Talk:Safety behaviors (anxiety)

Undue weight

I have tagged this article because it fails to give any attention to the fact that safety behaviour is expected in normal society and often a legal requirement. For example,

1. Motorists and other road users are expected to drive safely rather than recklessly
2. Employees and management are expected to behave safely at all times in the workplace
3. Safety behaviour is an important element of many pastimes such as climbing, boating, exercise, &c.

Instead, the article focuses exclusively on psychological conditions without much regard to whether they are appropriate or not. A complete restructure of the topic seems needed which would start with a clear understanding that the world is indeed a dangerous place and that determining appropriate and sensible safety behaviour is then a matter of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. As examples of the sort of sources which discuss this in detail, see Impact of Behavior-based Safety Techniques and Human Safety and Risk Management. I have added another project which may be able to help with this and am pinging the corresponding Wikipedian. Andrew D. (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding undue weight, this article is a different topic

The safety behaviors you are discussing are a different topic than the safety behaviors discussed in this article. We likely should change the title to avoid such confusion (e.g., Safety Behaviors in Anxiety). The safety behaviors in this article are focused on a particular class of behaviors that are used to reduce anxiety and fear in those with anxiety related disorders. They are an important topic in risk for anxiety, maintenance of anxiety, and tx of anxiety. The safety behaviors you note in your response above are related to workplace and societal issues of safety of citizens. These are not behaviors that are related to anxiety, but rather safety of people in general. The name "safety behavior" is the same, but the topics are entirely different. Kind of like a topic on depression (the mood disorder), but saying that the article does not discuss the definition of depression that means a low spot or indentation. It would seem the best course of action would be to make the title more specific or to make clear at the top that if people are interested in citizen safety or safety measures that protect people, then they should see these other topics (whatever they may be, and then link to them). Thanks. Prof Haeffel (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have reverted the bold move to safety behaviors (anxiety) as we have only just started discussion and so there is not yet consensus. I disagree that there is a fundamental difference in the nature of the topic. People naturally have anxieties about dangers and these form a spectrum from serious risks to imaginary or highly unlikely. For example, someone might be worried about terrorism and, to mitigate this risk, they may avoid crowded places or air travel. Is this "safety behaviour" a normal response or a medical problem? This seems to be a matter of opinion rather than a hard fact. See The medicalisation of shyness as an example of a source which shows some appreciation of this. The current page does not seem to show any such awareness. Andrew D. (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think you bring up an excellent point. In your example, the behavior (of avoiding crowded places) actually should lead to the outcomes described by the research cited in this article. This avoidance reinforces and thus, strengthens, the anxiety about terrorism leading to more anxiety (which may or may not be at a clinical level). The behaviors themselves are not being medicalized. These are behaviors that are often used by lots of people, but it's about their impact on risk for anxious symptoms and their tx. The article you site about shyness is an opinion piece (there is not meta analysis, and it simply provides support for the authors opinion) rather than a empirical study. The citations in support of the text of this article, tend to be actual research studies which provide quite a bit of strong support for the idea that safety behaviors may facilitate future anxiety (regardless of normal or non-normal anxiety conditions). The citations include experiments and longitudinal designs which show that these behaviors precede and predict anxiety in clinical and non-clinical populations. So, I'm not sure it's accurate to make this about normal vs. abnormal (anxiety can be on a continuum as you say). The ideas presented are rooted decades of research on basic learning principles (reinforcement, operant conditioning, etc.). So, as a researcher, I would say there is pretty good consensus about the possible role of these factors in anxiety (and not necessarily only clinically significant anxiety). I think the example about terrorism is a good one that you bring up. And I think what is written in the article would apply to that situation. My original response was more about the original issue you had brought up was with regard to safety rules and regulations; this does seem quite different as people do many of these behaviors because of obeying the law, taught be family members, etc. ...and not because of alleviating their own personal anxiety per se. Thanks for the interesting discussion on this. Prof Haeffel (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Definitions

I looked at the current sources in the article and there are there seems to be only one review which states, "The systematic integration of findings is hampered by the variety of concepts used to describe safety behavior, and methodological differences in empirical studies. This article provides a definition and classification of safety behavior in contrast to adaptive coping strategies." So, this indicates a need for clear definitions, which we may have difficulty finding. Here's a link to a source which is based on the perspective of the safety consultant:

• The Psychology of Safety Handbook - The eyes of the beholder

Andrew D. (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'll have to look more closely at the citations, but my impression is that there is at least some consensus in the empirical literature on a definition of safety behaviors (particularly given the growing body of work on this). There are 4 existing measures of safety behaviors, which tend to overlap and correlate. This would indicate the scales are measuring the same construct, which means researchers are agreeing on what types of behaviors are "counting" as safety behaviors. Again, will have to look at the articles more closely. Perhaps the author of the article will be able to chime in here as well. Thanks! Prof Haeffel (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)