SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2005, 33(3), 243-258

© Society for Personality Research

DOI 10.2224/sbp.2005.33.3.243

IMPACT OF A COMMUNITY DISASTER AWARENESS

TRAINING PROGRAM IN TURKEY: DOES IT INFLUENCE
HAZARD-RELATED COGNITIONS AND PREPAREDNESS
BEHAVIORS?

A. NURAY KARANCI, BAHATTIN AKSIT, AND GULAY DIRIK

Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

A community disaster training program focused on earthquakes, floods, and landslides was
implemented in Cankiri, Turkey, in 2002. It covered mitigation, preparedness, and response
aspects of natural disaster management. Four thousand community members participated in
the training program delivered by 95 local trainers. In this study we evaluated the impact
of participation in this program. One year later, 400 randomly selected participants in the training
program and a comparable sample of 400 community members who did not participate in any
disaster training program (nonparticipants) were surveyed. Disaster-related cognitions (i.e.,
disaster expectation, worry about future disasters, loss estimations if a disaster occurs, beliefs
in the possibility of mitigation, and preparedness) and reported preparedness behaviors were
assessed. The relationship of sociodemographic, previous disaster experience, anxiety, and
locus of control variables with disaster-related cognitions and behaviors was examined.
Results showed that participants in the training program had more disaster expectation, worry
and loss estimation, and more preparedness behaviors. Results of regression analyses,
examining the relationship of the variables of the study with disaster cognitions, affect, and
actual preparedness behaviors showed that gender, education, being a participant in the
training program, anxiety, and locus of control are important variables related to different
kinds of disaster-related cognitions. However, reported preparedness behaviors were quite low
and this result needs to be viewed with caution. These results have important implications for
the modification of programs for targeting sustainable behavioral change, which is likely to
reduce the impact of future disasters.

Keywords: disaster awareness, community training, preparedness behavior.

The importance of the participation of the local community for the execution
of successful disaster mitigation and preparedness measures has been repeatedly

A. Nuray Karanci, Bahattin Aksit and Gulay Dirik, Departments of Psychology and Sociology, Middle
East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Appreciation is due to anonymous reviewers.
Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: A. Nuray Karanci, Middle East Technical
University, Department of Psychology, 06531, Ankara, Turkey. Email: karanci@metu.edu.tr

