Perception of risk

People perceive risk differently. The perception of risk is influenced by the factors of physical, psychological and social space.

Physical space includes workplace organization, process design, machinery and equipment, workplace ergonomics, materials, temperature, air quality and outcome of control measures, etc.

The psychological space includes our perceptions, emotions and beliefs, thought patterns, intuitions and mental pathways, habits and past experiences.

Social space includes organizational culture, shared values, relationships, social validation, recognition and punishment, language, language and signage, collective habits, stories, organizational heroes, etc.

Traditionally, companies have focused their accident prevention efforts on factors in the physical space, using controls known as Management pyramid: elimination or substitution of risk, technical control, administrative control or personal protective equipment (PPE). I wrote about the topic in more detail here and here.

Homeostasis

“Homeostasis” is a word that comes from two Greek words ὅμοιος and στάσις, meaning “the same” and “constant“.

From a biological perspective, homeostasis refers to the ways in which the body acts to maintain a stable internal environment despite changes in the environment, such as temperature and blood sugar levels, or various stressors.

The theory of risk homeostasis was first proposed by Gerald J.S. Wilde (1994), who managed to express it in a very easy to understand way: “Give me a ladder twice as stable and I’ll climb twice as high, give me a reason to be cautious and I’ll be twice as shy”.

Wilde says that people have a certain level of risk that they accept and prefer to be exposed to target level of risk. Our target level of risk depends on the perceived advantages and disadvantages of safe and unsafe behavior alternatives and determines the extent to which we will be exposed to hazards that may affect our health and safety.

In general, the level of risk that people prefer depends on four utility factors and will be higher because factors 1 and 4 are higher and factors 2 and 3 are lower:

1. Expected benefits of alternatives to risky behavior (examples: saving time by speeding, fighting boredom, increasing mobility).
2. Expected costs of alternative risky behavior (eg speeding tickets, car repairs, additional insurance premiums).
3. Expected benefits of alternatives to safe behavior (examples: insurance discounts for accident-free periods, increased reputation, responsibility).
4. Expected cost of alternatives to safe behavior (examples: wearing an uncomfortable seat belt, being called a coward by peers, wasting time).

People change their behavior in response to the implementation of controls according to their own target level of risk. If people subjectively perceive the level of risk as relatively low, they change their behavior to increase the risk. Conversely, if they perceive a higher level of risk, they may be more cautious.

Drivers feel safer behind the wheel of cars that have airbags, ABS brakes and four-wheel drive, so they accelerate. Smokers believe that “light” cigarettes are better for their health, so they smoke more. Legislation requiring motorcyclists and cyclists to wear helmets has not reduced the death rate; when they felt safe, they increased their speed, and therefore the number of deaths increased. The risk was reduced in one area, but accepted at a higher level in another.

What works

Risk homeostasis theory contrasts with the traditional HSE approach, which believes that when initiatives do not work as planned, additional controls are needed.

This explains why classic security and risk initiatives don’t work. In most cases, these initiatives are aimed at rational thinking, mechanical hazards, and control measures. They do not take into account how people subjectively perceive risk and how people make judgments and decisions about risk.

Wilde’s theory states that the accident rate due to human behavior can be reduced by intervention that increases people’s desire to be healthy, and that sometimes less control and more motivation can be more effective. For this, it is necessary that SSM departments pay attention to all factors influencing risk perception, that is, those in the psychological and social space. (see article)

In large organizations, the key lies equally with OH&S specialists – a support function, as well as with team and department managers. The closer they are to people and the more often they talk about safety at work, the greater the chances of success.

Unfortunately, the skills required for this are not available in the OSHA, NEBOSH or the courses authorized by the Romanian Ministry of Labor – occupational safety inspector, assessor, auditor. These are interpersonal skills: effective communication, emotional intelligence, influence, empathic communication, the art of asking questions, listening, learning, ethics, leadership, and more.

Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro