| Literature DB >> 36141704 |
Zilin Yang1, Xinping Wang1, Chang Su2, Boying Li3.
Abstract
Non-adaptive evacuation behavior refers to a safety risk that cannot be disregarded throughout the evacuation process. In order to lower the risky behavior of evacuation, enhancing people's psychological states and behaviors plays a significant role. This study developed a conceptual model connecting risk communication and non-adaptive evacuation behavior by analyzing the interaction between risk communication, risk perception, emotional exhaustion, and non-adaptive evacuation behavior. The structural equation model was adopted to analyze the 557 questionnaires collected, by which the findings demonstrated that risk communication has a negative impact on non-adaptive evacuation behavior, which is also indirectly affected by risk perception and emotional exhaustion. With the aim to prevent non-adaptive evacuation behavior during the evacuation process, enterprises and organizations can adjust the behavior level, psychological state, and physiological condition of individuals from the perspectives of risk communication, risk perception, and emotional exhaustion.Entities:
Keywords: SEM; emotional exhaustion; non-adaptive evacuation; risk communication; risk perception
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36141704 PMCID: PMC9517458 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811432
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Conceptual model. “+” means there is a positive relationship. “−” means that there is a negative relationship.
Basic details.
| Item | Category | Proportion (%) | Item | Category | Proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sex | male | 63.6 | educated | Level Junior high school and below | 10.1 |
| female | 35.4 | high school | 19.9 | ||
| length of service | <1 year | 10.8 | college | 27.5 | |
| 2–5 years | 10.7 | bachelor | 39.5 | ||
| 6–10 years | 20.5 | Master degree and above | 3.1 | ||
| ≥10 years | 49 | job level | staff | 47.6 | |
| emergency evacuation experience | yes | 83.7 | grassroots management | 26.2 | |
| no | 16.3 | middle management | 20.8 | ||
| top management | 5.4 |
Reliability and validity test.
| Variable | Quantity | Cronbach’s α | Overall Cronbach’s α | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk Communication | 10 | 0.928 | 0.789 | 0.950 | 0.604 |
| Emotional Exhaustion | 3 | 0.759 | 0.863 | 0.678 | |
| Risk Perception | 5 | 0.843 | 0.889 | 0.615 | |
| Non-adaptive Evacuation | 3 | 0.818 | 0.892 | 0.734 | |
| Bartlett test of sphericity | KMO | 0.902 | |||
| Degrees of freedom | 210 | ||||
| Sig | 0 | ||||
Correlation analysis of variables.
| Risk Communication | Emotional Exhaustion | Risk Perception | Non-Adaptive Evacuation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk Communication | 1 | |||
| Emotional Exhaustion | −0.223 ** | 1 | ||
| Risk Perception | 0.218 ** | −0.146 ** | 1 | |
| Non-adaptive Evacuation | −0.203 ** | 0.292 ** | −0.211 ** | 1 |
** At the 0.01 level (two-tailed), the correlation is significant.
Model fit test.
| Test Statistic | Judgment Criteria and Critical Values | Fitting Results | Fitting Degree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute Fit Index | χ2 | The smaller the better | 441.394 | Well |
| χ2/df | 1–3 | 2.412 | Well | |
| RMSEA | <0.08 | 0.050 | Well | |
| GFI | >0.90 | 0.923 | Well | |
| Relative Fit Index | IFI | >0.90 | 0.955 | Well |
| TLI | >0.90 | 0.948 | Well | |
| CFI | >0.90 | 0.955 | Well | |
| Parsimony Index | PNFI | >0.50 | 0.806 | Well |
| PGFI | >0.50 | 0.731 | Well | |
Figure 2Structural equation model analysis results.
Direct action checklist.
| Path | Factor Loadings | Parametric Significance Estimation | Conclusion | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Std. | Unstd. | S.E. | C.R. | P | ||
| Risk Communication→Risk Perception | 0.236 | 0.180 | 0.037 | 4.902 | *** | H3a √ |
| Risk Communication→Emotional Exhaustion | −0.243 | −0.197 | 0.042 | −4.634 | *** | H2a √ |
| Risk Perception→Emotional Exhaustion | −0.125 | −0.132 | 0.056 | −2.345 | * | |
| Risk Communication→Non-adaptive Evacuation Behavior | −0.116 | −0.128 | 0.054 | −2.381 | * | H1 √ |
| Risk Perception→Non-adaptive Evacuation Behavior | −0.155 | −0.224 | 0.072 | −3.099 | ** | H3b √ |
| Emotional Exhaustion→Non-adaptive Evacuation Behavior | 0.301 | 0.408 | 0.076 | 5.382 | *** | H2b √ |
√ means hypothesis is valid. * means p < 0.05. ** means p < 0.01. *** means p < 0.001.
Mediation test.
| Influence Path | Effect | Multiplying Coefficients | Bootstrap | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bias-Corrected | Percentile | ||||||
| SE | Z | Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | ||
| Risk Communication—Emotional Exhaustion—Nonadaptive Evacuation Behavior | −0.080 | 0.025 | −3.200 | −0.139 | −0.041 | −0.133 | −0.037 |
| Risk Perception-Emotional Exhaustion-Nonadaptive Evacuation Behavior | −0.040 | 0.018 | −2.222 | −0.082 | −0.013 | −0.080 | −0.011 |
| Risk Communication—Risk Perception—Non-Adaptive Evacuation Behavior | −0.054 | 0.027 | −2.000 | −0.120 | −0.010 | −0.114 | −0.008 |
| Risk Communication—Risk Perception—Emotional Exhaustion—Nonadaptive Evacuation Behavior | −0.010 | 0.005 | −2.000 | −0.024 | −0.002 | −0.023 | −0.001 |