neuroscience: the brains behind behaviour based...

Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015

1

Neuroscience: The Brains behind Behaviour Based Safety

Vanessa Elliott, Ken Horrigan Soteris, Australia

Behaviour Based Safety (BBS) has dominated approaches to safety management for over twenty years, with much confidence held in its effectiveness in risk reduction and changing safety behaviour. In more recent times, there has been a trend toward scientific approaches to safety, with neuroscience proving to be more efficacious and sustainable. The strength of neuroscience is its extension beyond the traditional cognitive-behavioural, social, and affective theories of decision-making, motivation, risk perception, and risk taking in safety behaviour. While existing BBS models of safety intervention focus on components of cognition and behaviour in shaping positive change to safety, neuroscience goes deeper into behaviour by exploring the various layers of the mind that are crucial to shaping and sustaining positive attitudes to, and belief in, safety.

This paper describes how the principles of neuroscience allow BBS programs to successfully evolve to incorporate a more complete understanding of behaviour. It also describes neuroscience and its critical contribution to achieving positive safety outcomes. Neuroscience brings a new understanding of the relationships between brain, mind and behaviour, while retaining proven aspects of BBS models such as Antecedent-Behaviour-Consequence (ABC) and Skills-Rules-Knowledge (SRK) that have proven to be effective in improving safety performance. Neuroscience provides us with a greater understanding of how the brain influences behaviour.

Neuroscience also explains why safety procedures, Job Safety Analyses (JSA’s) and rules are so often forgotten or disregarded. An organisation comprises people in constant communication and interaction, influencing and changing outcomes sometimes in ways that are unpredictable. People have a tendency to pay attention to those things in life that are meaningful or personally motivating to them. If existing policies or procedures are processed by the brain as irrelevant or unpalatable, this triggers a response in the brain that motivates the person away from those policies or procedures. Researchers in the field of social neuroscience have noted that our need for belonging and acceptance is as strong an influencer on our choices and actions as our need for food. Extrapolating this to organisations, harnessing the social life of organisations enables organisations to build shared knowledge and commitment to safety processes designed to keep people safe and build sustainable positive safety outcomes.

It is vital that organisations do not squander the gains made through BBS and Zero Harm programs. The application of neuroscience principles allows these organisations to break through their safety plateau, pre-empt and respond more effectively to ‘left-field’ risks and incidents, and build on gains of existing programs to embed a strong positive safety program. The paper concludes with a discussion of the practical applications of those principles. Practitioner Summary: Vanessa Elliott is a registered psychologist and Managing Director of Soteris Pty Ltd. Her areas of expertise are in neuroscience, health, clinical, and corporate psychology. Vanessa is a skilled executive coach, facilitator and trainer, with over 16 years experience in the field. She brings her diverse experience to the field of safety management, offering best-practice contemporary safety and risk solutions for organisations and individuals. Ken Horrigan is a Fellow of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia and a Certified Professional Ergonomist specialising in engineering and organisational ergonomics. He is General Manager of Soteris Pty Ltd (Safety through Innovation and Science, a company specialising in the applications of neuroscience and assisting organisations to develop a Positive Safety Culture. Ken has had extensive experience in Ergonomics, OH&S, Risk Management and Investigations. Keywords: Neuroscience, SCARF, Behaviour, Positive, Safety


2

1. Introduction Safety performance and worker safety remains a critical social, individual and organisational concern. With the aggregate economic cost of workplace safety incidents, injuries and fatalities in Australia amounting to $60.6 billion in the 2008-09 period (SWA, 2014), it is evident that safety events are still a regular part of working life. Moreover, this is likely a conservative estimation of the cost, as factors such as worker’s compensation premiums, or other organisational (e.g., legal costs, fines, damaged reputation, turnover, presenteeism, recruiting and training), individual (i.e., reduced quality of life, mental health, degraded relationships) and social (i.e., reliance on community support and rehabilitation services) impacts related to injury were excluded from the calculation. Such effects are difficult to quantify yet undoubtedly significantly inflate the cumulative damage. Given the human and organisational impacts involved in safety incidents, effective safety and risk interventions are imperative.

