Influential factors on human performance in railways and their interrelations

Abstract

In this paper performance shaping factors (PSFs) that occurred most frequently in the analysis of signals passed at danger (SPADs) with the second generation method CAHR are discussed. In order to assess the validity of the identified PSFs, we compare our results with the results obtained from an adapted Why-Because-Analysis of a subset of the same incidents. The relationship and dependencies between the factors are discussed in detail. We put the identified PSFs for SPADs in the context of an existing PSF taxonomy, in the context of a simple model of the railway system and perform a clustering on them. In the last part of the paper we explain how future simulation studies can help to advance in the understanding of the identified PSFs and their relationships.

The “is” and the “ought”: How do perceived social norms influence safety behaviors at work?

“…The factor structure proposed for safety social norms (Fugas et al, 2009) was successfully replicated in Time 2, supporting our first hypothesis. This result confirms the construct validity of safety social norm scales presented here and provides further support for a core of dimensions in the taxonomy of safety social norms.…”

“…Social norms from groups that are more powerful or proximal to the individual and more relevant to him/her are more likely to result in behavior change than norms from less relevant groups (see the psychosocial model of work safety; Meliá, 1998). The first aim of the present paper it to replicate a four-factor structure for safety social norms (Fugas et al, 2009).…”

“…The discussion should be broadened to simultaneously comprise descriptive and injunctive safety norms emanating from supervisors and coworkers as antecedents of proactive and compliance safety behaviors. Extending recent findings that social processes underlying safety at work are multidimensional and can impact safety behaviors differently (Fugas, Meliá, & Silva, 2009), the present study measures these four sources of social influence in order to compare their ability to predict proactive and compliance safety behaviors. Moreover, this research used two measures borrowed from Jackson's model (1965; 1975) for the analysis of safety group norms: intensity and crystallization.…”

“…The present paper presents and discusses the results of a longitudinal study designed to (a) cross-validate (at Time 2) a four first-order factor structure of safety social norms with the purpose of reexamining the consistency of the factor structure pattern of the measure proposed in a previous study (at Time 1; Fugas et al, 2009); (b) test the predictive validity of descriptive and injunctive safety social norms (at Time 1) on self-reported safety behavior (at Time 2); (c) explore crystallization of supervisors' injunctive norms (at Time 2) as a moderator in the relationship between descriptive safety norms (at Time 1) and safety behaviors (at Time 2).…”