Psychological and Physiological Mechanisms in the Workplace: An ERP Study on Risky Decision-Making of Safety Behaviors Among Industrial Employees
DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jsse.202608303
Author(s)
Jingyuan Li*
Affiliation(s)
School of Economics and Business Administration, Heilongjiang University, Harbin, China
*Corresponding Author
Abstract
Even with highly automated modern human-machine systems, safety accidents persist, largely stemming from operators’ unsafe behaviors. Heavy cognitive loads from multi-sensory information processing on human-machine interfaces impair workers’ judgment. From psychological and cognitive perspectives, employees can be divided into high-, moderate- and low-proactivity groups, whose safety performance varies markedly. It is practically valuable to develop targeted interventions to reduce unsafe behaviors based on proactivity traits. This research explores cognitive neural disparities in safety risk decision-making among workers with different proactivity levels. The study adapted the Iowa Gambling Task to simulate industrial safety decision scenarios and recorded participants’ event-related potential (ERP) signals throughout experiments. Feedback-related negativity (FRN) and P300, two core neural indicators for outcome evaluation and risk processing, served as electrophysiological markers. Drawing on existing theories of proactivity and safety cognition, testable hypotheses were proposed to uncover neural patterns behind safety risk judgments. ERP analyses confirmed all hypotheses. Under rewarding feedback, high-proactivity individuals produced larger P300 amplitudes. When facing loss-related negative feedback, low-proactivity participants showed the strongest FRN responses, with gaps widening under high-risk settings; all differences were statistically significant. In conclusion, proactivity drives notable cognitive neural divergences in safety risk decision-making and shapes neural reactions during risk evaluation. These results support enterprises in safeguarding staff wellbeing, improving person-job fit, refining incentive systems, and comprehensively boosting workplace safety management.
Keywords
Safety Management; ERP Experiment; Safety Behavior; Risky Decision-Making; Human-Machine Interaction
References
[1]Dillon, R. L.; Tinsley, C. H.; Cronin, M. A. Why Near-Miss Events Can Decrease an Individual's Protective Response to Hurricanes. Risk Analysis, 2011, 31(3): 440-449.
[2]Turi, Z.; Antal, A. Aligning Event-Related Potentials with Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation for Modulation—a Review. Brain Sciences, 2024, 14(10): 1055.
[3]Privitera, C. M.; Sun, H. Revisiting the Model Human Processor: a neurophysiological investigation based on P300 and Bereitschaftspotential. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2025, 19: 1690746.
[4]Bateman, T.S.; Crant, J.M.; The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1993, 14(2): 103-118.
[5]Neumann, J.; Morgenstern, O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd ed.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, USA, 1947.
[6]Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 1979, 47(2): 263-292.
[7]Levin,I.P.; Gaeth, J.L.; Schreiber, J.; A new look at framing effects: distribution of Effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational behavior and human decision processes,2002,88(1):441-429.
[8]Nicholson, N.: Soane, E: Fenton, O. M.; Personality and domain-specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research, 2005, 8(2):157-176.
[9]Cavanagh, J.F; Neville, D.; Cohen, M.X.; et al. Individual differences in risky decision-making among seniors reflect increased reward sensitivity. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 2012, 6: 111.
[10]Pratt, J. W. Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large. Econometrica, 1964, 32(1/2): 122-136.
[11]Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(6), 1610–1633.
[12]Sutton, S.; Braren, M.; Zubin, J.; John, E. R. Evoked-Potential Correlates of Stimulus Uncertainty. Science, 1965, 150(3700): 1187-1188.
[13]Polich, J. Updating P300: An Integrative Theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 2007, 118(10): 2128-2148.
[14]Kutas, M., McCarthy, G., & Donchin, E. (1977). Augmenting Mental Chronometry: The P300 as a Measure of Stimulus Evaluation Time. Science, 197(4305), 792-795.
[15]KOK A. On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology, 2001, 38(3): 257-277.
[16]Latibeaudiere, A.; Dubois, M.; Lavoie, M. P300 amplitude tracks stimulus salience, decision confidence and emotional appraisal during uncertain choice. Frontiers in Psychology, 2025, 16: 1743972.
[17]Li, X.; Wang, Q.; Chen, L. Memory and attention modulation of feedback P300 under varying risk levels: an ERP gambling task study. Biological Psychology, 2024, 179: 108521.
[18]WALSH, J. J.; ANDERSON, J. R.; Learning from experience: Event-related potential correlates of reinforcement learning. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 2012, 36(10):2213-2229.
[19]NIEUWENHUIS, S.; HOLROYD, C. B.; MOL, N.; et al. Reinforcement-related brain potentials: A review and an update. Biological Psychology, 2004, 67(1-2): 111-137.
[20]Buelow, M. T., & Suhr, J. A. Construct validity of the Iowa Gambling Task. Neuropsychology Review, 2009,19(1), 102–114.
[21]Franken, I. H. A., Georgieva, I., Muris, P., & Dijksterhuis, A. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer: On risk aversion in behavioral decision-making. Judgment and Decision Making, 2023,18, 79-88.
[22]Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 1994,50(1–3), 7–15.
[23]Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1994,67(2), 319–333.
[24]NEUROSCAN. Scan 4.5 Software User’s Manual. El Paso, TX: Compumedics Neuroscan, 2003.