In recent times, there has been a shift away from traditional behavioural approaches to safety risk management and a trend toward applying neuroscientific (or neuropsychological) principles. The field of neuroscience is interested in understanding and explaining brain development and function, and how these interact to elicit, shape and sustain behaviour. Where other behavioural or psychological models of safety intervention simply rely on overt behavioural observation to draw conclusions about safety attitudes, beliefs and behaviour, the strength of modern neuroscience lies in its ability to provide unambiguous and accurate evidence into innate neurological drivers for behaviour. It achieves this through the use of functional neuroimaging techniques, such as functional magnetic image resonance (fMRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) (Ashbury, 2011). These technologies graphically dissect and pinpoint regions of neurological activity allowing direct observation and explanation for how the brain functions and reacts when presented with stimuli. Through the introduction of these technologies, we now have the capacity to infer, with a higher degree of accuracy, that what is going on inside the brain is correlated with, or causal to, external behaviour (Pallay, 2011).

What does the brain really have to do with safety? The more we understand how the brain functions, the more able we are to influence those factors critical to safety behaviour. Neuroscience provides the technology for deeper exploration into behaviour by investigating the various layers of the mind that are crucial to shaping and maintaining positive attitudes to, and belief in, safety. It signifies that we need to develop safety programs to work with, rather than against, the brain’s natural mode of functioning to maximise our safety performance. We need to recognise the key neurological drivers of safety and risk behaviour for sustainable and embedded safety outcomes.

Neuroscience is a multi-field discipline, offering many areas of exploration for understanding human behaviour. Within safety environments, one of the most useful fields to draw on is that of social neuroscience, which investigates the vital role that social needs and human relationships have in shaping behaviour. Complexity Management Theory (CMT) and Relationship Psychology (RP) argue that because change is dynamic, static safety approaches (i.e., compliance based strategies) fail to have long-term influence over people’s safety priorities. Instead, CMT and RP postulate that people’s interactions and relationships with others, as well as other core social needs, are stronger predictors of safety behaviour (Carillo, 2012). The more we understand about the core social needs of our people and their impact on behaviour, the more able we are to shape positive attitudes to, and belief in, safety and develop safety strategies to build the structure of a positive safety culture (PSC).

2. Brain Science behind Behaviour – The SCARF Model

The field of social neuroscience is extensive. David Rock (2008, 2009), a thought-leader in the field, has consolidated the research into a viable and practical framework for understanding the key social motivators of behaviour. This framework can be applied across a broad spectrum of organisational contexts such as leadership, culture and safety management. His model is known as SCARF and relates to five key domains – status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness.

There are two underlying principles behind Rock’s SCARF model that explain human behaviour. The first principle is that behaviour and social interaction is governed by the need to minimise threat and maximise reward. The second principle is that social needs are treated in the same way as that of core basic needs, such as breathing, eating, drinking and sleeping.


3

2.1 Principle 1 – Minimise Threat/Maximise Reward

The principle of minimising threat and maximising reward is largely an unconscious survival mechanism that arises from exposure to any stimuli in our environment. The brain is constantly scanning stimuli for threat (bad stimuli) or reward (positive stimuli), triggering an avoid (threat) or approach (reward) response. Rock states that certain components of the brain are responsible for storing messages about what is good or bad and activates a chemical or neuronal response in other regions to determine whether an approach or avoid response is warranted. This unconscious response is geared toward providing immediate recall of what is good or bad in the environment. This enables very rapid remedial action for resolving threat or risk, maximising the potential for personal safety.

Rock’s principle is supported by literature in the field. While humans like to view themselves as generally operating rationally, logically and in full consciousness, in actual fact much of our behaviour stems from unconscious processing. There is an abundance of research that indicates that only a small amount of sensory input actually produces conscious perception (Daalmans, 2013; Libet, 2004; Pallay, 2011; Tamietto & de Gelder, 2010). Most of our everyday behaviour is a reflexive and unconscious reaction to our environment (Daalmans, 2013; Libet, 2004). The brain receives sensory input and quickly applies meaning to it, often eliciting a behavioural response before we become consciously aware of, or intercept, it. The amount of information the brain can handle at any one time is limited and so the brain requires this shortcut ability to conserve neurological energy. As well as saving time, this fast and efficient mechanism enables us to quickly sense risk while being able to engage in other meaningful activities without distraction or conscious attention to all stimuli in our environment. Without this, it would be like simultaneously providing too many households’ electrical needs on a single 10-amp power circuit; it would likely cause an overload on the supply and result in a blown fuse, burnout, increased safety risk, and other significant interruptions to service. Furthermore, in times of acute risk, this ability to act automatically – without conscious thought – can protect us from harm through avoiding delays caused by cognitive processing (Daalmans, 2013).

Unconscious and automatic behaviour is generated in what Daalmans (2013) calls the basic brain (also referred to as reptilian brain, see Figure 1), whose main role is to regulate our basic survival functions. The basic brain comprises the spine (the input and output of nerves to all parts of the body), brain stem (manages bodily functions, like heart, breathing, eating), hypothalamus (regulates basic functions like hunger, temperature, circadian rhythms), thalamus (relays sensory information and motor signals, regulates consciousness and alertness) and pineal gland (regulates melatonin, sleep). While this level of detail may not be meaningful to those outside of neuroscience, it is useful to know that the basic brain recognises what is happening in the environment, senses risk, and arms us to take action in 0.5 seconds (Pallay, 2011). This is compared with the conscious system, which requires greater than 0.5 seconds to make an imprint in awareness. It is the unconscious system that propels the flight or fight response; an impulsive reaction to stimuli that does not involve planning or thinking about the future. While these unconscious reactions are not always problematic, in high emotion environments, they can be far from rational, leading to more impulsive, and potentially unacceptable, risk-taking decisions with negative personal and process safety outcomes.

Figure 1. Key Areas of the Brain.


4

According to Rock and many other researchers, a strong trigger for unconscious behaviour is that of emotion (Damasio, 1995). Emotions can result from conscious and non-conscious perception of stimuli, ensuing in activity in your ‘emotional’ brain – the limbic system. The overarching purpose of the limbic system is to help us relate to our external environment, while the key function of emotion is to further protect us from danger. The various neurological components of this system are responsible for a broad range of functions such as: generating, regulating and labelling emotion and pain; memory functions (learning, short- and long-term); decision-making; spatial navigation; safety screening; detection of errors; and risk and conflict management (Amunts et al., 2005; Daalmans, 2013; Davidson & Begley, 2012; Whalen, Kim, Neta & Davis, 2012). The limbic system is endowed with a supersensitive fear detector that can both help and hinder our interactions with stimuli (Pallay, 2011). On the one hand, the ‘thinking’ part of the brain does not need to be involved in dealing with stimuli, meaning we can quickly respond to what we sense. From a safety perspective, responding to stimuli without thinking can lead to irrational, illogical or intolerable risk behaviour and even cause an incident.

The type of emotional reaction (whether neutral, positive or negative) to stimulus determines the specific activity in the limbic system and the resultant behaviour (Davidson & Begley, 2012; Phelps, 2006). Emotions such as anxiety, stress or fear are warning signals that one is at risk (whether learned or innate) in some way and activates an avoidance response. In extremely stressful situations, the brain is hardwired to place a higher priority on these negative emotions and to remain constantly vigilant of risk (Pallay, 2011). Such vigilance taxes mental functioning and can have profound effect on behaviour. In a heightened state of negative emotion, our attention is diverted to dealing with imminent risk, adversely impacting information processing, judgment, attention, memory, decision-making, risk-taking, engagement (Arnsten, 1998; Beer, 2007; Lupien, McEwen, Gunnar & Heim, 2009). Positive emotional states, on the other hand, activate an approach response, allowing for greater access to resources related to thinking, greater attention, openness in thinking, greater insight into alternative options, fewer perceptual errors, and better judgment, decision-making and action (Pallay, 2011; Rock, 2009).

