R i s k P e r c e p t i o n :

T h e o r i e s , S t r a t e g i e s , A n d N e x t S t e p s
 Executive summary
Understanding risk and how it is perceived is a crucial step toward creating programs and
campaigns to raise awareness and make communities and workplaces safer. This Campbell
Institute literature review looks at the current state of research in the area of risk taking and
explores the reasons why individuals take risks inside and outside the workplace.

In short, risk perception, or the ability to discern risk, is tied to risk tolerance, or an
individual’s capacity to accept a certain amount of risk. Research suggests that programs
to discourage risk-taking behavior need to address both of these concepts.

This paper summarizes the individual, community and broader societal factors that affect
risk perception and tolerance. It then delves into a presentation of several theories explaining
risk perception, including theories related to protection motivation, habituated action, risk
compensation and social action. Examples of how Campbell Institute Member companies
have put these theories and concepts into practice are highlighted throughout the paper.

Overall, the idea presented is that occupational and non-occupational risk taking are related.
The factors and theories of risk perception are applicable to a number of on- and off-the-job
behaviors. Knowing how and why individuals engage in risky behavior could aid significantly
in creating messaging and programs to make communities and workplaces safer.

Introduction
A survey asking for a general definition of “risk” would probably reveal that most people have
a basic understanding of what risk means, and may be able to provide an example of what they
consider “risky behavior.” Scholarly research and anecdotal evidence tell us, however, that there
is no universal conception of risk or how much risk is inherent in certain activities. The wide
array of opinions on what is and what is not high-risk means that some individuals are more
prone to placing themselves in hazardous situations, often putting others in harm’s way.

This literature review attempts to summarize the current state of research regarding risk-
taking behavior and explore the reasons why people engage in high-risk behavior inside
and outside of the workplace. The idea presented here is that occupational and non-
occupational risk taking are related – the factors and theories explaining greater risk tolerance
in individuals are applicable to a wide variety of behaviors both on- and off-the-job.

An official definition of risk is “a measure of the probability and severity of adverse effects”
(National Safety Council, 2003). In other words, risk is a calculation of how likely an incident
is to occur, and given its occurrence, how dire the consequences would be. Being able to
accurately assess the risk in a situation or resulting from a set of actions is, at a personal
qualitative level, dependent upon an individual’s risk perception and risk tolerance.

Risk perception is the ability of an individual to discern a certain amount of risk, and risk
tolerance refers to a person’s capacity to accept a certain amount of risk. These two concepts,
while unique, are very much linked. Many of the theories presented in this literature review
postulate that inability to accurately perceive risk may lead to higher risk tolerance levels, which
can encourage high-risk behavior. Other theories posit that the causal flow could go in the
opposite direction, with habitual engagement in high-risk behavior leading to higher risk tolerance
levels and lower risk perception ability. There is research to support both of these models.

Lower risk perception Higher risk tolerance High-risk behavior

2 visit thecampbellinstitute.org | call (630) 775-2283 | email [email protected]

It is also possible that a person has the ability to accurately assess risk based on the probability of an
incident occurring and the potential consequences of an incident, but that s/he is willing to tolerate higher
risks. These so-called “thrill seekers” are evidence that higher risk tolerance levels are not necessarily
tied to lower risk perception ability. The research and literature suggest that to discourage risk-taking
behaviors, public campaigns and workplace programs must target both risk perception and risk tolerance.

Campbell Award
Factors affecting risk perception and tolerance winner The
Dow Chemical
Factors that affect risk perception and tolerance can be categorized as Company has
macro-, meso-, or micro-level. These levels refer to factors a Corporate Risk
that are structural or institutional in nature (macro),
R O-L E V E Management
at a peer-to-peer or community level (meso), or
AC L group to identify
at an individual psychological level (micro).
M -L E V E and manage
Macro-level Factors One macro-level E SO L unforeseen
M risks in all of its
factor, the culture of safety and level of
safety leadership within an organization RO-LEVE operations. Such
IC groups and
or community, can have a profound effect M

L
on individual levels of risk perception and other company-
tolerance. The research in this area suggests wide programs
a need to go beyond mere psychological like its “Drive to
analyses of individual risk perception Zero” campaign
rce

;
Pe led

ge
i communicate
and take into account broader social, optved knowias
imism b to employees
cultural, and environmental explanations
of risk behavior (Weyman & Kelly, 1999). Pe that safety is a
er a re
essu corporate value,

t
Sa

nd co
mmunity pr

en
Regarding safety leadership, the approach yc
fet

rce

m
to safety among an organization’s managers ult encouraging
ure e nfo workers to be
and supervisors can have a significant effect on and and
leader
ship ; s an c tions more risk aware
the perception of safety and risk among employees.
When management clearly demonstrates commitment to and less risk
safety, employee perception of the safety management system is tolerant (Dow
positively influenced, resulting in less risk-taking behavior and a reduction of injury rates (O’Toole, 2002). Chemical, 2010).

Workers employed by an organization with a positive safety culture – an environment with high emphasis
on safe work procedures and commitment to employee health and safety – were less likely to take risks
than workers employed by an organization without a positive safety culture (Fleming & Buchan, 2002).
In a related research study, Garcia et al. (2004) found that workers exposed themselves to more risks and
were less likely to comply with safety rules when they rated the safety climate of their organization poorly.

