Household Seismic Adjustments: The Influence of Inconvenience and Efficacy Perceptions

Household Seismic Adjustments: The Influence of Inconvenience and Efficacy Perceptions | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Household Seismic Adjustments: The Influence of Inconvenience and Efficacy Perceptions Nicole Anderson This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6131147/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Social psychological theory and empirical evidence suggest that peoples’ perceptions of household seismic adjustments, in addition to their perceptions of earthquakes themselves, should predict the likelihood that seismic adjustments are performed. However, little research has been done to address this issue. While past research has found peoples’ perceptions of the effectiveness of household adjustment to influence adjustment levels, peoples’ perceptions of inconvenience of household seismic adjustments – namely the cost, time, effort, required cooperation and required knowledge involved in making these adjustments – have been found to not influence seismic adjustment. However, this study did find that the higher the perceived inconvenience of an adjustment, the less likely people are to perform that adjustment. Findings suggest that hazard managers should stress the relative ease and convenience of seismic adjustments when talking about mitigation generally while emphasizing both efficacy and convenience when speaking about individual adjustments. These findings are applicable to other disasters. Natural hazard agency officials, managers, and app designers should seek to reduce cost, time, effort, required knowledge, and required cooperation dimensions of household adjustments for all natural hazards. Earth and environmental sciences/Natural hazards Social science/Social policy Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction [1] Millions and millions of US residents live in moderate or high-risk areas for earthquakes (USGS, 2015). Despite advances in technology allowing for greater communication of earthquake information (Kolathayar, 2019; Noprisson, 2021), many homeowners still do not have their residences adequately prepared (Rivera, 2020). Residential earthquake codes can vary and result in differing levels of quality of earthquake protection (Lewis, 2003; Vaughan and Turner, 2013). If an earthquake occurs in the 16 hours other than the eight hours people are typically at work (and this occurs less frequently in today's post-COVID work-from-home era), residents could be more adversely affected from these disasters than if they experienced the earthquake in a public building. Human lives and millions of dollars can be saved in the event of an earthquake if homeowners have previously engaged in minor, simple adjustments called seismic adjustments. Researchers have studied variables associated with homeowners' decisions to implement seismic adjustments. For example, peoples' risk perceptions have been found to be related to levels of adjustment, or how many earthquake adjustments people have carried out (Ao et al., 2021; Grover et al., 2022). Risk perception has been linked to another variable called risk personalization. Despite accurate perceptions of risk, if people fail to personalize the risk, adjustments may not be carried out (Arturo Luna-Ramírez et al., 2023; Johnston et al., 2022). If people believe they, as well as government emergency agencies and scientists, are personally responsible for preparing for earthquakes, they are more likely to adopt seismic adjustments (Ao et al., 2021; Han et al., 2021). There is also evidence that seismic adjustment adoption increases following a warning of an impending earthquake (Papadopouloset et al., 2023), mass media awareness programs (Amiresmaili et al., 2021), and information seeking behaviors such as attending an earthquake preparedness meeting (Ao et al., 2021). There is considerable evidence that seismic adjustment adoption is correlated with previous earthquake experience (Lindell, 2013; Shapira et al., 2018). Researchers are still assessing the complex relationships of fault proximity (MacPherson-Krutsky et al., 2023), adoption of past adjustments (Ao et al., 2021), and demographic variables (Lindell, 2013) to household seismic adjustment. Insufficient research has focused on homeowners’ perceptions of the adjustments themselves (Lindell, 2013; Lindell and Whitney, 1999; Pereira et al., 2024). One aspect that hasn’t been studied thoroughly is how difficult homeowners believe it is to complete different seismic adjustments. Homeowners’ perceptions of adjustment inconvenience may act as implementation barriers that inhibit them from making earthquake adjustments. These include such dimensions as: a) the monetary cost of the adjustment; b) the time requirements involved; c) the personal efficacy, or homeowners’ perceived self-knowledge and ability to carry out the adjustment; d) the physical implementation barriers that must be overcome before a given adjustment can be performed; and e) the amount of cooperation required from other people. Earthquake hazard research has focused on variables that may enhance adjustment activity but has largely neglected the idea that there are barriers that may inhibit earthquake preparedness activities. However, general theory in social psychology suggests that barriers will impede action and are thus important to peoples’ decisions of whether or not to engage in any given behavior. Social Psychological Theories and Empirical Studies Ross and Nisbett (1991) discuss three principles upon which social psychology rests. One principle is that individual psyches must be understood as systems in a state of tension (Lewin, 1951). Some forces acting on an individual are driving forces that encourage a response, while others are restraining forces that deter that response. Change in the psychological system can be accomplished in two very different ways. One can add or increase impelling forces and thereby increase the tension in the system as the relevant restraining forces increasingly make their opposing influence felt; or one can weaken or eliminate the restraining forces that impede the desired change, and in so doing decrease the tension in the system. This latter strategy involves decreasing the inconvenience associated with an action to increase that action. An example of this principle is found in a classic study by Leventhal et al. (1965), who manipulated specificity of instructions in trying to get students to get inoculations at a local clinic. The comparison group of subjects was told of the effectiveness of shots and that shots were available at the University Health Clinic. The program group of students was given the same information on the effectiveness of the inoculations, as well as written instructions of the Clinic location along with times inoculations were administered there. The students were also given a campus map with the University Health Building clearly circled, and they were requested to pick a time in their schedules when they could stop in and get the shots. The program group was significantly more likely to get shots than the control group. The specific instructions removed knowledge barriers of where and when inoculations were available, and saved time and effort students would have had to take to obtain these instructions. Disease-prevention actions, such as getting inoculations, may be similar to hazard adjustments in that most people know they should be protecting themselves from these risks, yet both preventative health behaviors and hazard adjustments have immediate costs and only long-term rewards (Gollwitzer and Oettingen, 1998). If those dispersing earthquake information were to decrease barriers in implementing earthquake adjustments, as those dispersing inoculation information decreased barriers in getting disease inoculations, similar improvements in compliance may be found. In summary, there is support from general social psychological theory and empirical evidence from other risk-related fields to suggest that removing barriers associated with household seismic adjustments may increase adjustment behaviors. However, most earthquake hazards research has addressed only the strategy of trying to increase the impelling forces that will motivate people to action. This is evident in the abundance of research on such variables as risk perceptions, social influences, and perceived protection responsibility. The implementation barriers or inconvenience characteristics of adjustments have not been adequately addressed in earthquake hazards research; therefore, interventions that seek to reduce inconvenience in facilitating earthquake preparedness have not been carried out. This is unfortunate, because according to Jackson and Mukerjee's survey of San Francisco residents (1974), the suboptimal level of household adjustments (such as upgrading the house structure, protecting the house from fire and looters, and buying earthquake insurance) reported by San Francisco residents couldn't be explained by a lack of knowledge of these adjustments, since residents reported they knew these adjustments existed. Some of these adjustments, such as structural changes, insurance, and evacuation were rated as "good" things to do by higher proportions of the respondents than had in fact adopted these adjustments. In fact, the residents spontaneously mentioned cost and implementation barriers as reasons for making decisions about hazard adjustment adoption. Despite the lack of thorough empirical research on these characteristics in the natural hazards’ literature, the role of the inconvenience dimensions of adjustments can be seen in theoretical models developed in natural hazards research. Much of the research on earthquake adjustment has been interpreted within the framework of the Protective Action Decision Model, or PADM (Lindell and Perry, 1992). Consistent with the Theory of Reasoned Action, or TRA (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1975), PADM hypothesizes that protective action intention is a function of one's attitude toward an action and normative influences to engage in an action (Figure 1). INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE PADM theorizes that evaluation of alternative actions (TRA's attitude toward a behavior) is motivated by perception of a hazard (TRA's attitude toward an object) as threatening to oneself. Therefore, because beliefs about a protective action are more proximal to the adjustment adoption decision than are beliefs about a hazard event, the former are expected to be more highly correlated with adjustment adoption decision than are the latter (Figure 2). INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE PADM is also compatible with Mulilis and Duval's (1995) PrE theory, a model that was originally adapted from Protection Motivation Theory (Rogers, 1975) to explain seismic adjustment. Despite the different constructs of these two theories, the five inconvenience characteristics are found in the PADM as common salient beliefs about protective action and in the PrE as components of self-efficacy. The importance of the five dimensions in earthquake preparedness is further underscored by empirical evidence that suggests that risk perceptions alone are insufficient to account for households' adoption of hazard adjustments. Weinstein and Nicholich (1993) have conducted methodological analyses showing that the correlations of risk perception with the adoption of hazard adjustments must inevitably tend toward zero as time goes on. As people engage in more and more adjustment activities, they will report lower adjustment scores over time as there are fewer and fewer behaviors left to accomplish. At later time periods, a small correlation may indicate the presence of barriers that keep people with high perceived risk from acting. Instead, their model predicts that the adoption of a hazard adjustment will be more strongly correlated with that adjustment's perceived effectiveness than with perceived risk from the hazard agent. The TRA (1975) posits that one's attitude toward an object (e.g., seismic hazard) is less predictive of behavior than one's attitude toward an act (seismic adjustment adoption) relevant to that object. Consistent with this reasoning, Lindell and Perry (1992) obtained ratings of three different protective actions for a chemical emergency: a) evacuation, b) sheltering in-place, and c) expedient respiratory protection. These researchers found obtained ratings could account for respondents' preferences among these actions. These three