Parents teaching young children home safety rules: Implications for childhood injury risk

Teaching safety rules is a common practice but little is known about this. Fifty-eight parents of children 2 to 2.5 or 3 to 3.5 years of age reported on the safety rules they have, the factors that prompted these rules, the strategies used to teach these rules, and how they react to noncompliance with these rules. Results revealed more safety rules for children in the older group than the younger group, and greater emphasis on teaching the rule than teaching the basis for the rule at younger than older ages. Only about half the rules restricted the child from doing the risk behavior completely, whereas the remaining rules allowed for the behavior under certain circumstances. Parents assumed safety rules would prevent injuries and mostly implemented rules in reaction to evidence of injury risk. Parents equated noncompliance with not understanding, assuming that if children understood they would comply. Implications for childhood injury risk are discussed.     

Examining behavioral and attitudinal differences among groups in their traffic safety culture

The paper explores the concept that, for a given population, there is not a single “traffic safety culture,” but rather a set of alternative cultures in which the individual driver might belong. There are several different cultures of dangerous driving behavior and each might need a separate strategy for intervention or amelioration. First, the paper summarizes the over-arching theory explored in the research, which applies Multi-group Structural Equation Modeling (MSEM) in a modification of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) in the explanation of Risky Driving Behavior, based on ten observed explanatory factors. Second, we apply Latent Class Cluster (LCC) segmentation to the full sample, revealing four segments: one cluster reflecting a “Low Risk Driving Safety Group” and three clusters describing three different groups of problematic drivers. We first apply MSEM to two groups; the “Low Risk Driving Safety Group,” and the “High Risk Driving Safety Group,” defined as the members of the three problematic clusters together, revealing how a “Low Risk” culture differs from the “High Risk” culture, with the relative importance of the TPB explanatory factors varying sharply between the two groups. Finally, the three problematic clusters are profiled for demographics and their mean scores for the ten observed explanatory factors. Each of the clusters is reviewed in terms of responses to selected survey questions. Three separate and distinct dangerous traffic safety cultures emerge: first, a culture of risky driving dominated by excitement seeking and optimism bias; a second dominated by denial of societal values; and a third characterized by its propensity to find rational justifications for its speeding behavior. The paper applies two research methods together: LCC segmentation divides our sample into meaningful subgroups, while MSEM reveals both within-group analysis of variance and between-group differences in safety attitudes and outcomes. The paper concludes that the combination of the segmentation powers of the LCC and the analysis powers of the MSEM provides the analyst with an improved understanding of the attitudes and behaviors of the separate groups, all tied back to the over-arching theory underlying the research.     

Illegal crossing behavior of pedestrians at signalized intersections: Factors affecting the gap acceptance

Purpose of designing crosswalks is to allow pedestrians to cross the roads safely avoiding conflicts between pedestrians and motorized vehicles. However, pedestrians do not always comply with the crossing rules, whether it is timing (signalization) and/or location (crossing facility). An observation survey of illegal crossings was conducted at six intersections in Izmir, Turkey to determine the distance and time gap perception of the pedestrians for safe road-crossing within the 25 m of the crosswalk. Each intersection was observed on weekdays during afternoon (12.30–13.30) and evening peak hours (17.00–18.00). Totally, 444 illegal crossings were observed at all intersections. Data were analyzed playing the video recordings in office. All roads were consisted of two lanes. In this study pedestrians’ illegal crossing behavior at signalized intersections depending on the position of the oncoming vehicle is of interest. Safety margins and crossing times of the pedestrians were also reported. Position of the vehicle was determined for the first lane at the instant the pedestrian stepped the lane. Pedestrians’ distance gap perception was categorized into five groups depending on the position of the oncoming vehicle which are; vehicle is within the 25 m of the crosswalk, vehicle is within the 25–50 m of the crosswalk, vehicle is within the 50–75 m of the crosswalk, vehicle is just beyond 75 m, and vehicle is out of field of view. Factors affecting the distance gaps, safety margins and crossing times were analyzed by ANOVA. The most significant effect was the vehicle speed in all analysis. Pedestrians based their decision of crossing on distance rather than time gap.     

