IN TWO SURVEYS, 126 NEW YORK CITY APARTMENT DWELLERS WERE ASKED WHETHER THEY THOUGHT BURGLARY COULD BE PREVENTED, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY PREVENTION WAS, WHETHER THEY THEMSELVES TOOK PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES, AND WHETHER THEY HAD EVER BEEN BURGLARIZED. IN ADDITION, INTERVIEWERS OBSERVED WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS LOCKED THEIR DOORS. BOTH SURVEYS FOUND NO DIFFERENCE IN BURGLARY PREVENTION ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR BETWEEN RESPONDENTS WHO HAD BEEN BURGLARIZED AND THOSE WHO HAD NOT. THE MAJORITY OF RESPONDENTS FELT THAT BURGLARY COULD BE PREVENTED, BUT MOST FELT THAT PREVENTION WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS (LANDLORDS, BUILDING SUPERINTENDENTS) AND MANY DID NOT TAKE EVEN THE SIMPLEST PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES (USING ALL THE LOCKS ON THEIR DOORS). CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE FINDINGS SUGGEST THAT RESPONDENTS' FAILURE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES MAY BE THEIR WAY OF 'DISTANCING' THEMSELVES FROM NEGATIVE EVENTS. TAKING STEPS FOR PROTECTION MAY ITSELF MAKE THE EVENT SEEM MORE LIKELY. THE VERY PROCESS OF LOCKING THE DOOR MEANS THAT SOMEONE UNWANTED MAY TRY TO GET IN. SUCH AN INTERPRETATION IMPLIES THAT CRIME PREVENTION STRATEGIES USING SCARE TACTICS OR APPEALING TO PEOPLE'S SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY MAY NOT WORK. A BETTER APPROACH MAY BE TO FOCUS PEOPLE'S ATTENTION SIMPLY ON HOW EASY IT IS TO LOCK THEIR DOORS. SUPPORTING DATA AND A LIST OF REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (LKM)