Cited by 132

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk Area Residents’ Perceptions and Adoption of Seismic Hazard Adjustments1

Lindell, Michael K., Prater, Carla S.·2002·Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Abstract

Residents of 2 geographical regions—one with a high seismic hazard and the other with a moderate seismic hazard—rated 16 hazard adjustments on 7 attributes and reported their adoption intention and actual adoption of those adjustments. There were only small and generally nonsignificant differences between the 2 locations in adjustments’ attribute ratings, adoption intention, and actual adjustment, but there were significant differences among adjustments on all of these measures. Perceptions of hazard‐related adjustment attributes were correlated significantly with adoption intention and actual adjustment, but perceptions of resource‐related attributes were not.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01868.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. 10.1037/0033-295X.86.5.452 · DOI
  2. Davis M. S., 1989, Living along the fault line: An update on earthquake awareness and preparedness in southern California, Urban Resources, 5, 8
  3. 10.1515/9781503620766 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Fishbein M. F., 1975, Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research
  5. Garcia E. M., 1989, Earthquake preparedness in California: A survey of Irvine residents, Urban Resources, 5, 15
  6. 10.1521/jscp.1996.15.1.9 · DOI
  7. 10.1006/obhd.1996.0103 · DOI
  8. Jackson E. L., 1974, Natural hazards: Local, national, and global, 160
  9. Kunreuther H., 1978, Disaster insurance protection: Public policy lessons
  10. Lindell M. K., 1992, Behavioral foundations of community emergency planning
  11. 10.1177/00139160021972621 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Lindell M. K., 2000, Household adoption of seismic hazard adjustments: A comparison of residents in two states, InternationalJournal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 18, 317, 10.1177/028072700001800203 · DOI
  13. 10.1111/0272-4332.00002 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1007/BF02393621 · DOI
  16. Mileti D. S., 1999, Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States
  17. 10.2307/3096875 · DOI
  18. Mileti D. S., 1993, The great earthquake experiment: Risk communication and public action
  19. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02620.x · DOI
  20. 10.1007/BF00124393 · DOI
  21. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00429.x · DOI
  22. Palm R., 1995, Earthquake insurance: A longitudinal study of California homeowners
  23. Palm R., 1990, Earthquake insurance in California
  24. 10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Rogers R. W., 1997, Handbook of health behavior and research. Vol. I: Personal and social determinants, 113
  26. 10.1177/0013916595276002 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1016/0092-6566(84)90016-3 · DOI
  28. U.S. Department of Commerce., 1994, County and city data book
  29. 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.806 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Lindell, M. K., & Prater, C. S.
Venue
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-11
Volume
32
Issue
11
Pages
2377-2392
ISSN
  • 0021-9029
  • 1559-1816
Cited by
132
References
1
Language
en

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