou is probably sufficient. That is, a disaster is anyevent that disrupts a society's ability to reasonably ensure biologicalsurvival, social order, social meanings, motivations, and social interac-tion. In the spirit of this definition then, the term disaster will be used inthe present discussion to mean any event large enough to produce athreat to a sufficiently large group of people. In other words, disastersprovoke perceptions of hazard, risk, or threat.

Hallman and WandersmanBaumetal.

Gill and Picou

Perceptions of Risk

To professional risk assessors and risk managers, the concept of riskentails statistical issues concerning probabilities of adverse effects.However, as Mullen notes, the public uses the term in a much broadersense. Thus, from a social standpoint, it might be argued the focus of thegeneral public is on their perceptions of risk, perceptions which do notnormally entail statistical issues of probability. For example, after awidely publicized plane crash, many people perceive taking a trip by

Mullen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

00:

52 0

4 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Social ConsiderationsofDisaster-Resistant Technology 61

Cohen and LeeStarr

Fischhoffetal.Hohenemseretal.

Johnson andTverskySlovicetal.

Lazarosl966Lazarus 1984

MiletiPaterson andNeufeld

Gill and Picou

plane to be riskier than taking that same trip by car. Statistically, thatperception is incorrect.

How these perceptions should be addressed, however, remainsproblematical. For example, the literature suggests different approachesto addressing risk perception. These approaches include comparativerisk, cost-benefit, psychometric, cognitive appraisal, and focusing onthe components of the event.

Whichever focus one adopts, however, for the purpose of thepresent discussion, there appears to be a common thread runningthrough many of the above approaches—a focus on the issue ofperceived threat from a disaster, which, in turn, may result in certainpsychological effects (either real or perceived) to individuals in the formof distress, fear, and anxiety.

Fischhoffetal.Lazarus, 1966Lazarus 1984

MiletiSchwartz etal.Shippeeetal.

VlekandStallen

Perceptions of Threat

The way individuals perceive threats from disasters (or potentialdisasters) takes many forms. A number of researchers have suggesteddifferent ways in which these threats are perceived. Although subtledifferences may exist among these perceptions, for the purpose of thepresent discussion, the factors governing these perceptions may beclassified into four general categories.

Probability Factors (e.g., plausibility, predictability, and event uncer-tainty). These variables are concerned with the perceived likelihood ofthe occurrence of a threatening event. With respect to disasters, theyinclude beliefs about how likely it is, for example, that an earthquake,tornado, or toxic spill will occur.

Severity Factors (e.g., spatiality, proximity, and concentration). Thesefactors are associated with perceptions about the severity of damagethat can be caused by a threatening event. Thus, with respect todisasters, they refer to beliefs, for instance, about the amount of damagethat would be incurred from the failure of a dam, or about the size of thearea affected from fallout due to a nuclear disaster.

Time Factors (e.g., imminence, immediacy, temporal uncertainty,recurrence, duration, persistence, and chronicity). Variables involving timefocus on the perceived amount of time before a threatening event occurs,as well as the perceived duration of the event itself, including its aftermath.Time factors may vary tremendously with the type of eventinvolved (e.g.,tornados, earthquakes, and floods, compared to nuclear disasters).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

00:

52 0

4 Se

ptem

ber

2014

62 The Journal of Urban Technology/Summer 1996

Informational Factors (e.g., ambiguity, novelty, newness, and experi-ence). These factors are concerned with the amount of informationavailable that is required to form a clear appraisal of a threatening event.To some extent, these variables are a function of the amount and type ofexperience associated with any particular event. Thus, these factorsfocus on, for example, whether or not individuals have been exposed tosimilar disasters (e.g., previous earthquakes, tornados, or hurricanes) inthe past.

Resource Considerations

Perceived threats from various disasters are not the only concern of riskperception. For example, when considering the psychological impactsof threats to individuals and groups of individuals, it seems reasonableto assume that perceptions of disaster-related risk could be made inrelationship to appraised resources that individuals and groups ofindividuals have available to them to combat these threats. As noted byMullen, eliminating risk more frequently than not involves a significantcommitment of resources. Thus, a number of researchers, have focusedon perceptions of disaster-related risk in terms of appraised resourcesavailable to individuals and groups of individuals.

