Sometimes we lose sight of the truth, or the relative subjectivity of truth.

There are facts, there is the truth, and there is how we each look at those  that determines our existence.

And oftr, our perspectives and biases wil presnnt to us a “different” version of the truth.

In safety, multiple perspectives can be helpful to developing a comprehensive safety protocol to keep workers safe. But the danger goes beyond looking at every contingency or perspective – it’s about seeing the result for what it is.

When addressing risk, it’s important to understand the hazard that exists and the controls in place to mitigate that hazard. And there is no rock-solid, immutable formula in determining the level of hazard and the level of control in any situation or environment. Perception is key here; what the worker sees as a very high hazard, a supervisor or CFO might see as an “overreaction.” What a worker might deem as unsafe by having too few controls, a CFO or supervisor might find the hazard adequately controlled as long as “the worker does his job the right way.”

A big part of Vladimir Ivensky’s article in Professional Safety magazine is based on the differences in perception of risks and hazards in the workplace, and the potential dangers it can cause when constituencies are not on the same page in terms of safety. My last post introduced you to the article and its premise, and this post will go into a bit of the different perceptions.

Risks are Subjective

Early in Ivensky’s piece he discusses the reality of risk – that it is a subjective entity determined by each person who is assessing the hazard and deciding for himself or herself how large of a risk that hazard poses.

The hazard can be tangibly seen, felt, observed. The risk, however, is not so easily determined, because it is more of a mental and emotional output based on a reaction to the empirical information and evidence presented through the facts.

This same variance applied to level fo risk of a hazard can also be applied in the other direction, as in how a person perceives the controls that are in place. Whether those controls adequately “address” the perceived risk of the hazard can also be of utmost importance.

Ivensky wrote that our general perceptions of hazards, and thus our perceived risk, are based on several criteria, including knowledge, experience, and personality among the major drivers in how we see risk. What he also noted was that even those within a particular group will have perceptions and perspectives that differ with others regardless of similarities in the group dynamic.

Risk Assessment Surveys

Often, what we see happening is that subjective risk perceptions are analyzed through surveys, where respondents are asked about perceived risk in various scenarios and based on their own biases will tend to answer on a numerical scale (say, 1 to 10) about the risk perceived by a specific hazard nd that can be measured against other hazards. For example, some of the comparisons of perception could be in these categories:

  • Exposure to a hazard that is voluntary (cigarette smoke) or involuntary (nuclear power plant).
  • Outcomes that are considered catastrophic (falling from a height) or chronic (exposure to X-ray radiation).
  • Common (caffeine) or dread (fall from a height).
  • An exposure that is certain to be non-fatal (abestos or lead paint) or an expousre that will certainly be fatal (sarin gas).
  • A hazard that is known by a poteitally exposed person or a hazard that is unknown.
  • A hazard that is known to science or one that is unknown to science.
  • A hazard that can be conrolled or one that cannot be conrolled.

Despite the varied perspectives of each of the respondents, what these types of surveys seem to show is that the perceived risk of a particular hazard can be quantified and predicted. As an example of this, Ivensky referred to a study done in the early 1980s, when four groups of people were asked to assess risk of 30 different items, activities or technologies. One group was from a chapter of the League of Women Voters; a second group was college students; the third group was active members of various club or civic organizations; and the fourth group was made up of risk-assessment experts in various fields.

As expected, Ivensky showed that each group came up with a very different list when prioritizing risk perception.

What were the top-three risks percevied among each group? Here they are, in order from riskiest to third-riskiest:

  • League of Women Voters: Nuclear power, motor vehicles. handgims.
  • College students: Nuclear power, handguns, smoking.
  • Active club members: Handguns, motorcycles, motor vehicles.
  • Risk experts: Motor vehicles, smoking, alcohohc beverages.

As you can see, even as the hazards are the same for all groups, each group’s dynamic and experience will provide different perceptions of risk – some of it in terms of risk to themselves, others in terms of  risk to family, friends and the community at-large.

We’ll continue along this vein in the next post.