Natural hazard versus natural disaster: Does framing the event affect preparedness intentions, attitudes, and behaviour?

Even when perception of risks such as earthquakes is high, preparation is generally low. Previous research shows relatively minor changes in the framing of target issues can impact decisions. In the area of risk, the terms “natural hazards” and “natural disasters” are used inconsistently. Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour as a framework, we conducted an online experiment with a large community sample from Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand (N = 604) to examine possible framing effects. Half of the participants were asked about their attitudes and intentions regarding preparing for natural hazards and half about natural disasters. We found few significant differences in mean factor scores between the two groups, suggesting that people have attitudes and perceptions of similar strength for both natural hazards and natural disasters. However, half of the factors in structural equation modelling differed in significance or valence between the two conditions and intentions to prepare were positively associated with information-seeking behaviour only for the natural hazards frame, not the natural disaster frame. These findings suggest that the way in which these issues are framed meaningfully impacts how intentions form and translate to actual behaviour. It is possible that participants understood disaster as manifested, devastating impacts of a natural event rather than the potential for impact implied by the term hazard. Such interpretations could influence perceptions of preventability, and therefore preparation. These findings have critical implications for public information campaigns and interventions aimed at increasing preparedness for the risk posed by natural hazards.