Some call that "Risk Homeostasis."
And it's debated -- does additional equipment (chute or anti-icing) induce a pilot to take a flight he would otherwise refuse? In this debate, one view is that pilots are cautious and only want to reduce their risk; they won't take additional risks just because they've eliminated one. I hold the opposite view.
To many pilots, the chute or the anti-icing is an "out". If the pilot always plans a flight that offers at least one "out" in every situation, then being equipped with an additional "out" will naturally lead to the pilot taking flights he would have otherwise refused. For example, when you think about engine failure, a cross-country flight at night is more palatable if you have a chute. So, when you transition to flying a plane with a chute, you might tend to take cross-country flights at night more often than you once did, even though an off-field landing after engine failure is not the only extra risk posed by nighttime.
