Business Finance
Literature Review: Emergency Preparedness in Families

Question Description

It is continues work for:

The assignment:

This should be your 'proposal ready' review of the literature, defining why you think the study is important, and defending the choices, you have made (intend to make) in the design and analysis of your data.

A key component of a research proposal is a review of the literature. You need to establish what is known and what is unknown about your chosen topic. This review and citations of the literature related to your methods are required.

This personal search, reading, and analysis of the current literature are demonstrated through the literature review section of your final proposal.

You are to submit a publication-ready draft review of the literature section as an assignment. The assignment should generally be of adequate length to demonstrate your critical analysis and synthesis (conclusions) of a minimum of 10 references, with an additional attached page of the references. This should be written as a cohesive paper that integrates and discusses the relevant literature that you have collected and reviewed.

This component should be in APA style and be 'publication ready' at the time of submission. All scores applied per the rubric are considered final for this assignment.

I attached some examples.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Review of the Literature Introduction Our military and other government components such as the Department of Defense develop technology to keep United States citizens safe by improving on existing methods that identify and stop combatants. One method used to identify a suspect is by recovery DNA. When an improvised explosive device (IED) is detonated bomb fragments are recovered and examined in order to attempt to determine the identity of the bomb maker. Iris, facial, and vascular recognition are other biometrics tools used to identify our adversaries. Linking forensic functions with biometric capabilities is a relatively new form of technology and is discussed in the literature presented. Techniques According to a study by Chirchi, Waghmare, and Chirchi (2011), choosing the proper biometric tool to fit the specific situation requires knowledge of technological developments. One such development is the iris scan. Found to be a reliable form of authentication the military has evolved this form of biometric identification into a portable tool on the battlefield. The biometric automated toolset (BAT) is the primary system used by the U.S Central Command to store biometric data such as iris scans, (D’Agostino, 2008). The iris scan is a unique form of identification. In its genetic properties no two eyes are the same and furthermore the characteristic that is dependent on genetics is the pigmentation of the iris, (Chirchi, Waghmare, and Chirchi, 2011). Although not less reliable but a less developed form of biometric identification is facial recognition. It utilizes automated methods to verify the identity of a person based on physiological characteristics. Tolba, El-Baz, and ElHarby (2011) describe facial recognition as a way to detect facial patterns even in a crowded scene using classification algorithms. A computer algorithm “normalizes” the biometric signature so that it is in the same format as the signatures on the system’s database (Tolba, 2011). Facial recognition is seen as a convenient biometric tool due to being both machine-readable and human readable. The ubiquity of surveillance cameras means that, in a sense, a face can leave a trace and therefore be useful forensically, as are DNA and fingerprints, (DOD, 2007). Methods A significant tool in biometric identification is the use of DNA analysis, particular with recovering fingerprints. Esslinger, Siegel, Spillane, and Stallworth, (2004) research involved using short tandem repeat (SRT) analysis to detect human DNA from exploded pipe bomb devices. The effect on the DNA left on the components correlated with the material the pipe was made of (pvc vs. steel), the fragmentation pattern, and low vs. high explosives. One issue I noticed and it was briefly mentioned in the article, was with the reliability of the material the pipes were made. Steel is known to conduct heat better than PVC. The theory was since steel generates more heat during an explosion the chance for degradation of the DNA would increase. However since steel is more durable than PVC the percentage of larger fragments should increase. The more fragments, the more DNA could be collected. The data from the experiment showed the steel and PVC pipes had a similar success rate for DNA recover. Foran, Gehring, and Stallworth (2009) research included the recovery and analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from exploded pipe bombs. The importance and difference from STR analysis is that mtDNA analysis allows DNA that has been extracted from hair, fingernails, and bone to be examined when nuclear DNA cannot be recovered. Another significant difference is mtDNA sampling can be obtained from not only the subject but also related family members. The article discussed the materials and methods used in the test as well as the resulting bomb fragmentation and the correlation with the quality and quantity of DNA recovered. The results of the study showed the value of mtDNA analysis in identifying the manufactures of various detonated IEDs. Recovering fingerprints and other forms of DNA from various surface areas is not always textbook. Elements such as temperature, humidity, moisture, and material of surface area all affect the quality and ability to recover DNA. Shalhoub et al, (2008) researched a fast curing silicone-casting material (Isomark) as an effective method to obtain a reliable DNA profile from the casts of the fingerprints. Participants were asked to handle six different surfaces of various textures. This study was significant because various items are often used in IEDs that serve as projectiles. The Army field manual FM 3-34.119 (2005) describes various casings used such as pipes, soda cans, metal containers, all which turn into projectiles when detonated. Once recovered contents inside such as marbles, nails, rocks, and glass can all be examined for DNA. Through their research Shalhoub et al, (2008) concluded it was possible to recover DNA from Isomark casts made on all substrates tested. However, no link was noted between quality of finger marks obtained and the amount of DNA extracted from them, Shalhoub (2008). Summary Although the research discovered additional technology questions the research summaries concluded favorable results for recovering DNA from bomb components leading to identifying the bomb maker. Biometrics tools such as iris scanning, facial recognition, and fingerprinting are valuable components to identifying our adversaries and using that intelligence to mitigate against future attacks. References Chirchi, V., Waghmar, L.M., & Chirchi, E.R. (2011). Iris biometric recognition for person identification in security systems. International Journal of Computer Applications, 24(9). Retrieved August 25, 2011 from - India D’Agostino, D. 2008. Defense management: DoD can establish more guidance for biometrics. Retrieved October 2, 2011 from J&dq=biometric%20automated%20toolset&lr&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=biometric %20automated%20toolset&f=false Department of Defense. 