Safety culture also has a broader applicability beyond the workplace. Researchers have explored the
concept of traffic safety culture, or how the predominant ideas and beliefs surrounding road safety
and driving in a community, state or country influences individual driving behavior and society’s
attitudes towards motor vehicle accidents. The argument here is that U.S. drivers are conditioned to
believe that car crashes are not preventable and occur purely due to others’ poor driving rather than
to larger institutional factors that could have prevented the crash (e.g. laws prohibiting cell phone use
while driving, car manufacturing regulations, road maintenance, etc.)(Moeckli & Lee, 2007). Another
argument is that as a society, the U.S. seems more concerned with the loss of life from catastrophic events
(e.g. terrorist attacks, hurricanes) than the much greater number of deaths from motor vehicle crashes.
As Sleet et al. note, “For many, road trauma is simply the price we pay for mobility” (2007:54). These
fatalistic attitudes and the idea that society can’t do anything to prevent car crashes can encourage drivers
to take more risks if they believe that they have no agency over their own safety. Overall, much of the
cited research finds that the broader social forces influencing risk perception outside of the workplace
(especially on roadways) also influence attitudes that can cause workers to take risks on the job.

Risk perception: Theories, strategies and next steps 3

 Another macro-level factor affecting risk perception and tolerance is enforcement and organizational
trust. Research in this area suggests that people are more likely to take risks when they do not
believe that there will be sanctions for their high-risk behavior, or when they do not believe that
their employing organizations are concerned with their safety. In the workplace, this means that
workers who trust that management is committed to employee safety and health are less likely to take
risks and more likely to adhere to the employer’s safety contract (Ford & Tetrick, 2011; Hambach
Gulf et al., 2011). Transportation safety researchers show how enforcement is tied to risk taking, finding
Petrochemical that young drivers take risks near railway crossings (Davey et al., 2008) or speed or run red lights
Industries (Evan et al., 2009; Fleiter et al., 2009; Porter & Berry, 2001) because they believed the probability of
Company punishment for unsafe behavior was low and that penalties would not be delivered expediently.
(GPIC), a
Campbell Award Several studies in transportation safety have shown that more immediate enforcement of traffic
winner, maintains safety laws reduces the incidence of high-risk behavior. For example, Nichols et al. (2014) found
a company that seat belt use increased from 11% in 1979 to 86% in 2012 due to primary enforcement laws
intranet for all and increased fines. A study on distracted driving found that high-visibility enforcement on the
workers to have part of local police forces resulted in a 45% average decrease in drivers using cell phones and a
direct access 52% average decrease in texting while driving (Cosgrove et al., 2011). Increased enforcement
to standard and swifter consequences for unsafe driving tends to decrease risk-taking behavior.
operating
In addition to trusting that there will be consequences for behaving unsafely, workers need to have faith in
procedures,
the credibility of those communicating safety messages in order to take proper precautions when working
standing
(Fischhoff, 1995; Weyman & Kelly, 1999). Employees also need to trust that the organization provides reliable
instructions, and
and relevant safety information in order to access and use that knowledge. Perceiving that safety information
minutes from shift
is not readily available is associated with lower safety efficacy and lower levels of compliance (Real, 2008).
talks. Incident
information is Meso-level Factors Peer or community pressure is a meso-level factor influencing how people
routinely shared perceive and tolerate risk. Stress from peers both within and outside the workplace can cause
on bulletin people to take risks that go against their better judgment. For instance, Davey et al. (2008) found
boards and that young drivers habitually drive around railway crossing barriers – despite individually believing
through GPIC’s such actions to be dangerous – because the perception of the community and peers was that such
“Safety Matters” behavior was acceptable. Teens who are exposed to the unsafe driving habits of friends, siblings
newsletter. and parents are more likely to view these behaviors as not high-risk (Sarkar & Andreas, 2004).
Having access to
this information The likelihood of a crash and a fatality resulting from a motor vehicle accident increases when a teen
conveys the driver is accompanied by peer passengers (Chen et al., 2000; Preusser et al., 1998), often because
message that cars are important modes of teen socialization (Shope & Bingham, 2008; Williams, 2003). When
working safely adolescents drive with peers, they are constantly trying to maintain and negotiate peer relationships,
is within an which make them susceptible to high-risk actions, such as speeding to overtake a car at a peer’s
individual’s request or turning up the volume of music (Allen & Brown, 2008). The desire to please peers often
control and that supersedes commitment to safety. Adolescents thus engage in high-risk behavior not only because
the company they perceive less risk, but also because they are focused on their personal image in front of their
is committed friends (Goldberg et al., 2002; Keating & Halpern-Felsher, 2008; Halpern-Felsher et al., 2004).
to safety In workplaces, new employees may start taking unsafe shortcuts while performing job tasks
(GPIC, 2008). because other more seasoned employees are doing so. While a new worker may initially perceive
these shortcuts as dangerous, the desire to conform to group activities is strong, even if those
activities are high-risk (Cooper, 2003; Harding & Eiser, 1984). Choudry and Fang (2008) observed
similar effects of peer pressure in subcontracted workers who chose not to wear personal
protective equipment to avoid teasing and harassment from coworkers. Marsh (2012), a recent
speaker at the Campbell Institute Symposium, notes that new employees or contractors will
rarely “swim against the tide” (9) if the majority of experienced workers behave unsafely.

