This article was downloaded by:[CDL Journals Account] On: 31 January 2008 Access Details: [subscription number 785022367] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Applied Communication Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713703316 Hazard and Outrage: Developing a Psychometric Instrument in the Aftermath of Katrina Kenneth A. Lachlan; Patric R. Spence

Online Publication Date: 01 February 2007 To cite this Article: Lachlan, Kenneth A. and Spence, Patric R. (2007) 'Hazard and Outrage: Developing a Psychometric Instrument in the Aftermath of Katrina ', Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35:1, 109 - 123 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/00909880601065847 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909880601065847

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 18:24 31 January 2008 o.3,N.1 eray20,p.109 pp. 2007, February 1, No. 35, Research Vol. Communication Applied of Journal O:10.1080/00909880601065847 (online) DOI: 1479-5752 (print)/ISSN 0090-9882 ISSN 06,adtercvr ott aepoetdb h ..gvrmn a 8 billion $87 was 2006). government (Bazinet, U.S. (Kearney, other 2006 the 1000 by February, over and projected 400,000 was of date dead as homes, to and number cost The hotels, recovery 374,000 12). the September shelters, Between and of 2006), Coast. to (as states Gulf evacuated 34 in the were housing of refugees of have parts deal Katrina levee great city’s other some Hurricane a the and in of what damage failure cause tragedy the to be of on personal result went to Katrina of a However, Most was proved 2005). history. and (Adams, States Orleans system and United New in in Orleans, storm disasters occurred natural the damage New greatest of the the center from of The one miles Coast. as characterized Gulf 35 the hit about Katrina Hurricane landed 2005, 29, August On yet hazards, Outrage to Hazard; Crisis; audiences Risk; alert Katrina; in study. Hurricane that scale the Keywords: from messages the emerged outrage, design of for this utility to need that the the used ways address Possible illustrate successfully be groups. to can demographic different served information across Katrina of responses Perceptions these during study differences. from examining demographic The evacuation outrage the to to Katrina. attention and relation measuring specific Hurricane in hazard with outrage of instrument area, and aftermath Orleans hazard psychometric New perceived the the of a in interplay the outrage of on and focused development hazard the of constructs details article This Spence R. Patric & Lachlan A. Kenneth Katrina of Aftermath the in Instrument a Psychometric Developing Outrage: and Hazard mi:lclnb.d.Nt:Atosi a eemndb onfi sec fteatoscontributed authors the of each as flip coin a USA. by 02467-3859, Lachlan, article. Communication Ken MA determined this to: Hill, the to was Correspondence Chestnut equally Authorship in College. 513, Note: Way Calvin Professor Campanella [email protected]. Professor at 21 Assistant Email: Sciences Assistant College, an and is Boston an Arts 2005) Department, University, Communication is Communication State of Wayne 2003) (Ph.D., Department Spence the University, R. in Patric State College. Boston Michigan at Department (Ph.D., Lachlan Ken ttmn ftePolmadRltdScholarship Related and Problem the of Statement Á 123 # 07Ntoa omncto Association Communication National 2007 Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 18:24 31 January 2008 110 esgscnb o ihi aadad hrb,idc ero urg responses looting). outrage or or rioting fear (e.g., induce behavior thereby, antisocial and, of forms hazard risk various in that and instigate possible high trust, also that too is when control, It be whereas both motivation. for can act, decreased include to messages experience need may motivated can as individuals be low, It can such is people non-routine. it high, factors and is receive; emotional outrage specific they When and is information responsiveness. risk taken that the actions state to a specific react therefore, people it (Sandman, how of is, conceive risk of the outrage We a terms and 1987). of low, in Klotz, seriousness is & specifically Weinstein, cultural risk more Sandman, the harmed 1998; to being Hallman, relates of & is Outrage likelihood Weinstein, as serious. the high, is not then risk low, is of is threat likelihood fall hazard the outrage then If and high, threat. hazard people is Both the hazard many low. how If (how often continuum. outrage is (e.g., high/low the risk) a hazard given and along the risk) the about given concerned a between or by upset correlation injured are or The killed are assessment. people cultural many the is outrage must outrage however, and situation, hazard an crisis both eliciting Therefore, a messages. hazard, In refine the addressed. the to objective. be understand time understand the little does not be often it does is should If there it outrage educated. because of be outraged level to is appropriate needs public outrage it and the hazard then If both hazard, addressed. messages, is risk be that creating outrage to In of hazard. need that level of suggests level a the create Sandman to to Stated (2003; people. appropriate a attempt down.’’ reassure should Sandman people such and ideally Peter ‘‘calming communicators alert in responsible involved. and both communication people’’ should risk that ‘‘scaring messages of differently, facets: suggests degree two 1998) the has Hallman, circumstance and & threat manner. Weinstein, timely the Sandman, a of in nature city the the evacuate to in failed people of area thousands metropolitan messages, partly, Orleans Perhaps pre-crisis risk New disaster. ineffective effective natural of the of consequence a a to value largely, up the not leading is if days important the in most messages the communication Possibly lessons. important several aiuaino mto eadn eaieo oetal amu vn can any 1969). event Higbee, that harmful 1996; assumption Edgar, potentially Risk & the Freimuth, or the Godbold, on negative Plotnick, Because rest (Dillard, and a fear also cognitive as regarding qualify models both emotion Other encompasses of model risks. manipulation Sandman to The responses fear. affective have 1994), the on which (Sturges, 2002), Holladay, primarily model as & opinion focused (Coombs such public theory communication the models, crisis 1995), situational communication Seeger, and & crisis (Reynolds audience-based model CERC previous from differs ute losfrtecnieaino oheoinladbhvoa responses, behavioral outrage and of emotional inclusion both of The it consideration responses. probability, the multi-faceted and for magnitude, of of allows examination perceptions further alarm, the also for but allows fear only not include samdl h ada 19,20)fruain Risk formulation, 2003) (1998, Sandman the model, a As whereas risk, a of assessment technical the is hazard (2003), Sandman to According both address should event natural similar or hurricane major a during Information practitioners communication taught Katrina Hurricane surrounding events The .A aha .R Spence R. P. & Lachlan A. K.  / Hazard  / urg oe eiso ecpin fhzr that hazard of perceptions on relies model Outrage  / Hazard  / Outrage, Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 18:24 31 January 2008 ic 99(etr o ies oto n rvnin 94,ad fneeded, threat, if the and, of nature 1994), benign low. case Prevention, fairly remain a the outrage and been given and not Control Thus, hazard the available. has Disease in readily There Poliomyelitis are for risk. vaccinations actions. outrage (Centers hazard/low special 1979 low no a since requires presently and is harm States United causing do of cannot ways. chance they counter-productive take and little in likely behave is people may risk they a issued, themselves, of protect materialization the is source that to negative beyond feel anything socially warning extend a people become If can and tornado influence. behavior outrage of desirable a however, inducing for instances, level when extreme optimum for some Consider, Often, avoided. threatening In be tornado. can precautions. highly consequences Ideally, harmful problematic. a a act, be people can to and instance, reaction high of response is type risk this the outrage warranted, if hazard/high be strong to ‘‘high seem the a may as situation situation Although this characterize scenario. We outrage’’ risk. at those from among be resources outrage and can time concerns. drain events of and to goal risks potential outrage the immediate the with have more hazard/high they addressed other Low that be in must of outrage. harmful, avoidance it the extremely great, high or not panic inappropriately not to is lead if hazard reducing it desirable, a that the risk When fear take much actions. Ideally, this will so low-risk induce behavior. audience In not the precaution. provoked but that action unnecessary and fear essential, an enough hazard induce takes should overshadowed in process, messages bombing the has a a in experiences of outrage mother and, result the instance, but outrage a low, as of is Iowa school widespread level in a from child high a is the home for scenario was child hazard this The her there of DC. keeps Washington example 9/11, who hypothetical a Iowa of A from in unsafe. events mother were safer the airlines were the given that airlines the However, perception upon time, 2004). Attacks Terrorist this on States, for unnecessary Commission At (National United Consider, take before 9/11. scenario. ever to after than outrage’’ affected attack shortly terrorist hazard/high those safety ‘‘low lead airline a may example, This represents minimal. This is precautions. harm 1987). Janz, of & likelihood (Becker steps sexually preventative risk a taking the contracting avoid perceive of and people person many remote active however, sexually as sex; is a unprotected hazard for through avoiding risk The disease is clear diseases. transmitted a example transmitted is An sexually there scenario. from because outrage’’ oneself many.high hazard/low very protect ‘‘high upset to the to measures fail as taking but to people refer audience harm potentially we may This demographic that exist risks and that possible cultural specific of tailoring audiences. of the specific inform for specification can messages and crisis responses the Finally, these influence effectiveness. that permits message characteristics evaluating model for information the more provide may which ial,teei h ‘o aadlwotae’seai.I hsstain ikhas risk a situation, this In scenario. outrage’’ hazard/low ‘‘low the is there Finally, create thereby, and, harm, potential in high or serious, be actually may risks Third, the that fact the despite people upset that risks potential are there Second, is it First, model. the of framework the within exist scenarios potential Four aadadOutrage and Hazard 111 Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 18:24 31 January 2008 112 a ufcd scmuiainudrsc odtosam tpeetn or preventing at aims conditions such event destructive under potentially communication and major, As anticipated, surfaced. largely often which a has communication, after crisis from play parties risk distinct into is a interested occur comes This should arises. of to communication event prevention Such harmful information 2003). a possible Ulmer, before provide & and Sellnow, to Seeger, probability, salient. 1999; significance, is (Coombs, more outrage nature, communication and the risk hazard concerning of of perceptions role make process, communication The risk the and in communication and, crisis of intersect concerns the that disasters induced an activity that the understand avoid and might to gain it future. to made outraged, the as be appropriately in so can becomes Risk and outrage, public risk of the choices. involves level If risk activity appropriate rational an attention. communicate an audience’s for make create the mechanism to to maintain to uncertainty-reduction aims Failure of individuals then type threat. but of a audience, reduce as ability serves to ideally the take communication impede affected can inform can as they well accurately actions as outrage, of and control. hazard publics of of measures loss appropriate or the Leventhal, helplessness as involving & of great, (Janis feelings too inaction extreme is in of hazard manifested perceived consequence be a a also If as may harm. 1968) perception do through to the be attempt above, form can an noted mild manifestation Martin, with behavioral a severe & others more in at (Stewart a evident directed in choice or be destruction, personal can property or and of outrage have looting state threat negative accrue can a perceived corresponding may reactance, The that a effects psychological 1994). to level, inhibitive of opposition great, form appropriate a too in an represent as arousal responses it at Such perceives viewed 1967). anti-social one (Janis, of is if form will but hazard the outrage & effects, in a no facilitating (Maier great, occur when too may of self-efficacy is Thus, response sense hazard of outrage behavior. perceived as a negative absence a a only if situation an alternately, that not occur; the possible and produces is deficit