A new study published in the Journal of Public Health Policy sheds light on the complex relationship between risk communication styles and household earthquake preparedness. Titled “Risk messaging style and its effect on public preparedness for earthquakes: longitudinal intervention-based study,” this original article by Liel Levy and Moran Bodas investigates whether fear-based or empowerment-based messaging is more effective in motivating public preparedness.
The research addresses a critical challenge: despite the increasing magnitude and frequency of natural disasters, the level of public preparedness for emergencies remains suboptimal, both globally and in Israel. Ineffective risk communication, which often fails to motivate actual preparedness, is identified as a potential reason for these inadequate levels of household emergency preparedness. Traditional risk communication often relies on the “information deficit model” and fear appeals, but these approaches often lead to short-lived engagement or are challenged by the persistence of low preparedness despite numerous campaigns. This highlights the importance of finding innovative approaches to risk communication that do not rely on fear tactics.
Key Insights from the Study:
- Empowerment Messaging Shows Promise: The study found that participants exposed to empowering information consistently reported higher earthquake preparedness at all measurement points, although this difference was not statistically significant compared to the fear-based messaging group.
- The Nuance of “Fear” Messaging: A key finding was that many participants in the fear-appeal group also perceived the video as empowering. This suggests that the “fear” intervention may not have completely isolated the fear element, possibly contributing to the lack of a statistically significant difference between the two intervention groups and potentially narrowing the preparedness gap.
- Gender Matters in Empowerment: The research revealed a borderline significant three-way interaction involving time, intervention, and gender. Specifically, women in the empowerment group experienced a greater improvement in preparedness compared to men. This outcome is particularly encouraging given that women often report lower levels of preparedness than men and frequently bear the primary burden of household maintenance during crises. The study posits that the empowerment video, which features a female, mother protagonist, may have resonated more strongly with women.
- Predictors of Preparedness: Multivariate analysis identified male gender, age, perceived earthquake likelihood, and sense of preparedness as significant predictors of earthquake preparedness.
- Challenging Assumptions in Seismic Risk Areas: Contrary to some international literature, this study found no correlation between residing in a high seismic risk area and threat perception or preparedness in Israel. This might be explained by the “Victimization model,” where frequent exposure to threats (like wartime psychology in Israel) can lead to denial as a coping mechanism.
- Impact of Experience: In line with previous research, respondents who had personally experienced a strong earthquake in the past reported higher levels of preparedness, as did those with a higher perception of earthquake likelihood.
Policy Recommendations:
The findings suggest that policymakers should consider positive risk messaging approaches over negative ones to promote sustainable health behaviors like emergency preparedness. While statistical significance for the primary hypothesis was not achieved, the consistent trend of higher preparedness in the empowerment group and the significant gender interaction warrant further exploration. Future research is recommended to isolate fear and empowerment messages more effectively and to further examine the impact of empowerment, especially on women’s preparedness behaviors.
Reference for the article:
Levy, L., & Bodas, M. (2025). Risk messaging style and its effect on public preparedness for earthquakes: longitudinal intervention-based study. Journal of Public Health Policy, 46, 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-024-00534-w