Micro-level Factors A micro-level factor affecting risk tolerance is an individual’s level of knowledge
regarding a situation. Those who are less informed of a situation are less likely to take risks, while those with
more knowledge are more likely to have higher levels of risk tolerance. The caveat here is that this refers
only to the individual’s own perception of knowledge, which may not be an actual objective assessment.
Illustrating this point, Huang et al. (2013) found that survey participants with a perceived higher knowledge

4 visit thecampbellinstitute.org | call (630) 775-2283 | email [email protected]

of ecological hazards tended to have a higher risk tolerance for those hazards than those who professed to
have little to no knowledge of ecological hazards. Workers in a chemical plant were loath to wear personal
protective equipment because they believed they already had an appropriate perception of risk (Vernero &
Montanari, 2007). Those workers who believe they are fully informed of work tasks are more likely to take
risks because of this perceived knowledge. The feeling of personal control over a situation can lessen anxiety
and cause a worker to become more relaxed toward engaging in unsafe behaviors (Weyman & Kelly, 1999).
Optimism bias is another concept that is frequently cited in research on risk and is another micro-level Sometimes
factor influencing risk perception. Optimism bias is a person’s tendency to believe that a negative event pressure
is less likely to occur to him/her than other people, and the person’s perception that s/he is more adept at comes not from
averting injury should a negative event occur (Weinstein, 1984). In a study of beach safety, those who took peers, but from
more risks and had higher risk tolerance levels were more likely to (1) underestimate the severity of an management.
event and one’s vulnerability to the threat, and (2) overestimate the efficacy of protective measures and one’s Usrey (2012)
own ability to cope with risk (McCool et al., 2009). In occupational safety, overconfident workers minimize of Predictive
potential threats, often underestimating the risk associated with a job 20-30% of the time (Cooper, 2003). Solutions, a
Campbell Institute
member, notes
Theories related to risk perception that too many “all
and risk tolerance safe” inspections
may not only be a
Protection Motivation Theory Of the many theories related to explaining risk perceptions and result of workers
risk tolerance, protection motivation theory (PMT) is one of the most cited. According to this theory, not recognizing
people are more likely to protect themselves when they anticipate negative consequences, have the hazards, but also
desire to avoid them and feel they have the ability to take preventive measures. Some may recognize observers who
PMT as having similarities to the health belief model (Becker & Maiman, 1975), which argues that underreport for
people weigh factors such as the severity of the threat, their personal vulnerability, and the possible fear of reprisal or
benefits of protective actions before choosing whether or not to take a risk. Overall, PMT postulates being perceived
that there is a relationship between risk perception and injuries and incidents, and that people take as poor workers.
protective action when they are motivated and have the agency to do so. For example, Sheeran et al. This type
(2013) found that enhancing the elements of risk appraisal (such as risk perception and perceived of negative
severity) has a combined positive effect on changing intentions and behavior toward safety. pressure from
DeJoy (1996) points out that deciding to take protective actions in the workplace is a the top can result
process. Workers weigh their response efficacy and self-efficacy (i.e. sense of agency) against in employees
the possible costs incurred. Use of personal protective equipment and other protective continuing to
actions tend to increase as these behaviors become normalized and habituated, and also allow others (and
as workers realize that they can take action to put safety in their own hands. themselves) to
take risks in the
According to protection motivation theory, risk perception and use of personal protective workplace.
equipment increase when workers have reason for concern, oftentimes due to a previous incident.
For instance, offshore oil workers who had experienced an incident in the past two years felt less
safe and had a heightened perception of work task hazards than those who had not experienced
an incident (Mearns et al., 1998). Gucer et al. (2003) found that workers were more likely to
express concern about hazardous materials and workplace air quality if they had previously
experienced an occupational injury. In both these cases, workers’ concerns and motivations to
protect themselves were heightened because of first-hand experiences of incidents or injuries.

Protection motivation theory has been used to focus safety campaigns and has been shown to be
more effective than other methods at decreasing young adults’ intentions to speed while driving
(Glendon & Walker, 2013). Campaign messages derived from PMT were based on raising awareness
of speeding’s consequences and increasing young drivers’ sense of vulnerability and self-efficacy
(e.g. being able to respond to peer pressure by driving within the speed limit). People may be less
tolerant of risks imposed on them by others than those risks they choose to take for themselves,
which implies that helping people recognize the consequences their actions could impose on others
is one way to lead them away from high-risk behavior and be motivated to protect themselves and
others. In general, PMT states that being motivated to protect oneself requires not only adequate
risk perception, but also the tools and skills to take preventive action. Those who are more likely to
take risks tend to be less risk aware and lack the self-efficacy or agency to protect themselves.

