Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-d5ftd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-19T19:18:22.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Accident Proneness (Unfallneigung): A Classic Case of Simultaneous Discovery/Construction in Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

John C. Burnham
John C. Burnham*
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

Using a striking example from the history of applied psychology, the concept of accident proneness, this paper suggests that historians of science may still find viable the idea of simultaneous discovery or construction of a scientific idea. Accident proneness (Unfallneigung) was discovered independently in Germany and in Britain during the period of World War I. Later on, in 1926, the idea was independently formulated and named in both countries. The evidence shows not only striking simultaneity but true novelty and commensurateness of the two formulations that crystallized at the same time in parallel, but distinctly separate, settings.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 99 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anonymous. 1927. “Review of Marbe, Praktische Psychologie der Unfälle und Betriebsschäden.” Journal of the National Institute of Industrial Psychology 3:278–279.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1949. “Major Greenwood, D.Sc, F. R. C. P., F. R. S.” British Medical Journal 2:877–879.Google Scholar
Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, translated by Mark, Ritter. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1887. “The Occurrence of Similar Inventions in Areas Widely Apart.” Science 9:485–486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boring, Edwin G. 1950. A History of Experimental Psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Brannigan, Augustine. 1981. The Social Basis of Scientific Discoveries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Collis, Edgar L., and Greenwood, Major. 1921. The Health of the Industrial Worker. Philadelphia: P. Blakison's Son.Google Scholar
“E. H.” 1976. The Times. 19 August, 14h.Google Scholar
Farmer, E. 1925. “The Method of Grouping by Differential Tests in Relation to Accident Proneness.” Industrial Fatigue Research Board, Annual Report, 43–45.Google Scholar
Farmer, E. 1927. “The Study of Personal Differences in Accident Liability.” Journal of the National Institute of Industrial Psychology 3:432–436.Google Scholar
Farmer, Eric, and Chambers, E. G.. 1926. A Psychological Study of Individual Differences in Accident Rates. Industrial Fatigue Research Board, Report No. 38, London: His Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. L. 1933. “The Hospital's Chronic Customers.” National Safety News March: 23.Google Scholar
Flyzik, Martin, J. 1920. “Psychology of the Causes and Prevention of Accidents.” Safety Engineering 39:113.Google Scholar
Froggatt, P. 1970. “Short-Term Absences from Industry. III. The Inference of ‘Proneness’ and a Search for Causes.” British Journal of Industrial Medicine 27:305n.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter. 1987. How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
[Glasel]. 1926. “Selection Tests on the German Railways.” Journal of the National Institute of Industrial Psychology 3:201–204.Google Scholar
Gradenwitz, Alfred. 1922. “Psychological Tests for Motormen.” Electric Railway Journal 59:143–146.Google Scholar
Greenwood, Major. 1927. Quoted in Royal Statistical Society Journal 90:536–537.Google Scholar
Greenwood, Major. 1950. “Accident Proneness.” Biometrika 37:24.Google Scholar
Greenwood, Major, and Woods, Hilda M.. 1919. A Report on the Incidence of Industrial Accidents upon Individuals, with Special Reference to Multiple Accidents. Medical Research Council, Industrial Fatigue Research Board, Report No 4. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Greenwood, Major, and Yule, G. Udny. 1920. “An Inquiry into the Nature of Frequency Distributions Representative of Multiple Happenings with Particular Reference to the Occurrence of Multiple Attacks of Disease or of Repeated Accidents.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 83:255–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, Alan G. 1998. “Do Disputes over Priority Tell Us Anything about Science?” Science in Context 11:161–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heller, Osw. 1924. “Eignungsprüfung und Unfallvorbeugung in der Holzindustrie.” Industrielle Psychotechnik 1:99–118.Google Scholar
Heydt, C. 1924. “Eignungsprüfungen für den Rangierdienst.” Industrielle Psychotechnik 1:140–147.Google Scholar
Hogben, Lancelot. 1950. “Major Greenwood, 1880–1949.” Obituary Notices of Fellows of the Royal Society 7:139–154.Google Scholar
Kantorovich, Aharon. 1993. Scientific Discovery: Logic and Tinkering. Albany: State University of New York.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. [1959] 1969. “Energy Conservation as an Example of Simultaneous Discovery.” In Critical Problems in the History of Science, edited by Marshall, Clagett, 321–356. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Kusch, Martin. 1999. Psychological Knowledge: A Social History and Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lamb, D., and Easton, S. M.. 1984. Multiple Discovery: The Pattern of Scientific Progress. Amersham: Avebury Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Logan, Cheryl A. 2002. “When Scientific Knowledge Becomes Scientific Discovery: The Disappearance of Classical Conditioning before Pavlov.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 38:393–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Löwy, Ilana. 1990. “Variances in Meaning in Discovery Accounts: The Case of Contemporary Biology.” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 21:87–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magnani, Lorenzo. 2001. Abduction, Reason, and Science: Processes of Discovery and Explanation. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marbe, Karl. 1913. “Psychologische Gutachten zum Prozess wegen des Müllheimer Eisenbahnunglücks.” Fortschritte der Psychologie und ihrer Anwendungen 1:339–374.Google Scholar
Marbe, Karl. 1916. Die Gleichförmigkeit in der Welt: Untersuchungen zur Philosophie und positive Wissenschaft. München: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung Oskar Beck.Google Scholar
Marbe, Karl. 1923. “Über Unfallversicherung und Psychotechnik.” Practische Psychologie 4:257–264.Google Scholar
Marbe, Karl. 1924. “Ueber Psychologie und Eisenbahnwesen.” Archiv für Eisenbahnwesen 47:729–744.Google Scholar
Marbe, K. 1925. “Zur praktischen Psychologie der Unfälle und Betriebsunglücke.” Verhandlungen der phys.-med. Gesellschaft zu Würzburg 172–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marbe, Karl. 1926. Praktische Psychologie der Unfälle und Betriebsschäden. München: R. Oldenbourg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marbe, Karl. 1935. “The Psychology of Accidents.” The Human Factor 9:102–103.Google Scholar
Marbe, Karl. 1936. A History of Psychology in Autobiography, Volume III, edited by Carl, Murchison, 181–213. Worcester MA: Clark University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Marbe, Karl.] 1945. Selbstbiographie des Psychologen: Geheimrat Prof. Dr. Karl Marbe in Würzburg, edited by Emil, Abrhalden. de Halle (Saale): Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher.Google Scholar
McKinlay, P. L. 1951. “Major Greenwood, 1880–1949.” Biometrika 38:2.Google Scholar
Medical Research Council and Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. 1920. First Annual Report of the Industrial Fatigue Board. [London:] HMSO.Google Scholar
Medical Research Council. Industrial Fatigue Research Board. 1923. Annual Report.Google Scholar
Medical Research Council. Industrial Fatigue Research Board. 1924. Annual Report.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1963. “Resistance to the Systematic Study of Multiple Discoveries in Science.” Archives européennes de sociology 4:237–282.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by Norman, W.Storer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mülberger Rogele, Annette. 1995. La aportación de Karl Marbe a la psicología: un enfoque critico. Tesi Doctoral. Bellaterra: Publicaciones de la Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Myers, Charles Samuel. 1936. In A History of Psychology in Autobiography, Volume III, edited by Carl, Murchison, 215–230. Worcester MA: Clark University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbold, E. M. 1926. A Contribution to the Study of the Human Factor in the Causation of Accidents. Medical Research Council, Industrial Fatigue Research Board, Report No. 34, London: His Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Newbold, Ethel M. 1927. “Practical Applications of the Statistics of Repeated Events, Particularly to Industrial Accidents.” Royal Statistical Society Journal 90:489.Google Scholar
Osborne, Ethel E. et al. , 1922. Two Contributions to the Study of Accident Causation. Medical Research Council, Industrial Research Board, Report No. 19. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Park, Buhm Soon. 2000. “The Contexts of Simultaneous Discovery: Slater, Pauling, and the Origins of Hybridisation.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 31B:451–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, W. 1953. “Karl Marbe: 1869–1953,” American Journal of Psychology 66:645–647.Google Scholar
Rieger, Bernhard. 2005. Technology and the Culture of Modernity in Britain and Germany, 1890–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, Helen. 1953. Reported in Pediatrics 11:413–414.Google Scholar
Schmitt, E. 1926. “Unfallaffinität und Psychotechnik im Eisenbahndienst.” Industrielle Psychotechnik 3:144–153, 363–366.Google Scholar
Schreiber, [no first name given]. 1921. “Das Prüflaboratorium für Berufseignung bei der Eisenbahn-Generaldirektion Dresden.” Praktische Psychologie 2:232–239.Google Scholar
Selz, Otto. 1919. Über den Anteil der individuellen Eigenschaften der Flugzeugführer und Beobachter an Fliegerunfällen.” Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie 15:254–300.Google Scholar
Simonton, Dean Keith. 2004. Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Crosbie. 1998. The Science of Energy: A Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Spurzheim, J. G. 1834. Phrenology, In Connexion with the Study of Physiognomy, 2nd ed. Boston: Marsh, Capen & Lyon.Google Scholar
Stern, W. 1918. Über eine psychologische Eignungsprüfung für Strassenbahnfahrerinnen.” Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie 13:91–104.Google Scholar
Tolman, William H., and Kendall, Leonard B.. 1913 Safety: Methods for Preventing Occupational and Other Accidents and Diseases. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Vernon, H. M. 1936. Accidents and Their Prevention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Viteles, Morris S. 1925. “Research in Selection of Motormen. Part I. Survey of the Literature.” Journal of Personnel Research 4:107.Google Scholar
Widmer, Chs. 1919. “Über Unfalldisposition.” Die Therapie der Gegenwart 60:441–447.Google Scholar
Bright, Wilson E. Jr., 1952. An Introduction to Scientific Research. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Worboys, Michael. 2001. “From Heredity to Infection: The History of Disease Transmission.” In Heredity and Infection: The History of Disease Transmission, edited by Jean-Paul, Gaudillière and Ilana, Löwy, 81–100. London: Routledge.Google Scholar