Risk Compensation: Revisited and Rebutted

Pless, Barry

doi:10.3390/safety2030016

Cited by 33 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The finding that the helmet participants did not generally prefer the riskier option is in line with criticism (Pless, 2016; of the risk compensation theory or risk homeostasis theory, which postulates that safety features lead to riskier behavior (Trimpop, 1996). Rather, our findings suggest that the effects of helmets on risky decision making may be mediated by their impact on cognitive control levels.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…theory, called risk homeostasis (Wilde, 1988(Wilde, , 1998, and an alternative framework called risk allostasis (Lewis-Evans & Rothengatter, 2009). Similar concerns about risk compensation have been discussed for other safety-related tools such as seat belts (Adams, 1982), airbags, safety goggles, or vaccinations (for reviews, see Pless, 2016;Trimpop, 1994;Trimpop & Wilde, 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wearing a bike helmet leads to less cognitive control, revealed by lower frontal midline theta power and risk indifference

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent study claims that participants wearing a bike helmet behave riskier in a computer‐based risk task compared to control participants without a bike helmet. We hypothesized that wearing a bike helmet reduces cognitive control over risky behavior. To test our hypothesis, we recorded participants' EEG brain responses while they played a risk game developed in our laboratory. Previously, we found that, in this risk game, anxious participants showed greater levels of cognitive control as revealed by greater frontal midline theta power, which was associated with less risky decisions. Here, we predicted that cognitive control would be reduced in the helmet group, indicated by reduced frontal midline theta power, and that this group would prefer riskier options in the risk game. In line with our hypothesis, we found that participants in the helmet group showed significantly lower frontal midline theta power than participants in the control group, indicating less cognitive control. We did not replicate the finding of generally riskier behavior in the helmet group. Instead, we found that participants chose the riskier option in about half of trials, no matter how risky the other option was. Our results suggest that wearing a bike helmet reduces cognitive control, as revealed by reduced frontal midline theta power, leading to risk indifference when evaluating potential behaviors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Wearing a bike helmet leads to less cognitive control, revealed by lower frontal midline theta power and risk indifference

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The RHT proposes that each driver manages the risk similarly to a utility function, and their decision-making process seeks to maintain it at the same level of risk. This theory, however, has been continually criticized because the proposed mechanism cannot be verified empirically (Carsten, 2013;Evans, 1991;Pless, 2016).…”

Section: Mobile Phone Use Decision-making Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should I Text or Call Here? A Situation‐Based Analysis of Drivers’ Perceived Likelihood of Engaging in Mobile Phone Multitasking

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated how situational characteristics typically encountered in the transport system influence drivers' perceived likelihood of engaging in mobile phone multitasking. The impacts of mobile phone tasks, perceived environmental complexity/risk, and drivers' individual differences were evaluated as relevant individual predictors within the behavioral adaptation framework. An innovative questionnaire, which includes randomized textual and visual scenarios, was administered to collect data from a sample of 447 drivers in South East Queensland-Australia (66% females; n = 296). The likelihood of engaging in a mobile phone task across various scenarios was modeled by a random parameters ordered probit model. Results indicated that drivers who are female, are frequent users of phones for texting/answering calls, have less favorable attitudes towards safety, and are highly disinhibited were more likely to report stronger intentions of engaging in mobile phone multitasking. However, more years with a valid driving license, self-efficacy toward self-regulation in demanding traffic conditions and police enforcement, texting tasks, and demanding traffic conditions were negatively related to self-reported likelihood of mobile phone multitasking. The unobserved heterogeneity warned of riskier groups among female drivers and participants who need a lot of convincing to believe that multitasking while driving is dangerous. This research concludes that behavioral adaptation theory is a robust framework explaining self-regulation of distracted drivers.

show abstract

“…Evidence can be variously interpreted, and interpretations are sometimes ideologically driven. As evident in the voluminous literature over decades, there is vociferous debate regarding whether regulations requiring bicycle helmet use do or do not reduce risk, because helmets (and compliance with safety regulations) reduce the sense of vulnerability, leading to riskier cycling behavior (Gamble and Walker, 2016;Pless, 2016;Wilde, Robertson, and Pless, 2002). The debate hinges on the concept of "risk homeostasis"-the idea that there is a fixed level of risk that people accept, and that if environmental risk is perceptibly reduced, behavioral risk correspondingly increases (Wilde, 1982).…”

Section: Responsibility and Unintentional Injurymentioning

confidence: 99%

Preventing Unintentional Injuries: Ethical Considerations in Public Health

Ameratunga¹,

Jonas²,

Blank³

2019

The Oxford Handbook of Public Health Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Injury, which originates from the Latin word for injustice, is a global health problem that imposes a disproportionately high burden on people in fragile economies. This chapter examines the ethical implications of public health actions to prevent unintentional injuries. The concepts of social justice and autonomy are at the core of common debates about the roles of the state, communities, and individuals in controlling injury. Distinguishing unintentional injuries from violence can undermine an integrated preventive approach. Viewing unintended injuries as resulting from accidents fosters a reluctance to apply principles of justice to them and supports risk acceptance and nonintervention. This chapter first critiques arguments relating to concepts such as responsibility, risk compensation, equity in access to the social determinants of health and the so-called normal opportunity range, personal freedom, health-promoting choices, collective health interests, and the avoidance of third-party harm. This is followed by an exploration of how an ethics framework for public health could assist injury prevention.

show abstract

Risk Compensation: Revisited and Rebutted

Cited by 33 publications

References 38 publications

Wearing a bike helmet leads to less cognitive control, revealed by lower frontal midline theta power and risk indifference

Wearing a bike helmet leads to less cognitive control, revealed by lower frontal midline theta power and risk indifference

Should I Text or Call Here? A Situation‐Based Analysis of Drivers’ Perceived Likelihood of Engaging in Mobile Phone Multitasking

Preventing Unintentional Injuries: Ethical Considerations in Public Health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About