As with perceptions of threat, individual beliefs differ aboutresources available to counteract a perceived threat. These beliefs maybe classified as:

Beliefs about Self (e.g., self-efficacy, control, and outcome efficacy).These beliefs focus both on the appraised ability to mobilize resourcesavailable to combat a perceived threatening event and on the efficacy ofsuch efforts. With respect to disasters, beliefs about self address, forexample, the ease with which individuals believe they can retrofit theirresidential structures and stockpile food and supplies in preparation forthe occurrence of a disaster, and whether or not these preparations willbe successful.

Informational Beliefs (e.g., heuristics, informational access, proximity,experience, and commitment). These are beliefs about the importanceand accessibility of information about disasters. They are also abouttheaccuracy of predictions about the proximity, in time and space, ofimpending disasters. Informational beliefs are, in part, a function of theamount and type of previous experience people have had with disasters.Thus, for example, individuals may or may not believe availableprobabilities about the occurrence of a potential disaster such as a floodor an earthquake, may or may not have accessibility to preparatory

MullenAntonovskyBanduxaBates etal.Fischhoffetal.Fowlkes and MillerKahnemanandTversky 1972KahnemanandTversky 1973

Lazarus, 1966Lazarus 19S4MiletiRotterRubin and PeplauShippeeetal.VlekandStallen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

00:

52 0

4 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Social Considerations of Disaster-Resistant Technology 63

information to combat such events, and may or may not deem suchinformation important.

Beliefs about Support (e.g., social support, religious beliefs, and beliefsabout coherence and justice). These beliefs focus on appraisals ofsupport available to mobilize personal resources, including social,material, and religious support. Beliefs concerning support are, in part,a function of how coherent and just the world is perceived to be and area function of an individual's socio-economic status. Increased beliefsabout support are, in general, associated with increased appraisedoptions available to combat disasters. Thus, for example, individuals ofhigher socio-economic status may be able to more easily leave an areaof high earthquake risk than individuals of lower socio-economic status.

Mullen

Mulilis and Duval 1995Mulilis and Duval, July 1995

Mulilis and Duval, August 1995Mulilis and Duval 1996

Lazatusl966Lazarus 1984

Mulilis andDuval 1995MulilisandDuvaLJuly 1995

Mulilis and Duval, August 1995Mulilis andDuval 1996

Lazarus 1966Lazarus 1984

ThePerson-Relative-to-Event (PrE) Model

While the social effects on disaster-resistant technology of many of theabove factors and beliefs have been addressed by researchers to somedegree, few have yet addressed the effects that the interaction of threatand resource variables have on this technology. Still, the importance ofsuch a consideration is critical in addressing the social aspects ofdisaster-resistant technology. As noted previously, one researcher sug-gested, that eliminating or reducing perceived threats fromdisaster-related risks involves a significant commitment of resources.Thus, just as costs cannot be considered independently of benefits,addressing issues of disaster-related threats mandates an interactiveconsideration of appraised resources available to minimize or obviatesuch threats. Such considerations, of course, require a comprehensive,coherent theoretical framework. The person-relative-to-event (PrE)model of coping with threat can provide that framework.

The PrE model is based on a general model of coping developedby Lazarus and his colleagues, who proposed that a person engages inprocesses of cognitive appraisal when faced with the possible occur-rence of aharmful event. On the one hand, the person seeks to determinethe seriousness of the threatening event. On the other hand, he or sheengages in appraisal of personal resources relevant to the goal ofaverting or managing the perceived threat. These activities take the formof attempts to manage the threatening situation (i.e., problem-focusedcoping) and efforts directed toward regulating emotional reactions tothe threatening situation (i.e., emotion-focused coping).

In developing the PrE model, Mulilis and Duval explicitly ex-tended Lazarus' notion to the topic of fear appeals. Specifically, themodel proposes that a person's response to a threatening event is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

00:

52 0

4 Se

ptem

ber

2014

64 The Journal of Urban Technology/Summer 1996

determined by his appraised level of personal resources availablerelative to his perceived level of the threatening event. In this regard, thePrE model makes a number of predictions. First, a person who ap-praises his or her resources as sufficient in quality and quantity relativeto the magnitude of a particular threatening event will engage in moreproblem-focused coping activities than a person who appraises per-sonal resources as being insufficient relative to the seriousness of thethreatening event. For example, if faced with the possible occurrence ofalarge earthquake, aperson who perceives his knowledge of earthquakepreparedness as sufficient relative to the threat of an earthquake wouldbe more apt to engage in such activities than a person who perceives hisknowledge as insufficient relative to the earthquake.

