Health Psychology

Requirements

Definitions, causes and factors affecting accidents

Personality and accident pronenessReducing accidents and promoting safety

behaviours

Background definitionsACCIDENT

An event without apparent cause, unexpected, unintentional, mishap.ATTRIBUTIONS

Who/what is to blame. Fundamental attribution errorsHUMAN ERROR

Omission, commission, timing, sequencePEOPLE APPROACH (ERRORS)

People at faultSYSTEM APPROACH (ERRORS)

System set-up but not always followedSELECTVE ATTENTION/COGNITIVE OVERLOAD

Too many things on our mind at one timeDESKILLING

Irony of automation. People are still left to do the difficult tasks which cannot be automated easily

EQUIPMENT DESIGNe.g. wearing rings while playing sport. Or pressing the wrong control because it looks the same

Background personality

ACCIDENT-PRONEA person approach explanation. Satisfies the name and blame option. Nobody is really accident prone though.

REPEATERSProbably a result of some norm compliance

ABUSEOf alcohol and substances impair our judgements

SLEEP DEPRIVATIONMake more errors, need longer to perform

TYPE A BEHAVIOURLead to more risky situations by their nature to rush/compete

INTROVERT/EXTROVERTIntroverts less likely to ask for help so expose themselves to greater personal risk. BUT extroverts are impulsive and found to be a feature of car accidents.

Background reducing accidents

STRESS REDUCTIONIn the workplace leads to fewer lost days through illness. More fluids leads to better mental faculties.

ATTITUDE/ MEDIA CAMPAIGNMedia changes our attitudes but not necessarily our behaviour. Chip pan fires were reduced b giving advice what to do rather than just consequences of not doing.

SLEEPY DRIVERAdvice needs to be useful – but some is only short term in effect

MOBILE PHONESWe wander in our lane and vary road speed. Multitasking is difficult. Deriver education, legislation, employer education.

UNDERSTANDING INSTRUCTIONSNot everyone is given the same message by icons and signs. Literacy in black communities is low. Medical symbols need to be redesigned.

3 Short Summaries

Accidents are a major cause of injury and death in th UK. Accidents have multiple causes and the explanation we choose to give affects what we do to prevent future hazardous events. If we consider the medical accident at QMC, perhaps cognitive overload and equipment design were two features that contributed to the fatal mistake. The systems explanation probably provides the most useful approach, but the more popular explanation is to blame the individual.

The person approach to accidents is satisfying but flawed. It has not been possible to identify an accident-prone type of person, but there is some evidence abut the characteristics and behaviour patterns that make people more likely to have accidents or make errors.

Preventing accidents is easier said than done. Attempts to improve the safety of the environment and to improve good practise at work can help to reduce the frequency of damaging errors.

Study 1LysensWho

1989Accident-prone and over-use-prone athletesCorrelation & longitudinal, 185 1st yr PE students

(118m+67f) 17-19y, one university – all follow same exercise programme. Informed consentWhat

Medical, existing injuries recorded and recovered. Physical and psychological profiles. Definition of injury & reinjury established and classifiedResults

185 people sustained 315 injuries (137 acute, 178 overuse). 4.72 injueries/student/1000 hours. Absence longer in females than males. Generally acute injuries occur in short people with good upper body strength and functional strength who lack caution. Overuse injuries are implied by tall endomorphs with little static strength but great explosive strength, low muscle flexibility, large Q-angled neurotics.

Study 2RaicheWho

2000Older adults and fallingTesting the validity of the Tinetti balance. 225 people over

75y randomly selected from electoral roll. Informed consent.What

Longitudinal correlation between Tinetti score and number of falls. Tinetti measures balance and gait. Lower score more likely to fall. Trained nurse administered. In own home. Calendar given, recorded falls. Telephoned monthly.Results

Mean score on Tinetti 33.8 (/40). 23.6% fell at least once and all scored below 33 on scale. 120/225 scored 36 or less and had greater than 30% risk of falling.

