Decision-Making of Middle School Students during an Earthquake

Year 2018, , 556 - 570, 29.12.2018

Mustafa Cin , Şerif Ali Değirmençay

https://doi.org/10.33403/rigeo.505271

Abstract

The foreknowledge of peoples' decision-making process during an earthquake may give important
clues as to whether or not their decisions will yield secure results. In the context of earthquake
education, drawing upon these clues can potentially minimize the loss of life during earthquakes to a
certain extent. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine decision-making process of students during
an earthquake. The research was carried out in Giresun, Turkey. One hundred twenty-two (122) eighth
grade students from three middle schools were included the study as a sample base. Three decision
trees were developed in order to understand students' decision process (es). Students gave their answers
on the three decision trees, whereupon their answers were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The
results of the study showed that some students during an earthquake chose secure options, whilst others
preferred options that can lead to negative results. Students’ desire to escape from their locations
during an earthquake was found to be the most common, but also the most unsafe decision. A number
of other students, however, had opted to take a dangerous protection position during an earthquake. It
was concluded that excessive fear of earthquakes and the negative influence of the media both have an
effect on making unsafe decisions. The study suggested that people ought to be assured that there is a
low possibility of buildings completely collapsing during an earthquake. It also recommended that
people should take non-structural rather than structural risks into consideration during an earthquake,
and that they ought to base their make decisions according to these risks. 

Keywords

Earthquake Education, Decision-making, Earthquake Preparedness, Earthquake Safety, Middle School

