psychology.iresearchnet.com

iResearchNet

Psychology » Psychology Articles » I-O Psychology Articles » Psychological Perspectives on Job Hazard Analysis in High-Risk Industries

Psychological Perspectives on Job Hazard Analysis in High-Risk Industries

High-risk industries present unique challenges for Job Hazard Analysis implementation, requiring sophisticated understanding of psychological factors that influence hazard perception, risk assessment accuracy, and safety behavior in extreme operational environments. This comprehensive review examines psychological perspectives on JHA within high-risk sectors including aviation, nuclear power, chemical processing, offshore oil and gas, and emergency services, where human error consequences can be catastrophic and organizational pressures create complex decision-making environments. Cognitive psychology research reveals fundamental limitations in human information processing, attention allocation, and risk perception that significantly impact hazard identification effectiveness in high-stress, time-pressured situations characteristic of high-risk operations. Social psychological factors including group dynamics, organizational culture, and leadership influences create additional layers of complexity that affect individual and team performance in hazard recognition and risk assessment activities. Contemporary research demonstrates that effective JHA implementation in high-risk industries requires integration of psychological principles including cognitive load management, stress inoculation training, and team coordination protocols that account for human performance limitations under adverse conditions. This article synthesizes current research and theoretical frameworks to provide evidence-based guidance for optimizing JHA effectiveness in high-risk operational environments while addressing unique psychological challenges inherent in these critical industries.

Introduction

High-risk industries are characterized by operational environments where human error, equipment failure, or procedural violations can result in catastrophic consequences including multiple fatalities, environmental disasters, and significant economic losses that extend far beyond immediate organizational boundaries. These industries, including aviation, nuclear power generation, chemical processing, offshore oil and gas operations, and emergency response services, present unique challenges for traditional Job Hazard Analysis methodologies due to complex technical systems, extreme operational pressures, and dynamic risk environments that demand exceptional human performance under adverse conditions. The psychological factors influencing human performance in these environments require specialized understanding and targeted interventions that go beyond conventional workplace safety approaches.

The application of psychological science to Job Hazard Analysis in high-risk industries has revealed fundamental limitations in human cognitive processing, decision-making capabilities, and social behavior that significantly impact hazard identification accuracy and risk assessment effectiveness. Cognitive psychology research demonstrates that high-stress environments, time pressure, and complex technical systems can overwhelm human information processing capacity, leading to systematic errors in hazard recognition and risk evaluation that may not be apparent in lower-risk operational contexts. These cognitive limitations, combined with social and organizational pressures inherent in high-risk operations, create challenging environments for effective JHA implementation that require specialized approaches and interventions.

Contemporary Industrial-Organizational Psychology research has identified specific psychological mechanisms and intervention strategies that can enhance JHA effectiveness in high-risk industries while accounting for the unique human performance challenges present in these environments. These approaches integrate cognitive psychology principles with organizational behavior theories and human factors engineering concepts to create comprehensive frameworks for understanding and improving human performance in hazard identification and risk assessment activities. The development of psychologically-informed JHA methodologies represents a critical advancement in occupational safety science that addresses the complex interplay between individual capabilities, team dynamics, and organizational factors that influence safety performance in high-consequence environments.

Cognitive Psychology and Information Processing Limitations

Human information processing limitations present fundamental challenges for effective Job Hazard Analysis implementation in high-risk industries, where complex technical systems, multiple simultaneous hazards, and dynamic operational conditions can exceed cognitive capacity and lead to systematic errors in hazard identification and risk assessment. Cognitive load theory provides a theoretical framework for understanding how mental workload affects hazard recognition performance, demonstrating that excessive cognitive demands can impair attention allocation, memory retrieval, and decision-making processes essential for effective hazard analysis. Research by Sweller (1988) on cognitive load theory has shown that complex technical environments can overwhelm working memory capacity, leading to decreased performance in tasks requiring sustained attention and systematic analysis.

Attention and perception research reveals specific limitations in human ability to detect and recognize hazards in complex, high-risk environments where multiple information sources, competing priorities, and time pressure create challenging conditions for systematic hazard identification. The phenomenon of attentional tunneling, where individuals focus intensely on specific aspects of a situation while missing other critical information, represents a particularly significant challenge in high-risk operations where comprehensive hazard awareness is essential for safe performance. Studies by Wickens and Alexander (2009) on attention management in aviation environments demonstrated that high workload conditions significantly impair pilots’ ability to detect and respond to potential hazards, highlighting the need for specialized training and procedural interventions.