243
244 DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY

stressed (Karanci & Aksit, 2000; Perry & Lindell, 2003). Increasing hazard and
risk awareness and strengthening beliefs in the possibility of taking mitigation
and preparedness measures can be an initial stage in motivating communit y
members for the development and the application of appropriate preparedness
behaviors (Lopez-Vazquez & Marvan, 2003; Mulilis, Duval, & Lippa, 1990;
Mulilis & Duval, 1997). Numerous methods of community training, varying
from simple booklets about hazards to workshops, seminars, and applied training
courses in disaster mitigation and preparedness have been utilized (Asgary &
Willis, 1997; Bowen & Faison, 2002). However, evaluation of the effects of such
programs in increasing community resilience is scarce and has produced mixed
results (Bowen & Faison, 2002; Morrissey & Reser, 2003; Ronan & Johnston,
2003). It is necessary to evaluate the impact of such training programs by
assessing the cognitive and behavioral changes that follow them in order to
develop guidelines for increasing their impact and to find methods that will
facilitate cognitive and, more importantly, behavioral change and thereby elicit
preparedness behaviors.
The aim in the present study was to examine the impact of participating in a
basic disaster awareness training program for earthquakes, landslides, and floods
on cognitive and behavioral measures related to disaster mitigation and
preparedness. More specifically, the effects of such a training program on
disaster-related cognitions (i.e., expectations and worry about future disasters,
loss estimation, beliefs in mitigation, and preparedness) and preparedness
behaviors were examined one year after the training program. The differences
between the participants of the training program and a control group of nonpar-
ticipants were examined in order to understand the impact of the training.
Furthermore, we examined the predictors of disaster-related cognitions and
preparedness behaviors.
In the literature on persuasive communication it is proposed that when individuals
are persuaded that they are at risk of confronting events that will threaten their well-
being they will engage in adaptive behaviors (Duval & Mulilis, 1999; Janis,
1967). Thus, according to this view, if individuals perceive a risk of disasters and
believe that their well-being will be threatened then they are likely to engage in
mitigation or preparedness behaviors. However, contrary to this view, previous
experience with disasters has not been found to be a good predictor of
preparedness behaviors (Rincon, Linares, & Greenberg, 2001; Rüstemli &
Karanci, 1999). Therefore, simply being aware of risks does not seem to be a
strong factor for the initiation of responsible adaptive behaviors. The person-
relative-to-event (PrE) model can be used to modify the persuasive communi-
cation viewpoint (Duval & Mulilis, 1999). According to the PrE model, adaptive
behavior is related to two kinds of appraisals. The first one is related to the evaluation
of the event and the second one is about the evaluation of personal resources. In the
 DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY 245
model it is proposed that when the appraised severity and probability of the event
exceed the appraised personal-coping resources adaptive behavior is not likely to
follow. However, when the person assesses his/her own resources as sufficient
relative to the perceived threat entailed in the event then adaptive behavior will
follow. Thus, in disaster awareness programs it seems important to highlight and
develop an awareness of risks involved in disaster events and also to empower the
person with relevant skills to cope with the event, so that the person evaluates
his/her resources relative to the dangers posed by the event as sufficient to deal
with the threat. Duval and Mulilis found that earthquake preparedness behaviors
increased for persons who evaluated their resources as high in comparison to the
magnitude of their threat perceptions, supporting the PrE model. Furthermore,
perceptions of responsibility for the mitigation of hazards have been found to
have a moderating effect for adaptive behavior when personal resources are viewed
as sufficient (Mulilis & Duval, 1997). Within the framework of this model, two
dimensions need to be stressed in community disaster training programs. The first
one is providing information on threat so that threat perception due to possible
future disasters is raised. The second area is increasing the personal resources of the
participants in dealing with the threat, so that the individual feels capable of
dealing with a possible future disaster event. Lastly, training programs need to
give community members a sense of responsibility for mitigation and prepared-
ness. Previous researchers in Turkey showed that although earthquake survivors
believe in the general possibility of mitigation and preparedness, they believe
that they themselves have fewer resources as compared to the state
institutions for taking such actions. Furthermore, they attribute responsibility
for mitigation and preparedness to external sources, such as the state, municipality,
engineers, and so on (Karanci & Aksit, 1999; Karanci & Aksit, 2000).
Research on predictors of preparedness behavior for disasters showed that age,
income, education, locus of control, beliefs in control, perceived threat, and
distress were significant predictors of preparedness behaviors for hurricanes and
earthquakes (Kasapoğlu & Ecevit, 2003; Rincon, et al., 2001; Rüstemli & Karanci,
1999). Rüstemli and Karanci found that anxiety about future earthquakes and
perceived control were significant predictors of preparedness behaviors among
the survivors of the Erzincan, Turkey earthquake. Kasapoğlu and Ecevit reported that
education, employment, social security, and knowledge were important predictors
of preparedness for future earthquakes among the survivors of the 1999 Marmara
earthquake. Thus, these findings seem to lend partial support to the PrE model, by
showing that being aware of threat and having personal resources – such as income,
education, belief in personal control, and knowledge about disasters – are import-
ant factors for facilitating preparedness behaviors.
246 DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY

