This study examined how self-efficacy moderates the relationship between perceived terrorism risk and psychological outcomes/preparedness. It was predicted that higher self-efficacy would weaken the link between risk and distress, and strengthen the link between risk and preparedness. Preliminary results from an online survey of 211 adults found that self-efficacy moderated the relationship between risk perception and preparedness behaviors/knowledge, but not psychological outcomes. Specifically, higher self-efficacy was linked to a weaker relationship between perceived risk and preparedness. This provides partial support for the hypothesis and suggests interventions could focus on bolstering self-efficacy.

1. Terrorism Preparedness: Self-Efficacy as a Moderator of Perceived Risk and
Psychological Outcomes
Katherine M. Burns, Cynthia A. Rohrbeck, Philip J. Moore, Rolf A. Peterson
The George Washington University
METHOD
ABSTRACT
Little is known about which factors underlie individual preparedness for terrorist
events, and which factors are associated with psychological distress. The purpose
of this study was to examine the moderating effect of self-efficacy on the
relationship between terrorism risk and psychological distress, and the moderating
effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between ongoing terrorism risk and
emergency preparedness in an urban, community sample, consistent with the RPA
framework and prior research with an undergraduate sample. It was predicted that
a) there will be a stronger relationship between perceived risk and emergency
preparedness for those higher in self-efficacy, and conversely, b) there will be a
stronger relationship between perceived risk and psychological distress for
individuals lower in self-efficacy. Data collection is still in process, and results are
considered preliminary. Analyses indicated that moderator effect holds with respect
to preparedness behaviors only. Preliminary results suggest that preparedness selfefficacy did not moderate the relationship between risk perception and
psychological outcomes (anxiety and distress), as it had in a prior study using a
college sample.
INTRODUCTION
•Despite increases in the number of terrorist attacks since 9/11, only 15 to 18% of
Americans report preparing for future attacks (Rubin et al., 2005; Schuster et al., 2001;
Torabi & Seo, 2004)
•The Risk Perception Attitude (RPA; Rimal & Real, 2003) framework, a model within
the behavioral health domain, posits that an individual’s resulting emotional well-being
and tendency to engage in protective behaviors, is the result of both risk perception and
self-efficacy, or belief in one’s ability to overcome obstacles and attain favorable
outcomes.
•It was proposed that those who perceived high risk, and believed in their ability to
control potential threats will be more likely to dismiss negative thoughts (Ozer & Bandura,
1990), and as a result, they would experience decreased anxiety and distress levels and
engage in terrorism preparedness.
•Prior research has provided support for hypotheses associated with the RPA
framework within the context of terrorist threat in an urban college sample (Burns,
Rohrbeck, Moore & Peterson, 2008)
Aims
•To determine whether the RPA framework is predictive of psychological
outcomes and preparedness associated with terrorism threat in an urban
community sample
Hypotheses
We examined the moderating effects of self-efficacy on 1) the relationship between
perception of terrorism risk and psychological outcomes and 2) the relationship between
perception of terrorism risk and emergency preparedness behaviors.
1. We expected that there would be a stronger relationship between perceived risk of
terrorism and distress for those lower in preparedness self-efficacy, compared to those
higher in preparedness self-efficacy.
In contrast,
2. We expected that there would be a stronger relationship between perceived risk of
terrorism and preparedness behaviors for those higher in preparedness self-efficacy,
compared to those lower in preparedness self-efficacy.
Hypothesized Model
Preparedness
Self-Efficacy
Risk
Perception
Anxiety & Distress
Participants
Participants were recruited via Craigslist posting, which advertised research participation in the Washington, DC metro area. They
completed self-report measures via an on-line survey. Measures included demographic information, risk perception, domain specific
self-efficacy (preparedness self-efficacy), terrorism-related emergency preparedness behaviors, and anxiety and distress. Participants
completed the survey to fulfill various Psychology course requirements.
•
•
•
•
•
N = 211
54% Caucasian, 46% ethnic minorities
35% males, 65% females
58% single, 42% married, divorced, or widowed
Mean age 32.41(SD=10.01)
education, income, years in DC, how many in household, and whether they
have children or not. Preparedness self-efficacy did not moderate the relationships
between risk perception and psychological outcomes, anxiety and distress.
Measures
Risk Perception. Risk perception was assessed by a six-item measure, designed to capture established risk perception components
with regard to future terrorist attacks. Participants were asked about their estimation of the severity of consequences, the probability of
terrorist attacks, and how much they worried about future attacks, in order to capture dread risk, a component of risk perception that
captures worry about associated terrorist event factors (e.g. novelty, unobservability, catastrophic potential) (Slovic, 2004). Participants
rated these components of terrorism risk as they apply to the US, and as they apply to the DC metro area. Internal consistency
(Cronbach’s alpha) for those six items was .88.