Memory limitations affect both immediate hazard recognition and long-term retention of safety-critical information, creating challenges for consistent JHA performance across different operational conditions and time periods. Working memory constraints limit the number of hazards that can be simultaneously considered during risk assessment activities, while long-term memory retrieval difficulties may prevent access to relevant safety knowledge during critical decision-making situations. Research by Reason (1990) on human error mechanisms identified memory failures as significant contributors to accidents in high-risk industries, emphasizing the importance of external memory aids and systematic procedures that reduce reliance on human recall capabilities.

Decision-making under uncertainty presents additional cognitive challenges in high-risk environments where incomplete information, time pressure, and high-consequence outcomes create complex choice situations that exceed normal decision-making capabilities. Prospect theory and behavioral economics research have revealed systematic biases in risk perception and decision-making that can lead to suboptimal choices in hazard assessment and risk management activities. Studies by Kahneman and Tversky (1979) on decision-making under risk demonstrated that individuals systematically deviate from rational choice models when facing uncertain outcomes, often underestimating low-probability, high-consequence events that are characteristic of many high-risk industry hazards.

Stress and Performance Relationships

The relationship between stress and human performance in high-risk industries creates complex dynamics that significantly influence Job Hazard Analysis effectiveness, with research demonstrating both performance enhancement and degradation effects depending on stress levels, individual characteristics, and task requirements. The Yerkes-Dodson law describes an inverted-U relationship between arousal and performance, indicating that moderate stress levels can enhance performance while excessive stress leads to performance decrements that may impair hazard identification and risk assessment capabilities. Contemporary research by LeBlanc (2009) on stress effects in emergency medical situations confirmed that moderate stress can improve focus and decision-making speed, while high stress levels significantly impair cognitive performance and increase error rates.

Acute stress responses in high-risk operational environments can trigger physiological and psychological changes that affect attention, memory, and decision-making processes essential for effective hazard analysis. The fight-or-flight response activates sympathetic nervous system functions that prioritize immediate survival responses over systematic analytical thinking, potentially compromising the deliberate, thorough approach required for comprehensive hazard identification. Research by Driskell and Salas (1996) on stress effects in complex task performance demonstrated that acute stress significantly impairs performance on tasks requiring sustained attention, working memory, and complex problem-solving, all of which are essential components of effective JHA processes.

Chronic stress exposure, common in many high-risk industries due to ongoing operational pressures and safety responsibilities, can lead to adaptation effects that may initially improve performance but eventually result in burnout, decreased vigilance, and impaired judgment that compromise long-term safety performance. Allostatic load theory explains how repeated stress exposure can lead to physiological and psychological wear that accumulates over time, potentially affecting an individual’s capacity to maintain high levels of hazard awareness and risk assessment accuracy. Studies by McEwen (2007) on chronic stress effects demonstrated that prolonged exposure to occupational stressors can impair cognitive flexibility and attention regulation, both critical components of effective hazard analysis in dynamic high-risk environments.

Individual differences in stress tolerance, coping strategies, and resilience factors create variability in how different workers respond to high-risk operational environments, with implications for JHA training design and implementation strategies. Some individuals demonstrate stress inoculation effects where previous exposure to challenging situations enhances their ability to perform effectively under pressure, while others may experience cumulative stress effects that compromise performance over time. Research by Bartone (2006) on psychological hardiness in military personnel demonstrated that individual resilience factors significantly predict performance under stress, suggesting the importance of selection and training approaches that consider psychological characteristics affecting stress response and performance maintenance.

Risk Perception and Cognitive Biases

Risk perception research has identified systematic cognitive biases and heuristic-based decision-making processes that significantly influence how individuals in high-risk industries identify, evaluate, and respond to potential hazards during Job Hazard Analysis activities. The availability heuristic leads individuals to overestimate the probability of easily recalled events while underestimating risks that are less memorable or salient, creating systematic distortions in hazard assessment that may not reflect actual risk levels. Research by Slovic (1987) on risk perception demonstrated that personal experience, media coverage, and emotional salience significantly influence risk judgments, often leading to misallocation of attention and resources in hazard management activities.