While these reactions to threat and risk are generally innate it does not mean that everyone acts the same way to perceived stressors or stimuli. After 0.5 seconds of exposure to stimuli, conscious awareness of our physiological and emotional reactions is generated in the “thinking’ part of the brain – the neocortex. It is at this stage that we move from unconscious to conscious behavioural decision-making. Appraisal of our responses to the environment can significantly alter the choices and actions we take, and are influenced by such cognitive processing errors like assumptions, biases, stereotypes and filtering. People have a tendency to pay attention to those things in life that are personally meaningful or motivating to them. If the brain processes existing rules, policies, procedures or practices as irrelevant or unpalatable, a threat response is triggered in the brain motivating an avoidance response. Bringing conscious awareness to these unconscious processes can help to overcome those factors undermining PSC and performance. 2.2 Principle 2 – Core Social Needs

Humans are highly social beings who require interaction with others. The brain treats social requirements in a similar fashion to that of core basic needs, such as eating, drinking and sleeping (Gordon, 2000; Rock, 2009) – if our needs are not met, neuronal or chemical signals are sent to the brain to indicate threat or warning and a subsequent need to respond. Humans like to retain in-group status; the appraisal of threat of being excluded from our group activates emotions in the emotion region of the brain (see below) forcing a change in behaviour to retain membership (Adolfs, 2003). Through this mechanism, uncomfortable or moral emotions (e.g., guilt, shame, embarrassment, jealousy) serve to regulate social behaviour in the short-term welfare of the individual (reducing distress), but more importantly, the long-term interests of the social group (doing the right thing by the group).

Our innate social needs can be deployed in developing a PSC whereby members of the team positively influence the safety attitudes, values and priorities of others. Members of the team may also subtly influence or ‘punish’ unacceptable or at risk safety behaviours for the greater benefit of the group (Adolfs, 2003). An example of this would be “That’s not how we do things around here mate“. The perception or threat of being punished by, or excluded from, the group and the onset of subsequent uncomfortable emotional states, encourages a shift in behaviour back to that which is culturally desirable.

Another way to understand the social influence of others in developing safety culture is via the concept of mirror neurons. Researchers have found that when people observe the actions of others, their brains unconsciously mirror (or mimic) their emotions, intentions and behaviours as if they were their own


5

(Daalmans, 2013; Gazzola, Aziz-Zadeh & Keysers, 2006). For mirroring to occur, there needs to be a relationship between intentions and actual behaviour. Daalmans (2013) states that people do not mirror behaviour without an underlying intention. So, even if a safety leader espouses safety messages, mimicking will only occur if their underlying intention is genuine. We have all heard the statement that safety is our number one priority, yet seen that safety decisions have been based largely on financial or economic factors without any consideration for the implications of these decisions on safety outcomes. Employees see through the façade and fail to mirror the safety message. Within a safety context, the mirror process has the potential to create a powerful platform for learning appropriate or desirable safety intentions and behaviour from others. Within organisations and teams, mirroring processes are active between all members in the group and serve to enhance relatedness (as per Rock’s model), disseminate desirable safety intentions and behaviours, while eliminating or defusing more destructive patterns that erode safety culture and performance. 2.3 The Five SCARF Domains

A brief summary of Rock’s five social domains can be seen in Figure 2 below. A more detailed explanation and supporting literature on his model can be found in his article SCARF: A Brain-based Model for Collaborating With and Influencing Others (2008). The concept behind this model is to design strategies that minimise risk while maximising reward across these five areas. It is important to note that not each domain has the same impact on people – some people’s brains will respond more intensely to specific domains depending on their experiences and stored memories. For instance, where autonomy may be critical for some people due to a lack of personal control growing up, fairness may be more important to others who grew up watching the abuse of others. Fundamentally, the SCARF model offers five broad domains that explain social behaviour. Threat in any domain inhibits a desirable atmosphere for collaborating with others and can significantly impact an organisation’s overall safety culture – the willingness for people to work together for the same safety cause. Reward responses, on the other hand, provide a fertile ground for engagement and willingness to work together for a common cause – providing the architecture for ‘safety mateship’ and PSC.

