When the Application of Fundamental Knowledge Leads to the Emergence of Ideological Practices: Analysing Social Influence Techniques in Occupational Risk Prevention

This article essentially examines the ethical and epistemic principles of Work and Organisational Psychology (WOP) in the field of occupational risk prevention. Specifically, it compares expert approaches (based on the direct application of fundamental knowledge) with the lessons that can be learned from contextualised, field-tested approaches in WOP and ergonomics. Fundamental knowledge in the field of social influence can be used to encourage workers to adopt the most appropriate health and safety behaviours, in particular knowledge from the field of persuasive communication on the one hand, and behavioural commitment on the other. Despite their differences, knowledge produced in both fields leads to the conclusion that acting directly on representations and attitudes has no proven effect on behaviour itself. In particular, proponents of behavioural commitment argue that targeting attitudes first is not the most effective way to alter behaviours. In this article, we analysed posters distributed by various bodies involved in occupational risk prevention. The analysis shows that, in contrast to the expert approaches described, these occupational health agencies use a different approach from the social influence approach, favouring informative communication and the dissemination of contextualised content. Drawing on this comparison, we address the question of ideology, in particular the implicit conceptions of social utility that underlie expert and objectivist practices. We then identify the principles and postulates that appear to be relevant to the discipline in relation to communication and intervention in occupational health. Finally, the conclusions drawn from this article may stimulate discussion in related disciplines and fields (health promotion, etc.).