Developing a scale to understand willingness to sacrifice personal safety for companion animals: The Pet-Owner Risk Propensity Scale (PORPS)

Author’s Accepted Manuscript Developing a Scale to Understand Willingness to Sacrifice Personal Safety for Companion Animals: The Pet-Owner Risk Propensity Scale (PORPS) Joshua Trigg, Bradley Smith, Pauleen Bennett, Kirrilly Thompson www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdr

PII: DOI: Reference:

S2212-4209(16)30571-4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.12.004 IJDRR461

To appear in: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction Received date: 10 October 2016 Revised date: 5 December 2016 Accepted date: 5 December 2016 Cite this article as: Joshua Trigg, Bradley Smith, Pauleen Bennett and Kirrilly Thompson, Developing a Scale to Understand Willingness to Sacrifice Personal Safety for Companion Animals: The Pet-Owner Risk Propensity Scale (PORPS), International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.12.004 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Running head: MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY Developing a Scale to Understand Willingness to Sacrifice Personal Safety for Companion Animals: The Pet-Owner Risk Propensity Scale (PORPS) Affiliations Joshua Trigg, Central Queensland University, Wayville, Australia, Appleton Institute for Behavioural Science (+61 4 00138442) ([email protected]) Dr Bradley Smith, Central Queensland University, Wayville, Australia, Appleton Institute for Behavioural Science (+61 8 83784528) ([email protected]) Dr Pauleen Bennett, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Australia, Department of Psychology (+61 3 54447460) ([email protected]) Dr Kirrilly Thompson, Central Queensland University, Wayville, Australia, Appleton Institute for Behavioural Science (+61 8 83784512) ([email protected]) Correspondence should be addressed to Joshua Trigg, Central Queensland University, Wayville, Australia, Appleton Institute for Behavioural Science (+61 4 00138442) ([email protected])

Abstract Multiple factors motivate people to risk their safety for companion animals during disasters. Often, this entails people re-entering dangerous areas, delaying evacuation, and risking personal harm to protect animals. Importantly, the intensity of this behaviour varies between individuals, with the capacity to take risk-mitigating actions also limited by self-efficacy when managing companion animals under threatening conditions. As these two factors have received little attention, this study presents the construction, through principal components analysis, of a stable 24-item multidimensional scale measuring the potential intensity and perceived efficacy of petdirected actions during disasters: the Pet-Owner Risk Propensity Scale. The initial 64-item pool derived from first-person bushfire accounts of Australian companion-animal owners. Items were then administered to Australian companion-animal owners living in disaster-susceptible locations (n = 553). Preliminary findings support its validity, reliability, and utility in understanding companion-animal owners’ risk-taking propensity, which may help predict and avoid harmful outcomes for people and their animals during disasters, both in Australia and elsewhere. Keywords: Companion Animals, Bushfire, Disaster, Pets, Risk Taking, Risk Propensity.

1. Introduction

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

2

What would it take to set another before you? What if you felt a powerful need to be with your pet to protect them from danger, even when doing so could harm you or risk your life? When facing a risk decision, we seldom rely on rational calculation, as personal perception of risk (Bowser & Cutter, 2015), individual disposition (e.g., Bromiley & Curley, 1992) and other influences factor into this. And for companion animal owners, during disasters, intersubjectivity is paramount: pets exist in the home, heart, and psyche as family, child or kin, a friend, protector, sentinel, and source of support (Mouer & Kajiwara, 2016). Because of this, disaster threat to animals is not simply a situational but social problem (Irvine, 2009), particularly as both the human-animal relationship (e.g., Sanders, 2007) and risk itself (Boholm, 2003; Boholm & Corvellec, 2011) are in part socially constructed. When it comes to natural disasters, multiple studies show that most people do not deliberate over costs, benefits, or justifications for pet rescue and relocation decisions. Rather, many are ‘all in,’ going to great lengths to protect their animals from approaching hazards, or staying behind to safeguard them (Brackenridge, Zottarelli, Rider, & Carlsen-Landy, 2012; Heath, Beck, Kass, & Glickman, 2001; Heath, Voeks, & Glickman, 2001). Further research supports that when people do evacuate with companion animals, they are often included in survival planning for extreme events (Thompson, Brommer, & ShermanMorris, 2012) However, naturalistic disaster examinations highlight the individual complexity of risk-taking and -avoiding decisions about companion animal welfare (e.g., Delorme, Zinkhan, & Hagen, 2005; Kenny, 2013). The presence of these animals can reduce evacuation distance from a hazard (Brackenridge et al., 2012; Thompson et al., 2012), and despite growing public awareness, educational, policy, and infrastructural responses to pet-related disaster risks, reviews highlight that vulnerability can still be reduced in these populations (Onukem, 2016). Australia is notable for its extreme weather, floods, arid environments, heatwaves, and bushfires (Hope et al., 2015). And when combined with highly prevalent companion-animal ownership (Animal Health Alliance Australia, 2013; Australian Companion Animal Council, 2010), this creates perfect conditions for the above predicament to occur. And it does occur, often with devastating, and sometimes fatal, results (Blanchi et al., 2014). For personally valued animals, people will actively bypass protective measures established by authorities or emergency services (Trigg, Thompson, Smith, & Bennett, 2016a), and most who plan to evacuate will strive to keep all pets nearby, despite this slowing the process (Taylor, Lynch, Burns, & Eustace, 2015). From a public safety perspective such actions are considered logistical challenges (Heath & Linnabary, 2015), with many animal owners acting impulsively, partly driven by their complex, emotionally-charged, relationships with companion animals (Edmonds & Cutter, 2008; Trigg, Thompson, Smith, & Bennett, 2016c). Given these concerns, research in this space focuses on risk-motivating aspects of these relationships, and risk-mitigating preparedness actions that incorporate animals. That is, it attempts to pinpoint factors that drive people towards risk behaviour, and how these might be

