Risk-taking behavior
7. Future studies
More research into the phenomenon of risk homeostasis is necessary, both within the field of car traffic and outside of it. As more testing in controlled environments is needed, it is important that future studies try to control for as many factors as possible. Furthermore, more realistic simulations of risky situations could help to make results found in controlled studies more easily generalized to real-life settings. More real feeling risks for participants might also help combat the issue of possible boredom that often comes up with simpler tasks.
Another issue that needs to be overcome is the difficulty of falsifying the risk homeostasis theory. Future studies should therefore attempt to establish a baseline for the desired risk level of individual participants. This would mean that risk homeostasis could be analyzed on an individual level, which is the level the theory was supposed to be measured on according to criticism discussed in the introduction.
Future researchers also need to keep in mind that if the task participants need to perform in the controlled setting is different from real-life settings, they might need to get used to the setting at first. It is therefore important that future studies keep careful track of
123
their data and stay alert of trends of different risk-taking behavior during the start of their experiment. By improving studies in the aforementioned way more reliable results will be found in future studies into risk homeostasis and the theory will be more easily falsified.
Besides research done in controlled environments, it is important to also start to try and test the risk homeostasis theory in other real-life settings, such as within the aviation industry, the chemical industry, the police force, the firefighting force and many other settings. If the theory is applicable in these settings, this should lead to research about proper communication about risks and protective measures in these settings. This research would be invaluable, since the insights regarding such communication could lead to the saving of many lives, and a lot of time and resources worldwide.
Future studies comparing substance users, and substance use habits (e.g., recency of use, frequency of use and quantity of use (per time) on their risk-taking behavior and risk compensation strategies could also prove fruitful. In these studies it would be important to use larger sample sizes. This way the power of their tests should be adequate to reliably detect smaller effects for some groups and hypotheses that this study struggled to reliably detect. Furthermore, it would be important to recruit their sample based on interest in the differences for certain substances. The studies looking into risk compensation and risk homeostasis should also follow the guidelines given regarding the research of risk
homeostasis. Using larger sample sizes to improve the power of tests and improving study designs based on the aforementioned advice would shed more light on the influence of substance use and substance use habits on risk-taking behavior and risk compensation strategies. In addition, future studies should try and use a more reliable way to assess substance usage, since questionnaires on the subject of substance use cannot be expected to be answered entirely truthfully by participants.
124
References
Accidents at work statistics (2015). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Accidents_at_work_statistics.
Adams, J. G. (1988). Risk homeostasis and the purpose of safety regulation. Ergonomics, 31(4), 407-428.
Apter, M. J. (1984). Reversal theory and personality: A review. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 265-288.
Aschenbrenner, M., & Biehl, B. (1994). Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation processes in relation to anti-lock braking systems. In Wilde, G.J.S. (1994). Target Risk. Dealing with the Danger of Death, Disease and Damage in Everyday decisions. PDE Publications, Toronto.
Attitudes of Europeans towards tobacco and electronic cigarettes (2015). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_429_en.pdf
Austin, L. C., & Fischhoff, B. (2012). Injury prevention and risk communication: a mental models approach. Injury prevention, 18 (2), 124-129.
Baniela, S. I., & Ríos, J. V. (2010). The Risk homeostasis theory. Journal of Navigation, 63(4), 607– 626.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). HIV/AIDS surveillance report, 11(2). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1102.htm
Cherpitel, C. J. (1999). Substance use, injury, and risk-taking dispositions in the general population. Alcoholism: clinical and experimental research, 23 (1), 121-126. Chitwood, D. D., Sanchez, J., Comerford, M., Page, J. B., McBride, D. C., & Kitner, K. R.
(2000). First injection and current risk factors for HIV among new and long-term injection drug users. AIDS Care, 12, 313–320.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Cox, S., & Cox, T. (1991). The structure of employee attitudes to safety: a European example. Work and Stress, 5, 93- 106.
Faul, F., & Erdfelder, E. (1992). GPOWER: A priori-, post hoc-, and compromise power analyses for MS-DOS [Computer program]. Bonn, Germany: Bonn University.
125
Feggetter, A. J. (1982). A method for investigating human factor aspects of aircraft accidents and incidents. Ergonomics, 25, 1065-1075.
Fernie, G., Cole, J. C., Goudie, A. J., & Field, M. (2010). Risk-taking but not response inhibition or delay discounting predict alcohol consumption in social drinkers. Drug and alcohol dependence, 112 (1), 54-61.
