Risk Tolerance: Why People Take Risks in the Workplace

Risk Tolerance: Why People Take Risks in the Workplace

Abstract

The management of risks is one of the important aspects of managing operations of an institution or business organization. Companies and other institutions use a wide range of provisions and processes in an attempt to minimize the level of risks and accidents in the workplace. The workplace is considered one of the riskiest places, due to the utilization of machinery, automobiles, chemicals, and the coordination of several activities at the same time. A lot has been done in terms of legislation, training, setting up of workplace safety and health teams and departments, and provisions on safety and health at work. However, the role of the human aspect has not been factored in in the processes of risk management in several organizations. This research attempts a focus on the human aspect of workplace safety management to determine the various motivations behind taking risks in the workplace. Past research will be reviewed to identify what has been done regarding the issue, and recommendations will be provided to improve workplace safety.

Keywords: Risk, Tolerance, Management, Business, People

Outline

Title: Risk Tolerance: Why People Take Risks in the Workplace.

Thesis Statement: Understanding the reasons why people take risks in the workplace and recommendations to reduce the problem.

Introduction

• Importance of research.
• The goals of the research.
• Scope of the research.

Background and Significance

• The need for research/research intention.
• Significance of the research.
• Problem Statement
• Identification of the research problem.

Research Questions

• Q1: What is the ‘copycat effect’ and how does the effect contribute to the research problem?
• Q2: Why do people use different strategies of taking risks depending on whether they are considering the risk for themselves or recommending it to a loved one?
• Q3: Why do men tend to take more risks compared to women?
• Synthesis of the research questions.

Literature Review

• Analysis of past research on risk tolerance.
• Analysis of past studies on the various aspects of risk-taking behavior.

Research Methods

• General explanation of the methods used in the research.
• Q1 – analysis of past research on ‘the copycat effect’.
• Q2 – analysis of past studies on the strategies that people use in risk decision-making.
• Q3 – analysis of past studies on the gender differences in risk tolerance and risk-taking and the explanations suggested for the differences.
• Limitations
• Statement of the various limitations of the research.
• Results
• Review of identified past research on ‘the copycat effect’.
• Review of identified past studies on risk-taking strategies that people use.
• Review of the identified past research on the gender differences in risk-taking and risk tolerance, and the suggested explanations.

Discussion

• An analysis of the conclusions of reviewed research.
• Explanation of the identified motivations for people taking risks in the workplace.

Recommendations and Conclusion

• Suggestions to improve workplace safety.
• Summary of the research results.

References

• A list of the information and data sources used in the research.

Why People Take Risks in the Workplace

Introduction

Every workplace holds a certain level of risk to the workers or those that are employed. These risks come in several different forms and levels depending on the nature of the job. Risks in the workplace range from working with machinery to high amounts of risk such as employees working at height. Besides the potential risks that are present in the workplace, many employees in the workplace go on to take risks knowingly. Taking risks rewards employees with a certain amount of convenience that may be in terms of apparent time savings, completion of assigned tasks in a way that is easier, or the implied approval and admiration by other employees and observers who fail to oppose the risk-taking. Companies and other forms of organizations try as best as they can to put in the recommended health and safety measures and provisions to minimize the level of risk in the workplace, even though most of the health and work safety regulations receive criticism since they are seen as a way of the government overreaching the private companies through unnecessary regulation.

Health and work safety provisions cost businesses a huge amount of money but are necessary for the shielding of employees against potential risks and hazards. Even with most of the health and workplace safety instructions being based on common sense, and with several provisions put in place in the workplace to lower the level of risks and potential hazards, many employees still take risks. Why do people take risks in the workplace? The purpose of this paper is to conduct research into the various reasons why employees take risks in the workplace. Relevant literature will be studied to determine why the problem of taking risks in the workplace is prevalent in many companies and business organizations. The paper will also try to identify what can be done to control the problem or minimize risk-taking by employees in the workplace.

This paper will involve research into several literature works and past research into the question of risk-taking y employees, with the aim of finding answers to question such as why men tend to take more risks compared to women and why people use different strategies depending on whether they are considering a risk for themselves or recommending it to a loved one. The research will also seek to understand the ‘copycat effect’ at the workplace and identify how it contributes to the problem in question; why people take risks in the workplace.

Background and Significance

The workplace is one of the riskiest places to be in for anyone. Workplaces bear potential risks ranging from basic risks such as fire and explosives to higher levels of acknowledged risk such as working at height, working with inflammable substances, working with heavy machinery, and mining. Everything an employee does in the workplace carries a certain element and level of risk. The amount of risk varies substantially in the workplace and the level is basically determined by a number of factors. These factors include the work environment and the organizational culture or the culture of the employees in the workplace. Introducing and encouraging a work culture that values and advocates for safety at work and seeking to understand the way of thinking of the employees in a company is one of the best methods of minimizing risks in the workplace. Moreover, every industry has prescribed work safety and health procedures, and a number of facilities and provisions put in place to minimize the levels of risk and ensure minimum effect in the event of a risk occurring.

Governments put in place several legislations such as the United States Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and other several work safety legislation that companies have to abide with before being licensed for operations. The purpose of work safety and health legislation is to minimize, as far as possible, the imminent risks in the workplace that result in the injury or even death of workers. Risk management is one of the focus areas of workplace safety and health departments in organizations and companies. These departments come up with sensible regulations and measures for risk management that involves paperwork and putting in place of a number of regulations on the employees of the company. While risk management helps in the minimization or reduction of the level of risk in a workplace, it should not get in the way of employees doing their work or performing their duties. Moreover, it is not capable of eliminating the risks in a workplace. Even with risk management, monitoring, and prevention, it is not possible to legislate against or even manage the nature and actions of human beings; the employees in the workplace.

Occupational safety and health legislation and the efforts of safety and health departments in workplaces may be effective in the assessment of risks and their management through actions and provisions such as personal protective equipment (PPE), placement of warning signs around the workplace (such as slippery floor and corrosive substances warnings), and putting in place disciplinary procedures for employees who do not observe or adhere to workplace safety guidelines, but the overall safety in a workplace depends largely on the behavior, attitudes, and actions of the employees. Employees take risks in their day to day actions and operations. When employees act in ways that are contrary to the guidelines and procedures put in place by safety and health departments and government legislation to protect them, they place themselves and their colleagues in danger. Many of the risks that employees take are often avoidable and preventable. These risks, when taken, cause injury and harm to themselves or to other employees.