METHOD

BACKGROUND TO THE CURRENT STUDY

The study site This study is the follow-up phase of an applied field study,
conducted in Cankiri, a province with a population of 250,000, located in central
Turkey. Cankiri was hit by an earthquake of magnitude 5.9 on the Richter scale in
June 2000, nearly 10 months prior to the initiation of the disaster awareness training
program. The earthquake led to damage in nearly 3,000 buildings and caused three
deaths. Furthermore, the study was initiated a year after the devastating 1999
earthquake in Marmara, Turkey. This earthquake severely affected five industrial
cities in Turkey and led to a death toll of 17,000 and collapse of 50,000 buildings
(Ecevit & Kasapoğlu, 2002; Kasapoğlu, Ecevit, & Ecevit, 2004). Thus, the
community training program was initiated when there was a heightened
awareness and keen interest in disasters in Turkey.
Disaster awareness training program In the initial phase of the community
training program, a large multisectoral meeting was held in Cankiri, with the
support of the Governor, in order to stress the importance of local participation
and training in disaster management and to recruit local people who would be
trained to become voluntary local trainers. As a result of discussions with local
partners, earthquakes, floods, and landslides were depicted as the most important
types of hazards for Cankiri. Individuals from the public sector, municipalities,
nongovernmental organizations, and professional chambers were asked to
volunteer to become local trainers, to be trained by central trainers. It was
stressed that subsequently they would be asked to deliver the training program to
adult community members.
Based on the information given above on the probability of high risk disasters
in the province of Cankiri, the training of trainers handbook for earthquakes used
previously in another community participation study (Karanci & Aksit, 1999)
was revised and expanded to include floods and landslides. A booklet to be
distributed to adult community members who would participate in the awareness
program was also similarly revised. The handbook contained information on
preparedness and mitigation measures. It clearly specified the method of
conducting the training and emphasized activities to get the active involvement
of participants. The handbook also contained sections with in-depth information
for the trainer. There was also a 10-page simple brochure to be given to
community members during the eight hours’ training. The content of the
handbook and the brochure was based on previous similar publications (e.g.,
Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]).
An eight hours’ training of trainers program was given to 117 potential local
trainers by the present authors. Out of the 117 potential local trainers who
 DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY 247
participated in the training of trainers program, 95 agreed to be local trainers. A
contract was signed with these local trainers, based on a requirement to train at
least 50 adults from the community by the end of March 2002. Thus, a total of
4,750 adults from the community were targeted. They were each given a training
of trainers handbook, 50 brochures to be distributed to community members
participating in their training groups, and 50 questionnaires outlining some
dimensions of disaster experience and mitigation and preparedness beliefs of
those who would attend their groups. They were asked to distribute these surveys
at the end of their training groups and then to collect and return them to the
project coordinators. The project researchers required the trainers to give out
questionnaires in order to provide some control over the local trainers. These
surveys asked for consent for future contact in an evaluation study and requested
consenting participants to give their contact phone numbers and addresses so that
they could be contacted in the future. A total of 4,000 community members
participated in the training program and they all gave their consent for future
contact (Aksit, Karanci, & Anafarta, 2002).
One year after the completion of the program 400 individuals were randomly
selected from the questionnaires completed and contacted for the present study.

THE SAMPLE
The sample consisted of 800 adults (female = 202, male = 598) living in
Cankiri. Half of the sample was drawn randomly from among the 4,000
participants of the disaster awareness training program (participants), while the other
half were 400 adults, randomly chosen from among individuals living in similar
neighborhoods, but not exposed to a disaster awareness training program, forming a
control group (nonparticipants). Ninety percent of the sample was employed,
48% owned the house they were living in and 53.6% had had a previous natural
disaster experience. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the participant and
nonparticipant samples. As can be seen, those who had participated in
training were slightly older and had less education. Apart from these differences,
the two groups were comparable.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
The first part of the instrument was used to identify sociodemographic variables
[gender, age, marital status, education, employment status, household size,
house ownership status (owner versus rental), and household property (measured as
the total number checked by the respondent from a list of 10 household appliances
or consumer items, such as refrigerator, dishwasher, television, etc.)], whereas the
second part contained questions on disaster experience (whether they had
experienced a disaster in their lives, if yes, its type and degree of loss from the
disaster), five questions on cognitions/emotions related to hazard awareness and
 TABLE 1
SUBJECTS’ CHARACTERISTICS

