# The broader concept underlying "risk compensation" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 16, 2021, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-broader-concept-underlying-risk-compensation/956173 "2021-12-16T20:27:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SpacemanSpiff\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19adc/32.png) [@SpacemanSpiff\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpacemanSpiff_II)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2021, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-broader-concept-underlying-risk-compensation/956173/1 "2021-12-16T20:27:17Z")
[Risk compensation - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation) > **Risk compensation** is a theory which suggests that people typically adjust their behavior in response to perceived levels of risk, becoming more careful where they sense greater risk and less careful if they feel more protected. Although usually small in comparison to the fundamental benefits of safety interventions, it may result in a lower net benefit than expected or even higher risks. I feel that risk compensation is just an example of a broader concept of “\_\_\_ compensation”, in which things compensate for other things. Specifically, that you have negatives which have appeal but are held in check by being too negative, but if you do something to ameliorate the negative effect, that negative thing will naturally increase and cancel out the amelioration. An example is the notion that diet soft drinks cause people to consume more calories elsewhere. Another example which involves different forces interacting would be something like municipal building policies. Suppose a town gets built up and this results in a big traffic problem, Now someone proposes that we solve that problem once and for all by building a whole bunch of new roads. Someone else argues that this will take the heat off the planning/zoning boards and allow them to be even more lenient about approving new developments, and before long you’ll be right back where you started. Similarly, suppose a family has a tendency to overspend on credit cards and the budget generally. Is the solution to go all out to make more income? Not necessarily - that might just enable even more spending. And so on. ISTM that this is fundamentally the same concept as “risk compensation” but not involving _risky_ behavior specfically. Is there a name for the more general concept? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2021, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-broader-concept-underlying-risk-compensation/956173/2 "2021-12-16T20:52:38Z")
There are the following. But these are all names for similar processes in other specific contexts. I’m not aware of any overarching term that encompasses all of these. **Jevons paradox** > **[Jevons paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)** > > Pages for logged out editors learn more > > > > In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress or government policy increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use increases its demand, increasing, rather than reducing, resource use. The Jevons' effect is perhaps the most widely known paradox in environmental economics. However, governments and enviro... **Rebound effect** > **[Rebound effect (conservation)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation))** > > Pages for logged out editors learn more > > > In conservation and energy economics, the rebound effect (or take-back effect) is the reduction in expected gains from new technologies that increase the efficiency of resource use, because of behavioral or other systemic responses. These responses diminish the beneficial effects of the new technology or other measures taken. A definition of the rebound effect is provided by Thiesen et al. (2008) as, “the rebound effect deals with the fact that ... **SnackWell effect** > **[SnackWell effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SnackWell_effect)** > > Pages for logged out editors learn more > The SnackWell effect is a phenomenon whereby dieters will eat more low-calorie cookies, such as SnackWells, than they otherwise would for normal cookies. Also known as moral license, it is also described as a term for the way people go overboard once they are given a free pass or the tendency of people to overconsume when eating more of low-fat food due to the belief that it is not fattening. > The term, which emerged as a reaction to dietary trends... ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2021, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-broader-concept-underlying-risk-compensation/956173/3 "2021-12-16T21:21:05Z")
I can’t answer your actual question but there was recently a great article on Slate discussing that empirical evidence shows that risk compensation is somewhere between generally overestimated and completely non-existent. > **[The Insidious Idea About “Safety” That Keeps Putting Us in Danger](https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debunked-masks-rapid-tests-vaccines-safety.html)** > > A concept that took hold in the ’70s has haunted everything from seat belts to masks—and experts won't let it die. People overestimating the effects of risk compensation has been one of my personal bugaboos for a while but I didn’t have any data. Perhaps I’m falling for confirmation bias here. I still need to read the underlying links. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2021, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-broader-concept-underlying-risk-compensation/956173/4 "2021-12-16T21:43:55Z")