In the day to day activities of production and fulfilling their duties, employees take risks which may appear simple such as using mobile phones when operating machinery and exceeding the required loads on a forklift, oblivious of the overhanging danger that they may be putting themselves and their fellow employees in. most of the time employees are lucky to avoid injury or damage, receiving a certain amount of reward in terms of convenience after taking risks. The reward may be in terms of blatant time savings or the speedy completion of assigned tasks, or the implicit approval and acknowledgement by the onlookers or colleagues who may not be willing to oppose or speak against the evident risk-taking or risky behaviour.

Besides using mobile phones while working, operating machinery or driving, and overloading forklifts, employees engage in other risky activities that include doing things or walking in a hurry without paying attention to their surroundings; failure to wear protective clothing, safety glasses or hearing protection; failing to lockout a machine or an equipment; leaving machinery without guards on so as to perform adjustments in a quicker way; smoking in prohibited areas; failure to use safety belts and climbing harnesses; exceeding the speed limits of machines and vehicles; working while intoxicated; eating while handling chemicals; improper handling of chemicals; and buffoonery. Employees who engage in such activity are most of the time people who have become self-congratulatory since they have acted in a similar way before and were lucky. As such, they continue with these behaviors believing that they are ordinary daily activities. In the actual sense, however, these activities involve taking risks that are unnecessary.

Owing to the problem of employees taking unnecessary risks at work, an angle that is different from the conventional method of risk management needs to be taken. Analyzing the various psychological reasons why risky situations occur in the workplace and investigating the various obstacles that employees tackle using risky methods would help in the determination of, and understanding of the reasons why people or employees take risks in the workplace, and would go a long way into effectively managing risks at the workplace since it would assist in the understanding of how best to control or regulate the human factor/human nature in risk management in the workplace.

Problem Statement

People take risks in the day to day activities in the workplace, even with the knowledge of the potential hazards or injury that these risks may result in. this paper seeks to determine the reasons why employees take risks in the workplace. Identifying the rationale that workers use in making the decision to take various risks while performing their duties will be helpful in the understanding of the human nature aspect of workplace safety, and will go a long way into the improvement of workplace safety programs in various companies or workplaces. The vast legislation on occupational safety and health and the efforts by occupational safety and health department in various institutions has resulted in the development of a set of rules, laws, and regulations that attempt to minimize the level of risk at workplaces.

Provisions such as personal protective equipment, warning signs, and regulations on sanity, and intoxication have been put in place by institutions to support the efforts of the work safety legislation. However, there is no method of regulating or controlling the human aspect of human nature, mostly because institutions lack the understanding of this aspect of safety management. This paper will focus on the human aspect by trying to understand the various forces that drive employees into taking risks in the workplace. Understanding the motivation behind taking risks will assist in the determination of how best to control employees and ensure that their tolerance to risk in the workplace is minimized.

Research Questions

Q1: What is the ‘copycat effect’ and how does the effect contribute to the research problem?

Q2: Why do people use different strategies of taking risks depending on whether they are considering the risk for themselves or recommending it to a loved one?

Q3: Why do men tend to take more risks compared to women?

By looking into these questions, the research will identify a number of reasons that motivate risk taking in the workplace. The research will also attempt to explain some notable aspects of employee risk-taking such as the higher pervasiveness of men taking risks, and the differences in risk-taking by individuals depending on whether they are posing risk to themselves or recommending an action that poses risk to other people such as their loved ones or friends. The ‘copycat effect’ will be discussed extensively in order to understand how it contributes to the issue of risk taking in the workplace. The research aims at understanding the reasons behind risk-taking by workers and will attempt to provide a number of improvement suggestions to control risk-taking in the workplace.

Literature Review

A number of scholars and researchers have investigated the various reasons why people engage in risky activities, and why employees take risks while performing their duties. The psychological aspect of taking risky decisions has also been widely researched on in the past. Various aspects such as gender differences in taking risks (risk tolerance) and the relationship between risk decisions and perceived benefits have been the primary focus of past researchers into the matter. The presence of gender differences in risk tolerance and the proclivity to take risks has been studied by several researchers and documented in innumerable experimental and questionnaire studies. Waldron et al. (2005) conducted a study that tested a number of hypotheses that concerned the observed gender differences in accident-related actions and accidents mortality. The study used data obtained from many parts of the world, including the United Kingdom, Italy, the United States, Japan, and France. The research found out that the gender differences for several types of accidents mortality were either stable or increasing.

However, the study also confirmed the earlier discussed Convergence Hypothesis stating that the gender differences in accident-related behavior and accident mortality have reduced as a result of male and female gender roles becoming more similar and more women being involved in activities that have high risks (Bergdahl, 2000). The trends identified were attributed to the differential impact on male and female mortality or basic societal trends such as the heightened use of drugs or better health care. In the same way, the study concluded that there was evidence showing that the observed trends in accident-related actions and behaviour were linked to a number of factors that include gender differences in the rate of adoption of various types of innovations. Byrnes, Miller, and Schafer (1999) also conducted a meta-analysis reviewing more than a hundred papers that had been written on the topic of gender differences in the perception of risk. The researchers, after a thorough review of these papers, came up with a conclusion that the all the reviewed literature clearly showed that the male gender is more likely to take risks or participate in risky activities compared to the female gender (p. 377).

Weber, Blais, and Betz (2002) also conducted an investigation into the types of risks that men and women perceived using five dissimilar dominions. The research used financial decisions, recreational decisions, social decisions, ethical decisions, and health/safety decisions are the dominions for investigation. The study identified gender differences in four of the five selected classes of decisions, with social decisions being the only class with no gender difference. The male gender was identified to perceive less risk and indicate a higher possibility of participating in risky activities. The social decision-making class is interesting in that several studies have reported a lack of gender differences in the class or a greater possibility of women participating in risky decisions and activities. Women have also been identified, in these studies, to discern a larger benefit and minimal risk in making social decisions (Johnson et al., 2004).

The authors in these studies also noted with interest that there was a large variability in the willingness of a person to take a risk in each class or dominion. This suggests that the possibility of taking a risk is not a personal trait but is affected by, or dependent on the type of decision or risk involved. Earlier research by Slovic (1997) and Holtgrave & Weber (1993) investigated risk perception and suggested that various psychological and emotional risk facets such as control, dread, emotions, and knowledge, have a large contribution towards the perception of risk. In each of these investigations, authors have identified that the assessment of a risk or the perception of risk is influenced by an individual’s conviction of the level of risk or the outcome of a risky decision (the likelihood of a risk materializing into an accident).

