Sass R, Crook G
Int J Health Serv. 1981;11(2):175-90. doi: 10.2190/4EKV-J0HB-DE0P-2ERW.
The "accident proneness" thesis has been with us since the early 1900s. The early statistical studies that reputedly provided the scientific basis for this notion are examined and found to be lacking due to methodological errors and a fragmented view of industrial life. Accident proneness, as originally envisioned, has no empirical foundations. It has, however, become part of the tactical armanentarium used in "blaming the victim" for industrial accidents. It focuses on the personal characteristics of workers in relation to accident causation, while de-emphasizing the role of dangerous work environments. In this respect, it has acted as a barrier in the development of preventive occupational health and safety principles and practices. The notion has endured not only because it is tactically advantageous, but also because many members of the professions that deal with workplace accidents have accepted it without reservation and lent it credence. For the purposes of industrial accident prevention, however, it would be more appropriate to discard this notion in favor of a more integrated and broader understanding of the nature of the interaction between workers and their socio-technical work environment.
“事故倾向”理论自20世纪初就一直存在。早期那些据称为此概念提供科学依据的统计研究，经审视后发现，由于方法上的错误以及对工业生活的片面看法，存在缺陷。最初所设想的事故倾向并无实证基础。然而，它却成为了在工业事故中“指责受害者”所使用的策略手段的一部分。它关注的是与事故因果关系相关的工人个人特征，而淡化了危险工作环境的作用。在这方面，它成为了预防性职业健康与安全原则及实践发展的障碍。这一概念之所以经久不衰，不仅是因为它在策略上具有优势，还因为许多处理工作场所事故的专业人员毫无保留地接受了它，并使其具有可信度。然而，为了预防工业事故，摒弃这一概念，转而对工人与其社会技术工作环境之间相互作用的本质有更全面、更广泛的理解，会更为合适。
