ML20082D058
| ML20082D058 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1983 |
| From: | Saegert S SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082C880 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8311220304 | |
| Download: ML20082D058 (44) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
D 1 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Decket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
Direct Testimony of Susan C.
Saegert On Behalf of Suffolk County Regarding Contention 65 Evacuation Time Estimates
Background
O.
State your name and occupation.
A.
My name is Susan C.
Saegert.
I am an environmental psy-chologist.
Q.
Please describe your qualifications?
A.
My qualifications are set forth in my vitae, which is at-tached to this testimony (Attachment 1).
Brie fly, I am an as-sociate professor of environmental psychology at the City Uni-versity of New York Graduate School.
In this capacity, my Of[jj
f I
^
.e responsibilities include teaching graduate courses in environmental psychology, advising Ph.D. students and serving on dissertation committees.
I regularly teach courses and conduct research in environmental stress and environmental cognition -- areas which are relevant to this testimony.
I serve as a member of the executive committee of the Center for Human Environments, which provides a forum for re-search and exchange of information in environmental research, and as associate editor of Environment and Behavior.
In addition, I am an elected Fellow of the American Psychological Association, serving on the Steering Committee and Publications Committee for Division 34 (Population and Environmental Psy-chology).
I am also a member of the Environmental Design Re-search Association, in which I serve as Chairperson of the Awards committee.
My publications include articles and book chapters in en-vironmental psychology, including a chapter entit) ed "The Stress Inducing and Stress Reducing Qualities of Environments" (in Proshansky, H.,
Ittelson, W.
H. and Rivlin, L.,
Environmental Psychology:
Man and His Physical Setting, second edition; Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976).
I have also edited a book entitled Crowding and Real Environments, Sage Publications, 1975.
_ 2-
Q.
Please summarize the purpose of your testimony.
A.
The purpose is to address Contention 65, particularly con-cerning anticipated driver behavior during a radiological emer-gency at Shoreham.
The health-threatening conditions that will exist or may be perceived to exist during a radiological emer-gency will produce stress and anxiety among the population which will, among other things, affect the behavior and perfor-mance of drivers seeking to leave the EPZ.
I believe that the level of stress and anxiety will be particularly great for a Shoreham emergency because of the public's extreme fear of ra-diation and LILCO's perceived lack of credibility as an organi-zation able to command and control the emergency response.
A major assumption in the LILCO Plan is that driver behavior will be normal and that drivers will comply with the evacuation routes that LILCO has assigned to each household within the EPZ.
However, because of concern for personal safe-ty and the safety of f amilies, drivers will seek the " safest" route out of the EPZ.
It can be expected that in many cases a driver's perception of the. safest route will not coincide with the routes that LILCO has assigned to him or her.
(See also Testimony of the Suffolk County Police Department, Philip Herr, and Bruce Pigozzi regarding Contention 65.)
Under stress, the ability to process information may be reduced significantly.
3-
J Therefore, many people will rely on f amiliar routes which may not coincide with the routes LILCO has assigned to them.
- Thus, many automobiles can be expected to deviate from LILCO's assigned routes.
Congestion from the resulting slowed traffic and blockage may itself increase stress.
People, unable to escape congested situations, will feel increased stress, re-duced ability to comprehend the environment and make rational decisions, and aggression.
If LILCO's traffic guides attempt to enforce or overtly encourage conformance with the prescribed routes, the resulting confrontation could lead to conflict and aggression between drivers and traffic guides.
The severity of confrontations between motorists and traffic guides may be increased by the anger that some people will feel toward LILCO, whom they will perceive as the cause of the emergency.
LILCO's traffic guides
-- who are LILCO employees -- will be highly visible targets for those wishing to vent their anger against LILCO.
Furthermore, even if drivers are willing to follow LILCO's instructions, in many cases they will be unable to do so.
Stressful situations can reduce one's ability to remember s
facts, to process information and to perform unfamiliar tasks.
As a result, drivers may forget assigned routes or be unable to follow instructions provided in LILCO's brochure, EBS messages, the telephone book, etc. s
\\
4 y
=
3 The problems I have described above are likely to have an adverse impact on LILCO's traffic control scheme.
As Professor Pigozzi states in his testimony on Contention 65, the time estimaces in Appendix A assume normal driver behavior, effec-l tive traffic control and full compliance with prescribed routes. The stress that will be generated by a radiological emergency, howe'v e r, makes these assumptions unrealistic.
At-tached is a list of references supporting this testimony (At-tachment 2).
Q.
Please explain generally the nature of the stress and anx-iety likely to be experienced by people seeking to evacuate the EPZ.
A.
Stress can be defined as a negative emotional and physiological state arising from a person's perception of an environmental threat greater than the person's ability to respond.
Stress is characterized by a state of physiological arousal and psychological apprehension and discomfort.
During a radiological emergency, stress will be ge'> rated by the circumstances presented by the emergency.
Evacuees are likely to feel a sense of danger and to be searching for the safest way out of that danger.
There will also be a sense of time pressure -- that is, the goal will be to get out of the per-ceived zone of danger as quickly as possible.
Stress may be -
=
exacerbated if the goal of expeditious departure from the danger zone is frustrated by traffic conditions or by traffic control measures that the driver will perceive as obstructing l
his efforts to reach that goal.
People experiencing high levels of stress have reduced ability to process new info rma-tion, particularly if it does not relate to their preconceived goals and intentions.
This may have a particularly important effect on traffic flow.
For instance drivers, may have trouble noticing and interpreting important information such as signs, road cues, and the behavior of other drivers.
All of these f actors cc tid be expected in any emergency requiring evacuation.
However, stress levels are likely to be significantly higher during a radiological emergency than in other types of emergencies because of the public's heightened fear of radiation.
The public's fear of radiation has been amply demonstrated by studies conducted by Slovic, Lichtenstein and Fischoff which found that people fear a nuclear power plant accident more thar. any other disaster agent except warfare and terrorism.1/
1/
- Slovic, P.,
Lichtenstein, S.,
and F4rchoff, B.
(1979),
" Images of Disaster:
Perceptior k ; Acceptance of Risks From Nuclear Power," In G.T.
Ch ' (k, 1 L W.D.
Rowe (Eds.),
Energy Risk Management, New P rit 4cademic Press.
- Slovic, P.,
- Fischoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S.,
" Perceived Risk" in R.
Shering and A. Albert (eds.) Societal Risk As-(Footnote cont'd next page) -
=
Studies of actual behavior at TMI confirm that nuclear power accidents are more feared than other hazards.
These s t ud ie s, conducted by Drs. Johnson and Zeigler, and others, showed that while only about 2,500 people were advised to evac-uate, approximately 140,000 actually did so.
(See Testimony of Johnson and Zeigler on Contention 23.)
This pattern of behavior contrasts with findings about behavior in other disas-ters.
For example, a recent study 2/
found that only 35 percent of those advised to evacuate in hurricanes responded; only 18 percent responded to tornado warnings; and only 12 percent to flood warnings.