Optimism bias represents a particularly challenging cognitive bias in high-risk industries, where individuals may systematically underestimate their personal vulnerability to hazards while maintaining accurate perceptions of risks facing others. This bias can lead to inadequate personal protective behaviors and insufficient attention to hazard identification activities that could prevent accidents and injuries. Studies by Weinstein (1980) on unrealistic optimism found that individuals consistently rate their own risk of experiencing negative events as lower than average, even when provided with accurate statistical information about actual risk levels.

Confirmation bias affects how individuals search for, interpret, and remember information related to workplace hazards, with tendencies to seek information that confirms existing beliefs while avoiding or dismissing contradictory evidence. This bias can lead to systematic errors in hazard identification where individuals focus on familiar or expected hazards while missing novel or unexpected risks that may pose significant threats. Research by Nickerson (1998) on confirmation bias demonstrated that this tendency is particularly strong in complex decision-making environments where information ambiguity and time pressure make systematic evaluation difficult.

The overconfidence effect leads individuals to overestimate their ability to identify hazards and assess risks accurately, potentially resulting in inadequate systematic analysis and over-reliance on intuitive judgments that may miss critical safety information. This bias is particularly problematic in high-risk industries where expertise and experience may create false confidence in hazard recognition capabilities while actual performance may be significantly lower than perceived competence. Studies by Dunning et al. (2003) on the overconfidence effect demonstrated that individuals with moderate expertise are most susceptible to overconfidence, while true experts and novices show more accurate self-assessment of their capabilities.

Team Dynamics and Social Psychological Factors

Team-based Job Hazard Analysis in high-risk industries involves complex social psychological processes that can either enhance or impair collective hazard identification and risk assessment effectiveness depending on group composition, communication patterns, and decision-making procedures. Social facilitation effects demonstrate that the presence of others can improve performance on simple, well-learned tasks while impairing performance on complex or novel activities that require careful attention and systematic analysis. Research by Zajonc (1965) on social facilitation established that group settings can create arousal effects that influence individual performance, with implications for how JHA activities should be structured in team environments.

Groupthink represents a significant threat to effective team-based hazard analysis, particularly in cohesive groups with strong leadership and external pressure to make rapid decisions. Irving Janis’s (1972) research on groupthink identified systematic patterns of defective decision-making in groups, including illusion of unanimity, self-censorship of dissenting views, and pressure on dissenters that can lead to inadequate consideration of risks and alternative viewpoints essential for comprehensive hazard analysis. High-risk industries are particularly susceptible to groupthink effects due to hierarchical structures, operational pressures, and strong organizational cultures that may discourage dissenting opinions.

Social loafing and diffusion of responsibility can reduce individual effort and accountability in team-based JHA activities, leading to decreased attention to detail and systematic analysis that compromises overall hazard identification effectiveness. The bystander effect demonstrates that individuals are less likely to take action or accept responsibility when others are present, potentially resulting in assumptions that other team members will identify critical hazards or address important risks. Research by Latané and Darley (1970) on bystander intervention showed that individual responsibility and action tendency decrease as group size increases, highlighting the importance of clear role assignments and accountability mechanisms in team-based hazard analysis.

Communication barriers and hierarchical relationships in high-risk industries can significantly impact team-based JHA effectiveness by inhibiting information sharing, questioning of authority, and expression of safety concerns that may be critical for comprehensive hazard identification. Power distance and authority gradients can create situations where lower-status team members hesitate to challenge senior personnel or express concerns about potential hazards, leading to missed opportunities for hazard identification and risk mitigation. Studies by Hofstede (1980) on cultural dimensions and Helmreich and Merritt (1998) on aviation crew resource management demonstrated that hierarchical relationships significantly affect communication patterns and decision-making effectiveness in safety-critical situations.

Organizational Culture and Climate Influences

Organizational culture and climate factors exert profound influence on Job Hazard Analysis implementation and effectiveness in high-risk industries, shaping employee attitudes, behaviors, and participation in hazard identification activities while establishing normative expectations for safety-related performance. Safety culture represents the shared values, beliefs, and practices that characterize an organization’s approach to safety management, influencing how employees perceive the importance of hazard analysis activities and their willingness to invest time and effort in systematic risk assessment processes. Research by Schein and Schein (2017) on organizational culture demonstrated that deeply held cultural assumptions significantly influence behavior and decision-making, often operating below conscious awareness while powerfully shaping organizational outcomes.

