Accident Proneness: Science or Non-Science?

Abstract

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.