The public's propensity to overreact during a radiological emergency is further demon-strated by surveys in the Shoreham area which are described in the testimony of Drs. Johnson, Zeigler and Cole regarding Con-tention 23.
Those surveys reveal that a significant proportion of the public (as much as 50 percent of Long Island, or over 400,000 families) will attempt to evacuate during a radiological emergency even when not advised to do so.
(Footnote cont'd from previous page) sessment:
How Safe is Safe Enough (New York, Plenum Press, 1980).
2/
- Ford, B.,
" Disaster Warnings," Omni, March 1983, vol. 24, p.
44, 152. '
l l
l A
The difference in the public's perception of radiological emergencies and o'her disasters can be explained by the charac-teristics of nuclear emergencies themselves.
In other kinds of disasters, people often go to the scene or otherwise directly survey the environment in order to observe first hand the threatening conditions.
Radiation, however, is not seen, felt, or otherwise directly perceived through a person's normal sen-sory equipment.
Slovic, Lichtenstein and Fischoff's studies, noted above, led the authors to conclude that radiation as a hazard agent is perceived as " involuntary, unknown, uncontrol-lable, unfamiliar, potentially catastrophic, severe and dread-ful."
Such factors lead to stress among persons experiencing them.
Thus, the nature of radiation increases uncertainty and stress.
Fur.the r, radiological emergencies are not clearly local-ized in time.
Partially because radiation is not directly per-ceptible, people are uncertain as to when the danger has begun and when it is over.
Uncertainty about the. location and nature of a danger in one's environment' increases stress.
One cannot feel completely safe because of this uncertainty, and therefore stress accumulates.
Finally, the stress that will exist during a radiological emergency is likely to be aggravated by mistrust of the warning l -
=
l messages and information to be disseminated by LILCO.
Peopl e will not believe LILCO's messages.
Therefore they will not be able to reduce their uncertainty, which, as I have stated, is in itself stressful.
I will address LILCO's lack of credibili-i l
ty in detail in my testimony regarding Contention 15.
- However, a brief discussion of this point is also pertinent here.
As several surveys have shown, LILCO ranks very low among the Long j
Island population in credibility and perceived trustworthi-ness.3/
During a radiological emergency, LILCO's credibility is likely to drop even further as a result of the perception of some that LILCO, which is supposed to be in command and control of the emergency, is also responsible for the emergency in the first place.
As a result of this low credibility, mistrust of
]
LILCO may pose a threat.
For example, people may ceel that LILCO is endangering their safety by not telling the truth about the severity of an accident.
This perception of threat then would be added to the already-existing perceived threat of i
harm from a nuclear power plant accident.
l 3/
See Social Data Analysts, Inc., " Attitudes Towards Evacu-ation:
Reaction Of Long Island' Residents To A Possible Accident At The Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant" (June, 1982); Yankelovich, Skelly and White, " Status Report On Public Response to Emergency Planning Zfforts" (July 1983); Newsday polls, published in Newsday, February 27, 3
1983 and October 9, 1983.
i l
I e,
n
, - ~ -
a The ability to assign blame for the emergency to LILCO will also generate anger toward LILCO, giving the public a concrete target for venting its fear and frustation.
- Thus, whereas natural disasters often unite communities against a common threat, an accident at Shoreham may involve a signifi-cant degree of social conflict and mistrust.
Contention 65.C.4 Q.
What is the concern expressed in Contention 65.C.4?
A.
LILCO's evacuation time estimates assume 100 percent com-pliance by the public with evacuation routes which have been assigned by LILCO.
(See Appendix A, Rev. 2 at IV-77 through IV-164).
Contention 65.C.4 asserts that this assumption is un-realistic, and thus, that LILCO's evacuation time estimates are unrealistic.
Q.
Do you agree with Contention 65.C.47 A.
~Yes.
There will be substar.tial noncompliance with LILCO's assigned routes.
The noncompliance will be both intentional and unintentional.
When people are under stress, they rely on l
well-learned patterns of behavior and information.
In the case of an evacuation at Shoreham, many people will not pay atten-tion to information disseminated to them by LILCO after the declaration of an emergency.
Any new information or advice contrary to those people's prior intentions or perceptions will !
l l
be difficult for them to understand.
They are therefore likely, under stress, to ignore such information rather than make the effort to understand and evaluate it while under pres-sure.
Some failure to comply with LILCO's instructions will be purely intentional.
The overriding concern of almost every evacuee will be the safe exit of *.he evacuee and his or her family from the perceived zone of danger.
Since a large number i
of the evacuees will be residents of Suffolk County, they will have knowledge of the roadway system and their own perceptions of the safest way out of-the EPZ.
As Professor Herr and the Suffolk County Police Department witnesses have testified (see their testimony on Contention 65), many of the routes and traf-fic control measures prescribed by LILCO will not be considered safe by evacuees.
For instance, some evacuees will perceive that a particular route directs them closer to the plant (the source of the danger) or places them on a roadway they believe will be more congested than an alternate route.
In addition, some evacuees will consider that prescribed routes are to be i
avoided altogether because they have been prescribed for thou-sands of evacuating households.
In all these cases, it is not prudent to believe that all evacuees will docilely follow routes they do not believe are the safest or the best way out i
11 -
T
,--+M t
y e -
rM
-r---g+r
=or m
w
=
of the perceived zone of danger.
Rather, substantial numbers of evacuees will seek out routes other than those prescribed by LILCO.
Non-compliance may also be unintentional.
LILCO's time estimates assume that "all evacuees are aware of their respective evacuation routes."
(Appendix A at V-2).
Yet, it is likely that many will never have read the emergency brochure in which those routes are described; or, even if they have read it, that they will have forgotten the details and discarded the brochure.4/
Further, the stress generated by the emergency will reduce their ability to recall the routes.
Even mild stress, such as that people experience when shopping in a crowded supermarket, leads people to forget where things are located.5/
The problem can be expected to be more serious in a more complex topography and under conditions of greater stress.
l
-4/
- See, e.g.,
- Sims, J.H. and Baumann, D.B.,
Education Pro-grams and Human Response to Natural Hazards, Environment and Behavior, 15, 165-189 (1983); Wenger, D.E.
Disaster and the Mass Media, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences (1980).
5/
- Langer, E.
and Saegert; S.,
Crowding and Cognitive Control, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 175-182 (1977); Saegert, S.,
Mackintosh, E.
& West, S.
Two studies of crowding in urban public spaces.
l Environment and Behavior; 7, 159-184 (1975).
=
c In addition, although broadcast messages or other informa-i tion may provide general routing information, people will have trouble making use of the information.
Most people rely on landmarks and familiarity with routes rather than on a compre-hensive knowledge of the road network.
People do not have an accurate map of the environment in their heads.
Inaccuracies in recall of the spatial layout of an area are the rule rather than the exception.6/
As a result, drivers are likely to de-viate from their assigned evacuation routes.