Past research has also determined that many individuals taking risks conducted an estimate of the possible outcomes to determine their weight. It is for this reason that different actions and activities are regarded as being riskier than others. An action that has severe outcomes is regarded by people as being riskier than another action whose consequences may be less severe. Hillier and Morrongiello (1998) performed quite a different study of the gender differences in risk tolerance and perception. They conducted a research on school-going children using image descriptions of risks, such as one riding a bicycle without a helmet. They also interviewed children to understand how they perceived different risks. The study by Hillier and Morrongiello (1998) found that boys perceived situations as being less risky or unsafe. Girls judged situations as being highly unsafe compared to the boys.

The study also discovered an interesting aspect in the factors that influence risk assessment between boys and girls. The risk assessment of girls was largely influenced by their judgment of the exposure to any type of harm or injury. Boys, on the other hand, made risk decisions based on their judgment of the severity of the injuries or harm that could result from taking the risk. It is safe to assume that these differences remain intact for adult men and women. From these findings, it can be surmised that women or girls tend to avoid risky activities or actions that have the potential of injuring or hurting them. In contrast, men or boys avoid those risky activities which have the potential to hurt or injure them severely. The study also concluded that the two genders estimate their benefit from taking a risk differently, regardless of the potential for injury.

By applying a scheme that is based on risk-reward relationship, it may be said that men perceive a greater benefit from partaking in a risky activity in all types of decisions except the social decisions, while women perceive a greater reward while taking risks on social decisions, as suggested by Weber et al. (2002) and Johnson et al. (2004). As such, decision making that involves risk can be studied as a compromise between the risk and the expected reward. The relationship that exists between the risk and the expected or perceived reward was investigated by Alhakami and Slovic (1994). The participants in this research were a hundred university students who were undertaking an introductory psychology course. The participants were asked to evaluate the perceived risks and the discerned benefits for forty different activities and technologies. The perceived risk was first judged for each of the selected activities, then the perceived benefits were determined. For this research, the risk was determined on a basis of the comprehensive risk to the United States community.

The researchers used the question: “In general, how risky do you consider each of the following items to be for the United States society as a whole?” The students were provided with a scale to select from, ranging from 1 (not at all risky) to 7 (very risky). For the benefits perceived, the students were to provide responses on a scale of 1 (not at all beneficial) to 7 (very beneficial) to the question: “In general, how beneficial do you consider each of the following items to be for the United States society as a whole?” This research was aimed at investigating the relationship between risk perception and benefit judgment that was determined in past studies. The relationship was quantified based on the correlations between risk and benefit and the distance between the risk and the perceived judgments. The results of this study confirmed earlier research on the relationship that exists between perceived risk and the expected reward or benefit.

An inverse relationship was identified between the perceived risk and the potential reward. Out of the forty activities and technologies studied, 38 showed a negative correlation. The results obtained clearly showed that the larger or more the expected benefit from an activity, the lower or lesser the perceived risk. The lower the expected benefit from an activity, the higher the perceived risk. The findings of this research are echoed by the cognitive consistency theory which proposes that human beings work under a sturdy need for constancy in their convictions and beliefs (Millar & Tesser, 1989). This theory postulates that when human beings perceive an action as good or beneficial, the inclination to achieve constancy leads them to perceive the rewards or benefits of the action as high, and the level of risk in partaking in the activity as low.

Several authors and researchers have conducted studies into the relationship existing between the personal traits of individuals and their risk tolerance levels or their perceptions towards risk, through surveys and interviews. This research has identified a number of personality traits in young people that have the ability to make them more capable of taking risks or engaging in risky activities. Past research into the influence of personality traits on risk tolerance has resulted in the development of the Five Factor Model of personality (Gullone & Moore, 2000). This model is made up of the personal traits neuroticism, openness to experience, extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness (Markey et al., 2003). According to studies conducted on the five personality factors that have an impact on the risk tolerance of young adults, extraversion or sociability is highly linked to delinquency (John et al., 1994) while conscientiousness or reliability has been negatively linked to risky or deviant behavior.

Being an agreeable or kind person is also negatively linked to risk tolerance (Markey et al., 2003), whereas a person being open to new experiences or being highly creative has been proven to positively relate with risk tolerance. The final personality factor, neuroticism or anxiety, has been linked only to future health problems that are psychological, but no research has shown its prediction of risk tolerance (John et al., 1994). While all this past research on the relevance of personality traits was conducted using surveys, a study by Markey, Markey, Ericksen, and Tinsley (2006) investigated the same relationship using a different approach. The study applied the observation of behavior patterns of children around the age of ten years. The behaviors of these children were first observed and recorded, then their involvement in risky actions one year later was investigated.

The behavioral study by Markey, Markey, Ericksen, and Tinsley (2006) falls in line with past research on the link between personality traits and risk tolerance that was measured in terms of the Five Factor Model. The previous study used the Five Factor Model factors to foretell the level of risk tolerance or the possibility of participating in risky activities. The results obtained in the research that adopted a behavioral approach supported the FFM factors identified in the following ways: the obtained results showed that girls with a high tolerance for risk were related to portraying behaviors such as disagreeableness, introversion, and minimal conscientiousness. The boys who showed a high level of risk tolerance or participated in risky activities had shown extraversion and disagreeableness in the previous year.

A study conducted in 2014 by Wachter & Yorio studied the impact of the climate and the behavior-related perceptions of employees on the performance of safety management systems in the workplace. The research collected results from a survey conducted on more than fifty groups of workers and employees. The study results suggested that a relationship exists between the perceptions of workers and the effectiveness or performance of safety management activities or processes. The study established that employee perceptions that are related to the climate of safety, the safety team, and the interactional justice have a mediating role between the safety management actions and the minimization in the number of injuries (Wachter & Yorio, 2014). The study suggested that on instances in which employees perceive that the management of their company has prioritized safety, that they are conducting their work-related activities while observing safety and cooperating with their colleagues, and that the company treats them with respect through the safety practices in place, the safety management systems in place achieve high efficiency and good performance.