Variables Participated in Did not participate t All sample Effect size 95% C. I.
awareness ed. in awareness ed. Lower b. Upper b.
Age 35.93 (SD = 8.23) 33.80 (SD = 9.03) 3.48** 34.87 (SD = 8.69) .25 -3.34 -.93
Years of education 10.84 (SD = 2.83) 11.22 (SD = 2.63) -1.96* 11.03 (SD = 2.74) -.14 -.00 .76
Household size 4.16 (SD = 1.56) 4.09 (SD = 1.77) .61 4.12 (SD = 1.67) .04 -.31 .16
Household properties 6.61 (SD =1.15) 6.74 (SD = 1.31) -1.48 6.67 (SD = 1.24) -.02 -.04 .31
(R = 1-10)
Anxiety 13.66 (SD = 3.34) 13.83 (SD = 3.13) -.75 13.74 (SD = 3.23) -.05 -.29 .64
Locus of control 119.58 (SD = 20.23) 117.06 (SD = 18.45) 1.64 118.30 (SD = 19.37) .13 -5.53 .49
Note: ** p < .001, *p < .05
 DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY 249
mitigation (“How likely do you think is the probability of a disaster in Cankiri in the
next year?”; “How much do you worry about the occurrence of a disaster in Cankiri
over the next year?”; “How much loss do you expect for yourself/family if a
disaster occurs?”; “Do you believe that it is possible to mitigate disaster losses?”;
“To what extent can one be prepared for disasters?”). All the items were rated on
3-point Likert scales (1 = not at all, 3 = very much) and finally one question on
preparedness behavior “Have you made any preparations for future disasters?; and if
yes please list the actions that you have completed?” The following scales were given
in the next section of the instrument:
Locus of Control Scale (LCS) In the present study the 47-item LCS, developed
and tested with Turkish samples, was used (Dag, 2002). The scale uses a 5-point
Likert scale response format (1 = not suitable at all; 5 = completely suitable).
Dag reported the reliability of the whole scale as .92. The possible score range is
47-235.
In the present study a total locus of control score was obtained simply by
summing up the responses to the items of the LCS (M = 118.30, SD = 19.37, min. =
60, max. = 181), higher scores reflecting external locus of control. Cronbach’s
alpha reliability was .86 for the present study.
Symptom Checklist-40 (SCL-40) The SCL-40 provides a measure of general
distress (Derogatis & Cleary, 1977). The scale was previously translated and
used with survivors of three separate earthquakes in Turkey (Karanci &
Rüstemli, 1995; Karanci, Alcan, Aksit, Sucuoglu, & Balta, 1999). The items tap
somatic symptoms, anxiety, depression, and anger/irritability. Respondents were
asked to report which of the 40 symptoms they had experienced within the past two
weeks and to rate each item/symptom by considering the degree of distress it
caused on a 3-point scale (1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, and 3 = a lot) during the
past two weeks.
For the present study a varimax orthogonal factor analysis was conducted for
the SCL-40, which revealed 7 factors, explaining 51% of the variance. Since
previous research showed that Anxiety is the only factor that is related to
preparedness (Rüstemli & Karanci, 1999), only the factor reflecting anxiety was
used in the present study for predicting disaster-related cognitions and
preparedness behaviors. This factor had 10 items and had an adequate Cronbach’s
alpha reliability value (.78). Anxiety scores were obtained by simply summing
up the responses to the 10 items of the anxiety factor of the SCL-40, (M = 13.74,
SD = 3.23, min. =10, max. = 29).

PROCEDURE
Four hundred participants were randomly selected from the 4,000 participants
who took part in the awareness training program. Their addresses and names
were noted. The 400 adults for the control group (nonparticipants) were selected
250 DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY

randomly either from households located on the same street, or from among
individuals working in the same workplace. Trained interviewers administered
the questionnaires one year after the completion of the training program, in either
the homes or workplaces of the respondents. The administration took about 30
minutes. All of the individuals contacted agreed to participate in the study. Since
20 adults from the original training sample could not be contacted, the
researchers drew an additional 20 individuals from the list of participants.

RESULTS

HAZARD-RELATED COGNITIONS AND PREPAREDNESS BEHAVIOR OF THE PARTICIPANTS

AND NONPARTICIPANTS IN AWARENESS TRAINING
Preparedness behavior was calculated by first making a categorization of
possible preparedness behaviors, based on a screening of the replies to “What
have you done for preparedness”. The categories were: 1. Keeping supplies
(food, medicine, clothing etc.); 2. Stabilizing furniture; 3. Getting earthquake
insurance; 4. Making a family reunion plan and other plans for when disaster
occurs; 5. Structurally strengthening the building. Subsequently the replies of
each respondent were placed in appropriate categories. Since there were a lot of
items falling under the first category they were all counted as one, in order not to
inflate the number of preparedness behaviors. Thus, the possible score range was
1-5. Participants reporting preparedness behaviors were very few, with only 9.5%
reporting that they had engaged in one category of behavior, 2.5% in two and
only 1% engaging in three category behaviors.
The mean scores of disaster expectation worry about future disasters and loss
estimation and actual preparedness behaviors were significantly higher for the
participants (M = 2.45, 2.34, and 2.32; SD = .57, .61, and .56, respectively) as
compared to nonparticipants (M = 2.30, 2.17, and 2.19; SD = .59, .65, and .67,
respectively) (t(798) = 3.57, 3.80, and 2.82 respectively, p < .01, two-tailed).
Although the scores of the participant group for belief in the possibility of
mitigation and preparedness (M = 2.27 and 2.21) were slightly higher in
comparison to the control group (M = 2.18 and 2.08), the difference was not
significant (t(798) = 1.86 and 3.03, p < .01). For preparedness behavior, the
mean scores were very low and although the participant group (M = .35; SD =
.67) had a significantly higher score than did the nonparticipant group (M = .18;
SD = .51) (t(798) = 4.18, p < .001, two-tailed), the scores for the groups were
generally very low.
 DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY 251
REGRESSION ANALYSES
In order to examine the variables that are related to disaster
cognitions/emotions and preparedness behaviors, six separate hierarchical
regression analyses were conducted.
Prior to conducting a series of regression analyses, zero order correlations
between possible independent and dependent variables (i.e., disaster expectation,
worry about future disasters, loss expectation, beliefs in mitigation, and
preparedness) and number of preparedness behaviors were obtained. This
analysis revealed that the following were significantly related to dependent
variables: gender (1 = female, 2 = male), years of education, marital status (1 =
married, 2 = not married), household size (number of people living at the same
home), house ownership (0 = owner, 1 = rented); house type (0 = nonreinforced
concrete; 1 = reinforced concrete), household properties (calculated by summing
up the ownership of 10 listed household appliances or consumer items, such as
a refrigerator, television, washing machine, dishwasher, radio/tape recorder,
telephone, and car), participation in awareness training (1 = participated; 0 =
did not participate), anxiety (the sum of the anxiety factor items of the SCL-40),
locus of control. Although age was not significantly correlated with any of the
dependent variables, it was included in the regression analyses as a control variable.1
In all of the six analyses, a similar set of independent variables was used and
they were entered in three blocks. In the first block, personal and residential
variables [i.e., gender, age, years of education, marital status, household size
(number of people living at the same home), house ownership status, house type,
household properties (number of consumer items)] were entered. In the second
block participation in awareness training (0 = no; 1 = yes) was entered. In the
third block anxiety and locus of control scores were entered. Conversely, in the
analysis for actual preparedness behaviors, disaster expectation, worry about
disasters, loss expectation, and beliefs about mitigation and preparedness were
also entered in the third block. Table 2 contains the results of the six regression
analyses.