Figure 2. The 5 SCARF Domains.


6

3. Enhancing Safety Programs Whiting et al. (2014) postulate that neuroscience offers an opportunity for the removal of many of the barriers preventing BBS and other safety programs from reaching their potential, and to be a strong foundation for the development of a positive safety culture. Neuroscience can broaden aspects of all safety programs. For example, BBS models can be extended to consider all types of Activators in the Activator-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) model, not just consequence reinforcement. The nature of how the Value-Immediacy-Frequency characteristics of the consequence of a behaviour affects the strength of its reinforcement is still valid and useful in describing effective methods of behavioural change. Neuroscience adds a powerful extra dimension of explaining how brain function is involved. In any evolutionary advancement of understanding behavioural change, it is still beneficial to retain the useful classification and differentiation of types of behaviour in the Skills-Rules-Knowledge (SRK) model (Rasmussen, 1983) that explains the varying degrees of conscious decision-making and automated actions involved in various workplace behaviours. Then again, neuroscience goes deeper and improves understanding for why safety procedures, Job Safety Analyses (JSA’s) and rules are so often forgotten or disregarded. Similarly, many of the principles of the Fast/Slow Thinking or Systems 1 and 2 Models (Kahneman, 2011) can still be used with other neuroscience principles to identify and exploit behavioural change factors.

The essence of BBS is to overtly observe the behaviour of employees and seek to understand and modify the ‘substandard’ or ‘unsafe behaviour’ into more desirable behaviour. There is usually a focus on the influence of the consequences of behaviours rather than the antecedents or activators. There is now an opportunity to bring the activators into the process. One of the necessary elements of a positive safety culture is trust. If incorrect assumptions and biases create unfair responses from managers, colleagues or investigators, the chances of a PSC, BBS, Zero Harm or any safety system being successful are also approaching zero. A healthy safety culture focusses on getting clear agreement of expectations before a task is undertaken, and applying a fair (or just) analysis of the outcomes after the task has been completed (or compromised by an incident).

Most people believe that we always think, decide and behave rationally. It is believed that there are always identifiable, apparently ‘good’ reasons for why we do things. However, neuroscience teaches us that we often don’t act rationally – we have problems with illusions, biases, unclear or misguided beliefs and assumptions that can be interpreted in terms of brain and mind functions. Consider a maintenance worker who is nearing the end of his shift and feeling so tired that he is thinking of calling in and requesting an early finish. However he gets a repeat call out. A device he has already fixed earlier in the day has stopped again. He heads off to the call out, falls asleep and runs off the road. An irrational decision! Or is it? Does he believe he is the best person to fix the problem? Does he fear someone else will find out he has made a mistake? Does he fear he will lose his job?

There appears to be two independent processes involved in decision making. The cognitive theory of decision making recognises that the first process is based on primitive or gut instinct, which is shared by other mammals. As a relatively recent evolutionary requirement, our brain has developed a second cognitive process, which does use logical reasoning to make rational and reduced safety risk decisions. Research originally proposed in a model called Prospect Theory (Kahneman 2011) that, even when we are making apparently rational decisions, we are jumping to conclusions - most of the time.

