Interventions that are designed to keep individuals safe could have unintentional negative consequences. Some individuals tend to be more willing to risk their lives in a society that is more influenced by safety.
For instance, specific vehicle drivers are more prone to risk when strapped in a lap belt with a shoulder. A few construction workers walk further away from the edges of their roofs because they’re tied to a rope for fall protection. Parents of children tend to be less cautious using medication containers they consider “childproof” and thus difficult to open.
Methods designed to minimize the risk of injury can lead to an illusion of security and the risk of unintentional injuries and reckless behavior.
In our roles as engineers in the field of civil engineering experts along with applied behavioral researchers As applied behavioral scientists and civil engineers, we are keen on ways to increase the safety of workers in the workplace. Our ongoing research indicates employers should be more than merely providing protection devices for injuries and enforcing safety guidelines and procedures that they must follow. The slogans on the job sites, like “safety is our priority,” do not suffice. Employers should be aware of the essential human element that can undermine their injuries-prevention benefits and implement strategies to help overcome the safety dilemma.
What are the reasons that precautions can increase dangers?
A well-established psychological phenomenon referred to as risk compensation or risk homeostasis is the reason for this paradox of safety. An intervention designed to prevent or minimize injury from an accident reduces the risk perception. The perception of risk increases the individual’s risk-taking behavior, especially when the risk is accompanied by an advantage, like ease of use, comfort, or getting an assignment done more quickly.
Like thermostats with a predetermined temperature and turn on whenever the temperature is off normal, people keep the desired degree of risk by altering their behavior. They can balance risks with perceived advantages.
For example, drivers may take advantage of safety measures such as shoulder and lap belts for vehicles or a steering column that absorbs energy or an airbag by driving more quickly, sacrificing personal safety for time saved. The increased risk of a collision at high speeds not only impacts the driver but also exposes pedestrians, other vehicles, and cyclists to greater risk. The risk compensation of an individual could affect the risk of injury from safety rules and protective devices and regulations for the general population.
In our study, we looked into the issue of risk compensation among construction workers through an immersive mixed-virtual world that recreated a roofing job. Participants were required to place asphalt shingles onto an actual 27-degree sloped roof in the virtual world that gave the impression of being 20 feet above the ground. We also monitored the participant’s physical and mental reactions as they worked on roofing tasks while wearing the three layers.
In a mixed-virtual environment, roofers were performing jobs typical of their employment. Jesus M. de la Garza, CC BY-ND
As expected, additional safety intervention created an illusion of a feeling of security among participants. Installing guardrails on the roof’s edge and providing an emergency fall-arrest system to the roofer gave absolute security and, in the right way, increased a sense of security. This caused participants to step towards the edges of their virtual roofing, leaning on the edge and in danger of falling. The participants took on more risky behaviors by up to 55 percent. The study proved that safety devices incentivize workers to take on more risk.
One theory that emerges in our studies is that informing people about this risk compensation phenomenon may lower the risk of being affected. Further studies are required to determine if this is the case.
The way you perceive your choice can be crucial.
One of the most important aspects to consider is whether their decision about taking preventive measures is theirs.
In a study, we conducted with a colleague, pizza delivery drivers generally showed safer driving when they decided to enhance certain safer driving habits. For example, drivers at one location were involved in setting a goal to stop entirely at intersections 80 percent of the time. In contrast, at another, management assigned drivers an 80% complete stopping goal of 80% complete stopping. Drivers in both groups achieved the objective. However, there was a ripple effect for those who chose to self-select the destination: They increased the utilization of turn signals and lap-and-shoulder belts.
Instead of interacting, masks provide a layer of security; the people seemed to expand their safety stance by avoiding social interaction. SDI Productions/E+ via Getty Images
A study that was conducted early in the course of COVID-19 found a similar spread or response generalization impact. The people who wore a face mask outside in areas where wearing a mask was not mandatory also kept the distance between themselves and people who didn’t wear masks.
As in the case of delivery drivers, a safe behavior sprang into another safer behavior – the opposite of risk compensation – because people perceived individual choice. We believe that perceived choice was the essential human factor that caused individuals to generalize their security behavior rather than compensate for decreased risk.
Top-down rules and regulations may restrict a sense of freedom and even motivate individuals to deliberately engage in actions against the safety rules to claim their space or personal preference. People can be reluctant to accept the sensation of having their freedom taken away and try to restore it.