Fischhoff, B. (2011). Communicating about the risks of terrorism (or anything else). American Psychologist, 66 (6), 520-531.
Fischhoff, B., Furby, L., & Gregory, R. (1987). Evaluating voluntary risks of injury. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 19, 5 1-62.
Friedman, A. S. (1998). Substance use/abuse as a predictor to illegal and violent behavior: A review of the relevant literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 339 –355. G*POWER 3.1 manual (2014). Retrieved from
http://www.gpower.hhu.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Fakultaeten/Mathematisch- Naturwissenschaftliche_Fakultaet/Psychologie/AAP/gpower/GPowerManual.pdf Glendon, A. I., Hoyes, T. W., Haigney, D. E., & Taylor, R. G. (1996). A review of risk
homeostasis theory in simulated environments. Safety science, 22 (1), 15-25. Grant, B.A., & Smiley, A. (1993). Driver response to anti lock brakes: A demonstration of
behavioral adaptation. Proceedings, Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety Conference VIII, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, June 14-16. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada: University of Saskatchewan.
Hale, A. R. & Glendon, A. I. (1987). Individual behaviour in the control of danger. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hanson, K. L., Thayer, R. E., & Tapert, S. F. (2015). Adolescent marijuana users have elevated risk-taking on the balloon analog risk task. Journal of psychopharmacology, 28 (11), 1080-1087.
Hopko, D. R., Lejuez, C. W., Daughters, S. B., Aklin, W. M., Osbornse, A., Simmons, B. L., & Strong, D. R. (2006). Construct validity of the balloon analogue risk task (BART): Relationship with MDMA use by inner-city drug users in residential treatment. Journal of psychopathology and behavioral assessment, 28 (2), 95-101.
Hoyes, T. W., & Glandon, A. I. (1993). Risk homeostasis: issues for future research. Safety Science, 16, 19-33.
Hoyes, T. W., Stanton, N. A., & Taylor, R. G. (1996). Risk homeostasis theory: A Study Of Intrinsic Compensation. Safety Science, 22, 77-86.
126
Isen, A. M., & Patrick, R. (1983). The effect of positive feelings on risk- taking: When the chips are down. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 194-202. Jackson, S. H., & Blackman, R. (1994). A Driving-Simulator Test of Wilde’s Risk
homeostasis theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 950-958.
Janssen, W., & Tenkink, E. (1988). Risk homeostasis theory and its critics: time for an agreement. Ergonomics, 31, 429-433.
Joe, G. W., & Simpson, D. D. (1995). HIV risks, gender, and cocaine use among opioid, users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 37, 23–28.
Johnson, E. J., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 20-31.
Josephs, R. A., Larrick, R. P., Steele, C. M., & Nisbett, R. E. (1993). Protecting the self from the negative consequences of risky decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 26-37.
Kohn, P. M., & Coulas, J. T. (1985). Sensation seeking, augmenting-reducing and the perceived and preferred effects of drugs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 99-106.
Kral, A. H., Bluthenthal, R. N., Booth, R. E., & Watters, J. K. (1998). HIV seroprevalence among street-recruited injection drug and crack cocaine users in 16 U.S.
municipalities. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 108 –113.
Lejuez, C. W., Aklin, W. M., Jones, H. A., Richards, J. B., Strong, D. R., Kahler, C. W., & Read, J. P. (2003). The balloon analogue risk task (BART) differentiates smokers and nonsmokers. Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology, 11 (1), 26-33.
Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., Strong, D. R., & Brown, R. A. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk- taking: The balloon analogue risk task (BART). Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 8, 75–84.
Leland, D. S., & Paulus, M. P. (2005). Increased risk-taking decision-making but not altered response to punishment in stimulant-using young adults. Drug and alcohol
dependence, 78 (1), 83-90.
Lu, M. (2006). Modelling the effects of road traffic safety measures. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38 (3), 507–517. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.11.008
Mario Andretti: A Glass Half Full for the Indy 500 and Formula One Champion (2009). Retrieved from http://www.success.com/article/mario-andretti-a-glass-half-full-for- the-indy-500-and-formula-one-champion.
127
Murray, H. W., Patkar, A. A., Mannelli, P., DeMaria, P., Desai, A. M., & Vergare, M. J. (2003). Relationship of aggression, sensation seeking, and impulsivity, with severity of cocaine use. Addictive Disorders & Their Treatment, 2, 113–121.