In sum, it is apparent that LILCO's assumption of strict compliance with its traffic control scheme is unsupportable.
It is based on an ideal that will not exist during a radiological emergency.
Thus, LILCO's time estimates do not reflect the conditions that will actually exist during a radiological emergency and are unreliable.
Contention 65.C.2 Q.
What is the issue raised in Contention 65.C.27 A.
The issue raised in Contention 65.C.2 also relates to LILCO's traffic control scheme.
According to LILCO's Plan, certain LILCO personnel designated as " traffic guides" will be placed at various traffic posts within the EPZ in order to 6/
- Evans, G.W.,
Evironmental Cognition, Psychological Bulle-tin, 88, 259-287..
=
direct traffic and " enforce" ( Appendix A at IV-9 ) LILCO 's traffic scheme.
As I have already discussed, it is likely that sub stantia.1 numbers of people will seek to deviate from LILCO's prescribed routes.
To the extent that the traffic guides attempt to enforce prescribed turn movements and other traffic control measures by whatever means, there will be a direct conflict between tne desires of the drivers seeking to deviate and the traffic guides.
In many cases, this conflict could lead to ag-gressive behavior.
Aggression will arise for several reasonc.
First, many evacuees will perceive the traffic guides as attempting to frustrate the goal of finding the safest route out of the EPZ.
Drivers are likely to experience high levels of stress from congested traffic conditions, the heightened state of fear that will exist because of the nature of the emergency, perceived time pressures, and concern for personal and family safety.
This fear and stress will leave drivers strongly motivated to leave the area and committed to the route they perceive to be the safest and quickest.
If these motives are interfered with, drivers may react aggressively to any at-tempts by traffic guides to frustate the goal of taking the I
safest route (as the driver perceives it) out of the EPZ. i l
l i
=
a Second, not many evacuees are likely to perceive LILCO's traffic guides as having the authority to direct traffic or prevent travel along certain routes.
Whereas the presence of a police officer in uniform might constrain some potentially ag-gressive behavior, LILCO's traffic guides -- that is, individuals whose only distinctive apparel apparently will be a cap saying "LERO" and a vest -- will lack perceived authority.
Evacuees will view attempts to enforce prescribed routes as il-legitimate interference with the well-being of themselves and their families.
Thus, traffic guides are more likely to become targets for aggression than would uniformed police officers.
This is all the more likely in light of the fact that LILCO, as the owner and operator of Shoreham, will be seen as the cause of the danger.
The anger of some toward LILCO may be directed at its employees -- the traffic guides.
Third, aggression may result from the fact that traffic guides will be unable to bnplement effectively the traffic control scheme contemplated by LILCO.
The traffic guides will lack the sort of training and experience which legittnate authorities like the police have.
As the Suffolk County Police Departnent witnesses have testified (see SCPD testbnony on Con-tention 65), directing traffic is a complex enterprise requiring much on-the-job training and experience.
LILCO's traffic guides lack both.
Incompetence and mistakes will give rise to driver frustration which may in turn lead to aggres-sion.
Furthermore, the traffic guides will not be experienced in responding to people in a highly agitated state of mind.
Thus, inappropriate responses to aggression or anger from mo-torists may increase the motorists' anger.
Indeed, traffic guides may themselves become aggressive under these conditions, especially if they feel that a motorist is becoming dangerous to them.
As is evident from the above discussion, LILCO's traffic control scheme is likely to increase conflict and confusion rather than expedite traffic flow.
The result, discussed in detail in the testimony of Professors Pigozzi and Herr and the Suf fclk County Police Department witnesses, will be delays in traffic flow.
Contention 65.F Q.
What is the issue addressed in Contention 65.F?
A.
Contention 65.F addresses the effect of stress and anxiety l
on the performance of drivers.
The concern expressed in the l
l contention is that in a radiological emergency, drivers will l
not drive as well or be able tc process information and l
instructions as efficiently as they would under normal circumstances.
(I have discussed these issues to some extent !
O above.)
The result will be slower traffic, confusion and possibly increased accidents which, according to Professors Pigozzi and Herr and the Suffolk County Police Department witnesses, could lead to increased evacuation times.
LILCO has not taken this factor into account, however, in developing its time estimates.
Q.
Do you agree with Contention 65.F?
A.
Yes.
As stated earlier, high levels of stress reduce in-formation processing capacity.
Such capacity is necessary to make the numerous decisions that influence rate of speed and safety ( for example, the gauging of distance between cars, determining proper speed, choosing routes, etc.).7/
Drivers will be responsible for making moment-to-moment decisions in a situation that will tax their mental capacities and go against psychologically likely ways of perceiving, remembering and be-having.
In addition, the driver will have to respond to the unexpected enforcement of traffic controls and the unexpected behavior of other drivers.
Good driving on congested roads requires concentration and attention to other drivers' speed, direction, and behavior.
People in a state of stress will tend to focus on getting to 7/
Gerlough,' D.L. and Huber, M.J. Traffic Flow Theory.
Transportation Research Board Special Report 165, Washington, D.C.
(1975). -_
i a
I their destinations and ignore what other people are doing.
Accidents and traffic blockage will result, thus slowing evacu-ation time. In the drivers' stressed state, the reduced capaci-i ty to process information will translate into a reduced ability to operate an automobile efficiently.
This in turn could lead l
to delays as motorists stop or slow down to make decisions.
l Misjudgments may lead to wrong turns or even accidents, result-ing in further delays.
4 This is not to say that everyone will respond to stress in th e s ame wa y.
Many people who are inclined to follow LILCO's direction will be able to do so.
However, in congested i
conditions, the stressful behavior of some motorists whose per-r l
formance will be impaired by stress is likely to affect the i
progress of many.
The ability of drivers in a stressed state to coordinate their behavior with that of other drivers will l
j decline the more stress they experience, particularly if it persists over a number of hours, i
O.
What is your conclusion with respect to this Contention?
I A.
In the event of a radiological emergency, the public will
]
experience high levels of stress which will be exacerbated by l
feelings of mistrust and anger toward LILCO.
In light of this l
- stress, LILCO's traffic control scheme is unlikely to be ef-
~
1 i
f ec tiv e.
People will not follow assigned routes.
Attempts by I
18 -
e,,<.
-,ep-r--.
-,-.-e,q---,,o
,-.<4 yv
,,p,ya--av,,..,pe--
--~--,,,,-w, e-e
,.7,
<,--~-,,,y.,w-,
.-g
--mn m---
g-
a LILCO's traffic guides to enforce its tra f fic control scheme may produce delays or generate aggression against its traffic guides.
Some drivers may also operate their vehicles poorly due to stress, thus further increasing delays.
19 -
(
i
a I.
