Citation

Hoyes TW, Glendon AI. Safety Sci. 1993; 16(1): 19-33.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1993, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Risk homeostasis theory (RHT) is considered in the context of four methodological and conceptual issues. The first question to be considered is whether the theory, in the terms in which it has been proposed, can be falsified. It is suggested that advances in understanding RHT could be made by clearly identifying what findings would constitute a falsification of it, since at present this is problematic. The second issue is whether psychologically invisible interventions might preclude a homeostatic effect. It is suggested that, conceptually at least, psychological invisibility need not preclude homeostasis. Third, is debated the issue of bi-directionality -- whether a homeostatic effect can be observed when there has been a reduction in safety as well as when there has been a safety improvement. It is argued that whilst no finding would appear to be in clear violation of RHT's being bi-directional, this is due in part to the global terms in which RHT has been postulated. Finally, it is argued that simulation exercises which mimic physical risk and utility might usefully be employed as a methodology to examine psychological factors associated with RHT.