Psychological safety, defined as the shared belief that team members can express concerns, ask questions, and report mistakes without fear of negative consequences, represents a critical factor influencing employee participation in JHA activities and willingness to identify and report potential hazards. Organizations with high psychological safety levels encourage open communication about safety concerns while supporting learning from errors and near-miss events that provide valuable information for hazard analysis and prevention activities. Studies by Edmondson (1999) on psychological safety in work teams demonstrated that high psychological safety significantly predicts team performance and learning outcomes, particularly in complex, high-risk environments where error detection and correction are critical.

Production pressure and competing priorities create organizational climate conditions that can undermine JHA effectiveness by encouraging shortcuts, risk-taking behaviors, and inadequate attention to systematic hazard analysis procedures. The normalization of deviance phenomenon, where gradual acceptance of lower safety standards becomes embedded in organizational culture, represents a particular threat to JHA effectiveness in high-risk industries where operational pressures may encourage expedient rather than thorough approaches to hazard identification. Research by Vaughan (1996) on the Challenger disaster demonstrated how organizational pressures and cultural factors can lead to systematic degradation of safety practices despite formal policies and procedures requiring comprehensive risk assessment.

Leadership behavior and management commitment significantly influence organizational climate for JHA implementation, with transformational leadership approaches promoting employee engagement and participation in safety activities while transactional approaches may focus primarily on compliance with minimum requirements. Visible leadership commitment to safety, resource allocation for JHA activities, and recognition of effective hazard identification performance create organizational climates that support comprehensive risk assessment and hazard management activities. Studies by Barling et al. (2002) on transformational leadership and safety performance demonstrated that leadership development interventions significantly improve safety climate and reduce accident rates in industrial settings.

Stress Inoculation and Resilience Training

Stress inoculation training represents a psychologically-based intervention approach that can enhance Job Hazard Analysis performance in high-risk industries by gradually exposing individuals to manageable levels of stress while building coping skills and performance strategies that maintain effectiveness under adverse conditions. This training approach, developed by Meichenbaum (1985), combines cognitive restructuring, skill development, and graduated exposure to stressful situations to build psychological resilience and performance maintenance capabilities. The application of stress inoculation principles to JHA training enables workers to maintain hazard identification accuracy and risk assessment effectiveness even when facing high-pressure operational conditions typical of high-risk industries.

Cognitive restructuring components of stress inoculation training address maladaptive thought patterns and cognitive biases that may impair hazard recognition and risk assessment performance under stress. Training participants learn to identify and modify negative self-talk, catastrophic thinking, and attentional biases that can interfere with systematic hazard analysis while developing more adaptive cognitive strategies that support effective performance under pressure. Research by Saunders et al. (1996) on stress inoculation training effectiveness demonstrated significant improvements in performance maintenance under stress following cognitive restructuring interventions.

Skill development components focus on building specific technical and behavioral competencies that support effective JHA performance while providing alternative strategies for maintaining performance when primary approaches are compromised by stress or other adverse conditions. These skills include systematic scanning techniques, memory aids, decision-making frameworks, and communication protocols that enhance hazard identification effectiveness while reducing reliance on cognitive resources that may be impaired under stress. Simulation-based training provides opportunities for skill practice in realistic high-stress environments without exposing participants to actual dangers or consequences.

Graduated exposure protocols systematically increase stress levels during training exercises while maintaining focus on JHA performance objectives, enabling participants to develop stress tolerance and performance strategies that transfer to actual operational environments. This approach recognizes that effective performance under stress requires practice and adaptation rather than simply providing information about stress effects and coping strategies. Studies by Driskell et al. (2001) on stress exposure training demonstrated that graduated exposure approaches significantly improve performance maintenance under stress compared to traditional training methods that do not incorporate stress inoculation principles.

Technology-Enhanced JHA in High-Risk Environments

Advanced technology integration offers significant potential for enhancing Job Hazard Analysis effectiveness in high-risk industries by providing cognitive support, reducing human error susceptibility, and enabling more comprehensive hazard identification and risk assessment capabilities. Augmented reality systems can overlay hazard information, safety procedures, and risk indicators directly onto workers’ visual field, providing real-time support for hazard recognition while reducing cognitive load and memory demands that may be impaired under stress. Research by Ong et al. (2008) on augmented reality applications in manufacturing demonstrated significant improvements in task performance and error reduction when workers received real-time visual guidance and information support.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies enable automated hazard detection and pattern recognition capabilities that complement human expertise while identifying potential risks that may be missed through traditional observational approaches. These systems can analyze multiple data streams including environmental sensors, equipment performance indicators, and behavioral observations to identify hazard patterns and predict risk scenarios that exceed human cognitive processing capabilities. Studies by Poh et al. (2018) on AI applications in construction safety demonstrated that machine learning algorithms achieved superior hazard detection accuracy compared to human observers while providing consistent performance across different environmental conditions and operational contexts.