PREDICTORS OF DISASTER EXPECTATION

The results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis showed that the
11 predictor variables explained 8% of the variance in disaster expectation (F (11,
547) = 4.08, p < .001). In the final analysis, household property (β = .09, t = 2.03, p <
.05), participation in awareness training (0 = no; 1 = yes) (β = .19, t = 4.35, p <
.001) and anxiety (β = .14, t = 3.23, p < .001) appeared as significant predictors of
disaster expectation. Thus, having more household property, participating in

1
The correlation matrix can be obtained from the authors upon request.
252 DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY

training, and being more anxious seem to be related to higher expectations for
the occurrence of future disasters.

TABLE 2
PREDICTORS OF THE COGNITIVE/EMOTIONAL VARIABLES RELATED TO DISASTERS AND
PREPAREDNESS BEHAVIOR

Step Variables Expect Worry Loss Mitigation Preparedness Prep.

behavior

I. Personal-residential
Gender (1=female; 2=male -.061 -.14** -.13** -.04 .02 .09*
Age -.02 -.04 -.02 .05 .01 .03
Education (years) .04 -.12** -.04 .13** .15*** .15**
Marital status
(1=married;
2=not married) -.08 -.10* -.12* -.06 -.08 -.09
Household size .00 -.03 -.06 -.10* -.09* -.05
House ownership
(0=owner; 1=rented) -.03 .07 .03 -.06 -.03 .10*
House type
(0=nonreinforced;
1=reinforced concrete) -.08 .01 -.03 -.05 .04 -.02
Household property .09* .11* .00 .07 .04 .01
F 2.00* 4.38*** 2.47** 5.93*** 6.39*** 3.48***
R2 .03 .06 .04 .08 .09 .05
II. Awareness training
(1=participant;
0=nonparticipant) .19*** .16*** .13** .08* .16*** .15***
F 3.77*** 5.51*** 3.12*** 5.53*** 7.15*** 4.99***
R2 .06 .08 .05 .08 .11 .08
III. Psychological
Anxiety .14*** .11** .05 .02 .02 .05
Locus of control -.02 -.05 -.05 -.27*** -.26*** .03
Dis. expectation .04
Dis. worry .14***
Loss estimation .08
Belief in mitigation .04
Belief in preparedness .02
F 4.08*** 5.23*** 2.76** 8.78*** 9.99*** 3.97***
R .28 .31 .23 .39 .41 .33
R2 .08 .10 .06 .15 .17 .11
Notes: 1 Beta, standardized coefficients are given; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

PREDICTORS OF WORRY ABOUT FUTURE DISASTERS

The results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis showed that the 11
predictor variables explained 10% of the variance in worry (F(11, 551) = 5.23, p
 DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY 253
< .001). In the final step, gender (1 = female, 2 = male) (β = -.14, t = -3.15,
p < .01), years of education, (β = -.12, t = -2.61, p < .01), marital status (1 = married, 2
= not married) (β = -.10, t = -2.14, p < .05), household property (β = .11, t = 2.38, p
< .05), participation in awareness training (1 = yes, 0 = no) (β = .16, t = 3.88, p <
.001), and anxiety (β = .11, t = 2.61, p < .01) appeared as significant predictors of
worry. So, being female and being married, having lower levels of education, having
more property, participating in disaster training and anxiety are related to worries
about future disasters.

