Risk perception depends greatly on a worker’s experience and personal traits, both characteristics being rather vague and difficult to assess. Yet, risk perception appears to influence safety performance, which makes it a part of the risk management process. The two articles considered in this work attempt to determine the factors that define risk perception and suggest ways of controlling them.
Key Points of the Articles
The article by D. Cooper (2003) is entitled “Psychology, Risk & Safety: Understanding how personality & perception can influence risk-taking”. The author dwells on the factors influencing an individual’s risk perception, acknowledging the external ones (for example, the goals and culture of an organization), but paying special attention to the internal ones, mostly those defined by the personality of a worker. Among the examples presented by the paper are the ambitions, the fear of failure, the self-esteem, and the skills of a person, all of which may have either a positive or a negative influence on the person’s risk awareness. Admitting that personality traits, which are innate, cannot be changed, Cooper (2003) proceeds to describe the risk management processes that could increase risk awareness even for people whose character peculiarities may contort their perception. The author points out the importance of evaluating and re-evaluating risks, documenting them, and preparing consistent risk control plans that also must be revised on a regular basis in order to accommodate the changing circumstances.
The article by J. Irizarry and D. Abraham (2005) is entitled “Assessment of Risk Perception of Ironworkers”. Having stated the importance of accident prevention, the authors describe the specific features of ironworks and the hazards connected with them. Irizarry and Abraham (2005) proceed to recite the factors that influence risk perception and safety performance, the former including “lack of proper training, deficient enforcement of safety behavior, not using provided safety equipment, and poor attitudes toward safety” (p. 114). The authors point out that the invalid attitude can be a result of workers’ beliefs and values, illustrating those with the example of the “toughness” idea, according to which taking risks may be considered “cool”. Special attention is also paid to the way workers’ personal experience influences their attitude towards risks.
Irizarry and Abraham (2005) then present a detailed report of the survey they had carried out among US ironworkers and make suggestions regarding the improvement of safety performance in the field. It was pointed out that most of the workers taking part in the survey received some kind of safety training, and that the companies they worked for chose the negative reinforcement policy in respect of safety measures. Most workers seemed to exhibit an adequate level of risk awareness and to recognize the importance of safety training (Irizarry & Abraham, 2005, p. 128-129). One of the conclusions the authors have arrived at was that the workers who perceived certain actions as dangerous were less likely to be involved in any kind of job-related accident, while an experience of an accident or an injury helped other workers to realize the danger of the same actions.
Different approaches to Risk Perception
While the authors of both works address the problem of factors influencing risk perception, it appears that they have different goals. For example, the paper of Irizarry and Abraham (2005) is concerned with the hazards of a particular field, namely, ironworks. While risk perception was obviously the main object of this investigation, the authors paid attention to other factors threatening safety performance in the field. Their conclusions included suggestions that are only applicable to the named profession. In general, their study is much more specified than that of Cooper (2003), who provides a general overview of information concerning risk perception without attaching the information or conclusions to a certain field. While Cooper (2003) devoted a greater part of the paper to the influence of personality traits on risk perception, Irizarry and Abraham (2005) concentrated on a worker’s experience. We may conclude that the authors acknowledged the existence of numerous factors that influence an individual’s risk perception, but chose to dwell on different groups of them.
Risk Perception in the Risk Management Process
As the above-mentioned articles demonstrate, there are numerous factors that may cause workers to underestimate the risks they take, which may result in accidents and injury. Risk perception also appears to influence the way workers appreciate safety training and the success rate of said training. Therefore, risk perception along with the many factors it depends on must be taken into account in the process of risk management.
Suggestions of Improvement
It is difficult to disagree with Cooper (2003) that personality is innate and cannot be changed, only accommodated. It is, therefore, most important to bear in mind the possible implications that the “human factor” may bring into the process of risk management. Still, as the two articles suggest, some of the factors influencing risk perception are external, one of them being the culture of an organization. It appears that directing our efforts at creating a proper risk-aware, safety-concerned environment for workers is reasonable in any kind of hazardous workplace. An idea of attempting to use positive reinforcement for these goals that was suggested by Irizarry and Abraham (2005) also seems appealing.
Distortions in risk perception undoubtedly introduce additional challenges for risk management. Still, correcting them and cultivating a proper risk attitude should serve to increase safety performance, which explains the necessity of addressing the issue.
References
Cooper, D. (2003). Psychology, Risk & Safety: Understanding how personality & perception can influence risk taking. Professional Safety, 48(11), 39-46.
Irizarry, J., & Abraham, D. (2005). Assessment of Risk Perception of Ironworkers. Journal of Construction Research, 7(1&2), 111-132.