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

3

managed. Note, simply experiencing emotional closeness with a companion animal is not sufficient to ensure their inclusion in survival plans (Trigg, Smith, & Thompson, 2015). Factors such as pet-attachment and commitment also influence animal protection and human safety decisions (Brackenridge et al., 2012; Heath, Beck, et al., 2001). So, our relationships with animals are inherently multifaceted—attitudes, comfort, caregiving responsibilities, friendship, and grief concerns, as well as identity and interaction patterns, all have the potential to expand explanations of owners’ actions towards animal welfare (Anderson, 2007; Fournier, Berry, Letson, & Chanen, 2016; Trigg, Thompson, Smith, & Bennett, 2016b). Between the nature of the relationship and final actions lay risk propensity, the willingness to engage in risk-taking behaviour—trading potential harm for potential benefit (Botella, Narváez, Martínez-Molina, Rubio, & Santacreu, 2008)—and self-efficacy, the perceived ability attain a desired outcome (Bandura, 1986). The mediating role of risk propensity—along a dimension of risk-aversion to risk-proneness—in explaining risky decision-making has been defined in various ways (see Meertens & Lion, 2008). Notably, sensation seeking—an innate need for arousal—has garnered attention in explaining differences in potentially self-harmful behaviour (Cross, Cyrenne, & Brown, 2013; Zuckerman, 1983). The personality trait neuroticism has also been associated with higher risk propensity (Weller & Tikir, 2011). Importantly, higher risk propensity has been linked to lower disaster preparedness, to considering a disaster less likely to occur, and to inflated perceptions of damage preventability (McClure, Walkey, & Allen, 1999). With such biases in play, there is a clear need to also consider a person’s ability to cope when managing companion animals under threatening conditions. Social-psychological models of harm minimisation, as applied to bushfire disasters, incorporate perceptions of response- and self-efficacy when explaining adaptive behaviour for fire threat (Beatson & McLennan, 2011). In a South Australian study, those opting to defend their property from fire considered themselves to be ‘non-risk takers’ with lower responseefficacy than (‘is this behaviour effective?’), but comparable self-efficacy to (‘can I effectively act?’) those evacuating early (McLennan, Paton, & Beatson, 2015). Self-efficacy can change how disaster threat is responded to. In the extended parallel process model (Witte, 1992), when a person feels highly threatened, but inefficacious, this increases fear and perceptions that effective courses of action will not work. However, when self-efficacy is high under threat, potential countermeasures are considered and not discounted (Roberto, Goodall, & Witte, 2009), which is consistent with its positive association with the openness (Ebstrup, Eplov, Pisinger, & Jørgensen, 2011), a personality trait characterised by adaptability and receptivity to new experiences (Nettle, 2006). Self-efficacy modifies how threat motivates action and, frequently, this action involves risk-taking. Measuring the propensity to take risks for companion animals during disasters has received little research attention. Despite risk taking across ethical, financial, health and safety, interpersonal, and recreational domains being well examined (e.g., Blais & Weber, 2006), domain-

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

4

specific measurement for pet-owner risk propensity does not yet exist. Countermeasures for disaster survival alongside animals, and laundry lists of why and how to effectively prepare to manage household animals are widely disseminated. But individual decisions—loaded with risk and uncertainty—about companion-animal safety are subject to the risk averseness or proneness of each owner. As yet, no tool measures this potential intervening factor, highlighting a need to construct a scale to specifically assess the risk-taking propensity of companion-animal owners during disasters. Such a scale could aid in targeted preparedness communication, and address insight deficiencies for pet owners (Trigg, Thompson, Smith, & Bennett, 2015). Emergency authorities may also be interested in the risk-taking potential of communities exhibiting high disaster likelihood and prevalent pet ownership. This research aimed to construct a multidimensional scale to assess pet-owner risk taking propensity specific to human/companion-animal relationships. The study drew from previous interviewing research to devise an initial item pool, which is summarised in Section 2.2, and detailed in a separate publication (Trigg et al., 2016a). Items were derived from the relational and risk concerns of pet owners, obtained through in-depth interviewing of those affected by a South Australian bushfire event. Although primarily atheoretical, interviewing prompts drew partially from pet-attachment theory (Julius, Beetz, Kotrschal, Turner, & Uvnäs-Moberg, 2013), control/autonomy beliefs, subjective value of life, and attention/awareness themes (see Trigg et al., 2016a). In this previous study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 companion-animal owners who were directly or indirectly threatened by bushfire events in Sampson Flat, South Australia, on January 2-9, 2015. Interviewees were primarily female (76.0%), averaging 30 years of age, were well educated, and lived with one or more individuated companion animals at the time of the fires, including dogs, cats, ducks, chickens, smaller birds, fish, reptiles, goats, cows, and sheep. Resulting interview themes informed a national survey—the focus of this article—conducted to analyse the structure and initial characteristics of the scale, which we called the Pet-Owner Risk Propensity Scale (PORPS). 2. Method 2.1. Participants A sample of 553 companion animal owners was recruited (Mage = 29.13, SD = 14.64 years), comprising 403 (72.9%) females, 149 (26.9%) males, and one unspecified. All were Australian residents, with 88.6 percent identifying as Australian, and the remainder from various cultural backgrounds. Many were well educated (level: primary, 11.8%; vocational, 33.5%; high school, 16.8%; undergraduate degree, 23.1%; postgraduate degree, 14.8%). Most lived in suburban areas (location: city, 6.9%; suburban, 23.0%; outer suburban, 31.1%; regional, 26.0%; rural/remote, 18.5%), in a separate house (dwelling: house, 76.1%; semi-detached, 8.1%; unit, 8.3%; farm property, 7.4%). Recruitment took place via social media—primarily Facebook and Twitter—as

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

5

well as through notices at community centres, parks, and businesses in Adelaide, Australia. A giftvoucher draw was offered. Responses from an additional 22 individuals were excluded due to missing data (>20%). Participants were current companion animal owners residing in a location with the potential to experience a natural hazard such as bushfire or flood (M = 3.96, SD = 0.89, selfrated 1 ‘impossible’ to 7 ‘certain, or has previously,’ inclusion cut-off ≥ 4 ‘possible’). To ensure adequate sample representativeness, a panel provider was accessed for increased coverage of Australian locations, constituting 56.1 percent of participants. The overall sample size met accepted guidelines for absolute sample size (~500), and case-to-variable ratio (~5:1) in principal components analysis (see Osborne & Costello, 2004). Participants lived with companion dogs (73.4%), cats (50.6%), fish (19.5%), chickens (9.8%), ducks (1.6%), and other birds (e.g., finches, parrots)(13.7%), as well as equids (7.7%), reptiles (3.5%), rodents and rabbits (7.8%), goats (0.7%), cows (0.9%), and sheep (1.1%) specifically considered ‘pets or companions.’ Some participants indicated previous experience of natural disaster: bushfire (19.9%), heatwave (22.6%), flood (14.6%), and storm (24.4%). 2.2. Materials and procedure