Risk perception: Theories, strategies and next steps 5

 Risk Compensation/Risk Homeostasis Theory Risk compensation or risk homeostasis is another
theory explaining why individuals take risks. This theory states that people tend to take more risks when
they feel a greater sense of security. In other words, individuals adjust their level of risk-taking behavior
depending on the safety measures that are in place (Wilde, 1994). Most of the research on risk compensation
theory is focused on transportation safety. Some researchers argue that adding safety features to cars
(e.g. air bags, anti-lock brakes, seatbelts and warning systems) actually encourages people to abandon
Stricoff (2013) of their defensive driving skills because they feel adequately protected by the vehicle. Transportation safety
BST, a Campbell experiments have shown that presence of anti-lock brakes and wearing seatbelts encourages drivers
Institute member, to increase speed and shorten following distance (Aschenbrenner & Biehl, 1994; Janssen, 1994).
refers to Other researchers, however, have found little to no support for risk compensation theory,
habituated action which remains highly contested. One study found that nearly 90% of the reduction in traffic
as “cognitive fatalities from 1964 to 1990 was due to seat belt and drunk driving laws, which seems to rule out
bias,” noting that the argument that people drive more recklessly when they are buckled up (Robertson, 1998).
workers are more Robertson and Pless (2002) argue that individuals simply do not have enough knowledge,
likely to make ability or attention to adjust their behavior to maintain a constant level of risk.
poor judgments
about risk if they Support for risk compensation theory can be found in non-transportation research. For example,
have performed children were observed to navigate an obstacle course more quickly and recklessly (tripping,
a job many falling, hitting objects) when wearing a helmet and wrist guards than when not wearing this safety
times without an equipment (Morrongiello et al., 2007). In the field of occupational research, Bridger & Freidberg
incident. Workers (1999) found that workers wearing an abdominal belt and practicing a squat lifting technique often
can become overestimated the amount of weight that was safe to lift because they believed they were better
convinced that protected with these measures. Loggers also reported that they increased their work speed, anticipated
their way of fewer hazards, and become bolder and more careless when wearing personal protective gear (Klen,
performing a job 1997). Although risk compensation theory is disputed, there appears to be some non-transportation
is the “correct” related research suggesting that it is still valid in predicting some forms of risk behavior.
way, even if it
is inconsistent Situated Rationality Theory Situated rationality theory makes the argument that it is erroneous to
with proper work presume that safe behaviors are inherently rational and high-risk behaviors are inherently irrational. In other
orders. words, there is likely a rational justification for why people choose to take risks that is more explanatory
than assuming that a risk-taker is simply “crazy” or thrill-seeking. For instance, individuals choose to
sunbathe outdoors or use tanning salons despite the risk of skin cancer to enhance their body image (Cafri
et al., 2008). Individuals may also engage in unprotected sex with people they know to be drug users or
HIV-positive to show trust in their partner and demonstrate “real love” (Rhodes, 1997). Additionally,
even the so-called “thrill seekers” tend to know more about the consequences of their actions and the
safeguards in place, so a risk that looks unacceptable to the uninformed is actually being well managed.
If the reward of risk taking is too great, it’s often considered “rational” to take risks. A teen may
drive unsafely to maintain status among peers, or a person could decide that being on time to an
appointment outweighs the risk of unsafe driving (Keating & Halpern-Felsher, 2008). In occupational
safety, workers may not wear personal protective equipment because it is more comfortable or
convenient (Hambach et al., 2011; Vernero & Montanari, 2007) and may not adhere to safe work
procedures in order to complete work more efficiently (Slappendal et al., 1993). As Finucane et
al. (2000) note, the greater the perceived benefit of an activity, the lower the perceived risk.

Certain aspects of situated rationality theory are connected to the concept of peer and community
pressure. Taking risks in the workplace is often justified by workers who are trying to “save face” in front
of coworkers or who want to impress supervisors. Also, business structures and embedded production
systems tend to reward unsafe behavior because of the potential gains in compensation, output, and
recognition. Choudry and Fang (2008) found that Chinese workers often took more risks in hopes that
their gains in efficiency would get noticed by supervisors. These workers also noted that being paid
bonuses for productivity encouraged them to work less safely, and that taking risks made them appear
“tough.” Mullen (2004) also found that workers routinely operated without protective gloves in order
to be seen as “macho.” Some female workers lifted more weight than the job required to be viewed as
competent or strong in the eyes of male coworkers. Overall, workers of both genders were concerned
that appearing less tough, strong or competent jeopardized their good position in the company.

6 visit thecampbellinstitute.org | call (630) 775-2283 | email [email protected]

