FROGGATT P, SMILEY J A
Br J Ind Med. 1964 Jan;21(1):1-12. doi: 10.1136/oem.21.1.1.
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 person's 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.
“事故倾向”这一术语是由心理学研究人员在1926年创造的。从那时起,其概念——即某些人即使面临同等风险,也总是比其他人更容易遭遇事故——一直受到质疑,但很少受到严重挑战。本文描述了这一概念所基于的许多研究工作和理论,详细说明了在获取有效信息时遇到的困难以及因检查不完美数据而可能产生的解释性错误,并解释了事故倾向为何如此容易被接受为对事实的一种解释。概述了一种最近的事故因果关系假说,即一个人的事故责任可能随时间而变化,并考察了该假说和事故倾向与更可靠文献中的数据相符的各自能力。作者得出结论,责任个体差异假说比事故倾向假说更现实,也与数据更相符。