different lines of analysis all indicate that hazard adjustment adoption will be more strongly correlated with attitudes towards hazard adjustments than with attitudes towards the hazard itself. Simply put, whether or not I strap down a water heater to prepare for an earthquake may depend not so much on how I feel about earthquakes, but more on how I feel about strapping down a water heater. Therefore, perceptions of adjustments may be more important than variables regarding the hazard itself, such as risk perceptions, previous earthquake experience, and fault proximity in predicting seismic adjustment adoption. In addition, other variables linked to earthquake preparedness, namely demographic and personality characteristics, do not provide very useful information to those trying to increase levels of household hazard adjustment because peoples' demographics and personality characteristics are difficult to impossible to alter. From a practical perspective, focusing on peoples' perceptions of the adjustments themselves may prove the most useful in increasing household seismic adjustment. Research Questions Based on the review of this previous research and theory, three research questions were asked. Hypotheses were specified for some aspects of the research questions based on past findings, while other aspects were not hypothesized due to inconsistent past findings. Perceived Inconvenience and Perceived Efficacy and Adjustment Intentions (RQ1) RQ1a . Is there a correlation between the perceived inconvenience of adjustments, consisting of: a) cost, b) time, c) effort, d) required cooperation, and e) required knowledge, with intentions to engage in household seismic adjustment? It was hypothesized that the inconvenience perceptions towards adjustments would be inversely correlated with intentions to perform these adjustments. RQ1b . Is there a correlation between the perceived efficacy of adjustments, consisting of: a) effectiveness of protecting persons, b) effectiveness of protecting property, and c) the utility of the adjustment for purposes other than earthquake preparedness, with intentions to engage in household seismic adjustment? It was hypothesized that efficacy perceptions towards adjustment would be positively correlated with intentions to perform these adjustments. Perceived Inconvenience and Perceived Efficacy and Adjustment Behaviors (RQ2) RQ2a . Is there a correlation between perceived inconvenience and actual behaviors? It was hypothesized that there would be an inverse correlation between inconvenience and behaviors. RQ2b . Is there a correlation between perceived efficacy and actual behaviors? It was hypothesized that there would be a positive correlation between efficacy and behaviors. Perceived Inconvenience and Perceived Efficacy (RQ3) RQ3 . Are there correlations between inconvenience perceptions and efficacy perceptions of each individual adjustment? No hypotheses were formulated due to the lack of research in this area. Method Participants Two samples of convenience were recruited. First were a group of Salt Lake City, Utah homeowners ( n = 128); the second sample consisted of Brigham Young University undergraduate students in introductory psychology classes in Provo, Utah ( n = 110). Therefore, the entire sample consisted of n = 238 participants. Homeowners ( n = 128) consisted of n = 81 females (64.3%) and n = 45 males (35.7%). The sample was relatively older ( µ age = 50.4, s = 15.3). Most of the respondents were White/Caucasian (95.2%), with 1.6% Hispanic/Latino, .8% Asian, and 2.4% Native American/American Indian. This sample tended to be educated, with 30.2% reporting some college, 41.3% being college graduates, 23.8% had attended graduate school, and 4.7% had completed only high school. The sample was also considered affluent at the time (CPI Inflation Calculator, 2025), with 21.8% reporting incomes between $ 35,000 and $ 49,000, and 53.8% with incomes over $ 50,000. The majority in the sample were married (70.6%), with 18.3% single, 6.3% divorced, and 4.8% widowed. In the student sample ( n = 110), females comprised the majority (71.8%). This sample was much younger ( µ age = 19.8, s = 1.8). A slightly lower percentage than the homeowner sample were White/ Caucasian (89.1%), with the remaining students consisting of 3.6% Hispanic/Latino, 1.8% Asian, 2.7% Black/African American, and 1.8% Mixed race/ethnicity. Whether or not these students were homeowners was not assessed, it was assumed that the majority of these students were renters. Instrument The study used a revised version of an instrument used in a previous study by Lindell and Whitney ( 1999 ). With their permission, the list of 12 items was expanded upon with some revisions to a list of 25 items (Table 1). Potentially vague items from Lindell and Whitney’s ( 1999 ) survey such as ‘developing a household emergency plan’ were broken out into separate items (adjustments 9–12). Items that asked the respondent to rate two or more adjustments with one set of ratings were divided into separate items so that the respondent could rate each component separately (adjustments 6–8, 15–17). Due to a concern of a lack of variety of adjustments, new items not previously measured were included to result in a more comprehensive list of seismic adjustments. INSERT TABLE 1 HERE The 25 adjustments were rated by homeowners on three efficacy characteristics and five inconvenience characteristics. Response categories consisted of 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very great extent). Subjects also rated the 25 adjustments on the statement ‘this adjustment is something I am likely to do’ on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very great extent). Respondents were able to alternately check a ‘yes’ box in answer to the statement ‘I have done this adjustment’ if they had already performed the adjustment. Procedure Homeowner surveys were collected by the author. Students’ surveys were filled out immediately after class in return for extra credit. Informed consent was obtained before administering surveys. All analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics 10. Analysis and Results Some aspects of the hypotheses were confirmed; many new correlations were also found. Inconvenience and Efficacy Perceptions and Seismic Adjustment Intentions (RQ1) Participant responses to inconvenience and efficacy items were analyzed in a factor analysis with varimax rotation, which produced two factors that clearly represented the two constructs of efficacy and inconvenience. Reliability analyses were extremely high for items in the efficacy scale (Cronbach’s α = .98 [ n = 172]) and inconvenience scale (Cronbach’s α = .98 [ n = 158]). For the relationship between intentions to perform seismic adjustments and inconvenience and efficacy perceptions, scales were computed for both constructs, and these were correlated with intention ratings. Correlations were collapsed across all adjustment as averages. Multiple items for inconvenience and efficacy were averaged, and then averages were computed for each variable across each of the 25 individual seismic adjustments. The homeowner sample and student sample showed the same pattern of responses, with correlations being slightly stronger for the student sample. [2] RQ1a . A high correlation was found between inconvenience perceptions and intentions ( r = − .64, p = .001), demonstrating that the more inconvenient an adjustment is perceived to be, the less likely people are to intend to perform it. RQ1b . The correlation between efficacy perceptions and intentions was marginally significant ( r = .39, p = .057), indicating that the more efficacious on adjustment is perceived to be, the more likely people are to intend to perform it. Inconvenience and Efficacy Perceptions and Seismic Adjustment Behaviors (RQ2) Both efficacy and inconvenience perceptions were subjected to a point biserial correlation to look at their relationship to actual behavior. Participants had either performed each adjustment or they had not. A positive ‘yes’ answer was coded as a ‘1’ and a negative ‘no’ answer was coded as a ‘0’. RQ2a . Efficacy perceptions and behaviors were not significantly correlated ( r = .29, p = .16). RQ2b . There was a large inverse correlation between inconvenience perceptions and behaviors ( r = − .57, p = .003). Inconvenience and Efficacy Perceptions (RQ3) A correlation matrix was computed on the inconvenience perceptions with the efficacy perceptions for each of the 25 adjustments (Table 2). Many correlations were statistically significant. INSERT TABLE 2 HERE Discussion Previous research had found that efficacy perceptions, but not inconvenience perceptions, were correlated with homeowner seismic adjustment (Lindell and Whitney, 1999 ; Davis, 1989 ). In this study, both efficacy and inconvenience perceptions were significantly correlated with the implementation of these adjustments. When overall correlations were computed, inconvenience perceptions were significantly correlated with both adjustment intention and behavior, while efficacy perceptions were only marginally correlated with intention. However, when separate correlations were computed for each adjustment ( n = 25), efficacy perceptions had a more powerful relationship with behavior, and especially intentions, than inconvenience perceptions. Taken together, these findings indicate that people are more likely to do or intend to do seismic adjustments when they believe they are generally quick and easy. But when people are considering specific household adjustments, they pay more attention to the efficaciousness of that particular adjustment. Therefore, when hazard managers are trying to induce general earthquake adjustment compliance, they should stress the relative ease and convenience of seismic adjustments. However, if speaking about adjustments individually, the effectiveness of each adjustment should be emphasized. A statistical issue may explain why this study found inconvenience perceptions a predictor of seismic adjustments when previous research did not. Lindell and Perry (1999) did not correlate inconvenience and efficacy perception scores with intention scores at the individual adjustment level. Rather, they obtained individual correlations for each row of data, or participant. This method of calculating a correlation may wash out relationships between variables that actually exist (Cooksey and Cooksey, 2020 ). Since the calculations for the data obtained in the Davis ( 1989 ) study were performed in a post-hoc analysis, it is possible that Lindell and Whitney’s ( 1999 ) study actually contains similar results to this study. This would bridge the discrepancy between established theory (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1975 ) and findings of these few studies addressing the relationship between inconvenience perceptions and seismic adjustment adoption. Additionally, positive correlations were found between inconvenience perceptions and efficacy perceptions on 20 of the 25, or 80% of the individual adjustments. On a specific seismic adjustment level, homeowners may perceive most adjustments that are effective as necessarily being inconvenient. They may reason that anything that is really going to protect their homes effectively is going to require a lot of time, effort, and/or knowledge. However, this doesn’t mean that reducing inconvenience isn’t an effective strategy to increase household seismic adjustment. By providing specialized knowledge and instruction easily and conveniently, the driving forces impelling the desired change may not be lessened because the knowledge requirement is not reduced. Adjustments still require special expertise and therefore have a high level of perceived efficacy, but the restraining forces may be reduced by conveniently delivering homeowners this knowledge as much as is possible. Implications for Natural Hazard Mitigation Since this study was originally carried out 25 years ago, reducing Lewinian implementation barriers (1951) has been used as a strategy in applied settings other than natural hazards. These have included health care (Heath et al., 2020 ), business (Blumenauer, 2023 ), medicine (Colvin et al., 2013 ), and environmental sustainability (Kump, 2023 ). However, researchers continue to note the limited attention paid to Lewin’s restraining forces in comparison to compelling forces (Roh et al., 2021 ; Kohler et al., 2020 ; Paillé and Paillé, 2020 ; Lin et al., 2008 ). Global warming and overcrowding make natural hazards increasingly costly and deadly (Kelman, 2020 ; Abramovitz, 2001 ), and these hazards can