I really don’t think much of that article. From the very first paragraph: > Remember March of 2020, before masks?..Among the complex reasons for the hesitation [to recommend masking] was a simple one: distrust of the public. This is completely misleading. Risk compensation is not a matter of _trust_. It is a psychological process, often unconscious. I spend a lot of time hiking in remote backcountry in difficult terrain, and I carry an emergency satellite device that means if I break a leg a helicopter will probably come and get me within a few hours. I’m acutely aware that I have a tendency to engage in more dangerous behavior _because_ I’m carrying this device. This has nothing to do with “trust”. The reason for early concern about risk compensation with masking was because _we didn’t know if masks would do any good_, especially the crude masks that were all that were available to the general public. The idea that they “might not work but cannot do any harm” is just wrong. If they are not effective, then only a small risk compensation effect can negate the benefit. > [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > People overestimating the effects of risk compensation has been one of my personal bugaboos for a while but I didn’t have any data. This is an odd perspective when the whole point is that risk compensation is _counterintuitive_. You cannot trust your gut feeling, you _need_ data that reflects unforeseen psychological effects in order to assess whether a proposed safety measure is effective. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2021, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-broader-concept-underlying-risk-compensation/956173/5 "2021-12-16T22:37:40Z")
Hmm. The diet example is self-licensing. > Past good deeds can liberate individuals to engage in behaviors that are immoral, unethical, or otherwise problematic, behaviors that they would otherwise avoid for fear of feeling or appearing immoral. We review research on this _moral self-licensing_ effect in the domains of political correctness, prosocial behavior, and consumer choice. We also discuss remaining theoretical tensions in the literature: Do good deeds reframe bad deeds (moral credentials) or merely balance them out (moral credits)? When does past behavior liberate and when does it constrain? Is self-licensing primarily for others’ benefit (self-presentational) or is it also a way for people to reassure themselves that they are moral people? Finally, we propose avenues for future research that could begin to address these unanswered questions. Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. _Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4_ (5), 344–357. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x](https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x) (ETA: I see **Riemann** cited the specific form of self-licensing that applies to dieting.) ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2021, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-broader-concept-underlying-risk-compensation/956173/6 "2021-12-16T22:58:32Z")
You could also be looking for “negative feedback loop”. Except these systems are all flawed; the equilibrium point is unfavorable. I don’t know if there’s a term for that. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2021, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-broader-concept-underlying-risk-compensation/956173/7 "2021-12-16T23:16:05Z")
It’s close to negative feedback, but that doesn’t seem to fully capture it. These are all describing phenomena where we change a primary input variable with a seemingly obvious causal relationship to the output, but the output feeds back to some _other_ input variable, where the feedback to that other variable is in some sense unexpected or based on some unforeseen or subtle psychological effect. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2021, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-broader-concept-underlying-risk-compensation/956173/8 "2021-12-17T00:42:07Z")
The psychological effect would itself be the negative feedback loop, where the negative feedback kicks in later than we would like. Insulin and glucose is the textbook negative feedback loop. So let’s make an analogy. 1. As blood glucose rises over ~100 mg/dL, the pancreas secretes more insulin, which among other things lowers blood glucose by inducing glycogenesis. The input and output variable is your blood glucose level. The equilibrium point would be ~100 mg/dL. 2. As blood glucose dips below ~100 mg/dL, the pancreas secretes glucagon, which among other things raises blood glucose by inducing glycogenolysis. The input and output variable is your blood glucose level. The equilibrium point would be ~100 mg/dL. 3. As some hypothetical person who is bad with money spends over 150% of their budget limit, they panic, and cut spending down. The input and output variable here is spending as a percentage of the budget. The equilibrium point would be spending at 150% of the budget. The difference is, spending 150% of your budget is unsustainable. The proposed solution from the OP, working for more income (thus having a higher budget) wouldn’t improve the situation because the feedback variable is spending as _a percentage of the budget_. With a higher