perceive It uncontrollable situation 1976). motivational to is Seligman, the a event person interpret an but to the that helplessness, ability lead belief individual’s The potentially an hopeless. and reduce fear, 1999), of (Aspinwall, levels high create must message 1997). the recipient for in (Bandura, message successfully effective the action acting Additionally, be recommended does. the to that perform it or convinced can that materializing he/she event be that from the believe threat to in a impact needs prevent its will messages reduce recommendations risk their revealed of and with receiving heading 1992) accordance the individual Witte, 1976; under an Mewborn, outrage & that to to Rogers susceptibility similar 1966; messages their responses (Chu, reduce The efficacy’’ to examined ‘‘personal control. take has can for research individuals need Past that public’s steps risk. the affected clear the make to satisfy need also must but scenario, ti neet uha urcns atqae,adohrntrladhuman- and natural other and earthquakes, hurricanes, as such events in is It messages fear-inducing embody should presumably communication Effective to risk a to vulnerability public’s the highlights that message a for possible is It operative the to appropriate be only not must messages risk effective, be To .A aha .R Spence R. P. & Lachlan A. K. Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 18:24 31 January 2008 orsn 95.TeEP oista eritrcswt te aibe oaffect to variables & Witte other with 2000; interacts Allen, fear & that (Witte model posits direction process EPPM this parallel The extended in 1995). the strides under- Morrison, However, to proper risk. contributed of a a has goal on of the (EPPM) based seriousness with the adaptations risks, of appropriate communicate standing make to to how Sutton, considered individuals 1985; has Douglas, motivating 1984; research Mongeau, less & Far Boster 1982). (see risks regarding is decisions make threat not Sandman, is the 1985, it Perry, moment genuine, 2004; 1993). is Weinstein, Ruitenberg, the hazard & & the is Johnson, (Helsloot that Miller, action response believe protective not take a does to public about likely the If thinking viable. that revealed for as has perceived Research point targets. the departure of outrage the the the and take hazard to the of able interpretations be will the and of assessed) understanding correctly better is the a hazard action. have manage the appropriate probably (if to then threat how will the a concerning They of of instructions urgency level. stages of warning personal set prior the a a In at without needs 9/11. crisis surface and public can Island affected seasonal Three-Mile crisis the is of a from crisis, risk case instances, the the vary hurricanes, other in may or as In expectations, period tornadoes predictable. as warning more such The hence, cases, comprehend. and, some In to days. easier to use minutes and to obvious audience more possible are largest and the before allow outrage and advantage. and harm to hazard minimize messages crisis both pertinent to The to event distinct. relating an as matters longer during no pursue are 1999), must a communication (Coombs, practitioner response as risk recently, post-crisis Viewed and of More management. communication form a beyond crisis response. in merely functions than messages post-crisis serving rather encompassing process, and of as continual stages communication form a crisis crisis relations and a or view public pre-crisis to hurricanes, of as community begun part as largely a have often such researchers was served to events, it and information of Historically, epidemics. kinds providing operations and encourages particular at fires, also with forest aims communica- dealing floods, It Crisis hand, for influence. 1995). region other (Harrington, the geographic the dangers under of on sorts driving unhealthy tion, these making and avoid activity, physical to drugs, harmful individuals using as such choices, nature, personal food a of activity in that is is difference 2003). communication the al., crisis about whereas et think happen, (Seeger to could what event-centered way what and on Another crisis the focuses take. of communication to understanding state risk advised current rational well the a clear is develop makes one to message actions crisis and action ideal effect, The tangible harmful risk. of the or type of threat some possible informative take a an to avoid serves receiver to often the it encourage crisis, messages a Crisis from function. resulting outcomes negative the lessening usata oyo eerhhseaie o niiul ecierssand risks perceive individuals how examined has research of body substantial A on depends intended as on acted and received are messages not or Whether disasters, natural many as such some, period, warning a have crises most Although dangers involves communication Risk scope. in vary also message of types two The aadadOutrage and Hazard 113 Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 18:24 31 January 2008 114 hma pcfclyadueuvclya osbe ie ada’ 19,2003) (1998, Sandman’s Given worded possible. and as inclusion unequivocally for items and of specifically number as small relatively them item a for identified suggestions we (1991) Hagen’s selection, and Thorndike, Cunningham, Thorndike, Using and complete conceptually a both was be typically aim the would Our that set. items items in parsimonious. small 15 relatively of a of items since for approximately However, opted of numbers of we 1994). measure factor, Bernstein, larger a number be & could Nunnally with large fatigue (see respondent reliability, measures a a often reliable and is were more There providing length embedded. there were outrage between as and hazard tradeoff one, of issues which was in questionnaire Length outrage. and income. and sex, self- Other), or were 964 Caucasian, Of questionnaires evacuation. The initial Texas. usable. the were in following 935 weeks centers completed, five surveys aid over collected Kentucky, emergency and and several Indiana administered of as parts centers relief and well in Michigan, and as Lansing, Astrodome Massachusetts, Houston Cod, the Cape in in refugees Katrina from came data Our Measures and Participants both to responses. desired useful the eliciting prove of for which could responsible ascertaining most felt, ultimately are and of characteristics we messages their constructs and crafting messages, for cognitive the scholars both crisis and captures assessing practitioners reliably to for and validly responses instrument that psychological measure psychometric A current a outrage. the