PREDICTORS OF LOSS ESTIMATION FROM FUTURE DISASTERS

All the predictors explained 6% of the variance in loss estimation (F(11, 534) =
2.76, p < .01). In the last step, gender (β = -.13, t = -2.72, p < .01), marital status (β =
-.12, t = -2.42, p < .05), and participation in awareness training (β = .13, t = 2.95, p <
.01) appeared as significant predictors of loss estimation from future disasters.
Thus, being female, being married and participation in training are related to
higher estimations of loss from future disasters.

PREDICTORS OF BELIEF IN THE POSSIBILITY OF MITIGATION

For beliefs in the possibility of mitigation the 11 predictor variables explained
15% of the variance (F(11, 554) = 8.78, p < .001). Years of education, (β = .13, t =
2.96, p < .01), household size (β = -.10, t = -2.21, p < .05), participation in
awareness training (β = .08, t = 1.95, p < .05), and locus of control (β = -.27, t = -
6.55, p < .001) appeared as significant predictors of mitigation. So, having more
education, having a smaller household, participation in training, and finally
having internal locus of control are related to beliefs in mitigation.

PREDICTORS OF BELIEFS IN PREPAREDNESS

Eleven predictors explained 17% of the variance in beliefs in preparedness (F (11,
554) = 9.99, p < .001). Years of education, (β = .15, t = 3.29, p < .001), house-
hold size (β = -.09, t = -2.18, p < .05), participation in awareness training (β = .16, t
= 3.11, p < .001), locus of control (β = -.26, t = -6.39, p < .001) appeared as
significant predictors of beliefs in the possibility of preparedness. So, having more
education, having a smaller household, being a participant, and finally having
internal locus of control are related to beliefs in the possibility of preparedness.

PREDICTORS OF PREPAREDNESS BEHAVIOR

In this analysis, disaster expectation, worry, and loss expectation, beliefs in
mitigation and preparedness were also entered in the third block. The 16
predictor variables explained 11% of the variance in preparedness behavior
(F(16, 527) = 3.97, p < .001). In the final step gender (β = .09, t = 2.02, p < .05),
254 DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY

years of education (β = .15, t = 3.07, p < .01), house ownership (β = .10, t =

2.13, p < .05), participation in awareness training (β = .15, t = 3.37, p < .001), and
worry about disasters (β = .14, t = 2.53, p < .01) appeared to be significant. Thus,
males, those having more education, living in a rented house, being a participant
in the disaster awareness training program, and worry about future disasters
appeared important for actual preparedness behaviors.