be interconnected. Earthquakes can be followed by tsunamis, as has happened in Oceana (Apatu et al., 2013 ) or by mudslides, as has happened in the Caribbean (Andersson-Sköld et al., 2013 ). Residents in Mount Shasta, California are at risk for earthquakes, volcanos, and wildfires (Perry and Lindell, 2008 ). Findings from this study have relevance to natural disasters other than earthquakes. Standard adjustments of buying and maintaining a radio with spare batteries, first aid kit, fire extinguisher, four-day supply of food, and four-day supply of water are needed for all natural disasters (Grover et al., 2022 ; Nilson and Bonander, 2019). Additional items to include in today’s first aid kits include medicine, hygiene articles, and energy and communication devices (Kohler et al., 2020 ). While these first aid kits currently exist in many households, there is a noticeable shortage of emergency supplies in resident vehicles (Dirie et al., 2024 ). Smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and fire blankets can be lifesaving household equipment in the event of a fire. Practice drills for using a hand-held fire extinguisher and implementing a household escape plan are also effective fire mitigation strategies (Nilson and Bonander, 2019; Runyan et al., 1992 ). Fire blankets are now being developed for entire structures that have demonstrated evidence of effectiveness in preventing residential ignition. These blankets can block fire from entering vulnerable spots (e.g. gutters, eaves, vents) and reflect thermal radiation from adjacent burning houses to give homeowners more time to collect valuables and escape to safety (Takahashi, 2019 ). Toweled ice packs have been proven effective items that can easily and inexpensively be incorporated into existing first-aid kits for heat stroke caused by extreme heat events (Rogerson and Brearley, 2024 ). Despite extreme unpredictability, escape plans are needed in the event of floods, landslides, and mudslides (Lin et al., 2008 ). Adjustments tailored to homes include dry floodproofing, or installing external barriers preventing water from entering the structure; another is wet floodproofing, or moving equipment such as furnaces to higher floors while allowing flood water to enter the structure (Grover et al., 2022 ). These adjustments may not be widely known to at-risk homeowners. Caribbean residents were found to lack technical knowledge of mudslide household adjustment. Household retaining walls were built that address soil erosion and slope failures without addressing surface water infiltration, leading to rarely successful mitigation (Andersson-Sköld et al., 2013 ). Kelman ( 2020 ) found a lack of homeowner personal efficacy towards mitigating mudslide disasters in Papua New Guinea. Residents reported being aware that community reforestation through tree planting could provide some mitigation, yet still had not engaged in these efforts. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) radios are a national network of stations that broadcast continuous weather information directly from the nearest National Weather Service office to homeowners and provide information on hurricanes, tornados, and tsunamis. Yet few homeowners in these risk zones have purchased NOAA radios (Chaney et al., 2013 ). Installing cabinet latches and strapping down water heaters are useful adjustments for these disasters as well as earthquakes (Johnston et al., 2005). Technological advancements have facilitated timely communication of personalized information in natural disasters (Krichen et al., 2024), leading to increased risk personalization (Arturo Luna-Ramírez et al., 2023 ). Disaster apps have been developed that can be used to receive risk information regarding multiple natural disasters for one structure simultaneously (Damalas et al., 2018 ). Early emergency warning system apps are lessening response times (Zambrano et al., 2017 ). Cloud-based Internet of Things (IoT), smartphones, and social media can be used as interconnected networks to transmit minute-by-minute disaster information obtained from local sensors (Krichen et al., 2024). However, language barriers in these technologies still exist (Ezeonu et al., 2024 ), and internet reliability and user interface experience need to be improved (Dirie et al., 2024 ). Unfortunately, this technology has not been fully utilized to provide information that increases preparedness levels before disasters strike (Ezeonu et al., 2024 ). The potential for removal of Lewinian barriers has not been sufficiently communicated, implemented, and studied. The author therefore calls upon agency officials, hazard managers and app designers to find ways to reduce the cost, time, effort, required knowledge, and required cooperation dimensions of household adjustments for increasingly interrelated and dangerous natural hazards. Declarations "This study received IRB approval from the Institutional Review Board at Brigham Young University. For more information, see the original Masters Thesis at https://scholarsarchive/etd/5611/." Roma stated that if the study protocol under which the data presented in the preprint was collected received IRB approval, we only require a statement confirming this: "The author can state this in the declarations and include a link to the original thesis document that describes the ethical approval." Okay to proceed. Author Contribution Nicole E. Anderson, PhD carried out the study as a Master's Thesis in Social Psychology at Brigham Young University . Data Availability The author has included research data. References Abramovitz, J. (2001). Unnatural disasters . Worldwatch Institute. Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1975). A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological Bulletin, 82 (2), 261. Amiresmaili, M., Zolala, F., Nekoei-Moghadam, M., Salavatian, S., Chashmyazdan, M., Soltani, A., & Savabi, J. (2021). Role of social media in earthquake: A systematic review. Iranian Red Crescent Medicine Journal, 23 (5). Anderson, N. E. (2000). Seismic adjustments: The influence of inconvenience and efficacy perceptions, state of residence, and demographic factors. Brigham Young University. Andersson-Sköld, Y., Bergman, R., Johansson, M., Persson, E., & Nyberg, L. (2013). Landslide risk management - a brief overview and example from Sweden of current situation and climate change. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 3 , 44–61. Ao, Y., Zhang, H., Yang, L., Wang, Y., Martek, I., & Wang, G. (2021). Impacts of earthquake knowledge and risk perception on earthquake preparedness of rural residents. Natural Hazards, 107 (2), 1287–1310. Apatu, E. J., Gregg, C. E., Richards, K., Sorensen, B. V., & Wang, L. (2013). Factors affecting household adoption of an evacuation plan in American Samoa after the 2009 earthquake and tsunami. Hawai'i Journal of Medicine & Public Health, 72 (8), 267. Arturo Luna-Ramírez, W., Carlos García-Zepeda, J., & Ortiz-Hernández, G. (2023). SMRP: A MOBILE APPLICATION FOR EARTHQUAKE PERSONAL RISK ALARMS. IADIS International Journal on WWW/Internet, 21 (1). Blumenauer, A. (2023). Leadership Strategies Small Business Owners Might Consider to Reduce Workplace Bullying. University of the Southwest. Chaney, P. L., Weaver, G. S., Youngblood, S. A., & Pitts, K. (2013). Household preparedness for tornado hazards: The 2011 disaster in DeKalb County, Alabama. Weather, Climate, and Society, 5 (4), 345–358. Colvin, C.J., de Heer, J., Winterton, L., Mellenkamp, M. Glenton, C., Noyes, J. Lewin S., & Rashidian, A. (October 2013). A systematic review of qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of task-shifting in midwifery services. Midwifery, 29 (10), 121–1221. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2013.05.001 Cooksey, R. W., & Cooksey, R. W. (2020). Correlational Statistics for Characterizing Relationships. Illustrating Statistical Procedures: Finding Meaning in Quantitative Data, 141–239. CPI Inflation Calculator: $ 1 in 2000 is worth $ 1.83 today. https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2000?amount=1#:~:text=%241%20in%202000%20is%20 equivalent,cumulative%20price%20increase%20of%2083.28%25. Damalas, A., Mettas, C., Evagorou, E., Giannecchini, S., Iasio, C., Papadopoulos, M., … Hadjimitsis, D. (2018). Development and Implementation of a DECATASTROPHIZE platform and tool for the management of disasters or multiple hazards. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 31 , 589–601. Davis, M.S. (1989). Living along the fault line: An update on earthquake awareness and preparedness in Southern California. Urban Resources, 5 , 8–14. Dirie, A. N., Rahmat, S. R., & Tarmizi, N. A. A. (2024). Enhancing Disaster Preparedness: Evaluating Factors Influencing the Use of Proposed Mobile Disaster Management Application for Risk Reduction. In CONFERENCE ON ACCOUNTING AND BUSINESS (ICAB2024) (p. 201). Ezeonu, N. A., Hertelendy, A. J., Adu, M. K., Kung, J. Y., Itanyi, I. U., Dias, R. D. L., … Eboreime, E. (2024). Mobile Apps to Support Mental Health Response in Natural Disasters: Scoping Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26 . Gollwitzer, P.M. & Oettingen, G. (1998). The emergence and implementation of health goals. Psychology and Health, 13 , 687–715. Grover, H., Lindell, M. K., Brody, S. D., & Highfield, W. E. (2022). Correlates of flood hazard adjustment adoption in four coastal communities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 68 , 102728. Han, Z., Wang, L., & Cui, K. (2021). Trust in stakeholders and social support: Risk perception and preparedness by the Wenchuan earthquake survivors. Environmental Hazards, 20 (2), 132–145. Heath, M., Porter, T., & Dunnigan, K. (October 2020). Obstacles to continued use of personal health records. Behavior and Information Technology . doi: 10/1080/0144929X.2020.1829051 Johnston, K. A., Taylor, M., & Ryan, B. (2022). Engaging communities to prepare for natural hazards: a conceptual model. Natural Hazards, 112 (3), 2831–2851. Kelman, I. (2020). Disaster by choice: How our actions turn natural hazards into catastrophes . Oxford University Press. Khan, A., Gupta, S., & Gupta, S.K. (2020). Multi-hazard disaster studies: Monitoring, detection, recovery, and management, based on emerging technologies and optimal techniques. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 47 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idrr.2020.101642 Kohler, K., Hauri, A., Roth, F., & Scharte, B. (2020). Measuring individual disaster preparedness . ETH Zurich. Kolathayar, S., Karan Kumar, V., Rohith, V. R., Priyatham, K., Nikil, S., & Anupa, S. A. (2019). Development of mobile application to assess and enhance earthquake preparedness level of individuals and community in India. In Sustainable Design and Construction for Geomaterials and Geostructures: Proceedings of the 5th GeoChina International Conference 2018–Civil Infrastructures Confronting Severe Weathers and Climate Changes: From Failure to Sustainability, July 23–25, 2018 in HangZhou, China (pp. 197–216). Springer International Publishing. Krischen, M., Abdalzaher, M. S., Elwekeil, M. & Fouda, M. M. (2024). Managing natural disasters: An analysis of technological advancements, opportunities, and challenges. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 4 (1), 99–109. Kump, B. (2023). Lewin’s field theory as a lens for understanding incumbent actors’ agency in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 46 , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.11.008 Kunreuther, H., Ginsber, R., Miller, L., Sagi, P., Slovic, P., Porkan, B., & Katz, N. (1978). Disaster insurance protection: Public policy lessons . New York: Wiley Press. Leventhal, H. Singer, R. & Jones, S. (1965). Effects of fear and specificity of recommendation upon attitudes and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2 (1), 20. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science; selected theoretical papers, edited by Dorwin Cartwright . New York: Harper. Lewis, J. (2003). Housing construction in earthquake-prone places: Perspectives, priorities and projections for development. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 18 (2), 35–44. Lin, S., & Shaw, D. & Ho, M. C. (2008). Why are flood and landslide victims less willing to take mitigation measures than the public? Natural Hazards, 44 , 305–314. 10.1007/s11069-007-9136-z . Lindell, M. (2013). North American Cities at Risk: Household Responses to Environmental Hazards. In: Joffe, H., Rossetto, T., Adams, J. (eds) Cities at Risk. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, 33. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6184-1_7 Lindell, M. K. & Whitney, D. J. (1999). Correlates of household seismic hazard adjustment adoption. Risk Analysis, 20 (1), 13–26. Lindell, M. K. & Perry, R. W. (1992). Behavioral Foundation of Community Emergency Planning . Washington, DC: Hemisphere Press. MacPherson-Krutsky, C., Lindell, M. K., & Brand, D. B. (2023). Residents’ information seeking behavior and protective action for earthquake hazards in the Portland Oregon Metropolitan Area. Risk Analysis, 43 (2), 372–390. Mulilis, J-P. & Duval, T. S. (1995). Negative threat appeals and earthquake preparedness: A person-relative-to-event PrE model of coping with threat. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25 , 1319–1339. Nilson, F. & Bonander, C. (2020). Household fire protection practices in relation to socio-demographic characteristics: Evidence from a Swedish national survey. Fire Technology, 56 (3), 1077–1098. Paillé, P. & Paillé, P. (2020). Employees and pro-environmental behaviors: Obstacles, constraints, and barriers. Greening the Workplace: Theories, Methods, and Research , 91–112. Papadopoulos, A. N., Böse, M., Danciu, L., Clinton, J., & Wiemer, S. (2023). A framework to quantify the effectiveness of earthquake early warning in mitigating seismic risk. Earthquake Spectra, 39 (2), 938–961. Pereira, S. M., Mónico, L. D. S. M., & Rego, I. E. (2024). Household earthquake readiness: Conceptualization and measurement. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 110 , 104649. Perry, R. W. & Lindell, M. K. (2008). Volcanic risk perception and adjustment in a multi-hazard environment. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 172 (3–4), 170–178. Rivera, J. D. (2020). The likelihood of having a household emergency plan: Understanding factors in the US context. Natural Hazards, 104 (2), 1331–1343. Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. The Journal of Psychology, 91 (1), 93–114. Rogerson, S., & Brearley, M. (2024). Suspected exertional heat stroke: A case study of worker cooling in a hot and humid field environment. Work, 79 (4), 2103–2108. Roh, T., Lee, K., & Yang, J. Y. (2021). How do intellectual property rights and government support drive a firm's green innovation? The mediating role of open innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 317 , 128422. Ross, L. & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology . Boston: McGraw Hill. Runyan, C. W., Bangdiwala, S. I., Linzer, M. A., Sacks, J. J., & Butts, J. (1992). Risk factors for fatal residential fires. New England Journal of Medicine, 327 , 859–863. Shapira, S., Aharonson-Daniel, L., & Bar-Dayan, Y. (2018). Anticipated behavioral response patterns to an earthquake: The role of personal and household characteristics, risk perception, previous experience and preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 31 , 1–8. Takahashi, F. (2019). Whole-house fire blanket protection from wildland-urban interface fires. Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering, 5 , 60. US Geological Survey, 2015. Nearly Half of Americans Exposed to Potentially Damaging Earthquakes. htps://www.usgs.gov/news/featured-story/nearly-half-americans-exposed-potentially-damaging-earthquakes#:~ :text=By%20Communications%20and%20Publishing%20August,earthquake%20hazards%20and%20ground%20shaking.%E2%80%9Dt Vaughan, E. & Turner, J. (2013). The value and impact of building codes. Environmental and Energy Study Institute White Paper, 20 (1), 501–517. Zambrano, A. M., Calderón, X., Jaramillo, S., Zambrano, O. M., Esteve, M., & Palau, C. (2017). Community early warning systems. In Wireless Public Safety Networks 3 (pp. 39–66). Elsevier. Footnotes This study is extracted from a Master’s Thesis written by the study author (Anderson, 2000 ). The literature review and discussion have been updated to the present. The thesis was funded by the National Science Foundation, Grant #9730584, Employing Psychological Principles of Social Influence to Increase Household Seismic Hazard Adjustment Activity . Z -tests conducted for the difference between correlations for the homeowner and student sample revealed no statistically significant differences (inconvenience and intentions, z = 1.21, p = ns; efficacy and intentions z = .99, p = ns, inconvenience and behavior z = .32, p = ns, efficacy and behavior z = − .37, p = ns). Tables Tables 1 and 2 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SeismicAdjustmentPerceptionData.xls Tables.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6131147","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":425164297,"identity":"ae37f6c1-397b-4280-97e5-a010a2c97fff","order_by":0,"name":"Nicole Anderson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Brigham Young University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nicole","middleName":"","lastName":"Anderson","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-02-28 19:53:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6131147/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6131147/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":80790828,"identity":"e62480d0-c427-48bb-9174-22ac77a8bd02","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-17 06:40:46","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":26385,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTheory of Reasoned Action (TRA) Components\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. Adapted from Ajzen and Fishbein (1975)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6131147/v1/fd3cfd43c5c094e7608427ed.png"},{"id":80790827,"identity":"f34bb8b3-160d-4af7-afcc-809f9fd6b17b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-17 06:40:46","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":18864,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eProtective Action Decision Model (PADM) Components\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. Adapted from Lindell and Perry (1992)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6131147/v1/5dfca54862d1341b734a8649.png"},{"id":80790830,"identity":"bb668c87-a2c1-4952-90ff-112175973f76","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-17 06:40:51","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":704543,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6131147/v1/c73b47bf-b320-41cd-8c76-645b342b891f.pdf"},{"id":80788869,"identity":"221327ce-538f-46e2-9b95-4b0f3307ddce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-17 06:24:46","extension":"xls","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":21504,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SeismicAdjustmentPerceptionData.xls","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6131147/v1/a1cf11be0ab5ae24abf57081.xls"},{"id":80788956,"identity":"76f61918-8a4c-48f1-b3b3-19d48b92b0af","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-17 06:32:46","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":18711,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Tables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6131147/v1/c278a68d51b1fd6fe7b73e99.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Household Seismic Adjustments: The Influence of Inconvenience and Efficacy Perceptions","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003csup\u003e[1]\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cp\u003eMillions and millions of US residents live in moderate or high-risk areas for earthquakes (USGS, 2015). \u0026nbsp;Despite advances in technology allowing for greater communication of earthquake information (Kolathayar, 2019;\u0026nbsp;Noprisson, 2021), many homeowners still do not have their residences adequately prepared (Rivera, 2020). \u0026nbsp;Residential earthquake codes can vary and result in differing levels of quality of earthquake protection (Lewis, 2003; Vaughan and Turner, 2013). \u0026nbsp;If an earthquake occurs in the 16 hours other than the eight hours people are typically at work (and this occurs less frequently in today\u0026apos;s post-COVID work-from-home era), residents could be more adversely affected from these disasters than if they experienced the earthquake in a public building. \u0026nbsp;Human lives and millions of dollars can be saved in the event of an earthquake if homeowners have previously engaged in minor, simple adjustments called seismic adjustments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearchers have studied variables associated with homeowners\u0026apos; decisions to implement seismic adjustments. For example, peoples\u0026apos; risk perceptions have been found to be related to levels of adjustment, or how many earthquake adjustments people have carried out (Ao et al., 2021; Grover et al., 2022). \u0026nbsp;Risk perception has been linked to another variable called risk personalization. Despite accurate perceptions of risk, if people fail to personalize the risk, adjustments may not be carried out (Arturo Luna-Ram\u0026iacute;rez et al., 2023; Johnston et al., 2022). \u0026nbsp;If people believe they, as well as government emergency agencies and scientists, are personally responsible for preparing for earthquakes, they are more likely to adopt seismic adjustments (Ao et al., 2021; Han et al., 2021). \u0026nbsp;There is also evidence that seismic adjustment adoption increases following a warning of an impending earthquake (Papadopouloset et al., 2023), mass media awareness programs (Amiresmaili et al., 2021), and information seeking behaviors such as attending an earthquake preparedness meeting (Ao et al.,\u0026nbsp;2021). \u0026nbsp;There is considerable evidence that seismic adjustment adoption is correlated with previous earthquake experience (Lindell, 2013; Shapira et al.,\u0026nbsp;2018). \u0026nbsp;Researchers are still assessing the complex relationships of fault proximity (MacPherson-Krutsky et al., 2023), adoption of past adjustments (Ao et al., 2021), and demographic variables (Lindell, 2013) to household seismic adjustment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInsufficient research has focused on homeowners\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the adjustments themselves (Lindell, 2013;\u0026nbsp;Lindell and Whitney, 1999; Pereira et al., 2024). \u0026nbsp;One aspect that hasn\u0026rsquo;t been studied thoroughly is how difficult homeowners believe it is to complete different seismic adjustments. \u0026nbsp;Homeowners\u0026rsquo; perceptions of adjustment inconvenience may act as implementation barriers that inhibit them from making earthquake adjustments. \u0026nbsp;These include such dimensions as: a) the monetary cost of the adjustment; b) the time requirements involved; c) the personal efficacy, or homeowners\u0026rsquo; perceived self-knowledge and ability to carry out the adjustment; d) the physical implementation barriers that must be overcome before a given adjustment can be performed; and e) the amount of cooperation required from other people. \u0026nbsp; Earthquake hazard research has focused on variables that may enhance adjustment activity but has largely neglected the idea that there are barriers that may inhibit earthquake preparedness activities. \u0026nbsp;However, general theory in social psychology suggests that barriers will impede action and are thus important to peoples\u0026rsquo; decisions of whether or not to engage in any given behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Psychological Theories and Empirical Studies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoss and Nisbett (1991) discuss three principles upon which social psychology rests. \u0026nbsp;One principle is that individual psyches must be understood as systems in a state of tension (Lewin, 1951). \u0026nbsp;Some forces acting on an individual are driving forces that encourage a response, while others are restraining forces that deter that response. \u0026nbsp;Change in the psychological system can be accomplished in two very different ways. \u0026nbsp;One can add or increase impelling forces and thereby increase the tension in the system as the relevant restraining forces increasingly make their opposing influence felt; or one can weaken or eliminate the restraining forces that impede the desired change, and in so doing decrease the tension in the system. \u0026nbsp;This latter strategy involves decreasing the inconvenience associated with an action to increase that action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn example of this principle is found in a classic study by Leventhal et al. (1965), who manipulated specificity of instructions in trying to get students to get inoculations at a local clinic. The comparison group of subjects was told of the effectiveness of shots and that shots were available at the University Health Clinic. The program group of students was given the same information on the effectiveness of the inoculations, as well as written instructions of the Clinic location along with times inoculations were administered there. \u0026nbsp;The students were also given a campus map with the University Health Building clearly circled, and they were requested to pick a time in their schedules when they could stop in and get the shots. The program group was significantly more likely to get shots than the control group. The specific instructions removed knowledge barriers of where and when inoculations were available, and saved time and effort students would have had to take to obtain these instructions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDisease-prevention actions, such as getting inoculations, may be similar to hazard adjustments in that most people know they should be protecting themselves from these risks, yet both preventative health behaviors and hazard adjustments have immediate costs and only long-term rewards (Gollwitzer and Oettingen, 1998). If those dispersing earthquake information were to decrease barriers in implementing earthquake adjustments, as those dispersing inoculation information decreased barriers in getting disease inoculations, similar improvements in compliance may be found. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, there is support from general social psychological theory and empirical evidence from other risk-related fields to suggest that removing barriers associated with household seismic adjustments may increase adjustment behaviors. \u0026nbsp;However, most earthquake hazards research has addressed only the strategy of trying to increase the impelling forces that will motivate people to action. \u0026nbsp;This is evident in the abundance of research on such variables as risk perceptions, social influences, and perceived protection responsibility. The implementation barriers or inconvenience characteristics of adjustments have not been adequately addressed in earthquake hazards research; therefore, interventions that seek to reduce inconvenience in facilitating earthquake preparedness have not been carried out. \u0026nbsp;This is unfortunate, because according to Jackson and Mukerjee\u0026apos;s survey of San Francisco residents (1974), the suboptimal level of household adjustments (such as upgrading the house structure, protecting the house from fire and looters, and buying earthquake insurance) reported by San Francisco residents couldn\u0026apos;t be explained by a lack of knowledge of these adjustments, since residents reported they knew these adjustments existed. Some of these adjustments, such as structural changes, insurance, and evacuation were rated as \u0026quot;good\u0026quot; things to do by higher proportions of the respondents than had in fact adopted these adjustments. In fact, the residents spontaneously mentioned cost and implementation barriers as reasons for making decisions about hazard adjustment adoption. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the lack of thorough empirical research on these characteristics in the natural hazards\u0026rsquo; literature, the role of the inconvenience dimensions of adjustments can be seen in theoretical models developed in natural hazards research. Much of the research on earthquake adjustment has been interpreted within the framework of the Protective Action Decision Model, or PADM (Lindell and Perry, 1992). Consistent with the Theory of Reasoned Action, or TRA (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1975), PADM hypothesizes that protective action intention is a function of one\u0026apos;s attitude toward an action and normative influences to engage in an action (Figure 1).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eINSERT FIGURE 1 HERE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePADM theorizes that evaluation of alternative actions (TRA\u0026apos;s attitude toward a behavior) is motivated by perception of a hazard (TRA\u0026apos;s attitude toward an object) as threatening to oneself. Therefore, because beliefs about a protective action are more proximal to the adjustment adoption decision than are beliefs about a hazard event, the former are expected to be more highly correlated with adjustment adoption decision than are the latter (Figure 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eINSERT FIGURE 2 HERE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePADM is also compatible with Mulilis and Duval\u0026apos;s (1995) PrE theory, a model that was originally adapted from Protection Motivation Theory (Rogers, 1975) to explain seismic adjustment. Despite the different constructs of these two theories, the five inconvenience characteristics are found in the PADM as common salient beliefs about protective action and in the PrE as components of self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe importance of the five dimensions in earthquake preparedness is further underscored by empirical evidence that suggests that risk perceptions alone are insufficient to account for households\u0026apos; adoption of hazard adjustments. Weinstein and Nicholich (1993) have conducted methodological analyses showing that the correlations of risk perception with the adoption of hazard adjustments must inevitably tend toward zero as time goes on. As people engage in more and more adjustment activities, they will report lower adjustment scores over time as there are fewer and fewer behaviors left to accomplish. At later time periods, a small correlation may indicate the presence of barriers that keep people with high perceived risk from acting. Instead, their model predicts that the adoption of a hazard adjustment will be more strongly correlated with that adjustment\u0026apos;s perceived effectiveness than with perceived risk from the hazard agent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe TRA (1975) posits that one\u0026apos;s attitude toward an object (e.g., seismic hazard) is less predictive of behavior than one\u0026apos;s attitude toward an act (seismic adjustment adoption) relevant to that object. \u0026nbsp;Consistent with this reasoning, Lindell and Perry (1992) obtained ratings of three different protective actions for a chemical emergency: a) evacuation, b) sheltering in-place, and c) expedient respiratory protection. \u0026nbsp;These researchers found obtained ratings could account for respondents\u0026apos; preferences among these actions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese three different lines of analysis all indicate that hazard adjustment adoption will be more strongly correlated with attitudes towards hazard adjustments than with attitudes towards the hazard itself. \u0026nbsp;Simply put, whether or not I strap down a water heater to prepare for an earthquake may depend not so much on how I feel about earthquakes, but more on how I feel about strapping down a water heater. \u0026nbsp; Therefore, perceptions of adjustments may be more important than variables regarding the hazard itself, such as risk perceptions, previous earthquake experience, and fault proximity in predicting seismic adjustment adoption. In addition, other variables linked to earthquake preparedness, namely demographic and personality characteristics, do not provide very useful information to those trying to increase levels of household hazard adjustment because peoples\u0026apos; demographics and personality characteristics are difficult to impossible to alter. From a practical perspective, focusing on peoples\u0026apos; perceptions of the adjustments themselves may prove the most useful in increasing household seismic adjustment.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Questions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the review of this previous research and theory, three research questions were asked. \u0026nbsp;Hypotheses were specified for some aspects of the research questions based on past findings, while other aspects were not hypothesized due to inconsistent past findings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerceived Inconvenience and Perceived Efficacy and Adjustment Intentions (RQ1)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRQ1a\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. \u0026nbsp;Is there a correlation between the perceived inconvenience of adjustments, consisting of: a) cost, b) time, c) effort, d) required cooperation, and e) required knowledge, with intentions to engage in household seismic adjustment? \u0026nbsp;It was hypothesized that the inconvenience perceptions towards adjustments would be inversely correlated with intentions to perform these adjustments. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRQ1b\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. \u0026nbsp;Is there a correlation between the perceived efficacy of adjustments, consisting of: a) effectiveness of protecting persons, b) effectiveness of protecting property, and c) the utility of the adjustment for purposes other than earthquake preparedness, with intentions to engage in household seismic adjustment? \u0026nbsp;It was hypothesized that efficacy perceptions towards adjustment would be positively correlated with intentions to perform these adjustments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerceived Inconvenience and Perceived Efficacy and Adjustment Behaviors (RQ2)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRQ2a\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. \u0026nbsp;Is there a correlation between perceived inconvenience and actual behaviors? \u0026nbsp;It was hypothesized that there would be an inverse correlation between inconvenience and behaviors.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRQ2b\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Is there a correlation between perceived efficacy and actual behaviors? \u0026nbsp;It was hypothesized that there would be a positive correlation between efficacy and behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerceived Inconvenience and Perceived Efficacy (RQ3)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRQ3\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. \u0026nbsp;Are there correlations between inconvenience perceptions and efficacy perceptions of each individual adjustment? \u0026nbsp;No hypotheses were formulated due to the lack of research in this area.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo samples of convenience were recruited. First were a group of Salt Lake City, Utah homeowners (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;128); the second sample consisted of Brigham Young University undergraduate students in introductory psychology classes in Provo, Utah (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;110). Therefore, the entire sample consisted of \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;238 participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHomeowners (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;128) consisted of \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;81 females (64.3%) and \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;45 males (35.7%). The sample was relatively older (\u003cem\u003e\u0026micro;\u003c/em\u003e age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;50.4, \u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.3). Most of the respondents were White/Caucasian (95.2%), with 1.6% Hispanic/Latino, .8% Asian, and 2.4% Native American/American Indian. This sample tended to be educated, with 30.2% reporting some college, 41.3% being college graduates, 23.8% had attended graduate school, and 4.7% had completed only high school. The sample was also considered affluent at the time (CPI Inflation Calculator, 2025), with 21.8% reporting incomes between \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e35,000 and \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e49,000, and 53.8% with incomes over \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e50,000. The majority in the sample were married (70.6%), with 18.3% single, 6.3% divorced, and 4.8% widowed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the student sample (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;110), females comprised the majority (71.8%). This sample was much younger (\u003cem\u003e\u0026micro;\u003c/em\u003e age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;19.8, \u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.8). A slightly lower percentage than the homeowner sample were White/ Caucasian (89.1%), with the remaining students consisting of 3.6% Hispanic/Latino, 1.8% Asian, 2.7% Black/African American, and 1.8% Mixed race/ethnicity. Whether or not these students were homeowners was not assessed, it was assumed that the majority of these students were renters.