The results of the Wachter and Yorio (2014) study agree with past research on the appropriate design and implementation of safety management processes in the workplace. Based on the research by Wachter & Yorio (2014), safety management activities and processes ought to be designed and put into place in a way that promotes positive employee attitudes to guarantee their effectiveness. By ensuring that employees are placed at the center of safety management, the efficiency of management activities is improved through the development of positive employee perceptions and attitudes.

Another study that sought the determination the gender differences that exist in the assessment of risks was a study conducted by Harris and Jenkins (2006). For this study, however, the primary purpose was to determine why men had a higher risk tolerance than women since previous study and observations made in the real world prove that men engage in more risky activities as compared to women. The research was conducted on 268 male and 389 female students aged approximately 18 and a half years from psychology classes at the University of California. Scenarios that involved risky actions were used for investigation, as used by Weber et al. (2002). Some of the scenarios used consisted of cases that were used by Weber et al. (2002), grouped into four classes: health, gambling, recreational, and social decisions. In order to further investigate the results that were obtained on the social decisions class in both Johnsons et al. (2004) and Weber et al. (2002), two other classes were introduced. These two additional classes included actions had a potential benefit in addition to having a social risk.

The participants of this study were required to record, for every activity, their possibility of participating, the possibility of the risky behavior resulting in negative effects, the level of severity of the effects if they occurred, and how enjoyable an action would be supposing there was no potential negative outcome. Just like in Weber et al. (2002), the participants provided their answers on a scale that ran from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely). The additional questions were also answered using a scale on 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). The set of additional questions was used to determine the potential gender differences in choice making where the choices were linked to a possible payoff. The participants were also provided with extra questions regarding their past behavior with regards to taking part in risky activities, similar to the research conducted by Gibbons and Gerrard (1995). Each of the participants was asked to tell how often they had participated in risky decision making and risky actions related to the classes of recreation, gambling, health, and social decisions.

The responses provided by the participants for the questions in each class were averaged to come up with a score for that class. The classes were adopted from Weber et al. (2002). On analyzing the results, men showed a higher level of risk tolerance in gambling, recreational, and health classes. In these classes, the women perceived the potentially bad consequences with a high likelihood of occurring and with more severity. There were notable differences in the ratings of the genders in the level of enjoyment in participating in risky activities assuming that there were no negative consequences in the recreational, health, and gambling classes. Men gave higher enjoyment ratings while women gave low ratings. A similarity to Weber et al. (2002) was realized in this research on the social decisions class. The class showed no gender differences in the responses of the probability of participating in activities that had social risks.

In addition, there was a lack of gender differences in the ratings of the probability of negative outcomes or enjoyment of participating in the activities listed in the social class of activities. Generally, however, women gave higher ratings for the severity of the potential negative consequences compared to the men. The additional class of behavior choices where a slightly risky choice offered the chance of a high reward was referred to as the positive class or domain. It was the first time that this class was researched on. Contrary to the results in all the other classes established in Weber et al. (2002) and used in this study, women were identified to have a higher risk tolerance where a choice came with potentially huge rewards. The women in the study reported a higher probability of participating in the activities that were risky or involved a cost but came with potential rewards. Moreover, women reported a higher likelihood for positive outcomes. In the evaluation of the level of the unpleasantness of the involved costs or risks in the positive domain, the genders did not differ substantially.

It was concluded that in the health, recreational, and gambling groups, women show a lower probability of participating in risky activity, perceive the negative consequences from risky activities as being more severe and more likely to occur, and perceive the activities as being less enjoyable assuming that no negative consequences occur, compared to the men. The study was not able to identify why men showed a high tolerance for risk. However, the researchers identified possible explanations based on past research. The researchers cited the Darwinian evaluation of the parental investment that is different in men and women. According to Trivers (1972), physiology plays a part in the determination of the level of investment that individuals require to produce a young one. This investment is noted to be greater in women compared to the male gender. For this reason, women are more considerate of the negative outcomes that may injure them while men have a higher risk tolerance since they participate in risky activities to impress their mates.

Another explanation of the gender differences in risk tolerance was proposed by Harris and Jenkins (2006), referred to as “offspring risk hypothesis”. The authors suggested that it could be possible that women tend to perceive greater risk compared to men. However, the authors did not explain this theory using the mate-seeking theory. Rather, they explained that if an individual perceives higher risks around them, they become more careful at protecting their young ones. This theory is supported by the fact that the young ones of human beings have a long period of development in which they fully depend on their mothers for protection and care, as compared to the shorter developmental stages of many animals. Both of these explanations attempt to explain the gender differences in risky activity participation. However, the explanation by Lichtenstein, Fischhoff, and Slovic (2016) appears more relevant to risk-taking by employees in the workplace, mostly because it does not involve the aspect of reproduction or taking care of young ones.

According to Lichtenstein, Fischhoff, and Slovic (2016), having a greater familiarity or being more familiar with risk is associated with lower risk perception. An individual that is used to participating or engaging in risky behavior is likely to perceive less risk in a new risky activity compared to one who is not used to taking risks. This theory could be used to explain the differences in gender propensity towards risk. Men tend to have greater familiarity with health, gambling, and recreational risks while women have greater familiarity with social risks. As such, women will engage in social risks more often while men engage in other types of risks.

Research Methods

Vast research into risk tolerance and the probability of individuals taking risks has been carried out by a number of researchers and authors. As identified in the literature review above, several experimental research studies, interview studies, and observational studies have been conducted in several universities and countries. As a result of these past studies and research, a deeper understanding has been developed over the years on the issues related to risk tolerance and perception of various risks. Past studies have also focused on the issue of the gender differences that exist in the perception of risk and participation in risky behavior or activities. Research on the various effects of organizational culture, employee attitudes, personality traits, and the expected or perceived reward for risk-taking, on the risk tolerance or risk decision, has also been conducted by several researchers in the past.

The current research aims at connecting past research findings to determine the various motivations behind risk-taking. By evaluating past research findings and inferences, this research will attempt to decipher the various reasons why people take risks. Past research will also be evaluated in order to achieve a better understanding of the various aspects of risk tolerance such as gender differences and the various risk strategies used by people. The ‘copycat effect’ commonly used in reference to crime (Helfgott, 2015) will be investigated in the context of risk-taking by studying various studies that have been conducted on the issue.

Q1: What is the ‘copycat effect’ and how does the effect contribute to the research problem?

