Factors influencing stress response avoidance behaviors following technological disasters: A case study of the 2008 TVA coal ash spill

ABSTRACT

Building upon the growing body of empirical social science research examining psychosocial stress following natural, technological, and human-caused disasters, this article presents new research findings specifically regarding stress response avoidance behaviours. In this article, we present a conceptual model of factors contributing to such avoidance behaviours as measured by the Impact of Event Scale (IES) Avoidance subscale. We empirically test the model using data collected in the aftermath of the 2008 Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash spill in Roane County, Tennessee. Conceptually, the findings support some of what is known about how gender, age, socioeconomic status, event experience, risk perceptions, being a claimant, personal relationship disruption, and various types of resource loss influence psychosocial stress. In contrast to previous studies, however, our findings reveal that in the case of the TVA spill, community involvement is associated with higher levels of IES Avoidance behaviours. These findings have potential to inform community mental health needs following technological disasters. In particular, mental health professionals should be aware of the counter-intuitive findings related to community involvement and chronic stress response avoidance behaviours and seek ways to reconcile this issue.

KEYWORDS:

• TVA coal ash spill
• stress response
• avoidance behaviors
• impact of event scale
• technological disasters

Acknowledgements

This article was developed based on findings of a National Science Foundation project funded by the Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI) Division (grant #1000612, Liesel Ritchie, PI). The authors would like to thank Nnenia Campbell for her assistance with instrument design and data management. We also appreciate the insightful comments of the reviewers of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Additional social science research on technological disaster events, such as the Buffalo Creek flood in West Virginia (1972), mine fires in Centralia, Pennsylvania (1962-ongoing); toxic contamination in Legler, New Jersey (1971–80), the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska (1989), and the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill (2010) has also informed thinking about these matters. Based on the considerable body of literature on technological disasters, we also attempted in this study to measure beliefs about ‘recreancy’ (Freudenburg 2000) and the relationship between disasters and social capital (Aldrich, 2012; Aldrich & Meyer, 2015; Meyer, 2018; Ritchie, 2004, 2012). In prior studies on this and other events (Gill et al., 2014; Ritchie, Gill et al., 2018; Ritchie, Little et al., 2018), multivariate analyses revealed no significant results related either to beliefs about recreancy and stress as measured by the IES or the relationship between social capital and IES stress. We acknowledge that these may be measurement issues, while at the same time suggest that perhaps these concepts may be less relevant to post-technological disaster psychosocial outcomes than to outcomes in so-called ‘natural’ disaster settings.

2 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/roanecountytennessee.

3 Staff of the Human Dimensions Research Lab at the University of Tennessee managed the four waves of survey. The second wave followed within three weeks of the first. Research staff attempted to contact all members of the sample for whom telephone numbers were available, completing 2,152 telephone calls. Another 765 available telephone numbers were found to be disconnected, duplicate numbers, businesses or fax numbers, or bad numbers that rendered the calls incomplete. Those members of the sample for whom no telephone numbers were available, and those with whom we made no contact by telephone, were mailed a postcard reminding them of their recent receipt of the survey and encouraging response. For the third and fourth waves, surveys were mailed to all non-respondents on July 22 and August 15, 2011, respectively. The package included the survey, a postage-paid envelope, and the contact card for issuing the participation incentive. Individuals who completed the survey received $5.00 for their participation.

4 Measured by the full IES (the sum of Intrusive and Avoidance stress), not the IES Avoidance subscale employed in the current study.

Additional information

Funding

This article was developed based on findings of a National Science Foundation project funded by the Division of Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI) Division [grant number #1000612, Liesel Ritchie, PI].