Controlled versus Automatic Processes: Which Is Dominant to Safety? The Moderating Effect of Inhibitory Control

Abstract

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.

Self-Regulation and Implicit Attitudes Toward Physical Activity Influence Exercise Behavior

“…For example, in one prior study, inhibitory control moderated the effect of implicit attitudes on food intake, such that positive implicit attitudes were only associated with increased food intake among those low in inhibitory control capacity (Haynes, Kemps, & Moffitt, 2015). Another research group examining the dual-process model in the context of employee safety found that individuals’ automatic bias towards risk predicted failure to comply with safety regulations in the workplace, but only for those with poor inhibitory control (Xu, Li, Ding, & Lu, 2014). Also, in a study examining implicit attitudes towards alcohol and self-reported drinking behavior, the association between implicit attitudes and behavior was moderated by activity in the lateral prefrontal cortex, a neural correlate of inhibitory control (Friese, Gianotti, & Knoch, 2016).…”

Impulsive Approach Tendencies towards Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviors, but Not Reflective Intentions, Prospectively Predict Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis

“…While the RIM has proven to be useful to predict behaviors relating to employee safety [11] , voting [12] and health (see [8] , [13] for reviews), only two studies have assessed impulsive processes to prospectively predict PA behaviors [10] , [14] . The Conroy et al study revealed that impulsive processes towards PA accounted for variability in walking behavior over a 7-day pedometer assessed monitoring period above and beyond reflective processes (e.g., behavioral intentions).…”

To Take the Stairs or Not to Take the Stairs? Employing the Reflective–Impulsive Model to Predict Spontaneous Physical Activity

“…Then, the Stroop interference score was calculated by subtracting median incongruent response time from median congruent response time. Thus, higher Stroop interference scores indicated higher self-control [ 9 ]. In addition to the Stroop interference score, which is a behavioral measure of state self-control, we also assessed self-reported trait self-control with the Tangney Self-Control Scale (SCS; [ 13 ]).…”

“…We examined these interactions because it has been demonstrated that boundary conditions, such as self-control, moderate the influence of reflections and impulses on behavior [ 8 ]. For example, Xu, Li, Ding, and Lu (2014) revealed that nuclear power plant workers with high self-control had their safety behaviors driven by reflections, presumably because they were able to inhibit their impulse in order to follow through on their reflections about safety [ 9 ]. Conversely, workers with low self-control had their safety behaviors guided by impulses, presumably because they were unable to inhibit their impulse about safety.…”

“…Finally, we sought to extend Cheval et al’s work by showing that the RIM is effective for predicting another spontaneous physical activity behavior, specifically whether participants took the stairs or the elevator to our study laboratory [ 6 ]. Based on the extant literature [ 6 , 9 ], we predicted participants with high self-control would have their stair/elevator choice predicted by their reflections about spontaneous physical activity, whereas participants with low self-control would have their choice predicted by their impulse toward physical activity. Contrary to predictions, reflections toward spontaneous physical activity positively predicted stair-taking irrespective of self-control.…”