and of develop goal hazard a to result, Sandman, a was & As has Covello 1993). study hence, Weinstein, instance, & and, these for Johnson, Miller, (see, messages that Sandman, measures crisis-related assumption 2001; sound to the empirically responses develop on to related predicated failed in been effectiveness, operative has and are it design outrage factors message on and understanding drawing hazard, for research risk, information tool of previous of heuristic model dissemination useful 2003) and a (1998, creation Sandman’s provides effective Although the public. in the help to of be still may inaction. crises. crises actual of of inducing possibility messages context assessing the the for in as instrument an outrage well reported of and development study as hazard the The aim messages, experimental. its largely risk as had been recipients the here has that of fear actions concerning result negative research a Previous the also as but take efficacy, might response only not considering eairwt epc oprevdtrasadrsos fiay(eeta,1970). (Leventhal, efficacy response Risk and threats (2003) perceived Sandman’s to respect with behavior enx osdrdteiesms prpit o neighzr n outrage. and hazard indexing for appropriate most items the considered next We hazard assessing for items of selection the influenced considerations major American, Two African as (coded race age, variables: demographic to related items Four previous from acquired information however, same; the are events crisis two No .A aha .R Spence R. P. & Lachlan A. K.  / Hazard  / urg oe ulso hsrsac in research this on builds model Outrage Method Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 18:24 31 January 2008 h aadfco tm and items factor hazard the atrlaigo 4 o h urn nlss hscieini oecnevtv than conservative more minimum is a criterion This of analysis. recommendation current the stringent for we .45 more consideration, of this (1992) loading Given Lee’s factor have sample. may and the point of Comry cutoff size the adopted the however, .17; by of attenuated loading substantively factor been minimal a yielded this data, rtro o cetn niiulies omnadSrie 19)sgeta suggest loading (1994) factor Streiner minimum and (N 5.152/[SQRT a Norman as calculated establishing items. A criterion loading 1). was individual factor Table minimal accepting (see point 1982) for analysis this Gerbing, factor criterion & at confirmatory Hunter consideration a see (CFA.BAS; to critical solution data centroid the a subjected using we analysis, factor exploratory Analyses Factor relating Confirmatory factors two of Walker, existence outrage. & the Davies, and for support Miles, hazard further Shevlin, to as (see specifically data involved these data took of We type 2000). the for levels acceptable atr(ee tm)acutdfr3.%o h oa ainei h oe,whereas indicated model, analyses the reliability hazard in Scale variance The items 18.9%. total .81. for the accounted the to for factor of .46 2.45 outrage 36.9% from and the would for ranged items accounted set items hazard items) risk item all the (seven for the for factor to loadings 4.79 for Factor of structure extraction, outrage. values response factor eigen measuring components two- with of principal expected did, It the with dimensions emerge. whether analysis, reveal two factor to exploratory served responses assess and An conditions the Katrina. to at to outrage and developed risk perceived scenarios: was communication measure Our Analysis Factor Exploratory are scales Five-point much.’’ 2000). ‘‘very comprehen- Rasinski, respondent & to to Rips, respect Tourangeau, all’’ in 1996; at scales (Fowler, seven-point sion scale, ‘‘not or five-point three-point from a to on preferable ranging the participants response of options each threat the the recorded with survey, taking They risk authorities the the (outrage). local think seriously?’’ you and of did state hurricane ‘‘Were storm, part the and before (hazard), this hours serious?’’ the was completing ‘‘In as, In such questions outrage. to responded tapping six and seriously, taken provided. of was information perceptions it of which storm, adequacy to the extent perceived the others, the to of and responses perceptions and pertained storm, official chosen the self of as for items outrage preparedness appropriateness the to With crisis, perceived risk. a harm this the surrounding on to conditions potential based to action response take storm, affective to the willingness the items and relevant risk, about crisis, of a seriousness worry of seriousness general technical the concerned represents hazard that suggestion etodanalysis. Centroid h rcs e oa1-tmmaue ihsvntpigtecntuto hazard of construct the tapping seven with measure, 13-item a to led process The oadaohrlvlo ofdnet h idnsfo the from findings the to confidence of level another add To a  / 8 o h urg atr ohrepresented Both factor. outrage the for .80 Results aadadOutrage and Hazard Á ).Frtecurrent the For 2)]. a  / 8 for .88 115 Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 18:24 31 January 2008 116 i o elteifrainpoie ytemdai h aslaigu to up leading days the in media the by provided information the feel you Did Items Outrage i o ela huhsaeadlclatoiiswr aigtethreat the .23 taking were authorities local and state appropriate? though was as storm feel the before you preparation Did government’s the feel you Did i o hn hteog a en oei h or edn pt the to up leading hours the in done being was enough that think you Did i o eev nuhifraini h or edn pt h hurricane the to up leading hours the in information enough receive you Did i o eiv h oenetrsoddqikyeog?.21 enough? quickly responded government the believe you Did o ore eeyui h or eoetesomhit? storm the before hours the in you were worried How items Hazard ntehusbfr h tr i,ddyutikfinso oe nswould ones loved or friends think affected? you badly did be hit, would storm you think the serious? you before was did hours hit, risk the storm In the the think before evacuate? hours you the to did In you hit, were storm willing the How before hours the In ntehusbfr h tr i,ddyutikfinso oe nslives ones loved or friends think you danger? in did be hit, might storm life your the think before you hours did hit, the storm In the before hours the In ffttssln diinlspott h idnsi h etodaayi.Factor TLI supportive, analysis. fairly also centroid were Goodness the model 2). two-factor Table in the (see findings for analysis measures previous the fit the of to with consistent support goodness generally additional and were loadings loadings lent factor tests individual 4.0 the fit AMOS to of via relating solution results likelihood The