Situated rationality theory is related in several ways to the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985;
Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). This theory looks at the various social, environmental and psychological factors
that influence a person’s intent to engage in high-risk behavior. A person takes into account not only
his/her own attitudes towards an action, but also the collective attitudes and subjective norms of peers
regarding the action. These attitudes may serve as justification and rationale for taking a risk, especially
if risk perception is low and the potential rewards (e.g. recognition from peers or superiors) are great.
DuPont, a
Habituated Action Theory Habituated action theory argues that engaging in high-risk behavior many Campbell Award
times without a negative outcome often decreases the perceived risk associated with this behavior. Those who winner, found
repeatedly perform a high-risk action without an adverse consequence eventually become desensitized to the that employee
risk (Kasperson et al., 1988; Weyman & Kelly, 1999). For example, the risk of overdose from injecting heroin involvement
is just “an everyday thing” that users accept as part of their habit (Rhodes, 1997). In their study of attachment in safety
to cell phones, Weller et al. (2013) found that those who habitually used a cell phone while driving had management
a lower risk perception than those who had a lower proportion of trips taken while using a cell phone. boosted morale
These studies show that risk taking can lead to a vicious cycle of more dangerous behavior if and reduced the
negative consequences aren’t swiftly realized. Risk perception continues to decrease and risk recordable rate
tolerance continues to increase in this cycle. As Rhodes (1997) states, “Behaviors which are habitual at a Georgia-
do not demand risk assessment or calculation for their doing; they are simply done” (217). Pacific site by
nearly 90% in
Social Action Theory Social action theory has many applications, but when it comes to seven years.
risk, this theory states that people take risks because of peer pressure or a general community Specific auditing
perception that an activity is low risk. A person could be persuaded to engage in unsafe behavior sessions that
if “everyone else is doing it” or the community at large doesn’t perceive an action to be unsafe. enlisted the help
Social action theory also states that the social meaning attached to high-risk behaviors (e.g. of employees
“cool” or “manly”) is something that can drive and motivate people to engage in them. increased their
Propensity towards risk can be affected by coworkers’ expectations. Individuals conform to group risk awareness
norms to avoid sanctions (e.g. teasing, bullying, being labeled “wimpy”) and start to identify and emphasized
with the group and accept group perceptions and behavior (Cooper, 2003; Harding & Eiser, their role in
1984). This tendency to conform can have positive outcomes when a work group or organization keeping the
has a strong culture of safety. For instance, workers who have more positive safety interactions workplace safe
with coworkers through safety conversations and rewards for safe behavior tend to have more (DuPont, 2005).
positive perceptions of safety and therefore perform work more safely (Mullen, 2004). Another Campbell
Award winner,
The negative consequences of social conformity, however, are equally if not more prevalent in studies Firmenich,
on risk taking. For example, connections to schoolmates who engage in cigarette smoking, underage involves
alcohol use and unprotected sex significantly increase a teenager’s likelihood of engaging in these employees
activities (McNeely & Falci, 2004). Among young people, the popularity of video games and films and line
featuring reckless driving hampers the effectiveness of safe driving messages, promoting unsafe driving management in
as “cool, youthful, and fun” (Keating & Halpern-Felsher, 2008:276). Conformity to the social expectations risk assessments
of peers and the larger community often leads to more, rather than less, risk-taking behavior. to identify
hazards and
Social Control Theory Like social action theory, social control theory has many applications properly assess
that go beyond the realm of safety and risk reduction. Social control theory was first introduced by risk according
Hirschi (1969) and states that connectedness to organizations promotes behavior conformity, which to the hierarchy
can reduce the probability of high-risk behavior. The research in this area shows that an individual’s of controls. This
connection to and affiliation with schools or workplaces has a positive influence on risk perception. training ensures
In a review of educational connectedness and engagement, school connectedness was an important that high-risks
factor in preventing youth from engaging in risk-taking behaviors, such as smoking, alcohol and are given top
marijuana use, and riding with impaired drivers (Chapman et al., 2013). Adolescents who perceive priority and that
that their schoolteachers are fair, caring and supportive are less likely to smoke cigarettes, drink to corrective actions
the point of getting drunk, have unprotected sex, or attempt suicide (McNeely & Falci, 2004). are implemented
Employee engagement through volunteer or safety programs tends to raise risk awareness quickly (Firmenich,
and reduce risk taking in the workplace. Being able to participate in hazard identification 2012).
and contribute to workplace safety improvement builds affiliation with an organization
and leads to safer work practices (Clarke & Ward, 2006; Neal et al., 2000).

Risk perception: Theories, strategies and next steps 7

 Organizational identification, or a connection to organizational goals and a collective work identity,
was associated with fewer occupational hazards and greater safety participation. Employees with
more organizational identification were more likely to encourage coworkers to follow safe work
procedures and take action to stop safety violations (Ford & Tetrick, 2011). Ford and Tetrick
(2011) also found that psychological empowerment and organizational identification were tied
to use of protective equipment when supervisors communicated safety as a top priority. Lastly,
Garcia et al. (2004) found that safety climate scores were highly correlated with worker compliance
with safety rules and the reduced frequency of deliberate exposure to occupational risks.

This paper and the examples from Campbell

Institute Member companies present a
starting point for how to approach risk
in your company. Practical outcomes
and recommendations include:

✓A
 nalyzing manufacturing and
leadership and
Safety culture,

process designs to reduce hazards

and avoid imposing risks on
perception
current and future workers
sanctions

✓A
 ssessing management system
approaches to engage leadership in raising
Risk

risk perception and lowering risk tolerance

✓R
 ethinking how work performance
is measured to eliminate workers
from taking risks on the job.
High-risk
behavior

Risk
tolerance

Risk managers at Chevron, a Campbell

Institute Member, have summarized the
impact of each theory into the following
integrated model. In short, as safety culture,
leadership and sanctions increase, risk
perception is heightened, risk tolerance
decreases and high-risk behavior declines.

Conclusion: Connections
among factors and theories
From this review of the literature, it appears that several of the factors and theories related
to risk perception and risk tolerance have overlapping ideas and concepts. The diagram
below provides a visual idea of how these factors and theories are interrelated.

n
ity tio n
al tiv
a
a tio tio
n
ol ion o ns ac
i on tr at n
m
pe d
ct on r
tio m te
la lc ed co
a
ia y ia y at y t ecy k y ituy
c r c r t u r o r s r ab or
So eo So eo Si eo Pr eo Ri eo H e
th th th th th th
MACRO-LEVEL MICRO-LEVEL
THEORIES THEORIES
Safety Safety Peer pressure; Perceived Optimism Optimism
culture; safety culture; safety community knowledge; bias bias
leadership; leadership pressure optimism bias
enforcement;
sanctions

8 visit thecampbellinstitute.org | call (630) 775-2283 | email [email protected]

Just as the factors related to risk perception can be classified as macro-level (institutional) or
micro-level (individual), so can the theories explaining risk perception and risk tolerance. As
may be expected, the micro-level factors are associated with the individual-level theories and
the macro-level factors are more closely associated with broader institutional-level theories.

Social action theory and social control theory can be labeled as macro- or institutional-
level theories because the main impetus for a person to take a risk comes from larger societal Featured
forces, such as the lack of a positive safety culture in a community or workplace and the Campbell
absence of strong safety leadership from parents, teachers or work supervisors. Risk-taking Institute
can also stem from the lax enforcement of rules and weak sanctions for unsafe behavior, Members:
as well as from the lack of strong positive connections to a school or workplace.

In situated rationality theory, an individual makes a personal decision to engage in high-

risk behavior after deeming that the circumstances justify such behavior. Sometimes people
choose to take risks in order to avoid losing status in front of peers or coworkers or to conform
to a societal idea of what is “strong,” “cool” or “competent.” In this sense, situated rationality
theory occupies a middle area in between institutional and individual level theories.