2007. Report of the defense science board task force on defense biometrics. Retrieved October 2, 2011 from Department of Defense. (2009). Biometrics task force annual report FY09. Retrieved September 4, 2011 from Esslinger, K., Siegel, J., Spillane, H., & Stallworth, S. (2004). Using STR analysis to detect human DNA from exploded pipe bomb devices. Journal of Forensic Science, 49(3). Retrieved September 7, 2011 from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). n.d. Terrorist explosive device analytical center (TEDAC). Retrieved September 15, 2011 from Foran, D., Gehring, M., & Stallworth, S. (2009). The recovery and analysis of mitochondrial DNA from exploded pipe bombs. Journal of Forensic Science (54)1. Retrieved September 7, 2011 from %20bombs.pdf Makarski, R., Marrero, J. (2002). A surveillance society and the conflict state: leveraging ubiquitous surveillance and biometrics technology to improve homeland security. Retrieved September 4, 2011 from 1eb4&mt=application/pdf&url= e063aef897%26view%3Datt%26th%3D13237369b5641eb4%26attid%3D0.1.1%2 6disp%3Dsafe%26zw&sig=AHIEtbRZ-Doe_xeF9h01W26wPdCmqr6Wng National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). 2008. Biometrics in government in post 9-11. Retrieved September 4, 2011 from Shalhoub, R., Quinones, I., Ames, C., Multaney, B., Curtis, S., Seeboruth, H., . . .Daniel, B. (2008). The recovery of latent fingermarks and DNA using a silicone-based casting material. Forensic Science International 178. p 190-203. Retrieved September 23, 2011 from Tolba, A.S., El-Baz, A.H., & El-Harby, A.A. (2011). Face recognition: A literature review. International Journal of Signal Processing 2(2). Retrieved September 29, 2011 from ey. United States Army. n.d. Chapter 15. Unexploded ordnance and improvised explosive devices. FM. 3-21.75 Chapter 15. Retrieved September 18, 2011 from Running Head: RISK PERCEPTION 1 Literature Review for Risk Perception Seanan Donovan RISK PERCEPTION 2 Review of Literature Decision making is arguably the most important element of human cognition. Processes that aid in decision making occur so rapidly that people often fail to recognize them (Gilbert, 2006). Because the cognitive processes that aid intuitive risk assessment have generally served humanity well for so long, recognition and identification of said processes can seem purely academic. Gilbert (2011) argues that these cognitive processes were forged in a much different world than our current one and although moral heuristics often lead to accurate assessments, research suggests this may not always be the case. Several decades of research has contributed to our understanding of the decision process and helped reveal many situations in which heuristics fail us. Although a plethora of research has identified several decision fallacies, very little has been done to improve the efforts of Disaster Managers and public health experts regarding risk behavior. Pidgeon (1998) observed that a layperson’s risk assessments are influenced by the level of dread an event provokes and to a lesser extent, the level of professional disagreement. Kreuter and Stretcher (1995) found that individuals overestimate their ability to survive disasters and underestimate their peer’s survivability. Allowing policies to be formed based on visceral factors such as dread or optimistic biases have led to over-funding of projects for hazards that elicit fear and under-funding risk mitigation programs for controllable events that people feel they could safely avoid (Gilbert, 2011; Sjoberg, 1998). This study aims to implement lessons learned regarding the framing fallacy and other biases in order to test their efficacy in the field of disaster management. Using lessons drawn from the heuristics theory, this study attempts to eliminate all possible internal and external RISK PERCEPTION 3 influences in order to gain insight into the public’s risk mitigation needs. Challenges that Disaster Managers have faced in previous efforts to implement risk perception theories into their field arise from the complexity of findings. There appear to be many factors that influence decision making such as individual characteristics including age, gender, profession, economic status, and religious beliefs (Anderson & Lundborg, 2007; Archer, Burkle, & Smith, 2010). Characteristics of the event such as the distribution of risk (how many people affected in a single event), perceived possibility of avoidance, volunteerism (such as skydiving), and whether the event was caused by an agent (as in terrorism) or an object (such as an earthquake) all influence risk perception and thus behavior (Douglas & Widavsky, 1982; Gutscher & Siegrist, 2008; Kazan & Scott, 2008). Furthermore, experience appears to relegate a layperson’s poor judgment (Keller, Siegrist, & Wang, 2009). These factors and more influence the success of disaster communication and have thus far prevented Public Health professionals form implementing lessons learned risk perception research. This literature review will provide an overview of risk perception research followed by evidence supporting (a) gaps between professionals and laypeople in risk perception (b) dualprocess cognition that uses heuristics in order to simplify complex events (c) biases formed by heuristics and their negative consequences, and (d) how some of the biases can be used to guide the public and policy-makers during risk mitigation decisions. The Gap in Risk Perception There is much research demonstrating the difference in risk perception between laypeople and professionals (Archer, Burkle, & Smith, 2010; Sjoberg, 1998). Professionals tend RISK PERCEPTION 4 to base risk perception on probability and occurrence and number of fatalities the event accumulates in a year (Sjoberg, 1998). Conversely, laypeople rely on other factors such as dread and distribution of harm in order to determine their tolerable level of risk (Pidgeon, 1998). Many researchers believe that these extra variables should be factored into policy-making and government spending (Pidgeon, 1998). Decision-makers adopt a Utilitarian approach when forming policies in that they attempt to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people while maintaining an acceptable level of fairness. In a hypothetical situation where people are asked