1 1
ATTACIIMENT 1 4
3 i
!t t
1 l
4 i
e a
E F
i j
i t
t i
O g
2/83 ATTACilMENT 1 Curriculum Vitae Susan Saegert 347 President Street Brooklyn, New York 11231 Telephone (212) 624-4535 Center for the Study of Women and Sex Roles a nd -
Environmental Psychology Program The Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York 33 West 42nd Street New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 790-4551 Education Ph.D.
1974, University of Michigan Field of Specialization: Social Psychology Department of Psychology B.A.
1968, University of Texas Summa cum laude with honors in government Experience 1977 to present Associate Professor, Environmental Psychology Program, The Craduate School and University Center of City University of New York Spring 1980 Invited Associate Professor of Urban Planning.
School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Columbia University-NEH sponsored course on Housing and Behavior July L977 to January 1980 Director, Center for the Study of Women and Sex Roles. The Graduate Schoci and University Center of City University of New York September 1973 to L977 Assistant Professor, Environmental Psychology Program, The Graduate School and University Center of City University of New York O
-.e->
=.
Susan Saenert Page 2 Experience (continued)
September 1975 to June 1977 Research Coordinator, NINH Grant S361,312:
" Household settings: Life styles and mental health" Environmental Psychology Program, The Graduate School and University Center of City University of New York February 1971 to August 1973 Research Supervisor, NIMH Grant $94,558:
" Change in ward design". Environmental Psychology Program, The" Graduate School and University Center of City University of New York Fall 1971 to Spring 1972 Consultant to architects, Architects Renewal Committee of Harlem Day Care Project Spring 1972 Consultant, Harrisburg State Mental Hospital, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania September 1969 to December 1970 Research Assistant, Research Center for Group Dynamics, institute for Social Research, University of Michigan October 1968 to August 1969 Research Assistant, Department of Psychology, University of Texas (Austin)
Awards and Honorary Associa tions Phi Beta Kappa Alpha Lambda Delta Woodrow Wilson Fellow, 1969-70 National Institute of Mental Health Trainee, 1969-70 National Science Foundation Fellow, 1970-72 Fellow of the American Psychological Association, elected 1982.
Grants and Contracts
- Faculty Research Award, City University of New York, Regional Comparisons of Experiences of Crowding, ($14,479) 1977 - 78
-National Institute of Mental Health, Residential Density and Adjustment in low-Income Children, ($54,071) 1977 - 1980
-National Science Foundation Travel Award to NATO Conference on Human Consequences of Crowding, Antalya, Turkey, 1977
-Faculty Research Award, C.U.N.Y., Sex Differences, Spatial Abilities and Environmental Competence, ($13,116) 1978 - 1979
-Ford Foundation Grant to Center for the Study of Women and Sex Roles,
($24,910),1979 - 1980
4 e
Susan Saegert Page 3
_ Grants and Contracts (continued)
-Faculty Research Award, C.U.N.Y., The Role of the Environment in the Development of Sccial Relationships, ($12,000) 7/80 - 6/81
-Contract with Denver llousing Authority, Feasibility Study: The Market for Downtown Housing in Denver, ($29,000) 7/80 - 11/80
-Contract with Denver Housing Authority, Survey of Housing Needs of Employees in Downtown Denver, ($105,000) 1/81 - 10/81
-Carnegie, Foundation (with Marilyn Gittell) Planning Grant for Study of Women in Urban Communities, ($15,000) 1/81 - 7/81
-National Science Foundation Travel Award to present paper at Japanese-United States Seminar? Psychology and the Environment.in Tokyo, Japan, 9/80.
Professional Activities Editorial
-l.ssociate Editor, Environment and Behavior
-Editarial Advisory Board, Human Ecology
-Revi.wer for Bulletin of Personality and Social Psychology
-Reviewer for Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
-Book Reviewer for Journal of Architectural Research
,-Reviewer of National Science Foundation grant proposals Member
-American Psychological Association
-Society for the Study of Social Issues
-Environmental Design Research Association Elected Office
-Member at Large, Executive Committee, Division 34, Population and Environment, American' Psychological Association Eniversity 1980 to present
-Executive Committee, Center for the Study of Women and Sex Roles, City University of New York Graduate School 1974 to 1977
-Deputy Executive Officer, Department of Psychology, Graduate School and University Center, City University of New York 1976 to present
-Executive Committee member, Center for Human Environments, Graduate School and University Center, City University of New York 1977 to 1979
-Executive Committee member, Institute for Research in Human Affairs, Graduate School and University Center, 1
City University of New York i
1977 to present
-Review Committee Member, Faculty Research Award Program 1
1 Susan Saegert Page 4 Books and Monographs Saegert, S. (Ed.) Cro ding in real environments. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications (Sage Social Science Monograph #25; reprinted from Environment and Behavior special issue,1975,1. Whole No. 2),1975.
- Lamont, R.,
Kaplan, F. & Saegert, S.
(Ed.)' Women in public and private spaces. Special issue of Centrepoint, Spring, 1980.
Other Publications and Public Addresses 1970:
Saegert, S. & Jellison, J.M. Ef fects of initial level of response competition and frequency of exposure on liking and exploratory behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970,16, 553-558. (Also presented at Midwestern Psychological Association Convention, May, 1970.)
1971:
Rajecki, D.W. & Saegert, S. Effects of. methamphetamine hydrochloride on imprinting in White Leghorn chicks. Psychonomic Reienen.
1971, 23, 7-8.
1973:
Saegert, S. Crowding:, Behavioral constraints and cognitive overload.
In W. Preiser (Ed.), Environmental design research. Proceedings of EDRA IV Conference. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson &
Ross, 1973.
Saegert, S. & Rajecki, D.W. Ef fects of prior exposure to animate objects on approach tendency in chicks. Behavioral Biology, 1973, 8, 749-754.
Saegert, S., Swap, W. & Zajonc, R.B. The effects of mere exposure on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 25, 234-242. Reprinted in T. Blass (Ed.),
Contempora ry social psychology: representative readings. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock Publications,1976.
Holahan, C.J. & Saegert, S. The psychological impact of planned environmental change: Remodeling a psychiatric ward in an urban
- i hospital. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 82, 454-462 1974:
The consequences of high density living: Some unresolved issues and recent evidence. Address given to the New York Academy of Sciences May,1974.
Saegert, S. The effects of social and spatial density on arousal, mood, and social orientation.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1974.
_. ~.. _ - -
l
\\
Susan Saegert i
Page 5 j
1975:
- Saegert, S., Mackintosh, E. & West, S. Two studies of crowding in urban public spaces. Environment and Behavior, 1975, 7, 159-184.
I I
Saegert, S. Stress-inducing and reducing qualities of environments.
In H. Proshansky, W. Ittelson & L. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental 4
psychology.
2nd edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,1975.
1 l
. Saegert, S. & Rall, M.
Effects of reduction of uncertainty on responses to crowding. Presented at Eastern Psychological Conference, New York, 1975.
Saegert, S. House and home in the lives of women. Presented at Environmental Research Design Association Conference VI, Lawrence, j
Kansas, May, 1975.
