JDR Vol.13 No.3 pp. 559-563
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2018.p0559


Effects of Framing on Earthquake Risk Perception in Chiang Rai, Thailand

Narongdej Intaratchaiyakit and Supot Teachavorasinskun

Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University
254 Phayathai Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330, Thailand

Corresponding author

January 30, 2018
February 16, 2018
June 1, 2018
framing, earthquake, risk perception, communication, preparedness

The effects of framing are important to the perception of earthquake risk. This research investigated the effects of framing on the people’s perception of earthquake risk in Chiang Rai, Thailand. There were three frames conveying the same earthquake risk but presented in different terms. These statements were in frequency terms of building damage: 475 severely damaged private buildings in 500 years, 10% chance of occurrence in 50 years, and one severely damaged private building per year. The objective of this research was to determine whether framing the same earthquake risk in different terms led to different perceptions of the risk by different people, leading to 1. what would be the most effective framing type regarding severely damaged private buildings, 2. which affected people’s earthquake risk perception most, and 3. whether experiencing an earthquake disaster would change the risk perception of the residents. The result showed that presenting the risk as “one severely damaged private building per year” was the most commonly selected among the three frames and was statistically significant. This finding clarifies that short time frames influence people’s earthquake risk decisions, and agencies can effectively use framing to communicate the earthquake risk to people in seismic regions to stimulate their earthquake preparedness and to reduce future earthquake risk. However, earthquake experience does not change the risk perception of the residents.