Second, the PrE model argues that a causal relationship existsbetween the magnitude of a perceived threat and the magnitude ofappraised coping efforts. Given that the resources of the person areappraised as sufficient relative to any particular level of threateningevent, increasing the level of perceived threat will increase the extent ofproblem-focused coping. However, when resources relative to threatare appraised as insufficient with respect to any particular level of threat,increasing the level of appraised threat will actually decrease the extentof problem-focused coping. So, whereas one person who perceives herknowledge of earthquake preparedness as sufficient relative to thethreat of an earthquake would most likely increase her activities as thethreat increased, another with insufficient knowledge relative to thethreat of an earthquake would decrease his problem-focused coping inthe face of an increased threat.

Third, the model demonstrates when using fear is and is noteffective in motivating people to prepare better for disasters. Regardlessof the absolute levels (e.g., high, moderate, low) of personal resourcesor the magnitude of the threat, the PrE model predicts that a fear-arousing communication, resulting in someone's appraising his or herresources as being sufficient relative to the degree of the threat posedby the external event (i. e., P/E> 1), will generate more problem-focusedcoping than in the case where the appeal causes someone to appraise hisor her resources as insufficient with regard to the magnitude of thethreatening event (i.e., P/E<1). Thus, the model predicts that anincreased degree of perceived threat can result in either problem-focused (i.e., increased levels of preparedness behavior) or avoidant(i.e., decreased levels of preparedness behavior) behavioral styles,depending on the level of appraised personal resources retezvetothelevelof the perceived threatening event

For example, given the situation where a moderately high prob-ability for the occurrence of a moderately damaging earthquake exists,individuals may feel that certain preparations that they perceive they are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

00:

52 0

4 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Social ConsiderationsofDisaster-ResistantTechnology 65

MulilisandDuval 1995MulilisandDuval, July 1995

MulilisandDuvaI,August 1995Mulilis and Duval 1996

MulilisandDuval 1995Mulilis and Duval, July 1995

Mulilis and Duval, August 1995MulilisandDuval 1996

able to perform without too much difficulty or effort would provefruitful. Hence, these individuals would increase their earthquakepreparedness. On the other hand, given the situation where a very highprobability for the occurrence of an extremely damaging earthquakeexists, individuals may feel that any preparations they would perform,no matter how easily they believed those activities could be performed,would not prove fruitful. Hence, these individuals would engage inmore avoidant behavior which would result in decreased earthquakepreparedness.

Recent studies designed to test the applicability of the PrE modelhave indicated that the predictability of the model is considerablyimproved when the moderating effects of personal responsibility areaccounted for. From this point of view, the behavior of individuals whofeel personally responsible for preparing for the occurrence of athreatening event such as a damaging earthquake would be substantiallyaffected by the relationship between their appraised level of personalresources relative to their appraised level of threat, because the prob-lem, as well as the efforts required to deal with the problem, belong tothem as opposed to belonging to other people or institutions. On theother hand, individuals low in personal responsibility for preparationhave no strong personal connection to the behavior. Consequently, theirown assessment of personal resources and the relationship betweenthose resources and the magnitude of threat may have little importancefor their own behavior because they believe that the problem, and itspossible solutions, belong to someone or something other than themselves.

In support of this position, Mulilis and Duval found that as the levelof appraised personal resources increased relative to the level ofappraised threat, so did the preparedness behavior of individuals whofelt highly responsible for preparing for the occurrence of naturaldisasters. However, when personal responsibility was low, the level ofappraised resources relative to the level of appraised threat had no effecton preparedness behavior. For example, if a person felt he, as opposedto the government, were responsible for preparing for earthquakes, thatperson would be more apt to prepare providing that he perceived hispreparedness resources as greater than the threat of an earthquake. Onthe other hand, if a person felt that it was exclusively the government'sresponsibility to prepare for earthquakes, her preparedness behaviorwould not change regardless of her perceptions of the relationship of herresources relative to the threat of an earthquake.