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInstrument\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study used a revised version of an instrument used in a previous study by Lindell and Whitney (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). With their permission, the list of 12 items was expanded upon with some revisions to a list of 25 items (Table\u0026nbsp;1). Potentially vague items from Lindell and Whitney\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) survey such as \u0026lsquo;developing a household emergency plan\u0026rsquo; were broken out into separate items (adjustments 9\u0026ndash;12). Items that asked the respondent to rate two or more adjustments with one set of ratings were divided into separate items so that the respondent could rate each component separately (adjustments 6\u0026ndash;8, 15\u0026ndash;17). Due to a concern of a lack of variety of adjustments, new items not previously measured were included to result in a more comprehensive list of seismic adjustments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eINSERT TABLE 1 HERE\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe 25 adjustments were rated by homeowners on three efficacy characteristics and five inconvenience characteristics. Response categories consisted of 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very great extent). Subjects also rated the 25 adjustments on the statement \u0026lsquo;this adjustment is something I am likely to do\u0026rsquo; on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very great extent). Respondents were able to alternately check a \u0026lsquo;yes\u0026rsquo; box in answer to the statement \u0026lsquo;I have done this adjustment\u0026rsquo; if they had already performed the adjustment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHomeowner surveys were collected by the author. Students\u0026rsquo; surveys were filled out immediately after class in return for extra credit. Informed consent was obtained before administering surveys. All analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics 10.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Analysis and Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome aspects of the hypotheses were confirmed; many new correlations were also found.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInconvenience and Efficacy Perceptions and Seismic Adjustment Intentions (RQ1)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipant responses to inconvenience and efficacy items were analyzed in a factor analysis with varimax rotation, which produced two factors that clearly represented the two constructs of efficacy and inconvenience. Reliability analyses were extremely high for items in the efficacy scale (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.98 [\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;172]) and inconvenience scale (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.98 [\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;158]).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the relationship between intentions to perform seismic adjustments and inconvenience and efficacy perceptions, scales were computed for both constructs, and these were correlated with intention ratings. Correlations were collapsed across all adjustment as averages. Multiple items for inconvenience and efficacy were averaged, and then averages were computed for each variable across each of the 25 individual seismic adjustments. The homeowner sample and student sample showed the same pattern of responses, with correlations being slightly stronger for the student sample.\u003ca class=\"FNLink\" href=\"#Fn2\" id=\"#FNLinkFn2\"\u003e[2]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRQ1a\u003c/b\u003e. A high correlation was found between inconvenience perceptions and intentions (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.64, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.001), demonstrating that the more inconvenient an adjustment is perceived to be, the less likely people are to intend to perform it.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRQ1b\u003c/b\u003e. The correlation between efficacy perceptions and intentions was marginally significant (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.39, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.057), indicating that the more efficacious on adjustment is perceived to be, the more likely people are to intend to perform it.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInconvenience and Efficacy Perceptions and Seismic Adjustment Behaviors (RQ2)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoth efficacy and inconvenience perceptions were subjected to a point biserial correlation to look at their relationship to actual behavior. Participants had either performed each adjustment or they had not. A positive \u0026lsquo;yes\u0026rsquo; answer was coded as a \u0026lsquo;1\u0026rsquo; and a negative \u0026lsquo;no\u0026rsquo; answer was coded as a \u0026lsquo;0\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRQ2a\u003c/b\u003e. Efficacy perceptions and behaviors were not significantly correlated (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.29, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.16).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRQ2b\u003c/b\u003e. There was a large inverse correlation between inconvenience perceptions and behaviors (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.57, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInconvenience and Efficacy Perceptions (RQ3)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA correlation matrix was computed on the inconvenience perceptions with the efficacy perceptions for each of the 25 adjustments (Table\u0026nbsp;2). Many correlations were statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eINSERT TABLE 2 HERE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003ePrevious research had found that efficacy perceptions, but not inconvenience perceptions, were correlated with homeowner seismic adjustment (Lindell and Whitney, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Davis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, both efficacy and inconvenience perceptions were significantly correlated with the implementation of these adjustments. When overall correlations were computed, inconvenience perceptions were significantly correlated with both adjustment intention and behavior, while efficacy perceptions were only marginally correlated with intention. However, when separate correlations were computed for each adjustment (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;25), efficacy perceptions had a more powerful relationship with behavior, and especially intentions, than inconvenience perceptions. Taken together, these findings indicate that people are more likely to do or intend to do seismic adjustments when they believe they are generally quick and easy. But when people are considering specific household adjustments, they pay more attention to the efficaciousness of that particular adjustment. Therefore, when hazard managers are trying to induce general earthquake adjustment compliance, they should stress the relative ease and convenience of seismic adjustments. However, if speaking about adjustments individually, the effectiveness of each adjustment should be emphasized.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA statistical issue may explain why this study found inconvenience perceptions a predictor of seismic adjustments when previous research did not. Lindell and Perry (1999) did not correlate inconvenience and efficacy perception scores with intention scores at the individual adjustment level. Rather, they obtained individual correlations for each row of data, or participant. This method of calculating a correlation may wash out relationships between variables that actually exist (Cooksey and Cooksey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Since the calculations for the data obtained in the Davis (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) study were performed in a post-hoc analysis, it is possible that Lindell and Whitney\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) study actually contains similar results to this study. This would bridge the discrepancy between established theory (Ajzen and Fishbein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1975\u003c/span\u003e) and findings of these few studies addressing the relationship between inconvenience perceptions and seismic adjustment adoption.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, positive correlations were found between inconvenience perceptions and efficacy perceptions on 20 of the 25, or 80% of the individual adjustments. On a specific seismic adjustment level, homeowners may perceive most adjustments that are effective as necessarily being inconvenient. They may reason that anything that is really going to protect their homes effectively is going to require a lot of time, effort, and/or knowledge. However, this doesn\u0026rsquo;t mean that reducing inconvenience isn\u0026rsquo;t an effective strategy to increase household seismic adjustment. By providing specialized knowledge and instruction easily and conveniently, the driving forces impelling the desired change may not be lessened because the knowledge requirement is not reduced. Adjustments still require special expertise and therefore have a high level of perceived efficacy, but the restraining forces may be reduced by conveniently delivering homeowners this knowledge as much as is possible.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications for Natural Hazard Mitigation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSince this study was originally carried out 25 years ago, reducing Lewinian implementation barriers (1951) has been used as a strategy in applied settings other than natural hazards. These have included health care (Heath et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), business (Blumenauer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), medicine (Colvin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), and environmental sustainability (Kump, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). However, researchers continue to note the limited attention paid to Lewin\u0026rsquo;s restraining forces in comparison to compelling forces (Roh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Kohler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Paill\u0026eacute; and Paill\u0026eacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Lin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobal warming and overcrowding make natural hazards increasingly costly and deadly (Kelman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Abramovitz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e), and these hazards can be interconnected. Earthquakes can be followed by tsunamis, as has happened in Oceana (Apatu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) or by mudslides, as has happened in the Caribbean (Andersson-Sk\u0026ouml;ld et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Residents in Mount Shasta, California are at risk for earthquakes, volcanos, and wildfires (Perry and Lindell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings from this study have relevance to natural disasters other than earthquakes. Standard adjustments of buying and maintaining a radio with spare batteries, first aid kit, fire extinguisher, four-day supply of food, and four-day supply of water are needed for all natural disasters (Grover et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Nilson and Bonander, 2019). Additional items to include in today\u0026rsquo;s first aid kits include medicine, hygiene articles, and energy and communication devices (Kohler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). While these first aid kits currently exist in many households, there is a noticeable shortage of emergency supplies in resident vehicles (Dirie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSmoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and fire blankets can be lifesaving household