CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,870Risk Perception and ManagementDisaster Management and ResiliencePublic Relations and Crisis Communication

The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence

Lindell, Michael K., Perry, Ronald W.·2012·Risk Analysis
DOI 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Protective Action Decision Model (PADM) is a multistage model that is based on findings from research on people's responses to environmental hazards and disasters. The PADM integrates the processing of information derived from social and environmental cues with messages that social sources transmit through communication channels to those at risk. The PADM identifies three critical predecision processes (reception, attention, and comprehension of warnings or exposure, attention, and interpretation of environmental/social cues)—that precede all further processing. The revised model identifies three core perceptions—threat perceptions, protective action perceptions, and stakeholder perceptions—that form the basis for decisions about how to respond to an imminent or long‐term threat. The outcome of the protective action decision‐making process, together with situational facilitators and impediments, produces a behavioral response. In addition to describing the revised model and the research on which it is based, this article describes three applications (development of risk communication programs, evacuation modeling, and adoption of long‐term hazard adjustments) and identifies some of the research needed to address unresolved issues.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Mileti D S SorensenJH.Why people take precautions against natural disasters. Pp.296–320inWeinsteinN(ed).Taking Care: Why People Take Precautions. New York :Cambridge University Press 1987.
  2. BurtonI Kates R WhiteGF.The Environment as Hazard 2nd edition. New York :Guildford Press 1993.
  3. McGuireWJ.The nature of attitudes and attitude change. Pp.329–334inLindseyG AronsonE(eds).Handbook of Social Psychology 2nd edition. Reading MA :Addison‐Wesley 1969.
  4. McGuireWJ.The nature of attitudes and attitude change. Pp.233–256inLindseyG AronsonE(eds).Handbook of Social Psychology 3rd edition. New York :Random House 1985.
  5. RogersGO SorensenJH.Diffusion of emergency warnings.Environmental Professional 1988;10:185–198.
  6. PalmR HodgsonM Blanchard RD LyonsD.Earthquake Insurance in California. Boulder CO :Westview Press 1990.
  7. DavisMS.Living along the fault line: An update on earthquake awareness and preparedness in Southern California.Urban Resources 1989;5:8–14.
  8. GarciaEM.Earthquake preparedness in California: A survey of Irvine residents.Urban Resources 1989;5:15–19.
  9. WitheyS.Reaction to uncertain threat. Pp.93–123inBakerG ChapmanD(eds).Man and Society in Disaster. New York :Basic Books 1962.
  10. BakerEJ.Hurricane evacuation in the United States. Pp.98–108inPielkeRJr PielkeRSr(eds).Storms Vol .1. London :Routledge 2000.
  11. ProchaskaJO JohnsonS LeeP.The transtheoretical model of behavior change. Pp.59–84inGochmanDS(ed).Handbook of Health Behavior Research I: Personal and Social Determinants. New York :Plenum Press 1997.
  12. SchumanH KaltonG.Survey methods. Pp.635–698inLindzeyG AronsonE(eds).The Handbook of Social Psychology 3rd edition Vol.1. Reading MA :Addison‐Wesley 1985.
  13. GladwinH PeacockWG.Warning and evacuation: A night for hard houses. Pp.52–74inPeacockWG MorrowBH GladwinH(eds).Hurricane Andrew: Gender Ethnicity and the Sociology of Disasters. London :Routledge 1997.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Lindell, Michael K.
ORCID
Lindell, Michael K.
Venue
Risk Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-06-20
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
616-632
ISSN
  • 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-6924
DOI
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x
OpenAlex
W2139452699
Semantic Scholar
01136b8cc8a5b5fcf6bcd2578fb3cfef2acb6b4d
Cited by
1,868
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 268 · 2025: 212 · 2024: 198 · 2023: 176 · 2022: 205 · 2021: 182 · 2020: 140 · 2019: 104 · 2018: 110 · 2017: 88 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 52 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 12
FWCI
82.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Risk Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
Keywords
Protective Action Decision Model, environmental hazards, disaster response, risk communication, evacuation modeling, threat perception, stakeholder perspectives, social cues
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Decision Support Techniques, Disasters, Humans, Perception, Risk, Hazardous Substances, Risk Assessment

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