DISCUSSION

In this study we aimed to assess the impact of a disaster awareness training

program on disaster-related cognitions and preparedness behaviors. A group of adults
who did not participate in such a disaster awareness training program was also
evaluated in order to understand the impact of being exposed to disaster
awareness training. The results revealed that the participants had higher threat
perceptions as compared to nonparticipants. They had higher disaster expect-
ations, loss estimations, and worry about future earthquakes. Furthermore, among the
predictors of these three cognitive variables being a participant in the training program
appeared as a significant variable. Thus, it seems that an 8-hour awareness program
led to heightened awareness. This is an important finding within the context of
the PrE model (Duval & Mulilis, 1999; Mulilis, Duval, & Lippa, 1990; Mulilis &
Duval, 1997). According to this model the fact that the participants in the training
program had a higher appraisal of threat is suggested as being conducive to
adaptive behavior, provided that they also appraise their own resources as
sufficient. Two other cognitive variables were used in the present study,
“belief in the possibility of mitigation and preparedness”, which were
examined to assess whether or not individuals believe that reducing disaster damage
and being prepared are possible. On these two variables, although the participants
had slightly higher scores than the nonparticipants, the differences between the
two groups were not significant. Thus, although risk awareness was higher among
the participants, beliefs about doing something about it were not significantly
different in the two groups. However, for both these variables being a participant
was significant in the regression analysis after controlling for other
variables. This result indicated that participation also had a positive impact
on beliefs about mitigation and preparedness.
Considering that 3 was the maximum score on these variables, an inspection of
the means for both groups reveals that they are both above 2, and thus quite high.
This may be related to the extensive media coverage of disasters and methods for
mitigation and preparedness following the 1999 Marmara earthquake. The
extensive impact of this earthquake might have led to a general awareness of the
possibility of mitigation and preparedness in Turkey. For this reason the control
 DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY 255
group, who did not report having had a formal disaster awareness training
experience, may have also developed these favorable cognitions for disaster
mitigation and preparedness. This issue needs to be examined in the future when a
massive disaster experience is not so prominent.
A crucial issue for disaster awareness training programs is to motivate
individuals to take appropriate action. Thus, in this regard, the present results
showed that the participants in the program had engaged in significantly more
preparedness behaviors. However, the mean values for preparedness behaviors
were very low. This is a disheartening result and indicates that, with a short
training program, although hazard-related cognitions could be influenced it is
difficult to facilitate behavioral change. In order to have an impact on actual
preparedness behaviors the programs may need to be longer and other concerns
of the community members may need to be reduced. During the final meeting
with the local trainers this group reported that although the training was received
with enthusiasm and interest, the participants in the trainers’ sessions stated that
they have other concerns in life, such as economic hardship, problems with their
health and meeting the financial costs of their children’s education. An in-depth
analysis of the concerns of the participants needs to be conducted in future
studies in order to understand reasons for not engaging in preparedness
behaviors.
As proposed by the PrE model, the appraisal of the coping resources of
individuals is also important for adaptive behavior. In our study, a direct
examination of the appraisals of the sample on their resources was not made.
However, personal resources were assessed by using certain sociodemographic
(e.g., education; household property) and personality variables (internal locus of
control). The results of the regression analysis revealed that cognitive variables,
reflecting threat appraisals (expectation of disasters, worry about disasters, and
loss estimation for future disasters) were all related to gender. Women tended to
have higher disaster expectations, more worry, and higher loss estimations.
Furthermore, household property and being married were related to threat
perceptions, showing that the more individuals have at stake the more threat they
perceive. Education appeared to be important only for the worry dimension. The
more education people had the less worry they reported about future disasters.
Furthermore, education was found to be related to beliefs in mitigation and the
possibility of preparedness. Education was also found to be an important
predictor of preparedness behavior in previous studies (Kasapoglu & Ecevit,
2003; Rüstemli & Karanci, 1999). Thus, education seems to be an important
resource for decreasing the worry of individuals and giving them a sense of
control in relation to mitigation and preparedness. Similarly, locus of control was
found to be related to beliefs in mitigation and preparedness. Thus, individuals
who have an internal locus of control, believing that they can exert control over
256 DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY

events, are more likely to believe in the possibility of their controlling the
harmful consequences of disasters (mitigation and preparedness). Anxiety, as an
affective variable, was a significant predictor of disaster expectations and
worry about future disasters. Thus, being very anxious seems to lead to higher threat
perceptions.

LIMITATIONS
The regression analysis about disaster-related cognitions and preparedness
behaviors revealed low beta coefficients resulting in low levels of explained
variance (R2). Our indicators of cognitions and beliefs were Likert-type measures
with only 3 response options, rather than 5. This was used due to difficulties
reported in our pilot testing for the comprehension of 5-point scales. This might
have limited a better assessment of variation. Our measure of preparedness behavior
was also such that the mean for preparedness behaviors was very low. The
measure for preparedness behavior that we used was quite conservative. In future
studies a more detailed analysis of preparedness behaviors needs to be adopted.