equipment in the event of a fire. Practice drills for using a hand-held fire extinguisher and implementing a household escape plan are also effective fire mitigation strategies (Nilson and Bonander, 2019; Runyan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e). Fire blankets are now being developed for entire structures that have demonstrated evidence of effectiveness in preventing residential ignition. These blankets can block fire from entering vulnerable spots (e.g. gutters, eaves, vents) and reflect thermal radiation from adjacent burning houses to give homeowners more time to collect valuables and escape to safety (Takahashi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Toweled ice packs have been proven effective items that can easily and inexpensively be incorporated into existing first-aid kits for heat stroke caused by extreme heat events (Rogerson and Brearley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite extreme unpredictability, escape plans are needed in the event of floods, landslides, and mudslides (Lin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Adjustments tailored to homes include dry floodproofing, or installing external barriers preventing water from entering the structure; another is wet floodproofing, or moving equipment such as furnaces to higher floors while allowing flood water to enter the structure (Grover et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). These adjustments may not be widely known to at-risk homeowners. Caribbean residents were found to lack technical knowledge of mudslide household adjustment. Household retaining walls were built that address soil erosion and slope failures without addressing surface water infiltration, leading to rarely successful mitigation (Andersson-Sk\u0026ouml;ld et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Kelman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) found a lack of homeowner personal efficacy towards mitigating mudslide disasters in Papua New Guinea. Residents reported being aware that community reforestation through tree planting could provide some mitigation, yet still had not engaged in these efforts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) radios are a national network of stations that broadcast continuous weather information directly from the nearest National Weather Service office to homeowners and provide information on hurricanes, tornados, and tsunamis. Yet few homeowners in these risk zones have purchased NOAA radios (Chaney et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Installing cabinet latches and strapping down water heaters are useful adjustments for these disasters as well as earthquakes (Johnston et al., 2005).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnological advancements have facilitated timely communication of personalized information in natural disasters (Krichen et al., 2024), leading to increased risk personalization (Arturo Luna-Ram\u0026iacute;rez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Disaster apps have been developed that can be used to receive risk information regarding multiple natural disasters for one structure simultaneously (Damalas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Early emergency warning system apps are lessening response times (Zambrano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Cloud-based Internet of Things (IoT), smartphones, and social media can be used as interconnected networks to transmit minute-by-minute disaster information obtained from local sensors (Krichen et al., 2024). However, language barriers in these technologies still exist (Ezeonu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), and internet reliability and user interface experience need to be improved (Dirie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnfortunately, this technology has not been fully utilized to provide information that increases preparedness levels before disasters strike (Ezeonu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The potential for removal of Lewinian barriers has not been sufficiently communicated, implemented, and studied. The author therefore calls upon agency officials, hazard managers and app designers to find ways to reduce the cost, time, effort, required knowledge, and required cooperation dimensions of household adjustments for increasingly interrelated and dangerous natural hazards.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\"This study received IRB approval from the Institutional Review Board at Brigham Young University. For more information, see the original Masters Thesis at https://scholarsarchive/etd/5611/.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRoma stated that if the study protocol under which the data presented in the preprint was collected received IRB approval, we only require a statement confirming this: \"The author can state this in the declarations and include a link to the original thesis document that describes the ethical approval.\" Okay to proceed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNicole E. Anderson, PhD carried out the study as a Master's Thesis in Social Psychology at Brigham Young University .\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe author has included research data.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbramovitz, J. (2001). \u003cem\u003eUnnatural disasters\u003c/em\u003e. Worldwatch Institute.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAjzen, I. \u0026amp; Fishbein, M. (1975). A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological Bulletin, \u003cem\u003e82\u003c/em\u003e(2), 261.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmiresmaili, M., Zolala, F., Nekoei-Moghadam, M., Salavatian, S., Chashmyazdan, M., Soltani, A., \u0026amp; Savabi, J. (2021). Role of social media in earthquake: A systematic review. Iranian Red Crescent Medicine Journal, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(5).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnderson, N. E. (2000). Seismic adjustments: The influence of inconvenience and efficacy perceptions, state of residence, and demographic factors. Brigham Young University.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndersson-Sk\u0026ouml;ld, Y., Bergman, R., Johansson, M., Persson, E., \u0026amp; Nyberg, L. (2013). Landslide risk management - a brief overview and example from Sweden of current situation and climate change. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e, 44\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAo, Y., Zhang, H., Yang, L., Wang, Y., Martek, I., \u0026amp; Wang, G. (2021). Impacts of earthquake knowledge and risk perception on earthquake preparedness of rural residents. Natural Hazards, \u003cem\u003e107\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1287\u0026ndash;1310.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eApatu, E. J., Gregg, C. E., Richards, K., Sorensen, B. V., \u0026amp; Wang, L. (2013). Factors affecting household adoption of an evacuation plan in American Samoa after the 2009 earthquake and tsunami. Hawai'i Journal of Medicine \u0026amp; Public Health, \u003cem\u003e72\u003c/em\u003e(8), 267.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArturo Luna-Ram\u0026iacute;rez, W., Carlos Garc\u0026iacute;a-Zepeda, J., \u0026amp; Ortiz-Hern\u0026aacute;ndez, G. (2023). SMRP: A MOBILE APPLICATION FOR EARTHQUAKE PERSONAL RISK ALARMS. IADIS International Journal on WWW/Internet, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlumenauer, A. (2023). Leadership Strategies Small Business Owners Might Consider to Reduce Workplace Bullying. University of the Southwest.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChaney, P. L., Weaver, G. S., Youngblood, S. A., \u0026amp; Pitts, K. (2013). Household preparedness for tornado hazards: The 2011 disaster in DeKalb County, Alabama. Weather, Climate, and Society, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(4), 345\u0026ndash;358.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColvin, C.J., de Heer, J., Winterton, L., Mellenkamp, M. Glenton, C., Noyes, J. Lewin S., \u0026amp; Rashidian, A. (October 2013). A systematic review of qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of task-shifting in midwifery services. Midwifery, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(10), 121\u0026ndash;1221. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.midw.2013.05.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.midw.2013.05.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCooksey, R. W., \u0026amp; Cooksey, R. W. (2020). Correlational Statistics for Characterizing Relationships. Illustrating Statistical Procedures: Finding Meaning in Quantitative Data, 141\u0026ndash;239.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCPI Inflation Calculator: \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e1 in 2000 is worth \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e1.83 today. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2000?amount=1#:~:text=%241%20in%202000%20is%20\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan address=\"https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2000?amount=1#:~:text=%241%20in%202000%20is%20\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003eequivalent,cumulative%20price%20increase%20of%2083.28%25.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDamalas, A., Mettas, C., Evagorou, E., Giannecchini, S., Iasio, C., Papadopoulos, M., \u0026hellip; Hadjimitsis, D. (2018). Development and Implementation of a DECATASTROPHIZE platform and tool for the management of disasters or multiple hazards. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e, 589\u0026ndash;601.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavis, M.S. (1989). Living along the fault line: An update on earthquake awareness and preparedness in Southern California. Urban Resources, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e, 8\u0026ndash;14.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDirie, A. N., Rahmat, S. R., \u0026amp; Tarmizi, N. A. A. (2024). Enhancing Disaster Preparedness: Evaluating Factors Influencing the Use of Proposed Mobile Disaster Management Application for Risk Reduction. In \u003cem\u003eCONFERENCE ON ACCOUNTING AND BUSINESS (ICAB2024)\u003c/em\u003e (p. 201).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEzeonu, N. A., Hertelendy, A. J., Adu, M. K., Kung, J. Y., Itanyi, I. U., Dias, R. D. L., \u0026hellip; Eboreime, E. (2024). Mobile Apps to Support Mental Health Response in Natural Disasters: Scoping Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGollwitzer, P.M. \u0026amp; Oettingen, G. (1998). The emergence and implementation of health goals. Psychology and Health, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e, 687\u0026ndash;715.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrover, H., Lindell, M. K., Brody, S. D., \u0026amp; Highfield, W. E. (2022). Correlates of flood hazard adjustment adoption in four coastal communities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, \u003cem\u003e68\u003c/em\u003e, 102728.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHan, Z., Wang, L., \u0026amp; Cui, K. (2021). Trust in stakeholders and social support: Risk perception and preparedness by the Wenchuan earthquake survivors. Environmental Hazards, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(2), 132\u0026ndash;145.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeath, M., Porter, T., \u0026amp; Dunnigan, K. (October 2020). Obstacles to continued use of personal health records. \u003cem\u003eBehavior and Information Technology\u003c/em\u003e. doi: 10/1080/0144929X.2020.1829051\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohnston, K. A., Taylor, M., \u0026amp; Ryan, B. (2022). Engaging communities to prepare for natural hazards: a conceptual model. Natural Hazards, \u003cem\u003e112\u003c/em\u003e(3), 2831\u0026ndash;2851.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKelman, I. (2020). \u003cem\u003eDisaster by choice: How our actions turn natural hazards into catastrophes\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhan, A., Gupta, S., \u0026amp; Gupta, S.K. (2020). Multi-hazard disaster studies: Monitoring, detection, recovery, and management, based on emerging technologies and optimal techniques. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.idrr.2020.101642\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.idrr.2020.101642\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKohler, K., Hauri, A., Roth, F., \u0026amp; Scharte, B. (2020). \u003cem\u003eMeasuring individual disaster preparedness\u003c/em\u003e. ETH Zurich.