2.2.1. Initial item pool creation To adequately capture the concerns and values of companion-animal owners who had experienced disaster threat with their animals, key themes identified in previous interview research were used as the starting point for item creation (Trigg et al., 2016a). These themes about human-animal relationships, risk perception, and risk behaviour before and during disasters, accessed issues considered most relevant to why and how companion animals factored into bushfire experiences, and included attitudes towards non-human life, psychologically supportive functions of companion animals, animal autonomy and vulnerability, knowledge of animals’ safety status, and risking human safety for animals’ welfare (see Table 1). The initial 64-item pool was based on illustrative quotes exemplifying these themes, comprising a range of attitudinal, intentional, and factual aspects of companion-animal related disaster risk-propensity, and connections between valued aspects of human/companion-animal relationships and disaster-risk experiences. Items were intended to assess aspects of risk perception and risk behaviour related to these themes that had the greatest potential to modify likelihood of harm. The item pool was then anonymously piloted with 10 participants— colleagues and associates of the researchers—for expressive clarity, sentiment, redundancy, and face-validity of item content, resulting in minor wording modifications and retention of all initial items. All responses used a seven-point forced-choice scale: 1 ‘strongly disagree,’ 2 ‘disagree,’ 3 ‘somewhat disagree,’ 4 ‘neither agree nor disagree,’ 5 ‘somewhat agree,’ 6 ‘agree,’ to 7 ‘strongly agree.’ When instructed to indicate their level of agreement with each item, participants were

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

6

prompted to consider the pet in their household that they had kept for the longest time—our intended focus was on well-established pet-owner relationships. Table 1. Risk perception and behaviour themes represented in the initial item pool, with theme descriptions, and exemplar items. Risk theme Action paralysis, autopilot, and selfawareness Barriers to risk taking for companion animals

Description Mentally and physically overwhelmed by animals’ management needs Understanding of animal management requirements varies across owners Control over animals’ Control over animals’ freedom welfare can obligate risk-mitigating actions by owners Engaging with and Deliberate avoidance of police subverting authority and emergency services control to access animals Potential for injury to Risk of harm to companion companion animals and animals can elicit comparable others responses to a person at risk Knowing an animal’s Awareness of animals’ status immediate safety can facilitate/disrupt threat response Animal dependence and Animals’ dependence on owners autonomy increases perceived vulnerability Relative perceived value of Companion animal life value is life judged relative to human and other animal life Owner self-efficacy and Self-efficacy insight is variable, capability which influences threat response Disaster survival Survival plan intention frames planning disaster-risk response

Exemplar item When confronted with a threatening event or dangerous situation I sometimes feel frozen by my uncertainty of how to respond (19) The daily care needs of my pet/s would likely complicate or slow my ability to respond to a disaster I feel that the safety of my pet/s depends more on changes in disaster circumstances than on my actions in response to them I would probably lie to authorities about my actions if I felt it was the only way to access my pet/s (12) I would respond similarly to both potential harm to my pet/s and potential harm to a close person (9) If I am separated from my pet/s and unaware of their status, it would become my foremost concern (2)

I would return to a dangerous area to collect my pet/s if I had left without them (1) In the long run, the value I place on my pet/s can never justify risking the safety of another person

I am confident in my ability to manage the welfare of my pet/s when facing a disaster (18) How I manage my pet/s during a disaster does not conflict with my overall approach to household disaster response (16) Experience of threat over Perceptions of time available for If moving my pet/s at the absolute last minute time risk-mitigating actions would risk my safety I would rather leave them in place Note. Numbers indicate items that were retained in final scale, which also included others not shown in this table.

2.2.2. National questionnaire The 64-item pool was incorporated into a nation-wide online questionnaire (25-minute duration), which also included the 7-item Risk Propensity Scale (RPS; Meertens & Lion, 2008) to assess global ‘everyday risk-taking’ propensity, and the 20-item Mini-International Personality Item Pool (Mini-IPIP; Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006) to measure personality traits of agreeableness,

neuroticism

(emotional

stability),

openness

(intellect/imagination),

conscientiousness, and extraversion. Both scales served validation purposes, and a measure of social desirability bias, the 10-item Marlowe-Crowne X1 (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972), was included to record need for social approval. Participants were next asked to respond to a moral dilemma vignette using a seven-point forced-choice scale: 1 ‘definitely wouldn’t,’ 2 ‘most likely wouldn’t,’ 3 ‘probably wouldn’t,’ 4 ‘don’t know what I would do,’ 5 ‘probably would,’ 6 ‘most likely would,’ to 7 ‘definitely would.’ The vignette was written specifically for a bushfire scenario, given the frequency of this type of disaster in Australia:

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

7

You are driving home from work when you receive a call from a close friend who asks you to check the news. There are multiple fires currently burning out of control in the area around your home, and although it appears that your property may not be affected immediately, the roads you usually take are currently being closed by police. Not even residents' vehicles are allowed through, as it is highly unsafe due to flames and smoke. It is at this point that you think about your pet/s, how they are secured at the house. They might end up in the path of the fire, and only you know they are there. As you approach the barricade near your house a police officer tells you to turn around and leave, as one person has already been harmed attempting to enter the area. Would you breach the police barricade to get to your pet/s?

2.2.3. Data analysis approach After inspection of intercorrelation matrices for adequacy (rs ≈ .30), the initial pool of 64 items was subjected to a series of principal components analyses, to explore a range of component structures, using varimax orthogonal rotation to maximise item-loading clarity. This approach was chosen due to the item content reflecting perceptions and behaviours of companion-animal owners as represented in the item creation themes. Components then represented aggregates of these emergent risk themes, and were not assumed a priori to reflect an existing theoretical approach (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013, p. 615). During each analysis, items were considered to load clearly onto a factor when the loading exceeded .40, no cross-loadings exceeding .30 were present, and when item communalities exceeded .20 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Items explaining little variance, showing repeated cross-loadings, with low communality, and redundant content were considered of little discriminative value, and were iteratively removed from solutions. Multiple solutions indicated that a two-component structure was most adequate, and its stability was retested with females only, males only, and with respondents who had experienced a bushfire previously (n = 110). Data were analysed using SPSS (v. 22), with ethical clearance provided by CQUniversity, Australia (H15/05-078). 3. Results 3.1. Pet-owner risk propensity

3.1.1. Subscale structure Representing the themes described in Table 1 equally across the initial item pool provided much scope for capturing latent aspects of pet-owner risk propensity. Consequently, a range of scale structures were tested to determine how items represented the extent to which owners would take risks for companion animals, as well as their perceptions of capability and coping during disaster events. After comparing conceptual coverage, item-loading balance (i.e. positive/negative

