Some researchers and many anti-helmet advocates often state that when cyclists wear a helmet they feel safer and take more risks. This hypothesis-risk compensation-if true, would reduce, annul or even reverse the assumed benefits of helmets in reducing head injuries. Consequently, this hypothesis is often used to oppose mandatory helmet laws. In this article, we illustrate how one of the few studies that attempted to experimentally test the hypothesis in relation to bicycle helmets arrives at a false conclusion. As a result it is often cited as evidence of risk compensation. Given the lack of experimental studies in this research area, the impact of a single study in shaping the opinions of the general public and of policy makers can be significant.
Drawing on goal orientation theory, in this study, we examine how an individual's motivational approach relates to the use of two common emotional labor strategies: surface acting and deep acting. In addition, we examine the role of self-efficacy as a mediating mechanism through which different goal orientations are related to different emotional labor strategies. To test our hypotheses, 262 U.S. full-time working adults from a variety of service occupations were surveyed. Consistent with the predictions of goal orientation theory, our results show that learning-oriented service employees tend to use deep acting, while performance-oriented service employees use both emotional labor strategies. Our findings also show that emotional labor self-efficacy plays a mediating role in the relationship between motivational approach and emotional labor strategy use.
Some researchers and many anti-helmet advocates often state that because cyclists are wearing a helmet they feel safer and take more risks. This hypothesis - risk compensation – if true, would reduce, annul or even reverse the assumed benefits of helmets in reducing head injuries. Consequently, this hypothesis is often used to oppose mandatory helmet laws. In this article, we illustrate how one of the few studies that attempted to experimentally test the hypothesis in relation to bicycle helmets arrives at a false conclusion. As a result it is often cited as evidence of risk compensation. Given the lack of experimental studies in this research area, the impact of a single study in shaping the opinions of the general public and of policy makers can be significant.
BackgroundCycling is a physical activity with many health and environmental benefits. There are inherent risks while cycling and bicycle helmets have been proposed as a means to mitigate head injury along with crash avoidance strategies such as separated cycling infrastructure. Twenty-seven countries around the world have enacted bicycle helmet legislation (BHL) to increase helmet usage among cyclists. Critics of BHL often claim legislation deters cycling uptake.MethodsFive electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, COMPENDEX, SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE) were searched to identify relevant studies. Two authors independently assessed records retrieved in adherence to the PRISMA statement. The included studies reported data on cycling exposure pre- and post-legislation.Results22 studies with data from 6 countries covering 16 jurisdictions were identified from the peer-reviewed and grey literature. The methods used to measure cycling include direct observation at fixed locations, self-reported surveys, hospital data, police-reported crashes and movement counters. Most studies had a single pre-legislation observation making it impossible to estimate existing trends. Although BHL exists in 27 countries, our systematic review identified studies from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden and the United States.ConclusionsIn our preliminary results, most studies found no or conflicting evidence of reductions in cycling following BHL. In the few studies reporting reductions in cycling following BHL, these could be due to existing trends or a general shift from active transport modes to personal motor vehicle travel. Due to the lack of data across most jurisdictions with BHL, caution should be exercised when interpreting these results.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.