Protection motivation theory, risk compensation theory, and habituated action theory are
connected at the individual level through optimism bias. In these theories, people who take risks
feel adequately shielded from harmful consequences because they overestimate the effectiveness of
protective systems or equipment, underestimate their personal susceptibility to harm or are lured
into a false sense of security because of repeated high-risk behavior without an adverse incident.

Each of these theories and related concepts has their merits, and as demonstrated above, many
theories are not as disparate as their labels suggest. It could be argued that some of these theories
explain risk taking in only slightly different ways and that the originators of these theories would
most likely agree with each other on key points. It’s apparent that campaigns and programs aimed
at increasing risk perception and reducing risk tolerance should attempt to target all levels, from
institutions (macro-level) to the individual (micro-level). Understanding the subtle ways in which
sociological and psychological forces interact to encourage or suppress risk-taking behavior could
aid significantly in creating messaging and programs to make communities and workplaces safer.

Recommendations for future research

This review of the concepts and theories surrounding risk perception is meant to provide valuable
information for understanding and managing risk inside and outside the workplace, but also
reveals some areas for future investigation and research. Further study could provide a critical
analysis of risk perception factors and theories to determine which are most salient for reducing
risk tolerance and encouraging safer behavior. Future research could attempt to answer questions
of interest, such as do macro-, meso-, or micro-level strategies work best in conjunction or
separately? Does one type of strategy have a more positive effect sooner? When resources are
limited, which factor should a company focus on first? Research to answer such questions can
significantly expand the knowledge base regarding risk perception and provide more practical
recommendations for creating campaigns to strengthen community and workplace safety programs.

