Earthquake attribution, risk perception, and self-efficacy: Tibetan Buddhism believers’ preparedness motivation
Abstract
Based on a survey conducted in Yushu area of China, this study reveals that among Tibetan Buddhism believers, earthquake attribution, risk perception, and self-efficacy (i.e. individuals’ belief in their own ability to accomplish a specific task) operate to collectively influence their motivation to prepare for earthquakes. Specifically, a stronger inclination to perceive earthquakes as natural phenomena, higher levels of risk perception in both cognitive and affective dimensions, and increased self-efficacy contribute to a greater intention for earthquake preparedness. Moreover, results of this study indicate that among these factors, self-efficacy plays the most significant role, followed by the affective dimension of risk perception, natural attribution of earthquakes, and cognitive dimension of risk perception. Interestingly, the study found no significant effects of supernatural attribution of earthquakes on respondents’ preparedness intention. These findings enhance our understanding of the formation mechanism behind individuals’ disaster awareness and behaviour, particularly among those with Buddhism beliefs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Self-efficacy is positively associated with preparedness intentions and preparedness behaviors across disaster contexts, including university settings and earthquake-prone environments.
“Empirical evidence further indicates that self-efficacy is positively associated with preparedness intentions and preparedness behaviors across disaster contexts, including university settings and earthquake-prone environments [30][31][32].”
From A comparative study on Earthquake Preparedness of Japanese and International Students in a Nankai Trough Earthquake-threatened Area in Shikoku, Japan (2026) · cites this paper as [32]
Cites
The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence
Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2012) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x · Cited by 1,868 · see citing works
Fixing the communications failure
Kahan, D. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/463296a · Cited by 602 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Atalyan, T., & Bhandary, N. P. (2026) · Natural Hazards Research · doi:10.1016/j.nhres.2026.07.004
- Authors
- Sun, L., Guo, J., & Qi, W.
- Affiliations
- Fudan University (CN)
- Jinan University (CN)
- Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Guo, Jun
- ORCID
- Venue
- Environmental Hazards
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2024-03-05
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 462-481
- ISSN
- 1464-2867 (ISSN-L)
- 1747-7891
- 1878-0059
- OpenAlex
- W4392515258
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 4.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Environmental Hazards (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (72204051, 42177453)
- MOE (Ministry of Education of China) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences (20YJC630128)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Social Sciences › Transportation › Earthquake and Disaster Impact Studies
- Keywords
- earthquake preparedness, risk perception, self-efficacy, Tibetan Buddhism, Yushu
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review