Secondary Traumatic Stress in Postdisaster Field Research Interviewers.

Numerous studies show that those involved in disaster response may develop posttraumatic stress disorder or experience secondary traumatic stress (STS). There are few reports about the experiences of postdisaster field research interviewers. We report findings from a follow-up study of researchers who conducted postwildfire field research interviews with residents affected by 5 severe wildfire events in Australia over the period 2009-2014. There were 33 postwildfire research interviewers who reported their experiences, and 18 of them (54.5%) described distressing interviews involving deaths, surviving severe threats to life, and destruction of houses. There were 27 (81.6%) who reported having experienced 1 or more STS symptoms on a 20-item measure. Those who conducted interviews following a multifatality wildfire event reported higher levels of STS symptoms compared with researchers whose interviews followed nonfatal wildfires. There were 21 (63.6%) researchers who reported that their interviewing experiences had positive effects on their lives. This indicates that the researcher role of gathering information so that future wildfire risk could be mitigated may have served a protective function.

The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the psychological preparedness for disaster threat scale.

The aim of this research was to investigate the validity and reliability of a Turkish version of the 26-item Australian Psychological Preparedness for Disaster Threat Scale (PPDTS). A cross-sectional study involving 530 university students and staff at Giresun University was conducted to establish the psychometric properties of the PPDTS. Content analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach alpha values for reliability were used to analyse the data. Content analysis showed that one item needed to be dropped as it was not related to environmental threats to Turkish communities. The exploratory factor analysis indicated that 66% of the total variance was explained by three factors: (i) knowledge and management of the external situational environment, (ii) management of one's emotional and psychological response, and (iii) management of one's social environment. The confirmatory factor analysis showed acceptable overall goodness of fit for the three-factor model: CFI (0.908), RMSEA (0.074) for the 21 item scale. Cronbach's α coefficients of the subscales were 0.91, 0.93, and 0.83, respectively, while for the whole scale, it was 0.95. Four items from the original PPDTS were deleted in the course of the analyses. It was concluded that the Turkish version (PPDTS-T21) is a valid and reliable assessment tool for the evaluation of levels of psychological readiness for disaster threats to Turkish communities and will be useful in policy making for community preparedness for disaster events. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11069-023-06006-w.

Associations between conspiracism and the rejection of scientific innovations.

Public opinion regarding scientific developments such as genetically modified food can be mixed. We suggest such science-based technological innovations are rejected by some because they are perceived to be advanced as part of a conspiracy. In nationally representative samples (Australia n = 1011; New Zealand n = 754), we report the associations between five conspiracism facets and anti-science attitudes. Results indicate broad public opposition to genetically modified food and use of nuclear power, but more acceptance of renewable power, potable recycled water, 5G networks, and childhood vaccinations. There were small to moderate associations between the rejection of scientific innovations and conspiracism. Multivariate models estimating unique associations of conspiracism facets with anti-science attitudes suggested several novel and important relationships, particularly for childhood vaccination, genetically modified food, and 5G networks. We discuss the importance of examining factors such as conspiracism in understanding what may motivate and sustain rejection of scientific evidence-based claims about socially contentious technological innovations.