Many common non-optimum decisions and actions have a cognitive basis which arises from biases, which can be explained in terms of Kahneman’s concepts of Thinking, Fast and Slow or System 1 and System 2 Thinking. We have all experienced or observed the situation where we have attempted to dismantle an assembly (a packaged toy), or tried to remove an object from an entanglement (a branch or vine hooked up in a tree) or tried to operate an electronic device (a parking meter or computer which is refusing to accept or understand our commands). Fast thinking can lead to a violent ripping apart of the packaging (It is designed to annoy you!), or vigorous yanking and pulling of the branch or vine (It just needs a bit more force and it will come away!) or excessive striking of keys and stress (The keyboard must be getting worn out!). Slow thinking allows us to locate the hidden tie underneath the package, or snip off the vine holding the branch, or realise we have filled in the wrong data field. 4. Positive Safety Culture

In using principles of SCARF, organisations can generate a willingness of their people to work collaboratively to generate a safety culture. The safety culture approach to safety management accentuates the role that


7

social forces play within an organisation. The strength of culture is that it reaches equally into all parts of the organisational system and exerts a consistent effect (for good or ill) on safety behaviour (Parker, Lawrie & Hudson, 2006). Consequently, its improvement is more effective than compliance-based or other rigorous procedures in enhancing safety performance. It helps us break through any safety plateau – often experienced once basic requirements for safety performance have been met. Everyone in the organisation develops a vested interest in safety and is personally motivated to maintain the safety of self and others.

PSC is in evidence when people question old assumptions and safety methods, and share a personal commitment, responsibility and drive toward safety. If workers see that the organisation, its leaders or their peers do not really care about safety, then, according to principles of social neuroscience, they will follow suit. Most people will not risk exclusion from the group to lead the safety battle alone when it is more emotionally comfortable and psychologically safer to follow the group and retain in-group status. Conversely, modelling appropriate safety intentions and behaviours will maximise the likelihood of your people mirroring these behaviours. If you want to enhance or change the safety culture of your organisation, attending to those factors intrinsic to maximising reward while minimising threat across the five SCARF domains is critical to embedding and sustaining a PSC. A strong PSC is characterised by:

• Shared safety vision, values, goals, attitudes and beliefs, and behaviours; • A clear, unambiguous safety purpose which staff relate to closely, and are proud to discuss with

colleagues; • Pronounced sense of risk awareness and safety mateship where staff support and encourage low

risk, zero tolerance workplaces; • Staff who behave respectfully towards each other, value each other’s views and opinions, and work

in teams which are places of mutual support and trust; • Environments characterised by open communication, where anything is debated without a hint of

humiliation or recrimination, where positive ideas and suggestions are welcomed and discussed, and where lessons are learnt and implemented (relates to status, autonomy & certainty);

• High levels of cooperation; • Enhanced performance – staff who ‘go the extra mile’ offering attentiveness and personal interest in

safety achievement; • Learning environments – where we learn from our mistakes rather than keep repeating them; • Reward and recognition for staff who contribute, and environments where everyone is treated with

fairness and understanding; and • Staff who are personally driven towards organisational and personal safety risk success –

intellectually, financially, socially and emotionally. (Carillo, 2010; Heese, 2012; Horrigan, 2014)

Of course, leading the safety culture challenge is not for organisations and leaders alone. As an organisation, leader and individual, think about small (or large) steps that you could take toward maximising reward across these five social domains, and discourage actions that prompt a threat response in others in order to encourage an atmosphere conducive to a PSC. To help you with this task, have a look at a list of examples of high and low SCARF and remedial actions on www.soteris.com.au/resources.

5. Conclusion

Neuroscience, and in particular, social neuroscience, offers new insights for reducing safety risk, maximising performance and achieving a positive safety culture. As we have seen, people’s interactions and relationships with each other are more powerful predictors of safety behaviour than compliance based strategies. Rock (2009) offers a viable framework for understanding key social drivers of behaviour. To improve safety outcomes, organisations, leaders and individuals need to actively facilitate positive work and team relationships to maximise reward and minimise threat. Doing so will provide a strong foundation for developing and sustaining a positive safety culture. Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the assistance of Dr Leonie Horrigan and Mr Jim Whiting from Soteris in preparing this paper.


