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.

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.

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 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

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!