(Being reprinted in Centerpoint: An Inter-i disciplinary Journal).
I i
1976:
Saegert, S. Book review of CrowdinR and Behavior by J. Freedman.
i Journal of Architectural Research, December, 1976, 3,, 40-41.
Saegert, S. (Chairperson) Toward better person-environment relations:
Changing sex roles and changing environmental needs. Workshop at Environmental Design Research Association Conference VII, Vancouver, B.C., May, 1976. Summary in Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association VII,1976.
1977:
- Saegert, S., & Hart, R. The development of environmental competence in girls and boys. The Newsletter for the Society for the Ethno-graphic Study of Plqt, Spring, 1977.
(Reprinted in M. Salter (Ed.)
q Play: an anthropological perspective, 1978)
Roberts, C. & Saegert, S. Crowding and urban stress. Presented at Eastern Psychological Association Meeting, April 1977.
Juhasz, J. & Saegert, S. The significance of symbols in the environment.
j Co-chaired workshop 'at Environmental Design Research Association Conference VIII, April 1977. Summary in Proceedinas of the Environ-mental Design Research Association VIII, Dowden Hutchinson & Ross,1977.
Langer, E. & Saegert, S. Crowding and cognitive control. -Journal of Personality and Social PsycholoRv 1977. JS, 175-182.'
1978:
Saegert, S. The personal and social consequences of high density environments.
In A. Baum and Y. Epstein (Eds.), Human responses 4
j to crowdina. Hillside, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates, 1978.
j McCarthy, D. & Saegert, S. Residential density, social overload and
.socini withdrawal. Human Ecoloav, 1978 Vol. 6. No. 3, 253-271.
'(Reprinted in J. Aiello & A. Paum, High density residential enviro nment s.
litlls ide. N.J. : Erlbaum Associates,1979).
l s
e, n..-
-n.-,
-c
-,v,-
.'u J
Susan Saegert Page 6 t
l 1980:
Saegert, S. A systemic approach to high density settings:
psychological, social and physical environmental factors.
In M. Gurkaynak & W. LeCompte (Ed.) Human consequences of crowding. New York: Plenum Press.
Saegert, S. Masculine cities and feminine suburbs: polarized ideas, contradictory realities. Signs: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Women and Culture, Special supplement, Summer,1980.
Reissued as Stimpson, K., Nelson, M. and Yaktrakas, K.
j Women and the american city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.
Saegert, S. & Winkel, G. The home: a critical problem for changing sex roles.
In Wekerle, G., Peterson, R. and Morley, D. (Eds.)
New spaces for women. Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press.
1981:
Saegert, S. Crowding and cognitive limits.
In J. Harvey (Ed.)
_ Cognition. social behavior and the environment. Hillside, N.J.:
j Erlbaum Associates.
Saegert, S. Environment and children's mental health: residential density and low income children.
In A. Baum & J. Singer (Eds.)
Handb3ok of psycholoav and health, Volume 2.
Hillside, N.J.:
Erlbaum Associates.
1 i
Saegert, S. Residential density and psychological development.
Proceedings of Japan-United States Seminar on Psychology and I
the Environment. Tokyo, Japan: Nipon University. National Science Foundation sponsored publication.
1982:
Saegert, S.
Towards an androgenous city.
In Gappert, G. and Knight, D. (Eds.), Cities of the Twenty-First Century.
Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
i i
Saegert, S.
High density society and individual experiences:
Problems and resolutions.
In Man and Space, Report of the International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences Symposium, October 1 and 2,1982. Tokyo.
I Recent Consultation i
Expert Witness before the Suffolk County Legislature regarding psychological issues in planning for a nuclear emergency.
Winter 1982-1983.
4 I
4 e
Susan Saegert Page 7 e
Recent Invited Lectures and Conference Participation l
June, 1981
- Environment as Material, Artifact and Matrix."
Invited address presented at colloquium, "Towards a Social Psychology of the Environment," Maison des Sciences de l'Home, Paris, France.
NOW IN PRESS, (EDS) P. STRINGER, D. J0DELET, S. MOSCOVI: CAMBRIDGE UN1 August, 1981
-Chairperson of symposium: " Feminist Issues in Urban PRESS Communities," presentation with Marilyn Gittell, "Wo' men and community organizations," American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Los Angeles.
November, 1981
- Social and Psychological Issues in Housing." Invited address to Program in Environment and Behavior, School of Architecture and Planning, University of Michigan.
January, 1982
" Aspects of Housing Design and Development Affecting Women."
Invited presentation to Seminar on Women and Housing, sponsored by Donna Shalala, President of Hunter College and the Ford Foundation.
March, 1982
- Women and the City."
Keynote speech, Conference on Women and the City, Alverno College, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
April, 1982
-with Lynn Paxson, Symposium organizer, New Research and Findings in Housing. Paper presented: Denver's Downtown Workforce and Questions of Urban Housing. Environmental Design Research Association Conference, College Park, Maryland August, 1982
-with N.J. Maltz, Girls' and Boys' Representations of Home and Neighborhood. Paper presented at American Psychological Association Conference, Washington, D. C.
March, 1983
- Environmental Design Research Association Board of Directors Special Event Speaker on Women and the Environment. University of Nebraska, Lincoln cosponsored with Environmental Design Research Association.
l l
-m_._a+wm a
A a.
a e
an
---A.-
s--
a.--e
---a.-J-n-s---
- -u--
2
-. m w-a-
a--A-a a-u
+Jm en A
a
---R""~-
i g
a i
I l
i ATTACHMENT 2 l
l r
o ATTACHMENT 2 References Abelson, R. P.
(1981). Psychological status of the script concept.
American Psychologist, Vol. 36, 715-729.
Altshuler, R. J.
(1982). Ready or not: Public preparedness for an accident at Indian Point. New York:
New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.
Appley, M.
H.,
& Trumbell, R.
(1967). Psychological stress:
Issues in research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Averill, J. R.
(1982). Anger and aggression. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Averill, J. R.
(1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 286-303.
Baker, G. W., & Chapman, D. W.
(1962). Man and society in disaster.
New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Belletto de Pujo, J. (October 1982)
Emergency planning: The case of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Masters thesis from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo.
- Baum, A.,
- Fleming, R.,
& Davidson, L.M.
(
).
Natural disaster and technological catastrophe. University of the Health Sciences, M.S.
N.D.
- Baum, A.,
Gatchel, R.
J.,
& Shaeffer, M. A.
(1981).
Emotional behavioral, and physiological effects of chronic stress at Three Mile Island Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (C07216) and U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC-03-81-135).
I
l References Page Two
- Baum, A., Gatchel, R.
J.,
Streufert, S., Baum, C.
S.,
- Fleming, R.,
Singer, J. E.
(August 1980). Psychological stress for alternatives of l
decontamination of TMI-2 reactor building atmosphere. Prepared for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. (NUREG/CR-1584).
- Baum, A.,
Singer, J.
E.,
& Baum, C. S. (1981). Stress and the environment.
Journal of Social Issues, 37, 4-35.
Boulding, K.
(1961). The image. Ann Arbor Paperbacks.
Brenitz, S.
(1976). False alarms: Their effects on fear and adjustment.
In I. G. Sarason & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 3).
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Brown, B.
(1980). Perspectives on social stress.
In H. Selye (Ed.),
2 Selye's guide to stress research (Vol. 1).
New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold Co., 21-45.
Bromet, E.
(May 1980). Preliminary report on the mental health of Three j
Mile Island residents. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Western Psychiatric Institute, University of Pittsburgh.
Bromet, E.
(May 1980). Psychological behavioral and social aspects of the Three Mile Island nuclear incident. Pittsburgh, PA.
- Carlstam, G.,
Karlsson, C. G.,
& Levi, L.
(May 1973). Stress and disease in response to noise. Procaedings of the International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Carter, T. M.
(1980). Community warning system:
The relationship among the broadcast media, emergency service agencies, and the national weather service.
In Disaster and the mass media, National Academy of
- Science, l
- - =.
i I
References Page Three i
Christensen, L.,
& Reich, C. E.
(1978). Assessment of brochures and radio i
(
and television presentations on hurricane awareness. Mass emergencies, I
3, 209-216.
i Cohen, S.
(1978). Environmental load and the allocation of attention.
In A. Baum, J. E. Singer, & S. Valins (Eds.), Advances in environmental j
psychology. Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
I 1
Cohen, S. (1981). After effects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A review of research and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 8J! (1),82-108.
j j
- Cohen, S.,
& Weinstein, R.
(1981). Nonauditory effects of noise on behavior and health. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 36-70.
Collins, D.
C.,
- Baum, A.,
& Singer, J. E.
(1981).
Coping with chronic j
stress at Three Mile Island: Psychological and biochemical evidence.
]
Unpublished manuscript.
I Cook, E.
(1982). The role of history in the acceptance of nuclear power.
Social Science Quarterly, 63, 3-15.
- Craik, K., & Appleyard, P.
(1980). Streets of San Francisco, B runswik's Lens model applied to urban inference and assessment. Journal of Social Issues, 36, 72-85.
D'Atre, D.
(1975). Psychological responses to crowding. Environment and i
Behavior, 7, 237-252.
i Davenport, S.,
& Waterstone, T.
(1979). Hazard awareness guidebook:
Planning for what comes naturally. Austin, Texas: Coastal and Marine Council.
Dempster, F. N.
(1981). Memory span: Sources of individual differences.
Psychological' Bulletin, 89,63-100.
I
. ~..,
T
=
a References Page Four DiMento, J. F.
(1981). Making usable information on environmental stressors: Opportunities for the research and policy communities.
Journal of Social Issues, 37, 172-202.
Dohrenwend, B.
S., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (Eds.).
(1974). Stressful life events: Their nature and effects. Ne York: John Wiley & Sons.
T Dohrenwend, B.
P., Dohrenwend, B.
S., Warbeit, G.
J., Bartlett, G.
S.,
j Goldsteen, R. L., Goldsteen, K., & Martin, J. L.
(1987).
Stress in community: A report to the President's Commission on the accident at Three Mile Island. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 365, 159-174.
Downs, R., & Stea, D. (Eds.).
(1973). Image and environment. Chicago:
1 Aldine.
Downs, R. M., & Shen, D.
(1977). Maps in minds: Reflections on i
cognitive manning. New York: Harper & Row.
N' Drabek, T.
E.,
& Boggs, K. S.
(1968). Families in disaster: Reactions and relatives. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30, 443-451.
Drabek, T.
E.,
& Stephenson III, J. S.
(1971). Where disaster strikes.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, J. (2,),187-203.
s s.
1 Evans, G. W.
(1980). Environmental cogt.{ tion. Psychological Bulletin,'\\
\\-
88, 259-287.
Evans, G. W.,
Marrera, D.
G.,
& Butler, P. A.
(1981). Environmental
'w learning and cognitive mapping. Environment and Behavior, J.3[, 83-Eysenck, M. W.
(1976). Arousal, learning, and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 389-409.
Faden, R. R.
(1983). Radiation risk and pub ic education. American J,ournal of Roentgenology, 140, 602-603, i
J
_v
._s-,.
.e,-
e References Page Five s
Fischoff, B.
(1981). Hot air: The psychology of CO --induced climatic 2
change.
In J. H. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment. Hillsdalc, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fischoff, B.
(1979). Behavioral aspects of cost-benefit analysis.
In G. G. Goodman & W. D. Rowe (Eds.), Energy risk management. New York:
Academic Press.
- Fischoff, B., Hohenemser, C.,
Kasperson, R.
E.,
& Kates, R. W.
(1978).
Handling: Can hazard management be improved? Environment, 20, 16-37.
Flynn, C. B.
(1979). Three Mile Island telephone survey: Preliminary report on procedure and findings. Prepared for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
i Folkman, S., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S.
(19 75)'.
Cognitive processes as mediators of stress and coping. In Hamilton and Warburton op cit.,
265-298. Rohmerts, W.,
& Luczak, H.
Stress, work & productivity. In Ha ilton & Warburton op cit., 339-379.
Frankenhaeuser, M.
(1980). Psychoneuroendocrine approaches to the study I
of stressful person-environment transactions. Chapter 13.
In Selye, H., Selye's guide to stress research (Vol. I)
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 46-70.
Fritz, C.
E.,
& Marks, E. S. (1954). The NORC studies of human behavior I
in disaster. Journal of Social Issues, 10, 26-41.
f Gardner, G. T., Tiemann, A. R., Gould, C. C., Delvea, D. R., Doob, L. W.,
& Stolwijk, J. A.
(1982).
Risk and. benefit perceptions, acceptability judgements, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power. The Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 179-197.
,f
?
i
b e
References Page Six i
Glass, D.
(1977). Behavior patterns, stress and coronary disease.
Hillsale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Glass, D. C., & Singer, J. E.
(1972). Urban stress:
Experiments on noise and social stressors. New York: Academic Press.
Glass, D.
C.,
& Singer, J. E.
(1977). Behavioral and physiological effects of uncontrollable environmental events.
In D. Stokols (Ed.),
Perspectives on environment and behavior.
New York: Plenum Press.
Goldhabet, M.
(October 1981). The Three Mile Island population. Report one: A general description.
Goldhaber, M.
K.,
Houts, P.
S.,
& Disabella, R.
(1983). Moving after the crisis: A prospective study of Three Mile Island area population mobility. Environment and Behavior, 15,93-120 Goldhaber, M.
K.,
& Lehmore, J. E.
(November 1982)
Crisis evacuation during the Three Mile Island Nuclear accident. The TMI population registry. Paper for the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association.
Grinspoon, L.