maximum 1999). a (Arbuckle, utilizing analysis the factor for confirmatory .88 of alpha) outrage. for (Cronbach’s .81 coefficients and factor yielded hazard analyses reliability Finally, ugse hta ME iuecoet 1 sidctv faeut oe fit, model adequate of indicative is .10 have to others close 1993), Cudeck, figure & RMSEA (Browne .08 an to that equal or suggested than less of criterion accepted al 1 Table 9,adRMSEA and .96, for test A model. two-dimensional stable factors, relatively orthogonal (less two low a of be evidence of to provided general, also indicative in parallelism them, and showed model .2) estimates the obtain with than to associated performed to terms residuals .49 error of from the Calculations ranging of .60. in exceeding (Hair, criterion, most acceptance .4 with the .84, exceeded than loadings greater factor The those 2000). model. as Peterson, 1997; loadings Merenda, factor minimum 1998; a strong Black, for & identify Tatham, call and Anderson, typically .30 which loadings, of factor loading minimal for benchmarks other h tr a appropriate? was storm the oe ytehriaeseriously? hurricane the by posed urcn aiglandfall? making hurricane aiglandfall? making ebdyaffected? badly be ih ei danger? in be might aiu ieiodanalysis. likelihood Maximum h ofraoyfco nlsspoie arysrn upr o h two-factor the for support strong fairly provided analysis factor confirmatory The .A aha .R Spence R. P. & Lachlan A. K. tmFco odnsadApaRlaiiisi etodAnalysis Centroid in Reliabilities Alpha and Loadings Factor Item  / 1.WieteRSAvlewssihl bv h commonly the above slightly was value RMSEA the While .11. eadtoal ujce h aat another to data the subjected additionally We x 2 (6)  Factor / 11.96, .29 .16 .15 .21 .49 .83 .52 .75 .84 .78 .82 1  a a / 9,CFI .95,   / / .88 .81 p B Factor .50 .63 .66 .68 .65 .69 .13 .33 .18 .27 .28 .23 .24 / 2 .06.  / Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 18:24 31 January 2008 i o eiv h oenetrsoddqikyeog?.77 .47 enough? quickly hurricane responded the government to the up believe leading you the hours Did to .72 the up in landfall? leading information making hours enough the receive in you done Did being posed landfall? was threat making enough the hurricane that taking think were you authorities Did local appropriate? and seriously? was state storm hurricane though to the the as up before .42 .79 feel leading preparation you days government’s Did the the in feel media you the Did appropriate? by was provided storm .68 information the the lives feel ones’ .87 you loved Did danger? or in friends’ be Items think might you Outrage life did danger? your hit, in think storm be you the did might before hit, be hours storm would the ones the affected? In loved before badly or hours be friends the would think In you you did think hit, you affected? storm did badly the serious? hit, before was hours storm risk the the In the before think hours evacuate? you the to did In hit? you hit, storm were storm the willing the before How before hours hours the the in In you were worried How Items Hazard infcn ifrne trbtbet epnetgne o ihrhazard, either no for revealed data gender The respondent residents. to Orleans New attributable t many (2) and differences of 1993) Resnick, significant inaction & an Kilpatrick, or apparent Freedy, group a 1995; with the to Rubin, associated attributed be typically & can more (Fitzpatrick blame are individual which responses for outrage crises, that political fact and the organizational (1) of light in sense perdt eamr eta osdrto hnotae( outrage than consideration central more a be to appeared infcn ifrnei h aeo ohpretoso hazard, of perceptions both of case the in difference significant mrcn epnet ( respondents Americans ieyt xrs urg hnohrnon-whites. other than outrage express to likely al 2 Table 0,adoutrage, and .01, ( hazard respondents, media to the of among help criticism storm, could widespread the Despite believed to responses practitioners. we of government crisis measures analyses and for the descriptive utility of conducted their reliability we establish and consistency outrage, internal and the hazard evaluating to addition In (Yu, Analyses models Descriptive valid fit. here it model of present adequate we rejection of indices, erroneous fit evidence comparative as the evaluating and Tucker-Lewis when to the hypersensitive with leads be Together to 2002). frequently tends fit and model models of test CFA a as RMSEA as inasmuch fia-mrcn ecie eshzr hnohrnon-whites, other than hazard less perceived African-Americans (928)  tnadzdRgeso egt nM Model ML in Weights Regression Standardized / 65 routrage, or .635, F 2 914) (2, p B  t / / 01 n acsa epnet ( respondents Caucasian and .001) 10.06, (924)  p / B 47 n-a NV o tnct revealed ethnicity for ANOVA One-way .447. / 01 ofroips-o et niae that indicated tests post-hoc Bonferroni .001. aadadOutrage and Hazard M F  p 2 918) (2, B / .8.Ti makes This 2.38). / p 05 eemore were .035) B / 0.African- .01.  Regression M weight / 4.77, .56 .70 .58 .45 .83 .91  / 3.45) p 117 B / Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 18:24 31 January 2008 118 esg ein h aaaeas ossetwt atrsac nintercultural in research past with consistent also risk across are for important data responses be would outrage African-Americans The thus, affective in and, that design. Differences differences and groups. cultural message suggest of ethnic cognitive manifestation other data a than be in outrage may current of differences levels the higher also on experience example, may outrage light For and hazard shed subpopulations. of assessment to the for help developed instrument the Using Characteristics Audience of to Sensitivity issues address appro- to concerning messages recommendations crisis behavioral the repeated for actions. among example, priate and higher need For specific were possible necessary. Katrina with a is during hazard repetition hazard suggests of which which perceptions to evacuees, that degree of suggest seriousness the data technical guage message current the victims, about and public crisis risk, the by the inform experienced effectively hazard more of 2006). may level producers al., of the et evaluating hours Spence By 2002; eight dissonance. Sellnow, of & the Ulmer, on average Vennette, information (Seeger, a an obtaining event for In watched means the useful kits. publics of a day emergency as affected television in attacks, reported and radios 9/11 television additional instance, battery-operated the message, for include that of something to FEMA, the study is public recommend. of media the typically the repetition encourages monitoring professionals seeking