Virtual reality simulation systems provide safe environments for JHA training and practice that expose participants to realistic high-risk scenarios without actual danger, enabling skill development and stress inoculation training that would be impossible or extremely costly using traditional approaches. VR systems can replicate complex emergency scenarios, equipment failures, and hazardous conditions while providing immediate feedback on hazard identification performance and decision-making effectiveness. Research by Freina and Ott (2015) on virtual reality learning applications demonstrated significant advantages in engagement, retention, and skill transfer compared to traditional classroom training methods.

Wearable technology and physiological monitoring systems can provide objective measures of stress levels, cognitive load, and performance indicators that inform both immediate safety decisions and long-term training and selection strategies for high-risk operational environments. These systems can detect early warning signs of performance degradation while providing feedback to both individuals and supervisors about optimal performance conditions and intervention needs. Studies by Reardon et al. (2013) on physiological monitoring in emergency responders demonstrated that wearable sensors could accurately predict performance decrements and safety risks, enabling proactive interventions to maintain effectiveness and prevent accidents.

Training Program Design and Implementation

Effective training program design for Job Hazard Analysis in high-risk industries requires integration of psychological principles, adult learning theory, and specific industry requirements to create comprehensive learning experiences that build both technical competencies and psychological resilience necessary for effective performance under adverse conditions. Training programs must address individual cognitive limitations, stress effects, and bias mitigation while building team coordination skills and organizational culture alignment that support sustained JHA effectiveness. Contemporary training approaches utilize competency-based designs that specify measurable performance objectives while incorporating multiple learning modalities and assessment methods that accommodate individual differences and learning preferences.

Scenario-based training approaches provide realistic contexts for JHA skill development while exposing participants to challenging situations that require integration of technical knowledge, cognitive skills, and stress management techniques. High-fidelity simulations enable practice with complex, dynamic scenarios that replicate actual operational conditions while providing safe environments for learning from mistakes and experimenting with different approaches. Research by Salas et al. (2009) on simulation-based training effectiveness demonstrated that scenario-based approaches achieve superior learning outcomes and skill transfer compared to traditional lecture-based training methods, particularly for complex cognitive tasks requiring integration of multiple skill areas.

Team-based training components address social psychological factors and coordination challenges that affect JHA effectiveness in high-risk operational environments where teamwork and communication are essential for comprehensive hazard identification and risk assessment. Crew resource management principles, originally developed for aviation, provide frameworks for enhancing team communication, decision-making, and error management that have been successfully adapted to other high-risk industries. Studies by Salas et al. (2001) on team training effectiveness demonstrated that structured team training significantly improves coordination, communication, and performance outcomes in complex, high-stress environments.

Continuous learning and refresher training programs address knowledge decay, skill degradation, and adaptation to changing operational conditions that can compromise JHA effectiveness over time. These programs incorporate spaced practice principles, performance feedback, and skill assessment that maintain competency levels while addressing emerging hazards and new procedural requirements. Microlearning approaches utilize brief, focused learning episodes that can be integrated into operational schedules while providing ongoing reinforcement of critical safety knowledge and skills. Research by Murre and Dros (2015) on memory consolidation demonstrated that distributed practice significantly improves long-term retention compared to massed training approaches, highlighting the importance of ongoing reinforcement for maintaining JHA competencies.

Conclusion

The application of psychological perspectives to Job Hazard Analysis in high-risk industries reveals complex interactions between cognitive limitations, stress effects, social dynamics, and organizational factors that significantly influence hazard identification effectiveness and risk assessment accuracy in critical operational environments. Contemporary research demonstrates that successful JHA implementation in high-risk sectors requires sophisticated understanding of human performance characteristics and systematic integration of psychological principles into training, procedures, and organizational support systems. The unique challenges presented by high-consequence environments demand specialized approaches that go beyond traditional workplace safety methodologies to address the extraordinary performance requirements inherent in these critical industries.