Risk perception: Theories, strategies and next steps 9

Works cited
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A Dow Chemical Company. (2010). Application for Workers’ perception of chemical risks: A focus
theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman the Robert W. Campbell Award. Midland, MI. group study. Risk Analysis, 31(2), 335-342.
(Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior
(pp. 11-39). New York, NY: Heidelberg, Springer. DuPont. (2005). Higher morale, lower costs: Harding, C.M., & Eiser, J.R. (1984).
Georgia-Pacific/USA case study. Case study, E.I. du Characterizing the perceived benefits of some
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, DE. health issues. Risk Analysis, 4, 131-141.
attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Evan, W., Murdoch, C., Bryant, P., Barnes, Havarneanu, G.M., & Havarneanu, C.E. (2012).
B., & Johnson, B. (2009). Quantitative study When norms turn perverse: Contextual irrationality
Allen, J.P., & Brown, B.B. (2008). Adolescents, peers, of attitudes, motivations and beliefs related vs. rational traffic violations. Transportation Research
and motor vehicles: The perfect storm? American to speeding and speed enforcement. Paper Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15, 144-151.
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 289-293. presented at the 2009 Australasian Road Safety
Research Policing and Education Conference, Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency.
Aschenbrenner, K.M., & Biehl, B. (1994). Empirical 10-13 November. Sydney, New South Wales. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
studies regarding risk compensation in relation
to antilock braking systems. In: Trimpop, R.M., Finucane, M.L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Huang, L., Han, Y., Zhou, Y., Gutscher, H., & Bi,
& Wilde, G.J.S., eds. Challenges to accident Johnson, S.M. (2000). The affect heuristic in J. (2013). How do the Chinese perceive ecological
preventions: The issue of risk compensation judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of risk in freshwater lakes? PLoS ONE, 8(5): e62486.
behavior. Groningen, NL: Styx, 81-89. Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17.
Huang, Y., Chen, J., DeArmond, S., Cigularov, K.,
Becker, M.H., & Maiman, L.A. (1975). Firmenich SA. (2012). Application for the Robert & Chen, P. (2007). Roles of safety climate and shift
Sociobehavioral determinants of compliance W. Campbell Award. Geneva, Switzerland. work on perceived injury risk: A multi-level analysis.
with health and medical care recommendations. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 1088-1096.
Medical Care, 13(1), 10-24. Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and
communication unplugged: Twenty years of Janssen, W. (1994). Seatbelt wearing and driving
Bridger, R.S., & Freidberg, S.S. (1999). Managers’ process. Risk Analysis, 15(2), 137-145. behavior: An instrumented-vehicle study. Accident
estimates of safe loads for manual handling: Evidence Analysis and Prevention, 26, 249-261.
for risk compensation? Safety Science, 32, 103-111. Fleiter, J.J., Watson, B.C., Lennon, A.J., King, M.J.,
& Kan, S. (2009). Speeding in Australia and China: Kasperson, R., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H., Emel,
Cafri, G., Thompson, J.K., Jacobsen, P.B., & Hillhouse, A comparison of the influence of legal sanctions J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J., & Ratick, S. (1988). The
J. (2009). Investigating the role of appearance-based and enforcement practices on car drivers. Paper social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework.
factors in predicting sunbathing and tanning salon presented at the 2009 Australasian Road Safety Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177-187.
use. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 32, 532-544. Research Policing and Education Conference,
10-12 November. Sydney, New South Wales. Keating, D.P., & Halpern-Felsher, B.L. (2008).
Castella, J., & Perez, J. (2004). Sensitivity Adolescent drivers: A developmental perspective
to punishment and sensitivity to reward Fleming, M. & Buchan, D. (2002). Risk on risk, proficiency, and safety. American Journal of
and traffic violations. Accident Analysis is in the eye of the beholder. The Safety Preventive Medicine, 35, 272-277.
and Prevention, 36, 947-952. & Health Practitioner, 20, 30-32.
Klen, T. (1997). Personal protectors and working
Chapman, R.L., Buckley, L., Sheehan, M.C., & Ford, M.T. & Tetrick, L.E. (2011). Relations behavior of loggers. Safety Science, 25(1-3), 89-103.
Schochet, I.M. (2013). School-based programs among occupational hazards, attitudes, and
for increasing connectedness and reducing risk safety performance. Journal of Occupational Marsh, T. (Sept. 2012). Behavioural safety: A
behavior: A systematic review. Educational Health Psychology, 16(1), 48-66. risky business? The Ergonomist, 507, 8-9.
Psychology Review. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/56849/
Garcia, A.M., Boix, P., & Canosa, C. (2004). Mearns, K., Flin, R., Gordon, R., & Fleming, M.
Chen, L., Baker, S.P., Braver, E.R. & Li, Why do workers behave unsafely at work? (1998). Measuring safety climate on offshore
G. (2000). Carrying passengers as a risk Determinants of safe work practices in installations. Work Stress, 12, 238-254.
factor for crashes fatal to 16- and 17-year- industrial workers. Occupational and
old drivers. JAMA, 283, 1578-1582. Environmental Medicine, 61(3), 239-246. Melamed, S., Rabinowitz, S., Feiner, M., Weisberg,
E., & Ribak, J. (1996). Usefulness of protection
Choudhry, R.M., & Fang, D. (2008). Why operatives Glendon, A.I., & Walker, B.L. (2013). Can anti- motivation theory in explaining hearing
engage in unsafe work behavior: Investigating factors speeding messages based on protection motivation protection device use among male industrial
on constructions sites. Safety Science, 46, 566-584. theory influence reported speeding intentions? workers. Health Psychology, 15(3), 209-215.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 57, 67-79.
Cooper, D. (2003). Psychology, risk & McCool, J., Ameratunga, S., Moran, K. & Robinson,
safety: Understanding how personality Goldberg, J.H., Halpern-Felsher, B.L., & Millstein, E. (2009). Taking a risk perception approach to
& perception can influence risk taking. S.G. (2002). Beyond invulnerability: The improving beach swimming safety. International
Professional Safety, November 2003, 39-46. importance of benefits in adolescents’ decision to Society of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 360-366.
drink alcohol. Health Psychology, 21, 477-484.
Cosgrove, L., Chaudhary, N., & Reagan, I. (2011). McNeely, C., & Falci, C. (2004). School
Four high-visibility enforcement demonstration Gucer, P.W., Oliver, M., & McDiarmid, M. (2003). connectedness and the transition into and out
waves in Connecticut and New York reduce Workplace threats to health and job turnover of health-risk behavior among adolescents: A
hand-held phone use. NHTSA Office of among women workers. Journal of Occupational comparison of social belonging and teacher
Behavioral Safety Research, Washington, D.C. and Environmental Medicine, 45, 683-690. support. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 284-292.
Clarke, S., & Ward, K. (2006). The role of Gulf Petrochemicals Industries Company (GPIC). Moeckli, J., & Lee, J.D. (2007). The making of
leader influence tactics and safety climate (2008). Application for the Robert W. Campbell driving cultures. In AAA Foundation, Improving
in engaging employees’ safety participation. Award. Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain. traffic safety culture in the United States: The
Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1175-1185. journey forward (pp. 59-76). Washington,
Halpern-Felsher, B.L., Biehl, M., Kropp, R.Y., DC: Foundation for Traffic Safety.
Davey, J., Wallace, A., Stenson, N., & Freeman, & Rubinstein, M.L. (2004). Perceived risks
J. (2008). Young drivers at railway crossings: An and benefits of smoking: Differences between Mullen, J. (2004). Investigating factors that
exploration of risk perception and target behaviors adolescents with different smoking experiences influence individual safety behavior at work.
for intervention. International Journal of Injury and intentions. Preventive Medicine, 39, 559-567. Journal of Safety Research, 35, 275-285.
Control and Safety Promotion, 15(2), 57-64.
Hambach, R., Mairiaux, P., Francois, G., Morrongiello, B.A., Walpole, B., & Lasenby, J. (2007).
DeJoy, D.M. (1996). Theoretical models of health Braeckman, L., Balsat, A., Van Hal, G., Vandoorne, Understanding children’s injury-risk behavior:
behavior and workplace self-protective behavior. C., Van Royen, P., & van Sprundel, M. (2011). Wearing safety gear can lead to increased risk taking.
Journal of Safety Research, 27(2), 61-72. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 618-623.

10 visit thecampbellinstitute.org | call (630) 775-2283 | email [email protected]

National Safety Council. (2003). Course material Robertson, L.S., & Pless, B. (2002). For and against: Van der Plight, J. (1996). Risk perception
for Principles of Occupational Safety and Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for and self-protective behavior. European
Health. Itasca, IL: National Safety Council. road safety. British Medical Journal, 324, 1149-1152. Psychologist, 1(1), 34-43.