what the maximum number of innocent lives that they would be willing to risk in order to feel safe the answer I am willing to assume is zero. Therefore, factors such as dread or distribution of risk should not factor into decision making and the goal should always be to do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Instead of factoring in these external variables into policy-making, efforts should be made to navigate around the layperson’s intuitions. Since knowledge regarding a specific event appears to be the factor creating the gap between professionals and laypeople (being a professional in terrorism doesn’t diminish the risk perception gap in other disaster fields) efforts to educate the public should be included into policies (Slovic, 1987). Dual-Processing Cognition The dual-processing theory is part of a broader theory of heuristics (Sunstein, 2005). Heuristics states that humans create frames or schemata in order to simplify events and guide decision making (Sunstein, 2005). George Miller’s classic research regarding working memory was the impetus of Heuristics (Reyna, 2004). The thought behind this connection was that decision making involved many factors and occurs rapidly, yet Miller demonstrated that our working memory on average stores only seven items (Reyna, 2004). Heuristics was an elegant RISK PERCEPTION 5 theory but lacked practical applications since research demonstrated that reasoning was independent of remembering (Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982; Reyna, 2004). The dual-processing theory accounts for the reasoning-remembering independents while maintaining that heuristics make rapid and efficient decision making possible (Reyna, 2004). The theory suggests that humans have two types of memory recall methods (Reyna, 2004). Reyna (2004) calls this the fuzzy-trace system and labels the two types of memory as verbatim and gist. Verbatim involves conjuring up details of an event and is processed through working memory, as distracting memory tests have been shown to affect this type of recall (Sunstein, 2005). Gist memory types are fuzzier (hence fuzzy-trace theory) and involve emotional and moral based storage and are used to guide decision making (Reyna, 2004). When a person must solve a problem, they compare the problem facts to several gist representations involving the same or similar problem facts then chooses which principle is best based on the greatest number of ‘wins’ that gist produced in the past (Reyna, 2004). This is similar to how a chess master decides their next move. The last part of the process is important as it can lead to the availability fallacy discussed in the next section. It cannot be overstated that this process has evolved for a reason. Using heuristics to guide decision making allows for rapid and often accurate responses to complex problems. People learned that betrayal is bad and should elicit greater outrage than harm from a stranger; that people should never buy their way out of a crime; and that we should always aim to save lives or do everything we can to avoid loss (Slovic, 1987). The danger lays in how fast and natural this decision process works, escaping our notice and thus developing an illusion of accuracy (Gilbert, 2006). The system of comparing events with stored problem sets for example, RISK PERCEPTION 6 runs the risk of being influenced by framing. Saving 2 hundred lives out of 6 hundred involves the saving lives heuristic but loosing 4 hundred lives out of 6 hundred recalls the loss aversion heuristic (Sunstein, 2005). Although the two events just mentioned have the same risk, people are more likely to choose a policy that will save the 2 hundred lives over the policy that risks losing 4 hundred lives (Sunstein, 2005). Cognitive Biases Formed by Heuristics Our brains ability to create schemata in order to aid in rapid assessment and decision making has been a large factor in the success of humans. The previously mentioned example regarding the belief that one should not pay their way out of a crime will lead to more successful rather than unsuccessful decisions (Sunstein, 2005). When policy-makers suggested emission trading as a way to lower overall pollution, opponents protested due to this ‘paying for crime’ heuristic (Sunstein, 2005). There is no societal benefit in rape, murder, and abuse so no amount of trade would be worth its acceptance. With pollution however, economies thrive, technology produced and transportation is available for everyone. Although polluting above the available allotment maybe a crime, models that allow for trade-offs result in overall lower emission level, yet due to this heuristic, people in favor of saving the environment deny its enactment (Sunstein, 2005). There are also several known heuristics that are applicable to disaster management. Moral Framing There is a famous scenario that has been performed in various forms many times over the past several decades. The scenario involves some type of hazard (say an emerging infectious disease) that is guaranteed to kill 600 people (Sunstein, 2005). Subjects are given two treatment options and asked to choose one. Treatment A will save 200 lives while treatment B has a one RISK PERCEPTION 7 third probability that everyone will be saved but a two thirds probability that nobody will be saved (Sunstein, 2005). For the most part, people tended to play it safe and choose treatment A (Sunstein, 2005). After the subjects decided between treatments A or B two more treatments were offered. With treatment C 400 people will die and with treatment D there is a one third probability that nobody will die and a two thirds probability that 600 people will die (Sunstein, 2005). Despite treatment C and D being reworded versions of treatment A and B, people seemed to be more willing to risk everyone’s life and chose treatment D (Sunstein, 2005). Knowing that people will take higher risks avoiding loss than to gain rewards can have powerful implications while communicating plans in disaster planning. Optimistic Bias Another fallacy that leads people to inaccurately assess their level of risk is the optimistic bias. Kreuter and Strecher (1995) showed that people are more likely to underestimate their level of risk if they perceived the event to be avoidable. This is because humans on average believe that they are anything but average (which of course is statistically impossible) (Gilbert, 2006). The only thing unique about an individual is their personal perspective, which allows for rationalization through assessing both internal and external factors (Gilbert, 2006). This egocentrism also prevents people from considering other peoples internal factors and thus they overestimate their peer’s susceptibility to avoidable risks (Kreuter & Strecher, 1995). Understandin ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer


Literature Review: Emergency Preparedness in Families
Thesis Statement: Previous studies from adept researchers show there is a significant knowledge
gap concerning emergency preparedness in families and this portrays that drastic measure should
be taken to merge the gap.


Literature review on the knowledge gap about emergency preparedness


Limited understanding of disaster preparedness among children with disabilities


Increased vulnerabilities in children




Literature Review: Emergency Preparedness in Families
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name


Disasters come in many forms such as earthquakes, floods, drought, disease outbreaks,
and human-caused fires. Many households caught up in such catastrophes end up not knowing
what to do to enhance their safety. The people who suffer most are children both physically able
and those with special needs. There is a significant concern that parents together with their
children have little information on emergency preparedness and prevention. The illiteracy state
of emergency preparedness increases the vulnerability of children since it puts them at risk of
experiencing severe health issues, poverty, and life destruction. Previous studies from adept
researchers show there is a significant knowledge gap concerning emergency preparedness in
families and this portrays that drastic measure should be taken to merge the gap.
Literature review on the knowledge gap about emergency preparedness
Save the Children Federation (2016), confirms that American households lack adequate
information on disaster preparedness. The findings from the study conducted by the National
Center for Disaster Preparedness (NCDP) showed that out of 1046 homes, 65% of the families
did not possess a plan for handling emergencies. The findings also revealed that 41% of the felt
unconfident that their communities had proper emergency plans. Based on the study, the
researchers raised a concern that the level of unpreparedness in families was alarming thus
putting the lives of children and other family members at risk. Save the Children Federation
(2016), reports that the government has also failed in meeting the needs of children during
disasters. Therefore, this has made families less confident about the government’s level of

agneta (54371)

I was having a hard time with this subject, and this was a great help.

Similar Questions
Related Tags