Originally Posted by
Bulette
Schrodinger set out to falsify quantum mechanics; ideology can be decoupled from results. Further, separating the baby from the bathwater is exactly what novel research sets out to do. We're asking whether risk compensation is a real human effect (yes) and if this effect warrants adjusting our safety designs to account for it (probably not).
The author flips back and forth. In his conclusion, he seems to accept risk compensation as an individual psychological theory, but argues that its misused in public policy (and this is where I stand in agreement): "For policy decisions, we don’t need to understand the subtleties of individual human psychology. We just need to know if the intervention helps all of us lead safer, better lives." I firmly disagree that when the theory "has been subjected to empirical scrutiny, the results are usually ambiguous, or the hypothesis fails spectacularly". Aside from the fact that this is not a literature review, there is empirical evidence to the contrary, otherwise this theory simply would not have persisted this long.
Most studies that have 'debunked' the Peltzman effect prove only that safer folks use more safety gear. These studies make the critical mistake of using cross sectional designs, rather than interventions (the reasons are usually related to the ethics review board). There are comparatively few studies that actually use before and after data from the same set of individuals.
We can toss the Slate article anyway, according to livedarklions, since it's not research, has no data, and can't be validated. In fact, it's probably worse than the Letters I posted, which was at least written and reviewed by multiple expert epidemiologists.
Last point first--let's see what you actually claimed about the letter--"
Researchers have concluded that such behavioral adjustments in risk taking are observable with the public distribution of the vaccine; peer reviewed by a quality journal". Actually, the letter contains no observations and is simply a prediction of what will and will not cause the postulated next wave of the pandemic in the UK. You brought up the peer review, my only point was that it wasn't peer reviewed for the claim you stated it was. The journal is not an epidemiological one and the review was "internal", so I have no idea whether or not that it was reviewed by "multiple expert epidemiologists." In any event, epidemiologists are not experts in psychology, and they are postulating based on an alleged psychological effect. Just as an aside, they also note not engaging in handwashing as being one of the risky behaviors they'd attribute to a risk compensation. I'm pretty sure it became commonly known that handwashing really had no practical effect on the spread of the disease by summer of 2020, so the whole thing is a little odd.
"We're asking whether risk compensation is a real human effect (yes) and if this effect warrants adjusting our safety designs to account for it (probably not)." Labeling something as a "risk compensation" effect is postulating an "attractive nuisance" effect of safety regulation--it's stating that the person doing it will engage in presumably undesirable risk behavior for the sole reason that the presence of a safety precaution gives them a false sense of security. You're begging the really obvious question--how do you operationalize what is or isn't desirable risk taking behavior in an environment where every single activity carries with it its own set of risks, and how do you sort out the motivation and the complicated mix of motivations exhibited by actual people (not theoretical constructs) to determine their mix of motivations? I don't agree it's a proven "real" human effect because the research has largely foundered due to its inability to define these things.
Ultimately, though, I think you have conceded that whether or not the effect exists, it's of no real significance on a practical level. Its study yields no useful predictions.
"Aside from the fact that this is not a literature review, there is empirical evidence to the contrary, otherwise this theory simply would not have persisted this long." That's a complete non sequitur. Its rhetorical usefulness to antiregulation interests is why it's lasted so long in the absence of any real proof That's the point of the Slate article, and you're just begging that question with the quoted assertion.
So, basically we're at a point where the article says "it might or might not exist, but it doesn't matter" and you're saying "it does exist, but it doesn't matter". Not much use in talking about it further, then.