(1964). Fallout shelters and the unacceptability of disquieting facts. In G. H. Grosser, H. Wechsler, & M. Greenblatt (Eds.), The threat of impending disaster: Contributions to the psychology of stress. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hamburg, D.
(1971). Crowding, stranger contact and aggressive behavior.
In L. Levi (Ed.), Society, stress and disease: The psychosocial environment and psychosomatic disease (Vol. I).
London: Oxford University Press.
Hans, Jr., J. M., & Sells, T. C.
(1974). Evacuation risk: An evaluation.
e s
References Page Seven Heberlein, T. A.
(1974). The three fixes: Technological, cognitive and structural.
In D. R. Ficids, J. C. Barron., & D. F. Long (Eds.), Water and community development: Social and economic perspectives. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.
Hiroto, D. S.
(1974). Locus of control and learned helplessness. Journal of I <perimental Psychology, 102, 187-193.
Hohenemser, C., Kasperson, R.,
& Kates, R. (1977). The distrust of nuclear power. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Houts, P. S., Miller, R. W., Tokuhata, G. K., & Ham, K. S.
(April 1980).
Health-related behavioral impact of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Incident.
Report submitted to the TMI Advisory Panel on Health Research Studies.
Pennsylvania Department of Health, Part I.
Houts, P. S. (November 1980). Health related behavioral impact of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Incident. Report submitted to the TMI Advisory Panel on Health Related Studies of the Pennsylvania Department of Health.
Part II.
Hu, T.
(1980). Health-related economic costs of the Three Mile Island accident. Proceedings of the 18th National Meeting of the Public Health Conference on Records and Statistics.
Ittelson, W. H.
(1973).
Environment perception and contemporary perceptual theory.
In W. H. Ittelson (Ed.), Environment and cognition.
Seminar Press, 1-20.
Janis, I. L.
(1962). Psychological effects of warnings. In G. W. Baker,
& D. W. Chapman (Eds.), Man and society in disaster. New York: Basic Books.
a e
References l
Page Eight Janis, I.
L.,
& Mann, L.
(1977a). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: The Free Press.
Janis, I.
L.,
& Mann, L.
(1977).
Emergency decision-making: A theoretical analysis of responses to disaster warnings. Journal of Human Stress, 3, 35-48.
Johnson, J.
H.,
& Zeigler, D. H.
(November 1982). Further anal >31s and interpretation of the Shoreham Evacuation Jurvey Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan. Volume III.
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A.
(in press).
Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. Management Science.
Kaminoff, R.
D., & Proshansky, H. M.
Stress as a consequence at the urban built environment.
In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress. New York: Free Press /Macmillan; in press.
Kelley, H. H., Condroy, Jr., J. C., Dahlke, A. E., & Hill, A. H. (1965).
Collective behavior in a simulated panic situation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, l., 20-54.
Killian, L.
(1952). The significance of multiple group membership in disaster. American Journal of Sociology, 309-319.
Kreps, G. A.
(1980). Research needs and policy issues on mass media disaster reporting in Disaster and the Mass Media. National Academy of Sciences.
Kunreuthor, H.,
& Slovic, P.
(1978). Economics, psychology and protective behavior. American Economic Association, 68, 64-69.
- Langer, E.,
& Saegart, S.
(1977). Crowding and cognitive control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 175-182.
I
References
{
Page Nine I
Lazarus, R. S.
(1966).
Psychological stress and the coping process.
I i
New York: McGraw Hill.
I Lazarus, R.
S.,
& Cohen, J. B.
(1977).
Environmental stress.
In I.
l l
Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environmental l
{
advances in theory and research (Vol. 2). New York: Plenum Press.
\\
Lazarus, R.
S., Cohen, J.
B., Folkman, S., Kanner, A.,
& Schaefer, C.
]
(1980). Psychological stress and adaptation: Some unresolved issues.
I j
In H. Selye (Ed.), Selye's guide to stress research (Vol. I), pp 90-117.
Lazarus, R.
S.,
& Laurier, R.
(1978). Stress-related transactions between person and environment. In *. A. Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds.),
Perspectives in interactional psychology. New York: Plenum Press.
i
{
Leff, H.
L.,
& Gordon, L. R. (1979).
Environmental cognitive sets: A longitudinal study. Environment and Behavior, 7, 291-328.
Levi, L.
(1971). Society, stress and disease: The psychosocial environment and psychosomatic diseases (Vol.1). London: Oxford University Press.
]
Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischoff, B., Layman., & Combs, B.
(1978).
Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
i Human Learning and Memory, 4, 551-578.
I Louviere, J. J., & Norman, K. C.
(1977). Applications of information-processing theory to the analysis of urban travel demands. Environment and Behavior, 9.
Lynch, K.
(1960). Image of the city.
Lynch, K.
(1972). What time is this place.
1 4
l J
, ~,,,,.,,,,
,,,s..
,n.v
,,,,. +
c r,- -,,,.
i References Page Ten MacGrath, J.
(Ed.,
(1970). Social and psychological factors in stress.
+
i New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
5 l
Mandler, J., & Sararson, S. B. A.
(1952). A study in anxiety and I
learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 166-173.
l Milgram, S.
(1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to L
authority. Human Relations, 18, 57-76 Milgram, S.
(1970). The experience of living in cities. Science, 167, 1461-1468.
Milgram, S.
(1973). Psychological maps of Paris (with Denise Jidolet).
1 t
In Proshansky, Ittelson & Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental Psychology, i
Second Edition.
]
Miller, J. G.
(1964). A theoretical review of individual and group psychological reactions to stress.
In G. H. Grosser, H. Wechsler, &
j M. Greenblatt (Eds.), The threat of impending disaster: Contributions to the psychology of stress. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Miller, S. M.
(1981). Predictability and human stress: Toward a clarification of evidence and theory.
In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 14, 204-256. New York: Academic 4
Press.
1 Monat, A.
(1976). Temporal uncertainty, anticipation time, and cognitive coping under threat. Journal of Human Stress, 2, 32-43.
- Monat, A.,
Lazarus, R. S. (Eds.)
(1977). Stress and coping: fg1 anthology. New York: Columbia University Press.
nn,
l l
I References Page Eleven i
t
)
Moore, G. T.
(1974). Knowing about environmental knowing.
Environment and Behavior, 7, 33-70.
Moore, G.
T., And Golledge, R. G.
(Eds)
(1976).
Environmental knowing:
concepts and theories.
Environmental Knowing.
Powder Hutchinson, Ross.
i 3-24.
Neisser, U.
(1976). cognition and reality. San Francisco:
W. H. Freeman and Co.
Nelkin, D.
(1977). Technological decisions and democracy:
European experiments in public participation. Beverly Hills, California:
Sage Publications, i
Otway, H.
J.,
Mauner, D.
M., & Thomas, K.
(1978).
Nuclear power: The question of public acceptance. Futures, 10[, 109-118.
Perry, R. W.,
Lindell, M.