Tinetti scale therefore tested for predictive validity and found to be valid.

Study 3SherryWho

2003Accidents and support in the trucking industryCorrelation: stress, supervisor support, personal attributes

and accidents55 long-distance drivers. Consent.

WhatVariables measured using likert scales. Accidents

measures using 3 questions (how many injuries in 4 y, how many collisions, how many traffic tickets) All question embedded in a large questionnaire.Results

Significant relationship between stress & injuries, personal attributes & injuries, supervisor support & number of tickets. No relationship between stress & collisions, personal attributes & collisions. Personal variable and injury showed a correlation between few injuries and low score on distractibility.

Study 4Gofin

Who2004Motor ability and child accidents2057 children gr3-6. 8 schools (Israel). Informed consent

(parents). Natural experiment.What

Gender and grade from school records. Questionnaire sent home but too few returned. Questionnaire in class on perceived health, Physical activity, handedness, sensation seeking. PE teachers (std protocol) anthropomorphic data + motor ability (agility, balance, reaction time) Injuries on school premises (needing medical treatment or reduced activity) measured by teacher incentives for compliance. Cause of accident, nature, severity, circumstances. Over 1 year.Results

73 (3.9%) injured. 9 injured twice. 82 injuries. More male than female, more 6gr than 3gr. Cuts/scrapes common but 5 fractures. Mostly falls or blows on playground, field, PE. Anthropomorphic features not implicated.

Contrary to hypothesis – those with better ability to balance suffered more injuries than those with lower balance. Agile children suffered more injuries. Maybe they take more risks.

Study 5SWOVWho

1997Principal causes of accidents for cyclistsVictims of cycling accidents, Amsterdam, stratified random

sample. 3 groups – injury while riding, injury while stationary, passenger. All taken to hospital.What

QuestionnaireResults

53% fell while riding, 29% collided cyclist, 24% collide object. 7% cycle defect, 28% own behaviour, 27% other road user, 14% road, 24% other causes. 8% admit cycle needs better maintenance, 30% those riding without lights thought it could be avoided if they put their lights on. 4% wearing helmets & fewer head injury but rode faster. Passengers 73% feet caught, 70% no wheel cover, 20% poor seats

Unsafe behaviours cause accidents rather than unsafe system. Recommendations – improve road surface, wear helmets, wheel covers/cycle seats better, legal requirements.

Study 6

HaightWho

2001Review article accident proneness

What3 causes of road accidents

factors internal to driverfactors related to roadpurely random factors

ResultsAccident proneness is a search for a scapegoat

[Personal note – this study is not useful to learn – it is far too vague]

General ReviewValidity

Lysens – profiles developed have predictive validity for that group also face and construct validity. But as not checked against other things measuring the same variable we can’t say they have concurrent validity.Gofin – predictive validity but not construct validity since hypothesis cancelled out.Sherry – predictive validity as measurement can predictRaiche – predictive validity

EthicsInformed consent, confidentiality, protectionInformed consent in all studies.Gofin allows some identification of the children involved (grade 3-6 and school identifiable)Protection none of the participants put at extra risk . All injuries occurred as a result of day-to-day activities.

SamplingRaiche – random sample – generalisable.Gofin – restricted cluster sample but offset by large size. Sherry – very small sampleLysens – generalise to young sports students but not sportspeople in general (wide ranging activities)

MethodologyCorrelations (Lysens, Raiche, Sherry) mean we know nothing about causes of injuries – just an increased risk other factors play a part.Gofin – experiment so cause and effect can be inferred.

Questions

Describe one study of causes of accidents (6)Discuss the problems of researching causes of accidents

(10)Describe one study of personality and accident proneness

(6)Discuss the validity of the concept of accident proneness

(10)Describe what psychologists have discovered about

accidentsDiscuss the psychological evidence on accidentsSuggest a psychological intervention that would be helpful

in reducing accidents from the use of tea cosies in the home. Give reasons for your answer.