4.6 Article

Progression of the Psychological Typhoon Eye and Variations Since the Wenchuan Earthquake

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 5, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009727

关键词

-

资金

  1. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KSCX2-YW-R-130, KKCX1-YW-05]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [70871110]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In 2008 after a massive earthquake jolted Wenchuan, China, we reported an effect that we termed a Psychological Typhoon Eye'': the closer to the center of the devastated area, the lower the level of concern felt by residents about safety and health. We now report on the progression of this effect and the development of new variations after the quake as well as investigating potential explanations. Methodology/Principal Findings: We conducted two sequential surveys of 5,216 residents in non-devastated and devastated areas in September-October 2008 and April-May 2009. Respondents were asked five questions to assess their concerns about safety and health. A MANCOVA showed a significant inverse effect of residential devastation level on the estimated number of medical and psychological workers needed, the estimated probability of an epidemic outbreak, and the estimated number of self-protective behaviors needed (Ps < 0.001), in spite of the passage of one year. The level of post-earthquake concern decreased significantly with an increase in the residential devastation level. Additionally, we observed two variations in the Psychological Typhoon Eye'' effect, in that the respondents' concern decreased with increasing relational distance between a respondent and victims who had suffered either physical or economic damage. Conclusions/Significance: The previously reported effect of a Psychological Typhoon Eye'' remains robust over a 1-year period. We found that the psychological immunization'' theory did not provide a satisfactory explanation for these intriguing results. Our findings may be useful in understanding how people become resilient to threats.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据