K.,
& Greene, M. R.
(February 1980). The implications of natural hazard evacuations warning studies for crisis relocation planning. Battelle Human Affairs Research Center; Seattle, Washington.
Perry, R. W.,
Lindell, M.
K., & Greene, M. R.
(1981). Evacuation planning in emergency management. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
Perry, R. W.,
Lindell, M.
K.,
& Greene, M. R.
(1982). Threat perceptions and public response to volcano hazard. The Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 199-204.
Peterson, R.
(April 1975). Air pollution and its behavioral effects.
Paper presented at Environmental Design and Research Association Conference. Lawrence, Kansas.
Preston, V., Taylor, S. M., & Hodge, S. C.
(1983). Adjustments to natural and technological hazards: A study of an urban residential community.
Environment and Behavior, 15, 143-164.
4
=.
i 4
References Page Twelve j
l Quarantelli, E.
L., & Dynes, R. R.
(1970). Organizational and group j
behavior in disasters. American Behavioral Scientist, 13[, 325-46.
Rapoport, A.
(1977). Human aspects of urban form. New York: Pergamon Press.
Rogevin, M., & Franpton, Jr., G. T.
(1980).
Three Mile Island: A report to the commissioners and to the public.
(Vol. II) Part 2 and Part 3.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Special Inquiry group.
Rule, B. G.,
& Nesdale, A. R.
(1976).
Emotional arousal and aggressive behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 851-863.
Sadalla, L.
K.,
& Staplin, L. J.
(1980). An information storage model for distance ccgnition. Environment & Behavior, 12[, 183-192 Saegert, S.
(1976). Stress-inducing and reducing qualities of environments.
In H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson & L. G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psychology: People and their physical settings.
(2nd Edition). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Saegert, S.
(1982). High density society and individual experiences:
Problems and resolutions. In Man and Space: Proceedings of the 4th biannual conference of the International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, Tokyo.
- Saegert, S., Mackintosh, E.,
& West, S.
(1975). Two studies of crowding in urban public spaces. Environment and Behavior, 7, 159-184.
Selye, H.
(1979). The stress concept and some of its implications. In Hamilton and Warburton (Eds.), Human stress and cognition. New York:
Wiley & Sons.
pp. 11-32.
Shalit, B.
(1977). Structural ambiguity and limits to copine. Journal of Human Stress, 3, 32-45.
i T
References Page Thirteen i
Shank, R. G.,
& Abelson, R. P.
(1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillside, N. J.:
LEA.
Sheehan, P. (Ed.)
(1977).
The function and nature of imagery. New York:
Academic Press. Chapters:
3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, and 14.
Shepard, R. M.
(1978).
The mental image. American Psychologist, 3 3,,
125-137.
Sherrod, D.
R., & Downs, R.
(1974). Environmental determinants of altruism: The effects of stimulus overload and perceived control on helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10[,468-479.
Sherrod, D.
R.,
Hage, J.
N., Halpern, P.
L.,
& Moore, B. S.
(1977).
Effects of personal causation and perceived control on responses to an 4
j adversive environment: The more control, the better. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 13[, 14-27.
Sims, J.
H., & Baumann, D. B.
(1983). Educational programs and human response to natural hazards. Environment and Behavior, 15[,165-189.
j Slovic, P.
(1983). Perception of risk / behavioral perspective. American 1
q Journal of Roentgenclogy, 140, 601-602.
- Slovic, P.,
Fischoff, Lichtenstein, S.
(1977). Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 28,, 11-39.
I
- Slovic, P., Kunreuther, H.,
& White, G. F.
(1974).
Decision processes, rationality, and adjustment to natural hazards.
In G. F. White (Ed.),
Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press.
f Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischoff, B.
(1979). Images of disaster:
1 Perception and acceptance of risks from nuclear power.
In G. T.
Goodman & W. D. Rowe (Eds.), Energy risk management. New York: Academic Press.
..g-e
+
e
-w-w, -i.
--a~-.
v
-t-.-.-
-m
-m-m
4
~
References Page Fourteen Sorensen, J. R.
(1983). Knowing how to behave under the threat of disaster:
Can it be explained? Environment and Behavior, 15, 438-457.
Social Data Analysts, Inc.
(November 1982). Attitudes towards evacuation:
Reaction of Long Island residents to a possible accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan. (Vol. 3)
Stahl, F.
(1979). Modeling emergency egress behavior during residential building fires. City University of New York Graduate Center. PhD.
dissertation.
- Stokols, D.,
& Novoco, d. W.
(1981). Transportation and well-being: An ecological perspective.
In I. Altman, J. F. Kohill, & P. B. Everett (Eds.), Transportation and behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Status report on public response to emergency planning efforts. Yankelovich, Skelley & White, Inc.
July 1983.
Thompson, S.
(1978).
Script theory: Differential magnification of affects.
In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 36, 201-236.
Thompson, S. C.
(1981). Will it hurt less if I control it more? A complex answer to a simple question.
Psychological Bulletin, 90,89-101.
Warburten, D. M.
(1979). Physiological aspects of information processing and stress.
In V. Hamilton and D. M. Warburton (Eds.), Human stress and cognition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
pp. 115-140.
- Warheit, G., & Dynes, R. R. (1961). The functioning of established organizations in community disasters. Disaster Research Center Report Series #1.
Ohio State University.
I
~
References Page Fifteen l
- Walker, P.,
Fraize, W.
E.,
Gordon, J.
J.,
& Johnson, R. C.
(April 1982).
Proceedings of the workshop on psychological stress associated with the proposed restart of Three Mile Island, unit one.
Sponsored by the office of Nuclear Regulatory Regulations, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
Uaxman, J. J.
(1973). Local broadcast gatekeeping during natural disaster. Journalism Quarterly, 50, 751-758.
Weinstein, b.
(1978). Cognitive processes and information seeking concerning an environmental health threat. Journal of Human Stress, 4, 32-42.
Wenger, D. E.
(1980). A few empirical observations concerning the relationship between the mass media and disaster knowledge. A research report. Disaster and tha mass media. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.
Wilson, C. E.
(1974). The effect of medium on loss of information.
Journalism Quarterly, 51, 111-115.
Withey, S. B.
(1964). Sequential accommodations to threat. In G. A.
Grosser, H. Uechsler & M. Greenblatt (Eds.), The threat of impending disaster: Contributions to one psychology of stress.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Zimring, C. M.
(1981). Stress and the designed environment. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 145-171.
Bristow,J., Kirwan, B.,
& Taylor, D. H.
Cognition and effect in measures of driving style.
Ergonomics, 1982, 25,, 935-940.
e y
References Page Sixteen Ford, B.
(March 1983). Disastrous warnings, Omni, 2_9, pp.44-152.
Naatanen, R., & Sumula, H.
(1974). A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers' decision-making. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 6_, 243-261.
Weldon, E.
(1971). Towards a theory of driving behavior. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 3_, 113-119.
.