References

• Aksoy, B. (2013). Qualitative survey of perception of 9th graders who experienced an earthquake towards the concept earthquake. Journal of World of Turks, 15(1), 247-265.
• Aydın, F. & Coşkun, M. (2010). Observation of the students’ “earthquake” perceptions by means of phenomenographic analysis (primary education 7th grade-Turkey). International Journal of the Physical Sciences, 5(8), 1324-1330.
• Cin, M. (2010). Prospective classroom teachers’ misconceptions about natural hazards. Marmara Geographical Review, 22, 70-81 (in Turkish).
• Clore, G. L. & Huntsinger, J.R. (2007). How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 393–399.
• Coleman, C.L. (1993). The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication on societal and personal risk judgments. Communication Research, 20(4), 611-624.
• Comstock, R.D. & Mallonee, S. (2005). Comparing reactions to two severe tornadoes in one Oklahoma community. Disasters, 29(3), 277-287.
• Coop, D. (2005). Triangle of life. Protea Magazine, 1, 19–20.
• Çelen, Ü. (2013). Psychometric properties of diagnostic branched tree. Education and Science, 39(174), 201-213 (in Turkish).
• Çoban, M., Sözbilir, M. & Göktaş, Y. (2017). Determining preparation perceptions before earthquake of individuals experienced earthquake: A case study. Coğrafya Dergisi, 22(37), 113-134. (in Turkish).
• Değirmençay, Ş.A. & Cin. M. (2016). Earthquake education researches in Turkey: A descriptive content analysis. YYU Journal of Education Faculty, 13(1), 301-313 (in Turkish).
• Demirkaya, H. (2007). Examining the earthquake attitudes of 5. 6. and 7. grade primary school students according to various variables. Turkish Journal of Social Research, 11(3), 37-51 (in Turkish).
• Dove, J.E. (1998). Students’ alternative conceptions in Earth science: a review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Research Papers in Education, 13(2), 183-20.
• Ezell, B.C., Bennett, S.P ., Winterfeldt, D. V., Sokolowski, J. & Collins, A.J. (2010). Probabilistic risk analysis and terrorism risk. Risk Analysis, 30(4), 575-589.
• FEMA, (2014). Drop, Cover, and Hold On. Poster, [online], Retrieved from URL: http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/3266.
• Finnis, K., Standring, S., Johnston, D. & Ronan, K. (2004). Children’s understanding of natural hazards in Christchurch, New Zealand. The Australia Journal of Emergency Management, 19(2), 11-20.
• Fryer, M., Collins, C.D., Ferrier, H., Colvile, R.N. & Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. (2006). Human exposure modelling for chemical risk assessment: a review of current approaches and research and policy implications. Environmental Science & Policy, 9(3), 261–274.
• Genç F.N. (2008). Kriz iletişimi: Marmara Depremi örneği. Selçuk İletişim, 5(3), 161-75.
• Gençöz, T. (1998). Fear: causes, consequences, and ways of coping. Journal of Crisis, 6(2), 9-16 (in Turkish).
• Hammer, B. & Schmidlin, T.W. (2002). Response to warnings during the 3 May 1999 Oklahoma City Tornado: reasons and relative injury rates. Weather and Forecasting, 17, 577-581.
• Izadkhah, Y.O. & Gibbs, L. (2015). A study of preschoolers' perceptions of earthquakes through drawing. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14, 132-139.
• Johnson, V.A. & Ronan, K.R. (2014). Classroom responses of New Zealand school teachers following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Natural Hazards, 72, 1075-1092.
• Johnston, D., Tarrant, R., Tipler, K., Coomer, M. & Ruth, S.P. (2011). Preparing schools for future earthquakes in New Zealand: lessons from an evaluation of a Wellington school exercise. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 26(1), 24-30.
• Kahneman D. &Tversky A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Ecibinetruca, 47: 263-291.
• Kaur, H., & Wasan, S.K. (2006). Empirical study on applications of data mining techniques in healthcare. Journal of Computer Science, 2(2), 194-200.
• Kaya, M. (2010). Metaphors developed by secondary school students towards “earthquake” concept. Educational Research and Review, 5(11), 712-718.
• Lahidji, R. (2003, September 15). Lessons learned in dealing with large-scale disasters. Washington, D.C.: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
• Leather, A. D. (1987). Views of the nature and origin of earthquakes and oil held by eleven to seventeen year olds. Geology Teaching, 12(3), 102-8.
• Libarkin, J., Anderson, S., Dahl, J., Beilfuss, M. & Boone, W. (2005). Qualitative analysis of college students’ ideas about the Earth: Interviews and open-ended questionnaires. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52(1), 17-26.
• Lauriola, M., Levin, I.B., and Hart, S.S. (2007). Common and distinct factors in decision making under ambiguity and risk: A psychometric study of individual differences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 130–149.
• Lopes, R. (2004). Response to the Triangle of Life, [online] Retrieved from http://www.ocde.us/Emergency/Documents/9tri_of_life.pdf .
• Mahdavifar, M.R., Izadkhah, Y.O. & Heshmati, V. (2009). Appropriate and correct reactions during earthquakes: "drop, cover and hold on" or "triangle of life. Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, 11(1), 41-48.
• Mutch, C. (2015). The role of schools in disaster settings: Learning from the 2010–2011 New Zealand earthquakes. International Journal of Educational Development, 41, 283-291.
• Pauker, S.G. & Kassirer, J.P. (1987). Decision analysis. The New England Journal of Medicine, 316:250-258.
• Pennings, J.M.E. & Grossman, D.B. (2008). Responding to crises and disasters: the role of risk attitudes and risk perceptions. Disasters, 32(2), 434-448.
• Petal, M. (2004). Douglas Copp-Worse than urban legend: Dangerous advice! and now for some good advice for earthquake safety, [online] Retrieved from http://www.earthquakecountry.org/dropcoverholdon/Petal_on_Copp.pdf.
• Pham, M. T. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 144–159.
• Ross, K.E.K. & Shuell, T.J. (1993). Children's beliefs about earthquakes. Science Education, 11(2), 191-205.
• Sharp, J. G., Mackintoch, M. A. P. & Seedhouse, P. (1995). Some comments on children's ideas about Earth structure, volcanoes, earthquakes and plates. Teaching Earth Sciences, 20(1):28-30.
• Schoon, K. J. (1992). Students' alternative conceptions of Earth and Space. Journal of Geological Education, 40(3), 209-214.
• Silver, A. (2012). Factors influencing individuals' decision-making during high-risk short- notice disasters: the case study of the August 21st, 2011 Goderich, Ontario tornado, (unpublished Master of dissertation), University of Waterloo, Canada.
• Sitkin, S.B. & Weingart, L.R. (1995). Determinants of risky decision-making behavior: A test of the mediating role of risk perceptions and propensity. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), 1573-1592.
• Sitkin, S.B. & Pablo, A.L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. The Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 9-38.
• Tsai, C. (2001). Ideas about earthquakes after experiencing a natural disaster in Taiwan: An analysis of students’ worldviews. International Journal of Science Education, 23(109), 1007-1016.
• Withanaarachchi, J. & Setunge, S. (2014). Influence of decision making during disasters and how it impacts a community. Paper presented at 10th International Conference of the International Institute for Infrastructure Resilience and Reconstruction (I3R2). 20-22 May 2014 Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.