8

References (SWA), Safe Work Australia. 2014. “Key Work Health and Safety Statistics, Australia.” Retrieved March 16 2015, from

http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publica;ons/Documents/841/Key-WHS-Sta;s;cs-2014.pdf Adolfs, R. 2003. “Cognitive neuroscience of human social behaviour.” Neuroscience, 4, 165-178. doi: 10.1038/nrn1056 Amunts, K., Kedo, O., Kindler, M., Pieperhoff, P., Mohlberg, H., Shah, N., et al. 2005. “Cytoarchitectonic mapping of the

human amygdala, hippocampal region and entorhinal cortex: Intersubject variability and probability maps.” Anatomy & Embryology, 210 (5-6), 343-352.

Arnsten, A.F.T. 1998. “The biology of being frazzled.” Science, 280 (5370), 1711-1712. Ashbury, C. 2011. “Brain imaging technologies and their applications to neuroscience.” Retrieved March 18, 2015 from

https://www.dana.org/uploadedFiles/Pdfs/brainimagingtechnologies.pdf. Beer, J.S. 2007. “The importance of emotion-social cognition interactions for social functioning: Insights from the

orbitofrontal cortex.” In E. Harmon-Jones & P. Winkielman (Eds.), Social neuroscience: Integrating biological and psychological explanations of social behaviour. New York: Guilford Press.

Carillo, R. 2012. “Relationship-based safety: Moving beyond culture & behaviour.” Professional Safety, December, 35-45. Carillo, R.A. 2010. “Positive safety culture: How to create, lead and maintain.” Professional Safety, (May), 47-54.

Retrieved October 30, 2012 from http://carrilloconsultants.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Executive-Presentation-to-NRC2.pdf.

Daalmans, J. 2013. “Human behavior in hazardous situations.” Oxford: Elsevier. Damasio, A.R. 1995. “Descartes' error: Emotion, reason & the human brain.” New York: Putnam's Sons. Davidson, R.J., & Begley, S. 2012. “The emotional life of your brain.” London: Hodder & Stoughton. Gazzola, V., Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Keysers, C. 2006. “Empathy and the somatotopic auditory mirror system in humans.”

Current Biology, 16 (18), 1824-1829. Gordon, E. 2000. “Integrative neuroscience: Bringing together biological, psychological and clinical models of the human

brain.” Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=cEtT6vEum6AC. Heese, M. 2012. “Got the results, now what do you do? Safety culture transformation: From theory into practice.”

Aviation Psychology & Applied Human Factors, 2(125-33). Horrigan, K. Personal communication, October 28, 2014. Kahneman, D. 2011. “Thinking, fast and slow.” New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Libet, B. 2004. “Mind time: The temporal factor in consciousness.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lupien, S.J., McEwen, B.S., Gunnar, M., & Heim, C. 2009. “Effects of stress throughout the lifespan on the brain,

behaviour and cognition.” Nature Reviews, 10, 434-445. Pallay, S.S. 2011. “Your brain and business: The neuroscience of great leaders.” New Jersey: FT Press. Parker, D., Lawrie, M., & Hudson, P. 2006. “A framework for understanding the development of organizational safety

culture.” Safety Science, 44, 551-562. Phelps, E.A. (2006). “Emotion and cognition: Insights from studies of the human amygdala.” Annual Review of

Psychology, 57, 27-53. Rasmussen, J. 1983. “Skills, rules and knowledge: Signals, signs and symbols, and other distinctions in human

performance models.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 13, 257-266. Rock, D. (2008). “SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others.” Neuroleadership Journal,

(1), 1-9. Rock, D. (2009). “Your brain at work: Strategies for overcoming distraction, regaining focus, and working smarter all day

long.” New York: Harper Collins. Tamietto, M., & de Gelder, B. (2010). “Neural bases of non-conscious perception of emotional signals.” Nature Reviews,

11, 697-709. Whalen, P.J., Kim, M.J., Neta, M., & Davis, C. (2012). “Emotion.” In I. Weiner, J. Randy & S. Mizumori (Eds.), Handbook

of Psychology, Behavioral Neuroscience, 422-439. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Whiting, J., Horrigan, L., Elliott, V., & Horrigan, K. 2014, Nov. “Antidotes for safety culture carcinogens”. Paper presented

at the 22nd SIA Visions Conference, Gold Coast, Qld.