The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Who Leaves and Who Stays? A Review and Statistical Meta-Analysis of Hurricane Evacuation Studies
Abstract
This statistical meta-analysis (SMA) examined 38 studies involving actual responses to hurricane warnings and 11 studies involving expected responses to hypothetical hurricane scenarios conducted since 1991. The results indicate official warnings, mobile home residence, risk area residence, observations of environmental (storm conditions) and social (other people’s behavior) cues, and expectations of severe personal impacts, all have consistently significant effects on household evacuation. Other variables—especially demographic variables—have weaker effects on evacuation, perhaps via indirect effects. Finally, the SMA also indicates that the effect sizes from actual hurricane evacuation studies are similar to those from studies of hypothetical hurricane scenarios for 10 of 17 variables that were examined. These results can be used to guide the design of hurricane evacuation transportation analyses and emergency managers’ warning programs. They also suggest that laboratory and Internet experiments could be used to examine people’s cognitive processing of different types of hurricane warning messages.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317 · cited 3×
“Alternatively, this difference might be due to framing effects (Kühberger, Schulte-Mecklenbeck, & Perner, 1999; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977) that influence the accessibility of different evacuation cues when an evacuation decision (either actual or hypothetical) is being made.”
BackgroundResultCohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542 · Cited by 5,688
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Intention—Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review
Sheeran, P. (2002) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/14792772143000003 · Cited by 3,688
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023
Predicting and Changing Behavior
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011) · doi:10.4324/9780203838020 · Cited by 2,807
Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments
Asch, S. E. (1961) · Documents of Gestalt Psychology · doi:10.1525/9780520313514-017 · Cited by 2,644
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
Self-citation
Cited by
Evacuation from Natural Disasters: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Thompson, R. R., Garfin, D. R., & Silver, R. C. (2017) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.12654 · Cited by 331
Metadata
- Authors
- Huang, S.-K., Lindell, M. K., & Prater, C. S.
- Venue
- Environment and Behavior
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-07-27
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 991-1029
- ISSN
- 0013-9165 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-390X
- OpenAlex
- W2338106293
- Cited by
- 417
- References
- 72
- FWCI
- 16.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Who Leaves and Who Stays? A Review and Statistical Meta-Analysis of Hurricane Evacuation Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0013916515578485
- The paper
- Huang, S.-K., Lindell, M. K., & Prater, C. S. (2016). Who Leaves and Who Stays? A Review and Statistical Meta-Analysis of Hurricane Evacuation Studies. Environment and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515578485
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.