Reason, J. (2000). Human error: models and management. BMJ, 320, 768–770. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768
Reason, J., Manstead, A., Stradling, S., Baxter, J., & Campbell, K. (1990). Errors & violations on the roads - a real distinction. Ergonomics, 33, 1315-1332.
Reyes-Martinez, R. M., Maldonado-Macias, A., & Prado-León, L. R. (2012). Human factors identification and classification related to accidents' causality on hand injuries in the manufacturing industry. Work, 41, 2012, 3155-3163.
Rhodes, F., Corby, N. H., Wolitski, R. J., Tashima, N., Crain, C., Yankovich, D., & Smith, P. K. (1990). Risk behaviors and perceptions of AIDS among street injection drug users. Journal of Drug Education, 20, 271–288.
Safety and health at work (2016). Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety- and-health-at-work/lang--en/index.htm.
Salminen, S., & Tallberg, T. (1996). Human errors in fatal and serious occupational accidents in Finland. Ergonomics, 39, 980-988.
Sawyer, J. E., Kernan, M. C., Conlon, D. E., & Garland, H. (1999). Response to the Michelangelo computer virus threat: The role of information sources and risk homeostasis theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29 (1), 23-51.
Schwarz, R.M., Burkhart, B.R., & Green, S.B. (1978). Turning on or turning off: sensation seeking or tension reduction as motivational determinants of alcohol use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologv, 46, 1144-1145.
Stetzer, A., & Hofmann, D. (1996). Risk compensation: Implications for safety innovations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 66 (1), 73-88.
Streufert, S., Pogash, R. M., Roache, J., Gingrich, D., Landis, R. Severs, W., Lonardi, L., & Kanter, A. (1992). Effects of alcohol intoxication on risk taking strategy, and error rate in visuomotor performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 515-524.
Tapert, S. F., Aarons, G. A., Sedlar, G. R., & Brown, S. A. (2001). Adolescent substance use and sexual risk-taking behavior. Journal of adolescent health, 28 (3), 181-189. Thayer, R. E. (1967). Measurement of activation through self-report. Psychological Reports,
128
Thayer, R. E. (1972). Reported activation and verbal learning as a function of group size (social facilitation) and anxiety-inducing instructions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 88, 277-287.
Thayer, R. E. (1978). Factor Analytic and Reliability Studies on the Activation-Deactivation Adjective Checklist. Psychological Reports, 42, 747-756.
Thayer, R. E. (1987). Problem perception, optimism, and related states as a function of time of day (diurnal rhythm) and moderate exercise: two arousal systems in interaction. Motivation and Emotion, II, 19-36.
Trimpop, R. (1994). The psychology of risk taking behavior. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Van Der Pol, P. M., & Van Laar, M. W. (2015). Kerncijfers drugsgebruik 2014. Retrieved from https://assets.trimbos.nl/docs/088c4496-ca0c-49a7-af1c-a50be922f5b1.pdf. Van Laar, M. W., Ooyen-Houben, M. M. J., Cruts, A. A. N., Meijer, R. F., Croes, E. A.,
Ketelaars, A. P. M., Van Der Pol, P. M. (2016). Nationale drug monitor jaarbericht 2015. Retrieved from https://assets.trimbos.nl/docs/24dd30ba-464f-4dcd-a740- 20ac058d310b.pdf
Vogel, K. (2003). A comparison of headway and time to collision as safety indicators. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35 (3), 427-433.
Wagenaar, W. A., Hudson, P. T. & Reason, J. T. (1990). Cognitive failures and accidents. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 273-294.
Weafer, J., Milich, R., & Fillmore, M. T. (2011). Behavioral components of impulsivity predict alcohol consumption in adults with ADHD and healthy controls. Drug and alcohol dependence, 113 (2), 139-146.
Wilde, G. J. S. (1982). The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. Risk analysis, 2(4), 209-225.
Wilde, G. J. S. (1988). Risk homeostasis theory and traffic accidents: propositions, deductions and discussion of dissension in recent reactions. Ergonomics, 31, 441- 468.
Wilde, G. J. S. (1989). Accident countermeasures and behavioural compensation: The position of risk homeostasis theory. Journal of Occupational Accidents, 10 (4), 267- 292.
Wilde, G. J. S. (1998). Risk homeostasis theory: an overview. Injury Prevention, 4 (2), 89 - 91. Wilde, G. J. S., Robertson, L., & Pless, I. B. (2002). Does risk homoeostasis theory have implications for road safety. For and against. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 324 (7346), 1149– 1152.