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKolathayar, S., Karan Kumar, V., Rohith, V. R., Priyatham, K., Nikil, S., \u0026amp; Anupa, S. A. (2019). Development of mobile application to assess and enhance earthquake preparedness level of individuals and community in India. In \u003cem\u003eSustainable Design and Construction for Geomaterials and Geostructures: Proceedings of the 5th GeoChina International Conference 2018\u0026ndash;Civil Infrastructures Confronting Severe Weathers and Climate Changes: From Failure to Sustainability, July 23\u0026ndash;25, 2018 in HangZhou, China\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 197\u0026ndash;216). Springer International Publishing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKrischen, M., Abdalzaher, M. S., Elwekeil, M. \u0026amp; Fouda, M. M. (2024). Managing natural disasters: An analysis of technological advancements, opportunities, and challenges. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 99\u0026ndash;109.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKump, B. (2023). Lewin\u0026rsquo;s field theory as a lens for understanding incumbent actors\u0026rsquo; agency in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.11.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eist.2022.11.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKunreuther, H., Ginsber, R., Miller, L., Sagi, P., Slovic, P., Porkan, B., \u0026amp; Katz, N. (1978). \u003cem\u003eDisaster insurance protection: Public policy lessons\u003c/em\u003e. New York: Wiley Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeventhal, H. Singer, R. \u0026amp; Jones, S. (1965). Effects of fear and specificity of recommendation upon attitudes and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLewin, K. (1951). \u003cem\u003eField theory in social science; selected theoretical papers, edited by Dorwin Cartwright\u003c/em\u003e. New York: Harper.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLewis, J. (2003). Housing construction in earthquake-prone places: Perspectives, priorities and projections for development. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(2), 35\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLin, S., \u0026amp; Shaw, D. \u0026amp; Ho, M. C. (2008). Why are flood and landslide victims less willing to take mitigation measures than the public? Natural Hazards, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e, 305\u0026ndash;314. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s11069-007-9136-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11069-007-9136-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLindell, M. (2013). North American Cities at Risk: Household Responses to Environmental Hazards. In: Joffe, H., Rossetto, T., Adams, J. (eds) Cities at Risk. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, 33. Springer, Dordrecht. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6184-1_7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-94-007-6184-1_7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLindell, M. K. \u0026amp; Whitney, D. J. (1999). Correlates of household seismic hazard adjustment adoption. Risk Analysis, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1), 13\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLindell, M. K. \u0026amp; Perry, R. W. (1992). \u003cem\u003eBehavioral Foundation of Community Emergency Planning\u003c/em\u003e. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacPherson-Krutsky, C., Lindell, M. K., \u0026amp; Brand, D. B. (2023). Residents\u0026rsquo; information seeking behavior and protective action for earthquake hazards in the Portland Oregon Metropolitan Area. Risk Analysis, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(2), 372\u0026ndash;390.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMulilis, J-P. \u0026amp; Duval, T. S. (1995). Negative threat appeals and earthquake preparedness: A person-relative-to-event PrE model of coping with threat. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e, 1319\u0026ndash;1339.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNilson, F. \u0026amp; Bonander, C. (2020). Household fire protection practices in relation to socio-demographic characteristics: Evidence from a Swedish national survey. Fire Technology, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1077\u0026ndash;1098.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePaill\u0026eacute;, P. \u0026amp; Paill\u0026eacute;, P. (2020). Employees and pro-environmental behaviors: Obstacles, constraints, and barriers. \u003cem\u003eGreening the Workplace: Theories, Methods, and Research\u003c/em\u003e, 91\u0026ndash;112.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePapadopoulos, A. N., B\u0026ouml;se, M., Danciu, L., Clinton, J., \u0026amp; Wiemer, S. (2023). A framework to quantify the effectiveness of earthquake early warning in mitigating seismic risk. Earthquake Spectra, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(2), 938\u0026ndash;961.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePereira, S. M., M\u0026oacute;nico, L. D. S. M., \u0026amp; Rego, I. E. (2024). Household earthquake readiness: Conceptualization and measurement. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, \u003cem\u003e110\u003c/em\u003e, 104649.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePerry, R. W. \u0026amp; Lindell, M. K. (2008). Volcanic risk perception and adjustment in a multi-hazard environment. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, \u003cem\u003e172\u003c/em\u003e(3\u0026ndash;4), 170\u0026ndash;178.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRivera, J. D. (2020). The likelihood of having a household emergency plan: Understanding factors in the US context. Natural Hazards, \u003cem\u003e104\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1331\u0026ndash;1343.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. The Journal of Psychology, \u003cem\u003e91\u003c/em\u003e(1), 93\u0026ndash;114.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRogerson, S., \u0026amp; Brearley, M. (2024). Suspected exertional heat stroke: A case study of worker cooling in a hot and humid field environment. Work, \u003cem\u003e79\u003c/em\u003e(4), 2103\u0026ndash;2108.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoh, T., Lee, K., \u0026amp; Yang, J. Y. (2021). How do intellectual property rights and government support drive a firm's green innovation? The mediating role of open innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, \u003cem\u003e317\u003c/em\u003e, 128422.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoss, L. \u0026amp; Nisbett, R. E. (1991). \u003cem\u003eThe person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology\u003c/em\u003e. Boston: McGraw Hill.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRunyan, C. W., Bangdiwala, S. I., Linzer, M. A., Sacks, J. J., \u0026amp; Butts, J. (1992). Risk factors for fatal residential fires. New England Journal of Medicine, \u003cem\u003e327\u003c/em\u003e, 859\u0026ndash;863.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShapira, S., Aharonson-Daniel, L., \u0026amp; Bar-Dayan, Y. (2018). Anticipated behavioral response patterns to an earthquake: The role of personal and household characteristics, risk perception, previous experience and preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTakahashi, F. (2019). Whole-house fire blanket protection from wildland-urban interface fires. Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e, 60.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUS Geological Survey, 2015. Nearly Half of Americans Exposed to Potentially Damaging Earthquakes. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehtps://www.usgs.gov/news/featured-story/nearly-half-americans-exposed-potentially-damaging-earthquakes#:~\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://htps://www.usgs.gov/news/featured-story/nearly-half-americans-exposed-potentially-damaging-earthquakes#:~\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e:text=By%20Communications%20and%20Publishing%20August,earthquake%20hazards%20and%20ground%20shaking.%E2%80%9Dt\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVaughan, E. \u0026amp; Turner, J. (2013). The value and impact of building codes. Environmental and Energy Study Institute White Paper, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1), 501\u0026ndash;517.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZambrano, A. M., Calder\u0026oacute;n, X., Jaramillo, S., Zambrano, O. M., Esteve, M., \u0026amp; Palau, C. (2017). Community early warning systems. In \u003cem\u003eWireless Public Safety Networks 3\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 39\u0026ndash;66). Elsevier.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e This study is extracted from a Master\u0026rsquo;s Thesis written by the study author (Anderson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). The literature review and discussion have been updated to the present. The thesis was funded by the National Science Foundation, Grant #9730584, \u003cem\u003eEmploying Psychological Principles of Social Influence to Increase Household Seismic Hazard Adjustment Activity\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e-tests conducted for the difference between correlations for the homeowner and student sample revealed no statistically significant differences (inconvenience and intentions, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.21, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;ns; efficacy and intentions \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.99, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;ns, inconvenience and behavior \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;ns, efficacy and behavior \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.37, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;ns).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 1 and 2 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6131147/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6131147/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eSocial psychological theory and empirical evidence suggest that peoples\u0026rsquo; perceptions of household seismic adjustments, in addition to their perceptions of earthquakes themselves, should predict the likelihood that seismic adjustments are performed. However, little research has been done to address this issue. While past research has found peoples\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the effectiveness of household adjustment to influence adjustment levels, peoples\u0026rsquo; perceptions of inconvenience of household seismic adjustments \u0026ndash; namely the cost, time, effort, required cooperation and required knowledge involved in making these adjustments \u0026ndash; have been found to not influence seismic adjustment. However, this study did find that the higher the perceived inconvenience of an adjustment, the less likely people are to perform that adjustment. Findings suggest that hazard managers should stress the relative ease and convenience of seismic adjustments when talking about mitigation generally while emphasizing both efficacy and convenience when speaking about individual adjustments. These findings are applicable to other disasters. Natural hazard agency officials, managers, and app designers should seek to reduce cost, time, effort, required knowledge, and required cooperation dimensions of household adjustments for all natural hazards.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Household Seismic Adjustments: The Influence of Inconvenience and Efficacy Perceptions","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-17 06:24:41","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6131147/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"145d9617-8a7e-416f-9b4f-43baa7539993","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 17th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":45314593,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Natural hazards"},{"id":45314594,"name":"Social science/Social policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-04-17T06:24:42+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-17 06:24:41","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6131147","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6131147","identity":"rs-6131147","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}