Task complexity matters: The influence of trait mindfulness on task and safety performance of nuclear power plant operators

People with high level of trait mindfulness are more likely to maintain an open and present-focused awareness and attention. Whereas a positive link between trait mindfulness and well-being has been established, its influence on real-world performance has not been fully addressed. In Study 1, we validated the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI) in a Chinese sample (N = 294) and found that a two-dimensional solution (a presence factor and an acceptance factor) best fit the data. In Study 2, using this validated scale, we directly investigated the influence of trait mindfulness on task and safety performance. In a sample of 136 Chinese nuclear power plant operators, it was found that trait mindfulness interacted with task complexity to influence performance. For high-complexity-task holders (the control room operators), the presence factor was positively related to their task and safety performance; for the low-complexity-task holders (the field operators), the presence factor had no influence on safety performance but a negative influence on task performance. The acceptance factor did not have any meaningful influences. These results suggest that the benefit of being mindful outweighs its cost for complex but not simple tasks. Implications are discussed.     

Safety behaviour does not necessarily interfere with exposure therapy

There has been much recent controversy regarding whether or not the use of safety and other neutralizing behaviour interferes with exposure-based therapy. The aim of this study was to examine the role of safety behaviour in the treatment of specific phobia. Sixty-two snake-fearful participants were randomized to a 45-min exposure session with or without the use of safety gear, such as gloves and goggles. During the treatment, participants in the safety behaviour group were able to achieve a significantly closer initial distance of approach to the snake compared to controls. When tested post-treatment without any safety gear, both groups demonstrated comparable treatment gains involving significant reductions in fearful cognitions and subjective anxiety, as well as significant improvements in distance of approach. Results suggest that reliance on safety behaviour during exposure therapy for anxiety disorders may not interfere with treatment outcome.     

Safety,Risk Acceptability,and Morality

The primary aim of this article is to develop and defend a conceptual analysis of safety. The article begins by considering two previous analyses of safety in terms of risk acceptability. It is argued that these analyses fail because the notion of risk acceptability is more subjective than safety, as risk acceptability takes into account potential benefits in a way that safety does not. A distinction is then made between two different kinds of safety-safety qua cause and safety qua recipient-and both are defined in terms of the probability of a loss of value, though the relationship between safety and the probability of loss varies in each case. It is then shown that although this analysis is less subjective than the previously considered analyses, subjectivity can still enter into judgments of safety via the notions of probability and value. In the final section of this article, it is argued that the difference between safety and risk acceptability is important because it corresponds in significant ways to the difference between consequentialist and deontological moral viewpoints.     

Untangling the Debate: The Ethics of Human Enhancement

Human enhancement, in which nanotechnology is expected to play a major role, continues to be a highly contentious ethical debate, with experts on both sides calling it the single most important issue facing science and society in this brave, new century. This paper is a broad introduction to the symposium herein that explores a range of perspectives related to that debate. We will discuss what human enhancement is and its apparent contrast to therapy; and we will begin to tease apart the myriad intertwined issues that arise in the debate: (1) freedom & autonomy, (2) health & safety, (3) fairness & equity, (4) societal disruption, and (5) human dignity.

Proactivity towards workplace safety improvement: an investigation of its motivational drivers and organizational outcomes

Initiating a safety oriented change—or safety initiative—is conceptually distinct from other forms of safety participation and safety citizenship behaviour, yet little attention has been given to its performance outcomes or its motivational antecedents. An initial study with a sample composed of middle managers (N = 86) showed that safety initiative predicted objective improvement actions 6 months later, whereas, showing differential validity, safety compliance predicted the implementation of monitoring actions. Two subsequent studies focused on motivational antecedents. First, using a sample of team leaders (N = 295), we tested a higher-order structure of proactive motivation that incorporates three domains: “can do”, “reason to” and future orientation. Second, in a longitudinal study of chemical work operators (N = 188), after checking for the influence of potential confounders (past behaviours; accidents experience; perceived risk), we showed that safety initiative was predicted only by proactive motivation. Instead, safety compliance was found to be associated with affective commitment and scrupulousness, whereas safety helping was found to be associated with affective commitment. Self-reported behaviours were validated against rater assessments. This study supports the importance of distinguishing safety initiative from other safety behaviours, indicating how to create an organizational context supporting a proactive management of workplace safety.