129
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation Seeking: Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zuckerman, M., & Neeb, M. (1980). Demographic influences in sensation seeking and expressions of sensation seeking in religion, smoking and driving habits. Personality and Individual Differences, I, 197-206.
130
Appendices
138
Appendix B. Formulas for the risk-taking behavior variables The formula used to compute the variable ‘speed’ was:
Difficulty is always a value between 1 and 13 (based on the difficulty levels). This formula yields speedvalues with a minimum of 320 pixels per second and a maximum of 920 pixels per second.
The formula used to compute ‘distance to the closest meteor’ (DCM) was:
The Pythagorean Theorem was used to create this formula. This formula yields the distance, in pixels, between the spaceship and the meteor closest to it.
The formula used to compute ‘time to collision’ (TTC)was:
The TTC variable is calculated using the ‘meteor in path location x’ variable. This is the x- coordinate of the meteor on the path of the spaceship. This variable can be found in the steplog file. Afterwards the value 109 has to be subtracted from this variable as the spaceship is not displayed at the leftmost side of the screen but 109 pixels to the right from it. This formula yields the time, in seconds, until a collision between the spaceship and the meteor in its path will occur.
139 Appendix C. The information letter
Information letter - Risk homeostasis in gaming
Welcome and thank you for coming! You are going to play a computer game and fill in a questionnaire. Before you start, please read this information letter and sign the informed consent. Your participation is completely anonymous and voluntarily. Your records are coded by means of a participant number (see the post-it). You will need to enter this number when starting the game and the questionnaire. Please double check when entering your number, this is important. If you would like to stop the experiment you may do so at any moment. The results of this study will be used in SPSS to conduct statistical analyses for our master thesis about the risk homeostasis theory.
The game
The game is about a little spaceship in a galaxy not so far away on its way to deliver very valuable cargo. The spaceship is in a hurry and has to reach its destination as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the ship runs into a thick cloud of meteors. You are the ship’s captain and you have to stay on your toes to dodge the danger and get through. The goal is to go as fast as you can (a faster speed will result in more points) but also try to avoid the meteors (a collision with a meteor will cost you a life).
You will receive specific instructions about the game (e.g. which buttons to use etcetera) when starting the game.
Instructions
Please pay attention only to your own computer screen. Also, please do not make noise. When you have a question raise your hand and one of us will come to you.
After you have read and completed the informed consent, please login with your UL account (Some of the computers are already logged in, if so, do not log in with your own UL
account). When your desktop is completely loaded raise your hand. We will start the game for you After you have finished the game please raise your hand and we will start the
questionnaire for you. Please do not forget to enter your (correct) post-it number both in the game and questionnaire! When you completed the questionnaire you can collect your money or credits for participating.
Any questions?
Remarks or complaints afterwards can be directed towards the senior researcher: Jop Groeneweg
140 Appendix D. The informed consent form
Informed Consent - Risk homeostasis in gaming
In this experiment we will test the risk homeostasis theory by means of a computer game. The experiment will take about 45 minutes. You will be compensated for your time by receiving 2 credits or €6,50. By signing the form you agree with the following statements. - I have read the information letter. I could ask additional questions. Questions that I had have been answered adequately. I have had sufficient time to decide whether or not I participate.
- I am aware that participation is completely voluntary. I know that I can decide at any moment not to participate or to stop. I do not need to provide a reason for that.
- My responses are processed anonymously or in a coded way.
- I give consent to use my data for the purposes that are mentioned in the information letter. I consent to participating in this study.
Name of participant: ___________________________________________________ Signature: ___________________________________________________
141 Appendix E. Game instructions
Instruction at the start Dear participant,
You are now going to play a video game in which you control a spaceship that is flying through a field of meteors. You need to make sure the ship has a safe flight. If your ship collides with a meteor, it gets destroyed and the round is over. At the start of each round (5 in total) you will receive a certain number of shields. You see these shields at the left upper corner. These shields serve as ‘lives’. Each time you collide with a meteor, a shield will disappear. When you run out of shields, the round is over.
The up and down arrow keys control the movement of the ship. You also have the option to control the speed of the ship: pressing the right arrow key makes the ship fly faster, while pressing the left arrow key slows the ship down.
During the game you will gain points per second. The amount of points you gain depends on (1) your total flying time (so don’t run out of shields!) and (2) your speed: the faster you fly, the more points per second you gain. You will start with a practice round.