Warning Perception Research, Dissertation – Conclusion Example

Hypothesis development

The main hypotheses the author would like to examine the relationship between personal experience and level of knowledge about warning systems, as well as the risk perception of individuals. General hypotheses are detailed below, related to the impact of false warnings and previous risk situations on public response rate to warnings.

Hypothesis 1: Personal experiences with natural disasters and terrorist attacks increase risk perception levels of individuals and improve public response rates.

Hypothesis 2: There is a positive correlation between the level of awareness of warning systems and risk perception.

Hypothesis 3: False warning negatively impacts response rates of individuals.

Methodology

The author of the current study would like to use a qualitative experimental research methodology, recruiting 100 participants to take part in a computer-based warning systems stimulation, and their perceptions of their validity. Answers regarding previous experience with natural disasters, evacuation situations, and terrorist risks and the knowledge of warning systems will be recorded, as well as the number of false warnings the individual experienced prior to the experiment. The author of the study is planning to reveal whether or not there is a correlation between warning system awareness, previous experience, and the individual’s likeliness to respond to warnings.

Research Design

A quantitative experimental research design has been selected in order to quantify the correlations between the individual factors, and to measure the demographics of the participants.  No personal details or contact details will be recorded. The research will not only cover warning systems and risks in general, but will attempt to collect separate data for various situations’ warning systems, such as severe weather warning, natural disaster risk communication, terror and crime awareness and warning systems as well. Further, the researcher would like to provide an analysis of the results that will compare the likely response rate of participants to various methods of warnings, such as those communicated through the media, online channels, in person, or through official personnel of public services. This way, the study will reveal the correlation between previous experiences and participants’ likeliness to respond to various methods of warnings in different situations.

Participants and recruitment

The recruitment of participants will be carried out in campus, and a randomized selection method will be applied. Informed consent forms will be distributed and required to be signed before participation. Participants will also have the right to opt out of the research at any time, without being given a reason. The researcher is aiming for a  sample size of 100. Participants will be randomly selected from a local campus database, to which the researchers will gain access for the purpose of the study only. Participants will be randomly selected from the database, and no demographic filters will be applied in order to ensure that a diverse sample is created.

Instrumentation

The two-part experiment will be written and authorized by the supervisor, and  the questions following the different  computer simulation will use a Likert Scale answer design. This will allow the researcher to measure and quantify the results and fully determine the correlations. Invitations to take part in the experiment will be distributed through an internet link. Participants’ email addresses and physical addresses will not be collected.

An online system connected to the database will be used to collect answers of each participant and quantify them. Some questions following the short clips and simulations will be designed to be answered with a yes or no, others will have a Likert Scale answer. The reason why this instrument was selected to carry out the research is because it is a cost-effective method, and it allows the researcher to carry out the study in a timely manner. The instrument also provides some basic analytical tools that make it possible to export the data safely into databases, where they can be analyzed.

 Participants will be asked basic demographic questions prior to entering the simulation. Different scenarios related to disaster situations (with images) and different types of warnings will be played in each clip. After viewing the clip, participants will be asked how likely they are to respond to the warning. Some situations will be news about escaped dangerous convicts, while others will cover natural disaster threats and high pollution levels.

Ethical considerations

All participants will be informed about the purpose of the study, and the data collection methods. They will be required to sign an informed consent form, and will have the option to withdraw from participation at any time. Date collected will only be used for the purpose of the study.

Method of Analysis

 The variables that will be measured and the variable pairs analyzed will be as follows:

Age group: 18-25, 25-35, 35-45. over 45

Sex:  Male/Female

Previous experience with risk warnings: Yes/No

Previous false alarms experienced: Yes/No

How likely the participant is to respond to warnings based on the simulation:  Likert scale

How likely the participant is to respond to warnings based on the simulation: Likert scale

The correlations that the author of the studdy would like to reveal are based on the hypotheses: between previous experiences and individuals’ perceptions of warning systems, as well as their response rates.

In order to reveal the connection between previous experiences, the researcher would like to determine the mean scores for considering warning systems reliable for two groups: those who have experienced false warnings, and those who have not. The main assumption that the author is using is that the group  that has previously had false alarm experiences would be less likely to believe in the reliability of the warning systems,  and less likely to respond to them. The scores will be determined for each group by creating a mean Likert scale score and comparing the two groups’ results. Likewise, in the case of those who have experienced previous (real) warnings, the researcher assumes that this group’s mean Likert scores for the questions related to the different warning systems and their likeliness to respond will be significantly higher than the group’s with lower awareness. The above analysis of results is designed to determine whether or not false warnings and awareness campaigns would have a significant impact on the overall effectiveness of systems.

Rationale of experimental research design

The above study design was selected in order to reveal what impacts the reaction of the public on warning systems, and provide reliable data for professionals who would be able to adjust their communication and disaster/risk warning methods according to the results. Professionals designing early and immediate warning systems, public risk communication methods will be able to better understand the impact of previous experiences, and at the same time get information about the overall responsiveness of the randomly selected population. Further, the experiment’s results will be suitable for measuring public perception about the reliability of various warning systems, in different situations. This way, policymakers and public services will be able to implement changes designed to improve warning system frameworks, select the most appropriate channels that the public is most likely to respond to. This way, the study will provide crucial relevant information for disaster warning services to tailor their communication, public awareness campaigns, and systems for maximum results.