The majority of people in the field of safety and Human Factors understand the term "normalisation of deviance" and the problems that this can pose to safety, and that when something goes wrong, it 'resets' the risk delta back to the norms (or should do!).
From my own field, I believe there is anecdotal evidence that if something 'bad' happens (serious near miss, or actual incident/accident) to someone who is one, or maybe, two degrees separated from the 'victim' then attitudes change as a consequence, resetting the risk delta, maybe not all the way, but at least part of the way to the baseline.
Does anyone know of any published work which looks at this as I am not sure what terms to go looking for?
Thanks
Checkout this presentation about explosion of spaceship "Challenger", which is a classic example of "Normalization of Deviance".
http://www.publicsafetyedu.com/PSEN_NOD.html
Thanks Bobby. I am aware of that case study as it is the one which generated the term. However, what I am looking for is evidence to show, at an individual level, that incidents with adverse outcome change personal behaviours. That incident may occur to the subject or to someone one degree separated e.g. close friend or colleague.
Regards
on this topic I suggest reading
Friendly Fire:
The Accidental Shootdown of U.S. Black Hawks over Northern Iraq
by Scott A. Snook
especially on his theory of practical drift.
Jonas, thanks. I have recently bought it and it is on my list of books to read.
However, from what I have read about the incident, I have a feeling it will be more focussed at the organisational & supervisory level, what I am interested in is whether individuals have changed their behaviours as a consequence of experiencing an adverse event following drift.
Not published, and there's the rub. Anecdotally. In healthcare the response to a SUI is not often "learning" - instead individuals will adopt new personal behaviours inended as a barrier - essentially vigilance. This rarely manifests as behaviours that challenge drift or reset systems but instead are almost secretive.
A follow up to this and hopefully bring it back to the top...
Still looking for published evidence on: does behaviour change following 'safe' adverse or 'true' adverse events when happened to self, one degree of separation (so known directly to the subject) or wider? My view is that behaviours rarely change when more than one degree separated.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- Pharmacology
- Pharmaceuticals
- Drugs