Controlled versus automatic processes: which is dominant to safety? The moderating effect of inhibitory control.

This study explores the precursors of employees' safety behaviors based on a dual-process model, which suggests that human behaviors are determined by both controlled and automatic cognitive processes. Employees' responses to a self-reported survey on safety attitudes capture their control...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yaoshan Xu, Yongjuan Li, Weidong Ding, Fan Lu
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3919723?pdf=render
_version_ 1819213469942022144
author Yaoshan Xu
Yongjuan Li
Weidong Ding
Fan Lu
author_facet Yaoshan Xu
Yongjuan Li
Weidong Ding
Fan Lu
author_sort Yaoshan Xu
collection DOAJ
description This study explores the precursors of employees' safety behaviors based on a dual-process model, which suggests that human behaviors are determined by both controlled and automatic cognitive processes. Employees' responses to a self-reported survey on safety attitudes capture their controlled cognitive process, while the automatic association concerning safety measured by an Implicit Association Test (IAT) reflects employees' automatic cognitive processes about safety. In addition, this study investigates the moderating effects of inhibition on the relationship between self-reported safety attitude and safety behavior, and that between automatic associations towards safety and safety behavior. The results suggest significant main effects of self-reported safety attitude and automatic association on safety behaviors. Further, the interaction between self-reported safety attitude and inhibition and that between automatic association and inhibition each predict unique variances in safety behavior. Specifically, the safety behaviors of employees with lower level of inhibitory control are influenced more by automatic association, whereas those of employees with higher level of inhibitory control are guided more by self-reported safety attitudes. These results suggest that safety behavior is the joint outcome of both controlled and automatic cognitive processes, and the relative importance of these cognitive processes depends on employees' individual differences in inhibitory control. The implications of these findings for theoretical and practical issues are discussed at the end.
first_indexed 2024-12-23T06:59:22Z
format Article
id doaj.art-161417fbc0c64f23b33d0f9a3e887eea
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1932-6203
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-23T06:59:22Z
publishDate 2014-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj.art-161417fbc0c64f23b33d0f9a3e887eea2022-12-21T17:56:13ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032014-01-0192e8788110.1371/journal.pone.0087881Controlled versus automatic processes: which is dominant to safety? The moderating effect of inhibitory control.Yaoshan XuYongjuan LiWeidong DingFan LuThis study explores the precursors of employees' safety behaviors based on a dual-process model, which suggests that human behaviors are determined by both controlled and automatic cognitive processes. Employees' responses to a self-reported survey on safety attitudes capture their controlled cognitive process, while the automatic association concerning safety measured by an Implicit Association Test (IAT) reflects employees' automatic cognitive processes about safety. In addition, this study investigates the moderating effects of inhibition on the relationship between self-reported safety attitude and safety behavior, and that between automatic associations towards safety and safety behavior. The results suggest significant main effects of self-reported safety attitude and automatic association on safety behaviors. Further, the interaction between self-reported safety attitude and inhibition and that between automatic association and inhibition each predict unique variances in safety behavior. Specifically, the safety behaviors of employees with lower level of inhibitory control are influenced more by automatic association, whereas those of employees with higher level of inhibitory control are guided more by self-reported safety attitudes. These results suggest that safety behavior is the joint outcome of both controlled and automatic cognitive processes, and the relative importance of these cognitive processes depends on employees' individual differences in inhibitory control. The implications of these findings for theoretical and practical issues are discussed at the end.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3919723?pdf=render
spellingShingle Yaoshan Xu
Yongjuan Li
Weidong Ding
Fan Lu
Controlled versus automatic processes: which is dominant to safety? The moderating effect of inhibitory control.
PLoS ONE
title Controlled versus automatic processes: which is dominant to safety? The moderating effect of inhibitory control.
title_full Controlled versus automatic processes: which is dominant to safety? The moderating effect of inhibitory control.
title_fullStr Controlled versus automatic processes: which is dominant to safety? The moderating effect of inhibitory control.
title_full_unstemmed Controlled versus automatic processes: which is dominant to safety? The moderating effect of inhibitory control.
title_short Controlled versus automatic processes: which is dominant to safety? The moderating effect of inhibitory control.
title_sort controlled versus automatic processes which is dominant to safety the moderating effect of inhibitory control
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3919723?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT yaoshanxu controlledversusautomaticprocesseswhichisdominanttosafetythemoderatingeffectofinhibitorycontrol
AT yongjuanli controlledversusautomaticprocesseswhichisdominanttosafetythemoderatingeffectofinhibitorycontrol
AT weidongding controlledversusautomaticprocesseswhichisdominanttosafetythemoderatingeffectofinhibitorycontrol
AT fanlu controlledversusautomaticprocesseswhichisdominanttosafetythemoderatingeffectofinhibitorycontrol