Neal, A., Griffin, M.A., & Hart, P.M. (2000). The Sarkar, S., & Andreas, M. (2004). Acceptance Vernero, F. & Montanari, R. (2007). Risk
impact of organizational climate on safety climate of and engagement in risky driving behaviors management persuasive technologies: The case of
and individual behavior. Safety Science, 34, 99-109. by teenagers. Adolescence, 39, 697-700. a technologically advanced, high-risk chemical
plant. PsychNology Journal, 5(3), 285-297.
Nichols, J.L., Tippetts, A.S., Fell, J.C., Eichelberger, Schechtman, E., Shinar, D., & Compton, R.C. (1999).
A.H., & Haseltine, P.W. (2014). The effects of The relationship between drinking habits and safe Ward, N.J., Linkenbach, J., Keller, S.N., & Otto,
primary enforcement laws and fine levels on driving behavior. Transportation Research Part J. (2010). White paper on traffic safety culture.
seat belt usage in the United States. Traffic F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2, 15-26. Prepared for “Toward zero deaths: A national
Injury Prevention, 15(6), 640-644. strategy on highway safety.” Bozeman, MT: College
Sheeran, P., Harries, P.R., Epton, T. (2013). Does of Engineering, Montana State University.
O’Toole, M. (2002). The relationship between heightening risk appraisals change people’s
employees’ perception of safety and organizational intentions and behavior? A meta-analysis of Weinstein, N. (1984). Why it won’t happen
culture. Journal of Safety Research, 33, 231-243. experimental studies. Psychological Bulletin, to me: Perceptions of risk factors and
advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0033065 susceptibility. Health Psychology, 3, 431-457.
Porter, B.E., & Berry, T.D. (2001). A nationwide
survey of self-reported red light running: Measuring Shope, J.T., & Bingham, C.R. (2008). Weller, J.A., Shackleford, C., Dieckmann, N., & Slovic,
prevalence, predictors, and perceived consequences. Teen driving: Motor-vehicle crashes and P. (2012). Possession attachment predicts cell phone
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 735-741. factors that contribute. American Journal use while driving. Health Psychology, 32(4), 379-387.
of Preventive Medicine, 35, 261-271.
Preusser, D.F., Ferguson, S.A., Williams, A.F. Weyman, A.K., & Kelly, C.J. (1999). Risk
(1998). The effect of teenage passengers on the Slappendal, C., Laird, I., Kawachi, I., Marshall, perception and risk communication: A review
fatal crash risk of teenage drivers. Accident S., & Cryer, C. (1993). Factors affecting work of literature. Sheffield, England: HSE Books.
Analysis and Prevention, 30, 217-22. related injury among forestry workers: A
review. Journal of Safety Research, 24, 19-32. Wilde, G.J.S. (1994). Target risk: Dealing with the
Real, K. (2008). Information seeking and danger of death, disease and damage in everyday
workplace safety: A field application of the risk Sleet, D.A., Dinh-Zarr, T.B., & Dellinger, A.M. decisions. Toronto, Canada: PDE Publications.
perception attitude framework. Journal of Applied (2007). Traffic safety in the context of public
Communication Research, 36(3), 339-359. health and medicine. In AAA Foundation, Williams, A.F. (2003). Teenage drivers: Patterns
Improving traffic safety culture in the United of risk. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 5-15.
Retting, R.A., Williams, A.F., Farmer, C.M., & States: The journey forward (pp. 41-57).
Feldman, A.F. (1999b). Evaluation of red light Washington, DC: Foundation for Traffic Safety.
camera enforcement in Oxnard, California.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 31, 169-174. Stricoff, R.S. (Sept. 2013). Safety program
execution: A key to achieving consistently
Rhodes, T. (1997). Risk theory in epidemic times: Sex, good performance. White paper, Behavioral
drugs and the social organization of ‘risk behavior.’ Science Technology, Inc., Ojai, CA.
Sociology of Health & Illness, 19(2), 208-227.
Usrey, C. (Aug. 2012). Safety “truths” predict
Robertson, L.S. (1998). Injury epidemiology: Methods and prevent workplace injuries. Construction
and approaches. New York: Oxford University Press. Executive, Associated Builders and Contractors
Services Corp., Washington, D.C.

Acknowledgements
The Campbell Institute Research & Knowledge Sub-committee

The Campbell Institute Charter Members

APM Terminals • Bahrain Petroleum Company (BAPCO) • BST • Chevron • Chrysler • Cummins •
DM Petroleum Operations Company • The Dow Chemical Company • DuPont • ExxonMobil • Firmenich •
Fluor • General Motors • Georgia-Pacific • Gulf Petrochemicals Industries Company (GPIC) •
Honeywell • IHS • Industrial Scientific • Johnson Controls • Microsoft • NANA Development Corporation •
Owens Corning • PotashCorp • Qatar Fertilizer Company • Schneider Electric • United Rentals •
United States Steel Corporation • UPS • USG • UTC Climate, Controls & Security • Whirlpool

Author
Joy Inouye

Campbell Institute Staff

John Dony, Katherine Smith and Katie Knee

Risk perception: Theories, strategies and next steps 11

About the Campbell Institute
The Campbell Institute at the National Safety Council is the
environmental, health, and safety (EHS) Center of Excellence. Built
on the belief that EHS is at the core of business vitality and intrinsic to
operational excellence and financial performance, the Institute helps
organizations of all sizes and sectors achieve and sustain excellence.

About the Campbell Award

The Campbell Award recognizes exemplary organizations that
achieve excellence through the integration of the EHS management
in business operations. Supported by a network of 22 Global
Partners across five continents and underwritten by the Exxon
Mobil Corporation, the Award provides the unique opportunity for
winners to share their EHS system innovation to help organizations,
or all sizes and sectors, achieve and sustain excellence.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Campbell Institute
national safety council

call +1-630-775-2283
web thecampbellinstitute.org
email [email protected]
nsc.org

0814  900004811  ©2014 national safety council