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

8

wording), the number of items loading on each component, and removing four contentredundant items from the second component to improve final scale balance, analyses yielded a stable 24-item, two-component, solution accounting for 50.3% of total variance. This was supported through both eigenvalues (≥1.0) and visual inspection of scree-plot inflexions. Principal components analysis with varimax rotation was used, and factorability supported by Kaiser-Meyer Olkin sampling adequacy (KMO = .935), and Bartlett’s test (2 (276) = 6200.28, p < .001). Results of this analysis are presented in Table 2, which demonstrates comparable component structures for females (n = 403), males (n = 149), and all companion-animal owners combined (n = 553). Very similar results were observed when oblique solutions were tested, and mean component score intercorrelations were low for females (r(401) = .233, p < .001), males (r(147) = .281, p = .001), and all respondents (r(551) = .214, p < .001), suggesting measurement of distinct yet related risk constructs. Although relatively few respondents had experienced a bushfire previously (n = 110), testing reconfirmed the presence of the two-component structure with this group (KMO = 0.897, Bartlett’s test, 2 (276) = 1550.76, p < .001), with highly similar item loadings, explaining 35.67 and 17.42 percent of item variance respectively. Descriptive and psychometric characteristics of the two-component scale are shown in Table 2. For each component, both Cronbach’s alphas and mean inter-item correlations indicated strong internal reliability within the 24-item solution (John & Soto, 2007). Repeated testing with the final items further revealed that, despite adequate factorability, a unidimensional structure did not adequately explain item variance for females (35.51%), males (34.93%), or all companion animal owners combined (35.72%). Hence, pet-owner risk propensity did not constitute a global construct.

3.1.2. Subscale content and construct descriptions In the following sections, the two components are converted to subscales, which together make up a scale that we called the PORPS. The first subscale identified retained a total of 14 items, with content and loadings that strongly reflected the Potential Intensity of Pet-Directed Action (PIPA). This can be defined as the potential a companion-animal owner has to exhibit perceptual and behavioural tendencies during a disaster that place the welfare and safety of their companion animal ahead of their own. As shown in Table 2, PIPA subscale content captures a tendency to empathise with the vulnerable position of a companion animal during a disaster, and to express a sense of obligation towards, and prioritising of, their safety. The ‘intensity’ aspect of this lies in a willingness to experience potential harm, to remain proximate to the animal and accept delays, even when dangerous, and to circumvent external support and direction when viewed as an impediment, in order to achieve this end. This subscale showed slight negative skew (M = 5.29, SD = 1.24, range = 1.71-7.00), as may be expected for companionate relationships. Table 2. Item content and loadings for the 24-item stable two-component solution of the Pet-Owner Risk Propensity Scale (PORPS) for female (n = 403), male (n = 149), and all companion-animal owners combined (n = 553). Potential Intensity Perceived Efficacy of Pet-Directed Action of Pet-Directed Action

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY Scale items 1. I would return to a dangerous area to collect my pet/s if I had left without them. 2. If I am separated from my pet/s and unaware of their status, it would become my foremost concern. 3. When I hear about extreme examples of people risking their safety to rescue their animals, I empathise and feel I would likely do the same thing. 4. Realistically, I am the sort of person who would risk their life to protect their pet/s. 5. In the event of a disaster, my most important concern is staying aware of my pet/s safety. 6. I could never justify leaving my pet/s to fend for themselves. 7. I would go to extreme lengths to protect what I get from my relationship with my pet/s. 8. If an emergency assembly area or shelter does not take my pet/s, I will not stay there without them, even if I feel it is my safest option. 9. I would respond similarly to both potential harm to my pet/s and potential harm to a close person. 10. I would try to keep my animals as close to me as possible when responding to disaster threat. 11. If I have to evacuate under immediate threat, I would never delay departure on account of my pet/s.* 12. I would probably lie to authorities about my actions if I felt it was the only way to access my pet/s. 13. If moving my pet/s at the absolute last minute would risk my safety I would rather leave them in place.* 14. I would not drive through or around emergency roadblocks when stopped by authorities, in order to access my pet/s.* 15. I feel mentally prepared for the reality of managing my pet/s during my response to disaster. 16. How I manage my pet/s during a disaster does not conflict with my overall approach to household disaster response. 17. I am physically capable of effectively managing my pet/s during my response to disaster. 18. I am confident in my ability to manage the welfare of my pet/s when facing a disaster. 19. When confronted with a threatening event or dangerous situation I sometimes feel frozen by my uncertainty of how to respond.* 20. My past experiences with dangerous situations make me feel more confident about taking calculated safety risks to manage my pet/s during a disaster. 21. I have a backup plan for managing my pet/s during a disaster if my first choice doesn't work. 22. I am fully responsible for how all of my animals fit into my disaster survival planning. 23. When transporting, securing, and managing my pet/s I am very aware of my actions and movements. 24. I feel the need to seek the assistance of others for relocating and restraining my pet/s during a disaster.* M SD Cronbach’s alpha Mean inter-item correlation (two-tailed) Variance explained in item scores (%)

9

Female

Male

All

Female

Male

All

.854

.868

.851

.073

.113

.090

.853

.840

.844

.068

.081

.095

.827

.801

.841

.137

.127

.079

.808

.809

.818

.107

.081

.088

.808

.780

.811

.081

.104

.074

.799

.729

.788

.070

.201

.097

.730

.699

.735

.235

.386

.265

.728

.669

.726

.123

.113

.101

.678

.778

.724

.213

.024

.138

.704

.677

.717

.161

.380

.207

-.708

-.632

-.701

-.039

-.077

-.039

.673

.652

.675

.021

-.024

.002

-.666

-.614

-.668

.023

.012

< .001

-.603

-.613

-.608

.082

.008

.058

.076

.089

.060

.753

.787

.768

-.010

-.045

-.009

.635

.717

.652

.221

.229

.206

.607

.733

.646

.079

.075

.066

.672

.554

.643

.080

.087

.127

-.618

-.576

-.613

.141

.265

.146

.602

.419

.571

.078

.128

.103

.624

.419

.569

.208

.227

.221

.557

.542

.560

.211

.118

.199

.482

.658

.526

.125

.110

.140

-.501

-.493

-.501

5.48 1.16 .936 .532 33.59

4.76 1.29 .933 .511 32.13

5.29 1.24 .938 .539 34.02

5.23 0.86 .812 .309 16.43

5.40 0.84 .790 .292 16.80

5.27 0.86 .806 .304 16.28

Note. Highest on-component loadings (≥ .40) are presented in bold font. Asterisks indicate reversed-scoring. Items 1-14 = Potential Intensity of Pet-Directed Action; Items 15-24 = Perceived Efficacy of Pet-Directed Action.

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

10

The second subscale contained 10 items that together captured the construct of Perceived Efficacy of Pet-Directed Action (PEPA). This is defined in the current study as the perceived psychological and physical capability to manage incoming situational challenges, and to engage in actions to mitigate risk, directly related to ensuring the welfare and safety of a companion animal during a disaster. The ‘efficacy’ aspect of this is represented through belief in personal ability to achieve welfare outcomes for the animal, competency in risk-mitigation behaviours, and adequate situational knowledge and experience to act effectively. The PEPA subscale displayed univariate normality (M = 5.27, SD = 0.86, range = 3.10-7.00). Taken together, both constructs have the potential to predict the degree to which an individual will engage in risk-taking thoughts and behaviours that might expose them to harm, with the aim of preventing negative (e.g., injury/death), and promoting positive (e.g., safe relocation), welfare outcomes for a companion animal. As a caveat, it should be noted that this represents a predictive understanding of risk propensity, and is not yet descriptive of observed behaviour. Both points are expanded on in later sections.

3.1.3. Subscale relationships and initial validity characteristics Given the inherently personal and moral nature of questions about actions that can determine potential harm to companion animals, social desirability bias was assessed (M = 5.72, SD = 2.10, range = 0-10). This conscious tendency to deny common-yet-undesirable, and endorse uncommon-yet-desirable behaviour was not significantly associated with PIPA scores (r(478) = .079, p = .083), and was slightly positively associated with PEPA scores (r(478) = .143, p = .002). This minor relationship with PEPA was considered of negligible importance. Next, associations with an existing global Risk Propensity Scale (Meertens & Lion, 2008) were examined to determine convergent validity. After recoding two outliers to their nearest neighbour, global everyday risk propensity was slightly positively related to intensity measured as PIPA (r(493) = .154, p = .001), yet unrelated to efficacy measured as PEPA (r(493) = -.006, p = .886). These relationships also existed across gender, however, for those with previous experience of bushfire, mean PEPA score was significantly negatively associated with global daily risk propensity (r(108) = -.203, p = .033). To further understand the nature of the two subscale constructs, correlations were performed with five personality traits and a collection of influential characteristics associated with risk perception and decision-making. Responses on these items were not provided for some cases, and outliers in openness (n = 4), conscientiousness (n = 3), and agreeableness (n = 3) were recoded to nearest-neighbour value. Mean PIPA score was found to be positively associated with neuroticism (r(551) = .180, p < .001), and mean score on PEPA positively associated with agreeableness (r(551) = .106, p = .013), conscientiousness (r(551) = .133, p = .002), and openness (r(551) = .147, p < .001). As will be discussed, this pattern reflects the constructs

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

11

defining both PIPA and PEPA. Finally, the relationship of age to risk propensity scores was examined. Older adults exhibited a reduced propensity towards both global daily risk propensity (r(493) = -.252, p < .001) as well as pet-directed risk taking, measured as PIPA (r(551) = -.169, p < .001). A slight positive association was also observed between age and efficacy, measured as PEPA (r(551) = .141, p = .001). 3.2. Predicting stated risk-decision intentions for companion animals

3.2.1. A ‘moral dilemma’ Given the current inability to pre-administer the entire item pool, and then wait to record actual behaviour during a disaster event, the moral dilemma vignette described earlier (See ‘Materials and Procedure’) was used as an indicator of what companion animal owners felt they would likely do at a critical moment of animal and personal safety. To achieve this, two-step multiple hierarchical regression was used to predict dilemma vignette scores from PIPA and PEPA subscale scores, controlling for gender (Table 3). The final model including gender, PIPA, and PEPA scores, significantly explained 46.4% of variance in stated willingness to breach a police road blockade and thereby risk personal harm in order to rescue a bushfire-threatened companion animal (F(3, 492) = 141.77, p < .001, f2 = .866). Potential intensity of pet-directed action significantly predicted an increase in stated willingness to breach the police blockade (β = .71, t(495) = 20.11, p < .001), and perceived efficacy of pet-directed action a slight, near significant, decrease in this stated willingness (β = .07, t(495) = -1.91, p = .056). Table 3. Summary of hierarchical multiple regression for potential intensity of pet-directed action and perceived efficacy of pet-directed action predicting bushfire dilemma vignette response (n = 496). Predictor ΔR2 B 95% CI F change β * Step 1 (Control variables) .012 5.94 Gender 0.47 [0.09, 0.85] .11 * Step 2 (Pet-owner risk propensity) .452 *** 207.20 Gender -0.30 [-0.59, -0.01] -.07 * Potential intensity of pet-directed action 1.08 [0.98, 1.19] .71 *** Perceived efficacy of pet-directed action -0.14 [-0.29, 0.004] -.07 a Total R2 .464 *** Note. Gender: female = 2, male = 1. a Value approached significance (p = .056). *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

Due to the sample imbalance, gender was included in both models, however the initial predicted increase in stated willingness (β = .11, t(495) = 2.44, p < .015) changed to a decrease in stated willingness at step two (β = -.070, t(495) = -2.04, p < .042), indicating that females were somewhat less likely to endorse breaching the police blockade to rescue a companion animal. The lower predictive power of PEPA may, in part, be due to a near significant difference in PEPA scores between those who had (M = 5.53, SD = 0.90, n = 110) and had not (M = 5.21, SD = 0.84, n = 443) previously experienced a bushfire (t(159.41) = -3.328, p = .051). A slight

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

12

difference was also observed between bushfire-experienced (M = 5.30, SD = 1.33) and inexperienced (M = 5.29, SD = 1.21) companion animal owners for PIPA (t(157.24) = -0.051, p = .045, d = 0.368).

