The Fix-it face-to-face intervention increases multihazard household preparedness cross-culturally.

Vulnerability to natural disasters is increasing globally1-3. In parallel, the responsibility for natural hazard preparedness has shifted to communities and individuals4. It is therefore crucial that households increase their preparedness, yet adoption of household preparedness measures continues to be low, even in high-risk regions5-8. In addition, few hazard-preparedness interventions have been evaluated longitudinally using observational measures. Therefore, we conducted a controlled intervention with a 12-month follow-up on adults in communities in the United States and Turkey that focused on improving household earthquake and fire preparedness. We show that this Fix-it intervention, involving evidence-based, face-to-face workshops, increased multihazard preparedness in both cultures longitudinally. Compared to baseline, the primary outcome-overall preparedness-increased significantly in the intervention groups, with more improvement in earthquake preparedness in the Turkish participants and more improvements in fire preparedness in the US participants. High baseline outcome expectancy and home ownership predicted overall preparedness change in both intervention groups longitudinally, implying that a sense of agency influences preparedness. An unintended consequence of observation is that it may increase preparedness, as even the control groups changed their behaviour. Therefore, observation of home preparatory behaviours by an external source may be a way to extend multihazard preparedness across a population.

Cross-cultural consistency and relativity in the enjoyment of thinking versus doing.

Which is more enjoyable: trying to think enjoyable thoughts or doing everyday solitary activities? Wilson et al. (2014) found that American participants much preferred solitary everyday activities, such as reading or watching TV, to thinking for pleasure. To see whether this preference generalized outside of the United States, we replicated the study with 2,557 participants from 12 sites in 11 countries. The results were consistent in every country: Participants randomly assigned to do something reported significantly greater enjoyment than did participants randomly assigned to think for pleasure. Although we found systematic differences by country in how much participants enjoyed thinking for pleasure, we used a series of nested structural equation models to show that these differences were fully accounted for by country-level variation in 5 individual differences, 4 of which were positively correlated with thinking for pleasure (need for cognition, openness to experience, meditation experience, and initial positive affect) and 1 of which was negatively correlated (reported phone usage). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).