  1. [1] Md. F. Shah and P. Sultan, “Lessons Learnt from Communication for Disaster Preparedness: A Study on Six Survivors from the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami 2011,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.9, No.5, pp. 879-885, 2014.
  2. [2] K. Nakayachi, “Toward Mitigating Actions: Risk Communication Regarding Natural Disaster,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.9, No.sp, pp. 638-643, 2014.
  3. [3] S. Ohtomo, R. Kimura, and N. Hirata, “The Influences of Residents’ Evacuation Patterns in the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake on Public Risk Perceptions and Trust Toward Authorities,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.12, No.6, pp. 1139-1150, 2017.
  4. [4] T. Izumi, “Science and Practical Disaster Risk Reduction: Role of Universities and Academia in Disaster Risk Reduction – From the Discussions at the UNWCDRR Public Forum by APRU and IRIDeS –,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.11, No.3, pp. 638-643, 2016.
  5. [5] J. Cowan, J. McClure, and M. Wilson, “What a difference a year makes: How immediate and anniversary media reports influence judgements about earthquakes,” Asian J. of Social Psychology, Vol.5, No.3, pp. 169-185, 2002.
  6. [6] F. Hurnen and J. McClure, “The Effect of Increased Earthquake Knowledge on Perceived Preventability of Earthquake Damage,” The Australasian J. of Disaster and Trauma Studies, Vol.1997-3, pp. 1-14, 1997.
  7. [7] J. McClure and C. G. Sibley, “Framing effects on disaster preparation: Is negative framing more effective?,” The Australasian J. of Disaster and Trauma Studies, Vol.2011-1, 2011.
  8. [8] J. R. Eiser et al., “ Risk interpretation and action: A conceptual framework for responses to natural hazards,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.1, pp. 5-16, 2012.
  9. [9] P. Slovic, “Informing and Educating the Public About Risk,” Risk Analysis, Vol.6, No.4, pp. 403-415, 1986.
  10. [10] D. S. Mileti and P. W. O’Brien, “Warnings During Disaster: Normalizing Communicated Risk,” Social Problems, Vol.39, No.1, pp. 40-57, 1992.
  11. [11] C. Keller, M. Siegrist, and H. Gutscher, “The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication. Risk Analysis,” Vol.26, No.3, pp. 631-639, 2006.
  12. [12] C. Eriksen and T. Prior, “Defining the importance of mental preparedness for risk communication and residents well-prepared for wildfire,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.6, pp. 87-97, 2013.
  13. [13] B. Fischhoff and J. Downs, “Accentuate the Relevant. Psychological Science,” Vol.8, No.3, pp. 154-158, 1997.
  14. [14] L. Henrich, J. McClure, and M. Crozier, “Effects of risk framing on earthquake risk perception: Life-time frequencies enhance recognition of the risk,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.13, pp. 145-150, 2015.
  15. [15] P. Linville, G. Fischer, and B. Fischhoff, “AIDS risk perceptions and decision biases,” The Social Psychology of HIV, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp. 5-38, 1993.
  16. [16] J. McClure, J. White, and C. G. Sibley, “Framing effects on preparation intentions: distinguishing actions and outcomes,” Disaster Prevention and Management: An Int. J., Vol.18, No.2, pp. 187-199, 2009.
  17. [17] S. M. Smith and R. E. Petty, “Message Framing and Persuasion: A Message Processing Analysis,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol.22, No.3, pp. 257-268, 1996.
  18. [18] A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice,” Science, Vol.211, No.4481, p. 453, 1981.
  19. [19] Department of Public Works and Town, “Follow Earthquake Event,” J. of Department of Public Works and Town, Vol.44, pp. 5-22, 2014 (in Thai).
  20. [20] “Earthquake Statistic,” Retrieved from [accessed December 27, 2016]
  21. [21] A. J. Rothman et al., “The Influence of Message Framing on Intentions to Perform Health Behaviors,” J. of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.29, No.5, pp. 408-433, 1993.
  22. [22] D. Alonso and P. Fernández-Berrocal, “Irrational decisions: attending to numbers rather than ratios,” Personality and Individual Differences, Vol.35, No.7, pp. 1537-1547, 2003.
  23. [23] G. Passerini, L. Macchi, and M. Bagassi, “A methodological approach to ratio bias,” Judgment and Decision Making, Vol.7, No.5, pp. 602-617, 2012.
  24. [24] K. Yamagishi, “When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: implications for risk communication,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol.11, No.6, pp. 495-506, 1997.
  25. [25] R. Pacini and S. Epstein, “The Interaction of Three Facets of Concrete Thinking in a Game of Chance,” Thinking & Reasoning, Vol.5, No.4, pp. 303-325, 1999.
  26. [26] C. Bonner and B. R. Newell, “How to make a risk seem riskier: The ratio bias versus construal level theory,” Judgment and Decision Making, Vol.3, No.5, pp. 411-416, 2008.
  27. [27] S. Chandran and G. Menon, “When a Day Means More than a Year: Effects of Temporal Framing on Judgments of Health Risk,” J. of Consumer Research, Vol.31, pp. 375-389, 2004.
  28. [28] M. A. Gerend and M. Cullen, “Effects of message framing and temporal context on college student drinking behavior,” J. of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.44, No.4, pp. 1167-1173, 2008.
  29. [29] G. Gigerenzer and U. Hoffrage, “How to Improve Bayesian Reasoning Without Instruction: Frequency Formats,” Psychological Review, Vol.102, No.4, pp. 684-704, 1995.
  30. [30] U. Hoffrage and G. Gigerenzer, “Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences,” Academic Medicine, Vol.73, No.5, pp. 538-540, 1998.
  31. [31] P. Slovic, J. Monahan, and D. G. MacGregor, “Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Communication: The Effects of Using Actual Cases, Providing Instruction, and Employing Probability Versus Frequency Formats,” Law and Human Behavior, Vol.24, No.3, pp. 271-296, 2000.
  32. [32] H. Shaklee and B. Fischhoff, “The Psychology of Contraceptive Surprises: Cumulative Risk and Contraceptive Effectiveness,” J. of Applied Social Psychology, Vol.20, No.5, pp. 385-403, 1990.
  33. [33] P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, “Accident probabilities and seat belt usage: A psychological perspective,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol.10, No.4, pp. 281-285, 1978.
  34. [34] E. E. H. Doyle et al., “The Communication of Uncertain Scientific Advice During Natural Hazard Events,” New Zealand J. of Psychology, Vol.40, No.4, pp. 39-50, 2011.
  35. [35] E. E. H. Doyle et al., “Uncertainty and decision making: Volcanic crisis scenarios,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.10, pp. 75-101, 2014.
  36. [36] J. McClure et al., “A tale of two cities: Judgments about earthquake and aftershock probabilities across time windows,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.14, pp.15-26, 2015.
  37. [37] “Level of Earthquake,” Retrieved from [accessed December 27, 2016]
  38. [38] M. K. Lindell and S. N. Hwang, “Households’ Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment,” Risk Analysis, Vol.28, No.2, pp. 539-556, 2008.
  39. [39] M. K. Lindell and R. W. Perry, “Household Adjustment to Earthquake Hazard A Review of Research,” Environment and Behavior, Vol.32, No.4, pp. 461-501, 2000.
  40. [40] M. C. Ho et al., “How Do Disaster Characteristics Influence Risk Perception?,” Risk Analysis, Vol.28, No.3, pp. 635-643, 2008.
  41. [41] E. L. Jackson, “Response to Earthquake Hazard,” Environment and Behavior, Vol.13, No.4, pp.387-416, 1981.
  42. [42] D. R. Lehman and S. E. Taylor, “Date with an Earthquake Coping with a Probable, Unpredictable Disaster,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol.13, No.4, pp. 546-555, 1987.
  43. [43] R. Shaw, K. S. H. Kobayashi, and M. Kobayashi, “Linking experience, education, perception and earthquake preparedness,” Disaster Prevention and Management: An Int. J., Vol.13, No.1, pp. 39-49, 2004.
  44. [44] A. Rüstemli and A. N. Karanci, “Correlates of Earthquake Cognitions and Preparedness Behavior in a Victimized Population,” The J. of Social Psychology, Vol.139, No.1, pp. 91-101, 1999.
  45. [45] W. J. Andrews, “Earthquakes, structural damage, and safety,” USGS Oklahoma Water Science Center, 2016.
  46. [46] D. J. Dowrick, “Earthquake risk reduction: Chichester,” John Wiley, 2003.
  47. [47] “Mae Lao District,” Retrieved from [accessed December 27, 2016] (in Thai).
  48. [48] T. Yamane, “Statistics; An Introductory Analysis,” Harper and Row, 1967.
Cite this article as:
Narongdej Intaratchaiyakit and Supot Teachavorasinskun, “Effects of Framing on Earthquake Risk Perception in Chiang Rai, Thailand,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.13, No.3, pp. 559-563, 2018
Narongdej Intaratchaiyakit and Supot Teachavorasinskun, J. Disaster Res., Vol.13, No.3, pp. 559-563, 2018

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, IE9,10,11, Opera.

Last updated on Jun. 22, 2018