Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) is when one gives a value or belief to an image, idea or concept without evidence. We see this all the time in the attribution of causation in incident investigations where the assumption of the investigator comfortably jumps any need for evidence in attributing cause. In such a case it is belief that finds a relationship between events by assumption. This is amplified when the belief is accompanied by a semiotic/symbol and herein is the creation of myth. Myth is not about fairy tales or false belief, a myth is a belief substantiated by a semiotic. A myth makes something semiotically true not factually true.
In risk and safety this is common with most beliefs attributed to models eg. the swiss-cheese concocted by Reason has no connection to reality yet it is attributed by Safety as true. Life and events do not unfold in some linear way and similarly events are NOT prevented in such a way. It’s a myth, attributed by a belief substantiated by a semiotic. But there is no evidence to support it. It’s an attribution. The same applies to most models that Safety believes in. In safety you don’t need evidence for anything to sustain a belief or myth, you just need a semiotic attributed to whatever you have been indoctrinate with. We see this with the myths associated with Heinrich’s pyramid, Bird’s pyramid, the Bradley Curve etc. It’s all attributed by faith/belief and myth.
Yet, none of this stops the flooding of the safety sector with these myths which operate in safety exactly like icons and symbols operate in religions. There is no evidence for the assertions of the Bradley Curve but hey, ‘Believe the impossible’. Yeh DuPont. (https://safetyrisk.net/believe-the-impossible-and-speak-nonsense-to-people/). When you have such strong faith in myths it doesn’t matter that DuPont knowingly killed thousands of people and covered it up (https://safetyrisk.net/dark-waters-the-true-story-of-dupont-and-zero/). Why have reality when a myth will do?
The same operates in Safety when slogans are attributed with meaning eg. zero, ‘blame fixes nothing’ or safety is a choice you make. These operate in the same way as symbols. Slogans are attributed with value just like myths. Yet, there is no evidence to support such belief, they are attributions. Attributions are acts of faith not reason.
If you actually analyse the evidence, you will see that Heinrich, Bird, Reason etc are myth makers. Safety attributes an alternative reality (https://safetyrisk.net/heinrichs-alternate-reality/) to a symbol/semiotic that is not real. There is no ratio of injury rates to outcomes. There is no evidence that injury rates measure safety. There is no relationship in events like swiss-cheese or dominoes. These are faith attributions confirmed by semiotics. And, if you question such beliefs you will face the same exclusion as with any religion.
All of this is evident in the pages of LinkedIn where these myths are perpetuated by the hundreds each day. And, the repetition of belief in LinkedIn is no different that the singing of a hymn from the same song sheet in church. It’s belief, attribution and faith, but its not real.
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- What Can Weick Offer Safety - April 12, 2026
- All Injuries are Preventable and Other Silly Safety Sayings - April 10, 2026
- Social Psychology of Risk – Body of Knowledge - April 10, 2026
- Free Workshops June – Weick and HROing - April 10, 2026
- What Are Moral Hazards? - April 8, 2026
Hilal KINLI says
While the mentioned models themselves have some flaws, it’s true that they are all thought-provoking and force people to think differently. On the other hand, I agree with Robert Long’s views. In the field, there’s a significant problem with taking the easy way out and accepting the models as they are, without questioning them.