Group vs individual ideologies influencing attitudes towards training for disaster preparedness


As reasons for their interest in attending, beyond general interest, increased knowledge and a “why-not” attitude, a considerable number of participants expressed their expectation that it would provide them with an increased sense of security in their everyday lives. Additionally, as one participant explained, the activity as a group itself would play an important role: “I would feel more comfortable when I am together with other people, because I would not have the feeling that I will be left alone in case of a problem, that there is nobody who start filming everything with their mobile phone, but I can rely on others who have also taken part in this training” (G5-P6). Here, participation is seen to, potentially, increase social cohesion and trust in fellow citizens also by providing an opportunity “to exchange experiences with other people who may have encountered such situations, to discuss emotions after such events” (G2-P6). Finally, some participants outlined that the “attractiveness” of such disaster preparedness courses would, to them, depend on the local and situational relevance (e.g. fires in high-rise buildings for people working in the Frankfurt city centre) and that, accordingly, they could “choose what topic to learn more about” (G9-P11).

Note: See source document for full reference.

Applicable to:

Cultural Factors: Open-mindedness, Attitudes toward authorities, Social networks

Hazards: Natural hazards, Man-made non-intentional hazards or emergency situations, Man-made intentional hazards

Disaster Phases: Preparedness, Response

Types of Actors Concerned: Local authorities, Government, Healthcare and emergency services