fact, management media, In she emergency information. or the he new information, scan or desired clarification, to the to obtained notices continue has laboratory and warnings natural individual will storm the an of crisis In after form take. a Often, the to during took evacuate. actions for messages what these looking and Katrina, are Hurricane react people of to most how What concerning is risk. cues Sandman, a are to assess of according to Hazard, seriousness practitioners crises. technical crisis of the types allow The various may 2003). address during study (Sandman, also needs current informational hazard must the the messages triggers) from about These prolonged emerging information exists. instrument with specific hazard events for genuine crisis needs a individuals’ other that (or establish disaster first must natural a before message Messages of assessment Outrage and and Hazard design Assessing the in alike scholars to practitioners utility The risk potential outrage. effectiveness. its and of and considerations crisis hazard to and a leads capturing of structure evidence structure this under provided of two-factor study so emergence the do orthogonal in to procedures testing and strong, The in 2003) crisis. fairly use (1998, actual for Sandman an by instrument of conditions proposed an the response develop crisis to of desire model the the by motivated was project This uhmdaepsr a c sacligaett eueucranyor uncertainty reduce to agent calming a as act may exposure media Such .A aha .R Spence R. P. & Lachlan A. K. Discussion Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 18:24 31 January 2008 h ako admsml assohrqetoscnenn generalizability. concerning questions other raises Hence, Incidentally, sample Katrina. justification. random to lacks a related venues of messages crisis lack other risk the to and be findings to crisis also our has all respect crisis- of crisis With items, that generalizability the scenarios. measures and of crisis but instrument name the different the our across events, make only to interchangeably which across used to in be items wording consistent could of changed in series be a changes crisis example, to For number other specific. enough minimal responses in these general a measuring use necessitate for items instruments for It include other Katrina. developing adapted Hurricane to those to be for specific useful highly may were be they may wording items original their our in situations, Although the reduce themselves. to as items so responses. possible, obtain memory-distorted as and quickly to bias as efforts time- hindsight and concerted and point of entail time likelihood complex one should the at responses of research responses Future outrage in audience result evacuees. and a hurricane consider hazard purely interviewing evaluating however, and timeframe; should locating was, uneven of one This responded process an some later. consuming over while limitations weeks evacuated, collected were or important were they days after data are hours responded the participants there First, some results. study, the any interpreting with being As time they same harm, the possible take. minimize at Limitations to or actions while concerning prevent serious information to to is action receptive more hazard take be a can should level desired they believe the that people inducing convinced of If goal concomitant outrage. appropriate the the of with provide tailor information, that messages hazard of to of development level the able in aid could better This risk. messages. at be most may those for sex, practitioners effective age, are race, crisis that by messages status), defined differences subpopulations socioeconomic detect as to (such and/or study subpopulations present cultural across the consider African-American in outrage of should developed in reduction instrument Orleans) the primarily the in New using effectiveness By of at maximize outrage. citizens to response the directed communication of in that differences many knowingly suggests as This (such messages communication. audiences in preparing genuine being those or African-Americans directness Further, as characterized 1989). verbalizing Alberts, opinions. as and such ideas expressiveness, & expressing emotional confirms emphasize and and Ribeau, to or obtain likely 1987), accepts more to (Hecht, are another Hammer, reportedly when likely feelings & communication less in (Gudykunst their satisfaction 1984), interrogation greater O’Malley, from indicate extreme & reduction to prone (Bachman uncertainty more responses be may communicative African-Americans that suggesting communication eod n oeipraty r iiain ocrigtehzr n outrage and hazard the concerning limitations are importantly, more and Second, risk of pre-testing the for allow further may outrage and hazard of measures Our be can which authenticity, communication of issue the discuss (1989) al. et Hecht aadadOutrage and Hazard 119 Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 18:24 31 January 2008 120 cin.Ti td tepe ofrhrti ieo nur ydeveloping creating in by but messages, inquiry risk-related and of used crisis be of line can well. effects they as the this that them recipients’ assessing establishing further in message and only for constructs to not the relevant account attempted of concerning and the measures on study appropriate operative attributions largely are rested This have and factors messages actions. of these design preparation that the message in assumption model Past the of support. effectiveness for heuristics casualties minimize to disaster preparedness. another crisis before promote addressing considered and campaigns be Hence, risk should disasters. to problems positively future these respond for to preparation reluctant concerning be messages would audiences marginalized of members of perception public’s the are of events. outrage components and risk/crisis relevant hazard of and 1995). concepts Morrison, elements the & measurable that Witte tangible, evidence 2000; some plans Allen, presents & communication study (Witte present risk/crisis form The and some in messages desired members elements to existing by to these Many designed actions contain public public. appropriate communication facilitate affected the further may the motivate level with the of functional to message in a way at appeals of outrage appropriate fear type maintain Using an this design. is Combining message hazard may action. risk study a outrage and present of and crisis the hazard, explanation in from Risk, concepts learned response. lessons common disaster and the are communication and risk results