Call for participants: Belief and Causality Relating to Accidents

Author

More from this author

Call for participants: Belief and Causality Relating to Accidents

Andrew Bober, a postgraduate researcher at the University of Strathclyde is seeking respondents for his survey about “Belief and Causality Relating to Accidents”. Bober...

Going Soul-o: one young atheist’s week at Christian camp (Day Seven)

Day Six It’s done. I’ve been home from Soul Survivor twenty-four hours, and I’ve now more or less recovered emotionally and physically. I won’t deny...

Going Soul-o: one young atheist’s week at Christian camp (Day Six)

Day Five Today will be my last day at Soul Survivor. Having witnessed the main meetings at this festival, with their cheering, praying and orgies...

Going Soul-o: one young atheist’s week at Christian camp (Day Five)

Day Four The tallest building in Germany, the Fernsehturm or TV tower, stands next to Alexanderplatz in the centre of Berlin. It's impossible to miss,...

Going Soul-o: one young atheist’s week at Christian camp (Day Four)

Day Three As the festival's third day starts, I'm better rested than the previous morning - the boys camped next door seem to have quietened...
Andrew Bober, a postgraduate researcher at the University of Strathclyde is seeking respondents for his survey about “Belief and Causality Relating to Accidents”. Bober has written the summary below for The Skeptic and we’d invite you to complete the survey and provide constructive, critical feedback if you have 10 minutes spare.

 

Research Rational – Belief & Causality

 

According to Heinrich (1931), who developed what we know as the domino theory, 88% of all accidents are caused by unsafe acts of people, 10% by unsafe actions and 2% by acts of God. He proposed a five-factor accident sequence in which each factor would actuate the next step in the manner of toppling dominoes lined up in a row.

 

Whilst Heinrich was a pioneer in the field of accident prevention, and must be given his due, the sources of his research are unavailable and rife with misinterpreted terminology (Manuele, 2011). Stefansson (1928) makes the case that people are willing to accept as fact what is written or spoken without adequate supporting evidence, and perhaps none are more evident than myths surrounding Heinrich’s work. These have become embedded within the psyche of many practitioners, and need to be dislodged.

 

Curiously, the first step in the sequence which Heinrich’s proposes, ‘ancestry and social environment’, has become either omitted or at most anecdotally mentioned with a compulsive predilection for generalization and simple induction and the arbitrary bias of applying personal experience as a means of rationalisation. Yet, the influence of ‘ancestry and social environment’ is a well-established concept within various scientific fields.

 

Kouabenan’s (2009) work is particularly relevant as it hypothesises that an understanding of the beliefs people hold about risks and the causes of accidents, as well as their perceptions of risk targets and the need for safety, are important prerequisites for effectively managing risk and designing preventive measures. Kayani et al. (2012†‡) uses a similar approach when looking at cultural fatalism within road accidents in Pakistan. Harrell (1995) looked at similar factors in agriculture and fishery, while Murraya et al. (1997) researched similar factors to accidents in fishery.  Arbous & Kerrich’s (1951) and Clarke’s (2006) studies show that there is the possibility that safety perceptions are much more predictive in some occupational settings compared to others.

 

Therefore, the purpose of this enquiry is to:

 

• Ascertain the connection between ‘belief-fatalism-causality’ and gauge its significance in root cause analysis of accidents.

• Provide supplementary understanding of root cause analysis beyond the over-employment of generalization and simple induction.

 

This is an initial piece of post-graduate research that will be used to develop a fuller postgraduate theme. It does not rely only on the survey but participants are invited to draw attention to any perceived inherent flaws or ambiguities within its methodologies.

 

References:

 

Arbous, A. G; Kerrich J. E. (1951). Accident Statistics and the Concept of Accident-Proneness. Biometrics, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Dec, 1951), pp. 340-432. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3001656.pdf?acceptTC=true

 

Clarke, S. (2006). Contrasting perceptual, attitudinal and dispositional approaches to accident involvement in the workplace. Safety Science, Vol 44, Issue 6, (July 2006), pp. 537-550. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753505001840

 

Harrell, W. (1995). Factors influencing involvement in farm accidents. Percept Mot Skills 81: pp. 592-594

 

Heinrich, H. (1931). Industrial Accident Prevention. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 

Kayani, A; King M. J; Fleiter, J. J. (2012†). Fatalism and its implications for risky road use and receptiveness to safety messages: a qualitative investigation in Pakistan. Health Education Research Advance Access, 17 September 2012, pp. 1-12. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22987861

 

Kayani, A; King M. J; Fleiter, J. J. (2012‡). Achieving safe road use in a rapidly motorising country : The influence of longstanding beliefs on risky driver behaviour in Pakistan. In International Conference of Applied Psychology (ICAPP 2012), 16-18 December 2012, Lahore, Pakistan.(Unpublished). Available from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/56411/1/CONF_Kayani_AchievingSafeRoadUseinaRapidlyMotorisingCountry.pdf

 

Kouabenan, D.R. (2009). Role of beliefs in accident and risk analysis and prevention. Safety Science, 47, pp. 767-776. University Pierre Mende`s France, Grenoble II, France. Available from:  http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0925753508000313/1-s2.0-S0925753508000313-main.pdf?_tid=df8d4b5e-ba81-11e2-82ca-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1368307954_1dbf0214c847d3220a590425860332c7

 

Manuele, F. (2011). Reviewing Heinrich: Dislodging Two Myths From the Practice of Safety. Journal of American Safety Society of Safety Engineers. Available from:

 

Murraya, M; Fitzpatricka, D; O’Connella, C. (1997). Fishermens blues: Factors related to accidents and safety among Newfoundland fishermen. Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations Volume 11, Issue 3, 1997, pp. 292-297. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02678379708256842#.UaJ0fkBJ7dc

 

Stefansson, V. (1928). The standardization of error. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd
- Advertisement -

Latest articles

Conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers and alt-med quackery put our pets in harm’s way

Vet Danny Chambers highlights how the aggressive promotion of alternative therapies to prevent and treat animal diseases has become widespread.

‘Mask Mouth’: A real dental phenomenon, or merely a confection?

Dentist Shaun Sellars looks at recent reports of facemasks causing a new dental phenomenon known as 'mask mouth'.

The Ockham Awards 2020: recognising the best in skepticism, and the worst in pseudoscience

Nominations for the 2020 Ockham Awards are now open, with our annual award for Skeptical Activism and our Rusty Razor award for pseudoscience.

Don’t believe what you think!

What follows is a slightly modified and abbreviated version of the introduction to Professor Edzard Ernst's recently published book, Don't Believe What...

Ethics for Skeptics: why compassion and reason go hand in hand

Philosophy lecturer Aaron Rabinowitz outlines the ethical core of skepticism, and explains why a compassionate understanding of morality must underpin the skeptical worldview.

More like this