Examples: 1. In your view, what is the likelihood of another terrorist attack (for example, hijacking, bioterrorism, subway/train bombing,
school/civilian hostage crisis) in the United States in the next 6 months?
2. In your view, what is the likelihood of another terrorist attack (for example, hijacking, bioterrorism, subway/train bombing,
school/civilian hostage crisis) in this metropolitan region in the next 6 months?
Preparedness Self-Efficacy. Following recommendations (Bandura, 2006; Benight, Ironson & Durham, 1999) by leading researchers
in the field, a 7-item measure of domain-specific emergency preparedness self-efficacy was created. Items were developed to reflect
the multifaceted ways in which perceived self-efficacy operates within an individual’s approach to terrorist events (Cronbach’s alpha = .
86).
Examples: 1. I can maintain food and water supplies in an emergency.
2. I can keep close with loved ones in an emergency.
Anxiety. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch & Lushene, 1970) T-Anxiety scale captures how respondents
have generally felt in the past two weeks. It has demonstrated excellent internal consistency (average α’s > .89), and test-retest
reliability (average r = .88; Gros, Antony, Simms & McCabe; 2007).
Psychological Distress. The K-6 (Kessler, Andrews, Colpe, Hiripi, Mroczek, Normand, Walters, & Zaslavsky, 2002) is a 6-item
screening tool designed to measure symptoms of psychological distress in the general population. It has demonstrated excellent
internal consistency and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .90).
Preparedness. Participants were asked to complete the Readiness Quotient (RQ), a 10-item questionnaire developed by the Council
for Excellence in Government (CEIG, 2007). Respondents respond to 3 items of emergency preparedness knowledge (e.g., “Do you
know how to find the emergency broadcasting channel on the radio?”) and 7 behaviors (e.g., “Have you actually taken first aid training
such as CPR in the past five years?”). A second preparedness measure was created by selecting 20 relevant items from terrorism and
emergency preparedness websites, including the American Red Cross site and the Department of Homeland Security site. Participants
were asked to mark “Have done” if they had completed each preparedness item (e.g., “Have stored a 3-day supply of water”).
Demographics and Social Desirability. Participants also answered several demographic questions and completed a brief measure of
social desirability (Reynolds, 1982).
1
1. RISK
PERCEPTION
2
3
RESULTS
4
2. SELF EFFICACY
3. BEHAVIOR
CHECKLIST
0.26***
0.15*
4. READINESS
QUOTIENT
0.34***
0.19**
0.80***
5. DISTRESS
0.08
-0.13
-0.14*
-0.05
6. ANXIETY
0.08
-0.19**
-0.10
0.04
5
0.15*
* p < .05
0.73***
** p < .01 *** p < .001
Bivariate relationships were generally as expected (see table above).
Emergency
Preparedness
Multivariate analysis of variance was used to test directional hypotheses (onetailed tests) for interactions between self-efficacy and perceived risk of terrorism when
predicting anxiety, general distress, and two measures of emergency preparedness.
Preparedness self-efficacy significantly moderated the relationship between risk
perception and the PRI (F=4.48, p<.05), and the relationship between risk perception
and the preparedness behaviors checklist (F=3.41, p<.05). These interactions
maintained significance when including several covariates – gender, ethnicity, age,
6
DISCUSSION
Preliminary results indicate partial support for our model. We found that a
stronger relationship existed between terrorism risk perception and emergency
preparedness behaviors when individuals are low in domain-specific self-efficacy.
Those interactions remained significant when controlling for gender, age, ethnicity,
number of children, income, etc. Conversely, higher levels of self-efficacy resulted
in a weaker relationship between risk perception and preparedness behaviors.
Emergency preparedness measures included both knowledge about effective
preparation and actions that may protect an individual during a terrorist event.
There are several limitations present in the current study. Convenience
sampling through the Psychology “subject pool” resulted in limited variability on
characteristics critical to terrorism research such as geographical location,
household space, age, economic status, education, and ethnicity. Levels of risk
perception, coping, and self-efficacy may be associated with these factors (CEIG,
2006; Slovic, 1999; Schlenger et al., 2001). For example, participants average
19.94 years of age, and may not currently experience the lingering effects of 9/11
and continued ongoing terrorism threats when compared to older adults. Finally, it
is possible that limited variability of responses on measures of emergency
preparedness may have obscured the moderating effect of efficacy on the
relationship between risk appraisal and emergency preparedness outcomes.
Despite the study’s limitations, these findings have several implications
that could inform future interventions, and reduce the psychological impact of risk
perception within the context of terrorism. For example, Increasing preparedness
self-efficacy may lesson distress and anxiety in individuals facing ongoing threats.