RISK HOMEOSTASIS THEORY, UTILITY AND ACCIDENT LOSS IN A SIMULATED DRIVING TASK

Abstract The suggestion that utility is logically necessary for behavioural adjustments to be made in response to changes in intrinsic risk is fundamental to risk homeostasis theory (RHT). However, the methodology used to investigate RHT — analysis of road traffic accidents — is ill-suited to the investigation of this assertion. The role of utility and intrinsic risk as possible determinants of behavioural compensation were therefore examined experimentally across 14 specific behaviours using the Aston Driving Simulator. RHT predicts that these two factors act in a multiplicative way to form a statistical interaction. It also predicts that the behavioural pathways through which the effect manifests itself should be reconcilable with the concept of utility. Both predictions received little support in this experiment, suggesting that utility and intrinsic risk operate as independent factors: both factors produced significant main effects across a number of behaviours. This finding, if it can be generalised, implies that, contrary to mathematically-based models of danger compensation and the traditional model of risk homeostasis, utility is not logically necessary for behavioural compensation in response to a change in intrinsic risk.

[1]  W. Edwards.  The prediction of decisions among bets. , 1955, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  W. Edwards.  The theory of decision making. , 1954, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  Lisa Dorn,et al.  AGE AND SEX DIFFERENCES IN DRIVING PERFORMANCE: SOME PRELIMINARY FINDINGS FROM THE ASTON DRIVING SIMULATOR , 1991 .

[4]  A. R. Cownie.  An operational game for the study of decision making in a hazardous activity , 1970 .

[5]  P. Slovic.  Convergent validation of risk taking measures. , 1962, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[6]  G J Wilde.  Assumptions necessary and unnecessary to risk homoeostasis. , 1985, Ergonomics.

[7]  I. Veling.  A laboratory test of the constant risk hypothesis , 1984 .

[8]  Lisa Dorn,et al.  GROUP DIFFERENCES IN DRIVING PERFORMANCE , 1992 .

[9]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[10]  Gerald J.S. Wilde,et al.  Risk Homeostasis in an Experimental Context , 1985 .

[11]  S. Peltzman.  The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation , 1975, Journal of Political Economy.

[12]  Barry O'Neill,et al.  A decision-theory model of danger compensation , 1977 .

[13]  C Gelau,et al.  Maximization of subjective expected utility or risk control? Experimental tests of risk homeostasis theory , 1992 .

[14]  Gerald J.S. Wilde,et al.  Critical Issues in Risk Homeostasis Theory , 1982 .

[15]  Talib Rothengatter,et al.  Road user behaviour, theory and research , 1988 .

[16]  H. H. Molen,et al.  A HIERARCHICAL RISK MODEL FOR TRAFFIC PARTICIPANTS , 1988 .

[17]  J. Graham.  On Wilde's theory of risk homeostasis , 1982 .

[18]  Gerald J.S. Wilde,et al.  Accident countermeasures and behavioural compensation: The position of risk homeostasis theory , 1989 .

[19]  Risto Näätänen,et al.  A simple method for simulating danger-related aspects of behavior in hazardous activities , 1975 .

[20]  M. Weinstein.  Achievement motivation and risk preference. , 1969 .

[21]  G J Wilde,et al.  The use of incentives for the promotion of accident-free driving. , 1985, Journal of studies on alcohol. Supplement.

[22]  Jgu Adams,et al.  RISK AND FREEDOM: THE RECORD OF ROAD SAFETY REGULATION , 1985 .

[23]  Gerald J.S. Wilde,et al.  Risk homeostasis theory and traffic accidents: propositions, deductions and discussion of dissension in recent reactions , 1988 .

[24]  Risto Näätänen,et al.  The zero-risk theory and overtaking decisions. , 1988 .

[25]  Gerald J.S. Wilde,et al.  The Theory of Risk Homeostasis: Implications for Safety and Health , 1982 .

[26]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[27]  M. Wallach,et al.  Risk Taking: A Study in Cognition and Personality , 1965 .