349 Pushing the right buttons: creating conditions for developing personal motivation towards safe behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Safety incentive programs are focused on using explicit external rewards for achieving well-known metrics. It is assumed such metrics are achievable only by engaging in specific ‘actions’ which signify ‘safe behaviours.’ However, the metrics themselves usually become the goal, not the safe behaviours originally intended. Worse, a range of unwanted issues are regularly reported, such as false reports, non-reporting of incidents, and paper for the sake of paper. Safety is inevitably impacted, with individual workers perceiving safety less favorably, i.e., just a slogan, a numbers game. Objective To investigate why current safety incentive systems are largely ineffective, how they create perverse behaviours, and if they can be reformed. Programme Description A literature review was conducted centering on behavioural modification, incentives, and motivational theory in general. Available published reports of safety incentive programs, including unwanted behaviours, were also reviewed. Outcomes and Learning The stress on extrinsic motivation does not create individual intrinsic motivation for ‘safe behaviours.’ Research strongly suggests it may even be suppressing the creation of personal motivation. In addition, removing explicit rewards can stop any ‘voluntary’ actions and behaviours that the incentives had driven. Implications Safety incentive programs need a serious reworking. Specifically, these programs need to rethink about what to reward (actions vs. behaviour), how to reward (general vs. targeted), and how to mitigate rewards becoming entitlements. A reconstruction of incentive systems needs to focus on intrinsic motivational insights, including supporting new and improved behaviours by targeting individuals personally, unexpectedly, and with ‘gifts’ that are meaningful to them. Conclusion Safety incentive programs need to shed their reliance on extrinsic motivation methods. Intrinsic motivation tools and techniques need to become the new foundation of safety rewards. Extrinsic incentives still have a place, but a much smaller one than they currently occupy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".