IP

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Girasek, D C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Girasek, D C
Injury Prevention 1999;5:19-25
© 1999 BMJ Publishing Group


ORIGINAL ARTICLE

How members of the public interpret the word accident

D C Girasek

Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Room A2060, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA

Correspondence to:
Dr Girasek, Assistant Professor
(e-mail: Dgirasek{at}usuhs.mil).

Objective—To explore what the word accident means to the lay public. This interpretation is of interest because it has been raised by injury control professionals as one justification for discouraging use of that word.

Methods—A national telephone survey of 943 adults in the United States was conducted. Respondents were selected at random from households whose phone numbers were generated using random digit dialing techniques. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine if respondent characteristics predicted their interpretations of the word accident.

Results—Eighty three per cent of respondents associated preventability with the word accident, and only 26% felt that accidents were controlled by fate. However, 71% thought that accidents could not be predicted, and 4% felt that accidents were done on purpose. Age, education, income, and race emerged as independent predictors of various accident interpretations.

Conclusions—Only in the case of "unpredictability" does the public's interpretation of the word accident match many experts' expectations. The concept of "unintentionality" is what seems to be communicated most strongly by use of the word accident. Persistent attempts on the part of injury control professionals to eliminate this word from social discourse may result in unintended consequences, which are discussed.


Keywords: accident; public; national survey; terminology




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Inj. Prev.Home page
D C Girasek
Would society pay more attention to injuries if the injury control community paid more attention to risk communication science?
Inj. Prev., April 1, 2006; 12(2): 71 - 73.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
J. M Green, J. McConnell, J. Ozanne-Smith, A. Whelan, L.-J. Davis, S. P Baker, R. Davis, and B. Pless
RAPID RESPONSES FROM BMJ.COM
BMJ, October 6, 2003; 327(7418): E53 - 55.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Inj. Prev.Home page
B Pless
Mentoring and momenti: on timely thanks
Inj. Prev., September 1, 2001; 7(3): 169 - 170.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Inj. Prev.Home page
S A Evans
Banning the "A word": where's the evidence?
Inj. Prev., September 1, 2001; 7(3): 172 - 175.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
R. M Davis and B. Pless
BMJ bans ""accidents""
BMJ, June 2, 2001; 322(7298): 1320 - 1321.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 1999 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.