3.2.2. Influences on potential intensity of pet-directed action Potential influencers of PIPA scores were examined through multiple regression analysis, using the following as predictors: gender, age, socially desirable responding, global daily risk propensity, neuroticism, and previous experience of bushfire (Table 4). Neuroticism was included given the known association with risk propensity. The resulting model significantly accounted for 10.9% of variance in PIPA scores, indicating that these variables had limited influence on potential intensity of pet-directed action scores (F(6, 473) = 9.94, p < .001, f2 = .122). Table 4. Summary of multiple regression for gender, age, socially desirable responding, global daily risk propensity, neuroticism, and previous bushfire experience predicting PIPA subscale scores (n = 480). Predictor B Gender 0.63 Age -0.004 Socially desirable responding 0.02 Global daily risk propensity 0.16 Neuroticism 0.06 Previous bushfire experience 0.01 Total R2 .109 *** Note. Gender: female = 2, male = 1. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

95% CI [2.07, 3.90] [-0.01, 0.01] [-0.04, 0.07] [0.07, 0.25] [0.02, 0.09] [-0.26, 0.27]

β .22 *** -.04 .03 .16 *** .15 ** .002

From the above, it can be seen that scores on the PIPA subscale experience relatively little influence from a person’s age, social desirability bias, and their level of previous bushfire experience. However, their gender (β = .22, t(479) = 4.89, p < .001), their propensity for taking daily risks during non-disaster times (β = .16, t(479) = 3.37, p = .001), and their level of neuroticism (emotional instability) (β = .15, t(479) = 3.14, p = .002) were each predictive of an increase in potential intensity of pet-directed action. Gender, neuroticism, and everyday risktaking propensity significantly influenced response to the dilemma vignette. Findings show that females were more likely to endorse taking greater intensity risks to protect companion animals, and yet report feeling a slightly reduced sense of self-efficacy in these actions (Table 4). Showing a greater global daily risk propensity predicted increased intensity of pet-directed risk taking. Neuroticism was predictive of PIPA score, which strongly predicted increased endorsement of breaching the blockade in the dilemma vignette.

3.2.3. Influences on perceived efficacy of pet-directed action Potential influences on the PEPA scores were examined using the same approach (see Table 5), however, neuroticism was excluded, with agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness included as known correlates of self-efficacy (Ebstrup et al., 2011).

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

13

Table 5. Summary of multiple regression for gender, age, socially desirable responding, global daily risk propensity, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, and previous bushfire experience predicting PEPA subscale scores (n = 480). Predictor B Gender -0.10 Age 0.01 Socially desirable responding 0.05 Global daily risk propensity 0.03 Agreeableness 0.02 Conscientiousness 0.03 Openness 0.04 Previous bushfire experience 0.31 Total R2 .100 *** Note. Gender: female = 2, male = 1. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

95% CI [-0.28, 0.08] [0.001, 0.01] [0.01, 0.09] [-0.04, 0.10] [-0.01, 0.05] [0.003, 0.06] [0.02, 0.07] [0.12, 0.50]

β -.05 .11 * .11 * .04 .06 .10 .14 ** .15 **

The model presented in Table 5 shows that 10.0% of variance in PEPA scores was significantly explained by the set of predictors (F(8, 471) = 6.51, p < .001, f2 = .111), suggesting minor influence of these control variables on perceived efficacy of pet-directed action. Regarding personality, openness predicted increased perceived efficacy and coping via PEPA, remaining personality traits showed no predictive influence. Social desirability bias, interestingly, did not predict stated intensity of pet-directed action, but did in this case predict increased perceived efficacy in pet-directed actions. Additionally, both having experienced a bushfire in the past, and being older, predicted increased perceived efficacy in pet-directed actions, but not the stated intensity of these actions. 4. Discussion The intention of this study was to conceptualise, develop, and offer preliminary assessment for a new scale of pet-owner risk-taking propensity with applications in natural disaster contexts. Importantly, content for the Pet Owner Risk Propensity Scale (PORPS) derived from previous research that examined the subjective values and concerns of companion-animal owners (Trigg et al., 2016a). By accessing the attitudinal, intentional and factual aspects of the human/companion animal bond in a disaster context, the two resulting constructs, and overall nature of pet-owner risk propensity, exhibit high ecological validity. The final 24-item, multidimensional riskpropensity instrument presents as a psychometrically sound tool for estimating the potential intensity of pet–directed action, and the perceived efficacy of pet-directed action. Both constructs have high potential in revealing the nature of motivations for self-exposure to danger to protect companion animals. Our findings are consistent with the definition of potential intensity of pet–directed action as ‘the potential a companion-animal owner has to exhibit perceptual and behavioural tendencies during a disaster that place the welfare and safety of their companion animal ahead of their own.’ Perceived efficacy of pet-directed action represents ‘the perceived psychological and physical capability to manage incoming situational challenges, and engage in actions to mitigate risk, directly related to ensuring the welfare and safety of a companion animal during a disaster.’ Given that

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

14

unidimensionality was not identified, pet-owner risk propensity can be considered a descriptive construct only: ‘the tendency to take actions aimed at securing the welfare of a pet that simultaneously expose the individual to potential harm or danger.’ The PORPS appears to be the first psychological scale to address both risk concerns of companion-animal owners and those tasked with managing public welfare during a disaster. Moreover, the scale displays component stability unaffected by gender. Validity and reliability characteristics of the PORPS require further testing with different samples, yet, this is a major benefit of the scale: it is minimally restricted in wording or intent to specific types of disaster (cf. anthropogenic), pet, or culture. Indeed, further research and modification can extend validity and reliability on this basis, including through translation, norming the scale demographically, socioculturally, and across various forms of pet-keeping exposed to disasters. There is clear potential to adapt it for application to non-companion animals: livestock-, wildlife-, and other species-human relationships and risk. Responses to item content are, undoubtedly, also associated with constructs that explain the nature of human-animal relationships and risk taking for companion animals. The model variance accounted for by the final scale structure reflects this inescapable reality, though it is of high ecological and practical use in understanding risk propensity, as PORPS subscales align with current literature. The PIPA subscale is associated with higher neuroticism or ‘emotional instability,’ a predictor of increased safety-risk taking (Weller & Tikir, 2011). Degree of PEPA was related to increased openness, a known correlate of perceived self-efficacy (Ebstrup et al., 2011). Along with the positive predictive effects of age and past bushfire experience on PEPA scores, this suggests that a higher degree of perceived efficacy for managing companion animals in disasters is indicative of greater personal resilience to stress and threat. This may also explain why PEPA was a very slight, and only near significant, predictor for a lower likelihood of breaching the police barricade in the dilemma vignette. Emergency organisations know that psychological and risk perception characteristics influence disaster responses, and that preparedness communications strategies can be tailored to account for risk-aversion or –proneness (e.g., O’Neill, 2004). For example, research has implicated risk propensity in survival, but not mitigation actions (Spittal, McClure, Siegert, & Walkey, 2008). A concrete practical application of the PORPS, then, is its use as a self-report instrument to selectively direct (through an online tool) animal owners to disaster preparedness information purposefully framed towards differing profiles of risk propensity and behavioural tendencies. We may then ask, “are animal owners of high intensity (i.e. PIPA) but low efficacy (i.e. PEPA) at greater risk of harm than those of both high intensity and high efficacy? How do their information needs differ?” Additionally, the role of pet-owner risk propensity can be examined within predictive social-psychological models of disaster preparedness (see Beatson & McLennan, 2011), helping to mitigate and prevent dangerous behaviour involving animals.