IMPLICATIONS
Overall, the results showed that for all disaster-related cognitions being a
participant in the disaster awareness training program made a difference. It seems
that the program was powerful in preparing individuals cognitively to tackle
future disasters. In spite of this, being men, having a higher level of education,
having a smaller household size, worrying about future disasters, and – most
important of all – participating in even a short disaster awareness program,
contributed to disaster preparedness behaviors. This shows that in developing
countries like Turkey, the challenge is to find means and support mechanisms to
motivate community members to engage in actual preparedness behaviors.
Almost none of the people in our sample engaged in strengthening their buildings
against future disasters. This requires high levels of economic resources. For such
kinds of committed mitigation behaviors not only the individual but also the
community and state resources need to be mobilized. Even after such a large-
scale disaster as the Marmara earthquake of 1999 and although Turkey is a
country in which almost 90% of the population lives on earthquake-prone areas,
the Turkish state and civil society do not seem to have reached the point of having
cognitions and behaviors necessary for effective disaster mitigation and
preparedness. The present program can be considered as a small step in this
direction.
 DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY 257
REFERENCES
Aksit, B., Karanci, A. N., & Anafarta, M. (2002). Disaster preparedness training through local
trainers: An implementation and assessment in a province of Turkey. Paper presented at “Hazards
2002 – Ninth International Symposium on Natural and Human-made hazards: Disaster Mitigation
in the Perspective of the New Millennium”, Antalya, Turkey.
Asgary, A., & Willis, K. (1997). Household behavior in response to earthquake risk: An assessment
of alternative theories. Disasters, 21, 354-365.
Bowen, C. F., & Faison, N. (2002). Using simple training methods to motivate consumers to prepare
for emergencies. Journal of Extensions, 40, 1-10.
Dag, I. (2002). Kontrol Odagi Ölcegi (KOÖ): Ölcek gelistirme, güvenirlik ve gecerlik calismasi
[Locus of Control Scale: Scale development, reliability and validity]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi
[Turkish Journal of Psychology], 17, 77-90.
Derogatis, L. R., & Cleary, P. A. (1977). Confirmation of the dimensional structure of the SCL-90: A
study of construct validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 981-989.
Duval, T. S., & Mulilis, J.-P. (1999). A person-relative-to -event (PrE) approach to negative threat
appeals and earthquake preparedness: A field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,
495-516.
Ecevit, M., & Kasapoğlu, A. (2002). Demographic and psychosocial features and their effects on the
survivors of the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Social Behavior and Personality: An international
journal, 30, 195-202.
FEMA. (2000). http://www.fema.gov
Janis, I. L. (1967). Effects of fear arousal on attitude change: Recent developments in theory and
experimental research. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
3, pp. 166-124). New York: Academic.
Karanci, N. A., & Rüstemli, A. (1995). Psychological consequences of the 1992 Erzincan (Turkey)
earthquake. Disasters, 19, 8-18.
Karanci, N. A., Alkan, N., Aksit, B., Sucuoglu, H., & Balta, E. (1999). Gender differences in
psychological distress, coping, social support and related variables following the 1995 Dinar
(Turkey) earthquake. North American Journal of Psychology, 1, 189-204.
Karanci, N. A., & Aksit, B. (1999). Strengthening community participation in disaster management
by strengthening governmental and non-governmental organizations and networks: A case study
from Dinar and Bursa (Turkey). The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 13,
35-39.
Karanci, N. A., & Aksit, B. (2000). Building disaster resistant communities: Lessons learned from
past earthquakes in Turkey and suggestions for the future. International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters, 18, 403-416.
Kasapoğlu, A., & Ecevit, M. (2003). Impact of the 1999 East Marmara earthquake in Turkey.
Population and Environment, 24, 339-358
Kasapoğlu, A., Ecevit, Y., & Ecevit, M. (2004).Support needs of the survivors of the August 17, 1999
earthquake in Turkey. Social Indicators Research, 66, 229-248.
Lopez-Vazquez, E., & Marvan, M. W. (2003). Risk perception, stress and coping strategies in two
catastrophe risk situations. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 31,
61-70.
Morrissey, S. A., & Reser, J. P. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of psychological preparedness
advice in community cyclone preparedness materials. The Australian Journal of Emergency
Management, 18, 46-61.
Mulilis, J.-P., Duval, T. S., & Lippa, R. A. (1990). The effects of a large, destructive local earthquake
on earthquake preparedness as assessed by an earthquake preparedness scale. Natural Hazards, 3,
357-371.
258 DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY

Mulilis, J.-P., & Duval, T. S. (1997). The PrE model of coping and tornado preparedness: Moderating
effects of responsibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1750-1766.
Perry, R. W., & Lindell, M. K. (2003). Preparedness for emergency response: Guidelines for the
emergency planning process. Disasters, 27, 336-350.
Rincon E., Linares, M. Y.-R., & Greenberg, B. (2001). Effect of previous experience of a hurricane on
preparedness for future hurricanes. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 19, 276-279.
Ronan, K. R., & Johnston, D. M. (2003). Hazards education for youth: A quasi-experimental
investigation. Risk Analysis, 23, 1009-1020.
Rustemli, A., & Karanci, N. A. (1999). Correlates of earthquake cognitions and preparedness
behavior in a victimized population. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 91-101.
Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal is the property of
Society for Personality Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.