While previous applications of the PrE model have focused onattitudinal and behavioral change with respect to fear appeals, it isproposed that this model could be used in incorporating social consid-erations into disaster-resistant technology. In this respect, all phases ofthe field (e.g., public policy, planning, design, construction, and use)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

00:

52 0

4 Se

ptem

ber

2014

66 The Journal of Urban Technology/Summer 1996

could focus on having appraised resources perceived by the generalpublic as being greater than the appraised threat or the potential threat.

That is, given a situation involving the possibility of a disaster-related threat, efforts should be directed in three ways: (1) give thepublic a realistic level of the threat, and thus motivate them to increasetheir problem-focused coping efforts; (2) inform them of the resourcesavailable to cope with the threat, so that they will appraise the resourcesas sufficient in quality and quantity to minimize or obviate the perceivedthreat; and (3) create a feeling of personal responsibility among the Bates etai.public to conduct these activities. Thus, people would be motivated notonly to engage in problem-focused coping efforts, but they would alsobe made to feel that they possessed the capability and responsibility tocarry out these efforts.

An example of the use of such a procedure would be in trying toget residents who live in an earthquake-prone area to become moreprepared for the possible occurrence of a destructive earthquake. Thus,informational campaigns could be initiated to make the actual (asopposed to some hysterically inflated) level of the threatknown, and atthe same time, focus on behaviors that the public could engage in. Thiswould increase their appraisal level of resources to a value greater thanthat of their perceived level of a threat such as an earthquake (e.g.,structural retrofitting; fastening tall, heavy interior objects to walls;stockpiling emergency supplies) or hurricane (e.g., taping and boardingwindows). Such campaigns should also convey the idea thatperformingsuch behaviors will result in niinimizing or obviating the perceivedthreat. Furthermore, these campaigns should also try to create a feelingof responsibility among the public for these preparations.

An advantage of using such an approach is that it would not onlyincorporate social considerations into disaster-related technology in acoherent and comprehensive manner, but it would also serve to alleviateexcessive aversive psychological effects (e.g., distress, anxiety, fear,and depression) of the perceived threat on affected populations.

It may be noted that in using the PrE approach in disaster-resistanttechnology, determinations must be made of the most effective combi-nations of threat and resource variables (such as are outlined in thepresent article), as well as levels of combinations of these variables thatprove most effective in achieving the desired goals. Furthermore, it maywell be that the variables and combinations of levels of variables to beused are disaster-dependent. It is suggested that future research bedirected at exploring these situations.

Conclusions

The focus on disaster-resistant technology has typically been on thefundamentals of the field (e.g., design and construction). The present

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

00:

52 0

4 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Social ConsideratJonsofPisaster-ResistantTechnology 57

article has attempted to shed some light on the importance of the socialconsiderations of this field. Thus, an attempt has been made to clarifyterms such as disasters, risk, and risk assessment, as well as to classifysocial perceptions of risk into categories of perceived threat andappraised resources available to overcome the psychological effects ofsuch threats.

In this respect, a theoretical formulation has been presented thataccounts for the relationship between appraised resources and per-ceived threat. Using such an approach can have broad application in thefield of disaster-resistant technology. With regard to urban housing, forexample, this approach may be effectively applied not only by thedesigners, builders, and tradesmen, but by nearly everyone involved inthe housing delivery process, and perhaps most importantly, by theresidents of such housing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

00:

52 0

4 Se

ptem

ber

2014

68 The Journal of Urban Technology/Summer 1996

Bibliography

A. Antonovsky, Health, Stress, and Coping (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975).

A. Bandura, "Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavior Change," PsychologicalReview 84 (1977).

F.L. Bates, C.W. Fogleman, V.J. Parenton, R.H. Pittman, and G.S. Tracy, The Social andPsychological Consequences of a Natural Disaster: A Longitudinal Study of HurricaneAudrey, National Research Council Disaster Study #18 (Washington D.C.: NationalAcademy of Sciences, 1963).

A. Baum, R. Fleming, and L.M. Davidson, "Natural Disasters and TechnologicalCatastrophe," Environment and Behavior 15 (1983).

B.L. Cohen and I. Lee, "A Catalog of Risks," Health Physics 36 (1979).

V.T. Covello, "The Perception of Technological Risks: A Literature Review," TechnologicalForecasting and Social Change 23 (1983).

M.L.P. Elliott, "Improving Community Acceptance of Hazardous Waste Facilitiesthrough Alternative Systems for Mitigating and Managing Risk," Hazardous Waste 1(1984).

