How perceptions of experience-based analysis influence explanations of work accidents

When the social discourse on violation behaviours is challenged by the perception of everyday life experiences: Effects of non-accident experiences on offending attitudes and habits

The aim of this article is to introduce the concept of the Non-Accident Experience (NAE) with regard to violations of traffic safety regulations. An NAE refers to the fact of not having been involved in an accident following the adoption of a behaviour socially recognised as promoting its occurrence. We hypothesise that this type of experiences has a strong effect on attitudes (valence and strength) and habits with regard to traffic offences such as speeding and drink-drive. An empirical study was conducted to test the relevance of this set of hypotheses. 543 French drivers participated to a survey designed to measure all these theoretical constructs. As expected, the results showed that the more frequently NAEs were experienced the more individuals had a favourable and weak (less certain, less important, more ambivalent) attitude towards violations, as well as strong habits. In addition, the more numerous NAEs experienced by others were perceived to be, the more ambivalent was the attitude. The discussion firstly concerns the methodological limitations of this study (e.g. use of cross-sectional design) as well as the integration of this concept into current research, especially in relation to the attitude strength concept and the theory of planned behaviour. Then, we discuss its practical implications (use of the experience based analysis technique, with consideration of both accident and non-accident experiences).

Workers' Risk Tolerance and Occupational Injuries

This study explores the relationship between individuals' risk tolerance and occupational injuries. We analyze data from a national representative survey of U.S. workers that includes information about injuries, risk tolerance, cognitive and noncognitive attributes, and risky behaviors. We measure risk tolerance through questions regarding individuals' willingness to gamble on their lifetime income. We estimate zero-inflated count models to assess the role played by such measures on workers' recurrent injuries. We discuss some implications of our results for future research and occupational safety policies. Our results highlight the concurrent and changing role played by individual, work, and environmental factors in explaining recurrent incidents. They show that risk tolerance affects recurrent injuries, although not in the direction that proponents of the concept of proneness would expect. Our measure of risk aversion shows that individuals who are somewhat more risk tolerant have fewer recurrent injuries than those who are risk averse. But the estimated relationship is U-shaped, not monotonic and, therefore, not easy to predict. At the same time, we find that individuals' "revealed risk preferences"-specific risky behaviors-are related to higher injury probabilities. Demanding working conditions, measures of socioeconomic status, health, and safety problems experienced by workers during their youth remain among the most important factors explaining the phenomena of recurrent injuries. So our results contribute also to the important debate about the relationship between health and socioeconomic status.