The Russian physiologist and psychologist, Ivan Pavlov performed some experiments on dogs to research gastric function. The now famous experiments in classical conditioning discovered dogs would salivate upon sensing a neutral stimulus (conditioned stimulus) associated with food (unconditioned stimulus). Pavlov noticed that the dogs would salivate whenever someone wearing a lab coat entered the room. The technicians often fed the dogs a meat powder, so the dogs associated the coats with food and salivated upon seeing a lab coat. Pavlov later experimented with other conditioned stimulus such as the famous bell.

One of the common elements of most behavioral-based safety processes is the ABC model. This model helps explain why we behave in certain ways and defines a method that can be applied to affect change in behavior. ABC refers to three steps: the Antecedent (activator), followed by the Behavior, ending in a Consequence. In the workplace, behavioral-based safety is applied to personnel. But how does it correlate with Pavlov's findings?

PAVLOV'S DOGS WERE confined to the laboratory. The gastric behavior Pavlov measured was triggered by the presence of food (antecedent) that was reinforced by the pleasurable consequence of eating — ABC. These initial experiments relied on the visual and olfactory detection of food to generate a gastric reaction. This was an unconditioned response, or a response to a natural stimulus. Pavlov discovered that a conditional (or artificial) stimulus also generated a gastric response (conditional response). Expanding on that discovery, Pavlov found that he could activate the dogs' behavior (gastric activity) by using a variety of artificial stimuli so long as it was associated with the reward — food. The food did not have to be provided on every occurrence, but often enough to ensure that the dogs to continued to associate the artificial stimulus with food.

In the workplace, we are constantly exposed to the effects of the ABC model. Antecedents such as work instruction, signs, signals, environmental changes, sounds, vibrations, and others all tell us that we should react with a certain behavior. Some of those antecedents are natural, others are artificial. The behavior will be a learned response based on previous experience and/or instruction. There also are a variety of consequences associated with the behavior. The consequences may range from self preservation to a feeling of accomplishment, from comfort to a monetary reward, or from criticism by coworkers to an “at a boy” from the boss. Some consequences are natural (unconditioned) and others are artificial (conditioned). Have you ever behaved differently when the boss was watching?

UNLIKE DOGS, WE have the ability to reason, consider long-term implications, and weigh advantages and disadvantages as to how our actions impact ourselves and others. Regardless, we still are affected at a basic level by the phenomenon of unconditioned and conditioned response, understanding (another higher level thought process) these concepts affords us the opportunity to creatively challenge these stimuli — to act for the greater good. We understand that even though short cutting the procedures will get the job done more quickly, we risk injury (if not today, eventually) unless we comply with the safe procedure. We have the ability to overcome basic animal instincts.

Additionally, miners can learn to recognize the motivations for our unsafe behavior and those of our coworkers. We can apply the ABC model in a strategy designed to reinforce safe behavior. A simple affirmation of safe behavior exemplifies an artificial stimulus that reinforces that behavior, making it more likely to be repeated.

“Hey Joe, I noticed you used the face shield — not just your safety glasses — when you were using the air lance. That sets a good example for the other guys, and it is a good idea to protect your eyes.”

Understanding the instinctive nature of human reaction to various workplace stimuli and the reinforcing consequences of those behavioral reactions can be insightful and potentially helpful in improving safe work procedures. It is something to think about — but please, no drooling.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Randy K. Logsdon, CMSP, is manager of safety for Intrepid Potash New Mexico operations. He has practiced safety on both the coal and metal/non-metal side of mining for more than 30 years. Randy is a Certified Mine Safety Professional. He can be reached at Rklogsdon@mac.com

Related link at www.rockproducts.com

http://rockproducts.com/management/human-resources/rock_positive_results