The copycat effect has been investigated in the past in the context of crime and risk-taking behavior. Helfinstein, Mumford, and Poldrack (2015) investigated the likelihood of people taking a risk or participating in a risky activity in instances where they knew of other people who had taken the same risks or engaged in a similar risky behavior. The copycat effect was proven to be true in this study that involved an interview of 400 participants. The study by Helfinstein, Mumford, and Poldrack (2015) also investigated the difference in the strategy that people use in making risk decisions dependent on whether they are taking the risk or suggesting the risk-taking to a colleague or friend (discussed below). Helfgott (2015) studied criminal behavior and its relationship with the copycat effect. The author attempted to evaluate the numerous informal accounts of crime being propagated by the copycat effect to come up with a scientific or research-based explanation of the copycat effect in criminal activity. Helfgott (2015) sought to answer questions related to the extent and nature of a copycat crime, the influence of culture on the copycat effect, and the function of culture as an instigating factor for criminal activities. By reviewing literature, the author explained copycat crime using case examples that portrayed the role of mass media technology on crime-related behavior and investigated cases of media-instigated crime.

The role of the media on risk-taking behavior and risk tolerance has been a bone of contention for many years. Several examples (mostly hearsay or uninvestigated) of risk-related activities have been forwarded by authors and citizens to suggest a relationship existing between activities portrayed by media and risk-taking behavior, especially amongst children and young adults. For instance, an article by Clarkson (2003) narrates how a teacher from Ireland lost his life trying to perform an onscreen stunt from the Jackass MTV series (Lindgren & Lélièvre, 2009). The stunt involved racing downhill inside a shopping cart. Several other incidents involving teenagers who died or got injured from trying to reenact stunts depicted on media forms such as music, films, and video games have also been reported in newspapers and other news platforms (Palmieri et al., 2004). Vingilis and Smart (2009) narrate how the police found a copy of the famous EA Sports Need for Speed game inside the car of a street racing driver who caused a car crash that claimed the life of a taxi driver in Canada. The Need for Speed game simulates reckless driving and unlawful racing on streets.

Fischer, Vingilis, Greitemeyer, and Vogrincic (2011) investigated the relationship that exists between the media and risk-taking. This research also involved a review of recent studies on the effect of media that glorifies risk in its content on the risk tolerance of individuals. According to the study, various forms of media such as music, films, and video games, have been produced with a risky theme in the recent past. Risk-involving content such as video games involving illegal racing on the streets, movies on extreme sports, and music portraying risky stunts has been gaining popularity, with many people preferring to watch the eye-catching, risky content in these forms of media. The authors then proceeded to review a number of studies by past researchers on the effect of exposure to such media content on the probability of recipients portraying high levels of risk-taking behavior. The study found evidence that exposure to risk-portraying media such as games with reckless driving simulations, movies depicting crime and drunkenness, and films showing extreme sports, had a negative effect on the cognition and emotions of recipients, and increased the probability of viewers having high-risk tolerance in the future.

In a similar study, Fischer, Greitemeyer, Kastenmüller, Vogrincic, and Sauer (2011) investigated, in a meta-analytic review, the effect that the media has on the emotions and behaviors of individuals or recipients. The meta-analytic review was conducted in response to the identified increase in media content that depicts or ‘markets’ risk-taking activities such as binge drinking, reckless driving, and risky stunts. Past research had also identified several informal cases of injuries and deaths that were allegedly instigated or motivated by the media. The authors carried out a meta-analysis that involved 105 independent effect sizes and more than 80,000 total participants to investigate and analyze whether exposure to media depictions of risky activities had an effect on the viewers’ risk-taking probabilities or risk inclination. The meta-analysis conducted by Fischer, Greitemeyer, Kastenmüller, Vogrincic, and Sauer (2011) showed a positive correlation for the general risk-taking and the various dimensions investigated: risk-taking behaviors, risk-positive emotions, and risk-positive attitudes and cognitions.

The effect of exposure to risk-promoting media content was identified through the application of research methods such as experimental, longitudinal, and correlational methods; investigation of various media forms such as films, music, and video games; and measurement of risk-related outcomes such as drinking, sexual behavior, and reckless driving. Two new conditions were established from the meta-analysis: the effect of exposure to media content was more or stronger where the media content was active (such as video games), compared to where the media was passive (such as music, or movies); and the influence was stronger in instances where the level of contextual fit between the media content and the risk-taking act was high. The portraying of risky behaviour and acts by the media is related to the risk-taking behaviors of attitudes of recipients. Media content showing such acts was proven to have dire consequences including cases of fatalities, high economic costs, and injuries. The authors conducted the meta-analysis hoping that the society would acquire more awareness on the issue.

Q2: Why do people use different strategies of taking risks depending on whether they are considering the risk for themselves or recommending it to a loved one?

In the making of decisions involving risk, people apply various strategies to come up with a decision on whether to take the risk or avoid risk. A study that was published on the Journal of Experimental Psychology and authored by Helfinstein, Mumford, and Poldrack (2015) investigated the effect of the actions of others and their recommendation of risky actions. The study aimed at understanding the difference or gap in an individual’s propensity to participate in a risky activity and the same individual recommending that same risky activity to other people. According to the authors, individuals apply varying strategies for assessment depending on whether they are weighing a risk for themselves or suggesting it for a friend. In the study, 400 participants of around 34 years of age, divided into almost an equal number of males and females, were involved. The participants were required to complete the DOSPERT scale of scenarios involving financial, health and safety, recreational and ethical, and social decisions risk (Kostek & Ashrafioun, 2014; Blais & Weber, 2006; Vlaev et al., 2010; Highhouse et al., 2017).

Examples of the scenarios used in the scale include betting one’s income at a horse race, investing income in a speculative stock, and heavy drinking at social functions. The participants in this study were divided into four distinct groups: the first group was asked if they would participate in the risky scenarios; the second group was asked if they would recommend the scenarios for their loved ones; the third group was asked if participating in the activities would be a good idea for them to participate in; and the fourth group was asked whether it would be a good idea for their loved ones to participate in the risky activities. All the groups were asked to measure the costs and the rewards for each risky activity, and the likelihood of a negative or positive outcome. Additionally, the groups were also asked how many individuals they knew had engaged in the risky scenarios listed.

