Risk homeostasis theory, utility and accident loss in a simulated driving task

Abstract

The suggestion that utility is logically necessary for behavioural adjustments to be made in response to changes in intrinsic risk is fundamental to risk homeostasis theory (RHT). However, the methodology used to investigate RHT — analysis of road traffic accidents — is ill-suited to the investigation of this assertion. The role of utility and intrinsic risk as possible determinants of behavioural compensation were therefore examined experimentally across 14 specific behaviours using the Aston Driving Simulator. RHT predicts that these two factors act in a multiplicative way to form a statistical interaction. It also predicts that the behavioural pathways through which the effect manifests itself should be reconcilable with the concept of utility. Both predictions received little support in this experiment, suggesting that utility and intrinsic risk operate as independent factors: both factors produced significant main effects across a number of behaviours. This finding, if it can be generalised, implies that, contrary to mathematically-based models of danger compensation and the traditional model of risk homeostasis, utility is not logically necessary for behavioural compensation in response to a change in intrinsic risk.