budget the negative feedback (panicking) won’t kick in until even more is spent, which leads to the same problem again. This “solution” is in fact a _positive_ feedback loop. Compare #3 with a person who has type 1 diabetes mellitus, whose glucometer is defective and reads about 150 mg / dL lower than it should. It is still a negative feedback system, with the person administering the insulin injections replacing the pancreas; however, the equilibrium point is now ~150mg/dL higher than it should be. A faulty “solution” comparable to earning more income above would be to somehow increase blood volume. But because the feedback variable here is glucose _concentration_, increasing total blood volume (if it were a thing) would not help. The negative feedback (insulin injections) wouldn’t kick in until blood sugar levels reached ~250 mg/dL, which creates a positive feedback loop. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2021, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-broader-concept-underlying-risk-compensation/956173/9 "2021-12-17T00:57:35Z")
Or in flowchart form, Negative Feedback Loops ```auto Have you --no--> Keep eating Is traffic --no--> Zone more stuff exceeded your | unbearable | calorie budget? <-----------/ yet? <------------/ | ^ | ^ yes | yes | | | | | V | V | Stop eating / eat less Stop zoning stuff / zone less ``` Positive Feedback Loops ```auto Have you --no--> Keep eating Is traffic --no--> Zone more stuff exceeded your | unbearable | calorie budget? <-----------/ yet? <------------/ | ^ | ^ yes | yes | | | | | V | V | Increase the Build more calorie budget roads ``` ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2021, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-broader-concept-underlying-risk-compensation/956173/10 "2021-12-17T01:11:07Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > This is an odd perspective when the whole point is that risk compensation is _counterintuitive_ . Risk compensation is counterintuitive. But the reaction among small government people is exactly as described in that article which is to greatly overestimate any reasonable effect of ris compensation. Whatever proposal is put forth to reduce people’s risk meets resistance that comes in the form of “if we try to do this more safely, people will just risk compensate to such a degree we’ll be worse off.” If you tell them not to drive drunk, they will claim they are a safer driver when they are drunk because they drive more carefully. Or joking-not-jokingly say taht the best safety feature in a car would be a big spike in the steering wheel pointed at the driver. Or if we give kids vaccines against STDs, they will just have more sex. And yet, when we add safety features to cars, passenger deaths drop. When we lowered drunk thresholds, drunk driving (and overall driving deaths) dropped. When we give kids STD vaccines, they get fewer STDs. But none of that is comprehensive data specifically evaluating the amount of risk compensation. What is completely intuitive is that laissez faire, free market come hell or high water libertarians can justify their reluctance to endorse any government mandated public heath measures by latching onto thinly-supported by pseudo-intellectual arguments like risk compensation. I’m tired of their bullshit. . ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2021, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-broader-concept-underlying-risk-compensation/956173/11 "2021-12-17T01:24:12Z")
I believe your specific Op is an example of a ‘wicked problem’: > **[Wicked problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem)** > > Pages for logged out editors learn more > > In planning and policy, a wicked problem is a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. It refers to an idea or problem that cannot be fixed, where there is no single solution to the problem; and "wicked" denotes resistance to resolution, rather than evil. Another definition is "a problem whose social complexity means that it has no determ... Another related concept is the ‘unintended consequence’. > **[Unintended consequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences)** > > Pages for logged out editors learn more > > > In the social sciences, unintended consequences (sometimes unanticipated consequences or unforeseen consequences) are outcomes of a purposeful action that are not intended or foreseen. The term was popularised in the twentieth century by American sociologist Robert K. Merton and expanded by economist Thomas Sowell and psychologist Stuart Vyse. > Unintended consequences can be grouped into three types: These are properties of complex systems, which are defined more by the interactions between things than by the things themselves, and which contain feedback loops, non-linear responses to inputs, and other features. > **[Complex system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system)** > > Pages for logged out editors learn more > > Collective intelligence > Collective action > Self-organized criticality > Herd mentality > Phase transition > Agent-based modelling > Synchronization > Ant colony optimization > Particle swarm optimization > Swarm behaviour > Social network analysis > Small-world networks > Centrality > Motifs > Graph theory > Scaling > Robustness > Systems biology > Dynamic networks > Evolutionary computation > Genetic algorithms > Genetic programming > Artificial life > Machine learning > Evolutionary deve...