The results of the investigation showed differences between activities that individuals would be inclined to participate in themselves and the activities that they are likely to suggest for their friends or loved ones. Regardless of whether individuals perceive a risky activity as a good idea or not, they still weigh the activities differently depending on whether they are considering the risk for themselves or offering suggestions to others. The research also identified evidence showing that when individuals know several other persons who have participated in a risky activity, they are more likely to participate in the activity themselves. This high likelihood of participation was not affected by knowledge or recognition of the activity being potentially hazardous; as long as they knew other people who had taken part in it, they were willing to participate in the activity. There were notable differences in the classes of risk that individuals would be likely to take depending on the knowledge of other people who engaged in the risk; individuals showed a higher probability of taking risks (copycat effect) in social, health, and safety situations, and a lesser likelihood of taking risks in recreational and financial decisions.

This study showed the influence that peers or family members may have on the risk-taking decisions of others. Individuals are also influenced in decision-making by the activities or behaviors of others. The actions of an individual have a large influence on the decisions made by the people around them or the people who witness them taking part in risky activities. The strategy that people use to make decisions are different depending on whether the risk involves their participation or the participation of their friends and colleagues. The copycat effect was evident in this research. In addition, the study by Helfinstein, Mumford, and Poldrack (2015) showed evidence that even though an individual may advise another on risk-taking or participating in a risky activity, the actions of the individual being advised depend largely on the actual actions of the advisor; if an individual takes a certain risk but advises a friend not to take the same risk, the friend is more likely to take the same risk since the advisor already took the risk. This discovery could be the basis for explaining why people engage in risky behavior such as excessive drinking, street racing, pulling stunts, and betting even when they know that other people have got injured or died from such behavior (copycat effect).

Q3: Why do men tend to take more risks compared to women?

The question of gender differences in participation in risky behavior and activities has been widely studied and discussed by scholars and psychologists. There have also been a number of propositions for the reasons why women appear more risk-averse compared to their male counterparts. Byrnes, Miller, and Schafer (1999) investigated the gender differences that exist in the making of risky decisions through a meta-analysis of 150 past research studies where the risk-taking behavior of men and women was compared. The studies analyzed were grouped according to the type of risky behavior, the task involved, and five different age levels. The results obtained from this meta-analysis showed general greater risk-taking in male participants.

In a number of topics involved in the study, there were evidently larger gender differences than in others. In intellectual risk-taking and risks involving physical skills, the gender differences were larger compared to the other topics studied. The authors also arrived at a conclusion that there were remarkable changes in the size of the gender differences in successive levels of age. The gender difference gap showed a progressive decrease over time. Wilson & Daly (1985) also investigated what they referred to as ‘the young male syndrome’, a tendency of the male gender to be more involved in risk-taking and competitiveness. According to the authors, the sexual selection theory can be used to explain why men are more tolerant to risk or participate more in risk-taking compared to women. Their study investigated the high level of homicidal conflicts in Detroit in the 1970s, coming up with a conclusion that the willingness to be involved in risky and competitive activities is related to intense reproductive competition in the evolutionary history of species. The study proposes that risky and violent behavior in Detroit was mostly related to individuals who were going through reproductive failure.

The competition for ‘supremacy’ makes men risk takers since they participate in activities that are meant to impress potential mates, according to the Darwinian Theory (Daly & Wilson, 2017; Duntley & Shackelford, 2008; Fessler et al., 2004). According to the Darwinian Theory, women tend to be risk-averse for the purpose of protecting their offspring or to increase the chances of survival of their young ones. Men, on the other hand, engage in risky activities to prove their strength and suitability for mating; to impress their potential mates. The theory has been used by several authors, including Daly & Wilson (2017) and Fessler et al. (2004), to interpret the risk averseness observed in women and the higher participation of men in risky activity. Wilson & Daly (1985) used the theory to explain the homicide activity in Detroit being ‘a male affair’, owing to the fact that the victims and offenders in homicide cases were mostly identical groups of people; young unemployed and unmarried men. The authors also suggest that most of these conflicts were related to, or involved competition for status.

Besides the Darwinian evolution-related explanation, another attempt at explaining why men take more risks compared to women was proposed by Lichtenstein, Fischhoff, and Slovic (2016). According to the authors, the perception of risk and the probability of one participating in a risk activity is largely influenced by the level of familiarity towards a certain type of risk. The authors propose that having a greater familiarity or having experienced a certain risk or risky activity lowers one’s averseness towards the risk. They also propose that people who are used to participating in risk-taking activities are more likely to participate in other risky activities. Other researchers used this theory to explain risk-taking behavior, such as Ladouceur et al. (1986), Powell and Ansic (1997), Krueger and Dickson (1994), and Da Costa et al. (2016). The theory by Lichtenstein et al. (2016) can be applied to explain why men are more likely to participate in gambling, recreational, and financial risk-taking compared to women. It can also be used to explain why women take more social risks than men since women have a greater familiarity with social decisions than men.

Limitations

This research depended on past research to arrive at conclusions and to explain behavior identified in people in the workplace. The factual correctness of the reviewed research was not questioned, and the conclusions arrived at were solely based on review literature.

Results

Q1: What is the ‘copycat effect’ and how does the effect contribute to the research problem?

The copycat effect refers to the tendency of individuals replicating the actions or behavior of others. It occurs in crime and other activities that involve risk-taking, besides the day to day activities such as dressing. A copycat crime refers to an act of crime that is motivated by another past crime. In the workplace, it is a common act to imitate the behavior and actions of other employees. Workers tend to emulate other workers who they may feel is quite successful in the completion of his or her tasks, in a bid to achieve the same efficiency. While some of the copied behavior and actions may improve the overall efficiency of work and save time, other actions may put the lives of the workers in danger and pose a risk to the entire workforce. A good example is a worker jumping to the ground from a high point instead of using the staircase. This worker may be jumping straight to the ground in order to save the time that he or she may have used on the staircase.

The worker may be doing this since he or she has witnessed other people do it in the past. The worker himself may also have jumped from the high point severally in the past and not injured himself. Other workers may soon act in the same way since they saw people jumping instead of using the staircase. The excuse for such a risky behavior will be that there was a need to save time and reach some destination as fast as possible. While the act may shorten the time that a worker takes to reach the ground and get to their destination, it poses a risk of injury on the workers. One may jump to the ground and break a leg. Past research has demonstrated that the copycat effect plays a huge role in the behaviors of people in different fields of study. Helfinstein, Mumford, and Poldrack (2015), Helfgott (2015) investigated the copycat effect and achieved positive results, while Clarkson (2003) and Vingilis and Smart (2009) provide examples of individuals who were injured from trying to reenact stunts displayed in the media.

