Table 2.
Attributes of Distance Maps
|
Attributes of Cluster Location Maps
|
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variables | Hazard Level | Distance | Prevalence | Hazard Level | Cluster Location | Cluster Density |
Susceptibility | .567 [.544, .591] | .448 [.424, .472] | .106 [.083, .129] | .469 [.429, .509] | .522 [.491, .553] | .112 [.066, .158] |
Locational social comparison | .382 [.353, .410] | .515 [.489, .542] | −.064 [−.090, −.037] | .300 [.249, .350] | .515 [.481, .548] | .119 [.068, .171] |
Severity | .079 [.041, .117] | .054 [.028, .080] | .019§ [−.012, .049] | .068§ [−.004, .140] | .111 [.085, .138] | .029§ [−.043, .102] |
Serious problem | .525 [.497, .553] | .388 [.360, .417] | .100 [.073, .127] | .266 [.213, .318] | .484 [.446, .522] | .092** [.034, .149] |
Distress | .400 [.369, .432] | .280 [.252, .309] | .079 [.051, .107] | .179 [.111, .248] | .312 [.280, .345] | .110** [.042, .178] |
Monitor intentions | .413 [.378, .448] | .300 [.267, .333] | .089 [.059, .119] | .123 [.064, .182] | .302 [.260, .343] | .087* [.027, .148] |
Mitigate intentions | .444 [.417, .470] | .384 [.357, .410] | .078 [.051, .105] | .224 [.164, .285] | .452 [.418, .486] | .115** [.052, .178] |
| ||||||
Analysis by Hazard Levela | ||||||
| ||||||
Intentions: Hazard Level 3 | ||||||
Monitor intentions | .391 [.336, .446] | .005§ [−.057, .066] | .298 [.221, .374] | .061§ [−.021, .143] | ||
Mitigate intentions | .516 [.469, .564] | .034§ [−.017, .085] | .532 [.482, .582] | .108* [.022, .193] | ||
Intentions: Hazard Level 2 | ||||||
Monitor intentions | .448 [.356, .541] | .135** [.058, .211] | .311 [.264, .358] | .106* [.018, .193] | ||
Mitigate intentions | .426 [.338, .514] | .106* [.034, .178] | .407 [.361, .454] | .125* [.029, .220] | ||
Intentions: Hazard Level 1 | ||||||
Monitor intentions | −.027§ [−.120, .067] | |||||
Mitigate intentions | .039§ [−.058, .137] |
Notes: Significant at p < .001 unless otherwise noted;
p < .05,
p < .01,
= non-significant.
Results from analysis to follow up on interaction effects between hazard level and proximity variables. Path models were analyzed for each hazard level.