Complacency in Process Safety: A Behavior Analysis Toward Prevention Strategies
Complacency is behavioral drift you can measure and re-shape by redesigning reinforcement at every level.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Hyten et al. (2017) wrote a theory paper about complacency in process safety.
They asked: why do seasoned workers still drift into unsafe habits?
The team mapped how small day-to-day changes in behavior can slide outside safe limits.
What they found
Complacency is not laziness. It is slow, steady drift in what workers do.
The paper shows you can spot the drift early and re-write the pay-offs that keep people safe.
How this fits with other research
Ludwig (2017) looks at the same plants but zooms out. He says safe performance needs three linked behavior chains: task, safety, and watching the room. Hyten zooms in on the slow creep that breaks those chains.
Smith (1996) studied high-probability request sequences. He showed momentum can build compliance. Hyten flips the lens: momentum can also build non-compliance when each tiny shortcut is reinforced.
Handleman et al. (1980) found that seat-belt buzzers fail when people can unplug them. Hyten gives the bigger picture: any safety cue fails if the surrounding contingencies quietly reward ignoring it.
Why it matters
Next time you audit a safety program, stop counting only injuries. Chart the minute-to-minute variation in key responses—glove use, valve checks, scan patterns. When the curve starts to drift, change the reinforcers before an accident tells you it’s too late.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one critical safety response, plot its daily frequency for two weeks, and adjust the consequence that is quietly maintaining any downward slide.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Complacency inhibits safe behaviors of workers and managers. This is of concern to industries where process safety is needed to reduce the chance of catastrophic events such as fires and explosions. A behavioral definition of complacency is offered as trending behavioral variation that eventually exceeds safety boundaries. Behavioral processes that contribute to these patterns of variability are discussed and analyzed, including habituation, extinction, unprogrammed reinforcement, the avoidance paradox, rule-governed behavior, and competing contingencies of production. Solution strategies are suggested that address this analysis of behavioral variance, including pinpointing behavioral variation related to safety, changing training design, strengthening positive reinforcement for process-related behaviors of workers and management, reducing sources of unprogrammed reinforcement for dangerous variation, strengthening rule-governed behavior, and changing contingencies for managers and executives whose decisions affect behavior and process safety at many levels in the company.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 2017 · doi:10.1080/01608061.2017.1341860