There have been several cases of individuals who have injured themselves while attempting to reenact scenes from popular movies and TV shows that depicted dangerous stunts and behavior. One teacher from Ireland was reported to have lost his life carelessly while trying to reenact a stunt that had been depicted by the Jackass MTV series. The teacher tried to race downhill while inside a shopping cart, as shown in the MTV series, but ended up badly injured and lost his life Clarkson (2003). While there is no concrete proof that the teacher had watched the stunt from the Jackass series, there is a high likelihood that the teacher was trying to perform the same stunt as that which had been depicted in the show since there had not been a previous similar case before the MTV series was aired. There is a high likelihood that this was a copycat act by the teacher. There have been other reported cases of young people who injured themselves or even lost their lives while attempting to perform acts and behavior that was shown in music videos, video games, or films. Palmieri et al. (2004) report some of these narratives from newspapers and social media.

In Canada, a street racing driver in Toronto caused a car crash on the streets. One taxi driver was killed in the accident, and the street racer was arrested. On examining the car of the street racing driver, the police retrieved a copy of the popular EA Sports Need for Speed video game (Vingilis & Smart, 2009). The video game portrays acts of reckless driving and unlawful street racing. While there is no concrete proof that the driver was trying to reenact the actions that are depicted in the video game, it is possible that the video game motivated the driver to start street racing, taking the life of a taxi driver in the process. Several young people engage in acts that are risky while trying to imitate the behavior and actions of famous people and celebrities.

Actions such as engaging in irresponsible sexual activities and binge drinking are, most of the time, motivated by scenes in films and video games. The copycat effect does not only occur in crime-related activities. There is a high likelihood of workers in a workplace trying to act in a similar way as that which they have seen in a film.

Q2: Why do people use different strategies of taking risks depending on whether they are considering the risk for themselves or recommending it to a loved one?

After reviewing past research, there was sufficient proof that in the making of decisions involving risk, people apply various strategies to come up with a decision on whether to take the risk or avoid risk, and the strategies are dependent on whether the individual making the decision was considering the risk for themselves or offering advice or a suggestion to a colleague or another person. Helfinstein, Mumford, and Poldrack (2015) investigated the effect of the actions of others and their recommendation of risky actions to other people and identified that people use different strategies in making decisions. The study demonstrated that even though an individual may advise another on risk-taking or participating in a risky activity, the actions of the individual being advised depend largely on the actual actions of the advisor; the copycat effect.

Individuals weigh the level of risk differently when they are considering it for themselves as compared to when they are considering it for their colleagues. An individual may perceive a high level of risk when they are considering whether to participate in a certain risky activity or behavior, yet consider the level of risk as low when recommending the same activity for a colleague. The difference in the strategies used for risk perception and making decisions on participating in risky activities is most likely associated with the psychological aspects of individuals. In the workplace, a worker may advise a colleague not to take a risk while conducting his normal duties. The same worker may proceed to take the risk himself since he may perceive it as being low risk when considering it for himself.

Q3: Why do men tend to take more risks compared to women?

The question of gender differences in participation in risky behavior and activities has been widely studied and discussed by scholars. Byrnes, Miller, and Schafer (1999) and Wilson & Daly (1985) concluded that men were more involved in risk-taking compared to women. The Darwinian-evolution and competitiveness theory was proposed by several researchers as an explanation for this trend (Daly & Wilson 2017; Duntley & Shackelford, 2008; Fessler et al., 2004; Wilson & Daly, 1985; Kahan et al., 2007). Lichtenstein, Fischhoff, and Slovic (2016) proposed that the perception of risk and the probability of one participating in a risk activity is influenced by the level of familiarity or previous exposure to a risk, a theory supported by Ladouceur et al. (1986), Powell and Ansic (1997), Krueger and Dickson (1994), and Da Costa et al. (2016).

Discussion

The tendency of individuals to replicate or copy the actions or behavior of others is referred to as the copycat effect, and occurs in crime and other activities that involve risk-taking, besides the day to day activities such as dressing (Helfinstein et al. (2015); Helfgott (2015); Clarkson (2003); Vingilis & Smart (2009). This tendency can be used to explain why people take risks in the workplace since it a major reason why people engage in risky activity. In the workplace, people are likely to take risks after they have seen their coworkers take similar risks or since they saw similar risks being taken in films and other media forms. There is sufficient evidence that people make decisions involving risks differently depending on whether the risk involves them or they are recommending it for their colleagues or coworkers (Helfinstein et al., 2015). People are more likely to suggest risk to others, compared to taking risks themselves. However, the copycat effect overpowers any recommendations or advice from other people.

On the question of gender differences in the participation in risky behavior and activities, past research shows that men have a higher risk tolerance compared to women (Byrnes et al., 1999; Wilson & Daly, 1985). The Darwinian-evolution and competitiveness theory has been proposed by several researchers as an explanation of why men take more risks compared to women (Daly & Wilson 2017; Duntley & Shackelford, 2008; Fessler et al., 2004; Wilson & Daly, 1985; Kahan et al., 2007). This explanation may be used to explain why the number of men who take risks in the workplace is more than that of women. Some men may take risks in the workplace in an attempt to impress their female colleagues or in a competition for superiority with the other men in the workplace. The explanation by Lichtenstein et al., (2016) about the influence of past experience or familiarity on risk-taking probability may also be used to explain actions in the workplace. Men are generally accustomed to taking risks, as compared to women.

Recommendations and Conclusion

The reasons identified for people taking risks in the workplace are the copycat effect or imitating the actions of other people, motivation or recommendation from their coworkers, and seeking approval from colleagues. Many employees engage in risky behavior and acts in the workplace after witnessing other employees conduct their duties in a similar way. An employee may overload a forklift to minimize the time spent on ferrying goods after he has seen other workers doing the same. Another employee may come to work drunk or even sneak alcohol into the workplace after seeing similar behavior in a film. Most of the films and music content that is depicted today is rich in risk-taking behavior, from reckless driving to stunts and binge drinking. Several risky activities at work are motivated by the copycat effect.