future these inform that the is of hope Our value the of confident only be still to are important, sufficient described. while have not we outrage, instrument and and data hazard indicators and reliability of and such preliminary consistency, measures criterion to internal responsive our validity, be further as to construct to the the pertaining needs such stands, involving tools it assessment research concerns, As such Future matters. other related setting. and this applied of other the development an in to in validity done pertinent discriminant be situation. evidence to crisis need actual acquire an first in may subsequently motivate This tested to then actions. outrage and positive and setting hazard in experimental of engage levels to needed of the respondents effectiveness producing the in examine should messages research specific Future messages. individual of effects the ada’ 19,20)mdlo ik aad n urg a ni o eidon relied now until has outrage and hazard, risk, of model 2003) (1998, Sandman’s that hypothesize might one study, this in identified outrage of levels high the Given to unable were we validity, construct of evidence had study the although Finally, assess to possible not was it context, research the of nature applied the of Because .A aha .R Spence R. P. & Lachlan A. K. Conclusion Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 18:24 31 January 2008 etr o ies oto n rvnin 19) etfiaino oimeii rdcto the eradication poliomyelitis of Certification (1994). Prevention. and Control Disease for Centers or,A . e,H .(1992). B. H. Lee, & L., A. Comry, h,G .(96.Fa rua,efiay n immanency. and efficacy, arousal, Fear (1966). C. G. Chu, S. J. & Bollen A. K. In fit. model assessing of ways Alternative (1993). R. Cudeck, & W., M. Browne, dm,S 20) erigtelsoso arn o h nxetdtomorrow. unexpected the for Katrina of lessons the Learning (2005). S. Adams, oms .T (1999). T. W. Coombs, otr .J,&Mneu .(94.Fa-osn esaiemsae.I .Bsrm(Ed.), Bostrom R. In messages. persuasive Fear-rousing risk (1984). hazard/health P. health of Mongeau, utility & and effectiveness J., the F. On Boster, (1987). K. N. Janz, rebuild. Katrina & for H., sought more M. $18B Becker, 3). February (2006, K. Bazinet, (1997). A. Bandura, aha,J . ’aly .M 18) e-aig a-aig n on oetee:Black- extremes: to going and nay-saying, Yes-saying, (1984). M. P. O’Malley, & G., J. Bachman, siwl,L .(99.Pruso o h ups fcne ikrdcin Understanding risk-reduction: cancer of purpose the for Persuasion (1999). G. L. Aspinwall, ruke .L (1999). L. J. Arbuckle, esot . utneg .(04.Ctznrsos odsses uvyo ieaueadsome and literature of survey A disasters: to response Citizen (2004). A. Ruitenberg, & I., Helsloot, eh,M,Rba,S,&Abrs .(99.A foAeia esetv ninterethnic on perspective Afro-American An (1989). J. Alberts, strategies. & resistance alcohol S., students’ Ribeau, college M., of Hecht, effects The (1995). G. (1998). C. N. W. Black, Harrington, & L., R. Tatham, E., R. Anderson, F., J. Hair, uyus,W . amr .R 18) h nuneo tnct,gne,addyadic and gender, ethnicity, of influence The (1987). R. M. Hammer, & Theory, health: B., mental and W. disasters Natural Gudykunst, (1993). S. H. Resnick, & G., D. Kilpatrick, R., J. Freedy, oms .T,&Hlaa,S .(02.Hligcii aaespoetrpttoa ses Initial assets: reputational protect managers crisis Helping (2002). J. S. Holladay, & T., W. Coombs, izarc,K . ui,S .(95.Pbi eain s ea taeisi raiainlcrisis organizational in strategies (1996). legal J. vs. F. Fowler, relations Public (1995). M. S. Rubin, & R., K. Fitzpatrick, (1985). M. Douglas, ilr,J . ltik .A,Gdod .C,Femt,V . da,T 19) h multiple The (1996). T. Edgar, & S., V. Freimuth, C., L. Godbold, A., C. Plotnick, P., J. Dillard, Wolbarst A. In revolution. and Evolution communication: Risk (2001). P. Sandman, & V., Covello, Americas. Psychology og(Eds.), Long Erlbaum. omnctosyearbook Communications settings. nonclinical and clinical in appraisal ht ifrne nrsos styles. response in differences white 88 epne ors communications. risk to responses 52 rcia implications. practical communication. Communication Hall. Prentice NJ: River, Saddle 191 opsto nucranyrdcini nta interaction. initial in reduction uncertainty on composition intervention. and assessment, et ftestainlcii omncto theory. communication crisis situational the of tests Sage. CA: Oaks, Thousand decisions. fetv ucmso ISPA:Fa pel omr hnsaepeople. scare than more do appeals Fear PSAs: Research AIDS of outcomes affective Press. University (Ed.), 16 ,24 165 , Á Á 93. 214. ouin oa niomn nperil in environment an to Solutions Á Á 30. , 186. 23 , ulcto eain Review Relations Publication obdt n otlt ekyReport Weekly Mortality and Morbidity 4 ,44 517 , etn tutrleuto models equation structural Testing mrvn uvyqetos einadevaluation and Design questions: survey Improving efefiay h xrieo control of exercise The Self-efficacy: ikacpaiiyacrigt h oilsciences social the to according acceptability Risk , Á MS4.0 AMOS omncto Monographs Communication 7 72. Á 371 , 524. non rsscmuiain lnig aaig n responding and managing, Planning, communication: crisis Ongoing ora fCnignisadCii Management Crisis and Contingencies of Journal Á 391. p.330 (pp. Cmue otae.Ciao ml Waters. Small Chicago: software]. [Computer rtcus nfco analysis factor in course first A ora fSca eairadPersonality and Behavior Social of Journal Á ora fteNtoa acrIsiueMonographs Institute Cancer National the of Journal References ulcOiinQuarterly Opinion Public 7) eel il,C:Sage. CA: Hills, Beverly 375). , 21 ,21 p.164 (pp. elhSrie Research Services Health , Á 56 p.132 (pp. 33. e ok .H Freeman. H. W. York: New . , 385 , 43 aaeetCmuiainQuarterly Communication Management Á 720 , 7) atmr,M:JhsHopkins Johns MD: Baltimore, 178). Á 410. Á ora fProaiyadSocial and Personality of Journal 6) ebr ak A Sage. CA: Park, Newbury 162). Á utvraedt analysis data Multivariate 2de) ildl,N:Lawrence NJ: Hillsdale, ed). (2nd 722. , eel il,C:Sage. CA: Hills, Beverly . ora fBakStudies Black of Journal 48 al News Daily aadadOutrage and Hazard huadOk,C:Sage. CA: Oaks, Thousand . 491 , , Á , 22 , 509. 12 8 537 , ikManagement Risk ,49 NwYr) .6. p. York), (New ,98 Communication Á Á Á 103. 551. 110. Upper . Health , , 121 18 25 , , , . , Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 18:24 31 January 2008 122 ainlCmiso nTroitAtcsuo h ntdSae (2004). States United the upon Attacks Terrorist on Commission National eed,P .(97.Agiet h rprueo atraayi ntecnutadrprigof reporting and conduct the in analysis factor of use proper the to guide A (1997). F. P. Merenda, ai,I .(97.Efcso eraoslo tiuecag:Rcn eeomnsi hoyand theory in developments Recent change: attitude on arousal fear of Effects (1967). L. I. Janis, utr .E,&Hmlo,M .