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

15

4.1. Limitations and scope The present study did not intentionally set out to examine existing theory regarding humananimal relationships, as the next step for the measure will be to determine the relative explanatory roles of pet-attachment (Julius et al., 2013), attitudes towards animals (Herzog, Grayson, & Mccord,

2015),

self-extension

and

co-identification

with

animals

(Belk,

1996),

anthropomorphism (Shir-Vertesh, 2012), supportive relational functions (Keefer, Landau, & Sullivan, 2014), and other facets of human-animal relationships. Moreover, the application of the PORPS in disaster research and intervention must account for differences in emergency response culture, infrastructure, services, policy, and governance between Australia and other countries. Although displaying sound initial psychometric properties, there is a need to examine performance of the scale using samples more representative of companion-animal species distribution, age and gender, and with a highly comparable level of disaster impact. There is also need for direct, objective assessment of a risk-taking act or decision: only stated risk-taking intention is predicted. Given the inherent difficulties in achieving this, a dilemma vignette was used. To achieve more robust results, it would be desirable to pre-administer the scale in multiple high hazard-likelihood areas, and survey affected residents after a disaster event, focusing on a specific act, such as time taken to restrain an animal for relocation, leaving and then returning to retrieve an animal, or deliberately breaching a emergency barriers to access animals. Additionally, some items may benefit from revision from the passive to active form to increase perceptions of personal relevance and empowerment in the act or perception described. Given the preliminary purpose of this study, these modifications are needed in further research. 4.2. Conclusions The Pet-Owner Risk Propensity Scale is an initial step towards understanding how core concerns and values drive (or inhibit) people’s risk-taking for companion animals during disasters. It opens up new research avenues, and could cast new light on those already established. It is intended to be widely used in conjunction with existing measures of human-animal relationships (e.g., mediation), objective measurements of risk-taking behaviours, and other domain-specific riskpropensity scales. Further research into the extremes taken for pets, and people’s ability to respond effectively when facing a threat, will assist in preempting and mitigating the extent of harm that can befall people and the pets they cherish during a disaster. Acknowledgments This article was was improved by the insighful comments of three anonymous reviewers, to whom the authors express their gratitude. The first author also extends thanks to M.M. for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

16

References Anderson, D. C. (2007). Assessing the human-animal bond: A compendium of actual measures. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Animal Health Alliance Australia. (2013). Pet ownership in Australia: 2013. Report, Ultimo, NSW: Author. Australian Companion Animal Council. (2010). Contribution of the pet care industry to the Australian economy (7th ed.). Kew, Victoria: Author. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. PrenticeHall series in social learning theory (Vol. 1). Beatson, R., & McLennan, J. (2011). What applied social psychology theories might contribute to community bushfire safety research after Victoria’s “Black Saturday.” Australian Psychologist, 46(3), 171–182. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9544.2011.00041.x Belk, R. W. (1996). Metaphoric relationships with pets. Society and Animals, 4(2), 121–145. http://doi.org/10.1163/156853096X00115 Blais, A., & Weber, E. U. (2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgement and Decision Making, 1(1), 33–47. http://doi.org/10.1037/t13084-000 Blanchi, R., Leonard, J., Haynes, K., Opie, K., James, M., & Dimer de Oliveira, F. (2014). Environmental circumstances surrounding bushfire fatalities in Australia 1901-2011. Environmental Science and Policy, 37, 192–203. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.09.013 Boholm, Å. (2003). The cultural nature of risk: Can there be an anthropology of uncertainty? Ethnos, 68(2), 159–178. http://doi.org/10.1080/0014184032000097722 Boholm, Å., & Corvellec, H. (2011). A relational theory of risk. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 175–190. Journal Article. http://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.515313 Botella, J., Narváez, M., Martínez-Molina, A., Rubio, V. J., & Santacreu, J. (2008). A dilemmas task for eliciting risk propensity. The Psychological Record, 58(4), 529–546. Bowser, G. C., & Cutter, S. L. (2015). Stay or go? Examining decision making and behavior in hurricane evacuations. Environment, 57(6), 28–41. http://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2015.1089145 Brackenridge, S., Zottarelli, L. K., Rider, E., & Carlsen-Landy, B. (2012). Dimensions of the human-animal bond and evacuation decisions among pet owners during Hurricane Ike. Anthrozoos, 25(2), 229–238. http://doi.org/10.2752/175303712X13316289505503 Bromiley, P., & Curley, S. (1992). Individual differences in risk taking. In J. Yates (Ed.), Risk taking behavior (pp. 87–132). New York, NY: Wiley. Cross, C. P., M. Cyrenne, D.-L., & Brown, G. R. (2013). Sex differences in sensation seeking: A meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 3(2486), 1–5. http://doi.org/10.1038/srep02486 Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354.

