Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Graham  
#1 Posted : 27 January 2014 14:57:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Graham

Hi Probably more a Friday thread but I read this in a totaly different context and it seemed apt for this forum as well. "It is easier to scare than reassure. We seem to be programmed for fear – fear of the unknown, of the “unnatural,” of things over which we have little control. Humans are what psychologists call “risk averse.” While the precautionary principle is fine, as far as it goes, risk averse decision-making can often lead to irrational decisions that are not in our best interest." Published by Steven Novella under Science and Medicine. So could it be that this gives a reason for all those H&S myths we have to keep busting - as well as helping to explain (if another explanation was necessary) why the media loves a good health and safety story.
BigRab  
#2 Posted : 27 January 2014 15:22:03(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
BigRab

Graham wrote:
Hi Probably more a Friday thread but I read this in a totaly different context and it seemed apt for this forum as well. "It is easier to scare than reassure. We seem to be programmed for fear – fear of the unknown, of the “unnatural,” of things over which we have little control. Humans are what psychologists call “risk averse.” While the precautionary principle is fine, as far as it goes, risk averse decision-making can often lead to irrational decisions that are not in our best interest." Published by Steven Novella under Science and Medicine. So could it be that this gives a reason for all those H&S myths we have to keep busting - as well as helping to explain (if another explanation was necessary) why the media loves a good health and safety story.
I think to say "humans are risk averse" is probably an over simplification or a bit of a sweeping statement really. Some people are risk averse to the point of the ridiculous and some seem blithely unaware that any risk exists in anything that they do, and of course the vast majority of us are somewhere in the middle. I think there is probably quite a lot of mileage in the idea that we are fearful of the unknown, so that is a very good reason to continue to educate people about real risks. I think as health and safety professionals we should be careful of dismissing people's fears about trivial risk but we should certainly try to help them to rationalise those fears and to put them into perspective.
achrn  
#3 Posted : 27 January 2014 15:52:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

BigRab wrote:
I think there is probably quite a lot of mileage in the idea that we are fearful of the unknown, so that is a very good reason to continue to educate people about real risks.
Indeed. In my view, the general perception of risk is completely irrational, and it basically boils down to people are unreasonably fearful of the unfamiliar, and unreasonably blase about the familiar. This (to my mind) is why you get fear of flying (say) but all sorts of appalling driving behaviour and near-absolute disregard of the green-cross-code. It's also, I think, why people take shortcuts in work procedures and don't wear PPE.
KieranD  
#4 Posted : 28 January 2014 09:07:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
KieranD

Graham You raise an interesting issue, which is directly challenged by the evidence of the 'MetaMotivation' theory that some (healthy) people are actually risk-seeking, that is aroused by the prospect of being stretched to the extreme. In work settings, this fails to account for the liability of employers and employees for safety of others. By and large, safety practitioners contribute substantially to plans and options for managing risks, enabling leaders to manage the 'risk and uncertainty' ring of fire. What they are not trained to do and seldom do as well as necessary is to enable leaders to manage the 'conflict ring of fire', that is to address opposition to safety controls as a normal part of business and working life. Differences in this trend are apparent: generally, German and Swedish leaders are better enabled to manage both kinds of 'rings of fire' because of the radically different mindsets normal in their work and societal cultures.
DavidGault  
#5 Posted : 28 January 2014 09:28:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
DavidGault

We also suffer from optimism bias. Even when given strong evidence and valid statistics we tend to believe that the bad things will happen to someone else.
Frank Hallett  
#6 Posted : 28 January 2014 11:13:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Frank Hallett

There's an excellent book that discusses some of these issues in a readable way - a bit dated but interesting. "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman Enjoy! Frank Hallett
jay  
#7 Posted : 28 January 2014 15:42:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

Our actual risk behaviour is based on the ABC Theory. some info:- http://www.hse.gov.uk/re...rr_pdf/2002/crr02430.pdf
KieranD  
#8 Posted : 28 January 2014 17:07:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
KieranD

Jay I respectfully suggest that you are misreading the application of the 'ABC theory' in the HSE source you quote. The interpretation of behaviour in terms of antecedents and consequences is, as the authors indicate, limited to situations in which the antecedents take place. This is usually not very often. Consequently most behaviour is not adequately explained by ABC theory but by mainly other relevant theories including, for example, social identity theory and/or Reason's model of errors
RayRapp  
#9 Posted : 28 January 2014 22:14:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Over the years I have read many books and articles on this subject and as interesting as they may be I'm not convinced that anyone has the full picture. Risk perception is a complex cocktail of gender, age, experience, knowledge, reward, fear and so on. There is a tendency to label things so that they fit neatly into a particular box, whereas the reality is you can generalise but not everything is quite so simple as some would have us believe.
johnmurray  
#10 Posted : 28 January 2014 22:31:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

In the normal course of events, those taking the greater risks would also be the ones on the receiving end if things went pear-shaped. Who knows, by instituting policies to decrease risk taking you may be interfering with normal evolution!
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.