Cognitive psychology research has established fundamental limitations in human information processing, attention allocation, and decision-making capabilities that create systematic vulnerabilities in hazard recognition and risk assessment performance, particularly under the high-stress, time-pressured conditions characteristic of high-risk operations. These limitations, combined with well-documented cognitive biases and risk perception distortions, require targeted interventions including stress inoculation training, cognitive bias mitigation strategies, and technology-enhanced support systems that compensate for human performance constraints while building resilience and adaptability. The integration of these psychological insights with traditional safety engineering approaches creates more robust and effective JHA methodologies that account for both technical and human factors in hazard management.

Social psychological factors including team dynamics, organizational culture, and leadership influences create additional layers of complexity that must be addressed through comprehensive approaches to JHA implementation and organizational change management. The development of psychological safety, effective team coordination protocols, and supportive organizational cultures represents essential prerequisites for sustained JHA effectiveness in high-risk industries where open communication, error reporting, and continuous learning are critical for preventing catastrophic accidents. Leadership development, culture change initiatives, and systematic attention to social and organizational factors are required components of comprehensive JHA programs in high-consequence environments.

Future developments in psychologically-informed JHA approaches for high-risk industries will likely be enhanced by emerging technologies including artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and physiological monitoring systems that provide new capabilities for cognitive support, training effectiveness, and performance optimization. These technological advances, combined with continued research into human factors and organizational psychology, offer significant potential for further enhancing JHA effectiveness while addressing the evolving challenges presented by increasingly complex high-risk operational environments. The continued integration of psychological science with practical safety applications will remain essential for developing evidence-based approaches that protect workers while maintaining operational effectiveness in these critical industries that serve essential societal functions.

References

  1. Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 488-496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.488
  2. Bartone, P. T. (2006). Resilience under military operational stress: Can leaders influence hardiness? Military Psychology, 18(3), 131-148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1803s_10
  3. Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1996). Stress and human performance. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  4. Driskell, J. E., Willis, R. P., & Copper, C. (2001). Effect of overlearning on retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 445-450. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.445
  5. Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01235
  6. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
  7. Freina, L., & Ott, M. (2015). A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: State of the art and perspectives. Proceedings of eLearning and Software for Education, 1, 133-141. https://doi.org/10.12753/2066-026X-15-020
  8. Helmreich, R. L., & Merritt, A. C. (1998). Culture at work in aviation and medicine: National, organizational and professional influences. Ashgate Publishing.
  9. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications.
  10. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Houghton Mifflin.
  11. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
  12. Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Prentice-Hall.
  13. LeBlanc, V. R. (2009). The effects of acute stress on performance: Implications for health professions education. Academic Medicine, 84(10), 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b37b8f
  14. McEwen, B. S. (2007). Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation: Central role of the brain. Physiological Reviews, 87(3), 873-904. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00041.2006
  15. Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Stress inoculation training. Pergamon Press.
  16. Murre, J. M., & Dros, J. (2015). Replication and analysis of Ebbinghaus’ forgetting curve. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0120644. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120644
  17. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
  18. Ong, S. K., Yuan, M. L., & Nee, A. Y. C. (2008). Augmented reality applications in manufacturing: A survey. International Journal of Production Research, 46(10), 2707-2742. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540601064773
  19. Poh, C. Q. X., Ubeynarayana, C. U., & Goh, Y. M. (2018). Safety leading indicators for construction sites: A machine learning approach. Automation in Construction, 93, 375-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.03.022
  20. Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge University Press.
  21. Reardon, C., Kirwan, K., & Matthews, J. (2013). Physiological monitoring for emergency responders: A systematic review. Prehospital Emergency Care, 17(1), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.3109/10903127.2012.717169
  22. Salas, E., DiazGranados, D., Klein, C., Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Goodwin, G. F., & Halpin, S. M. (2008). Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 50(6), 903-933. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X375009
  23. Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Burke, C. S., & Wightman, D. C. (2006). Does crew resource management training work? An update, an extension, and some critical needs. Human Factors, 48(2), 392-412. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006777724444
  24. Saunders, T., Driskell, J. E., Johnston, J. H., & Salas, E. (1996). The effect of stress inoculation training on anxiety and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(2), 170-186. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.1.2.170
  25. Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  26. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
  27. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
  28. Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press.
  29. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 806-820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.806
  30. Wickens, C. D., & Alexander, A. L. (2009). Attentional tunneling and task management in synthetic vision displays. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 19(2), 182-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508410902766549
  31. Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269-274. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3681.269