People are susceptible to various risks that can bring damage to their homes, the content of their homes, and even to themselves. Two frequently applied theories in academia have analyzed how people deal with risk and risk prevention: Protection Motivation Theory (PMT; Rogers, 1975) and the Health Belief Model (HBM; Rosenstock, 1966). The basic idea behind PMT and HBM is that the perceived likelihood of a risk and its perceived consequences create a motivation for self-protection, and a (perhaps implicit) cost-benefit analysis that results in taking action or not. The suggested determinants (vulnerability, severity, costs, effort, and effectiveness), have been extensively tested in various areas of prevention behavior research. We now test them in the area of domestic risk prevention.

Perhaps more importantly, in this paper we highlight an issue that has been neglected throughout the literature, as far as we can see. Suppose that one finds that, say, the perceived effectiveness of a behavior correlates with the probability that someone indeed performs this behavior as many researchers have found (Floyd et al., 2000; Janz & Becker, 1984; Milne, Sheeran, & Orbell, 2000). What does this mean? It could mean that persons who find this particular behavior more effective than other persons, perform the behavior more often (an effect “between-persons”). Or, it could mean that for a given person, prevention behaviors that are perceived as more effective than other behaviors are more likely to be performed (an effect “between-behaviors-within-persons”). Although these two implications are not the same, the literature on PMT and HBM does not make this distinction. Most studies do not clearly state which of these two interpretations is the one they imply, although the (mostly implicit) general argument that is being used is on the within-person level: if, say, the perceived effectiveness of a prevention behavior would become higher for a given person (and everything else remained equal) that person would be more likely to perform that behavior. However, although the general argument is on the within-person level, correlational studies perform analyses solely between-persons. The difference may sound subtle, but whether the effects are primarily within- or between-persons has important implications for initiatives directed at influencing prevention behavior. When effects are mainly between persons and hence depend on personal characteristics (a person’s general perception of the effectiveness of prevention behaviors, socio-demographics, etc.), it would make sense to direct general prevention initiatives at specific target groups. However, when effects are mainly between behaviors within persons, it would make more sense to try and influence specific behaviors for a general audience.

We use survey research (n=263) in which we ask our participants to evaluate several prevention behaviors and their characteristics. Our results show that all determinants influence domestic prevention behavior (as hypothesized). Given our design, we can separate the effects, and find that the bulk of the effects run within persons (between behaviors), not between persons. We discuss our findings and conclude with implications for policy makers and others interested in influencing people to increase their (domestic) risk prevention behavior.