There are also other workers who encourage their colleagues to take risks in order to save time or meet deadlines. An employee may take the advice of a colleague and engage in an act that puts them in danger without considering the level of risk that the action poses. However, the majority of the cases in the reviewed research show that individuals are likely to imitate the behaviors of others than they are likely to take their advice on risky activities. Employees also engage in risky activities to save time or complete activities in a shorter time. Workplace safety systems and personnel should ensure that employees are not rushed in their day to day activities. Ample time should be provided for tasks completion. Workers should also be educated on the various ways that can be used to minimize the occurrence of risky situations. The human aspect should be considered when conducting risk management and workplace safety activities in the workplace. By training employees adequately on how to manage time and avoid delays, many employees will avoid taking risks in the workplace. The efforts of the risk management and safety team in a workplace will be ineffective if the workers continue taking risks in their day to day activities regardless of the facilities and provisions put in place to minimize the level of risk.

References

Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk analysis, 14(6), 1085-1096.

Bergdahl, J. (2000). An application of convergence theory to women’s drinking and driving. Women & Criminal Justice, 10(4), 93-107.

Blais, A. R., & Weber, E. U. (2006). A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations.

Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 125(3), 367.

Clarkson, P. (2003). Jackass death: Teacher is killed copying shopping trolley TV stunt. The Mirror.

Da Costa, D. G. N., Malkhamah, S., & Suparma, L. B. (2016). Motorcyclist Risk Taking Behavior. In 19th International Symposium of Indonesian Inter-University Transportation Studies Forum (pp. 1-10).

Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (2017). Homicide: Foundations of human behavior. Routledge.

Duntley, J. D., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Darwinian foundations of crime and law. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13(5), 373-382.

Fessler, D. M., Pillsworth, E. G., & Flamson, T. J. (2004). Angry men and disgusted women: An evolutionary approach to the influence of emotions on risk taking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(1), 107-123.

Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., Kastenmüller, A., Vogrincic, C., & Sauer, A. (2011). The effects of risk-glorifying media exposure on risk-positive cognitions, emotions, and behaviors: a meta-analytic review. Psychological bulletin, 137(3), 367.

Fischer, P., Vingilis, E., Greitemeyer, T., & Vogrincic, C. (2011). Risk‐taking and the media. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 31(5), 699-705.

Gibbons, F. X., & Gerrard, M. (1995). Predicting young adults’ health risk behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 69(3), 505.

Gullone, E., & Moore, S. (2000). Adolescent risk-taking and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of adolescence, 23(4), 393-408.

Harris, C. R., & Jenkins, M. (2006). Gender differences in risk assessment: why do women take fewer risks than men?.

Helfgott, J. B. (2015). Criminal behavior and the copycat effect: Literature review and theoretical framework for empirical investigation. Aggression and violent behavior, 22, 46-64.

Helfinstein, S. M., Mumford, J. A., & Poldrack, R. A. (2015). If all your friends jumped off a bridge: The effect of others’ actions on engagement in and recommendation of risky behaviors. Journal of experimental psychology: general, 144(1), 12.

Highhouse, S., Nye, C. D., Zhang, D. C., & Rada, T. B. (2017). Structure of the Dospert: Is there evidence for a general risk factor?. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(2), 400-406.

Hillier, L. M., & Morrongiello, B. A. (1998). Age and gender differences in school-age children’s appraisals of injury risk. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 23(4), 229-238.

Holtgrave, D. R., & Weber, E. U. (1993). Dimensions of risk perception for financial and health risks. Risk analysis, 13(5), 553-558.

John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R. W., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer‐Loeber, M. (1994). The “little five”: Exploring the nomological network of the five‐factor model of personality in adolescent boys. Child development, 65(1), 160-178.

Johnson, J., Wilke, A., & Weber, E. U. (2004). Beyond a trait view of risk taking: A domain-specific scale measuring risk perceptions, expected benefits, and perceived-risk attitudes in German-speaking populations.

Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (2007). Culture and identity‐protective cognition: Explaining the white‐male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(3), 465-505.

Kostek, J., & Ashrafioun, L. (2014). Tired winners: The effects of cognitive resources and prior winning on risky decision making. Journal of Gambling Studies, 30(2), 423-434.

Krueger Jr, N., & Dickson, P. R. (1994). How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: Perceived self‐efficacy and opportunity recognition. Decision Sciences, 25(3), 385-400.

Ladouceur, R., Tourigny, M., & Mayrand, M. (1986). Familiarity, group exposure, and risk-taking behavior in gambling. The Journal of psychology, 120(1), 45-49.

Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Slovic, P. (2016). Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk. In The Perception of Risk (pp. 175-191). Routledge.

Lindgren, S., & Lélièvre, M. (2009). In the laboratory of masculinity: Renegotiating gender subjectivities in MTV’s Jackass. Critical studies in media communication, 26(5), 393-410.

Markey, C. N., Markey, P. M., & Tinsley, B. J. (2003). Personality, puberty, and preadolescent girls’ risky behaviors: Examining the predictive value of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(5), 405-419.

Markey, C. N., Markey, P. M., Ericksen, A. J., & Tinsley, B. J. (2006). Children’s behavioral patterns, the Five-Factor model of personality, and risk behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(8), 1503-1513.

Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1989). The effects of affective-cognitive consistency and thought on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(2), 189-202.

Palmieri, T. L., Aoki, T., Combs, E., Curri, T., Garma, S., Kaulkin, C., … & Greenhalgh, D. G. (2004). Saturday-morning television: do sponsors promote high-risk behavior for burn injury?. The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation, 25(4), 381-385.

Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. Journal of economic psychology, 18(6), 605-628.

Slovic, P. (1997). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk assessment battlefield. U. Chi. Legal F., 59.

Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection (Vol. 136, p. 179). Cambridge: Biological Laboratories, Harvard University.

Vingilis, E., & Smart, R. G. (2009). Street racing: a neglected research area?. Traffic injury prevention, 10(2), 148-156.

Vlaev, I., Kusev, P., Stewart, N., Aldrovandi, S., & Chater, N. (2010). Domain effects and financial risk attitudes. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 30(9), 1374-1386.

Wachter, J. K., & Yorio, P. L. (2014). The Mediating Role of Workers’ Climate and Behavioral Perceptions on Safety Management System Performance. Open Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 4(02), 84.

Waldron, I., McCloskey, C., & Earle, I. (2005). Trends in gender differences in accidents mortality: Relationships to changing gender roles and other societal trends. Demographic research, 13, 415-454.

Weber, E. U., Blais, A. R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain‐specific risk‐attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of behavioral decision making, 15(4), 263-290.

Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1985). Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence: The young male syndrome. Ethology and sociobiology, 6(1), 59-73.