(1992). A. M. Hamilton, & E., J. Hunter, unly .C,&Brsen .H (1994). H. I. Bernstein, (1994). & L. C., D. J. Streiner, Nunnally, & R., G. Norman, evidence. and Theory helplessness: Learned (1976). P. E. M. Seligman, & F., S. Maier, 1953 appeals, threat on Research arousal: fear of years Fifteen (1969). L. K. Higbee, utr .E,&Grig .W 18) ndmninlmaueet eododrfco analysis factor second-order measurement, Unidimensional (1982). W. D. Gerbing, & E., J. Hunter, eeta,H 17) idnsadter ntesuyo ercmuiain.I .Berkowitz L. In communications. fear of study the in party? theory to and soon Findings too (1970). it Is H. 22). Leventhal, January (2006, S. Kearney, er,R .(1985). W. R. Perry, Lambert W. W. & Borgatta F. E. In stress. to reactions Human (1968). H. Leventhal, & L., I. Janis, eesn .A 20) eaaayi fvrac cone o n atrlaig nexploratory in loadings factor and for accounted variance of meta-analysis A (2000). A. R. Peterson, ada,P . enti,N . lt,M .(97.Pbi epnet h ikfo geological from risk the to response Public (1987). L. M. Klotz, & D., N. Weinstein, M., P. Sandman, ada,P . enti,N . ala,W .(98.Cmuiain ordc risk reduce to Communications (1998). K. W. Hallman, & D., N. Weinstein, M., P. Sandman, ada,P . ilr .M,Jhsn .B,&Wisen .D 19) gnycommunication, Agency (1993). D. N. Weinstein, & B., B. communication. Johnson, risk M., threat’s P. of Miller, a kinds M., Four of P. Sandman, April). Effects (2003, change: M. attitude P. Sandman, and appeals Fear (1976). R. integrative C. an Mewborn, as & communication W., risk R. emergency Rogers, and Crisis (1995). W. M. Seeger, & B., Reynolds, egr .W,Slnw . le,R .(2003). R. R. Ulmer, & T., Sellnow, W., M. Seeger, hvi,M,Mls .N . ais .N . akr .(00.Cefiin lh:Auseful A alpha: Coefficient (2000). S. Walker, & O., N. M. Davies, V., N. J. Miles, seeking information M., use, Shevlin, Media (2002). L. T. Sellnow, & R., R. Ulmer, S., Vennette, W., M. Seeger, .A aha .R Spence R. P. & Lachlan A. K. 156 eerh iflst avoid. to Pitfalls research: xeietlrsac.I .Broiz(Ed.), Berkowitz L. In research. experimental University. State eot ia eoto h ainlCmiso nTroitAtcsuo h ntdStates United the upon Attacks Office. Terrorist Printing on Government States Commission United National DC: the Washington, of report Final report: Press. xeietlPsychology Experimental p.166 (pp. 3 Bulletin Psychological n aslmdl.I .M tw&L .Cmig (Eds.), Cummings L. L. & Staw M. B. In behavior models. causal and (Ed.), McNally. (Eds.), atranalysis. factor Press. JAI CT: Greenwich, radon. neetmto n overestimation. and underestimation 13 omnt urg,adpretoso ik he iuainexperiments. simulation Three risk: of perceptions and outrage, community responses. coping of efficacy the Psychology and Social and occurrence, Personality of probability noxiousness, model. n eotdnesi otcii otxs nB .Geneg(Ed.), reliability? of Greenberg indicator S. B. In contexts. crisis post terrorism in needs reported and Praeger. CT: Westport, 585 , Á 164. dacsi xeietlsca psychology social experimental in Advances ora fCommunication of Journal ora fHat Communication Health of Journal Á adoko esnlt hoyadresearch and theory personality of Handbook o.4(p 267 (pp. 4 vol. , 598. p.53 (pp. Á 2) e ok cdmcPress. Academic York: New 225). aktn Letters Marketing opeesv mrec aaeet vcaigtraee populations threatened Evacuating management: emergency Comprehensive Á 3.Cesil J apo Press. Hampton NJ: Cresskill, 63). , 72 esnlt n niiulDifferences Individual and Personality , Á 426 , 105 2) rewc,C:JIPress. JAI CT: Greenwich, 320). esrmn n vlaini oneigadDevelopment and Counseling in Evaluation and Measurement ,3 Á 444. Á , , 46. , 34 11 37 isaitc:Tebr essentials bare The Biostatistics: CFA.BAS scoerctheory Psychometric ,54 261 , ,93 ikDcso n Policy and Decision Risk Á , Á Á 61. 10 108. 275. ,43 dacsi xeietlsca psychology social experimental in Advances Cmue otae.Es asn:Michigan Lansing: East software]. [Computer o.5(p 119 (pp. 5 vol. , Á omncto n raiainlcrisis organizational and Communication h oso Chronicle Houston The 55. e ok McGraw-Hill. York: New . p.1041 (pp. h Synergist The , , 28 3 Á ,93 229 , 8) e ok Academic York: New 186). eerhi organizational in Research t oi,M:Mosby. MO: Louis, St. . Á Á 05.Ciao Rand Chicago: 1085). 108. Á h /1commission 9/11 The omncto and Communication 237. ,p.1. ,pp.26 ikAnalysis Risk ora of Journal ora of Journal Á 27. Á 1968. vol. , , 30 , . . , . Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 18:24 31 January 2008 tre,D .(94.Cmuiaigtruhcii:Asrtg o raiainlsurvival. organizational for strategy A crisis: warning through of Communicating consequences (1994). unintended L. and D. Intended Sturges, (1994). M. I. Martin, & and W., Gender (2006). D. R. R. Ulmer, Stewart, & T., Sellnow, M., Seeger, P., Skalski, D., Westerman, R., P. Spence, utn .R 18) erruigcmuiain:Aciia xmnto fter n research. and theory of examination critical A communications: Fear-rousing (1982). R. S. Sutton, hrdk,R . unnhm .K,Tonie .L,&Hgn .(1991). E. Hagan, & L., R. Thorndike, K., G. Cunningham, M., R. Thorndike, it,K 19) utn h erbc nofa pel:Teetne aallpoesmodel. process parallel extended The appeals: fear into back fear the Putting (1992). K. Witte, u .Y (2002). Y. C. Yu, (2000). R. Rasinski, & J., L. Rips, R., Tourangeau, it,K,&Mrio,K 19) h s fsaetcisi ISpeeto:Tecs fjuvenile of case The prevention: AIDS public in tactics effective scare for of use Implications The appeals: (1995). fear K. Morrison, of & meta-analysis K., Witte, A (2000). M. Allen, & K., Witte, aaeetCmuiainQuarterly research. Communication Management empirical of synthesis and Marketing review A messages: 9/11. after seeking information on effects age nJ .Esr(Ed.), Eiser R. J. In ie Sons. & Wiley omncto Monographs Communication Press. University Cambridge Angeles. outcomes continuous education and psychology in evaluation eeto n ihsho youth. school high and detention campaigns. health , 13 vlaigctf rtrao oe tfrltn aibemdl ihbnr and binary with models variable latent for fit model of criteria cutoff Evaluating ,1 Á 19. elhEuainadBhvo Quarterly Behavior and Education Health oilpyhlg n eairlmedicine behavioral and psychology Social nulse otrldsetto.Uiest fCalifornia-Los of University dissertation. doctoral Unpublished . , 59 329 , ora fApidCmuiainResearch Communication Applied of Journal Á e ok McMillan. York: New . 349. , 7 297 , h scooyo uvyresponse survey of psychology The omncto eerhReports Research Communication Á 316. , p.303 (pp. 27 ora fPbi oiyand Policy Public of Journal aadadOutrage and Hazard 608 , Á Á 3) e ok John York: New 337). 632. esrmn and Measurement abig,UK: Cambridge, . , , 23 23 128 , 217 , Á Á 223. 142. 123