Behavioral Intentions and Threat Perception During Terrorist, Fire and Earthquake Scenarios

  • Simona A. PopușoiEmail author
  • Cornelia Măirean
  • Grigore M. Havârneanu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10242)


The aim of this study is to assess the determinants of behavioral intention and threat perception in three types of crisis situations (fire, earthquake, and terrorist attack). We considered both individual factors (locus of control, illusion of control, optimism bias, knowledge about crisis management, and institutional trust) and situational ones (the presence vs. absence of significant others). A sample of 249 students was included in the study. The crisis type and the presence of significant others were manipulated through scenarios. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions and filled in self-report scales which assessed individual factors, behavioral intention and threat perception. The results showed that individuals prefer an affiliative behavioral response in all crisis types. Institutional trust, locus of control, and the level of knowledge predicted the affiliative behavior. The implications for crisis situation management of crowded places and risk communication are discussed.


Behavioral intention Threat perception Crisis Human factor 



This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-2872


  1. 1.
    European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – Critical Infrastructure Protection in the fight against terrorism COM/2004/0702 finalGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reason, J.: Human Error. Cambridge University Press, New York (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lazari, A.: European Critical Infrastructure Protection. Springer, Cham (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Helsloot, I., Ruitenberg, A.: Citizen response to disasters: a survey of literature and some practical implications. J. Contingencies Crisis Manage. 12(3), 98–111 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grimm, A., Hulse, L., Preiss, M., Schmidt, S.: Behavioural, emotional, and cognitive responses in European disasters: results of survivor interviews. Disasters 38(1), 62–83 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mawson, A.R.: Understanding mass panic and other collective responses to threat and disaster. Psychiatry 68(2), 95–113 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burroughs, M., Galea, E.R.: Real time, real fire, real response: an analysis of response behaviour in housing for vulnerable people. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire, vol. 6, pp. 477–488. Interscience Communications Ltd (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petersen, L., Fallou, L., Reilly, P., Serafinelli, E., Carreira, E., Utkin, A.: Social resilience criteria for critical infrastructures during crises. Deliverable 4.1 for IMPROVER (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rotter, J.B.: Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol. Monogr. Gen. Appl. 80(1), 1 (1966)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tu, Z., Yuan, Y., Archer, N.: Understanding user behaviour in coping with security threats of mobile device loss and theft. Int. J. Mob. Commun. 12(6), 603–623 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weinstein, N.D., Klein, W.M.: Unrealistic optimism: present and future. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 15, 1–8 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwarzer, R.: Optimism, vulnerability, and self-beliefs as health related cognitions: a systematic overview. Psych. Health 9, 161–180 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Erenberg, E:. What type of disputes are best suited for alternative dispute resolutiondan analysis in the space of the odds of litigation. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meetings of Israeli Law & Economics Association (ILEA) 2005Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Langer, E.J.: The illusion of control. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 32, 311–328 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McKenna, F.P.: It won’t happen to me: unrealistic optimism or illusion of control? Br. J. Psychol. 84, 39–50 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gino, F., Sharek, Z., Moore, D.A.: Keeping the illusion of control under control: Ceilings, floors, and imperfect calibration. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 114(2), 104–114 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knuth, D., Kehl, D., Galea, E., Hulse, L., Sans, J., Vallès, L., Roiha, M., Seidler, F., Diebe, E., Kecklund, L., Petterson, S.: BeSeCu-S–a self-report instrument for emergency survivors. J. Risk Res. 17(5), 601–620 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Craig, A.R., Franklin, G.A.: A scale to measure locus of control of behavior. Br. J. Med. Psychol. 57, 173–180 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mawson, A.R.: Is the concept of panic useful for study purposes. Behavior in fires [NBS Report NBSIR-802070]. US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC (1980)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leach, J.: Why people “freeze” in an emergency: temporal and cognitive constraints on survival responses. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 75(6), 539–542 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simona A. Popușoi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cornelia Măirean
    • 1
  • Grigore M. Havârneanu
    • 2
  1. 1.Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of IasiIasiRomania
  2. 2.Security DivisionInternational Union of Railways (UIC)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations