Are perceived comparative risks realistic among high‐risk sports participants?

Abstract

This poper examined how risk sports practitioners, compared with those of the average sports participant, perceive their abilities to manage risks (AMR) and their vulnerability to a serious injury (VSI) whilst participating. We also examined which variables influence perceived comparative VSI. High-risk and moderate-risk sports participonts (n = 432) completed measures of perceived personal AMR, perceived comparative AMR and VSI, and motive of playing to the limit. Results showed that high-risk sports practitioners perceived their VSI as being higher than the average sports participant, while moderate-risk practitioners perceived their VSI as being lower. Perceived comparative VSI was negatively related to perceived personol AMR and positively related to past injury episode, sporting experience, and playing to the limit. In conclusion, perceived comparative risks were similarly realistic amongst high-risk sports practitioners. Future research is needed to further examine the role that perceived comparative risks play in the risk-taking decision-making process.

Perception of injury risk among amateur Muay Thai fighters

“…Slight modifications to the original generic survey were introduced to directly address a population of Muay Thai fighters, namely: (1) phrases like “the sport you play most” were substituted with “Muay Thai”; (2) the list of sports the respondents were asked to rate was altered to include specific combat sports (i.e., boxing, mixed martial arts, judo, and karate) and popular American sports (i.e., American football and baseball), at the expense of a few other sports (i.e., athletics, Australian Rules Football, cricket, gymnastics, netball, skateboarding, roller skating/blading, and trampolining); and (3) in an attempt to mitigate the effect of scale attenuation, (Harris and Hahn 2011; Otten and van der Pligt 1996) the perceived risk of injury was measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from −2 (very low chance of getting injured) to 2 (very high chance of getting injured) instead of a 3-point Likert scale. This is also more in line with other studies of perceived comparative risk, which have utilized either 5-point (Lystad et al 2015; Deroche et al 2012; Rutter et al 1998) or 7-point (Martha and Laurendeau 2010; Moen and Rundmo 2005) Likert scales.…”

“…Perceived comparative risk was obtained indirectly by subtracting PR SELF from PR OTHER for each respondent, and categorized as follows: positive scores (ranging from +1 to +4; i.e., PR SELF  < PR OTHER ) indicate comparative optimism; zero scores indicate neutrality (PR SELF  = PR OTHER) ; and negative scores (ranging from −1 to −4; i.e., PR SELF  > PR OTHER ) indicate comparative pessimism. This method of subtracting a single item from another to measure perceived comparative risk has been successfully utilized in previous studies (Martha and Laurendeau 2010; Lystad et al 2015; Deroche et al 2012). …”

“…Moreover, the findings have been contradictory in that high-risk athletes have reported their risk of injury to be either similar to that of their peers, (Martha and Laurendeau 2010) or comparatively optimistic (Moen and Rundmo 2005; Lystad et al 2015). …”

“…Some individuals have a tendency to report being less likely than their peers to experience negative events (e.g., injury) and more likely than others to experience positive events (e.g., winning a tournament); whereas other individuals have a tendency towards the converse, that is, to report being more likely than others to experience a negative event and less likely to experience a positive event. The former tendency is known as comparative optimism or unrealistic optimism, while the latter is referred to as comparative pessimism or unrealistic (Klein and Helweg-Larsen 2002; Martha and Laurendeau 2010; Moen and Rundmo 2005). …”

“…Although such perceived comparative risk (PCR) may influence athletes’ decisions to engage in risk-taking behavior, and thus also be linked the occurrence of injury, only a few studies have investigated PCR in high-risk athletic populations to date (Martha and Laurendeau 2010; Moen and Rundmo 2005; Lystad et al 2015). Moreover, the findings have been contradictory in that high-risk athletes have reported their risk of injury to be either similar to that of their peers, (Martha and Laurendeau 2010) or comparatively optimistic (Moen and Rundmo 2005; Lystad et al 2015).…”