SafetyInsights.org

This study examined the influence of counterfactual thinking on safety behaviour, including explanatory factors: safety knowledge, motivation & locus of control (LoC). 240 staff from a hospital were surveyed. Counterfactuals (CF) are ‘if only” thoughts that specify how past events … [or] actions could have ended up differently’ (p1). They include upward CF (UCF) which focus on how the event could’ve turned out better & downward CF (DCF), focused on how things could’ve been worse. E.g. Following a minor back strain, a worker may reflect by asking “if only I had used a lifting aid then this injury may have been avoided”. Counterfactual thinking is said to help people: (p2)

·        Evaluate causal relationships, which can improve problem-solving capabilities

·        Highlight effective behavioural strategies

·        Increase motivation towards performance improvement

·        Heighten perceptions of control

·        Help them consider a range of alternative actions and promote learning

UCF seem to have stronger links to self-improvement, motivation & learning compared to DCF. DCF are associated more with self-protective motivation. CF “reduce detrimental behaviors as well as increase beneficial behaviors” (p.3). In covering previous research around counterfactuals in health and safety, little was available at time of publication. One study found that generating counterfactuals about unhealthy alcohol use helped to decrease binge drinking intentions, and it was also shown to positively influence safe-sex intentions. Results: UCF was found to be an important antecedent of safety behaviour; positively related to supervisor ratings of safety compliance & participation. Safety knowledge mediated this effect. Quoting the study, compared to people reflecting on worse outcomes, “individuals reflecting on better alternatives to negative outcomes are more likely to engage in safe behavior in the future” (p8). UCF may facilitate behaviour by fostering individual learning – with experience-based learning being critical. People with high internal LoC seem to benefit more from UCF. DCF didn’t have a statistically significant effect on safety compliance and safety participation. Authors suggest that companies should foster UCF learning post-event (and I guess also for normal work/pre-event) & create training that makes a distinction b.t. UCF and DCF. They also suggest that organisations could try to include questions around counterfactual thinking into recruitment processes, to build capabilities into this area. Authors: Yimin He, Stephanie C. Payne, Xiang Yao, Rachel Smallman, 2020, Journal of Safety Research Study link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2019.12.010 Link to the LinkedIn article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/improving-workplace-safety-thinking-what-might-have-been-hutchinson