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

17

http://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358 Delorme, D. E., Zinkhan, G. M., & Hagen, S. C. (2005). The process of consumer reactions to possession threats and losses in a natural disaster. Marketing Letters, 15(4), 185–199. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-005-0456-z Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tinyyet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203. http://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192 Ebstrup, J. F., Eplov, L. F., Pisinger, C., & Jørgensen, T. (2011). Association between the Five Factor personality traits and perceived stress: Is the effect mediated by general self-efficacy. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 24(4), 407–419. http://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2010.540012 Edmonds, A. S., & Cutter, S. L. (2008). Planning for pet evacuations during disasters. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 5(1), 1547–7355. Journal Article. http://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1445 Fournier, A. K., Berry, T. D., Letson, E., & Chanen, R. (2016). The human–animal interaction scale: Development and evaluation. Anthrozoos, 29(3), 455–467. http://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2016.1181372 Heath, S. E., Beck, A. M., Kass, P. H., & Glickman, L. T. (2001). Risk factors for pet evacuation failure after a slow-onset disaster. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 218(12), 1905–1910. http://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2001.218.1905 Heath, S. E., & Linnabary, R. D. (2015). Challenges of managing animals in disasters in the U.S. Animals, 5(2), 173–192. http://doi.org/10.3390/ani5020173 Heath, S. E., Voeks, S. K., & Glickman, L. T. (2001). Epidemiologic features of pet evacuation failure in a rapid-onset disaster. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 218(12), 1898–1904. http://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2001.218.1898 Herzog, H., Grayson, S., & Mccord, D. (2015). Brief Measures of the Animal Attitude Scale. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 28(1), 101–108. http://doi.org/10.2752/089279315X14129350721894 Hope, P., Abbs, D., Bhend, J., Chiew, F., Church, J., Ekström, M., … Whetton, P. (2015). Southern and South-Western Flatlands Cluster Report. In M. Ekström, P. Whetton, C. Gerbing, M. Grose, L. Webb, & J. Risbey (Eds.), Climate Change in Australia Projections for Australia’s Natural Resource Management Regions: Cluster Reports (p. 64 p.). Australia: CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, Australia. Irvine, L. (2009). Filling the ark: Animal welfare in disasters. Book, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. John, O. P., & Soto, C. J. (2007). The importance of being valid: Reliability and the process of construct validation. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 461–494). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

18

Julius, H., Beetz, A., Kotrschal, K., Turner, D., & Uvnäs-Moberg, K. (2013). Attachment to pets: An integrative view of human-animal relationships with implications for therapeutic practice. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe. Keefer, L. A., Landau, M. J., & Sullivan, D. (2014). Non-human support: Broadening the scope of attachment theory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(9), 524–535. http://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12129 Kenny, R. (2013). Gardens of fire: An investigative memoir. Book, Crawley, W.A.: UWA Publishing. McClure, J., Walkey, F., & Allen, M. (1999). When Earthquake Damage is Seen as Preventable: Attributions, Locus of Control and Attitudes to Risk. Applied Psychology, 48(2), 239–256. http://doi.org/10.1080/026999499377637 McLennan, J., Paton, D., & Beatson, R. (2015). Psychological differences between south-eastern Australian householders’ who intend to leave if threatened by a wildfire and those who intend to stay and defend. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 11, 35–46. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.11.008 Meertens, R. M., & Lion, R. (2008). Measuring an individual’s tendency to take risks: The risk propensity scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1506–1520. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00357.x Mouer, R., & Kajiwara, H. (2016). Strong bonds: Companion animals in post- tsunami Japan. In M. P. Pregowski (Ed.), Companion animals in everyday life (pp. 201–215). New York, NY. Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61(6), 622–631. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.61.6.622 O’Neill, P. (2004). Why don’t they listen when we tell them what to do: Engaging communities in their own safety. Sydney, NSW: State Emergency Services. Retrieved from http://www.ses.nsw.gov.au/content/documents/pdf/researchpapers/42904/Why_dont_they_listen_when_we_tell_them_what_to_do.pdf Onukem, M. (2016). Assessment of emergency/disaster preparedness and awareness for animal owners in Canada. International Journal of Emergency Services, 5(2), 212–222. http://doi.org/10.1108/IJES-07-2016-0012 Osborne, J. W., & Costello, A. B. (2004). Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(11), 1–13. http://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6180.1000106 Roberto, A. J., Goodall, C. E., & Witte, K. (2009). Raising the alarm and calming fears: Perceived threat and efficacy during risk and crisis. In R. L. Heath & H. D. O’Hair (Eds.), Handbook of risk and crisis communication (pp. 285–301). New York, NY: Routledge. Sanders, C. R. (2007). Mind, self, and human-animal joint action. Sociological Focus, 40(3), 320–336. http://doi.org/10.2307/20832338 Shir-Vertesh, D. (2012). “Flexible personhood”: Loving animals as family members in Israel.

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

19

American Anthropologist, 114(3), 420–432. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2012.01443.x Spittal, M. J., McClure, J., Siegert, R. J., & Walkey, F. H. (2008). Predictors of two types of earthquake preparation: Survival activities and mitigation activities. Environment and Behavior, 40(6), 798–817. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507309864 Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28(2), 191–193. http://doi.org/10.1002/10974679(197204)28:2<191::AID-JCLP2270280220>3.0.CO;2-G Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Principal components and factor analysis. In Using multivariate statistics (6th ed., pp. 612–680). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Taylor, M., Lynch, E., Burns, P., & Eustace, G. (2015). The preparedness and evacuation behaviour of pet owners in emergencies and natural disasters. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 30(2), 18–23. Thompson, C. N., Brommer, D. M., & Sherman-Morris, K. (2012). Pet ownership and the spatial and temporal dimensions of evacuation decisions. Southeastern Geographer. Electronic Article. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/southeastern_geographer/v052/52.3.thompson.html Trigg, J., Smith, B., & Thompson, K. (2015). Does emotional closeness to pets motivate their inclusion in bushfire survival plans? Implications for emergency communicators. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 30(2), 24–30. Trigg, J., Thompson, K., Smith, B., & Bennett, P. (2015). Engaging pet owners in disaster risk and preparedness communications: Simplifying complex human–animal relations with archetypes. Environmental Hazards, 14(3), 236–251. http://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2015.1047731 Trigg, J., Thompson, K., Smith, B., & Bennett, P. (2016a). A moveable beast: Subjective influence of human-animal relationships on risk perception, and risk behaviour during bushfire threat. The Qualitative Report, 21(10), 1881–1903. Trigg, J., Thompson, K., Smith, B., & Bennett, P. (2016b). An animal just like me: The importance of preserving the identities of companion-animal owners in disaster contexts. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(1), 26–40. http://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12233 Trigg, J., Thompson, K., Smith, B., & Bennett, P. C. (2016c). Exploring risk propensity through pet-attachment diversity in natural hazard contexts. Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin, 4(1), 54–81. Weller, J. A., & Tikir, A. (2011). Predicting domain-specific risk taking with the HEXACO personality structure. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(2), 180–201. http://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.677 Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329–349. http://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276

MEASURING PET-OWNER RISK PROPENSITY

20

Zuckerman, M. (1983). Sensation seeking: A biosocial dimension of personality. In A. Gale & J. A. Edwards (Eds.), Physiological correlates of human behavior: Individual differences and psychopathology (Vol. 3, pp. 99–115). London: Academic Press.