Research Article 2016 Research Report Psychological Sci

620784research Article2016research Reportpsychological Sci

Humans adapt their risk-taking behavior on the basis of perceptions of safety; this risk-compensation phenomenon is typified by people taking increased risks when using protective equipment. Existing studies have looked at people who know they are using safety equipment and have specifically focused on changes in behaviors for which that equipment might reduce risk.

This study demonstrates that risk taking increases in people who are not explicitly aware they are wearing protective equipment; furthermore, this happens for behaviors that could not be made safer by that equipment. In a controlled experiment, participants wore either a bicycle helmet or a baseball cap as the head mount for an eye tracker. Participants scored significantly higher on laboratory measures of risk taking and sensation seeking when wearing the helmet, despite it offering no safety benefit in this context and being introduced as merely an eye-tracking device. This suggests that unconscious activation of safety-related concepts primes individuals to exhibit higher risk propensity. The findings point to the possibility that social priming of safety concepts can influence risk-related behaviors even in the absence of conscious awareness.

Paper For Above instruction

Risk-taking behavior and its modulation by psychological factors have long been a subject of interest in behavioral science. The phenomenon known as risk compensation suggests that individuals may alter their risk behaviors based on perceived safety, often leading to increased risk when protective measures are in place. However, traditional research has predominantly focused on scenarios where individuals are explicitly aware of safety interventions, such as seat belts or helmets, and their behaviors are measured in response to known safety devices.

This study extends the understanding of risk compensation by exploring whether unconscious priming of safety concepts can influence risk behaviors in the absence of awareness or explicit knowledge of safety measures. The hypothesis posits that wearing safety-related equipment, even when perceived merely as a neutral apparatus, can activate safety schemas subconsciously, thereby increasing risk propensity even in situations where safety is irrelevant.

The experimental design employed a controlled laboratory setting involving the use of head-mounted eye-tracking hardware mounted either on a bicycle helmet or a baseball cap. Participants, unaware of the true purpose of the equipment, completed a computerized risk-taking task known as the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). This task measures risk propensity by simulating balloon inflation where participants decide how much to inflate to earn monetary points without causing the balloon to burst.

Participants were healthy volunteers aged 17 to 56, divided into two groups based on the headgear condition. They underwent assessments of sensation seeking using the Zuckerman Sensation-Seeking Scale, as well as measures of state anxiety. The key variable was whether wearing a helmet versus a regular cap would influence risk behavior, with the critical manipulation being the safety designation of the helmet, although participants had no explicit knowledge that the helmet was meant to induce feelings of safety or risk.

The results revealed significant differences in risk propensity and sensation seeking between the helmet and cap conditions. Participants wearing the helmet exhibited a higher average number of pumps in the BART, indicative of more risk-taking behavior. They also scored higher on sensation-seeking scales, suggesting an increased desire for novel or intense experiences. Importantly, no significant difference was observed in anxiety levels, ruling out anxiety as a confounding factor.

These findings imply that the mere act of wearing protective equipment associated with safety can unconsciously activate safety schemas, which in turn influence broader risk-related behaviors. This aligns with theories of social priming, where exposure to cues associated with safety can inadvertently shape decision-making processes. The effects persisted even though the helmet was introduced as an eye-tracking device, and had no direct function in mitigating risk during the task.

Contrasting with previous work that emphasizes overt awareness of safety measures, this study suggests that subconscious cues may exert a potent influence over risk-taking behaviors. For instance, prior research by Fyhri and Phillips (2013) indicated that habitual helmet users tend to take fewer risks when cycling without a helmet, but their immediate risk-taking behavior seems unaffected by wearing a helmet. The current findings challenge this, indicating that even when safety equipment is perceived as neutral, its symbolic significance might still provoke subconsciously motivated risk enhancement.

The practical implications of this research are substantial. If safety equipment can inadvertently promote risk-compensatory behaviors through unconscious priming, then safety campaigns and designs might need to account for such psychological effects. For example, in contexts like sports, driving, or hazardous work environments, the assumption that safety gear universally reduces risk could be overly simplistic. Instead, safety gear may paradoxically increase risk under certain conditions, especially if individuals are unaware of the priming effect.

This work also raises questions about the broader cognitive mechanisms underpinning risk behavior. Social priming models, like those proposed by Schräder and Thagard (2013), suggest that exposure to cultural or environmental cues activates associated concepts, which then influence actions. The current findings extend this model to individual, person-centric safety cues, illustrating that even in isolated tasks without social interaction, priming can shape complex behaviors like risk-taking.

Future research should replicate these findings in real-world settings, examining whether unconscious priming via safety cues influences hazardous behaviors in natural environments, such as bicycling on busy roads or operating machinery. Moreover, investigations could explore whether manipulating the symbolic significance of safety equipment might mitigate unintended risk increases. Additionally, neuroimaging studies could shed light on the neural substrates involved in subconscious priming effects on risk behavior.

In conclusion, the study suggests that safety-related cues can unconsciously activate safety schemas, leading to globally increased risk propensity, independent of conscious awareness. This insight challenges traditional notions of risk compensation, emphasizing the importance of considering psychological and environmental priming effects when designing safety interventions. Recognizing that safety gear might sometimes counterintuitively elevate risk underscores the need for comprehensive approaches in risk management and safety psychology.

References

• Adams, J. (1982). The efficacy of seat belt legislation. In Transactions of the Society of Automotive Engineers, 91, 107-113. doi:10.4271/820819
• Adams, J. (1995). Risk. London: UCL Press.
• Fyhri, A., & Phillips, R. O. (2013). Emotional reactions to cycle helmet use. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 50, 59-63. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2012.03.027
• Fyhri, A., & Phillips, R. O., Sagberg, F. (2011). Risk compensation and bicycle helmets. Risk Analysis, 31, 195-205. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01589.x
• Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., & Brown, R. A. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), 75-84. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.8.2.75
• Schräder, T., & Thagard, P. (2013). The affective meanings of automatic social behaviors: Three mechanisms that explain priming. Psychological Review, 120(2), 399-423. doi:10.1037/a0031994
• Wilde, G. J. S. (1998). Risk homeostasis theory: An overview. Injury Prevention, 4(2), 89-91. doi:10.1136/ip.4.2.89
• Wells, G. L., & Petty, R. E. (1980). The effects of overt head movements on persuasion: Compatibility and incompatibility. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1(1), 1-15. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0101_1
• Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S. B. J., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(2), 139-149. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.46.2.139