B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs, "How Safe Is SafeEnough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits,"Policy Sciences 9 (1978).

M. Fowlkes and P. Miller, Love Canal: The Social Construction of Disaster, Report tothe Federal Emergency Management Agency (1982).

D.A. Gill and J.S. Picou, "Toxic Waste Disposal Sites as Technological Disasters," inD.L. Peck, ed., Psychosocial Effects of Hazardous Toxic Waste Disposal on Communities(Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1989).

W. Hallman and A. Wandersman, "Perception of Risk and Toxic Hazards," in D.L. Peck,ed., Psychosocial Effects of Hazardous Toxic Waste Disposal on Communities (Springfield,EL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1989).

C. Hohenemser, R.W. Kates, and P. Slovic, "The Nature of Technological Hazard,"Science 220 (1983).

E.J. Johnson and A. Tversky, "Representations of Perceptions of Risks," Journal ofExperimental Psychology 113 (1984).

D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, "Subjective Probability: A Judgement of Representa-tiveness," Cognitive Psychology 3 (1972).

D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, "On the Psychology of Prediction," Psychological Review80 (1973).

E. J. Langer, "The Elusion of Control," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32(1975).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

00:

52 0

4 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Social ConsiderauonsofDisaster-ResistantTechnology 59

R.S. Lazarus, Psychological Stress and the Coping Process (New York: McGraw-Hill,1966).

R.S. Lazarus and S. Folkman, Stress, Appraisal and Coping (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1984).

D. Mileti, "Human Adjustment to the Risk of Environmental Extremes," Sociology andSocial Research 64 (1980).

J-P. Mulilis and T.S. Duval, "Negative Threat Appeals and Earthquake Preparedness: APerson-Relative-to-Event (PrE) Model of Coping with Threat, Journal of Applied SocialPsychology 25 (1995).

J-P. Mulilis and T.S. DuvaL "Earthquake and Tornado Preparedness Behavior: The PrEModel of Coping with Threat," Presented at the 20th annual Hazards Research andApplications Workshop, Boulder, CO (July 1995).

J-P. Mulilis and T.S. Duval, "The Person-Relative-to-Event (PrE) Model of Coping withThreat," Presented at the 103 rd annual convention of the American PsychologicalAssociation, New York (August 1995).

J-P. Mulilis and T.S. Duval, "Individual Preparedness for Disasters: Guidelines for thePublic Sector," in S.G. Amin and S. Fullerton, eds., International Business Trends:Contemporary Readings (Cumberland, MD: Academy of Business Administration,1996).

M.W. Mullen, "The Role of Risk Assessment and Communication in CommunityResponses to Hazardous Waste Management Projects: Potential Abuses of RiskAssessment," in D.L. Peck, ed., Psychosocial Effects of Hazardous Toxic WasteDisposal on Communities (Springfield, EL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1989).

R.J. Paterson and R.W.J. Neufeld, "Clear Danger: Situational Determinants of theAppraisal of Threat," Psychological Bulletin 101 (1987).

J.B. Rotter, "Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control ofReinforcement," Psychological Review 80 (1966).

W.D. Rowe, An Anatomy of Risk (New York: Wiley, 1977).

Z. Rubin and L. A. Peplau, "Who Believes in a Just World?" Journal of Social Issues 31(1975).

S.P. Schwartz, P.E. White, and R.G. Huges, "Environmental Threats, Communities, andHysteria," Journal of Public Health 14 (1985).

G. Shippee, J. Burroughs, and S. Wakefield, "Dissonance Theory Revisited: Perceptionof Environmental Hazards in Residential Areas," Environment and Behavior 12 (1980).

P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, "Understanding Perceived Risk," in R.C.Schwing and W.A. Albers, eds., Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough?(New York: Plenum, 1980).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

00:

52 0

4 Se

ptem

ber

2014

70 The Journal of Urban Technology/Summer 1996

C. Starr, "Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk," Science 165 (1969).

C. Vlek and P-J. Stallen, "Rational and Personal Aspects of Risk," ACTA Psychologica45 (1980).

W.L. Waugh Jr., and R.J. Hy, The Hyatt Skywalk Disaster and Other Lessons in theRegulation of Buildings, Working Paper #91, Natural Hazards Research, University ofColorado (1995).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

00:

52 0

4 Se

ptem

ber

2014