The terms most often used for the concept that you've described are
"risk compensation" and "risk homeostasis." I have gathered some
material on the subject. For reasons of copyright, I am posting brief
excerpts here; for more in-depth information, you can click the link
below each excerpt to read the full articles.
"In ethology, risk compensation (sometimes known as risk homeostasis)
is an effect whereby individual animals may tend to adjust their
behaviour in response to perceived changes in risk. It is seen as
self-evident that individuals will tend to behave in a more cautious
manner if their perception of risk or danger increases. It is argued
that the reverse also applies and that individuals may tend to behave
less cautiously in situations where they feel "safer" or more
protected.
There is compelling evidence that such an effect is seen in humans,
associated with the use of safety features such as car seat belts,
antilock braking systems and bicycle helmets. The existence of this
balancing behaviour does not mean an intervention does not work: the
effect could be less than, equal to or even more than the true
efficacy of the intervention, depending on how well the perceived
efficacy matches actual efficacy - and this will differ from
individual to individual. It is likely to be least when an
intervention is imperceptible and greatest when an intervention is
intrusive or conspicuous.
The theory grew largely out of investigations of road safety
interventions. It was noted that interventions had failed to achieve
the forecast savings in lives and injuries. Theorists speculated that
while the studies demonstrated that the probability of injury given a
crash had reduced, the fact that the overall probability of injury was
unchanged indicated that there must have been some change in the
probability of crashing.
This controversial view was at first strongly resisted but detailed
investigation, particularly of the case of compulsory seat belts,
caused the theory to become much more widely accepted."
Wikipedia: Risk compensation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
"In recent years, the issue of compensating for safety has been given
several different labels, including risk homeostasis, danger
compensation, risk-offsetting behavior, and perverse compensation.
Whatever the label, the basic idea of risk compensation is quite
simple and straightforward. People are presumed to change their
behavior to compensate for changes in perceived risk. If a job is made
safer with machine guards or the use of PPE, employees might perceive
less risk and actually work more dangerously...
The notion of risk compensation made its debut among safety
professionals following the theorizing and archival research of a
University of Chicago economist, Dr. Sam Peltzman. Peltzman
systematically compared vehicle crash statistics before (1947-1956)
and after (1966-1972) the regulated installation of safety engineering
innovations in vehicles, including seat belts, energy absorbing
steering columns, padded instrument panels, penetration-resistant
windshields, and dual braking systems.
As predicted by risk compensation theory, Peltzman found that these
vehicle-manufacturing safety standards did not reduce the frequency of
crash fatalities per miles driven. Perhaps the most convincing
evidence of risk compensation was that the cars equipped with safety
devices were involved in a disproportionately high number of crashes."
Industrial Safety and Hygiene News Online: Does feeling safe make us more reckless?
http://ishn.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2162,3436,00.html
"The risk homeostasis theory posits, in essence, that a control
mechanism analogous to the thermal homeostatic system in warm-blooded
animals tends to keep risk per unit time constant, and, as a
consequence, the number of traffic accidents per unit time of driving
also tends to remain constant, essentially independent of changes in
the traffic safety system."
Abstract of "Risk homeostasis theory and traffic accident data"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3602497&dopt=Abstract
"Risk homeostasis theory had its genesis in highway and vehicle safety
studies. Wilde defines the theory as: 'the degree of risk-taking
behavior and the magnitude of loss, due to accident and
lifestyle-dependent disease, being maintained over time unless there
is a change in the target level or risk.' He further defines target
risk as: 'the level of risk a person chooses to accept to maximize the
overall expected benefit from an activity.'...
Not all research supports risk homeostasis theory. Wong and Nicholson
(1992) conducted research regarding drivers' risk compensation
behavior on horizontal curves. Rock (1993) conducted more studies on
seat belt use and risk compensation. No demonstrable compensation
effects were found. Evans (1986a) appears to be the most critical
disbeliever of risk homeostasis theory. He evaluated highway fatality
data from the United States and Japan, concluding that the evidence
refuted the theory. Wilde (1986) suggested that Evans failed to
consider all appropriate data when evaluating the theory.
At this time, it appears that more information supports the hypothesis
of risk compensation than discounts it."
USDA Forest Service: Fire Shelters and Risk Compensation
http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/safety/shelter/0351-2804_RiskComp/htm03512804/page02.htm
"Risk Compensation is the name given to a theory which tries to
understand the behaviour of people in potentially hazardous
activities. The basic theory is, like all good theories, very simple:
'An individual will accept a given level of risk in a given activity.
If their perceived level of risk alters, their behaviour will
compensate to place them back at their accepted level of risk.'
In other words, if I'm doing something and I think it gets dangerous,
I'll act to make it safer. But conversely if I think it gets safer, my
actions may well alter to make it more dangerous again."
Andy's Bucket-o-Memes: Risk Compensation
http://www.ravenfamily.org/andyg/risk.htm
"Risk homeostasis is a controversial theory. It suggests that
individuals have an implicit, preferred or target level of risk. One
consequence of this theorem is that any safety improvements that
reduce the risk exposure of an indiviudual will potentially lower the
perceived threat below the target level. This creates the opportunity
for people to alter their behaviour. In particular, they may trade
performance objectives for a slightly increased level of risk. For
example, car drivers that have access to advanced braking systems and
other protection mechanisms may drive faster and brake later than
drivers whose cars do not offer this higher degree of protection."
University of Glasgow: Safety-Critical Systems Development
http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~johnson/teaching/safety/open_assessments/assess2002.html
"Basic premises of risk homeostasis theory (RHT) (Wilde 1988; 1994):
The first is the notion that people have a target level of risk-that
is, the level of risk they accept, tolerate, prefer, desire or choose.
The target level of risk depends on perceived benefits and
disadvantages of safe and unsafe behaviour alternatives, and it
determines the degree to which they will expose themselves to safety
and health hazards.
The second premise is that the actual frequency of lifestyle-dependent
death, disease and injury is maintained over time through a
closed-loop, self-regulating control process. Thus, fluctuations in
the degree of caution people apply in their behaviour determine the
ups and downs in the loss to their health and safety. Moreover, the
ups and downs in the amount of actual lifestyle-dependent loss
determine the fluctuations in the amount of caution people exercise in
their behaviour.
Finally, the third premise holds that the level of loss to life and
health, in so far as this is due to human behaviour, can be decreased
through interventions that are effective in reducing the level of risk
people are willing to take-that is, not through measures of the 'safe
cigarette' variety or other such efforts towards a 'technological fix'
of the problem, but by means of programmes that enhance people's
desire to be alive and healthy."
International Labour Organization: ACCIDENT MODELS: RISK HOMEOSTASIS
http://www.ilo.org/encyclopaedia/?doc&nd=857100130&nh=0
If you're interested in risk compensation theory, and would like to
learn more, I highly recommend these two books. They are a bit pricey,
but you should be able to find them in most larger libraries:
Risk, by John Adams
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1857280687
Target Risk 2: A New Psychology of Safety and Health, by Gerald J. S. Wilde
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0969912439
My Google search strategy:
Google Web Search: "risk compensation OR homeostasis"
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22risk+compensation+OR+homeostasis%22
I hope this is helpful! If anything is unclear or incomplete, please
request clarification; I'll be glad to offer further assistance before
you rate my answer,
Best regards,
pinkfreud |
