1964•Occupational and Environmental MedicineOpen access

The Concept of Accident Proneness: A Review

PETER FROGGATT, J. A. Smiley

Open full text 73 citations

Abstract

The term accident proneness was coined by psychological research workers in 1926. Since then its concept—that certain individuals are always more likely than others to sustain accidents, even though exposed to equal risk—has been questioned but seldom seriously challenged. This article describes much of the work and theory on which this concept is based, details the difficulties encountered in obtaining valid information and the interpretative errors that can arise from the examination of imperfect data, and explains why accident proneness became so readily accepted as an explanation of the facts. A recent hypothesis of accident causation, namely that a person9s accident liability may vary from time to time, is outlined, and the respective abilities of this and of accident proneness to accord with data from the more reliable literature are examined. The authors conclude that the hypothesis of individual variation in liability is more realistic and in better agreement with the data than is accident proneness.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The term accident proneness was coined by psychological research workers in 1926. Since then its concept—that certain individuals are always more likely than others to sustain accidents, even though exposed to equal risk—has been questioned but seldom seriously challenged. This article describes much of the work and theory on which this concept is based, details the difficulties encountered in obtaining valid information and the interpretative errors that can arise from the examination of imperfect data, and explains why accident proneness became so readily accepted as an explanation of the facts. A recent hypothesis of accident causation, namely that a person9s accident liability may vary from time to time, is outlined, and the respective abilities of this and of accident proneness to accord with data from the more reliable literature are examined. The authors conclude that the hypothesis of individual variation in liability is more realistic and in better agreement with the data than is accident proneness.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 73 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The term accident proneness was coined by psychological research workers in 1926. Since then its concept—that certain individuals are always more likely than others to sustain accidents, even though exposed to equal risk—has been questioned but seldom seriously challenged. This article describes much of the work and theory on which this concept is based, details the difficulties encountered in obtaining valid information and the interpretative errors that can arise from the examination of imperfect data, and explains why accident proneness became so readily accepted as an explanation of the facts. A recent hypothesis of accident causation, namely that a person9s accident liability may vary from time to time, is outlined, and the respective abilities of this and of accident proneness to accord with data from the more reliable literature are examined. The authors conclude that the hypothesis of individual variation in liability is more realistic and in better agreement with the data than is accident proneness.

Key concepts: Accident (philosophy), Causation, Accident-proneness, Liability, Psychology, Term (time), Computer science, Poison control

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Concept of Accident Proneness: A Review — Research Paper | ScholarLens